Um, there's no record of Osama Bin Laden actually personally killing anyone. He was a terrorist and certainly an accessory to mass murder but pedantically, he wasn't guilty of what you're accusing him of.
Plus I'm sure there were large parts of the middle east who weren't partying when the news broke he had been shot anyway.

Here's the thing about the world : we don't all agree about pretty much anything. If you feel personally affronted by people disagreeing with you then that says much, much more about you than it does the people disagreeing with you. I'd suggest some form of therapy.

People have a right to do whatever the hell they like in response to the death of Baroness Thatcher within the bounds of the law and what I, the Daily Mail or Sheldon from Big Bang Theory think about it is of no consequence whatsoever. In fact, all the right wing tabloid press have managed to do is give much more publicity than necessary to the other side. If they'd just stuck to saying how great they thought she was and talked up her positive achievements, the dancing in the street and the Judy Garland song things would have died a death pretty quickly. By shouting and screaming and stamping their feet, all they've done is give the people doing it more and more encouragement, because making the right wing upset is exactly why they were doing it in the first place.

And certainly not after they have died. Though I wonder if they will realise what hypocrites they are should Abu Qatada pop his clogs. They will be rejoicing in the same way, yet probably not appreciate the irony.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

Erm... I don't think I rejoiced - or at least I hope I didn't.

In both cases, a misguided, blinkered perpetrator of great ideological tragedy died with neither full recognition of the pain they caused nor any attempt to put it right. This makes me very sad indeed.

IIRC from the article, Steel was being sarcastic..

I expect that in 50 years time Thatcher will not be as fondly remembered as some people think she is revered now. History will not be kind to Margaret.

In 50 years time hardly anyone alive will remember her in power at all.
So how will history judge her?
Judging by that fact that even some of her opponents from the 80's said her early changes were needed, I'm guessing it'll judge her well. Her stupidest ideas, like the Poll Tax, were quickly reversed and had little lasting effect.

Thing is, we probably won't be around to find out, so...

It's Thatcher's fault that none of us will be here in 50 years. She deregulated McDonalds and then we gorged ourselves on filthburgers for the next 30 yeas - she being the only actor in this tragedy able to write her own lines.

Well many of the ideas were already planned by the Tories while in opposition, such as council house sales with the proceeds to be used for building more, and union reform. So she was hardly groundbreaking policy wise. Strikes also hurt Labour so that was why they did little to reform them when they had the chance. The poll tax was reversed but only after a wave of unrest otherwise we would still face it now. Also they are still chasing people now for those debts even years later.

Do you believe the sales figures? Considering it was at number one on iTunes the biggest download store I think someone rigged the figures to avoid political embarrassment, just like they did to the sex pistols in 1977.

50 years isn't long really. We haven't forgotten Churchill.

Mind you they might stop teaching history by then.

And he was an oddball - pretty much an upperclass failure who lurched from party to party. His saving grace was being in the right party ant the right time during a war. He was voted out pretty quickly afterwards. I rather feel he was a bit like Boris Johnson in private, with the ability to switch on that rather famous persona when out and about.

Of course we haven't, he sells great insurance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I try not to trust sales figures for anything, and especially not something as prone to 'rigging' as that chart