It's a distasteful thread, brought up for nothing but political upmanship. Shameful.
It says more about posters who support a thread like this than anything else.
Really, here we go again with the "if you don't agree with US/ME then you must agree with THEM" attitude, that seems quite popular at the moment,
I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question,
BUT as far as I can see the OP hasn't broken any posting rules, and therefore I DEFEND his right to hold that opinion, or to 'pose' that question, because I support freedom and free speech,
unlike some (the EDL/BNP and many religious extremists for example) who seem to demand that we all either believe what they believe, say what they say and agree with their aims, or shut up, or go away, and often back up such attitudes with violence or even murder,
I love living in a 'free' country, and I accept and embrace that "freedom" sometimes means people have the right to hold and to express views I might not share or agree with, it's far better than the alternative, in my opinion,
Trying to 'silence' those you disagree with says more about those who would do such a thing... than anything else,;)
I'm not sure it would achieve anything but it is the correct place to issue information and reassurance to the public. If for no other reason, the rest of the world would see an official response from our government..
That's precisely what it's about...instead we have "Wanna A Conservatory As Big As Me" Pickles being questioned on national security issues on the telly
Really, here we go again with the "if you don't agree with US/ME then you must agree with THEM" attitude, that seems quite popular at the moment,
I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question,
BUT as far as I can see the OP hasn't broken any posting rules, and therefore I DEFEND his right to hold that opinion, or to 'pose' that question, because I support freedom and free speech,
unlike some (the EDL/BNP and many religious extremists for example) who seem to demand that we all either believe what they believe, say what they say and agree with their aims, or shut up, or go away, and often back up such attitudes with violence or even murder,
I love living in a 'free' country, and I accept and embrace that "freedom" sometimes means people have the right to hold and to express views I might not share or agree with, it's far better than the alternative, in my opinion,
Trying to 'silence' those you disagree with says more about those who would do such a thing... than anything else,;)
Typical that you OHG would turn up and try to support such a ridiculous post from the OP.
Typical that you OHG would turn up and try to support such a ridiculous post from the OP.
and 'typical' that you would deliberately distort what I said,
I quote from my previous post "I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question",
SO where am I "supporting" his post?
I clearly don't, I DO support his right to post it,
I know that distinction might a bit too subtle for some, but I am used to it,
and 'typical' that you would deliberately distort what I said,
I quote from my previous post "I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question",
SO where am I "supporting" his post?
I clearly don't, I DO support his right to post it,
I know that distinction might a bit too subtle for some, but I am used to it,
To quote the "Life of brian" "I support his right to be a woman" Ive probably mis-quoted this but it goes something like that, lol.
When Thatcher died, parliament was recalled so that a load of old farts could say nice things about her. But when a soldier dies on our streets, in horrific circumstances, they get to stay on holiday.
Go figure.
You could make the same point about every member of the armed forces who has been killed. The fact that Lee Rigby's death occurred on British soil makes it no more or less tragic and devastating than that of a soldier blown to pieces by an IED in Afghanistan.
You could make the same point about every member of the armed forces who has been killed. The fact that Lee Rigby's death occurred on British soil makes it no more or less tragic and devastating than that of a soldier blown to pieces by an IED in Afghanistan.
You're disingenuity aside, why are you discussing the subject here? Have you continued discussing the subject for a fews for every dead soldier in Afghanistan?
You could make the same point about every member of the armed forces who has been killed. The fact that Lee Rigby's death occurred on British soil makes it no more or less tragic and devastating than that of a soldier blown to pieces by an IED in Afghanistan.
We also don't recall parliament for every Afghani child blown apart by drone missiles, which is equally tragic for the family and friends concerned. The difference with this incident is that it was in broad daylight in a crowded city with lots of mobile phone cameras and twitter / facebook.
I agree with OHG that the thread is not appropriate and is a bit petty, but I defend the right of free speach to post it as well as the right of people to post threads praising the BNP or EDL. It is better to give arguments about why the post is wrong than to demand it be shut down.
So, as I asked before, can we assume you agree with the premise?
This is the politics forum, it is where we discuss political topics. I asked a perfectly valid question as to whether the Tories believe that Thatcher was more important than a soldier, brutally murdered on the streets of the capital. You and others, on the other hand, have decided that you cannot reconcile the hypocrisy of this government, so have decided to attack the OP in a duplicitous demonstration of faux outrage, in the hope that your lack of understanding of the juxtaposition of the two subjects will be ignored.
To associate the official response to the value of someones life is very shallow. It's obvious why the responses were different and it's very clear it has nothing to do with the value of someones life.
Events serious enough to call (so far) two COBRA meetings, to upscale police numbers on the streets, to bring the PM back from France, for security reviews to be happening ....
Reasons enough for a recall so that your and my elected representative can ask questions;
isn't that what accountability is about?
Reasons that are about as remote from eulogies for the Blessed Margaret as you could imagine.
.... The difference with this incident is that it was in broad daylight in a crowded city with lots of mobile phone cameras and twitter / facebook .....
