He’s not a hero …
… he’s a very naughty boy!
I see the progressive wing of British society is up in arms because our new Prime Minister has dared to utter heretical words. In Parliament, he denounced the idolisation of violent thug and killer, Raoul Moat, and said that we should rather feel sorry for the people that Moat killed and harmed.
I’ve reflected on this at some considerable length and quite honestly, I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Moat shot and killed two people and shot and blinded a policeman. Surrounded by policemen who obviously weren’t going to kill him, he then blew his own brains out because the police would not allow him the “honour” of “suicide by cop”.
Furthermore, he was not in prison for some piffling trifle, he was in prison because he beat his own child up.
I have searched deep in my heart to find some compassion for this man, but I’m afraid I can’t find any. In the current post modern age, I’m sure there is some wit in ironical protestations of support for a child abuser and cop killer, but I suspect that some of the people who have beatified the monster could not even spell irony, or wit.
I’m not sure that there is any argument that could be made to make me feel some sorrow at our loss of Mr Moat. If he had been captured unharmed, he would have been sentenced no doubt to the most savage penalty Ken Clarke could offer, so 12 years with a third off for not killing anybody else whilst in prison. And then he would probably have sallied forth on another round of vengeful killing and the whole charade could easily have started again.
I hold no truck for the state depriving anyone of their life, but I think killing himself was the kindest thing Moat ever did for anyone. He saved us the cost of his trial, he prevented himself from ever beating up his children again and he also cut the risk of him ever killing anyone else substantially.
Mr Cameron may have chosen his words badly (or, indeed, he may not!) but in this matter I find no ground for criticising his words or his intent. Raoul Moat was thug and a monster and he deserves no sympathy for his actions or his motivations. Our thoughts should only turn to his victims.
July
15, 2010 at 20:50
-
Facebook page now removed. Not because DC “had a word”. Removed by the
person who put it up. She “was surprised by the reaction to the page”. I’m
surprised that she was surprised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10653075
- July 15, 2010 at 19:03
-
I don’t agree with the Facebook page BUT I also think the people who
created it & the ‘fans’ have a right to state their opinion. I also think
CMD was wrong to get someone to ‘have a word’ – that’s only drummed up more
enthusiasm for the page . I also feel uncomfortable with the use of the word
‘nutter’ by police to describe him & the latest bit on the news where it’s
claimed that he asked for pyschiatric help before leaving prison leaves a bad
taste in my mouth.
-
July 15, 2010 at 18:34
-
Cameron made a fairly impassioned statement on Moat the Killer, then
spoiled it all by reverting to type with knee jerk authoritarian arm twisting
of Face book.
The dross who signed up for the RIP Moaty site have little to distinguish
themselves from viewers who get over excited about their day time TV diet of
sordid goings on on sink estates.
All bread and circuses, and of course its us idiots paying for the
bread.
- July 15, 2010 at 17:57
-
I think it outrageous that MP’s should get all hot under the collar when
one of their own claimed expenses for the Moat around his castle.
- July 15, 2010 at 13:34
-
I think its possible to feel sorry for him for the way his life has been
but simultaneously believe that he deserved to die. Live by the sword and all
that. I would not glory in it nor think of him as any kind of hero.
He does seem to be very much a result of modern Britain. I’m surprised that
there are not more Moats around.
Why did Cameron have to speak about it at all? He has just added more fuel
to the media bonfire which continues to burn out of control. I think the
public can discuss and persuade as we like but I can’t see how its the PMs
business what peoples opinions are.
- July 15, 2010 at 13:09
-
I haven’t really got much sympathy for him either, but for one thing; we
are being told that he murdered one person and attempted to murder another,
but he was never tried in a court of law, and now never will be. Technically
that makes him innocent in my book.
There’s a slightly dangerous presumption in this case that the State is
telling us the truth. We should be wary of it.
