Thatcher - poor judgement

[crankedup]

TankRizzo said:

More tedious made-up anti-Thatcher crap from the forum's biggest Thatcher-hater. Yawn. How unsurprising to also find creaking Derek jumping on his stained yellow horse and come galloping to Crankers's rescue.

Very emotive strong term 'Thatcher - Hater'. You need to be careful with the use of such terminology, at least make sure that you are undeniably accurate with such a description.
The truth is that I hate nobody, people must do something so awful for others to hate individuals! In my situation expressing as I do from time to time, it is Thatchers Policies, or at least some of them, that I intensely dislike and disagree with. (Some of those ill judged policies still impacting on Society today). Big difference between hate of person and intensely dislike,disagree with policies.

Derek 'jumping on the bandwagon', is that really how you interpret his interjection into a public forum?
You don't consider that he may just be voicing his opinion, like other forum posters?

You seem to have a problem accepting the democracy of free speech? What a sad individual you make yourself sound.

[crankedup]

NoNeed said:

crankedup said:

TankRizzo said:

More tedious made-up anti-Thatcher crap from the forum's biggest Thatcher-hater. Yawn. How unsurprising to also find creaking Derek jumping on his stained yellow horse and come galloping to Crankers's rescue.

Very emotive strong term 'Thatcher - Hater'. You need to be careful with the use of such terminology, at least make sure that you are undeniably accurate with such a description.
The truth is that I hate nobody, people must do something so awful for others to hate individuals! In my situation expressing as I do from time to time, it is Thatchers Policies, or at least some of them, that I intensely dislike and disagree with. (Some of those ill judged policies still impacting on Society today). Big difference between hate of person and intensely dislike,disagree with policies.

Derek 'jumping on the bandwagon', is that really how you interpret his interjection into a public forum?
You don't consider that he may just be voicing his opinion, like other forum posters?

You seem to have a problem accepting the democracy of free speech? What a sad individual you make yourself sound.

Why not point us in the direction of threads/posts you have started that praise some of the great policies that Thatcher had.

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. Nothing that I have read or heard of since then has provoked me to re-consider.
There has to be some minor policies introduced by her Government one would think, but I struggle to re-call any of merit TBH.

One policy that I did consider to be ill considered was the selling off of Council Houses, especially when the stock sold was not replaced. The few upsides of the policy, imo, were sold stock areas were generally uplifted (in aesthetic terms). It released families from the apron strings of Council's, and it gave the families a degree of inspiration and responsibility. So some strong upsides but the downsides,imo, are some families made a purchase but were ill equipped to be property owners. Fraud was apparent with people cashing in by tempting genuine tenants to purchase their subsidised home only to lose their homes within five years to the unscrupulous. Young people today are unable to access Social Housing due to shortage of stock, the funds from sales were ring-fenced with new stock building not permitted within the scheme.
Therefore, on balance I personally strongly disagreed with the scheme, despite the fact that my Parents Inlaw purchased their Council home at a heavily discounted price.

[crankedup]

league67 said:

For some threads it's enough just to see the topic to know exactly how they are going to unfold.
Cranked; Thatcher bad.
Most of PH; some polishing her picture, some with hand in their pocket; Bad cranked, MT is bestest thing ever.

Entertaining, nevertheless.

ETA; TankIdiot; don't have kids.

Yes, I'm a very naughty boy

[crankedup]

NoNeed 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. Nothing that I have read or heard of since then has provoked me to re-consider.
There has to be some minor policies introduced by her Government one would think, but I struggle to re-call any of merit TBH.

One policy that I did consider to be ill considered was the selling off of Council Houses, especially when the stock sold was not replaced. The few upsides of the policy, imo, were sold stock areas were generally uplifted (in aesthetic terms). It released families from the apron strings of Council's, and it gave the families a degree of inspiration and responsibility. So some strong upsides but the downsides,imo, are some families made a purchase but were ill equipped to be property owners. Fraud was apparent with people cashing in by tempting genuine tenants to purchase their subsidised home only to lose their homes within five years to the unscrupulous. Young people today are unable to access Social Housing due to shortage of stock, the funds from sales were ring-fenced with new stock building not permitted within the scheme.
Therefore, on balance I personally strongly disagreed with the scheme, despite the fact that my Parents Inlaw purchased their Council home at a heavily discounted price.

what's odd is that you can't find any positives despitr her being in office for over 10 years, yes you mention one but then disagreed with yourself.

'disagreed with myself' you mean taking a balanced perspective - nice try buy ultimately another fail.

[crankedup]

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

DJRC said:

crankedup said:

The Don of Croy said:

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.

You're so right! It's unforgiveable Harriet Harman can continue to lord it over everyone having been a promoter of the Paedophile Information Exchange (the clue is in the name). Not just her but even her hubbie (Labour Party treasurer) and her boss at the time (Patricia Hewitt). It's almost as if there was a cabal of kiddy-fiddlers present in New Labour (there wasn't afaik but you could read that into those facts).

Indeed, however these people you mention are not PM's and have never bestowed Honours upon bad people. The fact that a PM is thought to be endowed with greater perceptions in judgement of skills and personality is truly nonsense when we care to look at the results of Honours and jobs bestowed over the decades.
Now it may upset a few dedicated followers of their perceived great and good being pulled for a little bit of debate, which in some POV's is warranted, but that's life. If you want to have a debate about some other political leaders gaff's, go ahead, no worries for me!

They are thought to be endowed with what??? Where the hell did you get that idea from?!

I didn't 'get the idea' from anyone, an assumption that political Parties would select the best from those contenders who have applied for leadership. On the basis that most of these Leaders are from an educational high standing background mixing with the great and good should present them with a broad knowledge to assess other people. As I go on to say this is clearly not the case having witnessed the catastrophe of some of their appointee's. So not quite sure what it is that you're struggling to understand?

Well your assumption for a start. Political leaders have never been "the best", they have just been the most competent at ensuring they get power. Appointing Jimmy to honours is a reflection of nothing other than he was competent at money raising thing. Castigating Maggie changes neither points.

That is you're opinion, nothing more.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.