Thatcher

I have seen all over the internet people talking about Margaret Thatcher's death and her funeral. I have witnessed some disgusting view and opinions of her being pasted over the internet on sites such as Facebook and Twitter and I have got to say, I do not agree.

People have been celebrating her death and to me I believe that is it morally wrong. No matter what your personal views and opinions are of a particular person, you should not let those wish to celebrate their death. Where is the respect? Fair enough, you don't like the woman. Clearly not many people do, but that does not give you the right to write some of the horrid things you write about her. Think of her family and friends, the people who did actually like her when she was alive. Would you like it if somebody in your family died and their death was celebrated, not for the life they lived, but for finally leaving this world? No, You would not. I certainly wouldn't.
And so no matter what my personal opinions are of Thatcher, I still would not celebrate her death or be glad that she has gone. What she did when she was Prime Minister was over ten years ago, and therefore it needs to be forgotten because what she did wrong, has been corrected. And that is all that matters and that should not depict whether you celebrate her death or not.

I was not born when Thatcher was the PM of the UK and therefore I do not know exactly what she did and did not do for our country. I was never brought up in a household that knew a great deal about what happened in politics because my family did not care. To them, they felt that it had nothing to do with them and they were not bothered, therefore I was never taught about what Thatcher did. All I have ever known about Thatcher is what I have read on the internet or what others have told me.

The main thing that grinds my gears about Thatcher, is that tax payers are expected to pay a certain amount of her funeral, bearing in mind that the funeral is expected to cost at least £10million. This is outrageous! Why should tax payers pay for a funeral for someone that most of them did not like, and in general.
It is her funeral, not ours, and therefore her family should pay. I'm sure she had more than enough money kept in her bank accounts over the last few years that could foot the bill for her funeral. I mean, how is it even justified? The government's justification is that they are footing the bill, whereas this clearly isn't true, and it is clear the it is in fact taxpayer's money that is footing the bill. But will we get anything for it? No!

So why on earth should we pay for that woman's funeral? What did she ever do for us exactly? I know she did do some stuff that was good for our country but she also did some stuff that was inexplicable.

I am glad that I am not a taxpayer due to being a student who doesn't earn enough to pay tax (not because I'm dodging it like some people do) because I would not want my money paying for that woman's funeral! But then again, the tax I have paid in the past from a past employment is probably going to go towards her funeral and I really do not see why it should.

A funeral is meant to be meaningful and personal to a particular group of people. Family and friends are meant to be the people who put to rest their deceased family member/friend and then celebrate their life at the wake, it should not be paraded through a town for millions to see just because they were once the Prime Minister who quite frankly disgusted most of the UK.

I would not want my money paying for somebodies funeral, especially to not pay for a funeral for a woman who brought in Section 28 - Anti-gay act! I mean come on, what kind of sadistic bitch would do something like that? Homophobes are disgusting and make me want to punch them in the face. Not that I ever would because I'm not a violent person. But being Prime Minister and bringing in an act such as Section 28 was unacceptable and morally wrong. Thatcher went on about how teaching children that homosexuality is morally wrong, and then banned those children from being taught about it. Forcing people to stop running LGBT societies incase they were in breach of the act. IT WAS WRONG.

What happened to equality? Then again I suppose PM's don't understand equality seeing as they seem to be ruining the lives of poor people for their own gain.

But what I really want to know, so somebody please enlighten me, is what taxpayer's are actually paying for? Her family are paying for the transport, the flowers, the coffin and most probably the venue/catering for the wake (if they do one). So what else is left for taxpayer's to pay for? Cancelling public transport, closing roads, stopping people being able to go to work without delays etc? Exactly what I thought. We aren't paying for anything remotely important for her funeral. Therefore leave it for her family. £10million is a ridiculous amount for a funeral anyway, what is she trying to do? 'One up' Michael Jackson's funeral or something? Or are taxpayer's paying for the cameras that will film her funeral? Ridiculous!

