Privatise Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

DeletedUser

I highly resent that, I'm a historian and in more ways that you would think. I could infact upload the extended essay I did recently on The importance of the War at Sea during WWI but I can't really be bothered to sort though my stuff and find it.

Fair play.

As for whether she was a nice person. No, she was not technically speaking a nice person. She did some pretty horrible things in her time. However, she did what she believed was necessary to bring the country out of recession. And hell it worked didn't it? If we'd have carried on the way we were going with no change, who knows where we could have ended up. Yes there were other paths out, but she chose one and stuck to it. For that, I don't necessarily like her, but I respect her.

Wrong, she destroyed Britain's manufacturing industry, she deregulated the banking industry (which lead to our current economic crisis, she wrecked the stable housing market by getting rid of most of our mutual building societies (who lent more sensibly than the banks) and of course destroyed the mining industry.
You call that stabilising the economy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser35238

Show some respect to a dead woman/mother/sister/auntie/grandmother.
She had the balls to send our forces to the falklands, when the damn argies thought they would invade an island we have controlled since before there was an argentina,
Maggie thatcher is not hated by all here in england, only the northern monkeys crying about their mines shutting down,
R.I.P maggie thatcher, biggest pair of balls in the uk for decades
 

DeletedUser31931

No, but I call that getting us out of a mess that we'd landed in. Yes it was short term and is having repercussions out but that's partially to do with the ignorance of some governments. As for the destruction of Britain's industries, yes they were ruined, but that allowed for other more versatile industries to spring up. I don't call it stabilising the economy, but I do call it a success. Yes she made some wrong decisions (most importantly the one about the building societies), however, we have all made bad choices and also the prime minister can't get everything right (as our last three Prime Ministers have all proved).
 

DeletedUser

Show some respect to a dead woman/mother/sister/auntie/grandmother.
She had the balls to send our forces to the falklands, when the damn argies thought they would invade an island we have controlled since before there was an argentina,
Maggie thatcher is not hated by all here in england, only the northern monkeys crying about their mines shutting down,
R.I.P maggie thatcher, biggest pair of balls in the uk for decades

Excuse me? She deserves no respect. 'only the northern monkeys crying about their mines shutting down' yeah, damn those crybabies, all sad because their jobs were lost, their economies collapsed and generally because their lives were ruined. 'when the damn argies thought they would invade an island we have controlled since before there was an argentina' Pfft, you haven't read a history book have you? Go read the thread I linked to a couple of posts ago. Dude! Take off those Daily Mail tinted specs you're wearing and look around.

No, but I call that getting us out of a mess that we'd landed in. Yes it was short term and is having repercussions out but that's partially to do with the ignorance of some governments.

Governments are all ignorant, but Thatcher's was one of the worst. Like you said, she looked for a short term solution (that destroyed thousands of people's livelihoods).

As for the destruction of Britain's industries, yes they were ruined, but that allowed for other more versatile industries to spring up.

Before Thatcher came to power there were 174 mines in the UK. After she left office there was 6. Her effects are still being felt today in certain parts of the country.

I don't call it stabilising the economy, but I do call it a success. Yes she made some wrong decisions (most importantly the one about the building societies),

You call that a success?

however, we have all made bad choices

Yeah but the bad choices I've made in my life barely compare in magnitude to the choices she made.

and also the prime minister can't get everything right (as our last three Prime Ministers have all proved).

I'm not saying that she was the only useless Prime Minister we've ever had, far from it. They're all useless bags of shallow words.
 

DeletedUser

Show some respect to a dead woman/mother/sister/auntie/grandmother.

