# Protest Thatchers Funeral: Weds 17th April



## DrRingDing (Apr 11, 2013)

This has been posted on Indymedia...A call out to protest her distgusting funeral....



> Thatcher was responsible for the destruction of communities and the
> decimation of industry, sending in troops and police to beat the unions
> into submission. She openly played the race card, promoting the view that
> Britain was ‘swamped’ with immigrants, and sent her police force to harass
> ...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 11, 2013)

where and when?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> where and when?


 
At her funeral on the day of her funeral


----------



## youngian (Apr 11, 2013)

As a human being I would be happy to see Thatcher pass away peacefully with a quiet diginified funeral for friends and family, as Heath, Wilson and Atlee did.

Her friends and political heirs have decided to turn this into a sickening canonisation and revolting politicised 'state funeral on the sly.' What kind of friends are they or are they completely oblivious as to what a devisive figure she was?

They have bought this fight on themselves and I am far from a professional street fighting man but I hope this funeral turns out to be the most miserable experiences in social disorder for the Tories since the Poll Tax riots.


----------



## albionism (Apr 11, 2013)

I wonder if Ben "This is a great moment of national unity" Elton has been invited to give a fawning, arse-licking eulogy.
He spent much of the 80s having a go at the royals and "Thatch", then turned up hosting the Jubilee celebrations. I wouldn't put it
past him to show up at the funeral gobbing off about how wonderful she was.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 11, 2013)

She needs to be booed all the way to hell. In fact I hope it ends up looking like cable street.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 11, 2013)

Anudder Oik said:


> She needs to be booed all the way to hell. In fact I hope it ends up looking like cable street.


 
Barricades and brick bats?


----------



## Nice one (Apr 11, 2013)

there was a g8 foreign ministers meeting in london today and yesterday. If the stopg8 network had time to write and agree a statement to protest the thatcher funeral seems odd not to mention this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Anudder Oik said:


> She needs to be boned all the way to hell. In fact I hope it ends up looking like cable street.


*corrected for you*


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*


 
Saville is there waiting, first dibs. Jim'll fix it for her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Saville is there waiting, first dibs. Jim'll fix it for her.


She's even more attractive to him as she'll spend eternity in a hospital ward with shipman as her dr and savile as her nurse


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> She's even more attractive to him as she'll spend eternity in a hospital ward with shipman as her dr and savile as her nurse


Oh - and mengele as her consultant


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh - and mengele as her consultant


 
Word is Sutcliffe and Brady are scrapping over the spoils. Admin to hell has gone meltdown.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Word is Sutcliffe and Brady are scrapping over the spoils. Admin to hell has gone meltdown.


The admin's in the capable hands of adolf eichmann and harold wilson


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 11, 2013)

Genghis Khan has a private party organised, Jeffrey Dahmer is doing the music.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Genghis Khan has a private party organised, Jeffrey Dahmer is doing the music.


alberd packer is doing the cooking.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> alberd packer is doing the cooking.


 
Dennis Nilsen has just been on twitter, offering to help. Great to see everyone pitching in, lending a hand etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Dennis Nilsen has just been on twitter, offering to help. Great to see everyone pitching in, lending a hand etc.


as the us marines say: 'gung ho!' 'work together!'


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 11, 2013)

Cracking stuff, everyone in Hell will be busy painting the town red. They haven't been so busy since Nuremberg.

Oh shit Godwin's law and all that


----------



## gunneradt (Apr 11, 2013)

Maybe Scargill will turn up and finally offer up a ballot


----------



## Casually Red (Apr 12, 2013)




----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

They must be off their rocker turning this into a big showcase funeral rolling through London.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> They must be off their rocker turning this into a big showcase funeral rolling through London.


 
Not sure what choice they have. She was one of the most significant, admittedly controversial, PMs of the 20th century. They can't just tuck her into Potter's Field in a white sheet.

It's also possible that by their read of the mood of the British public, they aren't too concerned about large scale demonstrations. It'll be interesting to see what actually transpires.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not sure what choice they have. She was one of the most significant, admittedly controversial, PMs of the 20th century. They can't just tuck her into Potter's Field in a white sheet.


They could do what they did with other PMs in the past.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 12, 2013)

Looks like Churchill got a bit of a sendoff:


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Looks like Churchill got a bit of a sendoff:


Churchill had got the nation through WW2. Thatcher just created class war with her evil policies.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 12, 2013)

The two wars are hardly comparative.


