Reply to: Possibly a bigger arse than either blair or brown

[John Galt]

But Powell was not stirring up trouble per se, he was saying that the trouble already existed, and would worsen.

As to peoples misconception of 'that speech', as you pointed out, he was not a racist - it's their own prejudice that is the root cause. 'Rivers of blood' is exactly what he was trying to avoid, not bring to pass.

Perhaps if he had been a happy-clappy tony clone, smiling like a cheshire cat and using short words, his message may have been better recieved. Unfortunately he was rather serious, and was quite an intellectual.

And, to cap it all, he happened to be right - so basically he had no chance in British politics.

Couldn't agree more. People being afraid to say what they think in case they are labelled in some way is a big problem in this country at the moment. Saying something doesn't necessarily make it so and not saying it doesn't mean it wont happen

[mcquiggd]

Because Powell was in effect stirring up trouble. Even if you think there was something in what he said it was unwise to say it. It also gave the impression to the unwashed that he was a racist. He wasn't.

But Powell was not stirring up trouble per se, he was saying that the trouble already existed, and would worsen.

As to peoples misconception of 'that speech', as you pointed out, he was not a racist - it's their own prejudice that is the root cause. 'Rivers of blood' is exactly what he was trying to avoid, not bring to pass.

Perhaps if he had been a happy-clappy tony clone, smiling like a cheshire cat and using short words, his message may have been better recieved. Unfortunately he was rather serious, and was quite an intellectual.

And, to cap it all, he happened to be right - so basically he had no chance in British politics.

[Fungus]

Why was he wrong? He was warning that violence would happen. He wasn't advocating it.

Because Powell was in effect stirring up trouble. Even if you think there was something in what he said it was unwise to say it. It also gave the impression to the unwashed that he was a racist. He wasn't.

If you don't believe that saying "There may be trouble ahead" is unwise, ask Equitable Life pension holders.

[Bitbucket]

I think that this is just another one of thoes people fortunate enough to find themselves in a position of power but has not understood the fundamental idea of public perception.

The papers usually have a field day with these individuals , asking loaded questions and knowing that they will deliver a good story for the next days news.

This guy will always be a target , and even if his local electorate keep voting him back in , you cant blame the press they will do whatever is necessary to make money and at any cost.

[BobTheCrate]

Now, if Labour had been voted OUT of office then yes I would agree with the notion that the electorate exposed labour for the bunch of girls they are.

The point I'm making is that on the one hand the electorate decry Blair for the Iraq war and what led up to it. But come the general election buried their so called 'deep moral objections' in the belief Bliar's bunch were best placed to fill their pockets.

The term 'crocodile tears' comes to mind.

If we then complain that our politicians are grubby, maybe, just maybe, it is because we the electorate are equally grubby.

[wendigo100]

Enoch Powell was wrong to make the rivers of blood speech, but it was not illegal.

Why was he wrong? He was warning that violence would happen. He wasn't advocating it.

[Fungus]

That in itself is no reason to say it's wrong. Unless of course, you change the law again and call it "incitement to harm the PM".

There's a difference between saying that it is wrong for an MP to make a certain statement, and making it illegal to make that statement. Enoch Powell was wrong to make the rivers of blood speech, but it was not illegal.

However, I'm not sure that he couldn't be done under current incitement to violence laws.

[Mailman]

How do you deduce that ? Are you joking or is your basic comprehension that bad ?

Lets see, labour was in power BEFORE the election and in power AFTER the election.

Now, if Labour had been voted OUT of office then yes I would agree with the notion that the electorate exposed labour for the bunch of girls they are.

However, you and I know that isnt the case (although without a doubt labour is a bunch of whinging tits ).

Mailman

[hyperD]

It is stepping over the line as it will be interpreted by some as encouraging them to murder Blair.

That in itself is no reason to say it's wrong. Unless of course, you change the law again and call it "incitement to harm the PM".

[BobTheCrate]

What you mean they were exposed by being voted back in to power?

How do you deduce that ? Are you joking or is your basic comprehension that bad ?

[Mailman]

Those lies & the deception were exposed before the last General Election.

What you mean they were exposed by being voted back in to power?

And the rest of your rant is all bowlacks!

Mailman

[Fungus]

But I reckon it's best to to leave discredited leaders and their regimes until the bitter end, like a festering boil coming to a head, so their abject incompetence and failure becomes obvious to all, like Adolph in his bunker.

Do you think Gordon and Tony will get married in the last hours of the Nu Liar Reich, shoot faithful old Jack Straw and then take cyanide? One can but dream. I certainly look forward to news footage of a civil servant burning the corpses in the garden.

[Fungus]

This is just media "pick n mix" exploitation: look at the whole article...

Well he said in a recorded interview that it would be justifiable to kill Blair though he would not condone it and would report any such plot were he to hear about it. There was no mis-quotation or re-interpretation. It is stepping over the line as it will be interpreted by some as encouraging them to murder Blair. The man is not fit to be an MP when he makes such remarks.

[OwlHoot]

Substitute "morally imperative" for "morally justified" and I totally agree with Galloway.

The fact that it's treason to assassinate one of the Queen's ministers wouldn't put a lot of people off, even if they'd be inevitably caught and at best looking at a thirty year stretch (or until five years ago a neck stretch!)

But I reckon it's best to to leave discredited leaders and their regimes until the bitter end, like a festering boil coming to a head, so their abject incompetence and failure becomes obvious to all, like Adolph in his bunker. Otherwise they or others might think they could have succeeded, given more time or something, and be tempted to follow in their footsteps.

[BobTheCrate]

The majority of the audience were totally against the war, regardless of the magnanimous justification from "Buff" Hoon, simply because we went to war on a lie.

Would it be reasonable to substitute 'audience' with 'electorate' ?

I too think it was/is unforgivable that Blair took this country to war off the back of a bunch of lies. Just another deception for New Liebour.

Those lies & the deception were exposed before the last General Election.

The electorate had the opportunity to declare their disgust and broadcast the message loud & clear that some Gov't practice must never be tolerated. Largely though, the electorate demonstrated they excused the inexcusable and voted for Blair and his cronies.

Surely if we still accuse Blair of smelling obnoxious with regard to Iraq, we must now also accuse ourselves, 'the electorate', of also smelling obnoxious.