Ann Widdecombe has died, murder suspected

Indeed, back to the topic please.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s worth seeking out the comments of famous gay vicar Richard Coles, who has a level of maturity that permitted him to do precisely this.

Yes, i've read what he said and the prayer he said for her.

Ann really loved her cat and many were concerned about what had happened to him, so her management have put out a statement to say that he was quickly removed from the scene and is being well looked after whilst her family decide what to do long term.

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s worth seeking out the comments of famous gay vicar Richard Coles, who has a level of maturity that permitted him to do precisely this.

Nuanced, rather than black and white…

Prayers offered for the soul of Ann Widdecombe who I knew a bit, both as an adversary and as an inconveniently congenial acquaintance.

I have never felt quite so drawn to someone personally and repulsed politicially simultaneously. It happens not infrequently now but she was the first.

I would like to say this all works out in the end, and it does in eternity. In this life it is hard to see.

But the old order has passed away.

Heavenly Father
You have called your servant Ann
out of this world;
release her from the bonds of sin,
and welcome her into your presence,
so that she may enjoy eternal light and peace
and be raised up in glory
And dance with all your saints.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, i've read what he said and the prayer he said for her.

Ann really loved her cat and many were concerned about what had happened to him, so her management have put out a statement to say that he was quickly removed from the scene and is being well looked after whilst her family decide what to do long term.

she may have a will that provides for the cat in the event of her demise

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, i've read what he said and the prayer he said for her.

Ann really loved her cat and many were concerned about what had happened to him, so her management have put out a statement to say that he was quickly removed from the scene and is being well looked after whilst her family decide what to do long term.

They should show the cat her body, animals understand death, if it doesn't see her then the cat will think she has abandoned it

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nuanced, rather than black and white…

Lovely words from a decent man

[RichardCoulter]

X

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They should show the cat her body, animals understand death, if it doesn't see her then the cat will think she has abandoned it



Lovely words from a decent man

They did say that Aloycius 'was removed from the scene', so I think he must have been there when she was attacked (unless he came in when the carer or somebody opened the door and found out what had happened). I agree with you that animals understand death and that it's best to show them the body so that they can process this.

He is a good man, I have a lot of time for the Rev Richard Coles.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

The Aberdeen University worker who made inappropriate comments about the death of Ann Widdecombe has now been arrested & charged. This is what happens when the luxury of free speech that we are privileged to enjoy is abused.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They did say that the cat 'was removed from the scene', so I think he must have been there when she was attacked (unless he came in when the carer or somebody opened the door and found out what had happened). I agree with you that animals understand death and that it's best to show them the body so that they can process this.

He is a good man, I have a lot of time for the Rev Richard Coles.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

The Aberdeen University worker who made inappropriate comments about the death of Ann Widdecombe has now been arrested & charged. This is what happens when the luxury of free speech that we are privileged to enjoy is abused.

Free speech is not a luxury or a privilege. It is a basic right, which we accept is legally qualified for the good order of wider society.

Be careful what you categorise as luxuries Richard. Those are the things the state can most easily argue cannot be afforded and should be removed.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

Free speech is not a luxury or a privilege. It is a basic right, which we accept is legally qualified for the good order of wider society.

Be careful what you categorise as luxuries Richard. Those are the things the state can most easily argue cannot be afforded and should be removed.

I meant when comparing the UK to some other countries that don't enjoy our level of free speech.

[jem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I meant when comparing the UK to some other countries that don't enjoy our level of free speech.

There is no real concept of ‘free speech’; anything you say or post can have ‘consequences’. The sometimes mentioned case of ‘shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre’, if it were to result in panic and deaths, you absolutely would be in legal trouble, both here and in the US, and probably in most jurisdictions.

It’s a case of balance, what would the proverbial ‘average person’ thinks is maybe distasteful but fine, if that’s what they believe. The comments made by the person in question about Ann Widdecombe, at least in my opinion, went well beyond that, if true, then they were disgusting and I would not want such a person working with me, or for an institution that my child may be attending, or being funded by my taxes.

I think, rightly, that ‘free speech’ has to be deliberately vague. This person has, I believe, been charged - presumably will end up in Court and a jury will decide if what they said is OK or not.

I don't really think it should go to a jury to decide whether she is 'ok or not'. It's not 'ok' for her to have said that. It was horrible. But it shouldn't be a criminal offence. The only time I think speech should be criminalised is if it's direct abuse to someone (i.e racially abusing someone) or an incitement to violence.

Saying horrible things about someone upon their death gives a way of what kind of person you are, but I don't see why it should be literally illegal.

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't really think it should go to a jury to decide whether she is 'ok or not'. It's not 'ok' for her to have said that. It was horrible. But it shouldn't be a criminal offence. The only time I think speech should be criminalised is if it's direct abuse to someone (i.e racially abusing someone) or an incitement to violence.

Saying horrible things about someone upon their death gives a way of what kind of person you are, but I don't see why it should be literally illegal.

Him.

“Heather” Herbert is a man.

*His* behaviour on social media is classic male pattern aggression. It is demeaning to attribute his behaviour to that of a woman. Violence, and threats of violence, are overwhelmingly a male problem and arrest/charge/conviction statistics are skewed unhelpfully if we pretend that we cannot name things for what they are.

This is a picture of him. His name is Scott.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't really think it should go to a jury to decide whether she is 'ok or not'. It's not 'ok' for her to have said that. It was horrible. But it shouldn't be a criminal offence. The only time I think speech should be criminalised is if it's direct abuse to someone (i.e racially abusing someone) or an incitement to violence.

Saying horrible things about someone upon their death gives a way of what kind of person you are, but I don't see why it should be literally illegal.

Damien, hypothetically we meet up in person, and I tell you to your face that I ‘hope your mother/father/child dies screaming in agony from cancer’? Would you a) just accept it as my opinion; or b) punch me very hard in the face?

I suspect b), which actually makes YOU the criminal here. Yes OK you could probably claim you were provoked and get a reduced fine. But think about it, I have ‘said some words’ that have provoked you to commit a criminal act.

Is that OK?

---------- Post added at 20:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Him.

“Heather” Herbert is a man.

*His* behaviour on social media is classic male pattern aggression. It is demeaning to attribute his behaviour to that of a woman. Violence, and threats of violence, are overwhelmingly a male problem and arrest/charge/conviction statistics are skewed unhelpfully if we pretend that we cannot name things for what they are.

This is a picture of him. His name is Scott.

A trans-woman, him, her, whatever. Either way a particularly unpleasant human being.

A “trans-woman”, so called, is a man who thinks he is, or wishes he was, a woman. Nobody is under any obligation to believe him or pretend that he is. In certain circumstances it is actively unhelpful to entertain the delusion. I maintain that in the realm of crime, or any other in which official statistics are important, accuracy is essential.

Obfuscating reality by choosing to say ‘her’ while we all know it’s a ‘him’ is not conducive to the flourishing of society.