.... and that it was not just about brutal loss of life;
recall of Parliament would, and should concern, itself about the threatened 'declaration of war' on the streets of this country.
When Thatcher died, parliament was recalled so that a load of old farts could say nice things about her. But when a soldier dies on our streets, in horrific circumstances, they get to stay on holiday.
When Thatcher died, parliament was recalled so that a load of old farts could say nice things about her. But when a soldier dies on our streets, in horrific circumstances, they get to stay on holiday.
Go figure.
Most of the old farts that said nice things about her either didn't know her or had forgotten. The people that actually knew her were either less than positive or absent. As for the title of your thread, all lives are equal.
Reasons enough for a recall so that your and my elected representative can ask questions;
isn't that what accountability is about?
Reasons that are about as remote from eulogies for the Blessed Margaret as you could imagine.
Recalls of Parliament originally took place long before telephones, mobile 'phones, Satellite T.V., the Internet Skype etc etc. and means of communicating were strictly limited. Bringing back people form all points of the globe just to sit in a room to debate a bit of news that the whole world already knows about seems pretty daft to me unless it for something with much wider ramifications.
Gathering in person for a tribute is another matter and it did have wider world-wide ramifications. Thatcher was a world figure.
You could make the same point about every member of the armed forces who has been killed. The fact that Lee Rigby's death occurred on British soil makes it no more or less tragic and devastating than that of a soldier blown to pieces by an IED in Afghanistan.
Leaders of all 3 main parties have pretty much sealed in stone the tradition that eulogies should begin their contributions to PMQs, so no quite right, there.
I just wonder if COBRA will have to be called, after this, whenever the positions are reversed and a member of the police or armed forces, in this country, kills an unarmed member of a racial or religious minority?
Comments
Really, here we go again with the "if you don't agree with US/ME then you must agree with THEM" attitude, that seems quite popular at the moment,
I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question,
BUT as far as I can see the OP hasn't broken any posting rules, and therefore I DEFEND his right to hold that opinion, or to 'pose' that question, because I support freedom and free speech,
unlike some (the EDL/BNP and many religious extremists for example) who seem to demand that we all either believe what they believe, say what they say and agree with their aims, or shut up, or go away, and often back up such attitudes with violence or even murder,
I love living in a 'free' country, and I accept and embrace that "freedom" sometimes means people have the right to hold and to express views I might not share or agree with, it's far better than the alternative, in my opinion,
Trying to 'silence' those you disagree with says more about those who would do such a thing... than anything else,;)
That's precisely what it's about...instead we have "Wanna A Conservatory As Big As Me" Pickles being questioned on national security issues on the telly
Typical that you OHG would turn up and try to support such a ridiculous post from the OP.
and 'typical' that you would deliberately distort what I said,
I quote from my previous post
"I do think the subject of the thread is probably inappropriate, and in bad taste and probably a bit of 'sh*t stirring' going on as well, and that is why I wont answer the question",
SO where am I "supporting" his post?
I clearly don't, I DO support his right to post it,
I know that distinction might a bit too subtle for some, but I am used to it,
To quote the "Life of brian" "I support his right to be a woman" Ive probably mis-quoted this but it goes something like that, lol.
Anyway, I understand your point.
and to want a baby.
Then why do have wall to wall media coverage?
You're disingenuity aside, why are you discussing the subject here? Have you continued discussing the subject for a fews for every dead soldier in Afghanistan?
We also don't recall parliament for every Afghani child blown apart by drone missiles, which is equally tragic for the family and friends concerned. The difference with this incident is that it was in broad daylight in a crowded city with lots of mobile phone cameras and twitter / facebook.
I agree with OHG that the thread is not appropriate and is a bit petty, but I defend the right of free speach to post it as well as the right of people to post threads praising the BNP or EDL. It is better to give arguments about why the post is wrong than to demand it be shut down.
To associate the official response to the value of someones life is very shallow. It's obvious why the responses were different and it's very clear it has nothing to do with the value of someones life.
isn't that what accountability is about?
Reasons that are about as remote from eulogies for the Blessed Margaret as you could imagine.
recall of Parliament would, and should concern, itself about the threatened 'declaration of war' on the streets of this country.
Yet more warped logic from the OP
In what way is the comprison warped? Can you explain your thoughts further?
Most of the old farts that said nice things about her either didn't know her or had forgotten. The people that actually knew her were either less than positive or absent. As for the title of your thread, all lives are equal.
Recalls of Parliament originally took place long before telephones, mobile 'phones, Satellite T.V., the Internet Skype etc etc. and means of communicating were strictly limited. Bringing back people form all points of the globe just to sit in a room to debate a bit of news that the whole world already knows about seems pretty daft to me unless it for something with much wider ramifications.
Gathering in person for a tribute is another matter and it did have wider world-wide ramifications. Thatcher was a world figure.
You tell 'em Loretta
logic?
I just wonder if COBRA will have to be called, after this, whenever the positions are reversed and a member of the police or armed forces, in this country, kills an unarmed member of a racial or religious minority?