Oh, fuck off

[andrewducker]

I'm furious about this story.

It's ot up to the Prime Minister, or anyone else, to tell people how they should feel about something. It's not up to him to tell us who we should, or shouldn't, feel sympathy for.

Do I feel a huge amount of sympathy for Raoul Moat? No. Do I feel a small amount, as I would feel for any other human being who was clearly deeply unhappy? Yes. Do I feel more for his victims and their families? Absolutely. Do I expect everyone else to share my feelings? Hell, no!

If David Cameron wants to announce that he feels no sympathy for Raoul Moat then that's his choice. But he shouldn't claim to speak for me, and he sure as hell shouldn't be telling me what I should feel.

Comments

[broin.livejournal.com]

I was going to make a joke about a Moat facebook page, but there is one.

Yes, completely agree. He didn't seem very callous to me.

[andrewducker]

Well, you can argue back and forth over whether shooting your ex (and two others) is a callous act. But ven if he was callous that wouldn't mean he wasn't also a deeply unhappy/troubled person.

[broin.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't argue - callous is a useless word for this topic. It was the bit about how he cried '“I have not got a dad – no one cares about me.”' The problems people have don't go away just because they're carrying a gun.

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprized that the Tories are fond of the word "should".

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

IAWTC

[anef.livejournal.com]

That's what free speech is for, isn't it? So that people can say things that people in the government disagree with?

[matgb]

Shh...

The Tory that called for the FB group to be shut down is one of The Idiots. He exercises his freedom, we interfere with his freedom, terrorists (etc) deserve no freedom, etc...

The full text (below) of the exchange reveals Cameron didn't actually agree with the damn fool, but answered in a way that keeps the idiot thinking he does...

I hate our political system.

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

Edging close to Thoughtcrime territory there.

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

I agree completely.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm not even sure it's for the PM to say he's a 'callous murderer'. I didn't follow it all too closely, but what I read seemed to suggest he was having a mental breakdown. That's not something I associate with callousness.

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

Full exchange

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/02.htm#d2e817

Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con): Will the Prime Minister consider having another conference call with Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, whose site is currently hosting the group “RIP Raoul Moat”, where a whole host of anti-police statements are posted? Can the Prime Minister have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg about removing this group?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer—full stop, end of story—and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community; there should be no sympathy for him.


The 'As far as I can see' does seem to qualify it as a personal opinion. Also there is no indication that the government will make any attempt to close the Facebook page - in fact it seems to be a deliberate omission.

[andrewducker]

Aaaah, that's much better. Thanks for the clarification! I still dislike the end of the final sentence, but in context it's not nearly so bad.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

What's the problem with Cameron expressing his opinion?

[andrewducker]

I object to people telling me (or anyone else) what I should feel.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

So do you equally dislike the start of that final sentence: "There should be sympathy for his victims" just as much or does the end of it bother you more because you agree with Cameron's sentiment in the first part, despite both clauses telling you, in exactly the same manner, what to feel. (Yes, I admit I'm trying to trap you a little here, but I'm curious :)

My biggest problem with all of this tbh, is that, because Moat shot himself, "innocent until proven guilty" has gone out of the window. Now that there will never be a trial, he's a convicted murderer in everyone's eyes, even the PM who should know better.

I know the evidence on display is overwhelming but who knows, it may have come to light in a trial that, however unlikely, he had a plausible insanity defence....

On the plus side, kudos to Facebook for standing their ground.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, the "there should be sympathy" bit also grates with me, but admittedly less. Not sure why.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think there's an overriding problem with the idea of politicians being our moral arbiters in any way when it comes to judging The Bad. When it comes to people who are bereaved or or injured; uncontroversially victims, there's less of an issue. I don't think that's overly complicated as a concept to believe in, although I would agree that it's difficult to call at times.

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

Go Facebook. The prime minister didn't tell you to take the page down and you didn't.

[luckylove.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!