To think that it's perfectly fine to be pleased someone is dead when they caused such a lot of harm?

[LoopaDaLoopa]

So, all these people saying it is inappropriate to speak ill of the dead are all positive and nice about Pol Pot are they? Stalin? Hitler?

Just because someone dies does not make them a nice person.

And did you feel sorry for Saddam Hussain's family? Or did it not cross your mind?

Thatcher wasn't the only person who felt bitter at watching prisoners walk free, from both sides. She may not have liked some of the ins and outs of the agreement that followed thirteen years later, but the AI agreement still opened dialogue between the two countries. Not only that, it gave the Republic a say in the running of NI. But she paid the price by alienating Ulster Unionists, traditionally one of her staunchest allies.

She also made some pretty catastrophic mistakes, but we've got the benefit of hindsight here. If you believe Gerry Adams it was a war- that's not easy territory for any leader to try and navigate.

Sudoku the housing shortage is at least a big part due to the awful planning system in this country, which favours big developments by big developers in zoned areas on the edges of existing settlements which only they can afford to develop. Luxury properties have a higher profit margin than lower cost builds.

Its also incredibly expensive to self build in this country due to plot rarity and cost, when compared to other European countries such as Belgium.

I'd like to see 1/5 of all new builds allocated as self build only...

I'm here. Different time zone is all. Bemused by the assertion that I must be a teenager simply for disagreeing with some of you. I've seen those tactics used by certain posters before, designed to patronise others into submission. It's silly and I feel pity that you Abel you have to stoop to that level.

On reflection, however, after discussing this at length last night and thinking about some of the more thoughtful posts on this thread, I have changed my view a little.

I was unaware of any public displays of celebration, and do agree that is made crass by the fact that she has been powerless for so long, much in the same way as Gadafi. I still think it is everyone's right to feel any emotion, and relief when someone you intensely dislike dies is perfectly legitimate. I agree, however, that pleasure is different from relief, and that celebration should be reserved for those whose actions are stopped by their deaths.

On the matter of Hitler Nd Savile, it would have given many people a great deal more satisfaction, I a sure, had they lived to stand trial.

In what way was Gaddafi "powerless for so long" and comparable to a very elderly, retired, ill and confused woman?

He was a tyrant who was killed, on the run, during the civil war in which he was deposed. Given the chance, he would still have been trying to lead his followers in bloody battle and forcing himself back into power. Instead his opponents found him and killed him.

Not really the same, at all.

I'm sorry, I do feel like a dick now, I mean the Lockerbie bomber, not Gadafi. Can't remember his name right now...

Al-megrahi, that's it. I absolutely do deserved the pasting for being ill-informed mown, I appreciate that. blush

...except Mrs T was a democratically elected leader

So was Hitler.

I hate myself for agreeing with Russell Brand.

Nice guy. Whilst not agreeing with Labour Policies at the moment, in what way are the Tories 'continuing to tame the deficit' spending has increased year on year. We are no less in debt than when they took power.

Btw, Hitler was NOT elected.
He was 2nd and was appointed chancellor by the president as the coalition government wasn't working.
And this led to the creation of a dictatorship.
He did work under the cover of legitimacy but working his way towards becoming a dictator.

Just to add to "the Hitler was democratically elected bit", as said it's a slight twist of the facts, Germany had a form of PR and after his tactics and a failed coup the Nazi party became the largest party in germany, but still way short of sufficient numbers to form a majority. Hitler was appointed chancellor in 33, a year after the election, and then had an act passed that gave him dictatorial control, and never having to face another election. He then rigged the parliament to replace it with his own supporters. Thatcher OTOH, faced 3 elections and won them all.

Oh and if any quotes the "there is no society" comment, try reading the rest of that part of the speech to give it some context, for those who are hard of googling, here it is:-

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ?I have a problem, it is the Government?s job to cope with it!? or ?I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!? ?I am homeless, the Government must house me!? and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first? There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

I would be hard pressed to find many people who disagree

Yes boobywash but MT herself was sad that that those she enriched did not "help by their own efforts those who are unfortunate" E.G. The bankers and wealthy tax dodgers.

sorry for changing your name!!! bobbywash

ppeatfruit Just wondered what you were thinking off with the name change,
That's exactly the point of the society speech, it is not soley the responsibility of Government, they can engineer a position, but it still takes the will of the people to do it, and clearly from some there is no will.

It's important not to let the press and media rewrite history over the coming days, painting Thatcher as some sort of beatific great leader on a par with Churchill ... although judging by some of the responses on this thread it seems like they already did a good job of that.

Framey I agree but she was an odd woman in that she talked about becoming green and helping the environment (due to her scientific background) but many of her policies were carbon heavy e.g. encouraging car ownership; she said that loosers went on buses. grrrrr

I'm so sorry that I did such a bad job of this thread.

Why Loopa ? we had a good discussion (it was quite calm for M.N.!! )

MT herself was sad that that those she enriched did not "help by their own efforts those who are unfortunate"

The thing is, human greed is always going to be there. Even in communist USSR, there were some comrades who were more equal than others.....

Don't feel too badly about it loopy. I got the gist of what you were saying, even if others didn't.

And I've never felt it was a good idea to starve people of the oxygen of publicity

Or loopa even

I don't know why anyone would question the connections you drew to people like Pinochet and Pol Pot. Her support for the Khmer Rouge and Pinochet's regime is well documented.

Charles Moore, ex-editor of the Telegraph, was on R4 just now expressing surprise that Labour speeches about her in Parliament today were inoffensive. He made special reference to Ed Miliband's speech, which was respectful but accurate.

Anyone would think he was disappointed.

He also whinged about the Labour MPs who stayed away. Fewer than half Labour MPs did that. Sky News attempted to goad the MP for Rotherham who did so, sorry to her but I've forgotten her name, and to her credit she gave a measured response.