Nick Buckley head of G4S has finally bitten the bullet and resigned from his post at the security firm favoured by the British government but at the heart of the London 2012 Olympic security fiasco.
Mr Buckley chef executive finally bowed to the pressure and resigned. It is a whole year since the scandal of G4S receiving the £284million contract to cover the 2012 Olympic but being unable to come up with the goods. 10 days before the beginning of the games Buckley admitted to British Home Secretary Theresa May that the company was unable to supply the security staff required.
Shortly before the Olympics a whistle blower revealed that security checks on new staff were more than inadequate, as in many cases they were missing. Whether the Uk government paid for the full contract was never revealed; this most probably gives the public an answer.
The Government had the unspeakable nerve to employ police and army personnel to fill the gaps left by G4S. Both of these services had been drastically reduced in number only weeks before. Quite a number soldiers coming back from deployment in Afghanistan had their well deserved leave cancelled, in order to secure the safety of the Olympics at a time when terrorism was a high threat. That is how badly the government treats the police and army; using them as cover for the failure of people who did not deserve the contract in the first place.
Apart from this major scandal G4S has been in the headlines regarding prisoner escapes during transportation between prison and courts. Serco, a section of G4S, was caught out adding extra data at hospitals to meet targets required by the government to ensure payment.
All in all it looks nothing but a well organised shambles for which Mr Buckley was receiving a high salary. Now, at the time of his resignation announcement it is revealed that he will receive a salary of £830,000 and a pension of £332,000.What !! One can only hope that shareholders will reject the proposal and that he gets what he deserves, a big fat zero. After all it probably still comes out of taxpayers pockets somewhere along the line.
Let’s face it, if it wasn’t for the police and army the Olympics could have ended up in a bloodbath. Yet these people in high positions take their responsibilities so lightly. The fact that he pronounced his inadequacy 10 days before the Opening of the Olympics proves that.
However, he is not the only one. There were too many scandals of Chief executives completely failing or even mismanaging, such as the Libor scandal. All these chief executives, going back over the last three years when the Tories and Lib Dems joined to form a government, were too many and all ended in huge golden handshakes. Ordinary people would have got the sack and not a penny. That is the difference between the golden boys who the Tories support and the public.
The latest scandal is even worse. Sir David Nickolson, chief executive, has agreed to resign from the Staffordshire Hospitals where at least 1,200 deaths were caused by negligence. After months of pressure he admitted personal failure. Then again as always David Cameron kept backing him to stay in his post. Cameron even went as far as to state that he had “full confidence in Sir David”, even after such an incredible scandal broke.
However, he still is entitled to stay till next March receiving his full salary and again will walk away with a huge salary and pension pot.
All of this is really totally unacceptable. First of all the total failure in his job and, at a time when government are creating austerity for the public, that these Elite will pocket huge amounts of money for nothing but shoddy work s a disgrace. In Sir David’s case there is also the loss of 1,200 lives.
It is only May but already this year there have been too many food scandals. Some are in European countries, others in the USA, a huge amount are in the UK. Britain is not a Third World country and has a food standards agency that works hard to protect our health and ensure food consumed is what it claims to be. News that the FSA knew about a food scandal long before it was made public though is disconcerting.
There are too many scandals about departments not doing their job and now it has emerged that the FSA knew about wrong labelling on meat packaging. It has been revealed that the FSA was aware of the problem months before food inspectors in Ireland exposed the horsemeat. This scandal involved meat products labelled as containing 100 per cent beef when many contained everything but beef. The FSA found one in four packages of beef contained other animals meat which was not declared on the label.
Consumers ate meat from a wide variety of animals, and here the mind begins to boggle. What were these meats and how safe were they for human consumption?
The FSA shouldmaking its presence felt, ensuring that food is labelled correctly. That is their job and it is what they get paid for. As their work involves food for human consumption the FSA should make doubly sure since it is as declared. After all some people have allergies and errors could cost lives.
This scandal is unbelievable.
Even consumers who were willing and able to pay higher prices for premium products were fiddled by the industries and the FSA does nothing about it. Inspectors were aware that Aberdeen Angus beef, Gloucester Old Spot Pork, Hereford cattle beef and Hampshire pig were not found to be 100 per cent as labelled.
Sadly the FSA is not the only government department which does not do its job according to the rules, although it is more serious because it concerns food. Other departments like Serco, Border Agency, G4S and a quite number of others, which are within the Government establishment or brought in to take work over from governmental departments have poor track records.
