David Blunkett is happy that Shipman killed himself

[Ste]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...125183,00.html

"You wake up and you receive a phone call telling you that Shipman has topped himself," he said in a frank conversation with regional journalists. "And you think, 'Is it too early to open a bottle?'"

"Then you discover that everybody's really upset that he's done it. So you have to be very cautious in this job, very careful."

Umm, I don't know what to make of that...
Unless you believe in capital punishment I don't think you should celebrate someone killing themselves.

[Dante Hicks]

Well, I do support capital punishment on a theoretical level, but that's not a particularly appropriate analogy (imho).

Capital punishment is actually killing someone. Celebrating someone's death is hardly the same.

Similarly, I wouldn't support deportation for being unfunny, but if Jim Davidson ****ed off out of the country, I'd laugh.

I don't like Mr Blunkett but I'm glad to see someone's being honest about such things. Why the hell should we feel sad if some murderer kills himself? Would it be OK if it was natural causes?*

* = Obviously there is an argument that him being alive would have led to more info about his alleged other crimes, but I'm presuming we wouldn't of.

[Zar]

new labour - right wing government

what do you expect? they celebrate death

Zar

[Another Slayer]

you never wanted somthing bad to happen to someone but not enough to cause it yourself?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Zar

what do you expect? they celebrate death

Would you be happy if George W Bush got shot?

[Ste]

death isn't suffering.
he deserved to suffer much more than he has.
And my thoughts are with the families of the people he killed:

The Liberal Democrat's home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, criticised Mr Blunkett's wish to celebrate. "Many families of Harold Shipman's victims were devastated to learn of his suicide," he said. "Now they will never know why he killed their mum or granny or brother or sister.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Would you be happy if George W Bush got shot?

you got me there....

but no....

i would be happier if bush got tortured. his legs slowly ripped apart... his arms hammered down etc.. etc.. same goes for blair, cheney, rumsfeld, sharon and a handful of other leaders.

death is the easy way out. Torturing has far more effect for such assholes

omg im an anti-right wing, right-winger

Zar

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'd have preferred him to remain in prison for the rest of his natural, but you can see how it could be thought to be a good thing.

[Dante Hicks]

I am fundamentally opposed to all forms of torture (except in some ludicrous hypothetical scenarios).

I also don't like the idea of the imposition of suffering either.

And Zar : Celebrating someone's death has got nothing to do with being right-wing, which was my point. There are people I'd be happier dead, and I'd consider myself left-wing.

[Dante Hicks]

p.s. While I understand the feelings of the families, what on Earth could have Shipman said which would explain his crimes? I mean, I know it might bring some peace of mind or something, but....?

"I did it for a laugh"
"I did it to ease their suffering."
"I did it because I'm evil"

There's no good reason for killing 200+ innocent people really, is there?

[pablissimo]

His staying in prison for the rest of his life serves no more moral purpose than does his death, so what's the problem?

[Deffeh]

In a really horrible "i dont condone this" way its incredibly clever and brave he killed himself a day shy of his birthday so his wife got a windfall

[ChubbyChecker]

David Blunkett has about as much tact as a runaway freight train

[*donkie*]

Maybe he was left wing himself, and decided that the £25,000 it cost to keep him in prison could've been used to give vital improvements to hospitals. But then he'd have to somehow get us a new government - one without Mr. Blair or Mr. Blunkett.

[Proteus]

That's sick.

The man kills himself because he isn't allowed to see his wife, and Blunkett wants to celebrate?

I would call him something, but it would probably be censored.

[Phang]

it's a good, honest answer which probably reflects the mood of everyone in the country.


ps donkie if you dont think the NHS has ultra high funding under labour compared to anyone else the you are WRONG

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Proteus

That's sick.

The man kills himself because he isn't allowed to see his wife, and Blunkett wants to celebrate?

I would call him something, but it would probably be censored.

slightly more level-headed than you?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Phang

slightly more level-headed than you?

Err, what?

Celebrating death is level-headed now?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Err, what?

Celebrating death is level-headed now?

well i wouldn't say it isn't.

my point was that whether shipman gets to see his wife or not is immaterial. a few hundred other people didn't get to. trying to cite this in any argument at all is emotive bullcrap used by someone whos grasping at straws to criticise labour without pulling the Iraq card.

[Deciduous]

Blunkett has just gained brownie points in my eyes.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

well i wouldn't say it isn't.

my point was that whether shipman gets to see his wife or not is immaterial. a few hundred other people didn't get to. trying to cite this in any argument at all is emotive bullcrap used by someone whos grasping at straws to criticise labour without pulling the Iraq card.

You can criticise labour for a lot of things dude, excluding iraq.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Phang

well i wouldn't say it isn't.

my point was that whether shipman gets to see his wife or not is immaterial. a few hundred other people didn't get to. trying to cite this in any argument at all is emotive bullcrap used by someone whos grasping at straws to criticise labour without pulling the Iraq card.

