Thatcher - poor judgement

Author
Discussion

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Its been known for some while but is being repeated at a time when the Savile abuses scandal report is due for publication.
Despite numerous warnings from many advisers regarding savile. He was an un-convicted criminal involving prevalent sexual abuse of children and adults, however, the P.M. of the time pressed ahead with her recommendation for him to be Honoured with a Knighthood.
Obviously his 'good charity work' outweighing his sexually deviant activities must have had a major part to play in the judgement at that time. It indicates the obvious reality of the
Wealth = Power = Influence = Wealth. A system that is still so prevalent in politics and business today.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
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.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Come back when it turns out that she had been told he was a beast, and cracked on anyway.

Unconvicted means exactly that - as far as I know, he had not been arrested or questioned on it at all, so a few rumours and people keeing their own traps shut means that she and the Honours Committee had nothing to preclude his knighthood, regardless of how that looks.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
randlemarcus said:
Come back when it turns out that she had been told he was a beast, and cracked on anyway.

Unconvicted means exactly that - as far as I know, he had not been arrested or questioned on it at all, so a few rumours and people keeing their own traps shut means that she and the Honours Committee had nothing to preclude his knighthood, regardless of how that looks.
At the stage she was advised that he was a well known sex predator, advised by many of her trusted advisers, the advise was ignored. Its plain and simple, the report later will identify the eminent persons she chose to ignore. This was one of her unfortunate traits, she thought that it was her alone that was the all knowing all seeing, this infuriated her Cabinet. No matter how much you dislike the facts sometimes one has to recognise the truth of matters.
This is not a situation of hindsight.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
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.

And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
crankedup said:
randlemarcus said:
Come back when it turns out that she had been told he was a beast, and cracked on anyway.

Unconvicted means exactly that - as far as I know, he had not been arrested or questioned on it at all, so a few rumours and people keeing their own traps shut means that she and the Honours Committee had nothing to preclude his knighthood, regardless of how that looks.
At the stage she was advised that he was a well known sex predator, advised by many of her trusted advisers, the advise was ignored. Its plain and simple, the report later will identify the eminent persons she chose to ignore. This was one of her unfortunate traits, she thought that it was her alone that was the all knowing all seeing, this infuriated her Cabinet. No matter how much you dislike the facts sometimes one has to recognise the truth of matters.
This is not a situation of hindsight.
I wasn't aware that anyone had concrete evidence like you suggest, in the 80s. Where did you read that?

I'd love to know who her advisors were though, given that many of them may well have been no better than Saville. As we now know with hindsight............

ralphrj

3,507 posts

190 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
crankedup said:
At the stage she was advised that he was a well known sex predator, advised by many of her trusted advisers, the advise was ignored.
The advise she was given is publically available and I can find no reference to him being a "well known sexual predator".

The only reservations I can find are:

1. that the way he used a previous award (presumably his OBE in 1972) gave concerns that he would use a knighthood for self promotion purposes and undermine the honours system,
2. that the work he had done for Stoke Mandeville was worthy of a knighthood but that it would be better to wait until the project had finished before making an award,
3. that his claims of numerous sexual partners was unhelpful at the same time that the government was trying to warn the public of the risks of AIDS, and
3. that the "lurid revelations" in his 1983 interview in the Sun where he boasted of sleeping with women he met on charity marathons was still fresh in the minds of the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531


Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
crankedup said:
randlemarcus said:
Come back when it turns out that she had been told he was a beast, and cracked on anyway.

Unconvicted means exactly that - as far as I know, he had not been arrested or questioned on it at all, so a few rumours and people keeing their own traps shut means that she and the Honours Committee had nothing to preclude his knighthood, regardless of how that looks.
At the stage she was advised that he was a well known sex predator, advised by many of her trusted advisers, the advise was ignored. Its plain and simple, the report later will identify the eminent persons she chose to ignore. This was one of her unfortunate traits, she thought that it was her alone that was the all knowing all seeing, this infuriated her Cabinet. No matter how much you dislike the facts sometimes one has to recognise the truth of matters.
This is not a situation of hindsight.
It was in the printed media at the time and before his enoblement. There were threats of litigation, but these never came to fruition. The great and the good decided to ignore it.

It was the same with Cyril Smith. And as for the lorshipping of Archer, the character faults with that bloke were well known. One of her significant weaknesses was in the judgement of men.

turbobloke said:
Inkyfingers said:
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Correct.

And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.
As is the sycophantic turning of blind eyes.

I think the 20:20 is with regards her decision to ignore the sources she didn't like.

I'm not so sure that the advice will be in any report. That's not the way politics works, if works is the right word.


iphonedyou

9,234 posts

156 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
CrankedUp - enough with your threads. Please.

Troubleatmill

10,210 posts

158 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Does anyone really believe that top tier Government officials any spend time on "...ooh we must reward this celebrity... or that one...because they are popular.."

It will be some low-middle civil service lackie's job to come up with some candidates who are enjoying good TV audiences.
The PM/ Top Government official will just rubber stamp it - and turn up for the photo opportunity.




anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Thatcher? Again? Zzz

iphonedyou

9,234 posts

156 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Troubleatmill said:
Does anyone really believe that top tier Government officials any spend time on "...ooh we must reward this celebrity... or that one...because they are popular.."

It will be some low-middle civil service lackie's job to come up with some candidates who are enjoying good TV audiences.
The PM/ Top Government official will just rubber stamp it - and turn up for the photo opportunity.
CrankedUp does. But only for Conservative PMs, obviously.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
crankedup said:
randlemarcus said:
Come back when it turns out that she had been told he was a beast, and cracked on anyway.