The public is getting disillusioned about the leadership of this government. There are just too many scandals which cannot brushed aside anymore. This coalition has been in power for three years and the question arises: “What are they doing?” Furthermore when there is a scandal it seems to quickly fall by the way side and the public never hear anything more about it. We are never informed about any action being taken to correct matters or plans to prevent further occurences. This is not what government and leadership are supposed to be about.
Governmen,t and especially its leaders, are there to make sure, as humanly as is possible, that everybody does there jobs correctly. Therefore these ever emerging scandals are evidence that they too are failing.
It beggars the question "what are they there for apart from getting high salaries and privileges?".
ur weeks after NHS reform came into effect the reaction is coming out loud and clear. Nurses voiced their disapproval of the reform and called them “stupid rules”. 28 top doctors went further expressing their fury.
This particular group of doctors are concerned with the Selective Internal Radiotherapy Treatment which is also called the “magic bullet”. It targets only liver tumours and until April 1, 2013, specialists had a free hand to decide on its use.. Now bureaucrats approve whether to give the radiotherapy or medicine. Is the decision based on prognosis or cost? Either way it is wastes time and leaves any tumour to grow until it is untreatable, causing needless death.
The 28 specialist doctors have written their objections, warning that there could be unnecessary deaths unless the system is reversed back. The doctors emphasized that the previous system was working fine and there was no need to change it.
It is incredible that Prime Minister David Cameron still maintains that the reform will save money. He has installed another group of bureaucrats who surely will add to the cost. A hefty price paid no doubt for simply putting put ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a form. Surely it is important that a medical professional makes any treatment decision after assessing the full facts of each case. This hould be a job for a person highly qualified on liver tumour treatment.
Then there is the other side of the coin; that of more broken Tory promise. Mr Cameron pledged the NHS was safe in his hands. He insisted that no patients would suffer as a result of the shake-up. David Cameron must realise any delays in treatment could cost lives.
Already the newly installed bureaucrats cannot decide whether SIRT is radiotherapy or a drug, which highlights their uselessness. Are we going to know how much that incompetence will cost the NHS or in the long run British taxpayers? Over the three years the government has been in power, the number of new departments put into various places is unjustifiable in view of the economic situation. Yet, all these departments or agencies did not give full satisfaction in the work they are supposed to do. There are too many scandals in the short three years. Is David Cameron only working to get his friends into the act wherever and whenever?
The case of 28 highly specialised doctors signing a letter regarding these unnecessary and totally dissatisfied changes is unprecedented.
The Daily Mirror also reports that 30 patients, in only one London hospital, are waiting for a decision on the funding of their brain tumour treatment. The leading surgeon also calls it unacceptable and points out it will cause unnecessary deaths. The new central NHS service already looks like a vast administrative black hole.
Doesn’t anyone in government realise that the new system costs an awful lot more money. It is no use to any one and a hindrance to patients needing treatment, as well as frustrating specialists as patients die needlessly.
How on earth any person could put forward a statement that he could live on £53 per week in Britain, whilst he lives in luxury and is rolling in money is madness? It is incredible that a grown man, Iain Duncan Smith, who holds such a high position, could make such a statement.
At the same time that he made this statement he was seen enjoying a trip costing £2,400. He watched Tottenham vs. Arsenal from the directors’ box with his son. The Parliament’s Register of Members’ Interest shows the prime seat, which includes lavish hospitality, cost £2,400.
Surely even Mr Smith must realise that if he puts out a statement like that people will challenge his words and he will ultimately look foolish. His words were no sooner said than 300,000 people signed a petition challenging him to live on such a hopeless amount of money, £53, a week. At least he had the sense to refuse straight away. Did he realise he couldn’t do it? Either way he has no qualms about enforcing it on others? In case you are wondering
Mr Smith lives in a rent free £2million home and has an annual salary of £134,565 plus surely many other incomes such as dividends on shares and parliamentary perks..
His claim and refusal to accept the challenge did nothing to enhance his name. IN the past he has shown some dreadful manners too. There is an enlightening report dating back to 2010 when confronted by a Treasury official. According to the Work and Pensions Secretary the outburst happened in 2010 when Chancellor George Osborne was trying to block the Universal Credit scheme. According to the treasury official it happened during a row over the welfare reform. Mr Smith overheard a telephone conversation between his aide and a Treasury official which became heated. Smith snatched the phone and said: “If you speak to my officials like that again I’ll bite your balls off and send them to you in a box.”