- July 15, 2010 at 12:13
-
Had a thought: what IF sick Moat had been a Muslim ?
- July 15, 2010 at 12:00
-
Some very interesting replies.
Personally, I have some sympathy for Moat, but it is very limited, although
I don’t understand why we can’t feel sorry about the whole awful mess and
everyone involved in it.
As for Face Book, I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole, but then I have a
right not to.
PS. Thadeus wrote this piece. Not intending to detract from Anna’s
excellent musings
- July 15, 2010 at 11:40
-
“He’s not a hero…”
He’s a very naughty boy!
The way Cameron has behaved seems to me to be alright, even if he is wrong
about trying to get Facebook to remove the page in question. It is a
legitimate question to ask and Facebook are rightly refusing. No harm done.
Everyone knows where they stand.
Facebook suggest that the page can help people make up their
mind about the incident, as indeed it clearly has for Dave. Moaty was no folk
hero and the people who are proclaiming him as such are bananas.
The question of censoring unpalatable comments needs asking from
time to time, if only for Facebook HQ or whoever else to be able to say ‘We
support free speech’. Such things do need reaffirming now and then otherwise
authoritarians begin insisting nobody wants them. Facebook may have the
ability to remove such pages but they have no cause to.
- July 15, 2010 at 11:32
-
As always agree with Anna and just hope the sick sods who helped this thug
get dealt with. What a pity this Raoul (where did he get that name?) was not
first taken out with a plumb centre gut shot!
- July 15, 2010 at 11:15
-
In what way is Raoul Moat different from Ned Kelly, Billy the Kid, Bonnie
and Clyde, and any number of other anti-heroes, whose appeal lies in the very
fact that they confronted the forces of law’n’order, and lost?
I can’t say that I share the enthusiam some Facebook users have for him,
but I find it quite easy to understand it. And if Moat’s crime had been, say,
to smoke a cigarette inside a pub, I would completely identify with
him.
50 years on, I can still remember the opening lines of Frankie Laine’s Wanted Man:
Bullet in my shoulder,
Blood running down my vest.
Twenty in the
posse,
And they’re never gonna let me rest
- July 15,
2010 at 11:33
-
A bit too early for me, that one.
Try:
“And it’s so cold and lonely here without you
Out there the law’s
a-comin’
I’m scared and so tired of runnin’…”
-
July 15, 2010 at 11:11
-
Hear, hear!
btw Julia, FB are not really the heroes of the moment, didn’t they just bow
down before the FakeCharidee/Quangocracy and put a pointless “panic button” on
their site? For the children?
- July 15,
2010 at 11:34
-
Yes, that’s very true. They should have told Gamble to do one, as
well.
- July 15, 2010 at 10:57
-
Send a get well message to PC David Rathband or make a donation via
Northumbria Police Federation using the contact details below :
F.A.O PC
David Rathband
11-14 Apex Business
Village
Annitsford
Cramlington
Northumberland
NE23
7BF
Telephone: 01661 863490 Fax: 0191 250 2961
Email:
mailto:info@norpolfed.com
Website: http://www.norpolfed.org.uk/
- July 15, 2010 at 11:09
-
Excellent Brian
I was looking for such details yesterday.
-
July 15, 2010 at 09:45
-
Free speech arguments are becoming a little tiresome of late.
Yes, mongtards should be free to put flowers at the grave of anybody they
like.
However, A: if it seems to be inciting violence and murder, especially
against police, then it is wrong. And basically when a guy is only known for
the fact that he said he wanted to shoot coppers before he died, some are
getting pretty close. Free speech is not absolute, never has been and nor
should it. Obviously though, if it does not breach common law statutes on the
matter then I have no claim to silence them.
B: a private company is perfectly able to decide if things are in poor
taste or not. I don’t blame facebook for not taking it down.
Fight the Power. Blah blah blah. Yawn.
In this case the ‘government’ was not trying suppress criticism of itself,
it was having a quiet word for the sake of dignity, sympathy and respect.
