Injustice By A Member of the British Governemt

[Tony]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3397761.stm full article


Labour MP Glenda Jackson was also at the vigil and said the charges brought against the Israeli soldier were due to the work of the British Government.


So let me get this straight. This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone, and this fascist MP has the audacity to insist on charges against the solider who shot him? I’m sorry, the fault for this death rest solely on the shoulders of the person who was killed.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony





this fascist MP
Jackson??

Lol...

[Cleopatra]

Hi Tony!

Have you started a thread about your trip to England?

What did you think of the country? Do you feel now some sympathy for the rest of us who have to put up with these guys in EU? Have you survived starvation? Have you solved the mystery why a country with such good-looking men has a monkey for a PM? Did you have enough of women wearing floral dresses and sandals with white socks? Ugly teeth those Brits, right?( especially women--They have confessed to me that what they envy most of the Americans is their smile)Don't you think that England is SOME place indeed and English people might be a pain you know where but they are terribly interesting? Don't you really think that they should have invaded France long ago after being vaccinated of course because being in touch with the most dirty and stupid people in Europe is...[ OH STOP IT NOW!!!! ]:D

Seriously, I would be interested in hearing your account. If you have already started a thread I missed it :) Sorry for the hijack

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3397761.stm full article

So let me get this straight. This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone, and this fascist MP has the audacity to insist on charges against the solider who shot him? I’m sorry, the fault for this death rest solely on the shoulders of the person who was killed.

Ermm... future suicide bombers? sheltering?

He was taking pictures Tony, thats all, just taking pictures.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3397761.stm full article





So let me get this straight. This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone, and this fascist MP has the audacity to insist on charges against the solider who shot him? I’m sorry, the fault for this death rest solely on the shoulders of the person who was killed.

"war zone"?

[Frankie]

For one. He was in a war Zone and this kind of incident unfortunately happens.

Two, Unless it is proved that the solider acted in such a deliberate way cannot see who any thing can come out of it other than a casualty of war.

Three, I assume the 2 children he was escorting were un injured? That alone puzzles me. If he was with 2 children why did the soldier open fire? That indicates a trigger happy individual.

[richardm]

Don't you think that if someone gets shot that it should at least be investigated? After all, it's not as though it's a battlefield. What better way to investigate than to charge him and see if the charges stick?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm
Don't you think that if someone gets shot that it should at least be investigated? After all, it's not as though it's a battlefield. What better way to investigate than to charge him and see if the charges stick?
Like Tony said, it's not the person holding the gun who's to blame; it's the fault of the dead guy for getting in the way of the bullet.
:eek:
From the article what Tony linked to:
The Israeli military has indicated the soldier who shot Mr Hurndall could be charged with manslaughter, but Mr Hurndall's family now want a murder charge to be brought.

The soldier initially said he had returned fire at a man armed with a pistol - but under interrogation admitted firing a shot near an unarmed civilian, according to the Israeli army.

[Reginald]

If he wasn't carrying a gun or bomb and was shot by a soldier, of course the soldier should be investigated.

It's not a crime to take pictures, unless of course you will argue that he was SHOOTING with the camera.

There are people of all races who are happy to fire off a few rounds, not really caring where they hit and expect to walk away with some kind of "there was trouble" excuse. I have no doubt this is true of every army there has ever been (Salvation army excepted..........maybe). The test of our "Civilization" is that we do investigate such incidents.

Edited to add.....

And there are circumstances where these things can be attributed to unfortunate events leading to an "accidental killing".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[hijack] Hi Tony!

Have you started a thread about your trip to England?



Not yet, but I will. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Ermm... future suicide bombers? sheltering?

He was taking pictures Tony, thats all, just taking pictures.

From the article:


He was shepherding two children to safety in Rafah on 11 April when he was shot, his family say.

[Crossbow]

Well since Tony would like to kill police officers whom he believes to be doing something that he determines is wrong, I can see why he would enjoy the fact that someone was killed for taking photographs and taking care of children.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3397761.stm full article
So let me get this straight. This idiot gets shot while sheltering future suicide bombers in a war zone, and this fascist MP has the audacity to insist on charges against the solider who shot him? I’m sorry, the fault for this death rest solely on the shoulders of the person who was killed.
So every child is a "future suicide bomber"? I guess this justifies the "King Herod" strategy. Just kill 'em all.

[Jon_in_london]

From the article:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was shepherding two children to safety in Rafah on 11 April when he was shot, his family say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So when a Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus-load of school kids, its not terrorism because they are 'future IDF soldiers'?

Even by your standards Tony, thats pretty poor.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
From the article:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was shepherding two children to safety in Rafah on 11 April when he was shot, his family say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So when a Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus-load of school kids, its not terrorism because they are 'future IDF soldiers'?

Even by your standards Tony, thats pretty poor.


This is irrelevant, you said he was just taking pictures, I demonstrated how you were wrong. Nice diversion, but unsuccessful.

[wollery]

He was taking pictures whan the Israelis opened fire generally in the vicinity. Being a decent person with a strong sense of moral responsibility he tried to move two children to a safe place. He was wearing a bright orange jacket which indicated that he was a non-combatant observer. The soldier who shot him admitted that he wasn't armed.

So Tony, under those circumstances, tell me how he deserved to get shot.

[Tony]

Originally posted by wollery
He was taking pictures whan the Israelis opened fire generally in the vicinity. Being a decent person with a strong sense of moral responsibility he tried to move two children to a safe place. He was wearing a bright orange jacket which indicated that he was a non-combatant observer. The soldier who shot him admitted that he wasn't armed.