No, not happening. Just because she's now died doesn't change what she did to us, and I have no more respect for her now than I did when she was alive. She used the police force as her private army to break the unions. It was a victory for Fascism against Democracy, and it was an unforgivable thing to do to this nation. What she and her successive governments did was deeply wrong, I am glad she is dead, and it would be hypocrisy to pretend I feel differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbddqXib814&feature=related
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

Yeah I’ve got to agree, its funny how a lot of people have suddenly developed pro Tory / Thatcher sentiments just because she's died, extolling these "virtues" of hers in order to highlight their own political views and agenda's (Stood up to Europe? like that’s not a current hot topic :rolleyes:)
Her policies and those of her government have caused us a lot of damage so I am not going to change my political views just because she has died, yet on the other hand I am not going to throw a party and dance in the street singing Ding dong the witch is dead because that is just plain wrong and shouldn't be done over anybodies death regardless of what they did.
As for the destruction of Britain's industries, yes they were ruined, but that allowed for other more versatile industries to spring up.
Would you care to name some of these new versatile industries? because speaking from first hand experience I can tell you that when I worked for a company assembling farm machinery that the parts were made in Poland and the body work was welded together in Portugal so all we did was bolt it together like a large Mechano kit.
Honestly I do not know of any form of industry/manufacturing being done within this country that wasn't being done before.
 

DeletedUser

Honestly I do not know of any form of industry/manufacturing being done within this country that wasn't being done before.

Amen to that, braetwalda! Financial services, armaments and torture equipment are now three of our biggest exports. Makes you proud to be British, hey.

added at edit: I forgot about pharmaceuticals. That is a genuine example of an export industry we still excel at, and I add it here.

Meanwhile Thatcher's children have killed off our coal, steel, ship-building, pottery, automotive industries, to name just a few. Social housing stock is at an all-time low, we have something close to five million unemployed (and no, the overwhelming majority aren't "benefit scroungers", they are people desperate to find work and make lives for themselves and their children), our children can't afford to go to university without getting into debt to the government, and we have no apprenticeships for those young people that need them. But hey, more capitalism is the answer, right? Hey ho.

Thatcher's government introduced VAT; a form of indirect taxation that hits the poorest disproportionately hard, yet the tories continue to repeat their mantra of low taxation being a goal. What they don't say is that they only mean that for the rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eY0bJzKxA8

"So did you think it right, to let them rob you right and left, and never make a fight?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

I can name the one industry that replaced it all, greed and gambling or to give it its right name.

Banking and finance.

She oversaw the deregulation of the financial system between commercial speculation hedge funds and private depository banking.

Sold off services and industry to overseas investors and practically *****d out the country to encourage investment from overseas at the expense of long term repayments, an insolvent banking system and too big to fail financial institutions that have practically got the country by the short n curlies. Its all gone, forever.

On her watch the city of London became and still is the countries main source of income. without it we are in a place that makes a creek with no paddle seem rather attractive.

The money flowed with cheap credit no one could afford to pay later and raised the standards of the living in the south at the total expense and destruction of the rest of the country.

I do not disagree the unions had to be curtailed and many things done but there was never any solution to the problem just destroy them.

Reforms are all very well but with nothing to fill the gap, no jobs, no industry, no plan and no interest other than a personal agenda bordering on dictatorial not many will shed a tear, and the sick propagandist bs being thrown about now fools me not one bit.

The legacy of Thatcher was short term gain for long term destruction, the UK is in a far worse state now than ever before, no small amount thanks to the witch.

The attitude Thatcher had on Europe was rather amusing, she was very anti Euro which I happen to be also but the funny part is she abolished apprenticeships which all but guaranteed the need to import skills form abroad and dependency on overseas, this was done purely and solely to enable business to compete by paying sub standard wages. Not a care for the long term stability or employability of much of the nation so recently thrown onto the benefit system.

As to the pathetic reference to northern monkeys it is rather ignorant childish and incorrect to assume the south thinks any different. I happen to be a Londoner, grew up in her term and watched it all unfold.

What started as as a reform turned into a personal agenda that changed everything here forever, we have been paying that price in many forms ever since... she created the north south divide, she allowed the rise of casino banking that has us totally insolvent, she destroyed the apprenticeships so respected. She turned normal people into police haters mistrusting and bitter.

