Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,954
That's a fantastic petition.
e-petition for thatcher to get a privatised state funeral
- Thread starter Yozz76
- Start date
because she is basically to blame for the selfish attitude and money grabbing culture that was bred in the 80s under her government, her policies live on through the moron that is cameron, like destroying the benefits system for the sick and disabled under the guise of fraud.
i like how you call me a failure of society, when in actual fact you know nothing about me, my left wing views certainly do more for the marginalised, poverty stricken social classes than your fat cat right wing love does!
plus I give back much more than i take through my day job, what do you do?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
That's asking a different question though - you were asking why I thought it was in somewhat poor taste, not whether there was anything hypocritical about a state funeral for a prime proponent of capitalism. I'd also note that I (and quite possibly most other people here) have no idea whether a state funeral is a likely possibility here or indeed whether Mrs Thatcher would be in favour of it were it an option.
Maybe she'd argue about it and maybe she'd agree that it was perfectly fitting. It doesn't alter my general view that it's not in the best possible taste - say it in a Kenny Everett style if you wish.
And my question is pulling it down to the root logic.
If her logic was undeniable, it wouldn't be a joke would it?
Maybe she'd argue about it and maybe she'd agree that it was perfectly fitting. It doesn't alter my general view that it's not in the best possible taste - say it in a Kenny Everett style if you wish.
Shouldn't personal responsibility take precedence over extorting the majority for the benefit of the minority, or in this case deceased individual?
What do I have to gain out of this?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
if they did it and charge the public a £1 each they would probably make more money than any state funeral ever did and there would be a bigger turn out.
Edited to reflect my views.
Can we perhaps stop glorifying the position of Prime minister one day, its becoming just as annoying as seeing the next US president, IE a moron on a pedestal.
I for one do not want to be in this nation when we have a burial for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown (illegal leader i might add), there are plenty of other people who should deserve this and Prime ministers (apart from when they have done exemplary) hardly deserve it.
/Criticism
I for one do not want to be in this nation when we have a burial for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown (illegal leader i might add), there are plenty of other people who should deserve this and Prime ministers (apart from when they have done exemplary) hardly deserve it.
/Criticism
There won't be. Only a few PMs have had a state burial.
What? Unethical arranged transfer maybe, but not illegal. Could argue same thing happend Thatcher to Major couldn't you? Although to be fair I think there was a general election shortly after that.
Law is you elect a party, not a person?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
You're suggesting that her logic regarding capitalism extended to privatising absolutely everything, I'm not sure that it did. I'll admit that I haven't read all her writings or studied her stated positions on how far privatisation should extend but if she didn't suggest that privatisation was the solution to everything in the World then it's also not outwith the bounds of possibility that privatisation of a state funeral was not something she considered within the ambit of her aims.
I'd also say that regardless of the veracity of someones position (and I'll note again that I'm not a great fan of Mrs Thatcher), that wouldn't stop a person poking fun at them which does make it a joke irrespective of whether what is being made fun of is logically flawless or not.
Shouldn't personal responsibility take precedence over extorting the majority for the benefit of the minority, or in this case deceased individual?
What do I have to gain out of this?
Without adequate knowledge of the provisions that Mrs Thatcher has made for her ultimate demise then I don't think we can state with any certainty whether she has taken personal responsibility or not - she may have made perfectly suitable provisions but if the state chose to give her a state funeral then why should she be expected to pay for it? It's not a matter of personal responsibility when it is taken out of an individuals hands.
Hold the front page... people from the north in hating Thatcher shocker?
With my home uni being in the north of England, I've met numerous people who profess annoyance with Thatcher... none of whom could even explain why they held that view.
Yeah, everyone who is anti crypto-thatcherite policy is vacuous.
The propoents are the cream of the crop, always on form.
Gotcha.
Really? Ok.
I think it did. Listen to her, the logic cannot be curtailed as is presented in absolute and universal terms.
There is no such thing as society, so why should society pay to stick her 6 feet under?
If state funerals did not come under her consideration I'm suprised, because everything from school milk to industry did.
She has no excuse to pardon herself from her own logical conclusions.
I'm also sure the state has already paid her enough to bury herself.
If the logic is infallible as she and her rabid supporters make out, how could it possibly be making fun unless by extention she took the **** out of us all?
She should opt out of any state funeral then to match her own dogma.
Perhaps, however you elect a party based on whose in the specific positions, when that is no longer the case for the entire cabinet, it becomes a tad annoying.
Perhaps illegal was too strong, but whatever.
I don't hate her, she's an old woman irrespective of her politics.
But you have to practice what you preach after all, otherwise it makes you nothing other than a stinking hypocrite.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Maybe you're right, I confess to having no great appetite to go back and listen to her speeches or read transcripts so I'll leave it there.
There is no such thing as society, so why should society pay to stick her 6 feet under?
If state funerals did not come under her consideration I'm suprised, because everything from school milk to industry did.
She has no excuse to pardon herself from her own logical conclusions.
I'm also sure the state has already paid her enough to bury herself.
Society and the state aren't the same thing, they're linked but one is not always the other. If the state has paid her enough to bury herself (and I've got no doubts it has) then why the presumption that she hasn't already put in place preparations for her funeral? Equally if it is chosen to take it out her hands then why would you hold her responsible?
There's two issues there, one whether the logic was infallible and secondly whether it's possible to poke fun at something even if it is true. For the record I'd say respectively it wasn't infallible and that it is possible to poke fun at something even if it is correct.
Let's ignore for a moment that she'll be dead at the time and therefore in no real position to argue the toss but we don't know that she a) hasn't already expressed preferences for her funeral arrangements and b) that it is a choice that you get offered prior to death.
It would also be viewed as remarkably presumptuous (although some will say perfectly in keeping with her character no doubt) to posit the view that she didn't want a state funeral prior to being offered one.
However this is all getting somewhat away from what I expect the thread was meant to be about and I need to try and get a bit of sleep before heading back up the road so I'll have to leave it there for the moment anyway.