This is the first time that the public have been told about language like that from ministers. It makes you wonder if such language is used in Parliament and how much more is not being reported in newspapers? Surely the public expect a better tone and manners form officials they voted for?. Related reading:Iain Duncan Smith petition challenge
Jo Johnson has been appointed as head of a Conservative policy unit, by David Cameron. It is another example of jobs for members of the old boy network, the Bullingdon Club.
The younger brother of Tory London Mayor Boris Johnson has been promoted to the position of head of policy and Cabinet Office minister. As the Guardian
reports "The prime minister has appointed Jo as his new No 10 head of policy charged with finding new ideas to invigorate the government, specifically the blue part".
Jo is another Bullingdon club old-boy from the infamous Oxford University club. The Prime Minister also introduced a new policy advisory board, chosen mainly from young Conservative MPs. The idea behind this is to bring new notions to the attention of Mr Cameron, the Prime Minister. All is not well in government, as l
ately a number of MPs have been rebelling. Jesse Norma and George Eustice who are now part of the new policy advisory board, for example. This move may be intended to keep the rebels quiet but it will add another huge expense onto British taxpayers. However, the reason given was that there was a growing concern in Downing Street that they were not being “overtly political enough”. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
The prime minister recognised that the drawing up of policies has been neglected in the view of many traditional Conservatives. It looks like a move back to Thatcherism. Apparently the policy unit was already established but the head was a civil servant or political adviser, not an MP or minister.
Already senior MPs have voiced their concerns as they feel it will be a “Thatcher-style” policy unit. Jo Johnson will work at Downing Street and issue Conservative policies, rather than Coalition ones. Nick Clegg has civil servants and advisers working on issuing LibDem plans which will be acceptable to the Coalition.
A Conservative source said: “The appointment clearly represents a more political policy operation and a more Thatcher-style Downing street Policy Unit. The Advisory Board will strengthen the connection between Downing Street and Parliament and Mr Johnson will be a great asset in helping the Prime Minister drive Conservative policy priorities through Government.”
Jo Johnson, a former journalist at the Financial Times, joined Parliament in 2010. He is another fast rising Conservative star, like his brother Boris. He also attended Eton College and then Oxford University. He also was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club. He is seen as a future PM candidate and rival to Boris.
There are other members of the newly established Conservative Parliamentary Advisory Board, Jane Ellison, Paul Upton, Nick Gibb and Jake Berry. Also appointed were Peter Lilly, a former Cabinet Minister under Baroness Thatcher, and Sir John Major. Two more members who were mentioned are Mr Norman, who defeated the Coalition plans to overhaul the House of Lords, and Mr Eustice, a former press secretary to Mr Cameron who criticised his European policies.
This new advisory board was established after a serious attempt to challenge Mr Cameron's Conservative leadership. It will attempt to reconnect Cameron with the Tory party. He was recently criticised as out of touch by backbench MPs and a number of former ministers.
Looking at the choice of members of the advisory board they show a strong leaning towards Thatcherism which will be very worrying to the pubic. Many Conservatives shut their eyes to all of Margaret Thatcher’s wrong doings even though the evidence is there that she destroyed British industry. By the end of the reign of the Conservative Party, Britain had five million unemployed which is not a success story
Therefore, if this government is following her policies again it will mean noting but trouble. Expect even more devastation.
Source::The GuardianRelated reading:
How can Bullingdon Club member Osborne serve the peopleDavid Cameron's old club burns £50 notes
Osborne can take it on the chin, but which one?
George Osborne is the Chancellor of the UK.
The man who holds the country's purse strings and decides who will live in wealth, with a modest income or abject poverty. Whilst this may sound simplistic it is a fact. The policies he heralds in will determine how many people in the UK live.For sure George seems to be doing quite well, at least as far as his own prosperity goes. As he addressed an audience in Glasgow Tuesday, about Scottish independence and their future currency, his pudgey face seemed that bit fuller. It is as if almost every day the man exhibits the signs of living off the fat of the land and on the backs of others.He may be doing quite well as far as his own standard of living goes but it is fair to say that he is creating a complete mess of the British economy.
Since 2012 the IMF, international monetary fund, has been advising Mr Osborne to change his tactics and move away from tough austerity measures. Measures that in truth are crippling the British economy and causing pain to the most vulnerable in British society. As austerity is not working toward helping the economy the conclusion is that Osborne and his political buddies have their own reasons for inflicting financial pain.
