Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
cityfanlee23

Who is the greatest prime minister of the last 65 years?

By cityfanlee23, in General Chat

Who was/is the greatest prime minister in the last 65 years?   

89 members have voted

  1. 1. Who was/is the greatest prime minister in the last 65 years?

    • David Cameron
      1
    • Gordon Brown
      2
    • Tony Blair
      7
    • John Major
      1
    • Margaret Thatcher
      19
    • Winston Churchill
      28
    • Harold Wilson
      2
    • Edward Heath
      0
    • Alec Douglas-Home
      0
    • Harold Macmillan
      2
    • Anthony Eden
      0
    • James Callaghan
      1
    • Clement Attlee
      26

Recommended Posts

cityfanlee23

cityfanlee23

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yet you voted for Thatcher. 

 

Understand she guided us through the Falklands but I'm from a Northern mining town which she totally killed along with many other areas.

 

 

An industry that HAD to be closed.

 

Edit - make no mistake, It should have been wound down slower.... but still had to finish, It was costing the country billions as a loss making industry. as was the majority of all of industrial Britain.

sphericalfox

sphericalfox

Posted
Posted

Yet you voted for Thatcher. 

 

Understand she guided us through the Falklands but I'm from a Northern mining town which she totally killed along with many other areas.

 

Thatcher was trying to reduce our carbon footprint. We'd all be under 8ft of water it wasn't for her.

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Harold Wilson he won us the Jules Rimet trophy.

l444ry

l444ry

Posted
Posted

She didn't actually directly order the Belgrano to be attacked in the situation it was in, 

The initial rule was if the any enemy fleet were within the border set out, they are liable to be attacked... The Belgrano entered those waters, the argument is that the Belgrano at the time was going AWAY from the waters, but if so would have been facing 60 degrees away.

 

These were clear rules set out from the start, What do you think would have happened if the news came back that the Belgrano was in our waters, and we let it go, then it came and sunk one of our ships?

 

This is the ENEMY we are talking about.... The enemy who'd damaged/sunk 22 of our ships

I don't think I've ever read such an ill informed and inaccurate statement on the Belgrano affair.

Danno

Danno

Posted
Posted

I don't think I've ever read such an ill informed and inaccurate statement on the Belgrano affair.

What do you expect. lol
Jimothy

Jimothy

Posted
Posted

I don't think I've ever read such an ill informed and inaccurate statement on the Belgrano affair.

 

Did you expect any better from Dapper Laughs.

 

Tories could blow up a bus of kittens and small children and he's find a way to justify it. lol

cityfanlee23

cityfanlee23

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Did you expect any better from Dapper Laughs.

 

Tories could blow up a bus of kittens and small children and he's find a way to justify it. lol

 

I'm not "justifying" anything.

 

I'm stating fact. The belgrano was in our waters, Days after it should have been. Argentina were told they would be attacked if they were in our waters, the Belgrano was.

 

As stated before Argentina had damaged/sunk 22 of our vessels. Not a risk worth taking.

l444ry

l444ry

Posted
Posted

I'm not "justifying" anything.

 

I'm stating fact. The belgrano was in our waters, Days after it should have been. Argentina were told they would be attacked if they were in our waters, the Belgrano was.

 

As stated before Argentina had damaged/sunk 22 of our vessels. Not a risk worth taking.

What is your source for this?

separator

separator

Posted
Posted

I'm not "justifying" anything.

 

I'm stating fact. The belgrano was in our waters, Days after it should have been. Argentina were told they would be attacked if they were in our waters, the Belgrano was.

 

As stated before Argentina had damaged/sunk 22 of our vessels. Not a risk worth taking.

The Belgrano was in international waters, and outside of the exclusion zone set up by the UK during the Falklands, thats where the controversy regarding its sinking comes in.

cityfanlee23

cityfanlee23

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Belgrano was in international waters, and outside of the exclusion zone set up by the UK during the Falklands, thats where the controversy regarding its sinking comes in.

 

 

It was going toward and around the exclusion zone. before peaking into it, Our ships had shadowed it for 2 days.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...