This story is just wonderful.
25Aug04 — 23
- 04.05.23 Ten-year quest through Development Hell pays off
- 04.04.23 Testing "podcasting"
- 04.03.23 Mistakes Have Been Made
- 04.02.23 Coming soon
- 11.02.19 Live comedy review: Geoff Norcott at the Southport Comedy Festival
- 08.20.19 Republic Interiors
- 12.27.18 The Wykehamist Fallacy
- 12.08.18 The Moral Degradation of The Labour Party
- 10.14.18 FILM REVIEW: Downsizing
- 09.09.18 Film Review: Fright Night
[…] might have been gathered against Mark Thatcher.] A commenter at PooterGeek suggested that my assessment to date of Mark Thatcher’s contribution to civilization might be biased […]
And the elite anti-fraud police unit is called…The Scorpions!
/exits thread whilsting intro to Wind of Change.
“Rejoice, rejoice!”
Of course, it won’t have escaped your liberal consciences that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Nor, I am sure, will your liberal instincts be influenced in the slightest by the fact that *if*, repeat *if*, Thatcher is guilty, he is guilty of attemtping the overthrow of one of the most murderous regimes in Africa. In the comment above Dad suggests that we “rejoice, rejoice”. I don’t suppose there will much rejoicing in the prisons of Equatorial Guinea. But, of course, I don’t need to tell you all that, you’re liberals, after all
I’m pretty easygoing in my establishment and rarely take this tone, but, much as I enjoy your contributions here David, you are well out of order on this occasion.
It would be very difficult to argue on the basis of my tedious thousands of words here on the subject that I (or most of my regulars) have ever been friends of murderous regimes, especially African ones. I was a grudging supporter of action by mercenaries to attempt to restore some kind of security to Sierra Leone long before it became something to brag about in certain quarters. And, given that my dad, a white Briton married to a black Sierra Leonean, was in Nigeria during the Biafran war, while the British were turning a blind eye, or even conniving in starving hundreds of thousands of civilians to death, I think he would be entitled to say a word or two to you about “consciences” in that regard.
Despite the man’s interesting history, I certainly didn’t accuse Mark Thatcher of being guilty of anything; I just said it was “a wonderful story”. From many years of watching their publicly reported antics (and from our respective brief personal encounters) I’ve seldom approved of Mark Thatcher’s activities or his mother’s and neither has my dad. I’m sure if George Galloway (another man who has—unfairly of course—suffered accusations of dodgy and potentially lucrative dealings with dodgy regimes) found himself in a similar situation you reaction would be exactly the same, long before any conviction was reported (or not)—and so would ours.
Politics aside, though, given the man’s record in business, who would plan a military coup and then hire Mark Thatcher to handle the money?
They should have let the coup happen. No doubt the mercenaries would be still be wandering about in a desert somewhere.
Hmmm! Seem to have touched a nerve there! Let me make my position clear, although no more palatable to your taste. There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in your report and those of your commenters, althought the sound of smacking lips which occurs whenever the name ‘Thatcher’ crops up in trouble might have been my imagination. Perhaps you could set my mind at rest by explaining what was “wonderful” about this story?
And I am still not sure whether you approve of Mr. Thatcher’s *alleged* attempt to overthrow the gangster regime in Equatorial Guinea, or not? I mean, does he deserve ten years in the pokey or a medal? I would be very interested in your reply.
Finally, in my view, the curse of Africa is not the various gangsters who run the place but the constant and pernicious interference in their affairs by the ‘West’. And I mean interference in every sense of the word especially so-called aid. When people like Mr. Blair start crusading for Africa my heart sinks. We should only do business with those states who offer us essentials and we should lower our tarrifs so that we can buy whatever it is they have to offer. Other than that, we should let them sort themselves out in their own way.
How very Simon Jenkins of you.
Eric implies (on his blog) that in regard to Sudan, ‘something must be done’, but fails to explain exactly what and by whom. He suggests that something he calls “the international community constituted in the UN do have a responsibility to prevent genocide.” I suggest that there is no such thing as “the international community” and that the UN is for the most part a collection of thieves, gangsters and murderers with minimal interest in genocide except, that is, for the genocide many of them are, or are about to, execute in their own benighted lands.
David,
I both disagree with you and agree with you.
I think that their is an international community which should protect people from genocide.
I also happen to agree with you about the UN.
Fair enough, but what, exactly, is the “international community” then? I’m tempted to paraphrase Napoleon (another gangster!) in asking how many battalions does it have?
Apart from dysfunctional?
The battalions depend on the coalition of the willing.
I never said this was easy.
OK, so we can dispense with the UN, and thus any action will depend on an “alliance of the willing”, and very recent history tells you how tiny that will be! But then, it seems to me, one has to decide what it is, or rather what are the factors, that make a nation “willing”. You suggest that a humanitarian crisis, as exampled by the Sudan today, or Kosovo yesterday, is sufficient. I disagree. There is only ever one reason that we should allow our politicians to risk our soldier’s lives and that is national interest and/or advantage. I give in to the temptation to quote another old gangster (but a much cleverer one than ‘Boney’), Otto von Bismark, who remarked vis-a-vis the Balkans, that they were not worth “the healthy bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier”. Quite right, too, and neither is the Sudan!
Aside from the fact that failed states are breeding grounds for our enemies, it should be in our national interest to do the right thing.
Was Poland worth the healthy bones of a British Tommy?
Sorry,David, but you must be very naive to think that Mark Thatcher’s alleged involvement in the alleged coup was motivated by any humanitarian instincts. Altruism and selflessness were characteristics never displayed by either of his parents in their rise to wealth and power, and I can see no reason why these qualities should suddenly display themselves in their offspring. He could, however, have been motivated by the alleged promise of a cut of the oil revenues had the coup proved successful.
During my years in West Africa I witnessed several coups and counter -coups. In fact, in the 60s and 70s they became such a common occurrence in Nigeria and Sierra Leone that we often joked about the “Dove of Peace” flying over West Africa with its familiar cry of “Coup-coup!” However, each change of regime brought a Government just as vindictive and corrupt as its predecessor, its leaders enriching themselves while the ordinary citizens lived in poverty and squalor. What makes you think, David, that a new regime in Equatorial Guinea would be any better? After all, they have already promised money to foreign nationals which belongs to the people of Equatorial Guinea.
You may have been puzzled by my use of the words “Rejoice, rejoice!”
Perhaps I should explain that these were the words of Margaret Thatcher on the steps of 10 Downing Street, as she exhorted the nation to celebrate the sinking, on her orders, of the Argentinian battleship
SS Belgrano, as it steamed away from the exclusion zone around the Falklands, a sinking which resulted in the deaths of over 400 Argentinian troops. It was, of course, a different Margaret Thatcher we saw when her dear son, Mark, stupidly lost himself in the Sahara during the Paris-Dakar rally. But then, that’s the Thatchers for you!
Dad
“Hmmm! Seem to have touched a nerve there!”
It’s simple. If PooterGeek has a purpose, it is to denounce and mock stupidity. Your original post was breathtakingly stupid. It got and is getting what it deserved. (Would that this were always the case in this world.) It implied an attitude on my part (and that of my father) so inconsistent with everything that you as a regular must know about me by now I have to wonder if it was the product of some kind of seizure; it defended (against an imagined attack, rather than my actual ironic mockery) a man widely recognized as a bumbling international chancer who has transformed vast personal advantage into public humiliation time after time; and it misspelled “attempting”.
(Apart from anything else, why would I need to libel Mark Thatcher when his achievements speak so eloquently of his character?)
“Let me make my position clear, although no more palatable to your taste. There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in your report and those of your commenters, althought the sound of smacking lips which occurs whenever the name ‘Thatcher’ crops up in trouble might have been my imagination.”
You are, at least and at last, comprehensively right there.
“Perhaps you could set my mind at rest by explaining what was “wonderful” about this story?”
Stories that draw attention to Mark Thatcher’s talent for getting himself in trouble are always wonderful. I have a deep respect for people who progress through their dedication, ability, and sense of duty. I defy you to cite one example of Mr Thatcher exhibiting any of those qualities in quantity at any point in his life. There is something deeply satisfying to me about any news item that even hints that the lazy and inept might have failed to enrich themselves through some illegal activity. When the central character is the son of someone who spent her public life claiming to value those qualities I listed, whilst doing so much to thwart those possessing them to the advantage of those who just possess rich parents—most notably by destroying more grammar schools than any other British minister and replacing imperfect “selection-by-talent” with near-perfect “selection-by-house-price”—then the tale is all the more pleasing.
And, as I have pointed out before (in the true spirit of PooterGeek), even the idea of anyone picking Mark Thatcher as their money man is just the shiny glacé on the thickly-iced surface of a great big cake of rib-tickling idiocy.
Gentlemen, I can only take your points in order, as follows:
Eric: Yes, Poland was worth it, but not for the sake of Poland about which we could do nothing, but as a trip-wire to get us fighting Germany for very obvious national interests.
Dad: Nowhere did I intimate that Mark Thatcher’s (alleged) motives were humanitarian, I merely pointed out a possible example of the law of unintended consequences which appeared not to have occurred to any of you! (cont…)
Dad: I am perfectly aware of the origins of your *inaccurate* quote and its equally *inaccurate* context. She never said, “Rejoice! Rejoice!” (see: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=104923) and the words had nothing to do with the Belgrano but referred to the success of a hugely dangerous mission by our troops to re-take S. Georgia.
Dad: You display embarrassing ignorance of naval tactics and grand tactics. The Belgrano was capable of steering in any of 360 degrees at any moment of the captain’s choosing. The particular course it was on at the time of the sinking is totally irrelevant. You might as well say the Bismark was not steering towards England in 1941!(cont…)
Dad: I assume(?) from your tender feelings concerning war casualties, like those of the Belgrano, that you are less inclined to kill hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Sudanese for , er, humanitarian reasons.
