Death in a politicians family

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, Mar 1, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am aware that this post may well offend many; the sort who knew Diana so well they just have to join in with depositing flowers and teddy bears every time her name is mentioned.

    There has been comment elsewhere here about the possible change in the politics of waging war if the son or daughter of a prominent politician or two were involved in warfare. The threat that child might be killed.

    We now have (more than) ample evidence of how the loss of a child impacts upon one particular politician. It seems that the proposition that death of a loved one conditions one's outlook may well be correct. Maybe, just maybe, the next time the taking heads at Westminster gabble their way through a condolence message, they will have a better understanding of what death is all about.

    That is what I take from the death of that child.
  2. Very well put ORC. It's often been asked on here if any MP has ever served his/her country or has a child who has/is serving their country in the Armed Forces. The general feeling being that if it was yes to either then their decision making on national security and our troop operations would be debated with more understanding.
  3. You could have a point there ORC. If so, and Cameron comes to power, you won't be bleeting when certain budgets (defence is normally the first) get slashed and massive funds go into researching/careing for those suffering from epilepsy and cerebal palsy.

    Your point is invalid because the child was not lost in the service of the country. You jusy look a fool trying to compare the death of a six year old boy to that of any service personel.
  4. That's a bit harsh. I don't think ORC looks a fool at all, his point made perfect sense, he was in no way trying to equate a six year old boy to a service person in the way you might think. His point was the impact that loss plays on a person, in this case an MP who have decision making powers to send troops on ops.
  5. Dingerr,

    Fool I may be but I can spell bleating and personnel!

    Problem with being a smart arrse is that when one is detected as not that smart, one is left as just an arrse

    Defence budgets will remain at whatever level the politicians deem appropriate and have nothing to do with the deterrent effect of a loss of life near to home. For your benefit, 'near' means not in the geographical sense but in terms of a relationship.

    If you think there is anything you can contribute to the point in hand, try doing so without the animosity. Play the ball and not the man. Until you can do that, you are worse than a waste of space.
  6. Upset you a little have I.

    I didn't say you were a fool, but could appear foolish with your comments. There is a difference.

    I'm hardly writing a Service Paper and therefore don't tend to check my spelling. Its really poor form to pick people up on their spelling - unless you are sure that not one of your posts contain any errors. Your spelling appears adequate, but your grammar and punctuation are flawed.

    I'm not trying to be a smartarse, but it appears that you are. Are you normally so offensive when someone does not agree with you POV? Maybe it is the Monkey in you.

    WTF are you on about playing the ball and not the man? I found your original post in poor taste. The man has just lost his 6 year old son, I doubt that he is thinking about being a politician and even less about the Armed Forces at the moment.

    Your comments are akin to getting the boot in when someone is at their lowest (again a Monkey trait). They are unfounded, irrelevant and crass. They have no connection to the Armed Forces (much like you at the moment). And any Member of the Armed Forces should be ashamed to beat a man with the death of his 6 year old son in an effort to highlight the problems within the Forces.

    You're a disgrace (much like your time in uniform I suspect).
  7. Notwithstanding the contretemps between ORC and Dingerr, modern politicians in the main do not have their personal lives impinged on by family serving in the armed forces [in harms way] compared with previous generations, especially WWI. If it were the case then Politicians would be more circumspect in their eagerness to commit troops to conflicts in which, IMHO the emeny combatants hold no threat to the UK. [Gulf War]. Likewise where conflict is deemed necessary, then if politicians families were involved then it would sharpen their minds to providing the best in terms of numbers, arms and materiel.
  8. I think the main point about this issue was put very clearly by (I think) Simon Heffer in the Sunday Mail. It was the reaction of politicians and the media to the loss of DC's son which he questioned. Regrettably he was destined to die at an early age because of his disability. When it happened it was still a big loss to the family. However, was it really necessary to close parliament in sympathy? Lets face it, only days before 4 servicemen were killed in conflicts which have no bearing at all on the security of the UK. They were put in that position by our politicians. Yet no-one deemed it appropriate in parliament to sympathise with their families or close parliament down for a few hours as a sign of respect. Did the Queen send their families a message of sympathy? I suspect not.
  9. IIRC Dont forget the Dutch defence minister has two sons in the forces and one has been KIA.
  10. I happened to be listening to the PMQs that wasn't, and it went like this:

    Agreed, no-one thought to suggest suspending the parliamentary sitting, but the names were mentioned. That the press chose to concentrate more upon the death of Ivan Cameron is hardly the fault of the three politicians. (I may need to go and lie down, as I appear to have defended members of parliament).

    As for HMQ, I am not sure whether she's sent private messages of sympathy to every family of the bereaved, but she certainly did so for the families of those killed when the Hercules went down in Iraq, as was reported at the time.
  11. ORC does have a point - and one virtually identical to the one I made to Mrs Felize during the 48 hour-long snufflefest that ensued following a recent politician's bereavement. The point being that if life is so fcuking precious (which it really isn't if you read the history books), then politicians should think long and hard before hitting the 'war button' - and all it entails.

    Unfortunate as the politician's bereavement was, I noticed that four dead squaddies and a trashed 737 with nine fatalities wasn't splashed all over the front pages (and several spreads inside) and didn't take up (at least) ten minutes of airtime.
  12. Share that with you actually, those Lads' lives any less valid were they? Priorities, pecking order.....
  13. .
    Although loss of a loved-one is an opportunity for (personal) grieving, the lad had nothing to do with Politics / Parliament / National Security et al. Neither was he in the top-100 in line for the Throne.

    Politicians being politicians - it was a rather-too-convenient opportunity for cancellation of PMQT when further embarrassing info on Government's p1ss-poor performance on Bank Bail-outs was to be discussed.
  14. And that is all that (over) a decade of Labour has achieved: bred cynicism to the point that even a genuine case of tact and respect gets questioned as to possible ulterior motives. Sad. I hope these ***ts are proud of what they've done to politics and democracy in general.