Unconvicted means exactly that - as far as I know, he had not been arrested or questioned on it at all, so a few rumours and people keeing their own traps shut means that she and the Honours Committee had nothing to preclude his knighthood, regardless of how that looks.
At the stage she was advised that he was a well known sex predator, advised by many of her trusted advisers, the advise was ignored. Its plain and simple, the report later will identify the eminent persons she chose to ignore. This was one of her unfortunate traits, she thought that it was her alone that was the all knowing all seeing, this infuriated her Cabinet. No matter how much you dislike the facts sometimes one has to recognise the truth of matters.
This is not a situation of hindsight.
It was in the printed media at the time and before his enoblement. There were threats of litigation, but these never came to fruition. The great and the good decided to ignore it.

It was the same with Cyril Smith. And as for the lorshipping of Archer, the character faults with that bloke were well known. One of her significant weaknesses was in the judgement of men.

turbobloke said:
Inkyfingers said:
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Correct.

And tedious, baseless Thatcher bashing is always from predictable PH sources.
As is the sycophantic turning of blind eyes.

I think the 20:20 is with regards her decision to ignore the sources she didn't like.

I'm not so sure that the advice will be in any report. That's not the way politics works, if works is the right word.
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.


Edited by crankedup on Thursday 26th February 14:26

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
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.
rofl

fido

16,752 posts

254 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
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.
To be fair to the Iron Lady and any politician around in the 80s - they had some big issues to deal with .. the Cold War, de-industrialisation in the UK (and industrial action), financial de-regulation, Apartheid, Europe and a whole raft of major sh8t to deal with. So she made a few mistakes .. and surely handing over more powers to the EU was a bigger mistake than a couple of celebrity paedos who were shown round No.10.

Crankers, come on if Kinnock had won instead of Maggie - we'd still have Saville - but also a 70s-style nationalised economy that even the French would chuckle at.

Edited by fido on Thursday 26th February 14:33

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
fido 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.
To be fair to the Iron Lady and any politician around in the 80s - they had some big issues to deal with .. the Cold War, de-industrialisation in the UK (and industrial action), financial de-regulation, Apartheid, Europe and a whole raft of major sh8t to deal with. So she made a few mistakes .. and surely handing over more powers to the EU was a bigger mistake than a couple of celebrity paedos who were shown round No.10.

Crankers, come on if Kinnock had won instead of Maggie - we'd still have Saville - but also a 70s-style nationalised economy that even the French would chuckle at.

Edited by fido on Thursday 26th February 14:33
Kinnock winning that Election may have seen us in a far worse place, that much I can agree to. However, this does not excuse the Honouring of such a sexual predator. It was well known of his behaviour of that there is no doubt, to Honour that against the sound advise offered is astonishing. To be generous one could suggest a box ticking exercise.
In fairness its small beer compared to some of Blair & Browns howlers, but should not be erased from history imo.

randlemarcus

13,507 posts

230 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Don't get me wrong, I do think she was not above ignoring advice when it suited her, and I do think giving Saville an honour was the wrong decision, but because he was a frightful little man at the time, not because he was the PaedoGeneral.

Please feel free to point at the written advice that he was a sex pest.

crankedup

Original Poster:

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
randlemarcus said:
Don't get me wrong, I do think she was not above ignoring advice when it suited her, and I do think giving Saville an honour was the wrong decision, but because he was a frightful little man at the time, not because he was the PaedoGeneral.

Please feel free to point at the written advice that he was a sex pest.
We won't find any written advise regarding Saviles 'behaviour' from any Government source during Thatchers era. I think we all know that the man groomed many influential powerful people around himself, and of course his own wealth garnered power. Any 'ordinary' person who may have threatened him with legal action would have been on a loser. Who do you believe in court Savile the much loved charity worker and celebrity or jane doe, sad but true. Even BiB wouldn't go near him, presumebly because he may have called upon his 'friends in high places'. It is, as we now know, one of the reasons why he escaped justice.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
Of course Thatcher was the only prime minister to let saville...........











I would say he got near them all but I can't find the current prime minister nor John major though they too let their guards down sometimes






Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
randlemarcus said:
Don't get me wrong, I do think she was not above ignoring advice when it suited her, and I do think giving Saville an honour was the wrong decision, but because he was a frightful little man at the time, not because he was the PaedoGeneral.

Please feel free to point at the written advice that he was a sex pest.
I think you will find that the Eye pointed it out before his enoblement. One of the Sundays - I forget which - broke it first, or rather added the phrase 'well known radio entertainer'. Saville said he'd sue. I seem to remember this on a TV programme.

I suspect, no more than that, that she was trying for the popular vote. A sort of 'look at me I'm rather non-square'. Saville was popular with the young adults and what better way of aligning oneself with those who went to parties and bought long-playing records than by being seen with him.

It is bewildering though. If it was in the press, although more hinted at than specifics, then the MPs must have know a lot more. The odd thing is that the degree of abuse laid at his door was so great that many could not believe it. And it has turned out to be many times that level. And more.

But let's face it, everyone's entitled to a day off or so. Saville, Archer, poll tax: she was advised against all of these but went her own way. But then she was advised against fighting the Argentinians and the miners. I wonder if anyone advised her against allowing Murdoch to have half a dozen newspapers.

She wasn't faultless and any suggestion she was is something of a betrayal of what she did. She made critical decisions so would obviously have got some wrong.

I can't see the problem in accepting that she wasn't right all the time. I put her as one of the top two post war PMs we've had. This believing that she had made mistakes. I'm sure she put on her trousers one leg at a time.

Mind you, my belief in her took a knock with Desert Island Discs and Two Little Boys. That showed her weird side.