Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
When the time comes, should Margaret Thatcher be given a full state funeral
You could argue that there's a precedent (Churchill), who led the country to victory in a 20th century war.
Two opposing stories, and their responses from the Daily Mail, show that there might be some division in the way her demise may be percieved:
http://www.dailymail....-worried-frailty.html
http://www.dailymail....Maggie-grave-man.html
Two opposing stories, and their responses from the Daily Mail, show that there might be some division in the way her demise may be percieved:
http://www.dailymail....-worried-frailty.html
http://www.dailymail....Maggie-grave-man.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
True story, back in the 70,s I worked for a chemical company and we had deliveries by ship One day the ship arrived a bit late and the union boss told us they could not unload it by knocking off time.However they would work overtime if we payed them. This was agreed and blow me they got the load off in time when we were informed we would have to pay"Disappointment money" as the lads had missed out on their overtime!!!
Okay. If none of the actual detractors want to do it, I'll have a go.
Bear in mind my comment earlier that on balance I am, roughly speaking, a supporter of Thatcher. But this does not mean I don't acknowledge her more destructive/detrimental policies. e.g.
- While her privatisation programme was necessary, her government was fixated on doing it extremely quickly. This might have been forgiveable in her first term, but it just sits bizarrely in the relative stability of her second - the result of it was that several enterprises were undersold considerably because the govt. wanted results.
- Her well-meaning but enormously destructive bureaucratic centralization of the public sector in her late second/third term. Jenkins has written extensively (and quite convincingly) on this, arguing that the level of centralization, target-setting and general assault on the powers of local govt actually increased bureaucracy and inefficiency. He also convincingly links it to many deep contemporary problems in the health service, education and government.
- Her utter failure to stop the passage of Section 28. I admit that this is where my evaluation of Thatcher becomes more personal (which I hate) - but I think for good reason. In the year it came through, Thatcher's government was at the peak of its power - it could have quite easily quashed this vile and incredibly badly thought-out regulation, but she didn't. This tiny section has had a hugely destructive impact on the lives of millions in the 15-20 years it was there for.
Bear in mind my comment earlier that on balance I am, roughly speaking, a supporter of Thatcher. But this does not mean I don't acknowledge her more destructive/detrimental policies. e.g.
- While her privatisation programme was necessary, her government was fixated on doing it extremely quickly. This might have been forgiveable in her first term, but it just sits bizarrely in the relative stability of her second - the result of it was that several enterprises were undersold considerably because the govt. wanted results.
- Her well-meaning but enormously destructive bureaucratic centralization of the public sector in her late second/third term. Jenkins has written extensively (and quite convincingly) on this, arguing that the level of centralization, target-setting and general assault on the powers of local govt actually increased bureaucracy and inefficiency. He also convincingly links it to many deep contemporary problems in the health service, education and government.
- Her utter failure to stop the passage of Section 28. I admit that this is where my evaluation of Thatcher becomes more personal (which I hate) - but I think for good reason. In the year it came through, Thatcher's government was at the peak of its power - it could have quite easily quashed this vile and incredibly badly thought-out regulation, but she didn't. This tiny section has had a hugely destructive impact on the lives of millions in the 15-20 years it was there for.
I could imagine there will be opposing views on this as with most political stories. I don't personally think she should have a 'state' funeral in the style of Churchill. As for the 'Dancing on Thatcher's Grave' story - yes I understand what is meant by the T shirt but I feel that it is a bit 'over the top'
James Callaghan: May I congratulate you on being the only man in your team.
Margaret Thatcher: That's one more than you've got in yours.
-------------------------------------------
Section 28 - A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality or promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Because it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
And that is where is had its impact !
Margaret Thatcher: That's one more than you've got in yours.
-------------------------------------------
Section 28 - A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality or promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Because it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
And that is where is had its impact !
I agree that it difficult to quantify just how many people/families were adversely affected by Clause 28.
However, if you extrapolate the figures from one gay individual experiencing discrimination, or having support withdrawn, to include family members who also suffered because of this insidious piece of legislation the numbers certainly mount up.
However, if you extrapolate the figures from one gay individual experiencing discrimination, or having support withdrawn, to include family members who also suffered because of this insidious piece of legislation the numbers certainly mount up.
"Why do lesbian, gay and bisexual students need more support than heterosexual students? "
Because of the level of intolerance that still exists in schools. If you work against intolerance at an early stage, there's a chance it won't grow and take root. If you let it grow, it stays there and gets stronger.
"understood Section 28 was to prevent the promotion of homosexuality.
Whatever the arguments for or against it , I can't see how it had a destructive impact on millions of people. "
The 'promotion' aspect was very poorly defined. The result was that teachers would often simply not acknowledge it in their classes, were unsure about how to react to homophobic bullying etc. It's lead to an awful lot of kids growing up without anyone telling them that it's okay to be different - which is exactly why we go to greater lengths to do it now.
With regard to figures - think about the % of students who will be LGBT across the whole country. Then add the figure year-on-year between C28's introduction and its abolition. Admittedly, I can't prove it reaches millions, it just seemed a worthwhile estimate...
Because of the level of intolerance that still exists in schools. If you work against intolerance at an early stage, there's a chance it won't grow and take root. If you let it grow, it stays there and gets stronger.
"understood Section 28 was to prevent the promotion of homosexuality.
Whatever the arguments for or against it , I can't see how it had a destructive impact on millions of people. "
The 'promotion' aspect was very poorly defined. The result was that teachers would often simply not acknowledge it in their classes, were unsure about how to react to homophobic bullying etc. It's lead to an awful lot of kids growing up without anyone telling them that it's okay to be different - which is exactly why we go to greater lengths to do it now.
With regard to figures - think about the % of students who will be LGBT across the whole country. Then add the figure year-on-year between C28's introduction and its abolition. Admittedly, I can't prove it reaches millions, it just seemed a worthwhile estimate...
never been a fan of hers and I am here as saying so, but Yes, I do think she should be afforded a State Funeral,
Why?
Like her or loathe her, she left her mark on British History, she was a strong leader who will be remembered for both the bad and the good thing she did, depends what you feel for her I suppose
Why?
Like her or loathe her, she left her mark on British History, she was a strong leader who will be remembered for both the bad and the good thing she did, depends what you feel for her I suppose
-- answer removed --
just because someone becomes old and frail - as we all will - does not cancel out all their previous actions and suddenly make them kindly and sweet...her age and health is irrelevant...she is a rotten old horror and deserves no special treatment - especially not that afforded great people in the past
<just because someone becomes old and frail - as we all will - does not cancel out all their previous actions>
I agree. Also, in response to other remarks, I do not think that a state funeral should be awarded to somebody who had a big impact on history/ their country etc, whether that be a good or bad one.
Hitler sorted his country's economy and 'got the trains running on time' etc. I seem to believe that he did a couple of other things that made a pretty big impact on history, but I doubt that many would agree that he should have had a state funeral.
I agree. Also, in response to other remarks, I do not think that a state funeral should be awarded to somebody who had a big impact on history/ their country etc, whether that be a good or bad one.
Hitler sorted his country's economy and 'got the trains running on time' etc. I seem to believe that he did a couple of other things that made a pretty big impact on history, but I doubt that many would agree that he should have had a state funeral.
-- answer removed --
flipflop - i havent read all the posts but i dont think most wish any 'harm to an old lady'...but rather dont want her to die feeling like she has done good and is loved... they want her to know she is hated and abhorred by most people - she simply does not deserve to be treated in a special way - its that old cliche - you like by the sword, you die by the sword - and she certainly wielded a sword in her day...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.