Ding dong the Witch is dead

Screamapillar

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

Scream Michael Jackson wasn't convicted but neither was Jimmy Savile, however he had the same background and history, he also paid millions to keep things away from the law by all accounts, so why do we think this acceptable? Clear double standards.

 

There are no double standards Nick. Jimmy Savile was also, in his lifetime, never convicted of anything. Therefore the BBC had no reason to ban him or his programmes - they even aired a tribute immediately after his death. Remember it was a year before all these allegations came out.

Gaty Glitter was convicted, that's the difference. 

Whatever you think of the theory of "no smoke without fire" an organisation like the BBC doesn't act on rumour. And rightly so. 

[Deleted User]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnToK3kSKKg

Great song. 

Philomena Cunk

Trust you to jump on the bandwaggon rickster

Philomena Cunk

too true kk

RicF

Who knows?

After all, some time after Oliver Cromwell's death his corpse was dug up and 'hanged'.

[Deleted User]

kittenkat wrote (see)

Question: Why is this all such a debate now? Like or loathe the policies, it's history, it can't be changed and neither can any legacy good or bad.

An old lady has died, that's about it. What does this achieve?

well said kk. 

Screamapillar

 

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

Scream refusing to act on rumour and failing to act when people are aware of the truth are two different things, too much of what the BBC didn't act on was about protecting careers would you stand by and say nothing?

I wouldn't stand by and say nothing, no. But your original point was that the BBC had banned Gary Glitter songs and not Michael Jackson's and my reply was to that. 

You've changed the debate into something else entirely.

[Deleted User]

Hope Mrs Thatcher is a cremation then, wouldn't put it past some sicko to think they should be allowed to 'express their feelings' by trying to dig her up again.

RicF

Miffi wrote (see)

Hope Mrs Thatcher is a cremation then, wouldn't put it past some sicko to think they should be allowed to 'express their feelings' by trying to dig her up again.

 

The remains of Eva Peron are buried 5 metres down for that very reason.

Philomena Cunk

I really think it would be in bad taste to dig her up, take off her head and shit down her neck. That would be sick. Totally against it.

XFR Bear

I doubt she's being cremated.

 

The lady's not for burning

Strangely Brown

EKGO wrote (see)

No great policies, no great ideas carried out. Just a person determined to be divisive who succeeded in that aim.

Now that post really has got me scratching my head!

Runnin man

Don't get splinters will you

Barkles

tbh I'll be glad when this is all over-with.

Barkles

Having said that.. I have been reseraching quotes, to see if she really did say some of those things, or whether it us urban myth.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

Unknown

I think that quote is much mis-represented. Thank you for giving a little more of the context.

Unknown

I do have to smile at the "divisive" thing.

As someone on "any questions" said, "as if" what we had when she came to power was a happy united nation with good relations between workers and management, or between social classes.  It got a laugh on any questions, from those who remember those days. How things were before she was elected is one of the many parts of the story that the left airbrush out.

Strangely Brown

Barkles wrote (see)

Having said that.. I have been reseraching quotes, to see if she really did say some of those things, or whether it us urban myth.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

More importantly. it's followed by this:

"And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour."

 

It's probably one of the most misunderstood - or purposely misunderstood - quotes of all time.  What she's actually trying to say is that governments cannot and should not sort all of societies ills out.  If we look out for ourselves and each other, we can achieve far more than a government ever could.  It's actually promoting the idea of community and of believing in people, in ourselves and not being a pawn in the government's grand game.  Totally the reverse of what most folk try and make it out to say.

This bit alone "It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour." is strangely never quoted in isolation, without it's context.  Yet "There's no such thing as society" always is.  Odd that, don't you think?  It tells you all you need to know about Thatcher and her detractors, they will rarely, if ever, provide you with a balanced and fair assessment of the lady.  The rhetoric is almost always design to besmirch as much as possible.  It's scant wonder that there are 20 year olds growing up today with a totally warped view of the woman.

 

popsider

Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)

a person who counted General Pinochet and Jimmy Savile as personal friends   

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that Jimmy Savile bears an uncanny resemblance to Carol Thatcher.   It does make you wonder.

Barkles

Yep, context is everything!

 

 

Strangely Brown

Thanks so much Nick, so glad you're here to set me straight