Even German Chancellor Mrs Angela Merkel, a frugal Frau if there ever was one, advised Osborne to rein austerity measures in. Last week the IMF advised him once more to introduce a "plan B" but all to no avail as we know the Chancellor will not listen. Perhaps there is no plan B which is a scary thought?
The original idea for his famous, or should that be infamous, ‘Austerity’ measures came from the work of two Americans named Carman Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. By now they have earned their nickname, the “godfathers of austerity”. So the seeds of his idea were not planted and grown in Number 11 Downing Street, the Chancellors official residence, as the idea is just another unfavourable and unwanted American import.
The pair, Reinhart and Rogoff, claimed economic growth slows if debt is allowed to hit 90 per cent GDP, which is the measure of what a country can earn in a year. Now it has emerged that they made a grave technical error on their spreadsheet. Whoops. Rival academics have proved their sums were wrong.
This is all very well because we are all human beings and even experts can make mistakes. Where the root of the blame lies is with Mr Osborne who accepted their predictions without double and treble checking them? Surely he must have enough experts around him to be able to discover such an error? An error which took the country down into a triple recession. More than likely a fourth will follow, plus another down grading of the pound to boot. What all of this has done to the people is unforgivable.
Shadow Treasury minister, Labour, Chris Leslie said: “When even the IMF is telling the Chancellor he needs a Plan B he needs to wake up.”
In the view of many people it is high time he changed course and tactics. The problem with the Chancellor, as well as the Prime Minister and quite a number of the government ,is that they are so convinced they are a great government, full of arrogance, that they will never back down and admit they are wrong.
Ministers now have one eye on the next general election. Already they are busy putting together another range of promises to create their political manifesto. This manifesto will be broken no doubt be broken, just like the last time, unless they are all lies in the first place?
Well, the Chancellor is under more pressure than ever now, not only from his own public but from Europe also. Will he listen now and change to Plan B, as he must have now realised that the two Americans got it all wrong? Many ministers were pointing out that Mr Osborne was on the wrong path some time ago and have been calling for his resignation since 2011. However, Mr Cameron always stands up for his friends, even if they are totally wrong. This is not a very healthy outlook, especially in politics. He did the same with Dr Fox, Mr Coulson and Mr Mitchell until he was forced to act.In the meantime Britain crumbles and people suffer needlessly.Related reading:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/14062778-uk-pm-camerons-desperate-trade-delegation-to-india UK Treasury queries Scottish independence currency pact
North and South Korea
North and South Korea, and the divisions between those two countries, have been hitting headlines around the world for all the wrong reasons. The world appears to be on the brink of nuclear war unless good sense and dialogue prevails. Monday North Korea is in the news as its people celebrate the life of its founder Kim Ill-sung.Reuters
reports "North Korea
celebrated the anniversary of its founder's birth on Monday and abandoned its shrill threats of war against the United States and the South, easing tensions in a region that had seemed on the verge of conflict. The North has threatened nuclear attacks on the United States, South Korea and Japan
after new U.N. sanctions were imposed in response to its latest nuclear arms test in February." Good news but will it last?There are historic problems on the Korean peninsula
and the gap between the communist north and westernised south grows ever bigger.
After the Second World War Korea was divided by the US and USSR. North Korea is now known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Korea as The Republic of Korea. Both were determined to rule the whole of Korea and this caused the North to invade the South. A bitter war developed in the fifties lasting three years and costing millions of lives. In July 1953 an armistice was announced to stop the bloodshed but no peace treaty was ever agreed.
All through the decades high tension was always there but it remained a fairly peaceful region, at least on the surface. Up until now tourists visiting South Korea could take a tour to the border between North and South Korea. One reporter who went there stated that he experienced an eerie atmosphere which was scary; he never felt so frightened in his life.
The tension between the countries has now been inflamed by North Korea building nuclear weapons, testing them and threatening action. All of this caused the UN to increase sanctions against North Korea. The reaction from North Korea came on March 11, 2013, with an announcement that it would no longer respect the long-standing armistice. North Korean leaders
had been even more angered by US/South Korean military drills and flights of American B-2 bombers over the South. North Korean’s leader Kim Jong-un saw these manoeuvres as reckless. Maybe if the US did not react to such an extent a further escalation might have been avoided.
