UKC

All this stuff about Maggy being dead. It has generated a lot of heat. But do our younger generation of UKC's on this site understand why the older posters are angry with her? It's another world to the young folk. How many of them have read articles in the papers, posts from people whose communities were destroyed? They are too young. More importantly, how many of them understand the damage she did to the U.K.? Few, because they are too young. So have another forum for old folks, like myself.
P.S. I suppose they get educated from the older folks.

In reply to mockerkin:

I felt properly old last night when they announced Dave was 12 when MT came to power. I'm older than the PM

Youngersters are educated by old farts, the difference now is they have to pay a lot more for it than Dave, Dave or me did.

In reply to mockerkin:

P.S. I suppose they get educated from the older folks.

Educated or indoctrinated?

In reply to mockerkin:

This reminds me of a common younger person's reaction to a history question in a pub quiz;
i.e.
Q. which important naval battle took place in 1805?

A. (young person) How'm I supposed to know, I wasn't f*cking born then....


Strangely enough, more mature people seem to take these questions in their stride, even if they, themselves, weren't there among the broken masts and powder monkeys.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

When my dad was little, he sat on the knee of a man who fought at Trafalgar.

OK, he didn't, but it is still possible for that to be true for someone.

In reply to MJ:
Not long ago I saw a history lecturer looking rather defeated. Turns out he'd just asked his class the dates for the the second world war. One suggestion was 1982. Another was 1969.

Looks like the indoctrination isn't working too well.

In reply to mockerkin:

They aren't, are they ? except those that have lost their memories of the miseries of the 70s

In reply to mockerkin:

I tried to write an answer but I got all angry and that (if you are trolling, you caught me!):

How young do we have to be for it to be another world? I wasn't around when She was but that doesn't mean for a second I cannot see the destruction she caused. I too am blinded by anger and resentment for what she did to my communities and my families and my friends and my cities. It's not another world at all.

Yes, I wasn't there so didn't experience it. I didn't stand on picket lines or go to secret gay meets. I fully accept that, I really do. And I would never say anything else.

But that does not mean for a second that I (we, the general youth) do not understand.

As well as that, thatcherism is alive and well. We are living with the consequences.

In reply to mockerkin: People - I am no great fan of MT but she did a lot for Britain that was positive, sorting out Europe and the destructive unions, not to mention the Argies. Sure she was divisive but I'll take that over lily-livered namby pambys any day (and yes, I would vote against the Poll Tax). She was a great woman even if you opposed her views.

In reply to confusicating:

What on earth are you talking about?

In reply to GrahamD: I remember the 1970s - that was the decade we looked back on fondly when queuing down at the broo.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2: Not when you were quivering under the stairs waiting for the mushroom cloud?

In reply to silhouette:


I imagine it's a reference to Section 28, which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality (by local authorities? I forget the details), and so led to the closure of lots of youth clubs, etc, for gay young people. I imagine many continued in secret.

In reply to MJ:

In reply to mockerkin: I was at Ladybower with a final year undergrad. I made a throwaway comment about the dambusters, and realised he hadn't a clue what I was talking about.

In reply to mockerkin: I'd rather not waste my life any further by commenting on Thatcher but if anything, being there is the least important thing when it comes to historic truth. If anything living through something means that your opinions are largely created by your own personal experiences and contact with people and media during the time. Who had a better understanding of WW1, someone who fought there or someone who's spent their time studying it's history. The man in the trenches has a smaller field of view and is subject to propaganda, rumour and human emotion, i.e. not objective. The historian can evaluate the war in context, with regard to both sides and varied sources. With dispassionate reflection one has a a greater breadth of accurate sources to consult when forming your opinion on something.

Of course, there are younger people who know F all about Thatcher and there are older people who lived through that period who have well reasoned and well informed knowledge of her rule. All I'm saying is, being there has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm 33, and it strikes me that things went from one extreme to the other, rather than a gradual evolution of society, there were sudden changes and people were suddenly left without thier jobs or thier care within the state, which led to care in the community cases running amock or coming to an untimely end, and people taking years to get back into work again, for example.

In reply to GrahamD:

As well as some of the rubbish things getting better, that is, forgot to post that bit...

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Hmmmm...pushing it a bit, but possible!

Pedro Martinez was the last surviving Trafalgar veteran. He served on one of the Spanish vessels and died in 1898, aged 109. So the dad of anyone alive now would have had to have been born in 1897 at the latest.

My mum died last year aged 95 and her dad was born in 1880 (he was 36 when she was born, so quite a "senior" parent), so yes, it's possible that there are a few octo- or nono-genarians still around whose parent could have sat on a Trafalgar veteran's knee.

One fact I can never forget about Trafalgar is that it was fought on a Monday....I got that years ago from reading a book called "Monday the 21st October 1805"!

In reply to mockerkin: Left wing bias prevailing - again. She did good and bad things like any primeminister. Get over yourself. I like blue, you might like red; who's right or wrong?.

In reply to Sharp:
...Who had a better understanding of WW1, someone who fought there or someone who's spent their time studying history.....

I think I agree with you Ben, having lived and worked through the Thatcher era, I have puzzled over many of her decisions,it has Taken years to unravel things, but the final piece of the jigsaw came out tonight when listening to Question Time and Thatcher's biographer, shone a light on her attitude to the Falklands, when he said that she entered politics and wanted to prove she could do the big jobs like Chancellor, and WAR.

So , whilst at the time I disliked her policies, I was pro her stance on the Falklands
(I was young and impressionable is my only excuse, and of course the first casualty of was is the truth) Now, years later I realise her reasons to send the fleet were not to save anyone on the islands , but it was to fulfil an ambition to prove that she could 'do War ' too. And this was also at a time when she needed a boost in the polls as she would never have won the next election without winning that conflict. It also came along at a good time for her, just as North Sea Oil did. She was a lucky PM.

I think history will find her out.

In reply to mockerkin:

Yea but that just your opinion. Not everyone that's old has the same view as you.

I think your a lite naive

In reply to mockerkin:

What I fail to understand is the images I have seen of scumboys and scumgirls celebrating the death of someone who was in, and out, of power before they were born.

Really? If your younger than say 30 WTF do you know about her time in office?

In reply to mockerkin: Rubbish argument..

The older posters can talk authoritatively on Hitler and times pre-dating them.. yet suddenly decide when the younger ones can talk..

In reply to stroppygob:

First part totally agree.. 2nd part.. its called history.. I'm 33 so probably right on the cusp..

In reply to toad:

I don't get this at all? You weren't born at the time of the Dambusters were you? Neither were? So he's just ignorant.. nout to do with age..

I'm 33 and have a great painting of a lancaster signed by surviving members of 617 squadron. I'd have thought most people would know about that, especially if they grew up anywhere near the dams..

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Yes, late parenthood make sit possible. Of all the folk who are 90+ today, I bet a few had old fathers.

On R4 the last year I heard a lady talking about life in a The South (USA). She remembers her grandmother talking to her about her experiences of being bought and sold as a slave.

In reply to stroppygob:

Same here, there have been celebrations at different places in Sheffield, and I don't like it at all. She was refused an honourary degree by Oxford University because of the damage they thought she'd done to education, but I think things like health and death should be above politics and the way we can fall out with each other.


For some people, a lot if they've looked into it in detail.

In reply to mockerkin:

Personally, I remember the darkness and strikes and nationalised industrial wreckage of the 70's - only the delusional were looking at that and observing how it was putting the UK on a clear trajectory for success.