Thatcher - poor judgement

[The Don of Croy]

crankedup said:

Odd! why would I want to do such a thing? For the most part I found the policies of her Government to be entirely disagreeable to my political philosophy at that time.

What about the abolition of exchange controls? Expelling the Argies from sovereign territory?

[NicD]

what about poll tax? Getting every consumer to pay a contribution.
What a missed opportunity.

[turbobloke]

NicD said:

what about poll tax? Getting every consumer to pay a contribution.
What a missed opportunity.

Being a fair and equal approach, outraged lefties wanted inequality for a change.

[crankedup]

The Don of Croy said:

crankedup said:

Odd! why would I want to do such a thing? For the most part I found the policies of her Government to be entirely disagreeable to my political philosophy at that time.

What about the abolition of exchange controls? Expelling the Argies from sovereign territory?

But I was asked why it was that I hadn't posted new threads extolling her virtuous policies to which I admired or favoured. Tis why I mentioned the selling off of Council housing stock, a policy which, imo had some virtues but equally some disadvantages also.

[The Don of Croy]

crankedup said:

The Don of Croy said:

crankedup said:

Odd! why would I want to do such a thing? For the most part I found the policies of her Government to be entirely disagreeable to my political philosophy at that time.

What about the abolition of exchange controls? Expelling the Argies from sovereign territory?

But I was asked why it was that I hadn't posted new threads extolling her virtuous policies to which I admired or favoured. Tis why I mentioned the selling off of Council housing stock, a policy which, imo had some virtues but equally some disadvantages also.

We're at crossed purposes, possibly, just asking if you found anything to disagree with in the two examples given? Unless, as you stated, such aims were entirely disagreeable to you.

[crankedup]

The Don of Croy said:

crankedup said:

The Don of Croy said:

crankedup said:

Odd! why would I want to do such a thing? For the most part I found the policies of her Government to be entirely disagreeable to my political philosophy at that time.

What about the abolition of exchange controls? Expelling the Argies from sovereign territory?

But I was asked why it was that I hadn't posted new threads extolling her virtuous policies to which I admired or favoured. Tis why I mentioned the selling off of Council housing stock, a policy which, imo had some virtues but equally some disadvantages also.

We're at crossed purposes, possibly, just asking if you found anything to disagree with in the two examples given? Unless, as you stated, such aims were entirely disagreeable to you.

I certainly wouldn't argue against the abolition of exchange controls, great for the U.K. businesses and a blow to the black market economy which undercut growth of business. The Falklands conflict, the P.M. authorised the task force winning back the land, quite rightly. I do not consider that she did any more or less than any other incumbent of Downing Street at the time. Public opinion backed her decisions and she re-invigorated her, by then, flagging popularity. Doing nothing following the invasion was not an option.
Have I said enough to hang myself again I wonder!

[crankedup]

don4l said:

crankedup said:

You will have to wait, in the meantime I suggest 'the balance of probability' would indicate a swing to my stance.

4 pages, not too bad an effort.

So, you are angry enough to denigrate the memory of one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers purely because you think she might have known something?


You must be absolutely apoplectic with rage about what that fat Liberal MP did to little boys.

I must have missed the thread you started to show us how disgusted his behaviour made you feel... or do LibDems think that this how everyone behaves?

Margaret Thatcher = Bad.

Cyril Smith = Good.

The double standards that lefties are willing to exhibit never ceases to amaze me!

Interesting read today in Mail on Sunday, Thatcher was advised (informed) regarding Smith's sordid activities. Despite knowledge and advise she still pressed ahead with an Honour for the bloke. Trust me when I can now inform doubters that it will not be long before very similar 'revelations' involving Savile Honours being granted under the same circumstances as Smith.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

don4l said:

crankedup said:

You will have to wait, in the meantime I suggest 'the balance of probability' would indicate a swing to my stance.

4 pages, not too bad an effort.

So, you are angry enough to denigrate the memory of one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers purely because you think she might have known something?


You must be absolutely apoplectic with rage about what that fat Liberal MP did to little boys.

I must have missed the thread you started to show us how disgusted his behaviour made you feel... or do LibDems think that this how everyone behaves?

Margaret Thatcher = Bad.

Cyril Smith = Good.

The double standards that lefties are willing to exhibit never ceases to amaze me!

Interesting read today in Mail on Sunday, Thatcher was advised (informed) regarding Smith's sordid activities. Despite knowledge and advise she still pressed ahead with an Honour for the bloke.

It sounds bad and may be so, but 20:20 hindsight is one thing while possessing proof that - at the time - would have resulted in a conviction, that's something else. The institutions where it was happening were turning a blind eye, the police were doing too little about accepting, processing and investigating accusations. This catalogue of failure should be the target for your faux outrage, which is clearly that since you're straining to make Thatcher responsible when even the most despicable of people are formally innocent until arrested, charged, tried and found guilty in Court. A lot of people are stunned about what happened but only a very special onlooker would want to go for Thatcher.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

don4l said:

crankedup said:

You will have to wait, in the meantime I suggest 'the balance of probability' would indicate a swing to my stance.

4 pages, not too bad an effort.

So, you are angry enough to denigrate the memory of one of Britain's greatest Prime Ministers purely because you think she might have known something?