There are many maybes and mights and nobody really knows for sure what goes on in North Korea. According to experts and politicians it is the most secretive country in the world.
However, the result of increased tensions was the North cutting a military communication “hotline” with the South and declaring the Korean Peninsula to be at war. The North also stopped South Korean workers crossing the border. Apparently a jointly managed Kaesong Industrial zone was run by both sides and refusal to let the South Korean workers cross the border was the first since 2009.
North Korea also demanded all Foreign Embassy's personnel twere evacuated by the April 10 but the west would not comply. Western governments refused to withdraw their staff. So far there is no further action nor news apart from the birthday celebrations for Kim Il-sung, grandfather of Kim Jong-un.
The 101st anniversary of Kim's birth was marked in the North's capital, Pyongyang, with a festival of flowers named after Kim, reports Reuters.Opinion:Let's stick with the flowers guys, infinitely preferable to war, conflict and nuclear bombs!Note a previous report on TEK included details of the death toll from the Korean war which will be nothing in the event of a nuclear
conflict. The Korean War death toll
is estimated as:
58,127 combat deaths
80,000 MIA or POW
36,516 dead (including 2,830 non-combat)
1,060 MIA or POW
300 KIA or MIA
28 KIA and 8 MIA
120,000 MIA or POW
114,000 killed in combat
34,000 non-combat deaths
It may be understandable that some news readers, newspapers, politicians and journalists are still singing the praises of Margaret Thatcher, acting like veritable canaries. However a new scandal has now been revealed, involving her £6million home. It was owned by a not very "straight forward company".
This company, Bakeland Property Company, have links to three tax havens. They British Virgin Islands, Lichtenstein and Jersey. The company’s official address is a PO Box in Lichtenstein but it has roots in Jersey, as well as offshore businesses in the BVI. The only reason for this transaction is tax avoidance. The £2.4million inheritance tax saved increased public anger After all the great British public, already cash strapped, are having to fork out at least £10million for her funeral
John Christensen, of the Tax Justice Network, asked how come Margaret Thatcher has lived in a house for 20 years which is owned by a company based in BVI? Well we are all no doubt asking ourselves that question and what else was done behind our backs? He further stated that we all have a duty to pay taxes whether we are politicians or not, but especially a Prime Minister.
Records at the government’s Land Registry show that on March 6, 2006 Bakeland paid £2,395,807 for the property but they do not mention who it was bought from. It is more unusual again that there are two leases. The first one was taken out on October 18, 1991 until December 25, 2030. The second on 29 July 1996 till 2055. In the last lease it stated “The airspace above the building is excluded from the title.”
Originally the company used was Jersey-based Hugh Thurston and Leonard Day. The next revelation will be a surprise and shock; they were Thatcher’s friends and financial advisers.
The Guardian stated in 2002 Bakeland’s share was held by Mr Day and Mr Thurston. However, accountants said they were acting as nominees for a trust with concealed beneficiaries. Now isn’t that nice? Everything under one hat.
Since Thatcher didn’t own the house, if the will names her children Mark and Carol as the beneficiaries they will avoid paying 40 per cent inheritance tax which saves a sum of £2.4million. Isn’t it marvellous that politicians who introduce one tax system after another knows the contacts to avoid paying tax?
Apparently Buckingham Palace has started to raise concerns again about the military funeral and questions have been raised about it.
Let’s face the fact that Margaret Thatcher used the Falklands to win another re-election. She withdrew HMS Endurance, naturally leaving Argentinians to walk in thinking Britain had given up. Another black mark was the sinking of the Belgrano, a vessel which was 200 miles out and outside the exclusion zone. This act cost a great number of lives. Not only was that, but the ship was on its way home. This was a war crime.
The arrogance of her then, to write down exactly how she wanted to be buried in a ceremonial funeral.
Source: Daily Mirror
Police now under investigation for "battle of Orgreave"
Former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester John Stalker gave a full picture of what went on during Margaret Thatcher's time in office, her "reign". He remarked that Britain was heading for being a police state at that time. He remembers that as a Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester he experienced first hand her authoritarian policies. In the long run it would have destroyed the trust between British people and police officers around the country. The police was put into a paramilitary type of force and war-like zone.
He recalls when he met her a number of times, as senior police officer, she had an unusual outlook on law and order and acted as both Home Secretary and Prime Minister.
It became obvious, especially during the miners’ strike in 1984. In Mr Stalker’s view Margaret Thatcher took Britain to the edge of becoming a police state. It was “her” police force and she commanded that they keep the miners and pickets under control, in effect working to break the strike.
