Paul Reekie; "I don't think Paul killed himself because he had his benefits cut," Williamson says. "It may have been something that tipped him over the edge, but it was more complex than that." Reekie suffered from poor health, having undergone heart surgery in recent years. He was recovering from an attack outside a pub which friends speculate had left him feeling vulnerable. He is also said to have felt terribly lonely at times despite a wide social circle. He was sick, he was sad, he was skint. His own favourite poet was John Berryman who killed himself in 1972. It sounds like a combination of factors. You know what i think is sad in all this, regardless of the political party you support or whether you are right wing, left wing or somewhere in the middle, i think it is sad and disgusting when people use human tragedies to gain political brownie points. I've only just started on the list of names and i'm ripping the claims to shreds already.
Deal with each and every one and I will listen to you. Who are you anyway? Seems I'm not allowed to view your profile.
I've just dealt with two of them and told you, let's go for the next one shall we... Leanne Chambers; You quoted something from 2010, this is what her boyfriend said in 2015... And although a coroner recorded an open verdict at an inquest into Leanne’s death, to this day Steven does not believe she intended to harm herself and that it was a tragic accident that took her life. I don't need to go on, I know where you copied that list from and you was too lazy to do any research. Goodbye
Another landmark day in Trumps America. Pence goes to an NFL game with taxpayer funded security, then walks out when players knelt during the anthem. He then repeats the false rhetoric about it disrespecting the military, when he knows full well it’s not. Trump then tweets that he told him to walk out (something they knew would happen) and so we have a psycho baby telling his utterly subservient follower how to inflame the situation at huge cost to the taxpayer. Which would be bad enough, but he then gives an interview where he calls the Vegas gunman ‘smart’. Yeah. Seriously, the sooner he’s committed the better...
Who the **** are you brb? I find your intervention a little strange and somewhat unsettling. Why are you reading my ****?
Maybe he feels he has covered whatever point you thought you were making? FWIW, I agree 100% that anyone trying to use people’s deaths to score political points ought to stop talking ...
Maybe he could answer for himself. People dying as a result of political action is a subject worth talking about, I would say.
I thought he did talk about it, saying that your statement reeks of the kind of political cynicism that anyone should be ashamed of. And he showed the fallacy of the specifics you mentioned. After all that, claiming he’s avoiding the discussion isn’t really fair, mate.
He's a site administrator who butted in, then butted out again. He was right when he said that I hadn't researched the cases I listed. It was a copy and paste from Facebook - hands up. His rebuttals are equally unsubstantiated, though. Depends who do you believe, I suppose. It's a long list though.
The list of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan would be far longer, and its actually far easier to argue that had Blair's Labour government not raised the spectre of war on knowingly falsified intelligence, they would all probably still be alive. To do so would of course be reprehensible in your eyes, just as your attributing the list of tragic deaths you posted (with no actual research) directly on the current government is equally reprehensible. Also, just cos hes a site admin doesnt mean that he cant hold or state a view. It also dowsnt mean hes not right.
You really should pay attention, Willy. I hold no candle for Blair. He was complicit in an illegal American war that resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths. OK? I'll tell you what - let's both research the series of deaths listed and see how many (if any at all) we decide are attributable to Tory policies. What do you reckon?
No. You do proper research to back up the claims you want to try and make, and I’ll continue to find such political exploitation of suffering and death inexcusable. What about that.
Stroller, have a read or this, particularly point 3: https://www.samaritans.org/media-ce...e-journalists-suicide-reporting-dos-and-donts Written for journalists but the points are applicable to anyone writing on the topic of suicide.
Still inexcusable. You gonna carry on? Honestly, you suggest nobody is taking note of what you're writing, but you really don't appear to be picking up what anyone else is saying here...
Anyway, moving on. Theresa May might actually do something relatively clever in the House of Commons today, and attempt to call the EUs bluff - or play chicken with them. It’s pretty clear that the Brexit talks are going nowhere fast, with blame on both sides - we won’t provide the detail the EU wants on citizenship, divorce bill and Irish border, and the EU won’t budge on its scheduling and basic demands. May might say something akin to ‘that’s it, this is as far as we go without discussing the future relationship’ and force the EU to decide how valuable a trade agreement beyond WTO rules is to them. For the life of me I can’t understand why we can’t reach agreement on the status of EU citizens already here and Brits already in the EU post Brexit, or at least talk real numbers on our financial obligations, which we agree we have, up to when we leave in March 2019. The Irish border is more complicated and clearly does depend on the nature of the relationship post March 2019. Of course I still feel that the ball will always be in our court as we are the ones seeking to leave, it was our decision, we started all of this, the EU isn’t kicking us out. But this approach has a massive advantage for May, as it shoves the huge divisions in her own cabinet into the background a bit. And plays to the ‘its them nasty foreigners wot’s doing it to us’ gallery. **** knows what happens if the EU responds by saying ‘we are sticking to our guns and won’t budge from the order of discussion the 27 have agreed’ which I think is highly likely.