Margaret Thatcher to get full ceremonial funeral - have they gone mad?(211 Posts)
Its bloody disgraceful - a tory/establishment decision that insults many. We should riot in the streets on the same day.
I fear becuase she had a film made about her everyone has forgetten what she actually did - including devastating whole communities - and now we are expected to stump up for her lavish funeral?
(oh and she definietly wasn't a feminist icon either!)
the Scots have been offering to do that for years.
Heck bring her up north and folks would do it for free (and bring their own shovels)
Damn you compulsory competitive tendering!
<shakes fist at sky>
Well obviously the funeral should be opened up to private competition and the cheapest bid accepted.
I'd do it fir £50.
"it had been debated and agreed upon years ago"
Not by me.
Objecting in 2008 and objecting now are not mutually exclusive.
But as PigletJohn says, public objections are rarely taken into consideration. Doesn't mean we can't have an opinion now if our opinions were disregarded at the time.
tiggy, there have been MN posts for years about opposition a state-sponsored funeral for Thatcher.
Is the fact that public money is being spent on this less reprehensible than the fact that public money was spent on the Kate and Will wedding? The royals can be pretty divisive as well.
I think very few people are advocating riots, but quite a few of of will protest. If her family had a quiet funeral only for people who knew her personally and wanted to share their grief then of course I would not protest, but the minute her funeral becomes a vast affair, attended by foreign heads of state and funded by public money it has been politicised and I therefore feel perfectly justified in expressing my displeasure. And no, I will not show respect because in my view she didn't earn it.
I don't understand your point, tiggy
Are you under the mistaken impression that those who disliked Thatcher and her policies (of whom there are many millions) did not start to express their opposition to a state-funded ceremonial funeral until yesterday?
Or are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that the common people were allowed to have a say in it?
It is not a funeral, it is a state ceremony occasioned by a funeral. No-one would object to a private funeral.
How many people are advocating riots? What is 'vile' about suggesting there are better ways to spend money than celebrating the political legacy of such a divisive figure?
The outpouring of vile comments on this post has really shocked me. Her family are grieving and we seem more concerned with venting our anger and rioting at her funeral? We may or may not have liked her views and what she stood for but show some respect people. Also are the current shower of shit we have in place doing a better job !Hmmmmm lets think about that one then.
There is never an excuse for being disrespectful at someone's funeral
As I have said before, the issue is not with the funeral - a private event would be entirley different. A publically-funded 'ceremonial funeral' is more than a funeral. It is a public event. By having a public event where none is needed, this is inviting public participation.
You concede that it is an 'important occasion' - I assume you don't just mean for the friends and family of the deceased? So you agree that it is more than a funeral.
I will say this again - protests would not be about the funeral they would be about the cost and because people disagree with having the funeral as a public event.
And rather than just go on the stories of the strikes that caused power cuts etc, read social policy books as to why the strikes were taking place. Ask why it has taken so long to have maternity and paternity rights in the UK and all the other possible legislation that was ignored because society didn't exist, just individuals.
It isn't about being disrespectful at someone's funeral, it is a protest against public money funding it. There were parties around the country last night and police officers were injured trying to break them up, if they want a re-run of the riots then they are doing everything that they need to, to ensure this happens. Do I want her paid as little respect as the dying and dead at Hillsborough? I'm not sure, tbh.
badtime, why do you feel that there is any excuse to be disrespectful? If you don't agree with it, then don't go. There is never an excuse for being disrespectful at someone's funeral.
There are many things that are passed by governments that I don't agree with. The arguments are done, both sides present their point of view, and decisions are made. Some I agree with, others I don't. I have never voted for the current ruling political party in my country, and never will. But in a democracy, you don't always get what you want. I have met the current PM, who is someone I don't agree with most of their politics and stances on most issues, but I still respected the office and the person.
A bunch of protesters disrupting important occasions will rarely get any respect for their position or for themselves.
If her family want her to have a dignified ceremony where only people who loved her are present, then it's very simple. They can pay for her to have a private funeral with private security and still invite whichever heads of state they like.
If the family agree to her having a public funeral, paid for by taxpayers and with taxpayer-funded police and armed forces security, then it becomes an issue about which the public are entitled to an opinion.
Well, if this thread is reflective of public opinion, she was certainly a very divisive figure. I'm not against ceremonial funerals. I just think it's unwise to hold one for a person who can elicit so much bad feeling even after so many years. And eight million is a modest figure. What will it cost in terms of policing and security? I'm not sure BTW if we should respect people for the courage of their convictions. I'd rather admire someone for both.
I know that it is virtually impossible to achieve more than 50 % of votes in an election. I included the comment about votes in response to the posts above which implied that the fact that she won three elections suggested most people were in favour of her being prime minister. My point is (and it applies to pretty much every government, including the present one ) that more people voted against her than in favour of her, regardless of the fact that no single other party won more votes individually.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.