Thatcher Dies

[Babylon]

Why aren't you in favour?

He had an awful fracking experience as a child.

[The Doctor]

Why aren't you in favour?

Because fracking results in contamination of ground water and because the chemicals used in extraction can migrate through shale basins very easily - it's very un-environmentally friendly.

[BoneDog]

That one is right - the Khmer Rouge were backed by the UK and Thatcher sent out the SAS to train them while they were working on the massacre - going as far as to give them psychological training on how to do so.

It's always the same story. The School of the Americas and the CIA trained most of the officers and torturers of dictators from south of the US. And then they'd waffle on on US tv about what naughty boys said officers and dictators were, pretending that they gave a f*&k or were outraged.

Like the experience of never using soap.

Tony Benn is one of the cleanest people on the planet!

[The Doctor]

It's always the same story. The School of the Americas and the CIA trained most of the officers and torturers of dictators from south of the US. And then they'd waffle on on US tv about what naughty boys said officers and dictators were, pretending that they gave a f*&k or were outraged.

Well, yes, us and the US seem to have a rather worrying hit rate for training up crazy despots or arming border-line nut-cases but the Khmer Rouge stuff was the case.

[MooseBreath]

Because fracking results in contamination of ground water and because the chemicals used in extraction can migrate through shale basins very easily - it's very un-environmentally friendly.

I thought I read somewhere that the Americans were using technology which puts the water used in the fracking through treatment before it is discharged, and that this solves the major environmental concern

[Guest MattP]

[Fox in the North]

I've been to Snibston! aha!

[purpleronnie]

Maybe it affected their parents that inturn affected their lives, just like you like Maggie because her policies helped your parents.

[The Doctor]

I expected this from the likes of Kitchensink, but you? You're old and wise enough to know that her effect on Britain stretches far more than just the coal mines and the period that she was in power.

[Finnegan]

I expected this from the likes of Kitchensink, but you? You're old and wise enough to know that her effect on Britain stretches far more than just the coal mines and the period that she was in power.

Honestly? If I were you I'd pack it up now, tbh.

[Deucalion]

Deucalion's I don't think we are far apart on this but I felt at the time and still do that the sinking was a questionable act but did take us past a point of no return. I don't think this is the time or place to debate the threat that the Belgrano posed or if it was a polictal or military decesion.

[The Doctor]

Deucalion's I don't think we are far apart on this but I felt at the time and still do that the sinking was a questionable act but did take us past a point of no return. I don't think this is the time or place to debate the threat that the Belgrano posed or if it was a polictal or military decesion.

I know I ought to just give up, but this is one point where I'll defend Maggie - wasn't the belgrano acting as part of a pincer attack, making it a justified military target?

[Guest Bilo]

The Belgrano was a perfectly legitimate target.

This has been admitted by the captain of the Belgrano, the Argentinian government and international laws of engagement. In times of war, a warship has the right to engage with any enemy vessel regardless of heading.

The Belgrano was carrying Exocet missiles and could therefore be considered a threat to shipping, as well. It was, as LargeAl rightly says, also strongly suspected of being involved in a pincer movement.

Leaving it might have resulted in hundreds of British deaths, something that Thatcher would have been absolutely slaughtered for at home and might even have affected the result of the war.

[l444ry]

Why declare an Exclusion Zone then if you destroy something outside it? And what sort of pincer movement has its prongs 350 miles apart. Utter revisionist poppycock in my opinion.

[Deucalion]

Britain's only air presence* came from aircraft carriers to the east of the Falkland Islands. If anything had happened to these carriers then Argentina would have unchallenged air superiority over the islands and the invasion couldn't have taken place.

The Belgrano was sailing to the south of the islands, while an Argentine carrier, the 25th May, was steaming to the north of the islands.

This posed a great risk to the carriers. It gave commanders a choice of risk the carriers, move the carriers, or remove the threat of a pincer movement. Apparently another nuclear submarine was tracking the 25th May but lost contact. Argentina came close to losing both her carrier and battle cruiser.

* Apart from Vulcans based on Ascension. These were not going to win air superiority on the Falklands but did play an important role by preventing fast jets operating from Stanley.

[l444ry]

Britain's only air presence* came from aircraft carriers to the east of the Falkland Islands. If anything had happened to these carriers then Argentina would have unchallenged air superiority over the islands and the invasion couldn't have taken place.

The Belgrano was sailing to the south of the islands, while an Argentine carrier, the 25th May, was steaming to the north of the islands.

This posed a great risk to the carriers. It gave commanders a choice of risk the carriers, move the carriers, or remove the threat of a pincer movement. Apparently another nuclear submarine was tracking the 25th May but lost contact. Argentina came close to losing both her carrier and battle cruiser.

* Apart from Vulcans based on Ascension. These were not going to win air superiority on the Falklands but did play an important role by preventing fast jets operating from Stanley.

However, GCHQ had intercepted Argentine messages ordering all ships to return to port and the Belgrano was sailing away from the task force.

[Leicfox]

[MrSpaM]

I know I ought to just give up

Don't let us stop you doing what you think is right

[Deucalion]

However, GCHQ had intercepted Argentine messages ordering all ships to return to port and the Belgrano was sailing away from the task force.

Do you have a source for this? I thought the order came after the Belgrano was sunk?

Regardless, it was a threat and war was inevitable by this point anyway.

[acooling08]

Ok so I actually got my dad to properly explain to me why he thinks Maggie was such a great PM. I'm not looking for a fight or anything, just logical reasoned counter-arguments (rich coming from me eh?)

- Ok so in the late 70s, we were 'the sick man of europe'. We were on the verge of an IMF bailout because we were in such a state. By the late 80s, we were once again a strong economic power. So surely this is the sign of strong and effective leadership? Surely the way we were heading at that time shows that change was needed?

- Maggie didn't destroy mining and other industry. Such industries were just not competitive on a global scale. Miners were too greedy and demanding with unsustainably high wages, and went on strikes repeatedly (my dad remembers the power cuts) so they needed to have their power reduced. Just as say hosiery and textiles in Leicester died due to foreign production being cheaper, coal from Russia was so much cheaper and so buying that instead made much more economic sense. So rather that destroying industry, she let the free market work itself out because it was too expensive to subsidise it.

- She helped many people buy their council houses, surely this is a good thing for many reasons? Helping 'poorer' people own property.

He'd probably argue it better than me and would probably love a good debate with some of you (if he could use a computer properly!) but those are some of his points.

Cheers anyway.

Edit: Just like to say that I've got nothing against miners, my grandad on my mothers side was a yorkshireman and was a miner in the 60s before joining the army. I can't ask him his thoughts because he died 10 years ago.

[Leicfox]

Same MP that said "It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" during gay marriage debate.

:unsure:

[Charl91]

Same MP that said "It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" during gay marriage debate.

:unsure:

There are tossers from both sides, that much is evident.

[FoxyPV]

She was a great politician with some abhorrent policies and beliefs, whose influence has had an adverse affect on the UK as a whole, but to have large celebrations for the death of a 87 year old woman who has not been in power for over 23 years is crass.

I can understand why people feel so much anger towards her but her legacy was continued under Major, Blair and the current lot of cvnts. Blair especially had a chance to reverse this and still ****ed up.

[Webbo]

Ok so I actually got my dad to properly explain to me why he thinks Maggie was such a great PM. I'm not looking for a fight or anything, just logical reasoned counter-arguments (rich coming from me eh?)

- Ok so in the late 70s, we were 'the sick man of europe'. We were on the verge of an IMF bailout because we were in such a state. By the late 80s, we were once again a strong economic power. So surely this is the sign of strong and effective leadership? Surely the way we were heading at that time shows that change was needed?

- Maggie didn't destroy mining and other industry. Such industries were just not competitive on a global scale. Miners were too greedy and demanding with unsustainably high wages, and went on strikes repeatedly (my dad remembers the power cuts) so they needed to have their power reduced. Just as say hosiery and textiles in Leicester died due to foreign production being cheaper, coal from Russia was so much cheaper and so buying that instead made much more economic sense. So rather that destroying industry, she let the free market work itself out because it was too expensive to subsidise it.

- She helped many people buy their council houses, surely this is a good thing for many reasons? Helping 'poorer' people own property.

He'd probably argue it better than me and would probably love a good debate with some of you (if he could use a computer properly!) but those are some of his points.

Cheers anyway.

Edit: Just like to say that I've got nothing against miners, my grandad on my mothers side was a yorkshireman and was a miner in the 60s before joining the army. I can't ask him his thoughts because he died 10 years ago.

Your dad's about right.

[wurmer]

Why declare an Exclusion Zone then if you destroy something outside it? And what sort of pincer movement has its prongs 350 miles apart. Utter revisionist poppycock in my opinion.

Tough shit for them, they shouldn't have invaded in the first place.