The Baroness Thatcher thread

Moggy -certainly built here -British owned -no!

So all those Fords we bought over decades….err….;)

4. a mere assumption or guess.

Not a claim. A hypothesis.

Anyway have you seen the pie chart written about in this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22066540

al·le·ga·tion (l-gshn)
n.
1. Something alleged; an assertion: allegations of disloyalty.
2. The act of alleging.
3. A statement asserting something without proof.
4. Law An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence.

Seems to fit my use of the word pretty well.

With your definition 4. I’ll concede hypothesis if it makes you happy. What you wrote is certainly no more than a guess or assumption!!:rolleyes: It’s certainly not worth wasting anymore time over since the original point was not worth making.

Sorry Twitter and tweeting have no interest for me whatsoever, so I would not have seen your link. But having now read it it utterly confirms all my misgivings about it. Thank you.

Moggy -certainly built here -British owned -no!

hy·poth·e·sis/haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Show Spelled [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-]
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses /-ˌsiz/ Show Spelled [-seez]
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

Not a claim. A hypothesis.

Anyway have you seen the pie chart written about in this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22066540

Hardly a response worthy of your signatory. Nor of you, for that matter….:(

Had not seen your edited post.

At the risk of repeating myself ” arguably allowed the Falklands to happen to ensure re-election.”

I can’t see any different interpretation of those words…..and that’s not a hypothesis, it is a claim, without substantiation. The use of the word “arguably” implies that there is an argument to be made. I have yet to read it.

Ahem…bull****

I’e given my opinion, in which i made no such claims as you are attributing to me.
I presented a hypothisis which you do not like. That’s fine.
Stop building strawmen.

As so often you have signally failed to answer the key point. Which was your claim that the Falklands War was engineered to produce an election victory. And so far you have failed to do produce a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Nothing else in our debate is relevant.

Snafu – that’s an extraordinary oversimplification in order to attempt to make a case for your wild original allegation. You’ll have to do a lot better than that to convince me that there is merit in it.

I haven’t “trundled” anything out. She made many mistakes and errors of judgment but I thought we were discussing this specific point.

With respect i often find your analysis on many topics an extraordinary over simplification too.

I’m not trying to convince you or anybody else, i’m not standing for election or otherwise in need of your approval.

As has been shown the deceased was not as great and good as some would claim, she did some good and some bad. Like most people.
The one thing she will be remembered for in time was being the first female prime minister. The rest will slip away into obscurity.

I believe that the Falklands war could and possibly should have been avoided, i’ve stated why. You disagree, that’s fine.

Toyota, Honda, Nissan.

Moggy

Whalebone – I love your dedication to buying British ! I am afraid if you wish to continue the cause about all we can offer now car wise is a Morgan and regards PC’s your going to be out of luck !

SNAFU – there isn’t really any evidence to back up what your saying. There had been a landing on the Falklands in the 1970’s by a light aircraft carrying Argentinians with a political agenda but apart from that there doesn’t appear to have been any physical activity.
What does interest me is that the U.K supplied one Type 42 destroyer and assisted in the build of another in Argentina in the 1970’s . Why would they have done that if there was clear signs of military intent against the Falklands?

Re 75

And all the other brutish, uncivilised and derogatory remarks. Doesn’t that give an insight into some sections of our society?

KARMA

Snafu – that’s an extraordinary oversimplification in order to attempt to make a case for your wild original allegation. You’ll have to do a lot better than that to convince me that there is merit in it.

I haven’t “trundled” anything out. She made many mistakes and errors of judgment but I thought we were discussing this specific point.

T

1) I really think that were each commentator on this thread to reveal how old they were in 1979 it could be quite revealing (31 before you ask)

Moggy

21 in 1979.
(BTW DB) I drive a 10 year old Rover and my PC is so old it was built in the UK and contains no Chinese components at all :rolleyes:

.

.

Chaps, there are generally always good and bad sides to any actions, events and persons.

If you actually read my comments you’d notice that i had stated a couple of times that she achieved necessary change in the best interests of Britain; i’d also add that she was probably the best leader (of a bad crop) since Churchill. (I have a few thoughts on him too :diablo: :)) That however doesn’t take away from the negative aspects of her premiership.

Taking the Falklands as an example; the Argentinians had previous, in recent years, having been discretely and successfully faced down at the time by previous administrations.
The Argentinian agitation had reached the same level prior to the 1982 invasion yet the incumbent government did nothing.
That is either a deliberate act or an incompetant one.
Either way it resulted in un-necessary loss of life.
Under the deceased’s leadership.
The war was then exploited to ensure re-election. Yes, all politicians would have done the same, that however does not justify it.
Those gentlemen are the facts. How culpable the deceased was in person is debatable, it was however her administration that failed.

All i was doing was offering the fact (as there so often is, particularly with politicians) that there is an alternative to the conventional narritive you guys quicky trundled out.

Two thoughts from me.

1) I really think that were each commentator on this thread to reveal how old they were in 1979 it could be quite revealing (31 before you ask)

2) On the BBC website last night that most reactions from ‘important people’ were respectful even if they fundamentally disagreed with her. The exceptions were Gerry Adams, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway. Says it all, really

Keep it civil.

Moggy

1) 39.

2) Fortunately I haven’t graced the BBC website for a long time so missed those remarks. But hardly surprising from that trio.

Civility is something in short supply these days, in so many areas of activity and social exchange.

I was beginning to think this thread was for supporters of her only.

Just remember Harry Enfields character “loadsa money” that epitomised what her beliefs were,i’m alright jack-stuff you.
Sorry i won’t be shedding a tear either but i bet my tax money will go towards a “ceremony” for her.

I totally agree. She bought her popularity, then left the rest of to pay for it.

I find it sickening the way so many politicians have been queuing up to sing her praises.

This sums it up very well : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T17VzztS60M

On the horizon? You can get them at 60 now – sexual equality rules!

I even get a lower cost FoD membership.

R

Certainly agree with post number 2. Saw the first two and missed George’s effort.

35

Didn’t realize bus passes were on the horizon Moggy! 😀

Moggy. I couldn’t agree more with point number 2. I could say more about those 3 you mentioned, but they are not worthy enough. I.M.O.
Jim.
Lincoln .7