Just add slake lime, then cook for a long as possible

Friday 2 November 2007

Jean Charles

The circumstance in which he died, for he was denied due process and slaughtered in public in the middle of London, are so enormously dreadful they leave me with no capacity for flippancy or facetiousness.

He should not be dead, but he is. I don’t believe in and rarely hanker for an ‘afterlife’ or ‘something else’, but I felt an overwhelming longing for some part of him to be aware of yesterday’s judgement: that his death was unnecessary, senseless and illegal.

Ian Blair clings to his job in a truly despicable manner. A decent human being, with self-awareness and humanity would know the enormity of his failure in this matter and accept that he is unfitted for the position he currently holds. A truly honourable man would return the Honour bestowed upon him on the occasion of his promotion and retire from public life with as much grace and dignity as possible.

Today’s papers carry photographs taken within the train carriage, the remains of the young man still in an undignified heap on its floor, neat little placards indicating forensic remains on and about the seats. All for nothing, and no accountability for that either.

I can’t listen to the parade of supporters who demand even now that we consider the “what if he had been a terrorist?” scenario. He wasn’t.

4 comments:

Leigh Russell said...

Allow access to guns and someone's going to be shot. Look at America.

Henrietta said...

True. Are you arguing for the elimination of all weaponry?

Here, for me being realistic and accepting that some things are impossible, is the awkward thing: I can't bring myself to be in favour of the state having guns and 'us' not.

Also, I don't buy 'public service' arguments and believe that those who seek public office are by definition officious busybodies determined on no sound basis whatsoever to have some degree of influence over the lives of other people.

I find the presumption quite breathtaking. The man in the polyester suit is a monstrous creation.

Leigh Russell said...

Ban guns. Unrealistic? How about allowing people to shoot each other yet still planning to survive as a species.... Ban guns. Encourage people to take responsibility for their own lives and no one else's.... Yes, OK, I am being unrealistic. But I would argue in principle for the elimination of all weaponry, because what's the only logical consequence of weaponry?

Henrietta said...

Apart from anything else I'm prone to fits of misanthropy and I'm disinclined to believe that planet or anything living hereon would suffer particularly by the decline in biodiversity were homo sapiens sapiens to disappear.

And I'm a country girl who has hunted and fished and has a clear conscience (about that, at least) but is rather puzzled that there can be anything principled about eliminating weaponry. What are you defining as weaponry?

My biggest problem with what happened remains the fact that officers of the Metropolitan Police inflicted on Jean Charles a punishment that effectively is no longer on the statute books, and did so without even a pretence of due process.

And I have a very big problem with 'them' having guns and 'us' not.