[Closed] Get your dancing on grave boots ready

Is she dead yet?

tis true on ones side we have Tories suggesting taht all the economic issues facing us today are a result of the labour government rather than market forces - it is nice to see right wing people saying the banks should have been regulated more. You can only judge labour on their reaction for which even the right wing press has praised Brown for his leadership on economic matters with the G20 - quantitive easing and public spending.
Likewise the current Govt must do something re the defecit that much is true. However the speed and depth is a choice they have made . Likewise we should judge them on how well they handle this rathert than criticise them for doing it. My view is that reducing spending now at this rate [increasing unemeployment and reduce tax returns - putting the burnden disproportionately ont he poor rather than the rich via taxation] is more than likely to cause a double dip recession. I would criticise them for that. Likewise we should be a bit more fair re the economic crisis that cuased this situation it was not SOLELY the labour governemnts fault.

TandemJeremy - Member
Labour did not overspend - they undertaxed

Labour enlarged the public sector to 'create jobs'.

Will Gordon Brown retire at 66?

Your fail is much larger than mine

😀 classic stw

Can anyone think of a policy or action of [s]her[/s] [b]ANY[/b] government's that was actually a good idea and did the country some good? I'm certainly struggling.

FTFY HTH

Is she dead yet?

I let her star in a w*nk this morning in honour of this thread... she turned out to be a most invigorating filly... even in her reduced condition..

TandemJeremy - Member
Labour did not overspend - they undertaxed

Priceless, absolutely priceless 😆

let her star in a w*nk this morning in honour of this thread... she turned out to be a most invigorating filly... even in her reduced condition..

^^^^^^^^
[img] [/img]

yunki - Member

Can anyone think of a policy or action of [s]her[/s] ANY government's that was actually a good idea and did the country some good? I'm certainly struggling.

FTFY HTH

Devolution for Scotland. Incorporation of the human rights act into UK law. Putting more money into the NHS and education. Even creating the NHS.

All the pies - I would rather have higher taxation like many other countries and higher standards of services.

Can anyone think of a policy or action of her ANY government's that was actually a good idea and did the country some good? I'm certainly struggling.

The NHS Act 1946
etc.

We've done it before & come to the conclusion that the Tories never introduced any of them

EDIT: Here
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/what-great-things-have-labour-and-the-conservatives-done-for-us

Likewise we should be a bit more fair re the economic crisis that cuased this situation it was not SOLELY the labour governemnts fault.

True, but Brown was very lazy and rode the ridiculous spending boom, both personal and state which much of the Western world went through and had the arrogance to claim the economic situation we were in was down to his safe pair of hands on the economic tiller (No more boom and bust?). He might have reacted after the crash but a really good fiscal manager would have seen it coming, it was pretty obvious you can't keep borrowing and spending for ever. Not that I have any faith that any other party would have been any more prudent.

I would rather have higher taxation like many other countries and higher standards of services.

I wouldn't be adverse to that but from my personal experience (and lets face it that's the stand point most of us base our views on) all we generally see is more spending and rarely and significant improvements in services. If anything the Labour government convinced me it wasn't all about the amount of money spent but how it was spent. It's relatively easy in gorwth times to pump extra cash into services, it's always way more difficult to make the more efficient and focused. In fact every time you do theres usually some self interest group that for idealogical of other reasons don't want to see any change. Often the unions defending their members jobs (which is obviously what they're at least in part there to do) without necessarily considering that we may not need all these people doing those particular jobs.

tis true on ones side we have Tories suggesting taht all the economic issues facing us today are a result of the labour government rather than market forces...

Likewise we should be a bit more fair re the economic crisis that cuased this situation it was not SOLELY the labour governemnts fault.

That works both ways though doesn't it Junky - in that by the same token, the Labour government's good financial years in the boom of the late nineties was largely down to [i]market forces[/i] and that instead of recognising that fact and ferreting some money away for a rainy day, they pissed it up the wall like an alcoholic with a redundancy payout, all the time telling us how they had 'eliminated boom and bust'

Personally I thought they spent it rebuilding the decimated public services but I agree saying you have ended boom and bust - an integral part of capitalism - even your unregulated utopian vision of the free market solving all ills- was foolish grandstanding that did bite him on the bum to put it mildly.
Market forces did indeed both cause the boom and the bust... have a gold star for noticing the economy is indeed a capitalist one.

So, looks like this thread has run it's course, as it's just becoming repetitious now. Pretty pathetic defence of Her Maggiesty, from some, against the [b]truth[/b] that she is an evil self-serving **** who deserves nothing but the contempt of any decent Human Being. I don't care what any sanctimoinious hypocritical right-w(h)inger says; I'll be ****ing celebrating like a [i]bastard[/i] when she does the World a favour, and makes her way Down Below.

Good effort though; over 500 posts in under 24 hours I think. Phenomenal. A new STW record?

And it has spawned the phrase [b]'Mollycoddled titty-fed ****s'[/b]. This can only be a Good Thing. 🙂

When will we have a Politician who actually has BALLS? Can take on his own party, the opposition, Europe and other countries?

Hora - Blair? Sounds pretty much what he did

you mean like hitler mark? Poor troll fella

Hora - Brown and the use of quantitive easing?

When will we have a Politician who actually has BALLS?

When will we have a politician who actually gives a shit about the people they are suposed to represent, rather than appearing clever on TV, making a name for themselves as a 'celebrity' and securing book deals and after-dinner speaking gigs for when they retire leaving behind them a whole pile of shit for someone else to sort out?

Bollocks to this 'standing up to Europe' crap, to appeal to politically ignorant Little Englanders concerned with little else but their own comfort; how about someone with the balls to stand up to greedy rampant capitalists with nothing more than short-term gain on their selfish agendae?

Thatcher argued and got our rebate from Europe. Looks whats ****ing happening since.

At least Thatcher had some integrity I suppose, unlike that trouser snake Clegg.

And did what with it, Hora? And did what with it?

If you're going to come up with crap like that, at least bother to research it properly. Or do you enjoy looking stupid?

Where's my ****ing £60?

At least Thatcher [b]had[/b] some integrity I suppose

Does that mean she's dead now?

Not sure she did tbh did you read the bits about calling Mandela, blocking sanctions on South Africa, supporting pol pot and Pinochet – do you see this as integrity ??– really you think it was ok to support right wing murdering dictators because they had policies similar to your own....
Better troll than Hora

julianwilson -

Let's hope so, for everybody's sake.

Junkyard - At least you knew where you stood with the Thatched cottage, she may have been an evil, psychotic nut job but at least we knew she was those things. Maybe integrity is the wrong word? Clegg was quick to drop his knickers for taste of power by conveniently forgetting / ignoring some of his party's most important manifesto pledges.

🙂

"Military adventurism, war crimes and it was her policy failures that led to the occupation of the islands. Some would say deliberate."

War crimes? A deliberate war to gain popularity and votes? I doubt many would agree with that. Surely?

I understand that her government wilfully provoked it by removing the naval defence of the Falklands weeks before Argentina claimed sovereignty - when the intelligence was all pointing to a possible invasion.

The war crime IMO is the sinking of the belgrano.

Others disagree. It won't ever go to court as only the losers end in court

Many folk believe she engineered the war deliberately. ( various things that occurred in the period before led the Argentinians to believe the UK would relinquish the islands) I think it was cock up and incompetence not conspiracy but many folk believe she deliberately created it

Certainly she rejected the various opportunities for a peaceful resolution finally ending all chance by sinking the Belgrano that was outside the exclusion zone and heading away from the islands.

War crimes? A deliberate war to gain popularity and votes? I doubt many would agree with that. Surely?

I think people will debate for a long while whether the Falklands inadvertently precipitated the ensuing election victory, or whether there was more cynical manipulation of the events....

Knowing the way we Brits work, I'd put my money on incompetence, indifference and negilgence * - you know, the normal sort of bumbling and tinkering that we excel at.

* Reference the 1981 Defence Review and diplomatic signals prior to the Argentinain invasion.

Clegg was quick to drop his knickers for taste of power by conveniently forgetting / ignoring some of his party's most important manifesto pledges.

Inclined to agree, but watch him closely when Dave or Gideon is speaking and he seems to almost wince, or cringe, when they deliver their punches.

