Thatcher - poor judgement
Discussion
crankedup said:
Thankfully not all PH'ers are so rabidly biased, just most it seems apart from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ prepared to state the facts.
Nothing is as tedious as those in denial of reality. I think Derek is right when he suggests 'names' will not appear in reports.
Thatcher is never above honest criticism, just the same as any P.M. past or present imo.
CrankedUp lamenting the rabid bias of PHers. Irony-meter just broke.Nothing is as tedious as those in denial of reality. I think Derek is right when he suggests 'names' will not appear in reports.
Thatcher is never above honest criticism, just the same as any P.M. past or present imo.
Edited by crankedup on Thursday 26th February 14:26
unrepentant said:
She knew that Peter Morrison was a paedophile, it was very well known in Westminster and she was advised about it. Didn't stop her from making him her PPS though. I just think that in the past 30 years attitudes have changed.
And whilst some PH'ers go into a frenzy (why not) over those kiddy fiddlers recently caught, it appears 'out of bounds' to criticize those in power that allowed them to get away with it. Not only that but Honour at least one of them! And some have the neck to call me a hypocrite.crankedup said:
And whilst some PH'ers go into a frenzy (why not) over those kiddy fiddlers recently caught, it appears 'out of bounds' to criticize those in power that allowed them to get away with it. Not only that but Honour at least one of them! And some have the neck to call me a hypocrite.
And yet, if it was a blatant and "well known" as you claim, there should be some documented advice that you can produce that she ignored. If not its just another case of that lazy, smeary, nastiness that you have a habit of indulging in from time to time when your target is a Conservative politician. If (and I say IF) Thatcher knew as you claim - what then is the excuse for Blair who cavorted with Savile years later when people REALLY must have known? You single out Thatcher because it suits your political dogma. You provide no evidence because you know you cannot. Like I said, ...lazy, smeary nastiness.
Shame on you Crankedup.
andymadmak said:
And yet, if it was a blatant and "well known" as you claim, there should be some documented advice that you can produce that she ignored. If not its just another case of that lazy, smeary, nastiness that you have a habit of indulging in from time to time when your target is a Conservative politician. If (and I say IF) Thatcher knew as you claim - what then is the excuse for Blair who cavorted with Savile years later when people REALLY must have known?
You single out Thatcher because it suits your political dogma. You provide no evidence because you know you cannot. Like I said, ...lazy, smeary nastiness.
Shame on you Crankedup.
Perhaps he's singled out Thatcher because of the thread title. You single out Thatcher because it suits your political dogma. You provide no evidence because you know you cannot. Like I said, ...lazy, smeary nastiness.
Shame on you Crankedup.
Derek Smith said:
andymadmak said:
And yet, if it was a blatant and "well known" as you claim, there should be some documented advice that you can produce that she ignored. If not its just another case of that lazy, smeary, nastiness that you have a habit of indulging in from time to time when your target is a Conservative politician. If (and I say IF) Thatcher knew as you claim - what then is the excuse for Blair who cavorted with Savile years later when people REALLY must have known?
You single out Thatcher because it suits your political dogma. You provide no evidence because you know you cannot. Like I said, ...lazy, smeary nastiness.
Shame on you Crankedup.
Perhaps he's singled out Thatcher because of the thread title. You single out Thatcher because it suits your political dogma. You provide no evidence because you know you cannot. Like I said, ...lazy, smeary nastiness.
Shame on you Crankedup.
andymadmak said:
He is the OP..............
I should have checked.The only way any one can get the answers 100% correct is if the questions are easy. And even then, it can be a close run thing. Being in charge for as long as Mrs T was a guarantee that she would make a number of errors because, let's face it, running a country is bloody difficult, don't you know.
If the papers were printing stories about a 'well known entertainer' and those papers publishing the accusations knew who this person was then, if the government didn't know, they were either incompetent or else telling lies. Or complicit, as C. Smith's stories seem to support.
I knew who it was they were fingering.
If this is all one can say to the detriment of Thatcher, that she was a poor judge of character - let's run with that questionable premise - then that's an endorsement of her ability.
She made mistakes. Trying to hide them, or argue against them by demanding chapter and verse, double blind tests and sworn statements from the whole cabinet, is just asking to be ridiculed. Sure Blair met the bloke. But you are not comparing like with like. Remember, he refused to condemn the teaching of creationism in science classes.
Thatcher's position as one of the moulders of British post war society is set in stone. One cannot argue about it. Whether one agrees with the changes she made is open to a personal interpretation.
I think she was one of the most remarkable PMs this country has ever seen and is in the top two for post war PMs, but even so I believe that what she did to Fleet Street by sucking up to Murdoch for services to be rendered was a betrayal of her position. Given Murdoch's influence on this country, this is just one man, including the BBC, it is so undemocratic that it will probably be the next scandal. The only one who seemed to stand up to him was Major, and Murdoch later shafted him. That was, I believe, one of her glaring errors.
She was human. She made mistakes. She made precious few and when the country was under pressure, she was, remarkably, spot on. Her speech, right after surviving the Grand bomb, when terrorists tried to blow up the government - high treason - was iconic. I'm certain that many other PMs would have blown it. But that don't mean she wasn't, bewilderingly, fooled by Archer.
crankedup said:
...
Nothing is as tedious as those in denial of reality. I think Derek is right when he suggests 'names' will not appear in reports. ...
Except for.... Nothing is as tedious as those in denial of reality. I think Derek is right when he suggests 'names' will not appear in reports. ...
- those who seek out the one person on a thread agreeing with their pov and hence declaring everyone else as blind.
- your incessant dredging up spurious reasons to try to nail a PM who hasn't been in power for 20yrs.
Why? What the hell are you trying to say? Keep it less politically motivated, look at the list of photos a subsequent poster gave and perhaps try to make a valid point generically and maybe you'll sound a bit less like George Galloway's less rational brother!
Or maybe start to look beyond the end of your nose and start asking why the merry f*ck the media appear to be avoid self critique in all of these sordid affairs. You're lapping up the rubbish they spew out without focusing your ire on those very outlets that fostered this.
ds were working with PIE! Oh hold on, that was the other lot wasn't it?crankedup said:
unrepentant said:
She knew that Peter Morrison was a paedophile, it was very well known in Westminster and she was advised about it. Didn't stop her from making him her PPS though. I just think that in the past 30 years attitudes have changed.
And whilst some PH'ers go into a frenzy (why not) over those kiddy fiddlers recently caught, it appears 'out of bounds' to criticize those in power that allowed them to get away with it. Not only that but Honour at least one of them! And some have the neck to call me a hypocrite.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff