Labour MP shot

[Webbo]

There are bound to be some independents standing in the Bye Election. 

[Thracian]

So you thought you'd use this thread as your own party political broadcast instead?

 

 

I'm not naive enough to imagine any attempt to make a point about the consequences of actions would actually get through,  but call it how you like.    

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I'm not naive enough to imagine any attempt to make a point about the consequences of actions would actually get through,  but call it how you like.

And I wouldn't expect you to notice your own hypocrisy.

[Thracian]

You keep saying such thinking is naive. I keep saying I sincerely hope not, because if we accept that we also accept eventual inevitable extinction.

 

 

 

I have no doubt the human race is capable of making itself extinct. And referred to their capacity for self destruction less than  an hour ago. Will they change? Not a chance?

 

Take your blinkers off and consider this forum. How many debates actually change anyone rather than steeling them to promote the merits of their own view. Change is a collectors item.

 

Then take relationships. How many people find prolonged harmony? The stats don't make convincing reading and that's just one-to-one. Then I've referred to the conflicts in the world. Read through history books and you see that people never stop fighting - physically, verbally, strategically, any which way they can.

 

Countries are made up of people and there's the flaw because people are greedy, ambitious, selfish, jealous, possessive, acquisative, competitive,  self-justifying, cunning, strategic and so many other things that make harmony unlikely if not impossible. People are programmed to achieve through crisis not calm.

 

People aren't special when there's peace. They get bored and lose their sense of purpose. They shine when there's a challenge, when they're threatened, when a colleague goes down.

 

Perhaps a good illustration is war wounds.

 

People at peace don't learn to mend shattered limbs. They might mend a hole in their socks.

 

But put them in a theatre of war where colleagues' limbs are blasted to smithereens by an improvised explosive device and they don't just invent the most wonderful devices to make a man walk, jump, carry, or compete again they celebrate their brilliant achievements by promoting paraplegic games which show them in the brightest light of their lives.

 

Man responds to crisis and challenge. The very notion of anything else would arguably be worse than extinction. Apart from procreation aspects, It would sedate the reason for being.        

[Thracian]

And I wouldn't expect you to notice your own hypocrisy.

 

 

If you'd compare a cynically calculated national broadcast to an illustrative comment made to a small discussion group for the purpose of demonstrating the consequence of actions then you and I have a different slant on hypocrisy.

       

And I certainly don't ignore Conservative contribution to the ongoing immigration problem. Cameron's promise to stem the immigration tide was hollow as the Channel Tunnel and he'll never get my vote again. That would be hypocritical.  

[Thracian]

I think you are giving the 'mental health issues' in this case too much weight in your argument here - when there are indications that rational planning was very much part of this and there is a full awareness of the acts he has carried out.

Truth is we only have very little detail of the mental health issues - far too little to label them as a huge contributing factor, even if we'd all agree it requires a degree of 'craziness' to do any of the acts that have been discussed.

 

 

When the case is heard we might learn the truth. I think as a society we're inclined to avoid what we don't understand,particularly concerning mental illness and more so where human rights issues might come into play.

 

What little I've read about Mair so far suggests he was unbalanced and known to have suffered mental problems. If that was the case, and more had been done to address those problems then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Some seem to think my comments are about somehow excusing what happened. Nothing could be further from the truth. I sincerely wish it hadn't happened, that someone with clout had noticed that it might, and then done something about it.

 

Doubtless those issues will be discussed in court and lessons will be learned.       

[Dr The Singh]

I get this is a tragic event, but I'm not getting the media attention. I'm sure she was a very good person, but it's all abit much for me, what great deeds did she do, am I missing something???

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I get this is a tragic event, but I'm not getting the media attention. I'm sure she was a very good person, but it's all abit much for me, what great deeds did she do, am I missing something???

For one it's the general shock of the act that generates the coverage, but something that has become clear from the bits I've learned about her is she was actually an astonishing alround good person - the polar opposite of what most people think of MP's (although interestingly, a view of a persons local MP is normally positive)

[Rincewind]

Cameron made me squirm saying he liked the way she cared and did a lot for those worse off. She probably voted against the austerity cuts that he was in favour of and disagreed on a lot of the Tory policies.

But saying that I did hear on the radio on the night that she confided in MP's on all sides about certain issues and was willing to learn more and was enthusiastic about her work. This was from a Tory MP.

[Jon the Hat]

Cameron made me squirm saying he liked the way she cared and did a lot for those worse off. She probably voted against the austerity cuts that he was in favour of and disagreed on a lot of the Tory policies.

But saying that I did hear on the radio on the night that she confided in MP's on all sides about certain issues and was willing to learn more and was enthusiastic about her work. This was from a Tory MP.

 

You do realise that the Conservatives are also trying to help those worse off but from a different perspective?  You might not agree with that perspective or approach, but to not see that at all is rather ignorant.

[Thracian]

Cameron made me squirm saying he liked the way she cared and did a lot for those worse off. She probably voted against the austerity cuts that he was in favour of and disagreed on a lot of the Tory policies.

But saying that I did hear on the radio on the night that she confided in MP's on all sides about certain issues and was willing to learn more and was enthusiastic about her work. This was from a Tory MP.