Moral of the story - EVEN THOUGH HER DEATH IS SEEN AS A TRAGEDY TO MOST - TAXPAYER'S MONEY SHOULD NOT FOOT THE BILL OF HER FUNERAL. I FEEL DISGUSTED THAT THEY EXPECT THOSE WHO PAY TAX TO PAY FOR A HOMOPHOBIC'S FUNERAL!

Politics

I always used to find politics boring, the whole voting business and choosing someone to basically tell you what you can and cannot do always seemed pointless and boring to me. But over the past few years, the more I have matured and the more politics have become televised it's started to get my attention a lot more. And what's the worst? The past few months it has angered me more than I ever imagined something could. 

A man I know is disabled with Cerebellar Ataxia and a few years ago he was accused of fraud for receiving incapacity benefits after he had fallen in work and needed time off work to mend a broken ankle and knee (all on the same leg). Not long after this started he was then, alongside this, accused of claiming DLA (Disability Living Allowance) under fraudulent circumstances. A long and tiring investigation was carried out for both of these accusations from the government. Finally, when the man turned up at court, walking with the assistance of not only his wife but a walking stick because of his then recent injuries from work, the court room and magistrate took one look at him and there and then decided to drop all charges against him. 

This man has been disabled with Cerebellar Ataxia since he was eighteen, when this all happened he was roughly early to mid forties of age. 

What angers me about that paragraph is that the government accused a man, who had been disabled at that point for almost thirty years, who had claimed DLA because of his disability, was accused of fraud just because he had to claim incapacity benefit because of a fall at work that was caused by an idiotic man making a disabled man, who had and still has a pretty much non existent balancing mechanism, to climb on a computer/desk chair to fix a broken security CCTV camera. But the fact he was accused of fraud is inexplicable and undeniably ridiculous. Understandable most people who receive DLA and incapacity benefits are fraudulent but in this case it is clear that this man was in no way, shape or form trying to receive something he may or may not have been entitled to. 

The moral of this part is the fact that the government need to seriously consider how their accusations can affect a person and even that person's family.

Recently we all know, who are in tune with the news that most people receiving DLA have been questioned and investigated as to whether their claiming it legitimately or fraudulently. What some fail to see is that David Cameron, the man himself who has issued warrants for these people to be investigated receives DLA himself. Personally, I have never seen anything about him having a disability and I have never heard him mention that he is disabled or what his disability may be. He might want to keep it on the down low which is of course his business, but with the salary he earns and the benefits he gets, including his mortgage being paid, his bills being paid and the other benefits and 'added extras' he receives because of his "employment" he doesn't deserve to be on DLA. DLA is there for the disabled that need it, of course every disabled person is entitled to DLA no matter how severe their disability is, but with Cameron receiving all the money he does at the moment, he doesn't deserve to receive it. The money he receives every year from DLA could go to somebody else who probably cannot get it because so many people are on it who don't need to be.

On another topic, the recent issues with money, tax and other issues revolving around the government. I don't understand why they think it is okay to take more money away from those who need it the most and give £10,000 worth of tax or whatever back. HOW IS THAT EVEN LEGAL?

But then again they always say, you fend for your own..So clearly because Cameron and everyone else are rich bastards they have to look after the rest of the rich people out there and give them even more money which they'll probably spend on a new Rolex watch even though there are people out there who are being threatened to have their houses repossessed because they can't afford to pay their bills because all of their money goes on tax! There are families starving, CHILDREN starving because food is too expensive to buy. Where is the justification in all of this?

And the WORST of all, the fact they are trying to privatise the NHS. Why? So that people can die because they can't afford to buy the medication they need or afford to pay to see a doctor? Oh no wait, the rich won't have to worry about that, with the extra £10,000 they'll have in their pockets will be enough for them to afford all the medication in the world that they need! 

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKING MONEY OFF THE POOR AND GIVING IT TO THE RICH!