Comment deleted by Site Moderator

No they are not, they are paying towards her funeral costs the state is paying for the rest...

---------

You mean that the state is paying for the policing required? Makes sense...

Or the armed forces participation? The labour govt. announced that in 2008.

Maybe if these people who 'care so much about how our taxes are spent' had organised protests against the likes of Hamza and Qatada having millions spent on them, they'd have an iota of credibility.

This is an attack on the woman. Nothing more.

She is being given different treatment to other famous PM's who have died. Why?

Hamza et all have bugga all to do with this. The most expensive funeral in British History is to take place tomorrow, when the country is in recession.

Whether I was or wasn't doesn't change the fact that your post doesn't make any sense.
***
i think you are confusing me with somebody else



Her policies regarding the mines had nothing to do with whether people can afford things etc.
***
I did if you were a miner or worked for a related industry

You mean that the state is paying for the policing required? Makes sense...

Or the armed forces participation? The labour govt. announced that in 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
why does it make sense?? why does policing on this scale have to take place...why does a funeral on this scale have to take place as opposed to other PM's that have passed....?????

ps, not bothered which govt it was, IMO why does she get treated like a member of the royal family but others dont??!

She is being given different treatment to other famous PM's who have died. Why?

-----

...because she is. Not everybody shares you opinion of her. She was very popular amongst large swathes of the nation, including the armed forces and the police. If you want to know why Gordon Brown made such elaborate plans for her funeral in '08, why don't you write to him?

why does it make sense?? why does policing on this scale have to take place..
---

Simple enough really. There were mass protests after her death as well as rioting. There have been threats of further disturbances and organised protests are due to take place. These things require policing, a lot of it. Hardly rocket science.

...because she is. Not everybody shares you opinion of her. She was very popular amongst large swathes of the nation, including the armed forces and the police.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So because some of the nation like her we all get to pay for it?? sounds fair....

Surely the fact thaat there has been mass rioting shows you that much of the country does not agree and makes you last point...well just a bit thick!!

also simple answer to stop the rioting without the mass police presence?? dont have a massive state funeral costing the state millions..but have a small private one!!!

RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)

No, it doesn't.

The policies re: the mines were whether they should be state funded, and were a complex political issue.

That's got nothing to do the state paying for people's funeral etc.

...because she is. Not everybody shares you opinion of her.
***
If you read my posts you will see I have mixed feelings about her, some good some bad. Not everybody shares your view that she was wonderful either



She was very popular amongst large swathes of the nation, including the armed forces and the police.
***
she was unpopular with large swathes of the nation, too, including miners, steel workers, (and many in the armed forces).



If you want to know why Gordon Brown made such elaborate plans for her funeral in '08, why don't you write to him?
***
show me evidence that he planned this funeral.

what you on about winston you are rambling

She is being given different treatment to other famous PM's who have died. Why?

-----

...because she is. Not everybody shares you opinion of her. She was very popular amongst large swathes of the nation, including the armed forces and the police.
--------------

..."because she is..."

Ahh right. Thanks that. This makes it ok that she is being afforded such lavish expense when others who went before her weren't,

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4889936/tony-blair-gordon-brown-approved-margaret-thatcher-funeral-details.html

first link on my google search... wasn't difficult.

comment by RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)

posted 24 minutes ago

what you on about winston you are rambling

=================================

I'm guessing this means you've realised your error.

But please, do explain for us all how seeking to close the mines can be equated to telling people the state can't pay for a funeral.

Not everybody shares your view that she was wonderful either

----

Have I said that? I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of pretending to oppose this funeral cost on 'tax payers' grounds when so many less deserving criminals have millions wasted on them every year and nobody makes a sound about it.

This whole 'debate' is simply some people wanting to paint her in a bad light now that she is dead. Funny how the major costs of this funeral are the security costs incurred due to the threats of disruption and protest. Actually scrap that, it's not funny, it's pathetic!

"This whole 'debate' is simply some people wanting to paint her in a bad light now that she is dead"

Wrong again, the milk snatcher was the most divisive and disliked PM we've ever had. You can touch your forelock all you like but her tenure was socially disastrous, an end to heavy industry with nothing to replace it, no council house stocks being built or replenished, reduced investment in schools, hospitals and infrastructure, and a reduction in high end tax to reward the newly affluent financial service and suchlike. It's not about panting her in a bad light now she's gone, it's about refusing to glorify someone who had very little concern for us.

This whole 'debate' is simply some people wanting to paint her in a bad light now that she is dead.

-----------

How old are you lad?

winston

I responded to your comment....

"Her policies regarding the mines had nothing to do with whether people can afford things etc."

and now you have completely changed the question to...

"explain for us all how seeking to close the mines can be equated to telling people the state can't pay for a funeral"


you are bonkers...stop wasting my time

What I was thinking Paisleys.

RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)

It's the same thing.

Are you now just reverting to forum rhetoric to avoid admitting your error?

Your original post was a nonsense.

french

you sound slightly prepubescent



what are you rambling on about the cost of prisoners for

Your original post was a nonsense.
***

winston you moron

It wasnt my post. Somebody else posted it

RedBlackandWhiteside (U2335)

So why are you trying to argue something when it wasn't even your point?

Are you agreeing with the original post, or are you just being an argumentative prat?

So why are you trying to argue something when it wasn't even your point?
**

I just agreed with it.

You claimed you didnt understand it.

I said thats because you probably wernt around when Thatcher was a bout.

and then you lost the plot.

Pay attention and keep up.