Thatcher - poor judgement
Discussion
crankedup said:
Its not my problem, its you're problem! I will continue to frustrate and annoy, apparently, whilst exercising my Democratic right in freedom of expression. Something you and others in here seem to have scant regard for. I disagree with most of the twaddle you lot post.
As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
A fabulous retort. Thank you for sharing. As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
When you say 'its all true though' do you not see that just because you've written it, it is not in itself evidence of fact?
turbobloke said:
Inkyfingers said:
I think that if you look hard enough, all governments will have bestowed honours on some fairly dodgy characters. Rolf Harris was given a CBE in 2006.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Correct.Hindsight is always 20/20.
And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.
She clearly decided to overlook the negatives of people in favour of their positives in some cases.
That said, and I was never a fan of her, people conveniently forget now how 'good' Saville was thought to be at the time. Sure, at the time he was a 'bit weird', but most people (I think) suspected he was simply homosexual and in the closet.
Perhaps a few knew how bad he really was, but most people generally couldn't or wouldn't have believed what it appears he was up to.
Trying to tarnish a government over this just smacks of politicking ahead of a general election - He had us all fooled, although it's really hard to understand how now!
Thatcher is roasting in hell for plenty of other things, but she's barely more to blame for this than I am.
M
The Don of Croy said:
crankedup said:
Its not my problem, its you're problem! I will continue to frustrate and annoy, apparently, whilst exercising my Democratic right in freedom of expression. Something you and others in here seem to have scant regard for. I disagree with most of the twaddle you lot post.
As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
A fabulous retort. Thank you for sharing. As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
When you say 'its all true though' do you not see that just because you've written it, it is not in itself evidence of fact?
As a previous poster has mentioned, much 'chat' was about and speculation fairly rife, also some newspapers were 'daring' to insinuate the 'problem' with Savile. With all the Authorities frightened to pursue the many accusations from victims (what ever reasons they had) to me the suggestion that Government were unaware of the 'problem' seems inconceivable.
Yes I accept, obviously, that because I write something it is just possible that inaccuracies creep in. But hey, even with the much vaunted 'evidence' trotted out in here is mainly second hand media, the bastion of honesty and integrity.
The Don of Croy said:
crankedup said:
Its not my problem, its you're problem! I will continue to frustrate and annoy, apparently, whilst exercising my Democratic right in freedom of expression. Something you and others in here seem to have scant regard for. I disagree with most of the twaddle you lot post.
As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
A fabulous retort. Thank you for sharing. As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
When you say 'its all true though' do you not see that just because you've written it, it is not in itself evidence of fact?
Edit: crankedup got there already.
crankedup said:
Its not my problem, its you're problem! I will continue to frustrate and annoy, apparently, whilst exercising my Democratic right in freedom of expression. Something you and others in here seem to have scant regard for. I disagree with most of the twaddle you lot post.
As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
Quick question for you Mr Cranked - What is your stance on the other politicians that may also have met / supported Saville? If this knowledge was so well known, do you also have disdain for Blair? As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint - after all, if these facts were so clear cut, he's equally complicit in NOT outing the fiddler until he was dead. In fact, if these facts were that concrete, the entire cabinet - of all political parties were aiding and abetting a known nonce. That's such a scary concept, that I'm thinking maybe the facts aren't as clear cut as you think they are?
I'm not trying to stir some political debate, I only really came here to mention Milk and Hitler. However, It's now in "my stuff" =)
marcosgt said:
turbobloke said:
Inkyfingers said:
I think that if you look hard enough, all governments will have bestowed honours on some fairly dodgy characters. Rolf Harris was given a CBE in 2006.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Correct.Hindsight is always 20/20.
And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.
She clearly decided to overlook the negatives of people in favour of their positives in some cases.
That said, and I was never a fan of her, people conveniently forget now how 'good' Saville was thought to be at the time. Sure, at the time he was a 'bit weird', but most people (I think) suspected he was simply homosexual and in the closet.
Perhaps a few knew how bad he really was, but most people generally couldn't or wouldn't have believed what it appears he was up to.
Trying to tarnish a government over this just smacks of politicking ahead of a general election - He had us all fooled, although it's really hard to understand how now!
