Wednesday 12 September 2012

Nasty Socialist Scum

Since his last retirement, Don’t Call Me Dave has been tempted to rant on numerous occasions, but has always managed to bite his tongue. However, a red line has been crossed with the scandalous news that ‘party packs’ and T-shirts have been openly sold at the TUC conference to ‘celebrate’ the future demise of Baroness Thatcher.

It is hard to find words to adequately describe the low life scum who think that the death of a democratically elected Prime Minister is something to rejoice.

Some people seem to have forgotten that the UK was an economic basket-case when Thatcher came to power. Swivel-eyed Trots, with their 1970s interventionist mentality, are entitled to disagree with her policies but they overlook the fact that the Blessed Margaret won three consecutive General Elections. More people supported her firm policies to rescue Britain from the grip of the ruinous Trade Union movement than opposed them.

But the truth is often unpalatable to those who do not want to hear it (or think that the world owes them a living.) The loony left believe that money grows on a tree at the bottom of the garden. They refuse to accept that we cannot have what we cannot afford. They simply cannot bear the thought of anyone expressing an opinion that is contrary to their deluded and misguided belief system. Perhaps this is why they have such contempt for democracy and freedom of speech?

Whenever someone on the right makes a controversial remark, the left feigns apoplexy. They have turned mock outrage into an art form. When Jeremy Clarkson joked about shooting Trade Union members, Barnet Blogger VickiM called him a c*nt.

But when Labour MP Kerry McCarthy used Twitter to suggest that a fellow train passenger “should have been killed” for wearing an offensive T shirt, this was deemed different to the Clarkson case because, as Mz McCarthy said in a subsequent Tweet, her comments were “obviously flippant.” Obviously.

Whatever people may think of Lady Thatcher as a politician, she is a human being with children and grandchildren. If the manufacturers and distributors of this repugnant range of merchandise think that her future death is worthy of celebration, why haven’t they produced similar goods in anticipation of Gordon Brown’s demise? The UK has been driven to the verge of bankruptcy by Pa Broon’s rabid economic policies. He has caused greater damage to the British economy than any other politician in the entire history of the universe. Ever. But that’s the other thing about Socialists. They are unprincipled hypocrites.


baarnett said...

"He has caused greater damage to the British economy than any other politician in the entire history of the universe. Ever."

No, Winston Churchill, 'Gold Standard Chancellor' in 1925, was worse.

Rog T said...


I think your comments are rather too much of a generalisation

Do you remember this blog at the Hendon Times?

Mrs Angry said...

Any celebration of death is inappropriate,but you must try to understand the height of emotion that still lingers in, for example, the mining areas of the North East where her policies effectively sentenced their communities to death, and had a devastating impact on so many lives.

One should also remember, with gross distaste, the remark she herself made during the Falklands War, on hearing about the sinking of the Belgrano, and the loss of so many young men's lives:

'Rejoice, rejoice'.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

barrnett: Your normal impeccable grasp of history has failed you. With the benefit of hindsight, it is widely accepted that the Dollar rate at which Churchill reapplied the Gold standard was too high. But he was very badly advised and had little choice at the time. I have long wondered who you really are. Now I know: Nick Clegg.

Rog. My comments are directed solely at those who think that death is something to celebrate. Most people do not hold this view.

Mrs Angry. Oh dear. You too seem to be suffering from a history lapse. Mrs Thatcher’s “rejoice, rejoice” comments were made immediately after British Forces had liberated South Georgia. They had nothing to do with the Belgrano.

Thatcher’s policies did not sentence communities to death. They injected economic reality into a society that had become brainwashed into thinking that state intervention to prop up declining heavy industries was a good thing. If Thatcher’s policies were so bad, why didn’t Labour renationalise when they came to power? Because the world had changed - and continues to change. It is only the anarchic union Luddites who think that everything can and should be run the same way it was a generation ago.

baarnett said...

Even I knew Mrs Angry was incorrect about "Rejoice, rejoice". Which is strange, since she is never wrong.

The only contemporary matter regarding Mrs Thatcher that concerns me is that she will get a state funeral. Why?

Will John Major be lain (laid?) in state (with Edwina Curry head-bowed in one corner - yes, it must be 'laid')? No!

Will Tony Blair be carried on a gun-carriage, with missiles on top that can be fired within 15 minutes? No!

So what budget does a state funeral come out of, and who decides?

Don't Call Me Dave said...

The final decision whether to grant Baroness Thatcher a State funeral rests with the Queen. It was reported that Gordon Brown approved provisional plans when he was PM.

It should not be forgotten that Churchill had his fair share of enemies when he was Prime Minister, but that did not prevent him from being granted a State funeral. Thatcher proved to be a strong war time leader and was also the first female MP in what is still a male dominated business.

The comparison with Blair as a war leader doesn’t really hold. Blair launched a war on dubious legal grounds. Thatcher responded to the invasion of British territory, as she was legally entitled to do.

As for the cost, I suspect a state funeral is a lot cheaper than the amount the UK pisses away to the EU every day.

baarnett said...

Compared to leadership from Chamberlain or Halifax, Churchill won the war, if only to hold on long enough to await the Americans.

So there must have been very few in Britain who begrudged Churchill receiving a state funeral. It's also remarkable that he always refused any (obvious) honour beyond a knighthood.

It is very moving watching the video from 1965, of how the cranes in the Port of London were each lowered in respect, as his funeral barge passed by, travelling up the Thames to Waterloo station.

I suspect that, if the cranes and workers were still there, they would be moved by dockers in the opposite direction, as Mrs Thatcher went by.

Anyway, that is the serious point: One of perhaps of many criteria for a state funeral is overwhelming public agreement, something that is obviously lacking in this case.

Don't Call Me Dave said...

That few people begrudged Churchill a State funeral was possibly a sign of the times. The public held politicians in high regard, irrespective of party affiliation. Today, most politicians are held in contempt. The current Prime Minister is probably loathed more by Conservatives than supporters of other parties.

I suspect you are right that there would not be the same level of public agreement for Lady Thatcher (or any of her successors) as there was for Churchill. Nor would I be surprised if, when the time comes, Lady Thatcher’s children make the decision to hold a private funeral, with perhaps a service of remembrance in Westminster Abbey. I am sure they would not wish to give succour to the mindless minority who would take pleasure in disrupting a public funeral.

Citizen Barnet said...

Not the first time you've implied that I think things I don't think by citing me in connection with, well, something someone else has done or said.

I don't do it to you, I wish you wouldn't do it to me.

Don't Call Me Dave said...


When Clarkson made jokes about shooting Trade Unionists, you called him a c*nt. How have I misrepresented you?