Category: News and Views
Now, what I am about to say may prove very controversial, but someone has to say it:
The papers today mention Borris Johnson quite a few times, and all mentions are in connection with the 'Leader' article in The Spectator wwherein he says that we have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to recognising national tragedies. He is, of course, referring to the two-minute silences etc. that happened last weekend when Ken Biggly was beheaded.
Why is it that in this country, anything remotely controversial is portrayed in a totally misleading way? People seem to have jumped on the bandwagon and said that this article tries to play down this horrific act; it does nothing of the sort! On the contrary, Mr Johnson states several times that this is not the objective, and rightly condems the attrocity in the strongest terms.
The main point of the article is clear and understandable: many people from Britain and the USA die in Iraq every day and receive scant mention in the press and broadcast media. It is no wonder, then, that when a person dies after undertaking a risky venture, and receives the same level of mourning as all those who died in the world wars put together, someone is bound to express the view that the nation's sense of proportion has been eclipsed. This is further underlined by the media's obsession with the soap opera of it all.
You may not agree with this view, and I'm not sure I agree with every point that Johnson makes in the article. But it's a reasonable view, and the way he's portrayed as a villain for expressing it is scandalous.
I'd be interested to know what anyone else who's read the article, which is available online, has to say about this.
I haven't read the article yet and am kinda too lazy to go and search for it online at the moment lol, but I have read/heard a lot about it and bits of it. I think it's wrong to put a group of people, in this case liverpudlians in the same category. Aparantely, several times in this article he says "all liverpudlians", you can't generalise like that, Liverpool like any other place in the world is full of people with different views, opinions, level of education, income ETC. However saying all that and as much as I disagree with some of the views of Johnson, I think in a democratic country where freedom of speach should be respected he has totall wright to write what he did. All this him being made to go to Liverpool and apologise is absolutely stupid and unneceserry. Anyway, what the hell do you do to a pologise to a City, where do you go? I also agree that this country somehow gets in to this sence of moarning for people that didn't even have much inpact on our lives, just because this person was in the news for last month or so and just becuase his story was publicised everywhere now we're getting a minute of scilence on football games. Yes, it is a sad story, yes this person has been killed in brutal way, but many other people, brittish people for that matter dye in Iraq and all over the world, but we don't get the minute scilence on a football game every time someone dyes, the only reason we had one on this occasions is because media has pumped peoples brains and made them believe that they should behave accordingly. Unfortunately this is not the first time something like this has happened in this country, there are other examples, princes Diana is one of them, as much as her deaf was a sad story and as much as she meant alot to a number of people in this country, in my opinion media totally blew this even out of proportion and made it look a lot bigger and a lot more important than it really was or a lot more important than what some people thought it was. I know this is contravercial and this might have upset my people, but it's my opinion.
At no point in the article are the words 'all liverpudlians' followed by anything derogatory. In fact, the only time he mentions 'all liverpudlians' is in connection with the Hilsborough disaster, when he goes on to say how 'all liverpudlians' clubbed together after that tragedy. however, he then makes the fair point that liverpudlians should not gorget that Hilsborough, like the Heissel Stadium disaster, was started off by a hundred or so drunken Liverpool fans. The more I read this article, the more I think that Borris Johnson was absolutely right. In addition, you're quite right about Diana, for never before or since has there been a more ambiguous woman. She contributed to plenty of good works, and I've no doubt that she was a nice person, but there was a side to her that, quite rightly, Borris Johnson says we should all remember, in that she was an expert an manipulating the press to her advantage and nobody can say she always behaved in a way to encourage sympathy.
I totally agree with you guys (even if I haven't read the article). Thousands of good peop[le die every day, from desease, from car craches etc. The media is very good at painting the totally wrong picture. E.g. because of the Colombine shooting incident parents think sending their kids to school in the U.S. is highly dangerous whereas the statistics show us class room crime has gone down over 60% since 1972. There is a show on American TV called "the Bullshit Show" and it's really cool, it's a guy picking a part all these crazy myths created by the media and portraying how the media blolws things out of proportion and distorts the public's view. I mean, I'm sure the beheading of all these people was horrific and my sympathy is with them and their families, but we must remember they took the risk, they knew what they were getting into, they got paid a lot but this is the downside of the risk you take, no one forced them to go there, some of them might have died in a traffic accident at home and no one except their family and friends would ever know.