----------



## Cheesypoof (Apr 12, 2013)

i'll be away but celebrating. I cannot tell you how much I hated the witch.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 12, 2013)

> _To win an __election she jumped on the chance to go to war with Argentina, leaving the __blood of teenage soldiers on the shores of the Falklands._


 
Taking back the Falklands was the right thing to do. I'm not sure why so many people have such a problem with it. I don't like Thatcher but she was correct on that at least.


----------



## Mr Smin (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> They must be off their rocker turning this into a big showcase funeral rolling through London.


 
something wrong with my PC. I clicked the photo but I can't hear the eastenders music.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Looks like Churchill got a bit of a sendoff:


 
I seem to remember this was on a Saturday so more of the public could attend,observe and pay their respects.
The organisers of Thatcher's funeral I suspect will have gone for Wednesday as most folk will struggle to get time off at short notice. Especially those pesky teachers and their radicalism!


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> Taking back the Falklands was the right thing to do. I'm not sure why so many people have such a problem with it.


because she gamed that war into existence, when a negotiated withdrawal was possible, to save her arse


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 12, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> because she gamed that war into existence, when a negotiated withdrawal was possible, to save her arse


 
Explain please.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> Explain please.


first, the FCO withdrew a patrol ship, and more or less signalled to the _Junta_ 'actually chaps, we're not that fussed about these little islands', second, the opportunity for a negotiated withdrawal really was on the table at the UN, and a real possibility.
But thatcher was flatlining in the polls, and facing wipeout at the forthcoming GE, which could be held no later than 2 years' time.
So; she sank the belgrano, when it was outside the exclusion zone and sailing away, and built that into a full war of reconquest.


----------



## co-op (Apr 12, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not sure what choice they have. She was one of the most significant, admittedly controversial, PMs of the 20th century. They can't just tuck her into Potter's Field in a white sheet.
> 
> It's also possible that by their read of the mood of the British public, they aren't too concerned about large scale demonstrations. It'll be interesting to see what actually transpires.


 
Bullshit. There's all the choices in the world, but the govt have decided to use her funeral as a massive political show for her policies and her governing style, obviously with the full consent of her revolting family.

There won't be mass demonstrations, but only because the whole thing will be so locked down it'll be impossible.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 12, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> first, the FCO withdrew a patrol ship, and more or less signalled to the _Junta_ 'actually chaps, we're not that fussed about these little islands', second, the opportunity for a negotiated withdrawal really was on the table at the UN, and a real possibility.
> But thatcher was flatlining in the polls, and facing wipeout at the forthcoming GE, which could be held no later than 2 years' time.
> So; she sank the belgrano, when it was outside the exclusion zone and sailing away, and built that into a full war of reconquest.


 
A foreign force occupied UK territory. Would we wait for a negotiated withdrawal if the Argentinians landed on the shores of Cornwall? 

You can criticise her for taking back the Falklands to improve her popularity, doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> Would we wait for a negotiated withdrawal if the Argentinians landed on the shores of Cornwall?


but they didn't, and wouldn't, so your point is pretty irrelevant



> You can criticise her for taking back the Falklands to improve her popularity, doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do.


No - the right thing would have been to do so with minimum loss of life, which she had the chance to do but turned it down because she needed a war to win her votes. She was extremely careless with human life. As Healey putr it "she gloried in carnage"


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 12, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> but they didn't, and wouldn't, so your point is pretty irrelevant


 
It's not. Cornwall is UK territory as is the Falkland Islands. There seems to be a belief among people who criticise Thatcher's retaking of the islands that Argentina sort-of had a point.



Streathamite said:


> No - the right thing would have been to do so with minimum loss of life, which she had the chance to do but turned it down because she needed a war to win her votes. She was extremely careless with human life. As Healey putr it "she gloried in carnage"


 
What would a negotiated withdrawal entail?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> There seems to be a belief among people who criticise Thatcher's retaking of the islands that Argentina sort-of had a point.


well, *I* didn't say they had, did I? In fact, even when amongst my bxtended Argie family I argue the opposite corner and stick up for their Britishness


> What would a negotiated withdrawal entail?


