Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ciriuslea

maggie's Funeral

50 posts in this topic

What i can't wait for is Tony Blair's fulsome tribute. That'll be something to record, I bet.

"She was... the people's ... PM."

* I wonder how much Security there'll be? I wonder if the Common People will be allowed anywhere near to show their respects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To be honest I will be glad when she is in the ground so people can stop going on about it.

How many threads are there on it now?

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's wrong that the taxpayer has to pay for her funeral. No offence but whenever anyone else dies.There families pay for it.

So i'm totally against it. Where supposed to be in a recession and they have 2-10m to spend on a military funeral-for a politician

( That without being disrespectful wasn't terribly well liked)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's wrong that the taxpayer has to pay for her funeral. No offence but whenever anyone else dies.There families pay for it.

So i'm totally against it. Where supposed to be in a recession and they have 2-10m to spend on a military funeral-for a politician

( That without being disrespectful wasn't terribly well liked)

As has been pointed out a number of times now, her family ARE paying for the funeral. The government is paying for security and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R.I.P. Ma'am

See you on the over side Mrs T. x

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's wrong that the taxpayer has to pay for her funeral. No offence but whenever anyone else dies.There families pay for it.

So i'm totally against it. Where supposed to be in a recession and they have 2-10m to spend on a military funeral-for a politician

( That without being disrespectful wasn't terribly well liked)

Its the opposition that is saying that, though they would have not said it if it was a Labour leader Prime Minister.

And the people who protest are just being greedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the opposition that is saying that, though they would have not said it if it was a Labour leader Prime Minister.

And the people who protest are just being greedy

Let's be honest, the only one that's likely to warrant anything like this kind of attention would be Mr. Tony, and I think we can guarantee that feelings would be equally divided there..

no, actually, I think you'd probably find it difficult to find anyone who still admired him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the opposition that is saying that, though they would have not said it if it was a Labour leader Prime Minister.

And the people who protest are just being greedy

No it isnt... Harold Wilson also won 3 elections, but he had a simple burial without all of the Pomp and Circumstance that this Woman had decreed pre-mortem.

She divided the Nation along Class Lines, used unemployment as her "tool of choice" (backed by North Sea Oil revenues to pay for the Unemployment payments) . Sir Winston Churchil earned his Right to a State Funeral, not so Maggie Thatcher.

She squandered the UK's wealth to promote her Politics (Conservative Party politics), and where is the UK now - dependent on Invisible Trade, ruled by the Banks....

It will only get worse,

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isnt... Harold Wilson also won 3 elections, but he had a simple burial without all of the Pomp and Circumstance that this Woman had decreed pre-mortem.

She divided the Nation along Class Lines, used unemployment as her "tool of choice" (backed by North Sea Oil revenues to pay for the Unemployment payments) . Sir Winston Churchil earned his Right to a State Funeral, not so Maggie Thatcher.

She squandered the UK's wealth to promote her Politics (Conservative Party politics), and where is the UK now - dependent on Invisible Trade, ruled by the Banks....

It will only get worse,

what wealth the UK was a laughing stock in the 1970's. three prime ministers never tackled the problems. at least Thatcher came to office seen what needed doing and done it. - no more 3 day working work. no more power cuts in Thatchers time. unions broken no longer able to hold the country and economy to ransom. - fact is more coal mines were closed down under labour than Thatcher but no one mentions that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what wealth the UK was a laughing stock in the 1970's. three prime ministers never tackled the problems. at least Thatcher came to office seen what needed doing and done it. - no more 3 day working work. no more power cuts in Thatchers time. unions broken no longer able to hold the country and economy to ransom. - fact is more coal mines were closed down under labour than Thatcher but no one mentions that.

I do agree that she can't really be blamed for the decline in british Industry; I think really, the Labour govts. that nationalised them and then were so dependent on the support of the Unions that they'd bend over backwards for them are to blame for that. To get the burden off those off the taxpayer was the only thing to do. But having done that, she then seemed to feel that Free Market Economics could be applied to everything, however inappropriate, and the mania for Privatisation of absolutely everything- services that in most other European countries are still state-owned - that was, I think, just pure dogma. I think the problem really was that she was one of those people who had very strong beliefs and principles, and while personally that may well be a virtue, when it comes to the business of running a Country, a business which needs some pragmatism and the ability to recognise that they same principle wasn't necessarily right for every situation, it can be a liability. That, I think, was what was the problem with her ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the people who protest are just being greedy

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know. Maybe because you've been living under a rock? And, no, we're still skint. Courtesy of pretty much every PM for decades, from both parties. Basically what the deal means is that we're 70 bn less in debt than we would be otherwise. Not that we have it just sitting around. Remember, the deal was struck when Thatcher was in power and we've had insane spending for most of the last governments time in office.

You want to know why the funeral can't be paid for with this 70 bn? Cos labour already spent it.

I can't imagine what would happen if she hadn't struck that so called deal.We would have had all the Remploy factories closing down.Not just a select few because we are not all VIP's like Thatcher.However didn't you catch Circuslea's litany of disasters and poor decision making?We could be losing £70 billion and counting with all that carry-on.So it's a root point when I referred to Remploy.I like to add to that list that she might have had an hand in the Hillsborough cover-up.Though it's a tentative might have.

These middle-class teenage girls on the radio were heard singing Thatcher's praises.They have never had it so good because their parents wern't in the firing line.My idea of decorum is turning my back on the funeral cortège if I had the unlikely inclination of turning up so I'll stay under my rock.And that Katherine Jenkins is getting on my nerves as well.She's an absolute traitor and turncoat to her fellow Welshmen.I am well in my right in calling her an establishment whore.Even in this day and age the scars run deep in the valleys.It dosn't matter if she encourages the Welsh rugby fans to have a singalong at a six nations match.

Though I understand all of the ten million isn't just for ceremonial purposes.Despite everything I said I don't want a bloodbath.So that's why the security is in place and taking a little chunk of the costs.

Edited by G Donnelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out a number of times now, her family ARE paying for the funeral. The government is paying for security and such.

Just WHAT the tax payer is paying for in regards to her funeral is irrelevant, the tax payer still has a right to an opinion and to protest the huge amounts of money used in such a manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they would have not said it if it was a Labour leader Prime Minister.

I'd like to see some evidence for this assumption, I don't think the funeral is the issue only that tax payers are paying for it, but I do think if the Gov wasn't using the fact we are in so much debt to justify so much austerity...then it might not have been such an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine what would happen if she hadn't struck that so called deal.We would have had all the Remploy factories closing down.Not just a select few because we are not all VIP's like Thatcher.However didn't you catch Circuslea's litany of disasters and poor decision making?We could be losing £70 billion and counting with all that carry-on.So it's a root point when I referred to Remploy.

I read his list, disagree with it. She built the foundations for what could have made us a truly great country again by abandoning the failing industries and setting us up to become a major player in the finance industry. The fact that subsequent politicians failed to develop it and bank employees exploited this can only loosely be placed at her door. To get a new industry going, you relax regulations to encourage companies to base themselves in you country then you tighten them again once they're in.She never got chance to do that last step.

I like to add to that list that she might have had an hand in the Hillsborough cover-up.Though it's a tentative might have.

Do the words 'innocent until proven guilty' mean anything to you? If it's a tentative might have, it doesn't belong in any serious debate.

These middle-class teenage girls on the radio were heard singing Thatcher's praises.They have never had it so good because their parents wern't in the firing line.My idea of decorum is turning my back on the funeral cortège if I had the unlikely inclination of turning up so I'll stay under my rock.

For that, you have my respect. IMO, the correct response if you disagreed with her is not to attend the funeral or acknowledge it, just as you did. The people I have no respect for are those celebrating her death or booing a funeral procession.

And that Katherine Jenkins is getting on my nerves as well.She's an absolute traitor and turncoat to her fellow Welshmen.I am well in my right in calling her an establishment whore.Even in this day and age the scars run deep in the valleys.It dosn't matter if she encourages the Welsh rugby fans to have a singalong at a six nations match.

She gets on mine too. More because I don't like her singing than anything political but hey ho.

Though I understand all of the ten million isn't just for ceremonial purposes.Despite everything I said I don't want a bloodbath.So that's why the security is in place and taking a little chunk of the costs.

Just out of interest, what do you think the other costs are that the government is paying for?

Just WHAT the tax payer is paying for in regards to her funeral is irrelevant, the tax payer still has a right to an opinion and to protest the huge amounts of money used in such a manner.

