Thatcher - poor judgement
Discussion
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.
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.
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.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.
This is not a situation of hindsight.
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.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.
This is not a situation of hindsight.
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.
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.
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
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.Hindsight is always 20/20.
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
In fairness its small beer compared to some of Blair & Browns howlers, but should not be erased from history imo.
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.Please feel free to point at the written advice that he was a sex pest.
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.andymadmak said:
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.
As for other politicians, fully agree but the likes of Blair are pulled out on a regular basis for a revulsion thread by the Labour Party haters on this forum, so a little balance occasionally is needed imo.
Murph7355 said:
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.
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.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!
ATG said:
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.
Well then why don't you try some honest criticism?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
fblm said:
crankedup said:
I think you're over frothing, try to keep things in perspective!
The problem is, your previous posts about Thatcher; that she destroyed British Manufacturing, that she destroyed coal mining, that she destroyed your export industries, that she is responsible for the current price of houses, are all so easily shown to be utter bilge that you've finally switched to a smear that can't be so trivially dissproved. The lack of evidence is clear proof of a cover up right? That would be smart if you hadn't already shown your rather tragic hand. In the run up to the electorate finally flushing the LibDems down the toilet of history in a few months can we expect more of this sad, spurious, flailing?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.
otolith said:
People like Saville don't get awards because the government thinks they deserve them, they get them because the government thinks that the public think they deserve them. Was Saville's award unpopular with the public at the time?
Come off it, utter nonsense especially during the time frame involving Thatcher. Otherwise, to coin the so loved phrase in here, show me you're evidence! 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
jogger1976 said:
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...
This will make an interesting read for sure. Within the publicity for the book the author alludes to Saviles connections with Police hierarchy as well as his closeness with Royal's. 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...
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.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!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff