Should Maggie Thatcher get a State funeral.

[Shytalkz]

Hang on a minute, first you say after the belgrano was sunk they stayed away, and now agree they were never in the way in the first place!
Like I say, you don't know your facts - you are just using guesswork...

You're being obtuse. They were a threat before the Belgrana; they weren't after, as they refused to come out to play. Fact.

Actually (facts again I'm afraid) the pits would have been economical for much of that time

Sorry, there are enough checks and balances - even in this country - that someone acting as a megalomaniac would not be able to do that. It was overpriced cf continental coal, the wages bill was too high and the cost of extraction was not viable for the economic conditions at the time.

and the subsidies would have been very small compared to the decommissioning subsidies for nuclear power plants!

Coal: the fuel of the future. Not.

And now we would have a very profitable industry, instead of a flooded one!

Conveniently forgetting the high cost of offsetting the years of propping it up in the interim.

You'd have willingly paid 30+% tax just to keep those pits open at that time, would you?
Facts for this claim please..!

Ok, might be a spot of hyperbole there - although we were paying that when the loons got kicked out last time...

Pure guesswork again...

Inspired, I would say

 

[Belboz]

IMHO,

Times have changed. I don't agree that Prime Ministers should be afforded the 'honour' of state funerals in the modern day and age. That goes for any of them whether it be Maggie, Gordo, Bliar or anyone else.

We can [and have] argue the pros and cons of individual Prime Ministers over the years and I don't see any of them being 'special'.

Of course, I wouldn't have state funerals at all but there will always be those who argue their retention for the monarchy.

Apart from anything else, the massive costs involved outweigh any perceived 'advantages'.

As I said, that is my HO anyhow.

 

[Shytalkz]

Joe's expecting to have one, for putting the world to rights, you know

 

[JohnD]

Sorry, there are enough checks and balances - even in this country - that someone acting as a megalomaniac would not be able to do that.

She wouldn't be able to push through the Poll Tax, you mean

 

[Shytalkz]

Not in its original incarnation she didn't.

 

[JohnD]

you're saying she gets reincarnated?

will this happen if a drop of blood falls on her coffin?

 

[ellal]

You're being obtuse. They were a threat before the Belgrana; they weren't after, as they refused to come out to play. Fact.

Ah, I see...they were in position 'a' before and were a threat despite not planning to attack, and in position 'a' after, so obviously the threat they posed was directly down to sinking an ageing ship?

Not obtuse, just shining a huge light through the holes in your argument!

Coal: the fuel of the future. Not.

The economy of the future (china) seems to think so...and tbh I'd rather coal power (with filtering) than tens of thousands of years of nuclear legacy!

Conveniently forgetting the high cost of offsetting the years of propping it up in the interim.

nope...but then the subsidies would have been less than (as I've said) the nuclear industry, or even the tax free status of plane fuel!

and if a long term view was taken (as opposed to the 'dash for gas'), then we'd be in overall profit!

Sorry, there are enough checks and balances - even in this country - that someone acting as a megalomaniac would not be able to do that.

Keep taking the medicine....

 

[Shytalkz]

Ah, I see...they were in position 'a' before and were a threat despite not planning to attack, and in position 'a' after, so obviously the threat they posed was directly down to sinking an ageing ship?

Not obtuse, just shining a huge light through the holes in your argument!

Not planning to attack? Who says? For what reason, prior to the Belgrano would they not have had any inclination to do so? Did they send the British a memo saying don't hit the ships, as we won't be using them in this skirmish? I think not.

The economy of the future (china) seems to think so...and tbh I'd rather coal power (with filtering) than tens of thousands of years of nuclear legacy!

They might well do - but without any consideration for the adverse environmental impact that using the quantities that they require, either.

nope...but then the subsidies would have been less than (as I've said) the nuclear industry, or even the tax free status of plane fuel!

and if a long term view was taken (as opposed to the 'dash for gas'), then we'd be in overall profit!

And which skewed statistical analysis has lead you to these conclusions?

Keep taking the medicine....

And best you get back in the sheep pen with all the others

 

[JohnD]

Outside the exclusion zone and sailing away

Me (to neighbour, during argument) "If I see you climbing over the fence into my garden, I'll shoot you"

Neighbour walks up his garden path towards his back door. I shoot him anyway.

Me "I thought he might come out of his house later and climb over the fence into my garden"

Good argument, huh?

 

[Shytalkz]

Very good - and sensible - in a war situation.

 

[JohnD]

No declaration of war.

But there was a warning given that ships in the exclusion zone would be considered targets.

Me (to other neighbours" "He was in my garden"

other neighbours "No he wasn't"

Me "Well he was waking towards the fence to climb over it"

other neighbours "No he wasn't"

Me "Well he was a direct and immediate threat to me"

other neighbours "No he wasn't"

 

[Shytalkz]

So, they seemingly changed the RoE - that's war for you, people not playing fair. I don't suppose if you were in conflict with your neighbour that you would operate within the Quensberry Rules either, if you could see a way to make him scuttle back off inside his house for good.

Good call, I say.

 

[Shytalkz]

No declaration of war.

Semantics. We were at war, even if it was not called that, or formally declared as one.

 

[JohnD]

I wouldn't get away with shooting my neighbour in the circumstances I describe.

Maybe I could get my security guard to keep his mouth shut and "lose" the video tape having a record of the event before I was investigated.

 

[ellal]

Not planning to attack? Who says? For what reason, prior to the Belgrano would they not have had any inclination to do so? Did they send the British a memo saying don't hit the ships, as we won't be using them in this skirmish? I think not.

I think the fact that they didn't either emerge from their own 12 mile limit, or stayed in port might represent 'not planning to attack' don't you...unless of course they had some 'super gun' which no-one else knew about (a bit like iraq and WMD's... )

They might well do - but without any consideration for the adverse environmental impact that using the quantities that they require, either.

Does nuclear power have an enviromental impact?...

And which skewed statistical analysis has lead you to these conclusions?

Check out coal prices, and what we are paying for gas and oil...

And best you get back in the sheep pen with all the others

wouldn't want to kick you out of your cosy spot...