Yes the UK was in trouble at the time she came into power but by the time she left the heart and soul of the country had been torn out and thrown away. This nation lost its honesty, integrity and will to work hard, not through choice but force.

She spawned the benefit generation by the actions of her government and ever since successive governments have just been encouraging state dependency more and more. Now they are taking it away but this time theres nowhere to go, nowhere to work and with no skills.

I highly resented the woman then and see no reason to change my opinion now just because she is dead.

We can go into the gun running son if you like all on the back of good old mums contacts
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser31931

What about technology? During the Thatcher era (of course, it wasn't actually due to any input from her at the earlier stages aside from, oh I dunno, giving BBC the funding to get a contract to get an easy to program computer that can go into schools and homes and get people programming and make Britain computer literate.) Did it work? Hell yes. For about five years in history, Britain was the most computer literate country in the world. Where does this all fit in?
Video games. Two of the big selling series have come from Britain (not to mention that other video games have but these are really the two you are most likely to have heard of.) GTA (yes it's Scotland, but for now Scotland's British) and Tomb Raider, which oh wait, they just released getting rave reviews and sold brilliantly. Now then, if children had grown to be miners just like their dad, they wouldn't have programmed, they wouldn't have started making games and eventually became the programmers that helped make Britain an industry that now brings in more revenue than either the Cinema and the Music industry.

My thanks to Grand Theives and Tomb Raiders for that info. (yes, to get it, I read a book :eek: shock horror (I was reading the book already))
 

DeletedUser

Oh sure yeah, that totally makes up for Section 28, the destruction of the north, the Falklands War, the deregulation of the banking industry (not baking industry, you're not gonna get me this time Joseph Malone! :p ), the poll tax, the wreckage of the housing market and the general obliteration of British industry! Yes, the British video game market is the third largest in the world, yes, it generated 5,2 billion last year but does that really make up for Thatcher's mistakes, most notably the deregulation of the banking industry that has led to our current recession?
 

DeletedUser31931

No, but she wasn't all bad and to be honest, at the end of the day, at least the government didn't collapse and anarchy take hold. That's got to be some form of success. :D

In all seriousness though, if what she did was so horribly terribly wrong, what would you have done? How would you have solved all the problems?
 

DeletedUser

No, but she wasn't all bad and to be honest,

Bad far outweighs the Good.

at the end of the day, at least the government didn't collapse and anarchy take hold. That's got to be some form of success. :D

But..by those measures even Tony Blair was a success!


In all seriousness though, if what she did was so horribly terribly wrong, what would you have done? How would you have solved all the problems?

Pretty much the opposite of what she did (ie; not introducing Section 28, not attacking the Falklands, keeping the banking regulations etc etc).
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
If you took a middle path approach, then you would be seen as a "sedate, indecisive" prime minister, who couldn't decide what to do. That would have been dangerous, as the economic turmoil was pretty bad, and people were demanding a solution.

We accuse most of the recent prime ministers of the charge of not acting; they simply aren't brave enough to take a gamble and push some big reforms. Thacher had the courage to do that - so, even if we don't approve of what she did, we must praise her ability to act.

In India, we had Indira Gandhi, a lady who was way tougher than Thacher. In a problematic era, she acted; imposing emergency and liberated Bangladesh. Then, people were very angry - but the reforms were simply bitter medicine, which helped in the long run. Thacher would have thought the same - that the reforms she put out would hurt temporarily, but work out later.
 

DeletedUser

If you took a middle path approach, then you would be seen as a "sedate, indecisive" prime minister, who couldn't decide what to do. That would have been dangerous, as the economic turmoil was pretty bad, and people were demanding a solution. We accuse most of the recent prime ministers of the charge of not acting; they simply aren't brave enough to take a gamble and push some big reforms. Thacher had the courage to do that - so, even if we don't approve of what she did, we must praise her ability to act.

I'm afraid Godwin's law comes into effect right now, if even acting for the worst should command more respect than doing nothing, then shouldn't we at least respect Hitler for his ability to act?