I actually wrote a reply to this, but then I realised that your point is so absurdly stupid that it doesn't even deserve one.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I actually wrote a reply to this, but then I realised that your point is so absurdly stupid that it doesn't even deserve one.

So your amazing reply just disappeared? Aww, shame.

Shipman didn't get to see his wife? Poor bloke... maybe he shouldn't have fking killed all those people then he could be sat at home with her now.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

So your amazing reply just disappeared? Aww, shame.

Shipman didn't get to see his wife? Poor bloke... maybe he shouldn't have fking killed all those people then he could be sat at home with her now.

Are you trolling? It's hard to tell.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You can criticise labour for a lot of things dude, excluding iraq.

yes but lets face it, not that much. and i think proteus' reply pretty much sums up the tory policy towards labour: find a stupid emotive point and attack them for holding rational opinions. its not a stance i have time for.



(PS If I'm being slightly presumptuous i apologise but im pretty sure im also correct)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes but lets face it, not that much. and i think proteus' reply pretty much sums up the tory policy towards labour: find a stupid emotive point and attack them for holding rational opinions. its not a stance i have time for.

OK, lets see.

Doing untold harm to the school system, diplomatic relations, railways, the london underground, hospitals (especially the by PPP system, although that also goes for the underground and schools), personal freedoms, the university system, and so on and so forth.

The only thing that is doing well is the economy.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Are you trolling? It's hard to tell.

i dont know about him, but im not and i entirely agree.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Are you trolling? It's hard to tell.

Don't I ever get the benefit of the doubt?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

OK, lets see.

Doing untold harm to the school system, diplomatic relations, railways, the london underground, hospitals (especially the by PPP system, although that also goes for the underground and schools), personal freedoms, the university system, and so on and so forth.

The only thing that is doing well is the economy.

1)explain
2)compared to any of the alternatives?
3)**** off. that's ENTIRELY down to the tories, labour are actually solving the ****ing prblem, boo hoo.
4)explain
5)the PPP system isnt perfect but it doesn actually seem to do any damage excep to principles
6)except for terrorist!1111111 stuff i dont see your point, and with regards to terrorist stuff its certainly nothing like the extent of the US. (And if you mean the ID cards thing I fully support that so meh)
7)THAT ill agree with you on but it was originally a tory policy anyway

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes but lets face it, not that much. and i think proteus' reply pretty much sums up the tory policy towards labour: find a stupid emotive point and attack them for holding rational opinions. its not a stance i have time for.

I attacked Labour? Really?

I'm surprised. I thought I was attacking Blunkett.

I'm sure the vast majority of Labour MPs (including Tony Blair) aren't so appallingly inhuman as to consider celebrating someone's death, no matter how horrible he was.

Originally Posted by Phang

(PS If I'm being slightly presumptuous i apologise but im pretty sure im also correct)

You aren't.

[KaneED]

i was glad he was dead.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I attacked Labour? Really?

I'm surprised. I thought I was attacking Blunkett.

I'm sure the vast majority of Labour MPs (including Tony Blair) aren't so appallingly inhuman as to consider celebrating someone's death, no matter how horrible he was.

thank you for proving my point.

[MrL_JaKiri]

1. The AS levels are a good example. And they're thinking them of changing them again. Plus the push for statistics over actual results (example: the lowering of the maths pass mark to make the target number pass). And underfunding, espeically in terms of teachers' pay.

2. I'd have preferred to, say, not go against the UN, because of something made up.

3. It's not entirely down to the tories. The labour government has been responsible for increasing subsidy in times of lower standards, not holding companies to account, and setting up a disciplinary body that has no power for discipline.

4. The most obvious way would be the Public Private Partnership that Blair (and by proxy, their candidate Dobson) was pushing for. I can't remember if he got his way over Ken or not.

5. The main problem with the PPP system is that it doesn't work. The current PPP hospitals aren't doing as well as the hospitals there beforehand, despite more money going into them than there was (what's the point of doing something to decrease costs if you increase the money going in, in the form of subsidy?) That's ignoring the absolute problem behind them: if they're government run, they don't need to turn a profit, so there won't be quite so many cutbacks. This has been seen in the schools (and, depending on your definition of PPP, the railways) as well.

6. The only significant terrorist threat to the UK in recent history has been the IRA.

7. Blair came to power with the manifesto promise of 'Not introducing top-up fees', something he pledged again at his reelection. Nice consistency.