Thatcher is roasting in hell for plenty of other things, but she's barely more to blame for this than I am.
M
I am not attempting to tarnish Thatchers whole Government, how the hell threads get twisted out of proportion on this forum is remarkable. What I am saying is that Thatcher showed poor judgement regarding Saviles Honour and she was almost certainly aware of the problems prior to the Honour being bestowed. Others tell me this is not the case, nobody has mentioned how this situation belittles and insults other recipients of the similar Honours bestowed if this is the level of investigation applied prior to the award. I just do not accept that premise.
marcosgt said:
turbobloke said:
Inkyfingers said:
I think that if you look hard enough, all governments will have bestowed honours on some fairly dodgy characters. Rolf Harris was given a CBE in 2006.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Correct.Hindsight is always 20/20.
And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.
Groundhog thread stays on the ground - liftoff may be delayed.
crankedup said:
Decided to base the retort at the level of comment forwarded to me, but I do at least try not to post personal insult on the basis of disagreement.
Personal insult? Bless. I have absolutley no idea what Thatcher knew or didn't. As unrepentant pointed out her judgement with respect to Morrison is far more questionable as it seems his activities were in fact well known by everyone, astonishingly. I'm simply amused at your latest Thatcher Bash having failed so many times previously you've taken a refreshing new tack. As for your desire to 'frustrate and annoy', good for you, a man has to have a hobby.fblm said:
crankedup said:
Decided to base the retort at the level of comment forwarded to me, but I do at least try not to post personal insult on the basis of disagreement.
Personal insult? Bless. I have absolutley no idea what Thatcher knew or didn't. As unrepentant pointed out her judgement with respect to Morrison is far more questionable as it seems his activities were in fact well known by everyone, astonishingly. I'm simply amused at your latest Thatcher Bash having failed so many times previously you've taken a refreshing new tack. As for your desire to 'frustrate and annoy' good for you, a man has to have a hobby.
Amuse is more like it.
crankedup said:
As a previous poster has mentioned, much 'chat' was about and speculation fairly rife, also some newspapers were 'daring' to insinuate the 'problem' with Savile. With all the Authorities frightened to pursue the many accusations from victims (what ever reasons they had) to me the suggestion that Government were unaware of the 'problem' seems inconceivable.
I was hoping you may have had some access to cabinet office papers or similar that might show how the discussions had gone...According to 'Wiki' Thatcher tried to get JS enobled four times. So she was trying, and obv someone was preventing it for a while, but who/when/what did they know?
JS was - as we now know - a repugnant and evil being. Too bad so many were fooled for so long - including 'fatcher - leading to his lying in state in a hotel in Leeds, and the BBC making and showing the tribute programme, amongst others. He fooled a lot of people, a lot of the time.
Just to come full circle - one of the apparent doubters was dear old Esther, who still failed to do anything, who was in a position of influence and could have beena voice of reason. So now she gets a Damehood so she can join the great and good (who all kept shtum).
Some Gump said:
crankedup said:
Its not my problem, its you're problem! I will continue to frustrate and annoy, apparently, whilst exercising my Democratic right in freedom of expression. Something you and others in here seem to have scant regard for. I disagree with most of the twaddle you lot post.
As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
Quick question for you Mr Cranked - What is your stance on the other politicians that may also have met / supported Saville? If this knowledge was so well known, do you also have disdain for Blair? As for the subject,its all true though! and I am yet to see any genuine 'evidence' to the contrary. You see its a political thing.
Anyhow, bleat all you like along with the remaining Thatcher adoration society, if you seriously believe she had no prior knowledge of saviles sexual illegal activities prior to her awarding him an Honour then you really are deluded. Trying to find written 'evidence' is impossible from Government sources, as expected.
I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint - after all, if these facts were so clear cut, he's equally complicit in NOT outing the fiddler until he was dead. In fact, if these facts were that concrete, the entire cabinet - of all political parties were aiding and abetting a known nonce. That's such a scary concept, that I'm thinking maybe the facts aren't as clear cut as you think they are?