Precisely that - but with 907 lives saved


----------



## existentialist (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> A foreign force occupied UK territory. Would we wait for a negotiated withdrawal if the Argentinians landed on the shores of Cornwall?
> 
> You can criticise her for taking back the Falklands to improve her popularity, doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do.


Most responsible nations will do everything they can to avoid war. The Falklands were an anachronism - a hangover from our colonial past, and I suspect that pretty much anyone else would have been happy to let them, and the ludicrous costs of supplying and administering them, go.

Yes, if Argentina hadn't invaded South Georgia, an essentially useless and abandoned Antarctic island, and handed Thatcher the opportunity to make a (belated) point, then she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, but Streathamite's point that she "gamed" the war into happening is a good one: it was obvious that the Argentinian junta would seize on an invasion as a great way to boost popularity at home, and then became equally obvious that Thatcher was going to use it as an excuse to indulge in some jingoistic flagwaving, and how.

The Falklands aren't Cornwall. They're a bunch of foreign islands that nobody really wanted until we, rather half-heartedly, grabbed them in the 19th century. We didn't really want them right up until it looked like Argentina did, and then all of a sudden they became Cornwall - a cherished part of the homeland to be retrieved and defended at all costs.

Personally, I think the jingoistic rhetoric around them should have been allowed to fade away long ago, and we should have been starting to talk to Argentina about a negotiated transfer just as soon as the military junta fell from office. Instead, we've maintained a Thatcherite myth that they are somehow a precious part of Britain, the core of our nationhood, and to be held by us in perpetuity. Cameron has used them to make cheap jibes at Johnny Gaucho, indicating not only that he clearly intends to perpetuate Thatcher's bellicose legacy, but also that he doesn't have the imagination to do any more than simply parrot her line, with a little bit of schoolboy "yar boo, sucks" namecalling thrown in for good measure.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 12, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Most responsible nations will do everything they can to avoid war. The Falklands were an anachronism - a hangover from our colonial past, and I suspect that pretty much anyone else would have been happy to let them, and the ludicrous costs of supplying and administering them, go.


 
They are a part of UK territory. To not defend them is to abandon your people. 

The reason it costs so much is because there is a nation who want to try and annex them.



existentialist said:


> Personally, I think the jingoistic rhetoric around them should have been allowed to fade away long ago, and we should have been starting to talk to Argentina about a negotiated transfer just as soon as the military junta fell from office. Instead, we've maintained a Thatcherite myth that they are somehow a precious part of Britain, the core of our nationhood, and to be held by us in perpetuity. Cameron has used them to make cheap jibes at Johnny Gaucho, indicating not only that he clearly intends to perpetuate Thatcher's bellicose legacy, but also that he doesn't have the imagination to do any more than simply parrot her line, with a little bit of schoolboy "yar boo, sucks" namecalling thrown in for good measure.


 
Why should Argentina have possession of the islands? There isn't a single reason other than the fact that they want them. To capitulate and transfer the islands into their possession would be pathetic.

Perhaps you should compare the rhetoric Kirchner uses compared to David Cameron when it comes to discussing the Falklands.


----------



## Ranbay (Apr 12, 2013)

Danw raids a plenty on the 17th then.....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 12, 2013)

Surely its going to be very difficult for them to stop demonstrators from getting to the route - its a mile long right through the centre of london.

A large group assembling and marching en-masse they can easily kettle - but if people spread out along the route I cant see what they can do. And does anyone think their are going to be any pro-thatcher mourners there? How are the poilce going to be able to tell one group from another? 

I hope lots of people go - if they're are enough numbers the whole charade could descend into chaos. Giving the rancid old bag a state send off is obscene. A sick insult to the millions who suffered - and continue to suffer - because of her toxic policies and dogma. We cant let this stand!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2013)

anyway: just in case anyone from npoiu or co11 is curious i'm going to be at work all day wednesday so there's no point putting me on your spotter cards. not that you would anyway because it's fucking years since you bothered to


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> They are a part of UK territory. To not defend them is to abandon your people.
> 
> The reason it costs so much is because there is a nation who want to try and annex them.
> 
> ...


The point is that Argentina would not have invaded if we had heeded the warning signs and signalled that we wanted to keep the Falklands. But we failed. That's why the foreign secretary and defence secretary resigned.  I agree that it was right to liberate the islanders from Galtieri's rule, but we shouldn't have invited him to invade in the first place.