PG: “Stupidity” (your word) is, I find, like love, it lies in the eye of the beholder. You boast of ‘denouncing’ and ‘mocking’ but re-act like a dervish if anyone gently mocks you! I can only assume that whilst you can dish it out, you have difficulty taking it.
PG: You claim that your original post was “ironic mockery”, so you can imagine my puzzlement when reading the main paragraph of your response above which was a mouth-foaming rant of pure bile and invective against the Thatchers, pere, mere and fils. Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite happy for you to bite the carpet in any way you want, but … irony? I don’t think so.
PG: You complain, quite rightly in my view, that Mrs T, closed too many grammar schools so again, you will understand my head-scratching over the news that the Labour Party has invited you stand as a candidate when the vast majority of its membership would kill *all* grammar schools dead, tomorrow! Hmmm, I think my ribs were tickled by that one!
Finally, I have absolutley no opinions whatsoever concerning your father, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never expressed any. How could I? I don’t know the man.
David, you’re right about the Belgrano and my dad isn’t. Other than that the hole you’re digging is getting bigger.
I didn’t even mention Mark Thatcher’s father, so how I managed “a mouth-foaming rant” against him, I don’t know. As for Mark and Margaret, I’m still waiting for any challenge to the boring facts of their respective legacies.
Accusing me of “re-acting like a dervish” in response to mockery is pretty silly when you do so right next to a post in which I respond to the suggestion that I write “crap” here with… a smiley and right next to another post where I openly invite people to take the piss out of my local Labour party’s activities—just the behaviour you’d expect of someone who “has difficulty taking it”.
The majority of the Labour Party’s membership was probably as opposed to the Iraq war as it is to grammar schools. Significant minorities within the party feel otherwise. It was the same with the abolition of Clause IV and unilateral nuclear disarmament. During my membership I’ve watched many policies change for, in my opinion, the better and I hope to watch many more change. There’s no inconsistency between my views and my activism. I’m part of an open, lively, democratic party.
To return to the original point: you implied that those who had contributed here at the time you commented, including my father, were in some way prepared to overlook murderous regimes when it suited them. You repeated the insinuation above. My objection is the same now as it was then. Two of the three people you referred to (at least) have demonstrated repeatedly that they do no such thing. Can Mark Thatcher do the same?
PG: Sorry, your reference to Mark as “Mr. Thatcher” threw me. I can say nothing for or agin’ Mark because I know next to nothing of him. As for his mother’s legacy, you refer to “boring facts” when I believe (and hope, in someone as apparently bright and educated as you are) that on reflection you mean ‘boring *opinions*’. I hardly need add, that my own particular ‘boring *opinion*’ is that her legacy was *almost* entirely excellent – but that’s another arguement for another day.
Before we finish with Mark Thatcher, let us indulge ourselves with the thought experiment that I alluded to earlier. Had his alleged coup succeeded and resulted in a marginally more benign regime, would you wish to give him 10 years in the pokey or a medal?
And by the way, I *never* suggested that you or anyone else was prepared to overlook murderous regimes, I merely pointed out, in case you had forgotten, that this particular gang appeared set on actually getting rid of one. It’s *me* that’s against interfering with these barberous scallawags – unless there’s some national interest to be served by it.
Finally, I admit it’s a cheap trick to point out to an activist that most of his party think that, say, 2+2=5. Parties are always alliances, I know. (Mrs. T. for example was never a Tory which is why the Tory party hated her guts.) Even so, kind, soft-hearted and sentimental though I obviously am, I find it difficult to show any mercy to any political activist of any sort. I consider you all to be more or less of a menace.
If he had been providing arms to the common Guineans, that would have been altruistic. Since he was merely supplying assistance to one gangster to overthrow another gangster (as far as I can understand the situation), then he was clearly being opportunistic. Private opportunism in the affairs of nations and governments is an ancient and widespread pastime, yet usually it is quite rightly frowned upon for many good reasons, particularly for “civilized” westerners.
I have to admit, I find the back-and-forth derision of Lady Thatcher quite confusing, although I’m completely in the dark regarding her son’s past actions. I thought it was rather widely recognized that Britain enjoys the leading economic position that it does in Europe today due to her reforms. A flooding tide floats all boats higher, big or small. People living in “poverty” today, still typically manage to own a color TV and get enough to eat (although the quality may certainly be lacking). As to the Belgrano, I can’t fathom why anyone would be distraught over the sinking of a nation’s battleship that had just launched a suprise war on you. Whether she said it or not, it seems like a damn fine reason to “rejoice” to me. You can’t fight a war with mercy, you can only lose one that way, and invite more for the future.
….if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for war.” — George Washington
I fail to understand why “…private opportunism in the affairs of nations and governments…” should be frowned upon. I suspect that Timbeaux is an American and may not realise that such activities are an English hobby indulged in since the time of Drake, through the era of Clive, and Rhodes, and so on. Personally, I think if someone can make a buck out of *any* government they deserve an earldom at the very least.
Timbeaux’s last paragraph is spot on, but I would like to quote another wise American, Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”