I'm not trying to stir some political debate, I only really came here to mention Milk and Hitler. However, It's now in "my stuff" =)
The difference between the other politicians holding hands with savile and Mrs T is quite simply it was her decision to award the bloke an Honour. This was misplaced judgement that damages the Honours system. I wouldn't go quite so far to suggest concrete evidence but will maintain that plenty of question marks should have been thoroughly investigated prior to him being Honoured. It clearly demonstrates the lack of integrity within the system at that time imo.
As for Blair, well he would cosy up to a corpse if he thought he may attract some kudos, likely assuming savile's back-story would never see the light of day, therefore no risk of backlash. Same as all the politicians, more kudos than risk.
In all fairness Cameron has a dodgy track record of mixing it and demonstrating poor judgement by appointing the wrong people (newspapers). Brown, well his judgement was poor in so many areas but on a much greater danger to the U.K. rather than any one to one poor judgement of character.
We are going to have to wait for another 40 years to find the 100% evidence regarding the main issue, by then I will be pushing up the daises!
The Don of Croy said:
crankedup said:
As a previous poster has mentioned, much 'chat' was about and speculation fairly rife, also some newspapers were 'daring' to insinuate the 'problem' with Savile. With all the Authorities frightened to pursue the many accusations from victims (what ever reasons they had) to me the suggestion that Government were unaware of the 'problem' seems inconceivable.
I was hoping you may have had some access to cabinet office papers or similar that might show how the discussions had gone...According to 'Wiki' Thatcher tried to get JS enobled four times. So she was trying, and obv someone was preventing it for a while, but who/when/what did they know?
JS was - as we now know - a repugnant and evil being. Too bad so many were fooled for so long - including 'fatcher - leading to his lying in state in a hotel in Leeds, and the BBC making and showing the tribute programme, amongst others. He fooled a lot of people, a lot of the time.
Just to come full circle - one of the apparent doubters was dear old Esther, who still failed to do anything, who was in a position of influence and could have beena voice of reason. So now she gets a Damehood so she can join the great and good (who all kept shtum).
For me it was known of his story, I find it impossible to reconcile otherwise considering we are talking about Government Agencies available to 'have a look' at savile, how long would it have taken for them to be sure.
The Don of Croy said:
According to 'Wiki' Thatcher tried to get JS enobled four times. So she was trying, and obv someone was preventing it for a while, but who/when/what did they know?
Possibly that he was "a horrible little oik", looking at the lists of Knight Bachelor from that and previous years.sidicks said:
crankedup said:
We are going to have to wait for another 40 years to find the 100% evidence regarding the main issue, by then I will be pushing up the daises!
If you could provide 1% evidence it would be a start.....:wave:
4 pages, not too bad an effort.
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?4 pages, not too bad an effort.
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!
I think that all politicians are in some way flawed personalities. The nature of the job means you have to be a strong personality with a thick skin/big ego.
I also think that the longer someone stays in power, for example Thatcher or Blair, the more out of touch, and in some senses, "untouchable" they may feel. This is when mistakes are made and judgement goes out of the window.
Add in an Establishment that doesn't really give a toss about the ordinary man and woman in the street unless it suits their agenda, yet seems blinded by celebrity, wealth and power. Is it any wonder things like this happen?
For a real insight into how Saville manipulated the system, using various governments, the NHS, and BBC, this is an eye opening, if rather grim read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookrevie...
I also think that the longer someone stays in power, for example Thatcher or Blair, the more out of touch, and in some senses, "untouchable" they may feel. This is when mistakes are made and judgement goes out of the window.
Add in an Establishment that doesn't really give a toss about the ordinary man and woman in the street unless it suits their agenda, yet seems blinded by celebrity, wealth and power. Is it any wonder things like this happen?
For a real insight into how Saville manipulated the system, using various governments, the NHS, and BBC, this is an eye opening, if rather grim read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookrevie...
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?4 pages, not too bad an effort.
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!
Three 'facts' that you have managed to fail
1. Cyril Smith story has left zero room for doubt and has been fully discussed in National media.
2. You seem confused by insinuating that I am Left wing politics - quite wrong.
3. I'm not in the least angry and never have been regarding this subject - you're perceptions are as way off as you're 'facts'.
C- for the nerve to write such inaccurate waffle!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff