Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

So today is officially National What The Hell Happened There? Day, and Panorama is going out tonight while I'm here at work, dammit. Given what we now know about Special Branch's desperate attempts to occlude their every fuck-up, it's amazing de Menezes wasn't found with the gun in his hand and a note saying "ITS A FAIR COP I DUN IT SARGE".

Silver linings:

(1) Jean-Charles de Menezes no longer poses a threat to British security.

(2) He now has his own Wikipedia entry.

Unsettling and criminally negligent events like this demand stern, illiberal responses, such as this from the BBC's Have Your Say page:
I bet these so-called “liberals” who object so much to the shooting wouldn’t complain if it was a terrorist who got shot when he was about to blow himself up, or even if someone else got shot by accident on the scene as long as the terrorist was killed at the end of it. Once again it’s one rule for them and another for terrorists and innocent bystanders.
A moment's scrutiny will reveal that this “rule” makes no sense. “Don't shoot me, but do shoot innocent bystanders” is not something any “so-called liberal” has ever said. This has not deterred one reader (so far) from unreservedly recommending the comment. I have also awarded myself bonus points for the use of the phrase “Once again it's one rule for them...”. I invite those with a modicum of free time to join me in this weird, fetid pit that passes for a representative snapshot of public opinion and see if we can't make Joe Omnibus out to be even stupider than he already is.


( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 8th, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)
Mar. 8th, 2006 07:55 pm (UTC)
Mar. 8th, 2006 07:56 pm (UTC)
> Ecellent

Once again it's one rule for people who can spell, etc.
Mar. 8th, 2006 08:42 pm (UTC)
Surely the writer wanted to send that to Letterbocks in Viz and just posted it to the BBC news site by accident?
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:09 pm (UTC)
That's kind of halfway true, in that the writer was me, and instead of writing to Letterbocks I thought it would be fun to submit it for real.

That wasn't meant to be some kind of big reveal, by the way, it's just that (and it's only just struck me) unless you know me, you won't know that A Cheffie is a name I commonly go by on the net, although it bears no resemblance to my actual name.
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:44 pm (UTC)
Ah, I'll know in future.
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:58 pm (UTC)
You have succeeded, by the way. I no longer know what's real and what isn't. Perhaps all the Have Your Say submitters are taking the piss? I've long suspected this of people who ring in to speak to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2.

Perhaps even the Daily Mail is actually just a long-running, hilarious injoke by liberal media types that no-one knows how to stop?
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:21 pm (UTC)
He has two recommendations now! And a response:

A Cheffie suggests "I bet these so-called “liberals” who object so much to the shooting wouldn’t complain if it was a terrorist who got shot".

I'd like to ask these so-called 'conservatives' if they wouldnt complain if it was their child who was shot in similar circumstances?

MC, London
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:29 pm (UTC)
I think their late-shift moderator's taken over. They haven't fallen for this:
“MC” in London asks if I would complain if my child was shot as a terrorist. Well, if my child indeed turned out to be a terrorist, I would have to sanction his killing, but with a very heavy heart.
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:31 pm (UTC)
hahahaha, I think that's a perfectly reasonable and consistent position for your character ;)
Mar. 8th, 2006 08:42 pm (UTC)
This is what I submitted:

I think the police had no choice to act as they did. How are we to know that suicide bombers *haven't* started to disguise themselves by speaking Portugese, and not carrying any explosives?
Mar. 8th, 2006 08:58 pm (UTC)
Okay, now I'm confused. This looks entirely like it's someone taking the piss, but I don't think it is:


to whom it really concerns. what is the price of freedom what is the price of life nobody could answer that but the people who have lost someone !! we should as a nation be proud of our history.. our own values.. means we have always wanted protection against the stupidity of others and who am i to question what the people who are paid to make these ideas come true.

phil bolton, london, United Kingdom
Good. Big finish and leave 'em wanting more, Phil.
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:03 pm (UTC)
People should be forbidden from using the term PC until they can define it and use it correctly in a sentence three times.
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:30 pm (UTC)
It's Police Constables gone mad!
Mar. 8th, 2006 09:36 pm (UTC)
Just look at this beauty:

Yes, the police should continue shoot to kill. Furthermore, mind reading machines should be provided so that the police can shoot to kill people before they commit a crime. Under this system there is no other way left other than killing. Good education gone. Fair reward to work done gone. Future black. People are being killed in thousands by phantom terrorists, triggered earthquakes etc. This illegitimate system can only have illegitimate means. Please carry on killing...

lifebrainwatch, Çanakkale/Turkey
Mar. 8th, 2006 10:22 pm (UTC)
Please, someone, post in along these lines:
Lee Morrison says that "Mr Mendes could have been any one of us". I take exception to this claim, as I, for one, am no terrorist.
Mar. 8th, 2006 11:58 pm (UTC)
The BBC's Have Your Say pages make my head hurt, my heart heavy and my soul ache.

Fair play to you for showing up the ever so tiny flaw in the BBC presenting them as in some way a valid part of news coverage (i.e. they are so full of rubbish that someone can make some rubbish to order and it still gets posted.)
Mar. 9th, 2006 12:54 am (UTC)
Well done for preserving the faint hope that there're some real liberals out there who apply fairer rules (i.e., shoot everyone, all of the time).

But so far it's all been on the pro shooting side. How about something like:

"So what if de Menezies was a suicide bomber? He hadn't actually killed anyone, so who gives the police the right to be judge, jury and executioner? Innocent until proven guilty - but not in Tessa's Jowell's Britain."


"Any would-be suicide bombers on that train watching de Mennenzays being killed would hardly have been deterred, would they? Once again, why doesn't Blair come clean?"
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:30 am (UTC)
Both of these are of course brilliant, and should turn up on Have Your Say as a matter of urgency.
Mar. 9th, 2006 11:21 am (UTC)
Why thank you - I am having a private giggle at work about "Tessa's Jowell's", my best ever typo.
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:24 am (UTC)
Dr Miles from London adds:
These terrorists have no hesitation in shooting to kill innocent children, so neither should the police.
Mar. 9th, 2006 01:31 pm (UTC)
Re: Dr Miles from London adds:
"RE: What if this young man had been YOUR SON? Then you'd - quite rightly - be screaming against the appalling procedural negligence which resulted in this killing.

...and if it was YOUR SON and he WAS a suicide bomber and killed 100's of people, what would you say then?

what people don't understand is to stop a suicide bomber you have to stop him using his thumb or equivalent. someone explain how to without shooting him?

Avi, Stockport"

Hmm. Thanks, Avi. Thumbs, eh?

How come this crap got on there and mine didn't? Call this a democracy?
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2015
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner