Margaret Thatcher dies of stroke - Polidicks

The trade unions were out of control and Thatcher was the only one with the balls to stop them. I know so many ill informed nob heads who have jumped on the hate Thatcher band wagon, without any reason. She was the longest serving pm of the century for a reason and the trade unions were quite frankly an embarrassment.

[QUOTE=butt2089;40232007] I also wouldn't consider voting to decriminalise homosexuality as homophobic.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28[/url] [url]http://sdgln.com/news/2013/04/08/lgbt-community-remember-margaret-thatcher-homophobic-section-28-law[/url] Learn to history. [quote]The coal mines were extracting a tonne of coal at the cost of £44 - a tonne of Australian coal could be imported for £30. Do you think really that's better than the City of London which gives a trade surplus of over £55 bn a year?[/quote] What's the distribution of that income?

Hehe they're doing tributes to Maggie in the Commons right now and the right benches are completely full of MP's but only 20 or so Labour MP's have turned up for the left.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40232288][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28[/url] [url]http://sdgln.com/news/2013/04/08/lgbt-community-remember-margaret-thatcher-homophobic-section-28-law[/url] Learn to history.[/quote] I've posted about section 28 previously - you're forgetting that AIDS was considered to be a gay-only disease by [i]everyone[/i], this was also a time that marriage was decreasing and divorces rising - it was to try and reinforce the view of the traditional family. That second link.. The LGBT of San Diego quoting Peter Tatchell, an extreme-left man who wasn't even endorsed by Michael Foot in the 80s and who refused to openly confirm whether he was even gay. Actually read what he's saying, it's so biased.. [quote]The striking miners and their families were ruthlessly crushed on her orders. She oversaw the use of police state methods. Baton-wielding police struck down peaceful miners. [/quote] [quote]What's the distribution of that income?[/QUOTE] Why would distribution matter?

[QUOTE=butt2089;40232506] Why would distribution matter?[/QUOTE] Does the phrase '1% of the population, 70% of the value' mean anything? There's no damned point to hauling loadsamoney if none of the population sees much of it. It's it's just kleptomaniac greed and influence buying. [quote]you're forgetting that AIDS was considered to be a gay-only disease by everyone[/quote] And what does banning the mention of gays do for public health? [quote] it was to try and reinforce the view of the traditional family. [/quote] To-may-to, To-mah-to.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40232791]Does the phrase '1% of the population, 70% of the value' mean anything? There's no damned point to hauling loadsamoney if none of the population sees much of it. It's it's just kleptomaniac greed and influence buying.[/quote] Using official figures, could you please demonstrate how 1% of the country owns 70% of the value? Yes there is, would you prefer that the poor were poorer provided that the wealth gap was smaller? [quote]And what does banning the mention of gays do for public health? To-may-to, To-mah-to.[/QUOTE] It doesn't, the point was that people were unaware of what AIDS was and were panicking at a time of social upheaval.

[quote]Back in 2005, anarchist collective Chumbawumba pre-sold an EP called In Memoriam: Margaret Thatcher which they would keep under wraps until the prime minister passed away. Since Thatcher did pass earlier this week, the band has delivered the EP and is also streaming the release online.[/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3-PjACGcVk[/media] Oh Chumbawamba...

[QUOTE=butt2089;40232930] It doesn't, the point was that people were unaware of what AIDS was and were panicking at a time of social upheaval.[/QUOTE] That is no excuse for a body not to take advantage of data which was available at the time which quite clearly stated that it wasn't restricted to gays anymore. Either they were ignorant or they were pandering to a moral panic. Either makes them look like scrotes [quote]Using official figures, could you please demonstrate how 1% of the country owns 70% of the value? Yes there is, would you prefer that the poor were poorer provided that the wealth gap was smaller?[/quote] [video=youtube;oGdRM3C_wjc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdRM3C_wjc[/video]