You must be absolutely apoplectic with rage about what that fat Liberal MP did to little boys.

I must have missed the thread you started to show us how disgusted his behaviour made you feel... or do LibDems think that this how everyone behaves?

Margaret Thatcher = Bad.

Cyril Smith = Good.

The double standards that lefties are willing to exhibit never ceases to amaze me!

Interesting read today in Mail on Sunday, Thatcher was advised (informed) regarding Smith's sordid activities. Despite knowledge and advise she still pressed ahead with an Honour for the bloke.

It sounds bad and may be so, but 20:20 hindsight is one thing while possessing proof that - at the time - would have resulted in a conviction, that's something else. The institutions where it was happening were turning a blind eye, the police were doing too little about accepting, processing and investigating accusations. This catalogue of failure should be the target for your faux outrage, which is clearly that since you're straining to make Thatcher responsible when even the most despicable of people are formally innocent until arrested, charged, tried and found guilty in Court. A lot of people are stunned about what happened but only a very special onlooker would want to go for Thatcher.

Wrong wrong wrong, This thread is about judgement, Thatchers judgement. In this instance she was 100% responsible for ignoring the truth and continuing upon her pathway dispite all the advise she was given. As much as it is disliked in here she badly misjudged the two examples named within this thread. Now Smith's back story has been exposed, Thatcher ignoring the information she had at the time prior to awarding the man with an Honour. The next case will be revealed shortly.
Sometimes it may be slightly difficult for you and others to accept the truth, but in this case after a year of hard work by two respected journo's we have the truth. It is an insight into the murky side of Government at that time.

If you want to discuss the revelations regarding the 'blind eyes' within the hierarchy, be my guest and start a thread. Senior Police Officers advised the P.M that Smith was a kiddy fiddler, she ignored advise from them and her own advisor's. We will within fullness of time learn why Smith and others were not brought to justice, (powerful people in high places) the term 'paedophile ring' is being used more and more by journ's who have the scent of a truly scandalous story emerging.

[ellroy]

Having read the article concerned, but not the full text in the documents, it appears slightly disengenuos to lay the blame at her feet in its entirety.

The article stated that it was suggested to her that the knighthood could put the honours system at risk. The same committee then looked in more depth and recommended that he should still be presented with the knighthood. The blame here surely lies with that committee more than Lady T?

I would, however, suggest that the real issue lies with the cabinet secretary and his covering up of the issues, up and to current date, that is frankly inexcusable.

[crankedup]

On that basis we come down to accountability, if I were in the situation of being advised I would err onto 'if in doubt, don't' mode. After all Honours are a annual event. It is well documented that Thatcher would override her cabinet going against the judgements of her Cabinet, strength or arrogance? Either way it eventually led to her downfall.
In fairness being in Office for an extended period as she was, not a human being on earth would serve without the odd lapse.

[The Don of Croy]

Help me here...you've found prima facie evidence that sainted Madge did a bad thing in putting forward Savile and Smith for honours. Well done. Case proven.

Savile - a man lauded by his employer (BBC) and who remained in a position of power and influence long after Maggie left No 10, right up to six months after his death just a few years ago...a man who was also 'honoured' by the Catholic church (both by the head honcho in the UK as well as Pope thingy in Rome) at a time when that institution was also enjoying a better reputation.

Smith - a former Labour councillor, later Liberal Party stalwart and long time kiddy-fiddler (facts that would be well known to both those Party's who could/should have ensured he was not put forward)...

Neither case shines much of a good light on Thatcher. But neither is solely down to her, either, and arguably the BBC and Labour/Liberals could have done far, far more to prevent further suffering.

Your ire would be better directed at those directly involved or facilitating these monsters.

[crankedup]

The Don of Croy said:

Help me here...you've found prima facie evidence that sainted Madge did a bad thing in putting forward Savile and Smith for honours. Well done. Case proven.

Savile - a man lauded by his employer (BBC) and who remained in a position of power and influence long after Maggie left No 10, right up to six months after his death just a few years ago...a man who was also 'honoured' by the Catholic church (both by the head honcho in the UK as well as Pope thingy in Rome) at a time when that institution was also enjoying a better reputation.

Smith - a former Labour councillor, later Liberal Party stalwart and long time kiddy-fiddler (facts that would be well known to both those Party's who could/should have ensured he was not put forward)...

Neither case shines much of a good light on Thatcher. But neither is solely down to her, either, and arguably the BBC and Labour/Liberals could have done far, far more to prevent further suffering.

Your ire would be better directed at those directly involved or facilitating these monsters.

The way I see it is simple, our P.M. has the ultimate decision when it comes down to bestowing, or rather recommending, Honours to the great and good. If a P.M. cannot make a stance against the 'establishment' but rather encourages the 'establishment' and rewards those less than savoury individuals in the knowledge that these people are 'un-convicted' criminals then the P.M. becomes implicit in those wrong doers actions (not literally) but supports those wrong doers. As for the Catholic Church, so much we have learned in recent times of Priests and their idea of the 'laying of hands'.

Yes completely agree that the employers of these individuals should have / could have done so much more in curtailing the disgusting actions of these men. Let us hope that some justice and good comes out of all this.