In India, we had Indira Gandhi, a lady who was way tougher than Thacher. In a problematic era, she acted; imposing emergency and liberated Bangladesh. Then, people were very angry - but the reforms were simply bitter medicine, which helped in the long run. Thacher would have thought the same - that the reforms she put out would hurt temporarily, but work out later.

Except that in Thatcher's case, it was the opposite. It was either short term gain & long term loss, or short term loss & long term loss.
 

Harsha..

Well-Known Member
Interesting, i haven't heard of Godwin's law before. As i've gathered from wikipedia, isn't it an unfair card to be using in a debate like this? :p

Firstly, acting is at the heart of progress everywhere. Because of other people's actions the world is where it is now. So, for good or evil, its better to act, do something, bring about progress. The alternative is to be sedentary, static, stuck in a point

As for Hilter, well - again, you should look at history, there is a good answer there. Firstly, Hilter wasn't the person who founded the Nazi party. Rather, he was influenced by it's ideology and joined the party. If he hadn't joined them, someone else - probably, worse, would have been around to take his place. In the war, Hitler made several foolish mistakes - breaking off the alliance with the soviets among others. So, in a way, his actions led to the demise of Nazism, and the world is a much safer place today.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser12669

this is england 2013 thatcher's legacy


← NHS (No Help, Sorry!)

Dear Iain Duncan-Smith, Thanks for nothing……. goodbye!

Posted on April 21, 2013 by ladytaylor72
Dear Iain
I’ve got BIG news!! I’ve got a job!! I know, shocking isn’t it? I mean, I’ve been nothing more than a lazy, work-shy slob for the past 15 months; sitting around all day doing nothing, waiting each fortnight for my dole to drop into my account so that I could continue to fuel my lazy, low-down lifestyle. It’s been fabulous. I’m going to miss it so much. Everything you say on the news is so true. As I look back over the past 15 months, I’ve had such a luxurious time living off the state. I can’t count the amount of shoes, handbags and cars that I’ve bought with the money I’ve gleaned from your pocket, the holidays we’ve been on, the treats we’ve had; hell, I’m practically an alcoholic these days with all the top quality Jack Daniels I’ve been able to buy with my benefits winnings……. oh no sorry, wait, that’s wrong. Let me start the letter again, because what I meant to say was this……
Dear Iain
I’ve got BIG NEWS!!! I’ve got a job!!!! Amazing isn’t it? Fifteen months after being made redundant, I’ve finally managed to secure one of the many jobs that you regularly claim in the media that are out there for the taking. We were beginning to think it would never happen. So many interviews, so much hope, followed all too often by disappointment after disappointment. I don’t know where these jobs are that you speak of. Perhaps they’re in London, because to be honest, you don’t have much knowledge of towns and cities outside of the capital do you? Actually to be honest, you’re right, there are jobs out there, but I’m not entirely sure you’re aware of the stumbling blocks preventing folk from getting them. Check out this list of some of the reasons I’ve been given for not getting a job I have applied for:

  • You’re over qualified
  • You’ll be too bored – the work will be beneath you (yes, I’ve been told that)
  • We only look at the first 50 applications. You are applicant number 2217
  • You’re more experienced than the person you’d be working for
  • You’re too experienced for what we require
  • You’ve got no experience operating a till
  • You’ve got no experience of working in a shop
  • You’ve got no experience of being a cleaner
  • You’ve got no experience of working in a food outlet
  • You’ve got no experience in the field you’re applying for
So Iain, as you can see, getting a job isn’t quite as easy as just sending your CV to a prospective employer. Perhaps if you understood that, you may not continue to spout your patronising nonsense in the media, and further continue to get the backs up of those who genuinely want to work, and do not under any circumstances want to live off benefits as (as you call it) a lifestyle choice. You make idle comments about how you could live off £53 a week if you had to, but that’s the point Iain, you will never have to and furthermore it’s likely you’ll never want for anything for the rest of your life, whether that be a job, a home, or financial security. You are preaching about things you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever. You are using the teeny weeny minority of benefit claimants who do live a satisfactory standard of life to attempt to prove your point, and in doing so are destroying those who are genuinely struggling.
It’s been a difficult 15 months Iain. I’m not sure which people you’ve spoken to in order to form your opinions of the benefit lifestyle, but this luxurious existence that you talk of on tv never made it’s way into our home. For most of the time, you expected us to live off £61 a week…….. that’s £30.50 per person per week. Oh to have had the luxury of the £53 per person per week you speak of. And when we questioned this £30.50 each per week, and pointed out that it was ridiculous to imagine people could live on that amount, we were told by your ‘loyal, and highly experienced’ (your words, not mine) advisors that that was a “wholly appropriate amount of money to live on” and that we should “stop complaining”.
I didn’t stop complaining though and, despite being struck down by a very serious and debilitating illness in June, which not only put a strong halt on my job searching opportunities, but also rendered me unable to walk, move, and function like a regular human being, I continued to campaign, and complain in an attempt to highlight the vile way in which the majority of benefit claimants are treated in this country.
As I said, in June I became ill – paralysed down my right hand side, which totally destroyed me physically. My partner was unable to work because I needed 100% round the clock care. At the worst points, there was nothing I could do alone; I needed my partner’s help all the time……. there was no longer any privacy, and in some cases, no longer any dignity either. What dignity I did have left was finally smashed to smithereens at the hands of the glorious ATOS folk. I’m not going to revisit that revolting experience in this letter, other than to say that I saw people, in far worse conditions and situations to me, being subjected to the most humiliating, embarrassing, and downright disgusting procedures in order for them to prove they were not fit for work. I met a young man, who despite being paralysed from the neck down following a car accident at 16, and because of this also had the mental understanding of a 7 year old, was expected every other month, to be transported at great expense by his mum, to the ATOS offices to prove that (a) he hadn’t regained his physical ability, and (b) his brain hadn’t suddenly healed. This is an extreme case I agree, and yes I’m sure there are a number of people out there ‘swinging the lead’ and claiming things they shouldn’t, but honestly, do you seriously think that the easiest way to weedle those folk out is to humiliate the people who blatantly are never going to be in a position to function regularly in society, let alone be able to ever go to work? In all honesty, I wonder whether it’s worth all the money you waste attempting to clamp down on those who are fiddling the system, because it appears to me that as they’ve been scamming the system for as long as they have, they probably know more about how it works than you do! Will you ever find them? I doubt it. And yes you will say “is that fair on those who are going to work each day earning a crust, whilst others sit around pretending to have a bad back?”, but I would argue back, “is it fair that people who are severely physically and mentally disabled are being forced on a regular basis to prove that a miracle hasn’t happened since their last appointment, just because a tiny handful of folk are getting an extra few quid for lying?”. I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in karma, and in what goes around comes around. If they want to scam away, then so be it; let it sit on their conscience. I’d rather they got away with their cheating, than ever have to witness again genuine people being persecuted in a vile way in order to tick them off a list of genuine and non-genuine claimants.
I was deemed ‘fit for work’ by your ‘eminently qualified doctor’ (again, your words not mine), but then you know this, because I wrote to you to tell you. You must’ve been too busy persecuting innocent everyday folk, because you didn’t respond to my letter. You got one of your lackies to do it for you instead. He, rather like you, didn’t seem to care that I was disabled, or unable to function properly. He agreed, like you, that I should just force myself to get better. How do you force yourself to recover from a condition that at that point, didn’t actually have a diagnosis? Are you aware that your staff are actually using farcical comments like that? Moreover, have you ever sat in on an ATOS assessment meeting? Do you have any idea of the crap that goes on in there? Let’s be honest, do you know anything???
I contacted my local MP about the whole benefits situation. He was interested in the beginning, but when he realised that I was giving a good impression of a dog with a bone, and that I wanted to drill down the details of everything and anything to do with benefits and the disabled, he tailed off somewhat. I contacted councillors in my area. Sadly, their responses were much the same. I even wrote to your boss, the darling David. What a waste of a stamp that was! I’ve joined websites, focus groups, forums and the like in an attempt to try to strengthen my case, but it seems that where benefits and the disabled are concerned, there is no help. It appears there is a commonly held view that everyone on benefits is a lazy scumbag, and everyone who claims to be disabled is a liar who spends their weekends out of town dancing in clubs and laughing at how they have conned the world by sitting in a wheelchair 5 days a week.
Anyway Iain, the upshot of the whole situation is that now that I’ve got my job, it means that my partner and I have to start again, at the very bottom of the ladder. The only thing I have left to show for my previous 20 plus years of hard work is my flat, and it’s only through my dogged determination and refusal to be walked over by the bank (don’t even start me on the treatment I’ve received from banks) that I have managed to keep a firm hold on it. Everything else: car – sold, clothes – sold, shoes and handbags (a stunning, 15 year long collection bought and lovingly kept in pristine condition) – sold on ebay for a pathetic fraction of not only what they cost, but what they were worth. I have sold so much more besides, and all this so that we could survive.
We have existed on a diet of frozen fish fingers, cheap bread, and other processed crap. If we saved up enough, we could manage to treat ourselves to do a shop at Iceland!! I’m in no way knocking Iceland at all – I actually quite like going to Iceland – but it comes to something when you’re having to save up to shop there. My recent health has suffered once more, due to the e we’ve been forced to eat over the past year or so. I’ve been diagnosed with high cholesterol and acid reflux. Hysterically, the doctor gave me a government leaflet about healthy eating, and how to improve my health in general. There were sample menus in it. I priced one of the meal ideas suggested. It came to £13 to buy all the ingredients. FOR ONE MEAL!!!!! I priced the entire booklet, and by shopping at Aldi, it would still have cost just short of £70 for a week. So explain to me Iain how it can be that you think it’s possible for people to live on £53 a week when (a) the government are providing healthy eating leaflets that recommends a £70 a week shopping budgets, and (b) if we were are to overspend (a physical impossibility, but go with me on it) on our shopping, who is paying for gas, electric, mortgage, council tax, management fees, house insurance, buildings insurance, and everything else that you need to pay each month in order to keep a roof – and a warm roof at that – over your head.
Get your head out of the arse of the hand-reared, corn fed swan that it’s obviously stuck up, and check out the real world. You won’t catch any diseases if you leave London. Why don’t you actually do proper research, and SPEAK to REAL PEOPLE, who genuinely suffer in REAL SITUATIONS, rather than just get your lackies to fiddle with figures, pick out obvious targets (women with 20 children selling their stories to papers et al), and concoct ridiculous articles which bear no reflection on real life at all. I’m not saying you’d be entirely welcome in some towns and cities up and down the country, but perhaps if people thought you were genuinely interested in listening to their stories, and genuinely interested in helping them, rather than tarring everyone with the same ‘scum brush’ that you do, you may actually get somewhere. I’m not saying it’s a winning solution, and I’m not saying it’s going to win you the next election (because it won’t), but it’s a start, and considering you’re going to be sat in post for the next few years (twiddling your thumbs til you’re evicted), you could spend that time far more productively and positively, than pissing about down the golf club with bankers and shonky businessmen who are more criminal than Mr X from Bradford with his alleged dodgy back, scamming his extra few quid a week is ever likely to be.
