Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
A worn handbag or two, some burnt dossiers on peverted cabinet members, love letters from Pinochet? Nah.
Thought you were leaving?
are you going to be ok?
Chucking some pigeons at some cars with goatmeat?
went out for some drinks on wednesday, GM didn't come (what a bastard), but it was a bit weird
we are not a very tight knit community really, pretty glad to eb laeving
it was well before his time.
we are no longer a very close community of an office, that is true.
i don't really have any friends here any more.
HE LEFT ME :(
subvert the official line though, either through creatively subversive graffeti or unofficial alt displays.....or by chaining themselves to things ...or by chaining other things to things......and would thus replicate, more faithfully, the reality.
are there any plans on wht they want to put int it?
has yet to be realised
....so at first sight they would be missed....etc....
seriously, such a museum would represent a wealth of opportunities, to really really piss off people who worshipped her, and as far as I can see, that can only be a good thing......any propaganda about her inside can either be insiduously and cleverly altered or can just be countered by mobile 'factual correction' stand outside the museum, where people can SHOUT at those going in or out.....unless you exchange the special acknowledgement that in fact you are going in to deliver the latest dildo consignment
trying to get state funding for a Margaret Thatcher museum. Cameron said he'd look into it at Prime Minister's Questions in the same week that numerous museums (most notably Bradford's Media/television museum) had announced that they were going to have to close or cut back their opening hours because of funding cuts.
A pre-emptive petition was set up in opposition to it receiving state funding, and Jordan_229_2 got very upset that people were asking others to sign the petition.
that was meant to be a reply to chris-budget
better things to be outraged by innit.
Seems about the level of your average facebook activist...
is this what people complain about when they're too old and dull to have heard of tumblr?
Fuck knows if `facebook activist` is a thing or not. I don't care. It was just casual shorthand for `someone sharing/endorsing something political on facebook they hadn't bothered to check/Google it first`.
with Verbs and Limbo gone there's barely anyone left on Team Outrage-Outrage. You're doing good work.
even if putting you in the group is a pretty low blow and disregards general evidence.
Credit where credit's due, fidel IS actually funny...
given all the very rich people who are fans of hers. Who knows how many visitors it would get though.
I'm sure her supporters would have funded it a way she would have liked it.
I rarely post anything that merits NSFW.....
It'll be 40 years since she was elected Tory leader
Went from being a begrudged leader to pretty much being the defining historical ideologue amongst the core of her party. Impressive stuff admittedly.
*snidey little shit.
when there's actually a spot of truth behind it chief.
Suppose it doesn't suit most peoples' arguments to remember/reference Thatcher as an advocate (and from a science pov) for environment issues I suppose.
but she was not, she was a fierce advocate of fossil fuels and nuclear fuels over renewables......IF you are referring to the closing down of coal mines that was over another issue, NOT green issues.
Initiative after initiative for alternative energy sources was starved of funding under her administration, at one point Lanchester polytechnic led the world on wave energy tech, but they didnt get funded.
Under Thatchers rule and her afterlings, services became more and more centralised requiring more and more fossil fuel driven transportation.....she demolished concepts of localised productio and consumption more than most anyone....she was entusiastically pro utilising cost diffrentials across vast distances to maximise temporary profit....hence we end up with mart models of geting our runnerbeans and sweetcorn from chile or peru or kenya or thailand..........aviation fuel is not equally taxed and is deliberately favoured by governmental rules.
Yes this is now global......but you had to appreciate that at the time she and her aquaintances were at the forefront.
Also at the time of them closing down the remains of the british coal industry, william waldegrave (one of her obsturmfuhrers) was investing hevily in a coal depot at bristol to import Dirtier coal from south america (mined (sometimes)by child labour, if you want me to go the whole characature hog)...her closing don coal was based on ideological opposition to powerful unions and other nationals having power over gov.
Something like a hospital meal could have been transported hundreds of miles across britain because of her parties ethos of wiping out localised production. The methodologies she and here cohorts and their businesses introduced, were not at all green.
She loved road building and road builders and quarry owners and mine owners worldwide and in our country had more carteblanche......didnt denis even hve major interests in rio tinto.
and didnt he work high up in oil companies?
There was an awful lot more than perhaps the history that you were taught, suggests
specifically on the dangers of climate change.
Of course it mentioned things that people like me and my type had known and had gone on about for many more years (about a decade in my case)
As I have said before, it WAS fairly undisputed that industrial activity was responsible for increase in global temprature.
It was undisputed that population growth would be a problem.
It was undisputed that some land was being degraded.
It was undisputed that pollution was a problem.
However If you read the speech you will see the purpose for her making it. It is to present that requirement that to be 'green' nuclear power would be needed.
Under her government there was a sort of tipping point whereby it would still have been possible to develop alternative energy/reduce consumption/insulate, to the effect that we would now be in a position to HAVE to use nuclear energy as a source for the future.....because it is more developed......I don't want nuclear energy, but now, it is becoming more and more an essential option as decisions that her people made meant that alternatives are not developed enough.
SHE is clever but uses this for HER purposes....here is an example of that.......she says some lovely things here that you cant argue with...until you remember what she did
"For over forty years, that has been the main task of this United Nations.
To bring peace where there was war.
Comfort where there was misery.
Life where there was death."
(whereas it has been thatchers man task to bring war where there was peace......misery where there was comfort.......death where there was life)
Its quite interesting that in this speech she makes reference to heeding the information from british antartic surveys........what a shame that the advice from the british antartic captain was not heeded when he warned (well in advance) that argentina was gonna make a move on the falklands.
Perhaps her actions and rhetoric didn't marry up on the 80s. Same as every leader since to be honest. Although it's worth noting that the `sorts of people` who slavishly admire her, are always the sorts who are entranced by climate change denial. Don't think Thatcher would've had any of that. For one, she was a scientist by trade and would've doubtless castigated the laziness behind much climate change denial with characteristic zeal.
Would've been interesting if nothing else.
.....but that was by undistinguished people who are just obediant to the idea of fossil fuels.
Un controversial ordinary text books from the 60's (which was my source as a young teenager) used to quite calmly plot temprature averages increasing since the industrial revolution.
Just because theres someone else (inconsequential) who was madder than her does not make her right. prime miisters since her have not been so forceful, Blair and Cameron are just about mild enough to have got into her cabinet, thats all
he was quite positive towards native americans (in comparrison to others)
to a defining one.
Although my point wasn't about that being impressive in essence. It was about Thatcher not being swept into the top job at Tory HQ with everyone being like `She's gonna change the fucking world mate`. Many were sceptical/indifferent. Her low approval ratings in '81 would've forced a leadership challenge had the Falklands not happened etc. etc.
Just shows how much luck also plays a part in these things. See also: Blair.
A friend of a friend was conducting a job interview and one of the questions was 'talk about a good example of leadership, or someone who is a good leader' and one of the interviewees' answer was 'Hitler'.
At first they thought that the language barrier might have confused the person, and so they asked again, rewording it to make it a bit more explicit, but no, the answer came back as 'Hitler' a second time, followed by a list of his achievements.
Didn't expect it to be a) you or b) that long-winded mind.
that when mentioning anything about Thatcher's leadership suffixed with the word `impressive` that someone would bring out the `yeah but Hitler was a good leader technically too mate and he killed Jews` banter.
If that wasn't what you were doing, your anecdote is a tad confusing.
I'd heard the other day.
Would read again etc. etc.
Something cheery for a monday for everyone there
so people are still posting in that "so people are still sharing that 'no taxpayer funding for the maggie thatcher museum' thing on facebook" thread on downed in sound.