 

 

 

I didn't think you believed a word any Tory said!    

[Rincewind]

I didn't think you believed a word any Tory said!    

That goes for a lot of MP's on both sides. I think you have said yourself you have little faith in them.

 

As for Cameron I think although he may think he is helping people he is not.He does not listen to advice and seems to play by the old rule in telling a person with depression to pull themselves together then taking away all other help.

He  has never and unlikely to be in a position that many people have.

There are many good MP's out there I am sure, but they are overshadowed by the self-serving ones. The Tory MP I heard was only in a small snippet and do not know his name but basically he was talking about when Jo was starting out as an MP and as they had interests in the same area they had discussions with others. Whether they agreed or not is a different matter.

[leicsmac]

I have no doubt the human race is capable of making itself extinct. And referred to their capacity for self destruction less than  an hour ago. Will they change? Not a chance?

 

Take your blinkers off and consider this forum. How many debates actually change anyone rather than steeling them to promote the merits of their own view. Change is a collectors item.

 

Then take relationships. How many people find prolonged harmony? The stats don't make convincing reading and that's just one-to-one. Then I've referred to the conflicts in the world. Read through history books and you see that people never stop fighting - physically, verbally, strategically, any which way they can.

 

Countries are made up of people and there's the flaw because people are greedy, ambitious, selfish, jealous, possessive, acquisative, competitive,  self-justifying, cunning, strategic and so many other things that make harmony unlikely if not impossible. People are programmed to achieve through crisis not calm.

 

People aren't special when there's peace. They get bored and lose their sense of purpose. They shine when there's a challenge, when they're threatened, when a colleague goes down.

 

Perhaps a good illustration is war wounds.

 

People at peace don't learn to mend shattered limbs. They might mend a hole in their socks.

 

But put them in a theatre of war where colleagues' limbs are blasted to smithereens by an improvised explosive device and they don't just invent the most wonderful devices to make a man walk, jump, carry, or compete again they celebrate their brilliant achievements by promoting paraplegic games which show them in the brightest light of their lives.

 

Man responds to crisis and challenge. The very notion of anything else would arguably be worse than extinction. Apart from procreation aspects, It would sedate the reason for being.        

 

You'll get no disagreement from me that conflict has been a key part of human history, and indeed in a lot of circumstances it has been a key driver of human development. It's been the same with every complex species ever brought onto the planet. Evolutionary instinct. And quite often it can be a good thing.

 

But the hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history are pretty clear on the matter - those species that play by the rules of Darwin die by them, in the end. They rise, and then something comes along - either an upsurge in internal conflict, external competition or a natural disaster on a huge scale - that threatens them all and because they cannot unite, they cannot deal with it. The strongest of them are then just the last to die.

 

The difference is now though that we humans are the first, the very first, complex species to know that this chain of events exists, and moreover have the societal and technological reach to be able to negate it. To become the first complex species to avoid becoming just another fossil record and establish a legacy that lasts not centuries, nor millenia, but millions of years into the future.

 

But...that will only happen if, when the time comes, we stop playing by Darwin's rules. If not...well, here's hoping the next species will be smarter as we won't have earned the right to progress in that way.

 

But that's just my take. Perhaps you're right and the drivers of conflict will allow us to succeed and keep succeeding, even where other complex species have fallen.

Either way I think humanity has so much potential to be so much more than we are now.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On Parliment TV now - channel 131 on freeview

[Wymsey]

+ Sky News.

[Thracian]

You'll get no disagreement from me that conflict has been a key part of human history, and indeed in a lot of circumstances it has been a key driver of human development. It's been the same with every complex species ever brought onto the planet. Evolutionary instinct. And quite often it can be a good thing.

 

But the hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history are pretty clear on the matter - those species that play by the rules of Darwin die by them, in the end. They rise, and then something comes along - either an upsurge in internal conflict, external competition or a natural disaster on a huge scale - that threatens them all and because they cannot unite, they cannot deal with it. The strongest of them are then just the last to die.

 

The difference is now though that we humans are the first, the very first, complex species to know that this chain of events exists, and moreover have the societal and technological reach to be able to negate it. To become the first complex species to avoid becoming just another fossil record and establish a legacy that lasts not centuries, nor millenia, but millions of years into the future.

 

But...that will only happen if, when the time comes, we stop playing by Darwin's rules. If not...well, here's hoping the next species will be smarter as we won't have earned the right to progress in that way.

 

But that's just my take. Perhaps you're right and the drivers of conflict will allow us to succeed and keep succeeding, even where other complex species have fallen.

Either way I think humanity has so much potential to be so much more than we are now.

 

It's no comfort to me thinking as I do. There is nothing more satisfying than to see people get the best from themselves - individually or collectively - but I've seen little evidence of sustained evolving harmony even if it could be argued as the best way forward in terms of man's fulfillment. 

[leicsmac]

It's no comfort to me thinking as I do. There is nothing more satisfying than to see people get the best from themselves - individually or collectively - but I've seen little evidence of sustained evolving harmony even if it could be argued as the best way forward in terms of man's fulfillment. 

 

I can certainly understand the cynicism when you look at the world - been there more than once myself. But I'm not ready to give up on humanity and what it has the potential for just yet.