I hope the violence will stop and it's sad to think that it continues partly because every time someone is killed in this cruel way the media makes sure everyone all over the world hears about it, which is exactly the purpose of the hostage takers, sad but true.
cheers
-B
Well, hopefully today this saga will be ended by the final ridiculous episode of Borris Johnson being forced to go to Liverpool to apoligise, and I quote, "to the city". Apoligise to the city? For god's sake what is the country coming to? Well all I can say is I hope that all Liverpudlians, yes, all Liverpudlians take due note of the apology they are about to get, and I hope that all Liverpudlians turn out on the streets to indicate their acceptance of this apology. This tribal united community of Liverpool is a new one on me to be honest, but if that's the ridiculous state of affairs in this country, all because someone expresses a view that a number of people consider unfashionable, then let's at least see Liverpool in its reinvented form. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Borris Johnson for sympathising with the Hilsborough disaster families, some of whom may have been upset by the article, but the whole city? Give me strength! And another thing: I hate to criticise a family in the midst of their very natural grief, but unfortunately they have not got the right, in my view, to call for Michael Howard to dismiss Mr Johnson from the Tory front bench. The views in the article were expressed in a moderate and appropriate manner, and in a country where Labour ministers can refer to 'filthy Kossovan beggars on the tube' (Quoted from Barbara Roch, MP for Wood Green and currently a junior minister) and yet go unpunished and unrepentant, no man should be vilified for expressing the views contained in that article
Jeez now he agrees with Boris Johnson! Well that explains everything...
Freya
Freya, you are once again guilty of only reading the bits of the discussion that suit your argument, and not backing up your observations with any supporting evidence. First of all, you may notice that I say at the beginning of this discussion that 'I'm not sure I agree with every point the article makes' or words to that effect (The exact formulation is above). secondly, don't just ridicule me for agreeing with Borris Johnson, tell us why he's wrong!! Have you read the article in question? Why is it not ridiculous that someone should have to apoligise to a city that is both as united and disunited as any other in the country? If you're going to ridicule me, you're going to have to do better than that!
Wasn't ridiculing you lawlord...And as for Boris, have you seen him on the tv!? Sorry I have no supporting evidence for my claims at the present time.
Freya
I thought as much! The fact that you have no supporting evidence comes as no surprise, which prompts the question: how on earth can you make such bold assertions? You may reply that they're your opinions and you're entitled to have them. That you are, my friend, most certainly; but all opinions have some sort of basis in fact for the sake of the lord! so the admission that your opinion has no basis in fact is rather a grave concession. Also, I have seen Borris Johnson on the TV, one of the more honest among politicians might i suggest.
Wake up and smell the coffee Lawlord! Boris Johnson honest?! More along the lines of two short planks IMHO...
And what has the lord got to do with this?
Freya
I bet you just love old Maggie don't you?!
Frey.
Dear oh dear, the wheels are really coming off the Freyawagon now, aren't they? Last week, Borris Johnson was honest, that's why he had to apologise! You may not like it, but one point he made was that the nation has lost all sense of proportion when it comes to recognising tragedy, and that's what most people think! That's what I call being honest. And yes, you guessed it, I do think Maggie Thatcher did wonderful things for this country. by default, of course, that means that you don't. i look forward to the next pearl of Freyan wisdom.
OMG that is it Lawlord! You really believe that old Maggie Thatch. did some wonderful things for this country....
Don't get me started on that one honey, but I do believe you are a little bit on the young side to even remember when Maggie had this country in her evil clutches? So am I of course but having studied her in minute detail I know just what I'm talking about.......??
Freyawagon
Freya, do me the honour of not patronizing me like that! (A.) I was born on 24 July 1981. (B.) sad though undoubtedly it is, I was aware of what was going on in the world around me from a very early age. I remember when Nigel Lawson was chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe the deputy prime minister, Norman Tebbit in the department of employment along with Michael Howard, and Cecil Parkinson secretary of state for transport. One could also mention Lord Hailsham of St Marilebone who was the Lord Chancellor, and John Wakeham the leader of the house. so, I was indeed around when Margaret Thatcher had this country in her clutches. (C.) you are not the only one to have studied her premiership in great detail: I too studied it at politics A-level, and part of my law degree involved extensive examination of the 'next steps' civil service reforms. I think you'll find, therefore, that my support of Margaret Thatcher is well-informed and born of personal experience. You should be more careful before you make such generalisations based on someone's age alone. I note, also, that you say you have studied Margaret Thatcher's tenure in office in minute detail, but make no specific reference to what was wrong with it: come on, Freya, you know me well enough by now surely to goodness! For a seasoned advocate all your allegations are paper-thin because you file no supporting evidence to use the jargon of civil procedure. and you can be sure that once I have seen your allegations, as he who asserts must prove, I shall respond to them or admit them as the case may be, but I can't do that if I don't know what you find so objectionable about Margaret Thatcher, can I? At the moment, I think you don't like Margaret Thatcher because it's the bandwagon you've chosen to board, so prove me wrong.
Everyone knows how awful Miss Maggie was Lawlord, surely I don't need to itemise all her dreadful deeds...?? This country's not been the same since she was in charge eh..