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40231795]Except there was right way to do it, and that wasn't it. The unions need reigning in, but she did it by smashing the lower classes outright, creating destitution and a top-heavy economy. She could have retooled the economy, kept the jobs making useful shit, but instead you've got the damned city. Fuck, at least the coal mines made something useful. Not like those fucking speculators. And that's before we get into her virulent homophobia and bigotry.[/QUOTE] The coal mines were not profitable. In their last full year of operation before the (illegal) pit strike, British Coal made a loss of £485million. That figure excludes the subsidy received by British Coal from the electricity generating companies who were being forced to buy British coal at an above market price simply to keep unprofitable mines open. If this "subsidy" is taken into account, British Coal was losing £727 million per year. That is equal to £1.4 billion in today's prices. How on earth you judge this to be reasonable is beyond me. The reason they were closed is simple; 1. They were losing money and better quality coal could be bought from overseas at a cheaper price 2. The National Union of Mineworkers had, for too long, held the county to ransom by threatening strikes every time they did not get their way. The coal industry was subsidized by the government owning it. The major coal customers i.e - the power stations (also nationalized) paid a subsidy to the coal industry through their electricity bill. This fed though into prices and the UK was a country with relatively high inflation. Mining is a horrible, dangerous and dirty industry which was artificially kept going as a sort of branch of the public sector. The romantic image of coal miners is a fraud, the industry was a dead end job with no hope of a future for any individual working in them. The best thing to have done would of run down the industry in a controlled method like in Europe later years, but Thatcher inherited a industry too big to manage due to a over-dependence of coal as a major prime fuel for power generation. The NUM (national union of mineworkers) demanded that the mines should only be closed when the last tonne of coal had been extracted from Britain. This led to a huge problem with men traveling miles underground in dangerous and horrible conditions with walls a few inches thick. No matter what the price of coal and oil was at the time there was no way whatsoever this was profitable. Coal transportation since the war had advanced significantly and it was possible to transport very large bulk carriers (around 50k tonnes in a single cargo) to other countries through trading, steam coal was cheap in other countries because of lower cost operations in places like Australia, South Africa, Colombia etc. While all this was going on gas and oil were at historically low prices and the problem is that burning coal in a clean and efficient way is always more expensive than burning other fuels. The technology for burning coal has not developed very quickly despite the recurrent talk of new technologies on the horizon and there has not really been a huge influx of steam coal into the UK for power generation and cement-making. The other major sort of traded coal - steel making - had to be brought over from places like USA on quality grounds as there is just not enough good quality coal left in the UK. The industry had to be reduced because of its cost which was holding back other areas of the economy, you had a hostile and otherwise aggressive president of the NUM (Arthur Scargill) who wanted to bring class war onto the streets and a prime minister who was determined not to be brushed aside as had been done to her Tory predecessor Edward Heath some years previously. We have had new labour government for some years, there had been no attempt to revive any of the closed mines. Sorry but coal mining in this country apart from some very specific mines dedicated to power stations is now history. Arthur Scargill is responsible for the closure of England's coal mines, fuck the unions. They killed the North. [editline]10th April 2013[/editline] And seeing you rated me dumb in less than a minute I have a feeling you didn't read anything I said.

A Labour MP who was a coal miner and trade union leader just spoke a few minutes ago in the commons and said some shit about the Coal Mines not being shut down for being uneconomical but because Thatcher didn't like the idea that they had high safety standards and went on a tangent about us using coal from countries that didn't have those same 'high' standards. I was face-palming the whole time, he didn't understand what it means to be a member of a global trading economy.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40233045]That is no excuse for a body not to take advantage of data which was available at the time which quite clearly stated that it wasn't restricted to gays anymore. Either they were ignorant or they were pandering to a moral panic. Either makes them look like scrotes[/quote] There was no need for it to be introduced, hence it's repeal - but it wasn't malicious in any way. [quote] [video=youtube;oGdRM3C_wjc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdRM3C_wjc[/video][/QUOTE] Have you watched that video? You claimed 1% owned 70% of the wealth, the video says the top 10% only own 43.8% of the wealth. It doesn't even leave a trail to the raw data. HMRC, on the other hand, published private wealth which suggested that the top 1% own around 15% of the wealth - not quite your 70%... I would like to see wealth distribution according to age also, not across all ages.

I like how most of the world leaders have been invited to her funeral but Cristina Kirchner (Argentina's president) has been deliberately not invited

[QUOTE=butt2089;40233931] Have you watched that video? You claimed 1% owned 70% of the wealth, the video says the top 10% only own 43.8% of the wealth. It doesn't even leave a trail to the raw data. HMRC, on the other hand, published private wealth which suggested that the top 1% own around 15% of the wealth - not quite your 70%... I would like to see wealth distribution according to age also, not across all ages.[/QUOTE] Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole for the sake of illustrating a point. [quote]There was no need for it to be introduced, hence it's repeal - but it wasn't malicious in any way. [/quote] Naivety detected.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40234079]Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole for the sake of illustrating a point Naivety detected.[/QUOTE] No, you were just plain wrong. How many people were prosecuted under section 28?

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40234079]Are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole for the sake of illustrating a point. Naivety detected.[/QUOTE] I think increasing something by little over 20% is not hyperbole. If you wanted to do that, you would say: 0.0001% owns 99.99999% of the wealth.