So anyway, like I said, I’ve got a job. And it’s a good one too. And it’s one I deserve. And it’s one that I’ve worked hard to get. I’ve overcome a debilitating illness (If you’re interested I was poisoned by wrongly prescribed medication), I’ve learnt how to walk and function properly again. I’ve watched my partner suffer too – unable to work because he needed to care for me, and unable to claim carer’s allowance because according to you, I wasn’t ill enough to justify him looking after me. Interestingly though, when he did get a job, he was advised by your department that he would have to turn the job down, because he would have to be my carer, because the DWP would not provide help for me whilst he was at work. How can you say that he cannot claim Carer’s Allowance because I’m not well enough to be cared for, and then with the same breath tell him he can’t go to work because I need constant care? Arse and Elbow Iain, a pure case of arse and elbow!! But I digress, I’ve worked hard for this. Application after application, day in day out, going for interviews when often there was never a job (“sorry, someone internal is having the job, but we have to do interviews because it’s the law”), spending money we don’t have on travel to get to interviews - I didn’t qualify to get help for travel to interviews because I was over 25!!! (Not sure what that rule is all about). I’ve constantly questioned myself: Am I good enough to do this job? Have I forgotten what I’m trained to do? Am I too old for this job? It’s been hell on earth. Even whilst I was waiting to find out if I’d got the job I eventually secured, I was sat convincing myself that I wasn’t going to get it, and resigning myself to more disappointment. But I did get it Iain, and I am more than delighted. But just because I’ve got a job doesn’t mean that life is going to suddenly improve overnight. It is going to take a long time to rebuild our lives. My partner still needs to find a job, and until we do, we will survive on my wage. I’m sure we are now on the path to a better life, but it’s going to be a long journey back, and it will be a long time until we’re straight. We’re probably starting another chapter of struggle……but a less painful struggle. We wouldn’t all be lucky enough to get a job with your salary Iain. Hell, if we did, I doubt any of us would ever struggle again.
So as I wave goodbye to my ‘benefit lifestyle’ I turn to reflect on how I’ve been subjected to some of the worst customer service in history by staff at the DWP, and how we have been treated worse than I could ever have imagined. If everyone on benefits is treated in the same way we have been, then sooner or later I fear you may have some form of revolution on your hands. I can rest easy knowing that I have fought all the way, and have written letters and emails making sure that anyone who would listen knew of the hardship we were being forced into by your crazy rules. My latest complaint was heard, and upheld by the DWP (locally that is, not by your generic robots in London) and I’ve actually had quite a favourable response to the issues I raised, but that’s just me. What about the rest of the folk out there who maybe don’t have the ability to write and protest like I have. What about those out there who no longer have the inclination? What about those who have decided that there’s no point, and are currently plotting their own demise because they don’t see any point in living in this life any longer. Who hears their complaints and worries? Nobody I guess, until it’s too late.
Iain, I am not sad to be leaving the benefit system behind, far from it. I am however, worried about those who will continue to be persecuted whilst you’re in power, who you will continue to take money from (money they don’t have) because you refuse to turn the tables on your golf club buddies, and you refuse to open your eyes and speak to real people about real problems.
This has been the worst 15 months of my life Iain. I would love to say I hope that one day you too could experience just a portion of what I’ve gone through; but you never will. I am looking forward to a more positive future. Sadly, under the current government I don’t think many more people will be able to say the same.
Thanks for nothing
Janet x
 

DeletedUser

Margaret Thatcher is a human. Humans have funerals. Most humans don't let everybody come to their funerals. Margaret Thatcher wanted to have anybody that could be at her funeral, be at her funeral. The woman wasn't called the Iron Lady for accepting she couldn't get what she wants.

Really, why is there a debate about this? The lady signed the Anglo-Irish peace treaty, which some Irish don't like her for, but even then, she stopped a near war going on in Northern Ireland. If her death wishes were to have her funeral like that, then why are people complaining, when she did much for those who hate her.

(OOC: 111th post)
 

DeletedUser28032

its not the fact that she had a state funeral its more the fact that despite the fact that a large proportion of the country didn't like her that we (the taxpayer) had to foot the bill
 

DeletedUser31931

Which was a lot less than 10 mill. In fact, the actual cost was 3.6 mill. Some of which was footed by the family (an undisclosed amount, but probably a large one, they were a rich family). Also, get this. 2.6 mill of that 3.6 mill was spent on having the police force there to manage the protesters. So yeah, if you didn't protest, it might have cost a lot less.
 

DeletedUser

But Zemmy, 'we' didn't protest. There wasn't any massive rallies on the route.
 
Top