Yes, Freya, I'm afraid you do need to itemise her alleged misdeeds. As it is, you don't even provide us with one example, which renders your argument paper-thin and practically moonshine. I'm in the process of qualifying as a barrister, freya, and if you ever want a detailed exposition of the importance of evidence I'd be happy to tell you, but for the moment, forgive me if I treat you like a slightly forgetful witness in cross-examination and give you a question which might help you get started in compiling your catalogue of Maggie's misdeeds to support your argument: so, Freya, you say that this country hasn't been the same since Margaret Thatcher, and you'd be right, wouldn't you? It was Margaret Thatcher who removed Labour's disastrous policy of raising the tax burden to 98 pence in the pound, wasn't it? and it is right, isn't it, that under Margaret Thatcher, university admissions in britain went up from 18 to 33 percent? I look forward to your wnswers and your inventory of misdeeds.
And, furthermore, as we seem to have wandered rather from the point of this original discussion, let me bring us all back to it by recommending, in the strongest terms, the article that Borris Johnson wrote on his trip of contrition to Liverpool last weekend. aS I guessed, the scousers didn't turn out to accept their much sought-after apology, so what was the bloody point?
Well Mr Lawlord, hows about three million unemployed, restrictions on trade unions, privatisation of state owned industries and utilities and the poll tax for starters?! I guess though for Oxford educated barristers like yourself, those things wouldn't bother you would they?
And as for BORIS well he should just learn to keep his large mouth closed in future shouldn't he?
Frey.
Freya, the three million unemployed coincided with a global economic down-turn. Maggie also inherited a disastrous economic legacy left her by the loony left government of Mr Jim Callaghan who, I'm afraid to say, was also Oxford educated. as for the poll tax, you'll have noticed the apologies we have issued for that and quite rightly so. i doubt you'd ever get this government apologising for anything. Privatisation, particularly in the sector of prisons, has worked. I point you in particular to a study of The Wolds prison which was one of the first to be privatised and which has one of the lowest reconviction rates on release in the country. You're an avid supporter of Blair of course, I wonder whether you could tell me what Blair's stance on privatisation is? Let me refresh your memory: he supports, I repeat, supports it! It was by no means irreversible, and he continued it and continues it to date. Now let's have a look at what he's done to the country in seven years: unemployment is down, but that's because training courses now count as jobs. He promised not to introduce top-up fees, then he did! He promised not to put up taxes, then he did 66 times! he promised he'd reduce crime, but crime was lower when Michael Howard was home secretary! He promised no more waste, but there are now more civil servants in the department of work and pensions than there are soldiers in the british army! What else has he done? tried to limit trial by jury by the back door and failed thankfully, implemented a policy so that asylum-seekers' children are taken away from their parents and put into care if their parents fail to comply with their conditions, prison suicides are up, bureaucracy is up, police officers now have to fill in a form every time they stop someone, not search, stop someone! Shall I go on? as for Borris Johnson, well Freya you've got your beloved Labour government to thank again. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, schedule 1, article 10, everyone has the right to freedom of speech and of expression. Now, unfortunately for all you Blairite disciples including yourself, Freya, that means that peopel are going to disagree with you from time to time and you do forfeit your right to be offended to an extent. And one more thing before I go: why oh why do you think that barristers don't care about social problems? Next year I shall be working in family law as part of my practice, involving cases of child sex abuse, care orders, adoption, divorce, contact and custody disputes and the like. In short, i'll be involved in families who are in terrible circumstances, doing something very useful for the community. as well as that I shall have a substantial amount of criminal work, both prosecution and defence. so be careful how you cast your stones in future.
Lawlord, you are obviously a highly intelligent chap and know far more about the ins and outs of politics than I do. I can't possibly reply to all your points about Tony B. but I bet you can't name me one single PM who kept all the promises he or she made eh? They all break some of them don't they? You said it, Tony has been in charge for seven long years and of course some things have gone downhill, but old Michael hasn't had a go at all yet has he? I mean that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we haven't had a chance to see what a god awful mess he will make of the blessed country yet have we? I don't take kindly to references to 'waste' in the DWP as more than one member of my close family works for that very department and they depend on their income from there to support their family. The rising crime rate would probably happen if God was prime minister because that is the way the world and this country is going isn't it? Just look at how children, teenagers, people in general and their values have changed since the war years and just after, just look at the atrocities commited world wide and you won't be blaming Tony for such things. Prison suicides? I don't see how he is responsible for that either, suicide amongst young men in particular is a growing social trend, as is stress, depression and a plethora of other mental illnesses and problems. You say you are a dyed in the wool conservative well I'm afraid I am a dyed in the wool socialist. Now I know you will say that Tony is no longer or even wasn't ever a socialist and I'm sure that is true but he's the nearest this country has at the moment. I believe he does his best in extremely difficult circumstances, I have heard him speak and he comes over as human and compassionate, at times. This may be a very simplistic view of things from your point of view but it is the way I see it now. I am sure barristers like yourself are very concerned about social problems but I believe my point was that they do not experience them personally mainly due to the very large amounts of money they get paid. And yes of course I know that Cherie has the benefit of that comfortable salary aswell. I am sure you will make an excellent barrister when you complete your training and that is not sarcasm. Sorry to bang on about this but I hope you get me drift so to speak....