So Tony, under those circumstances, tell me how he deserved to get shot.


Why? I never said he deserved to get shot.

[ceptimus]

Also, it should be noted that the person who killed him was using a gun with a telescopic sight, at a relatively short range, and shot him in the head. I don't see how such a killing could be classed as accidental.

[wollery]

Okay, let me rephrase, how is it his fault?

[Tony]

Originally posted by wollery
Okay, let me rephrase, how is it his fault?

He was an activist who put himself in a war zone. If I decided to go dancing on a freeway and got hit by a car, it would be my fault.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Also, it should be noted that the person who killed him was using a gun with a telescopic sight, at a relatively short range, and shot him in the head. I don't see how such a killing could be classed as accidental.

What qualifications do you have to make that judgment? Do you have sniper experience in a war zone?

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Tony


What qualifications do you have to make that judgment? Do you have sniper experience in a war zone? Do I need qualifications to make that judgement? You don't have to be a master carpenter to know when a table rocks.

To answer your question, I have very limited experience with guns. I have fired a few guns with telescopic sights, but never in a war zone.

I assume the Israeli soldier was adequately trained though?

[Tony]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Do I need qualifications to make that judgement?

Yeah you do, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass. Which appears to be the case.


I assume the Israeli soldier was adequately trained though?

The guy he shot is dead right? It seems to me that if he can hit his target while in a highly stressful situation, he was well trained. Too bad the guy he shot was a pompous moron who was playing somewhere he shouldn't, that bullet could have been used to take-out a real threat.

[ceptimus]

Well reasoned logic as per usual Tony? What a prat you are.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Well reasoned logic as per usual Tony? What a prat you are.

Your concession is accepted.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Since when is Glenda Jackson a member of the Government?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Since when is Glenda Jackson a member of the Government?

I thought an MP was somewhat like a senator or representative. Is that not true?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



This is irrelevant, you said he was just taking pictures, I demonstrated how you were wrong. Nice diversion, but unsuccessful.

Oh, how horrible. Guiding children to safety.

Oh! I forgot! All Arabs are terrorists to you arent they!?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony

The guy he shot is dead right? It seems to me that if he can hit his target while in a highly stressful situation, he was well trained. Too bad the guy he shot was a pompous moron who was playing somewhere he shouldn't, that bullet could have been used to take-out a real threat.

Like the future terrorists* he was escorting?

*aka Arab Children.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Oh, how horrible. Guiding children to safety.

Oh! I forgot! All Arabs are terrorists to you arent they!?
Oh no! He specifically said they were "future suicide bombers". They didn't have their terrorist licenses yet. They were just in the Terrorist Scouts. That photographer is just as deserving of death as if he were trying to guard a hospital full of infant terrorists.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


I thought an MP was somewhat like a senator or representative. Is that not true?

It is, but that is not the same thing as being a member of the Government.

She was a member of the Government when she was junior Minister for Transport but she resigned that position. The Government is The Cabinet and Ministers in the various depertments of The Cabinet, like Defence, Foreign office etc and the apparatus of The Civil Service.

Being an MP does not mean you are part of the Government.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

Being an MP does not mean you are part of the Government.

What is the function of an MP?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tony


What is the function of an MP?

Rougly like that of a congressman: to suggest and vote on legistlation.

In the English system, the executive branch is not as seperate from the legistlative branch as in the USA. Althoguh I don't think there's a formal requirement, the PM (I think?), and most ministers are usually also MPs.

[Jon_in_london]

MPs are also reffered to as 'back benchers'. They can ask questions and vote, if they can be bothered to turn up.

They sit there and say 'hear hear' or "booo! hisss!".

The Lords sit there and stop the Commons from passing bills that would ban fox hunting and sing "heirs on her dicky-dido"

Meanwhile the Civil Service runs the UK(plc).

[Tony]

Ok so if MP's aren't members of the government, what are they elected for if not to govern and pass laws?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok so if MP's aren't members of the government, what are they elected for if not to govern and pass laws?

MPs are elected to represent their constituents.

The government is provided by the largest party in the House of Commons.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
Ok so if MP's aren't members of the government, what are they elected for if not to govern and pass laws?

A parliamentary system is not like the US' three-branch system. In the US, "government" refers to any of the state systems--local, state, or federal.

The parties in parliament vote in what they call the "Government;" the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, ministers, etc. Parliament itself is just "Parliament," it's not considered part of "the government." (And I suppose you could make a technical case that legislators don't really "govern.") Which is why the US concepts of "the gov'mint is bad, mkay" is so foreign to Europe--they hear that and just think, "well, have Parliament vote in a new one, then."

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Tony


What is the function of an MP?

Best to go straight to the horses mouth (http://www.parliament.uk/works/pagovopp.cfm)

And here (http://www.parliament.uk/faq/parlgov_faq.cfm#gov1) as well

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleon
[...]The parties in parliament vote in what they call the "Government;" the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, ministers, etc.
[...]
Just to clarify, each party decides who will be its leader, and who is going to take which cabinet position. The government is then elected by the people; which ever party gets the most votes becomes the government. That's the easy bit. Just don't bring up the House of Lords... ;)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by BillyTK
The government is then elected by the people; which ever party gets the most votes becomes the government.

Except on occasions where there's no majority... in which case coalition governments may be formed. But no point confusing Tony here. He obviously wants to be governed, rather than represented.

[ceptimus]

It's not the party that gets the most votes that necessarily has the majority of MPs. I don't know whether that has ever happened, but it certainly could.