We seem to live in days when, whatever one's opinions of an individual, one is expected to become a hypocrite when they die.

I've said it before and will repeat it now: I did not personally like Bob Crow – in eye-to-eye contact (the closest I came) I thought him surly and with an aggressive demeanour. People who knew him say that that was not the case, but that remains my opinion (ie subjective) based on my rather limited encounters with him and what I heard from some others.

However, he did exactly what his members elected him to do and paid him for: he defended their jobs and incomes – and it is no coincidence that, unlike in most other sectors, they have not lost ground in the income stakes in the last 12 years.

It's possibly only a coincidence that membership of the RMT increased on his watch.

Perhaps Redboy dislikes democracy and dislikes ordinary workers who are not prepared to lie down and be hammered by their employers?

Good or bad, depends on your viewpoint. I'm not judging. However my point stands. If Mr. Crow was entitled to make detrimental statements about the recently deceased, then it should be expected that some will make statements about him, from their viewpoint.
From mine, it is wrong to speak ill, publicly, about the dead, out of respect to the bereaved.

When people have had the position/power to affect lives other than their own, I think it perfectly reasonable for others to not feel constrained by artificial sentiment on their deaths.

I suspect that Crow would be appalled at some of the noises being made today by people who probably, if the truth be told, detested him but now feel that they [ihave[/i to say the 'right thing'.

Ultimately in such situations, I'd personally far rather have honest views than the hypocritical rubbish we now are expected to contend with – and which only further adds to the dismal state of our public discourse. One can at least then have a discussion/debate/row about a situation.

I am not sure people detested him. They probably disagreed with his views but admired his commitment. After all any free marketeer would appreciate he used his employees strength in the marketplace to enhance their earnings.

In which case, WOR, however inflammatory he was being, is entitled to his view, without being derided for it just because others didn't like it.

I didn't know either of them personally, and as I say it depends on your political leaning, as to which one is the 'good' or 'bad'.

I'll leave it there.

It is not someone's politics (in the context of the UK's politics) that makes them good or bad but their actions and it is on their actions they are judged.

So you can disagree with Crow's politics or Thatchers politics but you cannot possibly not be able to see the latter is derided for her actions by many whereas Crow has no such case to answer.

The worst Crow did was look after his members. The worst Thatcher did was destroy communities and while those on the right might argue it was all necessary you can't alter the fact her policies had hugely negative consequences.

So anyone deriding Thatcher can argue they have good reason. Anyone doing the same to Crow doesn't have anything remotely comparable to back up their stance. Doing so because it was OK to slag off Thatcher is being petty.

Both were public figures and so each are subject to comment after their death. The fact one is vilified far more then the other should surprise no one who looks at their careers nor is there anything inherently wrong with it.

Didn't like the man. The epitome of champagne socialism.

Not one to mock the dead and take glee from it though like many vile posts which were made after Thatcher passed.

The irony of the likes of Small Graeme being upset is probably not lost on most people.

Adam Boulton made a comment on the ridiculous "champagne socialist" tag (is champagne really only reserved for capitalists ?) which was on the lines of those who criticise him for living in social housing on a salary that would afford a private house purchase should ask themselves if they avail themselves of public services such as the NHS when surely they should be paying for BUPA and leaving the NHS for the poor ?

No fan of Thatcher or Crow but those that were so gleeful at the death of a person on the right side of the political spectrum are now foaming at the mouth that some people are happy at the death of someone on the left side of the political spectrum, hypocrisy of the highest order.

I thought the opinions on Thatcher were repugnant equally so on Crow, who may I add I couldn't stand. They are just two people doing a job, jobs that help polarise opinions.

I won't miss him but there are people out there who will. I don't have to pay my respects but at the same time why do I feel the need to rejoice in the death of someone?

Oh, don't be such a childish plonker.

Say it outright: you didn't like someone helping to ensure that some 'ordinary' workers didn't see their incomes decline while the bankers saw theirs rise.

Now – what is it that YOU do, precisely?

And as for the "champagne socialism" – oh, FFS: try to have an original thought and not produce yet another soundbite that you haven't even thought about. Although that would imply that you are capable of thought and not simply parroting what someone else has said. And I find that highly unlikely.

