Petition for Thatcher's state funeral to be privatised

[ahinton]

I have many points; you just disagree with most of them. ;)

On the contrary; when you have what strikes me as a valid point I endeavour to say so clearly; when I disagree with any of your points, I never "just disagree" with them but say why, as best I can.

[John Skelton]

Well, this thread has opened my eyes to some truly nasty vicious posters, without an ounce of charity flowing in their embittered and twisted veins.

It really is about time that Platform 3 was closed so the disgusting bile that so many of you seem to wish on another frail and ill human being is kept hidden in your own perverted souls.

I find it very hard to dissociate the "frail and ill human being" from the person who associated herself so supportively thus http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/300000...hatcher300.jpg and thus http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...6-_632258a.jpg and thus http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7JheMiUWj_...hatcher-09.jpg with a man http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w_5Nd2UWFX...-pinochet5.jpg accused of mass murder and corruption who "By the time of his death [six years later]... had been implicated in over 300 criminal charges for numerous human rights violations, including the Caravan of Death case (case closed in July 2002 by the Supreme Court of Chile, but re-opened in 2007 following new medical expertises), Carlos Prats's assassination (case closed on 1 April 2005), Operation Condor (case closed on 17 June 2005), Operation Colombo, Villa Grimaldi case, Carmelo Soria case, Calle Conferencia case, Antonio Llidó case, Eugenio Berrios case, tax evasion and passport forgery." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto...rest_and_trial

Little of this was not known at the time of her supporting Pinochet after his arrest in the UK on an international warrant. She gave not a fig or a thought for or an ounce of charity to General Pinochet's victims, whilst voluminously sympathising with him: your word "disgusting" seems the appropriate one. Sorry if that offends you.

[ahinton]

The difficulties that you put forward are inherent in any private involvement in public services, & are fundamental to objections to that involvement. Sponsorship (a slightly different thing) of public events is well established, and I believe that organisations like football clubs have to pay for police used for crowd control etc. during matches.(reply to ahinton, #161)

I believe that such organisations are expected to contribute towards policing at such events but this case would be different in that (a) the armed services would also be involved and (b) the police and armed services would be directly responsible to their temporary paymasters for their actions as they would have to be contracted by those paymasters who would have to have some say in the nature and extent of their activities. The PFI schemes have largely proved so disastrously uneconomical that the suggestion here might well invite unpleasant comparisons therewith, albeit on a far smaller scale. No one has yet suggested how the selection process for those who would fund this event would work; presumably, if it were to be a "state funeral" in the sense of being recognised and approved by the Queen, the Queen would be entitled to have some say in who were to fund it; nothing's been said about that yet either.

Long live Margaret Thatcher - even if only so that we don't actually have to address this one of many so many hairbrained ideas from the Brown study.

[ahinton]

I find it very hard to dissociate the person who associated herself so supportively thus http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/300000...hatcher300.jpg and thus http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...6-_632258a.jpg and thus http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7JheMiUWj_...hatcher-09.jpg with a man http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w_5Nd2UWFX...-pinochet5.jpg accused of mass murder and corruption who "By the time of his death [six years later]... had been implicated in over 300 criminal charges for numerous human rights violations, including the Caravan of Death case (case closed in July 2002 by the Supreme Court of Chile, but re-opened in 2007 following new medical expertises), Carlos Prats's assassination (case closed on 1 April 2005), Operation Condor (case closed on 17 June 2005), Operation Colombo, Villa Grimaldi case, Carmelo Soria case, Calle Conferencia case, Antonio Llidó case, Eugenio Berrios case, tax evasion and passport forgery." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto...rest_and_trial

Little of this was not known at the time of her supporting Pinochet after his arrest in the UK on an international warrant. She gave not a fig or a thought for or an ounce of charity to General Pinochet's victims, whilst voluminously sympathising with him: your word "disgusting" seems the appropriate one. Sorry if that offends you.

I agree - and it certainly doesn't offend me; the balanced viewpoint that I urged earlier should also take these facts into consideration. Actually, I've often wondered why she seemed to be so supportive of Pinochet when letting that support be widely known ought surely to have struck her as a serious own goal...

[John Skelton]

I agree - and it certainly doesn't offend me; the balance viewpoit that I urged earlier should also take these facts into consideration. Actually, I've often wondered why she seemed to be so supportive of Pinochet when letting that support be widely known ought surely to have struck her as a serious own goal...

She was so supportive of Pinochet because Pinochet was the darling of the "Chicago boys", Chile was the testing ground for "neoliberalism", an ally in the Falklands War, and because people like Margaret Thatcher possess the kind of morality which says it's perfectly OK to be what Pinochet was if you are "one of us." Blair, of course, is rather more concerned about own goals and rather quicker to drop inconvenient former best friends. For all that, it's hard to see sticking by Pinochet as other than gruesome and immoral arrogance rather than commendable consistency.

Perhaps she thought he mainly killed 'Commies' and they aren't decent people so it doesn't matter.

[Serial_Apologist]

She was so supportive of Pinochet because Pinochet was the darling of the "Chicago boys", Chile was the testing ground for "neoliberalism", an ally in the Falklands War, and because people like Margaret Thatcher possess the kind of morality which says it's perfectly OK to be what Pinochet was if you are "one of us." Blair, of course, is rather more concerned about own goals and rather quicker to drop inconvenient former best friends. For all that, it's hard to see sticking by Pinochet as other than gruesome and immoral arrogance rather than commendable consistency.

Perhaps she thought he mainly killed 'Commies' and they aren't decent people so it doesn't matter.

Thanks for the reminder, JS; rather puts the earlier point-by-point "ineluctabilities" and, in so many words, "there are no choices, we are where we are" generalisations in perspective.

[Pilchardman]

She was so supportive of Pinochet because Pinochet was the darling of the "Chicago boys", Chile was the testing ground for "neoliberalism", an ally in the Falklands War, and because people like Margaret Thatcher possess the kind of morality which says it's perfectly OK to be what Pinochet was if you are "one of us." Blair, of course, is rather more concerned about own goals and rather quicker to drop inconvenient former best friends. For all that, it's hard to see sticking by Pinochet as other than gruesome and immoral arrogance rather than commendable consistency.

Perhaps she thought he mainly killed 'Commies' and they aren't decent people so it doesn't matter.

Indeed.

[Pilchardman]

On the contrary; when you have what strikes me as a valid point I endeavour to say so clearly; when I disagree with any of your points, I never "just disagree" with them but say why, as best I can.

I was being flippant.

[ahinton]

I was being flippant.

I had thought as much!

Anyway, let's hope this "state funeral" doesn't happen, privately or publicly funded; I just don't think it's a good idea and John Skelton's reminders about her support of Pinochet have given me yet another reason to think so.

[Ferretfancy]

The lady has often been praised by her apologists because she was ready to overlook human failings in her colleagues. Cecil Parkinson comes to mind as one such, a man who treated the mother of his illegitimate daughter abominably, mainly because she was prepared to put up a fight for the child's rights.
As has been said elsewhere he was "One of us" and therefore he could be forgiven everything.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TFx9u1t1LY&feature=related