Frey.
Well, freya, I respect you very much for remaining true to the principles of real socialism, even though I don't agree with them. I also agree that prime ministers throughout history have made mistakes and failed to honour promises. My objection to Mr Blair is that he still blames much of what goes wrong on the previous government, and I'm sure you'll agree that this card is becoming less and less effective with each day of the Labour government that passes. I agree also that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that's why I think we should give Michael Howard a try, although I'm not going to try and convince you of that as I'm sure that particular pudding wouldn't be to your taste. I'm glad we've reached some sort of consensus after an very enjoyable debate and I hope it's the first of many! Incidentally, not all barristers are millionaires by any means. It's only the commercial lawyers who become rich quickly, whereas practitioners like me will have to go through a great deal of drudgery in the county and magistrates courts before our professional reputations are sufficient to justify appearances before the court of appeal and House of lords. If I'm lucky, I might get a couple of appearances in the family division of the high court in my first year, which should yield substantial fees.
I am personally acquainted with some lawyers myself Lawlord and I don't think it's only the commercial ones that get rich quick...Yes, it may take you some time and I'm sure hard work, but barristers all generally end up being very highly paid don't they? Especially compared to teachers, nurses and most civil servants eh?
Frey.
Well, we aren't civil servants of course, but I do agree that I won't exactly be poor. I assure you though, I have worked very hard and I continue to do so. i'm not saying that these others don't, that would be ridiculous, but the perception of easy money, out of touch lawyers and even more out of touch judges is fundamentally wrong. You need look no further than Mr Justice Hedley, who recently had the burden of deciding the fate of baby Charlotte Wyatt.
Lawlord, it's not really a question of how hard you work or easy money is it? There are thousands of other people in this country who work extremely hard in all sorts of occupations but don't get paid nearly as much as lawyers and barristers do....IMHO no-one is worth the ridiculous amounts of money they get paid for what they do, and it is grossly unfair that people who slave away in vital public service jobs etc. have to put up with a pittance in comparison.
As for judges, you name one there...one amongst many of whom are still out of touch and living in the dark ages.
Frey.
Freya and I thought you knew me? I do name Mr Justice Hedley, but I could name many, many more who are both in touch with reality and who make a vital contribution to the functioning of society. You again make an assertion about judges without backing it up, so if you can name me one judge who in your opinion is out of touch with reality, and tell me why, I'll try and explain why he made the decisiont o which you obbject, and you never know, perhaps I'll agree with you about that particular judge. I do think sometimes that what the Lord chief Justice, Lord Woolf, says leaves a lot to be desired, but apart from him, can you tell me of any judges whom you think are out of touch? Don't worry if you don't know their names, give me examples of decisions that you think were wrong, or things they said which they shouldn't have. I'm sorry, freya, but iyou know it would be a lot more helpful if you gave more information about this pronouncement. at the moment I reckon your opinion is formed from the media joke that is His Honour Judge Pickles, and all I can say about that is that he wasn't a very senior judge and he no longer is. AS for the money I'm not going to apologise for it. I do agree that public servants should of course receive far more than they do, but it is not a sin to become a barrister because of the money.
...Hey-Ya, ----- Don't know what? all the Bickering is about except to say, anytime The M. Thatcher has been here in UNITED STATES of AMERICA, MOST Polite, and helpful Leading LADY in a Manner of Presentating Speech/Herself. Like when The Former Prez. R. Reagon recently passed/Died. The M. Thatcher was right here in the States giving Comfort to the Grieving Mrs. Nancy Reagon-Former FIRST Lady of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and all I gotta say is "God Bless The LADY," for at her age and all to simply be here and then to go ALL The extra miles and to Continue to stay by OUR Lady's side when POLITICAL talk re: STEM CELL RESEARCH, etc... all the talk/rage ... M. Thatcher {SALUTE} ...this is Connie CG
I'll have to get back to you on that one Lawlord...
Hi Connie don't be taken in by that Mrs Thatcher, you never know what she'll do next...
Frey.
...do NOT fret your little head over what I personallly am given to What! you say, get, "taken-in by," ----Grief ...., ! Respect and Honor for COUNTRY. Dig? ...this is Connie CG