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?

We're still waiting for your idea of what a 'socialist' should expect to get paid for whatever job they do.

Have you worked out the equation yet?

Seemed like a decent bloke to me and I'm sure he'll be sorely missed within the Union movement.

I'm not suggesting anything, but Adam Boulton, who isn't known for his "leftie" views and who works for a boss who's media outlets support the incumbents, was suggesting that criticism of a man who choses to rent and live in a housing association home rather than buy his own simply because others perceive that he could afford to do such a thing, therefore can easily then be extended to include all of those who could easily afford private health care or private education and choose instead to use the public funded version, in other words criticism of his choice of home is hypocritical nonsense usually made by those who are most hypocritical in their own healthcare and childrens education choices.

I was actually quite shocked and sad when I heard this. Whatever his loathsome political ideals, 52 is no age to die.

He was famous as he is was leader of perhaps the only union where industrial action had leverage in 2014.

£50k a year for a train driver is an absolute joke. They don't even have to steer!

Still they will soon be replaced by robots (that's how difficult the job is) and in 20 years will be looked upon in much the same way as bus conductors.

A sad day indeed. Bob Crow stood head and shoulders above the politicians from the big 3 parties. If only they had half of his integrity, strong principles and commit to the working man this would be a far better country. Condolences to his family.

Whilst I support Bob Crow's level of remuneration, on the grounds that he was very good at his job, I would have thought that those people who rail against successful high earners should refuse any salary above national average wage. Otherwise aren't they just becoming part of the wealthy elite that they claim to despise?

Piece of cake.



Anyone can apply to be a train driver. If it's such money for old rope, what's stopping you?

A fairly poignant view from one unshackled on another unshackled.
Always sad to see the passing of an unhandcuffed.

rlhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/11/bob-crow-workers-rmt-leaderrl