[QUOTE=butt2089;40234162] How many people were prosecuted under section 28?[/QUOTE] Don't need prosecution for it to cause trouble. Can you imagine what not being able to talk about homosexuality would do for sex ed? How it would impede the protection of LGBT youth from bullying? Wiki time: [quote]Because it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40234319]Don't need prosecution for it to cause trouble. Can you imagine what not being able to talk about homosexuality would do for sex ed? How it would impede the protection of LGBT youth from bullying? Wiki time:[/QUOTE] Talking about homosexuality was not restricted, it was the promotion of it through books and teaching that was disallowed - specifically that young, "impressionable", children were being taught about homosexual intercourse at the same time as heterosexual intercourse.

[quote]promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".[/quote] Get off your idol's strapon and read. That would easily have been enough for a student group to be attacked under, [i]as they noticed.[/i]

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40234612]Get off your idol's strapon and read. That would easily have been enough for a student group to be attacked under, [i]as they noticed.[/i][/QUOTE] What kind of student groups? As you put in your quote, 'maintained schools' - meant up to the age of 15.

[QUOTE=butt2089;40234729]What kind of student groups? As you put in your quote, 'maintained schools' - meant up to the age of 15.[/QUOTE] [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20070818063344/http://www.knittingcircle.org.uk/gleanings2889.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40234751][url]http://web.archive.org/web/20070818063344/http://www.knittingcircle.org.uk/gleanings2889.html[/url][/QUOTE] Right.. that explains that in Essex LGBT groups were banned from using Council property to meet because the council was unsure if it would go against Section 28, it was later reversed because it wouldn't. It also talks about the homophobic attacks as a result of Section 28 - but with no context of the number of attacks before or after we can't get a clear conclusion. Another criticism is that there will be further laws oppressing homosexuals - that never happened. It doesn't appear to actually confront the main issue of young children and the teaching of homosexuality..

[quote]Another criticism is that there will be further laws oppressing homosexuals - that never happened. It doesn't appear to actually confront the main issue of young children and the teaching of homosexuality.[/quote] Because of the utter shitstorm it unleashed. [quote]It also talks about the homophobic attacks as a result of Section 28 - but with no context of the number of attacks before or after we can't get a clear conclusion. [/quote] Are you being deliberately obtuse? It gave a fig-leaf for homophobic groups in the school system - which was mentioned in the thing I linked.

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40235111]Because of the utter shitstorm it unleashed.[/quote] That "shit storm" being?: - Students not being allowed to use a council hall, and then being allowed to - Young children not being allowed to see a gay opera - Homophobic attacks being solely linked to section 28 as if they never happened before or since These aren't deliberate consequences when the legislation itself states that it should only affect schools. [quote]Are you being deliberately obtuse? It gave a fig-leaf for homophobic groups in the school system - which was mentioned in the thing I linked.[/QUOTE] I even said it was unnecessary, my original point being that it was not deliberately malicious

No, the gay rights movements getting out and protesting. It's shameful that it didn't leave the books until the 2000s though. [QUOTE=butt2089;40235302] I even said it was unnecessary, my original point being that it was not deliberately malicious[/QUOTE] Read the 'background' and 'legislation' sections of the wiki article again.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40204887]Americans were bashed for celebrating in the streets about Bin Laden's death but the UK seems rather happy with their own former prime minister dying in this thread. The world confuses me sometimes.[/QUOTE] it's because people here are joking but in the case of osama people were serious. also osama was murdered

[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;40235637]No, the gay rights movements getting out and protesting. It's shameful that it didn't leave the books until the 2000s though. Read the 'background' and 'legislation' sections of the wiki article again.[/QUOTE] From reading the wikipedia article it explains how, in a time of social upheaval and uncertainty regarding homosexuality, activists in the LGBT community were particularly active - the bill responded to that from public opinion. The consequences described of homophobic attacks were not an intended result, as the legislation was limited to schools. I think if they wanted to be malicious they would have not 'limited' the legislation as they did in the various revisions. I have no doubt that there would have been some who would have seen it as a chance to attack the LGBT community, but I believe it was trying to be pro-traditional family not anti-homosexual.

can you both shut the fuck up please? you're doing my head in.

[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40236369]can you both shut the fuck up please? you're doing my head in.[/QUOTE] They can discuss what they want here, you can leave if you want.

[quote]pro-traditional family not anti-homosexual[/quote] I don't know what weed-covered river rock you live under, but the former has always meant the latter. She didn't do it for ideological reasons. She did it to appease the bigoted back-benchers. It would have been meaner if that would have passed. Once damned are the bigots, thrice are those who appease them.

Posting this for informational purposes. It may or may not reflect my views. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8[/media]