----------



## Mr Smin (Apr 12, 2013)

the Falkland islands have a reserve function of giving the UK some territorial claim on the Antarctic should mining begin there. a bit of UK territory close to the cold continent. one of the few things I remember from my uni lectures. on this basis you can see why we won't be giving them up easily.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 13, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> Perhaps you should compare the rhetoric Kirchner uses compared to David Cameron when it comes to discussing the Falklands.


I heard the Argentinian ambassador talking about it, and was very struck at the difference between her measured, thoughtful position and Cameron's cheap point-scoring.


----------



## JTG (Apr 13, 2013)

gunneradt said:


> Maybe Scargill will turn up and finally offer up a ballot


unlikely, he's still alive


----------



## krink (Apr 14, 2013)

I am 300 miles away from london but if the police wanna pull me in for the day I'm more than happy cos it'll be better than going to work.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (Apr 15, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I heard the Argentinian ambassador talking about it, and was very struck at the difference between her measured, thoughtful position and Cameron's cheap point-scoring.


 
Is the ambassador the president?

No. Cameron has not used the conflict for point scoring in any way...unlike Kirchner.


----------



## Meltingpot (Apr 15, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Most responsible nations will do everything they can to avoid war. The Falklands were an anachronism - a hangover from our colonial past, and I suspect that pretty much anyone else would have been happy to let them, and the ludicrous costs of supplying and administering them, go.
> 
> Yes, if Argentina hadn't invaded South Georgia, an essentially useless and abandoned Antarctic island, and handed Thatcher the opportunity to make a (belated) point, then she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, but Streathamite's point that she "gamed" the war into happening is a good one: it was obvious that the Argentinian junta would seize on an invasion as a great way to boost popularity at home, and then became equally obvious that Thatcher was going to use it as an excuse to indulge in some jingoistic flagwaving, and how.
> 
> ...


 
Max Hastings (perhaps surprisingly) is of that opinion too and said so to a New Labour cabinet minister (whom he didn't name) when the latter were in office. The minister replied, "What's in it for us? "The media and the Falklands lobby would go mad. About six people like you would applaud."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/05/foreignpolicy.gibraltar


----------



## Pingu (Apr 15, 2013)

less falklands.. more bile about thatch pls.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 15, 2013)

Re the Falklands (sorry Pingu) it was argued at the time that if we didn't show determination to keep hold of "our territory"* we would be inviting Spain to annex Gibraltar. 

*A bit of a stretch, given that the islanders weren't even allowed a British passport at the time.  A 1981 act of parliament specifically said they couldn't have one. That was partly how Argentina justified the invasion in 82.  The islanders finally got their passports by a special act of parliament in 83. But the islands are still not part of the United Kingdom.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 15, 2013)

Wonder how this ones gonna end....


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2013)

ffsear said:


> Wonder how this ones gonna end....


with margaret thatcher's head being paraded round on the end of a pike.

at least that's how my fictional account of it ended.


----------



## sunny jim (Apr 15, 2013)

I put this on another thread but I think its important enough to be read widely as possible so people can take precautions

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-plan-dawn-raids-ahead-1832813#comments


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2013)

sunny jim said:


> I put this on another thread but I think its important enough to be read widely as possible so people can take precautions
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cops-plan-dawn-raids-ahead-1832813#comments


i hope no fucker goes for a judicial review again.

it'll certainly be a nice little earner if they pop round here because i have no intention of going to protest against it because i have to go to work.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 15, 2013)

So the Met are saying that if you cause distress to a mourner you can be arrested. But they have given permission for one person to turn her back so long as she does it in a designated area in front of the Royal Courts of Justice. Do we think they will arrest back-turners on other parts of the route? Or that back-turners who haven't asked permission will be allowed into the designated back-turning area?

This 'causing distress' crime raises an interesting legal point. Mourners, if they are truly mourning, will be feeling distress whether or not there's a protest. How would the courts determine whether their distress level is any higher than it would normally be at the death of one of their heroes?


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 15, 2013)

The horrific events in the USA are going to up the ante by a massive degree. Seriously, anyone, even if you have no intention of protesting at all, watch your backs.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> <snip>This 'causing distress' crime raises an interesting legal point. Mourners, if they are truly mourning, will be feeling distress whether or not there's a protest. How would the courts determine whether their distress level is any higher than it would normally be at the death of one of their heroes?