Perfectly decent thing to do.
Personally I am happy for anyone to put their
name to such bullshit. At least we know who they are.
- July 15,
2010 at 10:59
-
“In this case the
-
July 15, 2010 at 12:20
-
It wasn’t a secret word.
The point was, no governmental pressure was applied. Somebody had a
word with somebody else.
- July 15, 2010 at 09:29
-
Who ever at No. 10 prepared the Prime Minister
- July 15,
2010 at 09:07
-
And if he was?
I’ve never understood the desire of the police to see that even the gunman
doesn’t get hurt. So he’s holding a gun to his head? *shrug* Go ahead. Make
everyone’s day!
-
July 15, 2010 at 08:54
-
I don’t suscribe to the “hero” status afforded Moat but I do have an
uncomfortable feeling about the way the incident was “terminated”.
A week
long embarrasment to the Police, cornered, covered by Police weapons, with a
finger on the trigger of a weapon pointed at his own head.
Someone then
authorises the use of Taser weapons with their well documented effects on the
human body. They must have known the inevitable outcome of this action. If
Moat, cold,wet, depressed and defeated had shot himself then the matter would
be closed. Instead there is ,to me, a feeling that he was helped on his way
with a Taser.
-
July 15, 2010 at 13:40
-
Helped on his way??? I’d have helped him on his way with a ’50 Cal’, end
ex!
-
July 15, 2010 at 08:45
-
Cameron said exactly the right thing in the Commons – but I don’t think it
was necessary to interfere with FB.
Back to the main point – how refreshing to see Cameron saying what the
majority feels, instead of Labour’s constant pandering to the feral readers of
the Mirror.
Good leadership from Cameron.
-
July 15, 2010 at 08:35
-
IF it were not for facefucks propensity in ripping down pages that they,
or, in a few instances ONE OR TWO other people do not “agree” with, i.e they
have received a flood of one complaint about it, I may support Julia’s view,
however, as it is, Facefuck can go fuck ‘emselves.
- July 15, 2010
at 08:16
-
Moat shot and killed two people and shot and blinded a policeman.
Brown was one death – who was the other? Stobbart still appears to be
alive, as does Rathband. Who have I missed?
And I totally agree with the ‘free-speech’ angle on this – the people
lauding him are twats, but they should be free to be twats.
You can’t have ‘sorta’ free speech, where you are free to say what you
like, if, and only if, ‘every right minded person’ agrees with you.
- July 15, 2010 at 08:00
-
Of course Moat is a hero in the eyes of those people. It’s very obvious
why… and in their eyes, the woman and the boyfriend were anything but
innocent, and the cops are always guilty anyway. Take a step back and look at
the ‘core values’ that drive this and you’ll be surprised, they are staunchly
traditional and very conservative (if very twisted, but, it’s there). (see my
blog entry for a longer explanation)
Cameron is making a twat of himself by asking Facebook to ban the tribute
page (besides, there are others), it’s no different to ‘Draw Mohammed Day’ and
Facebook didn’t cave there either.
If anything, Cameron trying to stifle free speech is proving the Moat’s
fans points for them — it plays to the gallery of the righteously outraged
chav-haters, but, not one Moat fan’s mind about Moat was changed by his
intervention, but many are being convinced when they were not before that
getting back at ‘The Man’ is the right thing to do, especially if it so annoys
their betters and the moral majority.
- July 15,
2010 at 07:41
-
It’s not the denouncing of the Facebook account that upsets the
‘progressives’ – it’s the fact that he asked someone at No 10 to ‘have a word’
( obviously with a view to having them take it down).
Quite rightly, FB told him to do one.
Not often a private company stands up for freedom of speech against the
government. FB are to be applauded for this.
- July 15,
2010 at 07:17
-
Quite so Anna, quite so…linking to this posting, thanks!
Comments are closed.
{ 29 comments }