In 1974 changes brought about big new forces such as with the Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Strathclyde forces. Mrs Thatcher changed all that and brought them all together. A “mutual aid System” was established to deal with the miners. It was a nationally mobilised police force commanded by Scotland Yard. It was the greatest impact on the independence of policing. A chief constable was now second in command and had to follow government wishes.
Forces received endless instructions from the British Home Office and at the end of each was stated ”of course, the Chief Constable has complete control over operational matter, but this is our advice.
” One way of covering themselves. Mr Stalker was always staggered by events.
One in particular he remembers well. The guideline said that it was “perfectly in order”
for miners in Kent to be prevented to travel to Yorkshire if they were likely to cause disorder. It meant a 300 mile exclusion zone. It was nothing less than house-arrest. There were many instances when pickets were turned back at county borders.
No chief constable would take such measures and even the courts would have called it nonsense. This was a militaristic operation but made to look like policing. The whole operation was even based on national emergency legislation, existing only for war situations.
Margaret Thatcher saw the miners’ strike as war. Some chief constables started to feel like generals. There were even rumours going round that soldiers dressed up as police officers to increase the number on duty. Mr Stalker never found out the truth and couldn’t vouch for it to be true or false.
As the miners strike went on some police officers did act repressively and aggressively but there were men on both sides who went too far. He remembers many officers who were attacked and never worked again.
Looking back today he can see that the police relationship with the public had a set-back for a long time. In some parts of the country, like South Yorkshire, it has still not been fully restored. Our police lost a great deal, though individually many gained a great deal financially. They lost the respect and people became scared of them.
If the miners’ strike had not ended Stalker is convinced that the police force would have turned into a permanently national-controlled police force, in other words Britain a police state.
Mr Stalker said that he could have quit the force because he knew it wasn’t right but he loved his work and now he helps to build trust back and show young police officers how policing should be done.Source Daily Mirror
Related reading at the Guardian
It is incredible to spend well over £10million on an ex-prime minister’s funeral in Britain, no matter how good they were, especially at a time of economic recession. Furthermore, it is not only the funeral cost but the cost of recalling members of the Houses of Parliament was Wednesday, 9 April, before its planned return on Monday, simply to mark the death of Margaret Thatcher.
This would enable MPs to claim up to £3,750 in expenses to return from wherever they were on holiday, all on taxpayers’ money. The additional security and running of Parliament on that day will add another tens of thousand of pounds. 650 emails were sent out to the various MPs asking them to return on Wednesday for a day of tribute to former PM Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Multiply this only by an average of £2,000 and you already have an astronomical sum of money. Luckily most of the Labour MPs abstained and at least they had the decency and backbone to show their feelings. As quite a number of MPs pointed out, the Thatcher homage could have been done on Monday and would have cost the country nothing. Well thank you Mr Cameron for your consideration.
William Hague even had the unspeakable audacity to state that the country could afford it.
Well, that shows his opinion and, in view of that why is the public being financially squeezed to such an extent? People having to make a choice between food or heating their home. Food banks are well established across the country and it did not come out of nothing. Well, Mr Hague thank you for the great revelation that money is sitting there to be distributed. Why not distribute it where it is needed and not on a fanciful funeral?.
Invitations went out to all the heads of State around the world and most will attend because it is a ceremonial funeral. This again will add another enormous sum of money to the funeral bill which has to be paid for by British taxpayers. It should not be like this.
It was also mentioned in the media that the Thatcher family wishes to have a ceremonial funeral. Since the country is down on its knees following three recessions in the coalition;s lifetime, and one downgrade of the pound's credit rating, it would be most appropriate for the family to foot at least most of the expenses, if not all. Mark Thatcher managed to accrue £60million with his various dealings and therefore could easily foot the bill for his beloved mother.
All of this means that the estimate of £10million will not be enough
Apart from the public still being very bitter about Margaret Thatcher her funeral is well overdone. Statements in the papers and on the Internet are that it wasn’t her wish to have such a grand ceremony at her funeral is more than doubtful. First of all whatever she was she was not blessed with being humble nor modest. The fact that she permitted a painting of herself to be hanged in 10 Downing Street and a huge statue put up in the House of Parliament during her lifetime gives evidence of her true characteristics. Previously, a painting in Downing Street and statue in Parliament were only done after the death of a famous person.