Police hypocrisy

The overwhelming impression at Diana's funeral was mass hysteria. There was no evidence for this here, but what there was, was respect. Like it or not, he was a symbol - of all those fathers, husbands, sons, yes and mothers, wives and daughters who were little known in their lifetime, but ones who did what they felt they had to do without thinking of the consequences.

Anya Surely the way to respond to an opinion you disagree with is to make your own comments, not to suggest that such an opinion should never have been voiced - unless, as I have already suggested, that opinion is obviously intended to stir up hatred and violence.

The comment that the thread should not have been started does not address the issue - it merely seeks to discredit those who have the temerity to hold a controversial opinion.

So how is it free speech if you are telling me how to respond?

Oh, the irony!

Provided guide lines are observed, everyone has the right to post on whatever subject they choose. If others find the subject inappropriate then don't join in, after all no one makes you!

If one thinks something inappropriate one is entitled to say so, both ways. The OP exercised that right by starting the thread. Someone else exercised the same right in wishing the OP hadn't started the thread.

What's the problem? (rhetorical question).

niggly if everyone followed your suggestion, i.e. not joining into a thread because they disagree, we'd just have a series of threads where only those who agreed posted. Can you imagine how bland and boring that would make GN?

And Eloethan it's a big leap from saying 'this thread should never have been started to 'obviously intended to stir up hatred and violence' ...

Just can't help feeling there is a happy medium between niggly's and eloethan's views.

It is sometimes more interesting to muse why an OP was posted rather than actually answer the post.

Anniebach, I'm thinking you posted your OP to start an argument rational debate? Am I right? Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I do it myself in the 'real'world sometimes. Really enjoy a good argument, providing people put their views rationally, without prejudice or giving offence. As far as I can see, that's been the case here. I've found the whole thread food for thought. That's a good thing in my world. Others may differ ...

Anniebach's first sentence "I'm going to cause anger." shows that she was fully aware that her post was provocative. I'm not sure that her timing was ideal, or indeed whether to accuse the Met of hypocrisy when they were honouring a man who had died because he, totally unarmed, had tried to stop a maniac with two knives. It wasn't P.C. Palmer's fault that it happened to be Westminster!

Yes Anya, you are right, the posts would be dull with only one opinion voiced!! annie, has every right to express her point of view, and of course others have the right to disagree, but maybe in a more thoughtful reserved sort of way. I can actually see that both points of view have a validity, which I suppose leaves me 'on the fence!!'

I said my O/P would cause anger but I was thinking of those who dislike any critcism of the police . The thread title and post was of the police, I said nothing against the police officer or his family.

I have not said every police officer or retired police officer turned up for any other reason than to pay their respects, some did .

It is not true that all police officers who die on duty have that number of police officers from all over the country attend their funeral.

I have not changed my opinion, everyone who dies whilst trying to save lives deserve the same respect. I believe the Met used the death and the funeral to play the - all police are wonderful card, considering the number of unarmed members of the public have been killed by officers in the Met they needed this card.

The officer is dead, questions as to why the defence was so weak have all but stopped.
There is no more to say on this.

Believing that something will cause anger is not a reason on a discussion forum not to say it. There is sometimes a good reason not to provoke anger and sometimes there isn't.

Anger is not wrong per se. It's a human emotion that's just as valid as any other. Expressing anger or expressing something that you think might cause anger in others is not wrong. If you think something needs saying, then say it.

I don't agree with the opening post but I defend the poster's right to say what she said. That other people will disagree strongly and even get angry about her viewpoint is not, I repeat, not a reason not to say something one thinks is important.

People need to stop being such wimps, wanting safe spaces where things that 'upset' them are banned.

Which doesn't mean I have any objection to the Gransnet Cafe.