Regardless of your politics 52 is tragically young for anyone to die

Are you suggesting those they pay for private education and health should not have to pay to support the publicly available versions or they should pay for the latter but be excluded from access to it?

We're still waiting for your idea of what a 'socialist' should expect to get paid for whatever job they do.

Have you worked out the equation yet?

Seemed like a decent bloke to me and I'm sure he'll be sorely missed within the Union movement.

I'm not suggesting anything, but Adam Boulton, who isn't known for his "leftie" views and who works for a boss who's media outlets support the incumbents, was suggesting that criticism of a man who choses to rent and live in a housing association home rather than buy his own simply because others perceive that he could afford to do such a thing, therefore can easily then be extended to include all of those who could easily afford private health care or private education and choose instead to use the public funded version, in other words criticism of his choice of home is hypocritical nonsense usually made by those who are most hypocritical in their own healthcare and childrens education choices.

I was actually quite shocked and sad when I heard this. Whatever his loathsome political ideals, 52 is no age to die.

He was famous as he is was leader of perhaps the only union where industrial action had leverage in 2014.

£50k a year for a train driver is an absolute joke. They don't even have to steer!

Still they will soon be replaced by robots (that's how difficult the job is) and in 20 years will be looked upon in much the same way as bus conductors.

A sad day indeed. Bob Crow stood head and shoulders above the politicians from the big 3 parties. If only they had half of his integrity, strong principles and commit to the working man this would be a far better country. Condolences to his family.

Whilst I support Bob Crow's level of remuneration, on the grounds that he was very good at his job, I would have thought that those people who rail against successful high earners should refuse any salary above national average wage. Otherwise aren't they just becoming part of the wealthy elite that they claim to despise?

Piece of cake.



Anyone can apply to be a train driver. If it's such money for old rope, what's stopping you?

A fairly poignant view from one unshackled on another unshackled.
Always sad to see the passing of an unhandcuffed.

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/11/bob-crow-workers-rmt-leader[/url

Surely as its a free market, the high wages attract the best people. If you were truly good enough to earn £50k a year, you would be able to get a job paying it.

A fact lost on the "politics of envy" brigade that seem to think levelling down is best.

Remember those who are earning £50k a year driving trains are probably paying most of that in tax to the nanny state UK government. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them simply go elsewhere and drive trains in Switzerland or Hong Kong.

Whilst personally I thought he was simply a Union dinasaur, a throwback to the failed cummunist era, he was to his members very good value for his £145k Union salary. And if that was what he trousered, he was perfectly entitled to spend it how he likes, be it on bottles of champagne or expensive foreign cruises. Don't we all like a break in the sun during the dismal winter months here in the UK?

The former London mayor Ken Livingstone, who you would think would be a natural political ally, had accused him of running a protection racket rather than a trade union. I suspect there are many who have to use the Underground would heartily agree with him.

His response, when asked why given his salary, he did not buy his own house says it all about this guy's mindset. He choose to reside in a subsidised Housing Association property, thus denying a lower wage earner family, (who could possibly be members of his Union), the chance of a decent home, on the pretence that as he was born in a council house, he would die in one. He did not feel he had a moral duty to move out, and "Where, complained our chubby Comrade, is it written that Council Housing is only for the poor?"

Up the Workers? More like Right up the Workers, eh Bob?

[i‘This trade union fights for the right of our members to enjoy the finer things in life. Why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things? As a militant trade union we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and fine times that the likes of David Cameron and his Old Etonian mates take for granted.’ [/i-Bob Crowe

Its the oldest trick in the right-wing book (and god knows how it fools people) is to pretend that if you want to demand a greater share for a greater number of people, you should be living in absolute poverty otherwise you are a ‘champagne socialist’.

I may think that someone hoarding billions in offshore tax havens is wrong. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite to have a holiday.

Subsidised by whom?

Where does it state that only the poor can live in council housing?

Bob Crow felt he had a moral duty to fight to increase council housing stock, to make truly affordable housing available to all, paying rents that reflected the true cost of the housing, not some "market value" that has been uprated out of all sensible proportion by government meddling in that self-same market.

Any comment on the huge subsidies being paid to private landlords? No? Thought not

A sad loss to the union movement. We could do with more like him.