I think Clegg will regret his actions here. I will be very surprised if the coalition lasts and I think the lib dems will be totally wiped out at the next election. He will carry the can for this and it will be his mark on history that he helped the Tories ruin the country

[b]Careful TJ,[/b] you appear to be suggesting that strong military forces act can as a deterrent, and that by stationing them in the Falklands we could have prevented the 1982 invasion and saved a great many lives....

Clegg was quick to drop his knickers for taste of power by conveniently forgetting / ignoring some of his party's most important manifesto pledges.

Alternative - chummy up to Brown and keep him in against the will of the electorate??

Forgotten the election result have we?

TJ, you could well be right, I'm guessing from how uncomfotable he looks in the Commons, that Clegg himself may also agree with you.

rk11

The alternative IMO should have been to refuse all cabinet posts, agree a programme for the queens speech that the lib dems could support and let the tories govern as a minority government. Voting on an issue byu issue basis.

They could have extracted a fair few conditions to support a queens speech and they would have been less tarnished - especially if an issue arises to split the coalition

They couldn't have gone into coalition with labour - the maths did not work.

Teh minority government basis is how Scotland has been run for 4 yrs. it has produced a moderate government willing and able to comprimise

GlitterGary - Member

Is she dead yet?

Is she ****.............Maggie's battling on :

[url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3189945/Lady-Thatcher-winning-flu-battle-chatting-about-spending-cuts.html ]Maggie's winning her fight with the flu[/url]

My goodness, that woman's got some balls..........I bet the flu virus is starting to regret ever invading her body.

Apparently she's : [i]"even chatting about the Coalition spending cuts".[/i]

That must have made for an interesting conversation. Specially as apparently, she often can't remember what she said at the start the of a sentence, by the time she reaches the end of it.

[i]"A hospital spokesman was unavailable for comment."[/i]

The Sun should have insisted, pointing out that they were one of Rupert's papers, and therefore had a right to know how Maggie was doing.

Surf-Mat - Member

So Junkyard, you deny that Labour massively overspent?

Well Surf-Mat until quite recently, [u]the Tories themselves[/u] denied that Labour had massively overspent.

I see that earlier Surf-Mat, you claimed you can read - so have a read of this :

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm ]Tories 'to match Labour spending'[/url]

Quote :

[b][i]A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.

He pledged two years of 2% increases.

Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11.[/i][/b]

Of course soon after that came the global recession caused by Osborne's chums in the banking and finance sectors. It required massive government intervention, and faced with possibly the highest levels of unemployment and contraction since the Great Depression, the government successfully managed to stimulate the economy through growth in the public sector.

The result was far better than most people had imagined possible - unemployment, despite the most serious global crises for almost 70 years, never even reached the levels caused by Thatcher's recession of the early eighties.

So impressive was Labour's handling of the crises, that they went from a situation of a 22% Tory opinion poll lead, to robbing the Tories of a parliamentary majority - within 12 months.

However, Cameron and Osborn saw the credit crunch/global recession caused by their buddies as a golden opportunity to vandalise and destroy the British welfare state, social housing, the BBC, and everything else which public school educated privileged sons of multimillionaires so despise.

So they went from promising to spend even more than Labour, which they felt they needed to say to win the election, to the situation which we have today.

And the public has fallen for it hook line and sinker.........unemployment going up ? ....... its all the fault of Labour.
4.5 million waiting for affordable housing but the budget has been cut by over 50% ? ........its all the fault of Labour. Councils have to cut services and put up council tax ? ........its all the fault of Labour. And so on.........

Everything is Labours fault ....... as public school hooligans go on the rampage vandalising everything they can see and touch.

Although I do think this strategy has a limited shelf-life. Every time a minister whether Tory or LibDem, appears on TV and they are quizzed by interviewers, they trot out the "its Labour's fault"......whatever the issue. Eventually the public will get "its Labour's fault" fatigue, the ConLib government is going to be in trouble then. And I don't think they have a plan B.

yes in yer face what ernie said 😆
Ernie he - osborne-admitted he did not have one on Radio 4 this am - he was so confident it would work he had not considered what to do if it did not work - reassuring eh.
Some say osborne is arrogant, of limited ability, got where he is due to nepotism and is too cock sure of his own limited abilities ...can anyone see the punchline that is coming- can you mat 😉
Done now honest i will try my best to resist from now on

Ernie - from some opinion polls I saw it looks like the public have already seen thru this.

Two things.
I don't think smurf mat believes to his own arguments. 🙄

rkk - I'm not some die hard Tory boy (I didn't vote for them)

Secondly, the forum mirrors reality.

This thread just won't fukking die either!!!!!!!!!! 👿

Blaming previous administrations seems the norm. If I recall, Labour spent about 10 years blaming the Tories for anything and everything after 1997 with a recovering economy already underway. "we've made a good start, let us finish it", i think is how Blair put it after 4 years. Unfortunately he got side tracked by Iraq which is what Labour of recent vintage will be judged on, more than the now laughble "prudency - no return to boom and bust".

If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997, on the back of an already recovering economy with no more "boom or bust", but "prudency". Before they got distracted by Iraq, of course. Seems like an easy answer to difficult questions for any new administration.

Although I do think this strategy has a limited shelf-life.

Please excuse the crap double post above!

this forum still blames Facha for everything 20 years later

Secondly, the forum mirrors reality.

This thread just won't fukking die either!!!!!!!!!!

Gladstones fault, or Disraelis, and Pitt the Younger.... bastard he was.
Don't get me started on Ethelred the Unready!

“Tell everyone I’ll see them somewhere, sometime.” Roibeárd Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh MP : 9 March 1954 – 5 May 1981.

Although Blair is recorded as saying that he admires Margaret Thatcher, he doesn't (despite trying really hard) to seem to have managed to generate QUITE the same level of spite and loathing.

That's because he was merely a Religious Fanatic in a position of power, not a Sociopath.

I'm interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?

Because it is claimed by some that during a war you shouldn't do material damage to the enemy, or something very similar to that theory.

I'm interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?

Because it was outside the Exclusion Zone, not really posing a 'threat', and the deaths of hundreds of sailors was ultimately unjustifiable, and definitely avoidable.

Whatever any politicians might say.

If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997

They didn't actually - far from it. In fact New Labour heaped praise on Thatcher, not least Tony Blair. And just in case anyone thought Brown would be different, this is what he did soon after moving into number 10 :

[img] [/img]

Does that ^^ look like a Labour PM blaming the Tories for everything ?

Both Blair and Brown were committed Thatcherites and where extremely reluctant to criticise anything about the Thatcher legacy. Where the **** do you get "Labour spent years blaming the Tories" ?

In the 13 years New Labour where in power the only period in which imo, they behaved in an acceptable manner, was when faced with the banker's recession, they temporarily ditched Thatcherism.

But even then, they refused to blame Thatcher for the mess Britain found itself in. Well I suppose they couldn't really, after following her economic policies for over 10 years.

Now, to be a “war crime” you have to meet certain tests, just as the majority of deaths in combat should not be treated as murder, however tragic.

Most of the tests are contained in the various Geneva conventions – dealing with treatment of the injured, Prisoners of War, and civilians (and their property) in the war zone. Under the relevant UK law, Section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, you are referred to the Article 8.2 of the Statute of International Criminal Court.

Reading this, it seems clear that there is no way attacking, or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations, however great (and tragic) the loss of life is can be a war crime.

For it to be a War Crime, under the ICC Statute, you would have to establish that the persons involved were not acting in accordance with lawful ROE or within the Geneva Conventions, Furthermore, it would appear to be extremely difficult to convict of a War Crime the “Commander in Chief”, or in Maggie’s case, political leader, who caused those ROE to be set even if, as it clearly didn’t here, one or more persons following those ROE could be charged with War Crimes.

Creating and following unlawful ROE that contradicted the Geneva Conventions could be chargeable as a War Crime and, for the political leadership, there is also the different definitions of "Crimes against Humanity", in the same statutes.

However, given again, the relevant situation: the killing of serving military personnel, who had neither surrendered or indicated a desire to surrender, as a consequence of the destruction of the military asset in which they were travelling, cannot possibly fit any category of potential transgression - even more so given the fact that military operations had taken place in the conflict -shots had already been fired, a hostile military force had invaded and used force of arms against sovereign troops and territory.

So, TJ, Fred, and others, you may not like what was done during the war but, please, if you are going to throw around the allegations of “war criminal”, [b]please justify it with reference to the current statutes, or to those that applied in 1982[/b] , rather than merely restating or referring to the hyperbole and ranting of Tam Dalyell and old copies of Socialist Worker

Oh be'ave yerself Labby. Sinking the Belgrano wasn't necessary; it was an act to show British military might. Your bit of waffle there proves nowt one way or the other.

