Peter Oborne opines that a State funeral for Margaret thatcher is a mistake and I agree.

he mentions George Orwell's view on the Monarchy..I'd read it years ago and concur completely as a staunch Monarchist...that the pomp and ceremony surrounding the Royal Family is so important because it prevents politicians building up the same aura as dictators love to do. (quite apart from being a great tourist attraction)

The claims about M.Thatcher changing Britain can be debated endlessly...I think she did but in a very bad way...but the cult surrounding her denies the great British politicians of the past like Clem Attlee and Nye Bevan who transformed Britain in positive ways.

Odd that the the Queen will attend Thatcher's funeral when she didn't the Labor prime minsters when anecdotally, she got on far better with them and supposedly found Margaret Thatcher grating.

she's been bullied into it by the media construction of The Cult Of Maggie.

hedda wrote:
she got on far better with them and supposedly found Margaret Thatcher grating.



And you know this - how?

hedda wrote:

she's been bullied into it by the media construction of The Cult Of Maggie.

No, she's been bullied into it by the media construction of the Cult of Diana - ever since that steaming ball of sanctimonious hypocrisy was formed the Queen has been obliged to play along with whatever the tabloids demand as far as faux public emotionalism is concerned. As for Thatcher, since when has it been acceptable for the media to demand that the wishes of the deceased be ignored in favour of someone else's wishes? Er, since Savile, I guess, but Thatch expressly requested that she DIDN'T have a state funeral, so that should be that as far as her supposed disciples are concerned.

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
she got on far better with them and supposedly found Margaret Thatcher grating.



And you know this - how?





anecdotally ( it's there in the sentence) as I said. Which means it could be true or could be false.

although of course all history pre-anything you didn't see with your own eyes is basically an anecdote.

hedda wrote:

anecdotally Which means it could be true or could be false.

although of course all history pre-anything you didn't see with your own eyes is basically an anecdote.


1. What not simply quote your source?

2. Rubbish. Many historical events have been recorded accurately, in many ways; your own eyes are not usually required....

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:

anecdotally Which means it could be true or could be false.

although of course all history pre-anything you didn't see with your own eyes is basically an anecdote.


1. What not simply quote your source?

2. Rubbish. Many historical events have been recorded accurately, in many ways; your own eyes are not usually required....




When you notice the wild inaccuracies taught as history about events that you took part in, you tend to take all documentation with a pinch of salt.

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:

anecdotally Which means it could be true or could be false.

although of course all history pre-anything you didn't see with your own eyes is basically an anecdote.


1. What not simply quote your source?

2. Rubbish. Many historical events have been recorded accurately, in many ways; your own eyes are not usually required....




I can't remember the source. But it was often referred to by columnists when Maggie was PM..that The Queen didn't like her as she appeared more imperial than her.

And that Harold Wilson was her favourite.

2. How do you know history has been recorded accurately ??

I had this discussion recently with an aetheist who claimed The Bible was a book of fairy tales...it may well be but it's also the most recorded book of events in history..but how can anyone prove it's true or false ?

How can anyone know that Roman history has been recorded accurately ??

How do we know there really was a homo artist called De Vinci ?

hedda wrote:
Many historical events have been recorded accurately, in many ways

How do you know history has been recorded accurately ?


Please read what I typed....'many historical events'....

Some on TV (even live), film and by the reports of numerous reputable witnesses and realtime bystanders who independently confirm the same facts.

But you have said that any historic event (which your own eyes haven't seen) is an anecdote!!

Arch sceptics miss out on a lot....

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
Many historical events have been recorded accurately, in many ways

How do you know history has been recorded accurately ?


Please read what I typed....'many historical events'....

Some on TV (even live), film and by the reports of numerous reputable witnesses and realtime bystanders who independently confirm the same facts.

But you have said that any historic event (which your own eyes haven't seen) is an anecdote!!

Arch sceptics miss out on a lot....




eye-witnesses are reputedly the source of the Bible.

police are always sceptical of eye-witnesses who often give differing accounts. Identification of a suspect now has to be backed up by other evidence.

Peter Jackson can make anything look real in a NZ studio. In 1000 years people may think King Kong existed.Especially as there are 5 filmed events that seem to back each other up.

no- I've said any tale from history may be anecdotal.

I don't see why Mrs Thatcher is getting a state funeral and Richard III is not. Richard was King of England and did a great deal for this country such as introducing the bail system and equal opportunities promotion for northerners. Its outrageous that a former monarch is treated in a lesser way to a Prime Minister.

hedda wrote:

although of course all history pre-anything you didn't see with your own eyes is basically an anecdote


No 'may' there, hedda!

"anecdotally ( it's there in the sentence) as I said. Which means it could (may) be true or could (may) be false."

hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote


Why dig an even bigger hole for yourself, hedda?

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote


Why dig an even bigger hole for yourself, hedda?




pe•dan•tic (pəˈdæn tɪk) orpe•dan′ti•cal,
.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms,

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote


Why dig an even bigger hole for yourself, hedda?




There were "historical" times that I was part of that have been reported very differently, either to cover something up, for showbiz fiction, or other reasons, and in addition to deliberate lies there will be the inaccurate memories and differing witness that always happens.
If it happens now then it is safe to assume that it has happened right through history because people do pretty much the same thing over and over.

I agree that it would be daft to dismiss all history and news reports as lies but we need to be aware of the possibility of embellishment or mistakes.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote


Why dig an even bigger hole for yourself, hedda?




There were "historical" times that I was part of that have been reported very differently, either to cover something up, for showbiz fiction, or other reasons, and in addition to deliberate lies there will be the inaccurate memories and differing witness that always happens.
If it happens now then it is safe to assume that it has happened right through history because people do pretty much the same thing over and over.


I agree that it would be daft to dismiss all history and news reports as lies but we need to be aware of the possibility of embellishment or mistakes.

as a publicist I invented inane stories that sometimes made it onto front pages of tabloids. All there now in the The British Newspaper Archive for future historians.

hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote

Anecdote - interesting or amusing story.


Yes hedda, pedantic maybe.

But your view on history is not; its just baffling!

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
all history you didn't see with your own eyes is an anecdote

Anecdote - interesting or amusing story.


Yes hedda, pedantic maybe.

But your view on history is not; its just baffling!





surely it's "history" itself which has you baffled.

It's being re-written as we speak with the implementation of the Cult Of Maggie...a never popular PM who the majority voted against. Now statues are planned, museums..etc etc. (all which will backfire or be forgotten within months)
Glenda Jackson is slagged off for putting the alternative view in Parliament when that is actually her role as an MP. The vehemence of the slagging off should worry those who believe in democracy.."how dare Glenda tell truth whilst the construction of the Myth is underway"...


Someone on jimcantfixthis points out one of my bugbears.. "1 in 4 children are abused"..the rally cry of the NSPCC (who used bizarre and dodgy statistics) to reach that conclusion...while another points out (and sure enough is correct)...the mantra has become "1 in 3"...(google it)
combined with the recent re-write on the history of Jimmy Savile...now depicted as leering in every photograph, hated by all who knew him.."always knew he was a creep"....and now laws are to be enacted over what is nothing more than 'over the back fence' gossip....

Iraq has WMD which can reach Britain in 40 minutes...!!

No it's "history" which should baffle you and if not, Houston we have a problem !

# today's sermon ends here.

You have learned two things well from ITK, hedda.

To completely change the subject when losing an argument - and a total inability to admit error.