Good point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So the Met are saying that if you cause distress to a mourner you can be arrested. But they have given permission for one person to turn her back so long as she does it in a designated area in front of the Royal Courts of Justice. Do we think they will arrest back-turners on other parts of the route? Or that back-turners who haven't asked permission will be allowed into the designated back-turning area?
> 
> This 'causing distress' crime raises an interesting legal point. Mourners, if they are truly mourning, will be feeling distress whether or not there's a protest. How would the courts determine whether their distress level is any higher than it would normally be at the death of one of their heroes?


no one there has in fact to be harassed alarmed or distressed, the legal test is if a reasonable person would harassed alarmed or distressed.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 15, 2013)

So you don't need a statement from a person who has been distressed? Just a supposition by the court that a reasonable person would have been caused distress?


----------



## Nice one (Apr 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So you don't a statement from a person who has been distressed? Just a supposition by the court that a reasonable person would have been caused distress?


 
section 5 public order acts states:
_"A person is guilty of an offence if he—_
_(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or_
_(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,_
_within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby"._

so yes there must be a person present


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2013)

Nice one said:


> section 5 public order acts states:
> _"A person is guilty of an offence if he—_
> _(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or_
> _(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,_
> ...


i'm not sure that's entirely the case as there was some ruling about violent disorder a while back where iirc there didn't need to be someone.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure that's entirely the case as there was some ruling about violent disorder a while back where iirc there didn't need to be someone.


 
true violent disorder (s2) doesn't need a person present but both s4 & s5 need someone to be alarmed and distressed by your actions


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 15, 2013)

Nice one said:


> true violent disorder (s2) doesn't need a person present but both s4 & s5 need someone to be alarmed and distressed by your actions


that's why i'm not a lawyer


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 15, 2013)

Nice one said:


> true violent disorder (s2) doesn't need a person present but both s4 & s5 need someone to be alarmed and distressed by your actions


So the prosecution would need a mourner to make a complaint?


----------



## kenny g (Apr 15, 2013)

Police Officer's used to give statements that they were distressed by people swearing until a recent case where a judge pretty much said that s/he thought it unlikely that something as minor as being told to fuck off would alarm a copper.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So the prosecution would need a mourner to make a complaint?


 
not necessarily. Police only need to justify an arrest by the fact that any person present is _likely_ to be alarmed or distressed by your actions (there's no requirement to prove that anybody present was actually alarmed or distressed by your actions). And the prosecution could, and often do, rely solely on the police evidence in making a case. That said having a mourner making a statement claiming to be alarmed and distressed would give the prosecution a pretty solid case for conviction.

Bear in mind your actions must be either threatening or abusive to be found guilty.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 15, 2013)

OK. So the distress must be caused by violent or abusive behaviour. Not just a placard. (Assuming the placard doesn't say fuck or similar.)


----------



## Nice one (Apr 15, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> OK. So the distress must be caused by violent or abusive behaviour. Not just a placard. (Assuming the placard doesn't say fuck or similar.)


 
here's the actual wording of the law:

*section 5 Public Order Act 1986*
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64


----------



## existentialist (Apr 15, 2013)

OswaldMosley said:


> Is the ambassador the president?
> 
> No. Cameron has not used the conflict for point scoring in any way...unlike Kirchner.


No, the ambassador is not the president. One clue is the way "ambassador" begins with an "A", and "president" with a "P".

And Kirchner's probably more entitled to use the issue for point scoring than Cameron is, in any case. Apart from the fact that Cameron's a cunt, anyway.


----------



## sptme (Apr 16, 2013)

Every time i see Cameron on the tele I feel alarmed and distressed. how come he hasn't been arrested?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 16, 2013)

The barriers around St Pauls http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/so-the-state-funeral.308734/page-9#post-12150467 look ominous. Maybe nobody will get through without being searched? I realise they need to check people for bombs etc. but I'm wondering whether they will also try to bar entry to anyone who looks like a protester.


----------



## readergirl (Apr 16, 2013)

Same here this Tory Government is getting me down.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 16, 2013)

From the StopG8 collective.....



> PROTEST AT THATCHER'S FUNERAL TOMORROW
> 
> Tomorrow Thatcher will be buried.  The Met have been whipping up fear with
> scare-mongering, rumour and threats of arrest. But there are still many who
> ...


