A compassionate campaigner for good.
As predicted, Gordon Brown appeared alongside Linda Bowman today in their entirely deceitful attempt to suggest that Mark Dixie wouldn't have been caught under the Tories' plans for changes to the way the DNA database is maintained. It was Alan Johnson though that really stole the show:
Quite so. Mrs Bowman's compassion is extraordinary, as shown by how she found it within herself to forgive the killer of her daughter:
It's that kind of magnanimous, sensible, compassionate, non-vindictive approach to criminal justice which this country is crying out for. As is her manifesto for crime prevention, which doesn't involve such over-the-top measures as zero tolerance to farting in public, an end to lawyers and the death penalty for turning street lights out. Clearly, Mrs Bowman is the perfect partner for a Labour party determined to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime: namely, allowing people to do anything anywhere without a police officer being present.
Update: This post has prompted a lot of entirely warranted criticism after if it was cross-posted over on Lib Con, without any input from myself incidentally. What was meant as a follow-up to the original on Wednesday, written quickly and deliberately not entirely seriously looks fairly terrible when taken out of context. To be entirely clear: it was not my intention to criticise Linda Bowman for not forgiving Mark Dixie, even if that is what the post looks as if it was doing; the entire sentence building up to the quote is simply not good enough, and shouldn't have been posted here, let alone on Lib Con. I should have written something along the lines of "Really? Her apparent compassion is not exactly shown in statements she has previously made", or words to the effect.
I was instead attempting to make the point that someone who would like to watch a killer, even of their own daughter, killed in such a manner as to make them "squeal like a pig" is probably not best described as compassionate. Nor is there any other evidence that I've seen that Linda Bowman has taken a compassionate attitude towards criminal justice in any shape or form, but I'm willing to be corrected on that front. If however Alan Johnson had described her as "passionate", rather than "compassionate", then that would have been perfectly fine. The "for good" though is still in doubt, as argued by myself in the comments on Lib Con. This is the peril of not putting enough thought into, or failing to write clearly and lucidly enough, even on short, not completely serious posts.
"Linda Bowman is a remarkable and brave woman who has suffered the most unspeakable tragedy yet still manages to be a compassionate campaigner for good.
Quite so. Mrs Bowman's compassion is extraordinary, as shown by how she found it within herself to forgive the killer of her daughter:
I’d love to watch Sally Anne’s killer get the death penalty. I want to see him suffer until he is squealing like a pig.
It's that kind of magnanimous, sensible, compassionate, non-vindictive approach to criminal justice which this country is crying out for. As is her manifesto for crime prevention, which doesn't involve such over-the-top measures as zero tolerance to farting in public, an end to lawyers and the death penalty for turning street lights out. Clearly, Mrs Bowman is the perfect partner for a Labour party determined to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime: namely, allowing people to do anything anywhere without a police officer being present.
Update: This post has prompted a lot of entirely warranted criticism after if it was cross-posted over on Lib Con, without any input from myself incidentally. What was meant as a follow-up to the original on Wednesday, written quickly and deliberately not entirely seriously looks fairly terrible when taken out of context. To be entirely clear: it was not my intention to criticise Linda Bowman for not forgiving Mark Dixie, even if that is what the post looks as if it was doing; the entire sentence building up to the quote is simply not good enough, and shouldn't have been posted here, let alone on Lib Con. I should have written something along the lines of "Really? Her apparent compassion is not exactly shown in statements she has previously made", or words to the effect.
I was instead attempting to make the point that someone who would like to watch a killer, even of their own daughter, killed in such a manner as to make them "squeal like a pig" is probably not best described as compassionate. Nor is there any other evidence that I've seen that Linda Bowman has taken a compassionate attitude towards criminal justice in any shape or form, but I'm willing to be corrected on that front. If however Alan Johnson had described her as "passionate", rather than "compassionate", then that would have been perfectly fine. The "for good" though is still in doubt, as argued by myself in the comments on Lib Con. This is the peril of not putting enough thought into, or failing to write clearly and lucidly enough, even on short, not completely serious posts.
Labels: 2010 election campaign, Alan Johnson, civil liberties, Conservatives, crime, crime policies, DNA database, Gordon Brown, Linda Bowman, mockery, New Labour, politics
| Permalink
Kudos for the update/disclaimer. FWIW I agree with your main points, if worded a bit clumsily as you acknowledge.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:52:00 pm
I knew what you meant.
Having just read Evan Davis's analysis of the lies Alan Johnson is alledged to have told parliament over the Nutt affair shows how much respect this odious man has for the truth.
Power corrupts.
Posted by
mary |
Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:44:00 pm
..forgot to leave a source, sorry.
http://drevanharrismp.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/nutt-sacking-johnson-responds-and-is-still-wrong/
Posted by
mary |
Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:45:00 pm
Post a Comment