You also get to make things up and pretend you are something you aren’t.

Like a wounded ex-serviceman with a husband. It’s a weird thing to pretend but you can do it on the internet. You can even respond with faux-indignation when you get caught out pretending, again it’s a weird thing to do, but as you are proving, you can do it on the internet.

Thats a relief then.

It'll be like watching that shaky B&W film of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated, but without the focus.

Technology has moved on don't you know?
Haven't you seen the Abraham Zapruder footage of the grassy knowl?

I'm still available to observe the crowds and do rapid multiple sketches of trouble makers so that they can collate a series of drawings together in court and flip the pages quickly to give a "walking man" effect.

Jusr thinking actually.

Wonder if I should have told Kenneth Baker; Thatcher's Home Secretary, that I'd been on a few picket lines in the previous decade, when I had a cosy chat with him in '91.

Might have been a conversation killer.
Bloody right I would if I had my time again.

Says someone who hides behind a netnick, with no avatar that reveals anything of the real them etc.

Honestly, child, if you're going to make comments like that, try not to leave yourself so open to accusations of such total stupidity.

Oh – and 'the internet' is not a proper noun. HTH.

My avatar reveals that i'm a staunch supporter of women's rugby league

and i'm sticking to that story

It is, actually.

Mine shows I cannot fathom out how to reduce a file size of a picture to stick it on

rlChicago Tribune columnist obviously hasn't seen Spitting Imagerl

[i"Following her election in 1979, the story goes that Thatcher took her all-male cabinet out to dinner. The waiter asked what she would like. "I'll have the beef," she said. The waiter asked, "What about the vegetables?" "They'll have the same," Thatcher replied."[/i

Well I have been away in Edinburgh for a few days and I get back to a 72 page thread on this topic. Hardly a surprise and I aint going to read all 72 pages but I have spotted your comment and can't resist not replying.

In response to the above the charge of hypocrisy only sticks if those rather pleased at her passing hadn't posted they couldn't wait for it in the first place. Whether you agree or not I am pretty certain several of the most vociferous aren't being in the least bit hypocritical.

As a general point I am quite glad there are plenty of dissenting voices who's opinions will prevent her death and funeral being portrayed in such a way that it looks to the rest of the world she is perceived as some kind of heroine to the majority of the UK population.



Rubbish! You can trace most of the major problems we face today directly back to her policies or what she set in motion. From banking crash (deregulation) to the housing benefit bill (consequence of the sale of council houses) it is not hard to see where these particular total cock ups originated. There are plenty more where the unfettered brand of capitalism she favoured has done far more harm than good compared to the One Nation Conservatives that preceded her.

If you want to blame Labour for anything blame them for not rescinding what they could such as the rule preventing councils from reinvesting the proceeds of council houses in new builds but the blame for the mess we are into today lays in no small part at her feet.

and I don't see the lines of people on here counting down the days till the deaths of Blair and Brown.'"

I quite agree. The idea she warrants such an affair [iis[/i astonishing. It puts her on a pedestal with Churchill himself and while if you examine his politics outside of his war leadership time there is plenty to disagree with I am sure there were very few in the UK at the time of his death who would have complained at his funeral arrangements.



The should have simply agreed with the Speaker and made it clear that was the case.

Thats actually quite an important point, despite what a compliant written media would like us to think the eyes of the rest of the world won't be on Thatchers funeral on Wednesday but they will tag two or three minutes onto their news programs at some point during their day and as I've already mentioned, opposition to the funeral and the person is the element that they will focus on, if and when it happens - the UK iTunes campaign is one peaceful measure of protest, meaningless to most, offensive only to those who are told to be offended by a compliant written media, and yet its being reported upon, its achieved its objective.

On a wider point the freedom and ease by which protests can be quickly organised mainly via the internet is something that many in government still find hard to understand, I have an MP who responds to emails very quickly and who tweets every minute of his waking day, I can tell you what he's doing this morning if you want me to, and yet how many others do, how many people on here for instance would know how to contact their MP via social media or email ?

tut tut. grammar Timothy