Your reference to her still being hated by large sections of the population and her support for Pinochet are no more than lip-service unless you address the reasons for them
That she was and still is popular with sections of the population is totally immaterial.
Thatcher was a fascist - you nor any of her supporters have even attempted to disprove that fact other than, i your patronising way, to claim that I don't understand fascism.
Her lasting legacy was to respectabalise greed; the turned homes into 'commodities'invested in, the ripped out the heart of British industry and she removed the safety net that British Society (that she didn't believe existed) had created to ascertain that the less well-off didn't suffer too much by government and buisiness failures and indifference.
When she forced the closures of the mines she put nothing in their place - this led to the destruction and impoverishment of entire communities.
Tebbitt summed it up when he told us "we should all get on our bikes and leave home to seek work" - not something anybody with a streak      of humanity in them tells a miner with a family who has just lost his job because his pit has closed.
We are still living with the 'dog-eat-dog' society that Thatcher created.
She not only ruined many of our lives, but she debased the huanity of many of her subjects.
That she remains popular with those she debased is immaterial - Hitler was once a popular feller with a lot of people I'm told, and remains so with some.
You're doing Keith's trick of hiding behind meaningless cut-'n-pastes to put forward superficial arguments and ignoring the salient facts of Thatcher's reign of terror.
Did she support Pinochet?
Was Pinochet a fascist (by your definition (whatever that is) or mine?
Did she declare his behaviour "democratic"?
What does that make her as a politician?
She was a fascist and she admitted to that fact by her statements and, in my opinion, by her actions
An answer to these would be far more preferable than your mealy-mouthed lip-service
Jim Carroll