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2013)

I will be at work tomorrow. But I wish all who decide to protest well. Try not to get arrested and cause maximum embarrassment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2013)

teqniq said:


> I will be at work tomorrow. But I wish all who decide to protest well. Try not to get arrested and cause maximum embarrassment.


seconded.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 16, 2013)

Go on Dennis!

Skinner ready to challenge change of business tomorrow.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 16, 2013)

I shall be going my 'Munchkin fury at Maggie Ding Dong Song' lesson tomorrow at 11am. With added audio.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 16, 2013)

Highgate Club in Goldthorpe Dearne Valley South Yorkshire.
All day Wednesday all beers £1.50 a pint in celebration of the day!
A funeral procession will take place through the village at the same time as the funeral, escorted by former miners in work clothes and the burning of a coffin with an effigy inside followed by fireworks!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2013)

Pingu said:


> less falklands.. more bile about thatch pls.


 
Yep, suggest that the guy with the fash-fancier nickname start a Falklands-wank thread elsewhere.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2013)

I wonder if dressing up as munchkins and re-enacting the appropriate moments from Wizard of Oz as the coffin passes would be deemed 'likely to distress a reasonable person'

I personally think that'd look really ace on TV, either happy dancing munchkins or clearly harmless munchkins being beaten senseless by enraged cops would work ok.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 16, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I personally think that'd look really ace on TV, either happy dancing munchkins or clearly harmless munchkins being beaten senseless by enraged cops would be cool.


 
Doesn't have to be either/or. The kids dressed as munchkins start off dancing and singing happily, but then police on horseback pile in trampling them underfoot whilst snipers shoot wildly into the crowd. Could be great TV.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 16, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Doesn't have to be either/or. The kids dressed as munchkins start off dancing and singing happily, but then police on horseback pile in trampling them underfoot whilst snipers shoot wildly into the crowd. Could be great TV.


 
Yeah that's kind of what I was envisaging, win-win situation, at least as long as it's some kids (or midgets) who are genuinely up for it (or annoying enough for whatever reason that you consider them expendable in a good cause)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 16, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yeah that's kind of what I was envisaging, win-win situation, at least as long as it's some kids (or midgets) who you consider expendable in a good cause.


 
I was thinking of some kids from Toby Young's free school.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 16, 2013)

sick


----------



## ddraig (Apr 16, 2013)

light legal stuff and links here from bbc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22160801
*Who, what, why: Can police stop protests at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral?*


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 16, 2013)




----------



## Casually Red (Apr 16, 2013)

theres another street party planned for derry tomorrow . PSNI sound like theyre going to take it on after backing off from the last one when petrol bombs were chucked at them . Been a fair bit of trouble in derry ever since .

http://www.u.tv/News/Derry-police-ready-for-Thatcher-funeral/aef1d6ce-11f9-40df-b070-10e899a4c417


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 16, 2013)

Check this bad boy out.


----------



## youngian (Apr 16, 2013)

Some well wishers from the North west-








[/quote]


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 17, 2013)

> Officers are told to use their discretion


----------



## albionism (Apr 17, 2013)




----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 17, 2013)

albionism said:


> View attachment 31544


 
What a spanner.

Here's the best of Frankie Boyle's Tweets.

_- Finally, I get to wear my black suit and tap shoes together_


_- A sad day for her friends, I think I noticed a tear forming in the burning eye of Sauron_
_- Hard not to watch a funeral where there's quite a good chance that a streaker will be shot by a drone_
_- This guest list is a damning inditement of the inefficiency of the IRA_
_- That bell ringing symbolises each of the strokes that finished her_
_- Be great if they started playing the Empire music from Star Wars_
_- The combination of hairspray and hatred could see her body burn for 100 years like a Kuwaiti oilfield_
_- Not a single black face_
_- I was all for a lavishly funded public cremation for Thatcher. Right up until she died. _


----------



## Anudder Oik (Apr 17, 2013)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 17, 2013)

albionism said:


> View attachment 31544


 
What a twat.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 17, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What a twat.


 
Yes Osborne is a twat. He should be buried  with that hidious creature Thatcher.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Apr 17, 2013)

And Thatcher should have been cremated on a rubbish tip.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And Thatcher should have been cremated on a rubbish tip.


while alive


----------