Sure, you have the right to protest. It would happen anyway as both the main parties were in agreement on it and your protest would cost yet more money for security. In the unlikely event that you got your way, the funeral would go ahead, the crowds would be there and there'd be no security. As G Donnelly said, it would be a bloodbath, one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from a mining family, but where I come from in the North of England we do not disrespect the dead.Some of the hate comments are from really pathetic people.You may hate some one when they are alive,but you can no longer hate them when they've gone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, what do you think the other costs are that the government is paying for?

Like I already mentioned, specifics are irrelevant, but we shall get to know just how much the tax payer contributed when the Gov publishes the cost, and now doubt we shall also know what it was spent on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, you have the right to protest. It would happen anyway as both the main parties were in agreement on it and your protest would cost yet more money for security. In the unlikely event that you got your way, the funeral would go ahead, the crowds would be there and there'd be no security. As G Donnelly said, it would be a bloodbath, one way or another.

What it WOULD be is an opinion,

Put it this way If all those who wanted the funeral being as close to a state funeral as possible without actually being a state funeral had dug deep to pay for it, and Osborne hadn't just paid the bills from the state bank account, I don't think people would have been bothered half as much.

Apparently the Thatcher estate could easily have paid for it.....so why didn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am from a mining family, but where I come from in the North of England we do not disrespect the dead.Some of the hate comments are from really pathetic people.You may hate some one when they are alive,but you can no longer hate them when they've gone.

I don't hate anyone, and like earlier stated I was far too young to have an opinion on Thatchers Gov and the impact on British people at the time

But the official cost will be announced soon enough, and I think in the current climate with so much focus on austerity, cuts to most public services, I think the Gov have to be more accountable to the tax payer for the money they spend, that goes for foreign aid, art installations, pompous ceremonies..etc etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate anyone, and like earlier stated I was far too young to have an opinion on Thatchers Gov and the impact on British people at the time

But the official cost will be announced soon enough, and I think in the current climate with so much focus on austerity, cuts to most public services, I think the Gov have to be more accountable to the tax payer for the money they spend, that goes for foreign aid, art installations, pompous ceremonies..etc etc etc.

But without the 'pompous ceremonies' how would members of the establishment get on camera showing their 'serious statesman' expressions.And their wives have to wear their new hats somewhere when Ascot isn't on.

It was one of Blair and his missus's best days when the Queen Mother snuffed it...lots of lovely photo opportunities looking sombre....Nearly as good as Princess Di's spectacle.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it WOULD be is an opinion,

Put it this way If all those who wanted the funeral being as close to a state funeral as possible without actually being a state funeral had dug deep to pay for it, and Osborne hadn't just paid the bills from the state bank account, I don't think people would have been bothered half as much.

Apparently the Thatcher estate could easily have paid for it.....so why didn't it ?

I think, as i said, they were willing to, but it was Mr. Cameroon that decided that he should pay proper homage to his illustrious predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I already mentioned, specifics are irrelevant, but we shall get to know just how much the tax payer contributed when the Gov publishes the cost, and now doubt we shall also know what it was spent on.

No offence but I wasn't actually asking you. Another poster stated that security was a very small chunk of the cost so I was asking what they imagine all the rest to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hate anyone, and like earlier stated I was far too young to have an opinion on Thatchers Gov and the impact on British people at the time

But the official cost will be announced soon enough, and I think in the current climate with so much focus on austerity, cuts to most public services, I think the Gov have to be more accountable to the tax payer for the money they spend, that goes for foreign aid, art installations, pompous ceremonies..etc etc etc.

Win lose or draw,the British Public love ceremonial occasions,without bringing Politics into the equasion.Any excuse to have a parade,a march past,or trooping the Horseguards etc.but not only the Brits like this, the tourist trade think its wonderfull,and I wouldn't mind betting that its brought in a million or two in foreign spending money,so offsetting that against the cost of a few Soldiers on duty the cost to the taxpayer wont be that excessive,with 20% V.A.T been charged on everything sellable from icecream to petrol the Gov't has probably made a Huge profit from this funeral.I would happily spend £1 in tax if it brings in £20 foreign revenue.Pomp and circumstance is what makes Britain Different from the rest of the world so lets all quit moaning about how much it costs.I pay tax on my pension which is a lot more than can be said about half the moaners who are on Benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so lets all quit moaning

good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.