Of course, that's ignoring the wonderful Margaret Hodge (record as Higher Education personyjob: Angering all the universities due to biased unfounded remarks. Record as Child Minister: Telling the BBC to ignore someone who complained about her appointment to the position (as a local counciler, she oversaw one of the largest paedophile scandles of recent times) because he was 'deranged' (something that wasn't true)), the constant chopping and changing of ministers (it's estiamted that it takes at least 3 years to start to be able to do anything as a minister; blair seems to fire/change jobs for most of them every 6 months), the scandle over bribes (Hinduja brothers, Bernie), and many many more.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Phang

thank you for proving my point.

Having read your reply to Mark's "Labour's bad policies" post, it has become clear that you are, in fact, an idiot.

(For instance, since when has "at least we aren't doing it as badly as the US!" been an excuse to reduce civil liberties?)

And if you think I can't criticise the personal views of an MP without criticising his party, then you're even more of an idiot. I would have said the same thing had a Conservative MP come out and said what Blunkett said.

(Labour's policies are a travesty, but that's not the subject of this thread, and it's neither here nor there concerning the death of Harold Shipman.)

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

2. I'd have preferred to, say, not go against the UN, because of something made up.

Fair point, but the US aren't averse to imposing illegal trade sanctions on anyone they choose, which usually harms the opposing country more than the US. (beef is what came to mind when i read the post)

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Proteus

(Labours policies are a travesty, but that's not the subject of this thread, and it's neither here nor there concerning the death of Harold Shipman.)

I was just about to say the same thing.

Having a Labour Home Secretary that's the most right-wing in history (including Michael Howard) is appalling and shows there is something wrong with the values of this Labour government.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Fair point, but the US aren't averse to imposing illegal trade sanctions on anyone they choose, which usually harms the opposing country more than the US. (beef is what came to mind when i read the post)

We went WITH the US, against the UN. You don't appear to be able to read.

[Marilyn Manson]

'Blunkett in 'Populist outporing for the benefit of the tabloids' shocker!'

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

We went WITH the US, against the UN. You don't appear to be able to read.

Are you taking your medication?
I'm not saying that we didn't go with the US, which is obviously not the case.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the decision.
I'm saying that maybe not wanting to get on the wrong side of one of the world's greatest economic powers could be partly behind it. That's all.

[MrL_JaKiri]

What are the US going to do? Sanction the world?

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What are the US going to do? Sanction the world?

No, but they've done it to us before and it's not a good situation to be in.
The US has the advantage of having a massive internal market such that it can be fairly self reliant.

[MrL_JaKiri]

There's another thread about that.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

<snip>

Phang, I thought you said you were socialist?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

well i wouldn't say it isn't.

my point was that whether shipman gets to see his wife or not is immaterial. a few hundred other people didn't get to. trying to cite this in any argument at all is emotive bullcrap used by someone whos grasping at straws to criticise labour without pulling the Iraq card.

While I'm not sure I'll penetrate through that thicket of prejudice (are you new to political ranting btw?), I suggest that you consider that Proteus is giving a typical Christian sentiment, rather than being superficially emotive. It's more polite and constructive to respect people and try to understand their views than to see everything as partisan. And notice that Brits generally aren't mindlessly tribal, at least off TV.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

p.s. While I understand the feelings of the families, what on Earth could have Shipman said which would explain his crimes? I mean, I know it might bring some peace of mind or something, but....?

"I did it for a laugh"
"I did it to ease their suffering."
"I did it because I'm evil"

There's no good reason for killing 200+ innocent people really, is there?

bush and blair seem to give in their opinions good enough reasons

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

No, but they've done it to us before and it's not a good situation to be in.
The US has the advantage of having a massive internal market such that it can be fairly self reliant.

the uk trades a significant amount with the EU. The EU trades within itself more than the US does within itself.

your point?

Zar

[Deciduous]

Are you saying it's not in the interest of the UK to trade with the US?
£65 billion a year isn't a figure to be sniffed at. (1998 figures)

"...it is not widely appreciated that only 14.4 per cent (1997 figures) of Britain's GDP is concerned with the EU and the trade deficit on that small percentage was a colossal œ5.4 billion... ...British exports to Europe are now actually falling, while they continue to rise to every other Continent."

14.4% is trade with Europe, 18.6% is trade with the US. (1997 & 1998 figures respectively)

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's no good reason for killing 200+ innocent people really, is there?

agrarian reform

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

6)except for terrorist!1111111 stuff i dont see your point, and with regards to terrorist stuff its certainly nothing like the extent of the US. (And if you mean the ID cards thing I fully support that so meh)

hahahahaha

hahahahahahaha

(hahahahaha)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

14.4% is trade with Europe, 18.6% is trade with the US. (1997 & 1998 figures respectively)

Where do you get your figures from? (Where exactly is the rest of the trade going to, for example.) Only thirty percent or so of trade with practically the whole of the westen world seems horribly low.

Afaik, UK-continental trade was in the fourties as a percentage of British trade as a whole.