Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Given you're absolutely, positively not getting involved in this thread, my cut on it is still the same. £0 was still way in excess of what the nation should have spent. I wouldn't have allowed it, if it was all paid for out of her private wealth and they made a £40m donation to Battersea Dog's Home. Blair shouldn't get one either.bobo the clown wrote:OK, so what's happened to the other £8.4m ?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So the Cabinet Office has published the costs for Thatcher's funeral: £1.6m, over two thirds of which was on security and policing. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cost ... rs-funeral" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can I assume that those outraged by the £10m claimed to be being spent will now no longer be outraged .... or at least only 16% as outraged. Or will they admit that the cost, much as it was what was used to jusify their ire, was in fact not what they objected to at all ?
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
i'm guessing the first condition for his funeral would be that he was dead - so not sure how he'd decline!bobo the clown wrote:It will be replicated for Tony Blair ... unless he declines it, which I doubt.thebish wrote:I'm sure they will as long as mummy now gives his support for the same treatment for Tony Blair...bobo the clown wrote:OK, so what's happened to the other £8.4m ?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So the Cabinet Office has published the costs for Thatcher's funeral: £1.6m, over two thirds of which was on security and policing. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cost ... rs-funeral" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can I assume that those outraged by the £10m claimed to be being spent will now no longer be outraged .... or at least only 16% as outraged. Or will they admit that the cost, much as it was what was used to jusify their ire, was in fact not what they objected to at all ?

and - it's mummy (not you) who said it should happen for Maggie but not for Tony...
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14515
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
that's just about doubled since mummy's breathless announcement!boltonboris wrote:Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.

-
- Immortal
- Posts: 19597
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
- Contact:
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
thebish wrote:i'm guessing the first condition for his funeral would be that he was dead - so not sure how he'd decline!bobo the clown wrote:It will be replicated for Tony Blair ... unless he declines it, which I doubt.thebish wrote:I'm sure they will as long as mummy now gives his support for the same treatment for Tony Blair...bobo the clown wrote:OK, so what's happened to the other £8.4m ?mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:So the Cabinet Office has published the costs for Thatcher's funeral: £1.6m, over two thirds of which was on security and policing. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cost ... rs-funeral" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can I assume that those outraged by the £10m claimed to be being spent will now no longer be outraged .... or at least only 16% as outraged. Or will they admit that the cost, much as it was what was used to jusify their ire, was in fact not what they objected to at all ?Thatch discussed her arrangements with, as it happened, Blair. So sooner or later (& given the number of enemies he has I'd suggest sooner ... if not before) he'll be asked. So ner-ner-ne-ner, ner.
and - it's mummy (not you) who said it should happen for Maggie but not for Tony...
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Out of curiosity who pays for all the dignitaries that attended the funeral. Would assume they can't be counted as official state visits. If the U.K. is partly responsible that must have added up to a pretty pence.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 8046
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 9:25 am
- Location: Bolton
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Said on the radio that £2 mill of that was for the police....thebish wrote:that's just about doubled since mummy's breathless announcement!boltonboris wrote:Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
i thought mummy said 2/3 of £1.6mill was for both security AND policingAnnoyed Grunt wrote:Said on the radio that £2 mill of that was for the police....thebish wrote:that's just about doubled since mummy's breathless announcement!boltonboris wrote:Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.
summat doesn't add up....
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 44175
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Bible, Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
Is anybody likely to tell the truth about the final figures? Somehow, I doubt it.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
No, the next £2million was 'opportunity cost' not extra cash spent. The figure is still £1.6million.thebish wrote:i thought mummy said 2/3 of £1.6mill was for both security AND policingAnnoyed Grunt wrote:Said on the radio that £2 mill of that was for the police....thebish wrote:that's just about doubled since mummy's breathless announcement!boltonboris wrote:Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.
summat doesn't add up....
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
What complete and utter bollocks.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, the next £2million was 'opportunity cost' not extra cash spent. The figure is still £1.6million.thebish wrote:i thought mummy said 2/3 of £1.6mill was for both security AND policingAnnoyed Grunt wrote:Said on the radio that £2 mill of that was for the police....thebish wrote:that's just about doubled since mummy's breathless announcement!boltonboris wrote:Downing Street have now put the figure at £3.6m. It's creeping up.. It's gonns be like the new Wembley this.
summat doesn't add up....
Somewhere £2m of policing was lost from other duties.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
£2m of policing/soldiering/security work - yep, £2million of that was reallocated for the day but would have been spent anyway.Worthy4England wrote:What complete and utter bollocks.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, the next £2million was 'opportunity cost' not extra cash spent. The figure is still £1.6million.thebish wrote: i thought mummy said 2/3 of £1.6mill was for both security AND policing
summat doesn't add up....
Somewhere £2m of policing was lost from other duties.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
I didn't say that. I said that Thatcher's case was far stronger but that I could see the argument for Blair.thebish wrote:
and - it's mummy (not you) who said it should happen for Maggie but not for Tony...
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
That's £2m of other things on behalf of the taxpayer, that didn't get done. It's one of the most inane, arsewrenching, bollocks, statements I've heard in a long time.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:£2m of policing/soldiering/security work - yep, £2million of that was reallocated for the day but would have been spent anyway.Worthy4England wrote:What complete and utter bollocks.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:No, the next £2million was 'opportunity cost' not extra cash spent. The figure is still £1.6million.thebish wrote: i thought mummy said 2/3 of £1.6mill was for both security AND policing
summat doesn't add up....
Somewhere £2m of policing was lost from other duties.
-
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
All those soldiers would still have been soldiers doing something else on another day, it's true. I'm relaxed that occasionally they're called upon to perform ceremonial state functions.Worthy4England wrote:
That's £2m of other things on behalf of the taxpayer, that didn't get done. It's one of the most inane, arsewrenching, bollocks, statements I've heard in a long time.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
i believe you said it felt right for thatcher but wouldn't feel right for blair because his war wasn't as well won as hers...mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:I didn't say that. I said that Thatcher's case was far stronger but that I could see the argument for Blair.thebish wrote:
and - it's mummy (not you) who said it should happen for Maggie but not for Tony...
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14515
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
The horse and carriage was going to be used to take Theresa May to Tesco, she'd have claimed it on expenses, so you can take that out of the cost.
The dignitaries were also already coming over for a game of kerplunk with David Cameron, so again, you can take that expense out.
It probably cost feck all when you trim it down.
The dignitaries were also already coming over for a game of kerplunk with David Cameron, so again, you can take that expense out.
It probably cost feck all when you trim it down.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
That's like arguing that you would be relaxed about it if the government taxed you at 100% because the money would have been spent on something eventually anyway, no matter who 'owned' it. Rehidiculouuus.mummywhycantieatcrayons wrote:All those soldiers would still have been soldiers doing something else on another day, it's true. I'm relaxed that occasionally they're called upon to perform ceremonial state functions.Worthy4England wrote:
That's £2m of other things on behalf of the taxpayer, that didn't get done. It's one of the most inane, arsewrenching, bollocks, statements I've heard in a long time.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
And the horses were alive and breathing so they might as well have been used, and the sand had already been ground out of rock so it might as well have been scattered (all ten tonnes of it) along the route, and then swept up again by an army of serfs (who would have been paid by Westminster council anyway, but obviously not for sand sweeping duties).boltonboris wrote:The horse and carriage was going to be used to take Theresa May to Tesco, she'd have claimed it on expenses, so you can take that out of the cost.
The dignitaries were also already coming over for a game of kerplunk with David Cameron, so again, you can take that expense out.
It probably cost feck all when you trim it down.
It's almost like it didn't happen and no cost whatsoever was incurred.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 15355
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: Vagantes numquam erramus
Re: Margaret Thatcher, R.I.P.?
St Paul's has been sat there doing nowt for years, you need to sweat your assets, and it was good free advertising for when its privatised.
You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Yes, you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests