Anyone who cheesed off so many right-wing scumbags must have been doing something tight.

RIP Bob.

The difference being Bob Crowe worked on behalf of the working man, improved his members lives while Thatcher did all she could to screw the working man. RIP Bob.

We seem to live in days when, whatever one's opinions of an individual, one is expected to become a hypocrite when they die.

I've said it before and will repeat it now: I did not personally like Bob Crow – in eye-to-eye contact (the closest I came) I thought him surly and with an aggressive demeanour. People who knew him say that that was not the case, but that remains my opinion (ie subjective) based on my rather limited encounters with him and what I heard from some others.

However, he did exactly what his members elected him to do and paid him for: he defended their jobs and incomes – and it is no coincidence that, unlike in most other sectors, they have not lost ground in the income stakes in the last 12 years.

It's possibly only a coincidence that membership of the RMT increased on his watch.

Perhaps Redboy dislikes democracy and dislikes ordinary workers who are not prepared to lie down and be hammered by their employers?

Good or bad, depends on your viewpoint. I'm not judging. However my point stands. If Mr. Crow was entitled to make detrimental statements about the recently deceased, then it should be expected that some will make statements about him, from their viewpoint.
From mine, it is wrong to speak ill, publicly, about the dead, out of respect to the bereaved.

When people have had the position/power to affect lives other than their own, I think it perfectly reasonable for others to not feel constrained by artificial sentiment on their deaths.

I suspect that Crow would be appalled at some of the noises being made today by people who probably, if the truth be told, detested him but now feel that they [ihave[/i to say the 'right thing'.

Ultimately in such situations, I'd personally far rather have honest views than the hypocritical rubbish we now are expected to contend with – and which only further adds to the dismal state of our public discourse. One can at least then have a discussion/debate/row about a situation.

I am not sure people detested him. They probably disagreed with his views but admired his commitment. After all any free marketeer would appreciate he used his employees strength in the marketplace to enhance their earnings.

In which case, WOR, however inflammatory he was being, is entitled to his view, without being derided for it just because others didn't like it.

I didn't know either of them personally, and as I say it depends on your political leaning, as to which one is the 'good' or 'bad'.

I'll leave it there.

It is not someone's politics (in the context of the UK's politics) that makes them good or bad but their actions and it is on their actions they are judged.

So you can disagree with Crow's politics or Thatchers politics but you cannot possibly not be able to see the latter is derided for her actions by many whereas Crow has no such case to answer.

The worst Crow did was look after his members. The worst Thatcher did was destroy communities and while those on the right might argue it was all necessary you can't alter the fact her policies had hugely negative consequences.

So anyone deriding Thatcher can argue they have good reason. Anyone doing the same to Crow doesn't have anything remotely comparable to back up their stance. Doing so because it was OK to slag off Thatcher is being petty.

Both were public figures and so each are subject to comment after their death. The fact one is vilified far more then the other should surprise no one who looks at their careers nor is there anything inherently wrong with it.

Didn't like the man. The epitome of champagne socialism.

Not one to mock the dead and take glee from it though like many vile posts which were made after Thatcher passed.

The irony of the likes of Small Graeme being upset is probably not lost on most people.

Adam Boulton made a comment on the ridiculous "champagne socialist" tag (is champagne really only reserved for capitalists ?) which was on the lines of those who criticise him for living in social housing on a salary that would afford a private house purchase should ask themselves if they avail themselves of public services such as the NHS when surely they should be paying for BUPA and leaving the NHS for the poor ?

No fan of Thatcher or Crow but those that were so gleeful at the death of a person on the right side of the political spectrum are now foaming at the mouth that some people are happy at the death of someone on the left side of the political spectrum, hypocrisy of the highest order.

I thought the opinions on Thatcher were repugnant equally so on Crow, who may I add I couldn't stand. They are just two people doing a job, jobs that help polarise opinions.

I won't miss him but there are people out there who will. I don't have to pay my respects but at the same time why do I feel the need to rejoice in the death of someone?

Oh, don't be such a childish plonker.

Say it outright: you didn't like someone helping to ensure that some 'ordinary' workers didn't see their incomes decline while the bankers saw theirs rise.

Now – what is it that YOU do, precisely?

And as for the "champagne socialism" – oh, FFS: try to have an original thought and not produce yet another soundbite that you haven't even thought about. Although that would imply that you are capable of thought and not simply parroting what someone else has said. And I find that highly unlikely.

Regardless of your politics 52 is tragically young for anyone to die

Are you suggesting those they pay for private education and health should not have to pay to support the publicly available versions or they should pay for the latter but be excluded from access to it?