So, [b]justify[/b] your claim of war crimes!

Which of the articles of war were breached?

or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations

The murder of human beings who pose no threat to others is crime. This act happened during a war. Ergo, a 'war crime'. Unless you are under attack from someone, killing them can never be justified.

Thatcher ordered their deaths. Makes her a criminal. Don't start with all yer armchair lawyer bollox labby.

[i]articles of war[/i]

That's like me saying to you 'no weapons, just fists', you agreeing, then me battering your skull in with an axe. It's bollox. There are no 'rules' in War. It's [i]war[/i], ffs.

Enough already. She's a War Criminal. I spose you're going to defend her support for Pol Pot and Pinnochet next? 🙄

This thread is like a metal detector but for cocks.

You should have more self-esteem crikey.

It was no war crime.

The exclusion zone applied to neutral shipping only, not to enemy combatants. Indeed, the Argentinians didn't even recognise it.

Some of their vessels had been skirting the periphery of it, popping in to mount an attack, then leaving in the mistaken belief that they wouldn't be attacked, but that was their mistake.

A cock detector you mean.

Their biggest mistake was missing the big hammer and sickle on the Russian sub.

So Fred - you really, really just cannot substantiate your claim that she's a war criminal then? so revert to the classic approach of yelling "well, its true, coz I say it is!"

Indeed, Junky makes a good point, [u]even the Argentinians[/u] no longer claim that the sinking if the Belgramo was a war crime - so, its just the small minded, Che Guevara wearing, left wing loons with a chip on their shoulder and a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex ]Napoleon complex[/url], like yourself Fred, who are tied to the outdated, childish thought that if they shout "war crime" loud enough, it will make it true.

Not forgetting the British quite clearly said they still reserved the right to attack threats outside their exclusion zone. The Argies and even the battle cruiser captain admit as much it was a legitimate target, and himself had orders for his ship and his exocet armed escort ships to attack any british ships on sight, regardless as to where they were.

The cock detector is flashing like crazy.

Argies = Baddies
Brits = Goodies

Regardless of wether or not she is a War Criminal by any [i]official[/i] definition, the truth is she is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, in that one episode alone. And is a supporter of murderous dictators. IE, a right nasty piece of work.

You strike me as the whiny kid in school, the one who'd have no real friends, who'd talk bollocks and get beat up a lot by the rest who couldn't stand you. Probbly why you need to play with guns.

Your resorting to insults means your opinions and comments are no longer worthy of any consideration or respect. Good night.

The cock detector is flashing like crazy.

+1 😆

Yes, whenever you post deadlydarcy.

It isn't about goodies and baddies.

Jesus Fred - sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, my sincere apologies - I guess I overdid it with the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex ]Napoleon[/url] comment?

QUOTE: Elfinsafety - Member
Regardless of wether or not she is a War Criminal by any official definition UNQUOTE.

Having failed to score, move the goalposts.

Oh **** off bravo, can't you tell when someone's taking the piss?! Next thing you'll be calling me a republican. Oh hang on, you already have. The flashing's died down, have you gone to bed?

It's just started up again, whenever you post...it's uncanny.

Tuck yourself up under your Bobby Sands duvet cover.

[i]Bobby Sands duvet cover[/i]

Bit thin for this chilly time of year, no?

Whilst you little Thathcherites are creaming yourselves over definitions, there are families of sailors who died on the Belgrano, who never got to see their loved ones again. Because some power-mad **** wanted to show how 'tough' she was. An act of complete cowardice.

Zulu; I'm not the one who needs to play with guns to make themselves feel all tough, mate. 😉

, its just the small minded, Che Guevara wearing, left wing loons with a chip on their shoulder and a Napoleon complex

Che Guevara wearing ?

A "Che Guevara" is an item of clothing ?..............where can I get one ?

I think I should be wearing one of those.

And there you go again bravo...

You appear to have a lot of pent up anger, what with the offensive insults you throw about with gay abandon. Maybe see someone about it?

I'm not angry. But I'll be a lot happier when I get my hands on a "Che Guevara"