Quote:
Originally Posted by C_steam
Oh dear, the ad hominem attack we've come to expect.
|
It's as much an ad hominem as the following two comments made by some of those who agree with you.
Quote:
|
I am confused about the personal morality of people who see someone publicly bullied and then don't condemn the bullies.
|
The clear implication being that I am immoral.
Quote:
|
This gang culture mentality makes me nauseous.
|
By agreeing with Bob FM I am apparently nauseating.
I simply said that your behaviour was hypcritical. And none of those comments, as insulting as they may be to the person on the receiving end, was an ad hominem attack.
Quote:
|
1. Why sympathy for an employee who has lost her job through illegal actions? what is there to be sympathetic about?
|
I happen to have a soft spot for that thing called
mercy. I think it comes from having defended people in criminal court, some guilty various criminal acts and some not, but all of them human beings. I feel badly for Annabelle because she appears to have screwed up and has already suffered rather severe consequences. I happen to feel badly for John West despite the fact I've been really harsh on him on this forum because while he is clearly dedicated to the cause he has set in motion (and indeed kept in motion) a series of events that has culminated in the present difficulties that he and the party find themselves in embroiled in. I don't want John West thrown out of the party. I would like him to seriously reflect upon the problems he has caused and to let matters drop.
Quote:
|
2. I don't 'hate' the party leadership. Hate is a which requires personal knowledge of the individuals. I'm sure manyof them are nice people - I just think in this case, and many others, they have not shown good leadership and in general, act to take the course of least resistance.
|
And I don't hate John West, but I think he has shown appalling judgement over the course of several months that has led us into the present situation.
Quote:
|
3. Yes, the party should pursue wrongdoers with the utmost vigour. For the simple reason, if they do not, they will look as if they are complicit in the whole thing. A half decent lawyer could make mincemeat of UKIP based on the two FACTS of a) no disciplinary panel for JW and b) no follow up action for fuller. can't you see that?
|
I read in an article in the newspaper today the following account of one of the Australian Prime Minister's ancestors:
However, his crime is eclipsed by that of the prime minister's paternal fifth great-grandmother Mary Wade, a London street urchin who made a pittance by sweeping streets and begging.
In 1788, aged 12, she and an older girl coaxed an eight-year-old girl into a toilet where they relieved her of "her dress, petticoats, a linen tippet, and a cap and absconded".
Wade was sentenced "to be hanged by the neck til she be dead" after a trial at London's Old Bailey in January 1789 but the sentence was commuted to transportation to the colony of New South Wales.
I can't help but draw the conclusion from your various posts that in 1789 the Anthonys, Aardvarks, and C-Steams of the world would have been demanding that this 12 year old girl be punished with the utmost vigour, that is, hanging. They would have claimed that the authorities obviously had guilty consciences and were somehow complicit unless they dealt with her ruthlessly.
I do happen to believe in justice, but justice without mercy is a pretty horrid thing. And I don't happen to believe that justice only occurs when official procedures are followed. All the parties in the current controversy have already been punished, perhaps not formally, but punished nonetheless, and probably appropriately for the crimes both formal and informal that they have committed.
Annabelle breached her employer's confidence and caused them embarrassment. True she may argue that she was provoked by John West's silly, stupid behaviour into doing something very wrong but she still appears to have broken the law. She has lost her job.
The party brass didn't respond as quickly or as honestly as they should have and could have. They now look incompetent.
John West, engaged in a very silly campaign of innuendo and lies against a rivel to gain personal advantage. When his interview was wrongly posted on Youtube he then republished it on this forum and began complaining publicly. For his sins he as ensured that he will now never sit in Brussels as an MEP. He has also earned the emnity of many party members who are appalled by his conduct and lack of judgement. His future in politics, whether in UKIP or elsewhere is now severely circumscribed to say the least.
Everyone involved in this matter has paid the price for their sins. Unfortunately for too many people on this forum that isn't enough.
Justice without mercy is a horrid thing. Ponder that concept for a while before you reply.