And the leader of your country might do well to keep his opinions to himself.

It isn't his opinion, it is the agreed party line surely…

How does that work then?

The comment below is not, IMHO, a suitable comment to be made by the PM. It is, IMO, a personal comment and nota political comment. Sorry, I missed personal out from "personal opinions.
🙄 🙄

Prime Minister David Cameron has said there should be no sympathy for "callous murderer" Raoul Moat.

No it is not political comment as it isn't a matter of politics. But it is the opinion of the coalition, as spoken by the leader of it (the the House or not, I am not sure???)

yes who wants a leader with a view on things 🙄

We all agree with censorship at some line we only argue over where the line is drawn.

See anrchist handbook, child pronography, snuff movies etc

I don't have a problem with Facebook and this Moat thing; the same way I don't have a problem with all the rubbish in The Sun nor the paranoia in The Mail.

But then I'm a buyer/user of none of the above – its easy, if you aren't happy with a products/companies attitude, walk and go elsewhere.

It's a decision for Facebook

There is a certain strata of society who will always hate school/the police/authority/govt/(insert any other group who annoy you) and are basically uneducated eejits etc etc – nonetheless, very intimidating to have to live alongside (depending upon your own value system)

These unfortunates will always support an outcast like Moat, however sad his story may be, just because of the outlaw stance – not for his deeds. The poor victims are merely collateral damage, or even in some twisted way also victims of the larger "system", not of our hero.

It is also an incorrect statement unless he has been proven in a court of law to be a murderer, or don't you have innocent until proven guilty anymore?

So I am not wrong to criticise him for making a personal comment under the title of Leader of Parliaments Housing Coalition or whatever his title is? On matters this serious he should refrain from the personal comments.

We all agree with censorship at some line we only argue over where the line is drawn.

See anarchist handbook, child pronography, snuff movies etc

This is true. However, all your examples involve an element of harm, rather than mere offence. The line is currently drawn in a tolerably consistent and justifiable way. It doesn't need moving for this fatuous nonsense. 🙂

It is also an incorrect statement unless he has been proven in a court of law to be a murderer, or don't you have innocent until proven guilty anymore?

He admitted to it in letters and on his own Facebook page, it was witnessed by members of the public and the attempted murder of the policeman was witnessed, well by the policeman.

On matters this serious he should refrain from the personal comments.

Why do you continue to say it was a personal comment?

Just found this…
Earlier, Prime Minister David Cameron told the Commons there should be no sympathy for Moat, who he described as a "callous murderer".

Mr Cameron was speaking after flowers had been left at the scene of Moat's death and messages of sympathy to him were left on Facebook.

Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris asked Mr Cameron to contact Facebook requesting the removal of a Moat tribute page which has attracted nearly 35,000 members.
So it was as the leader of the coalition he made the comment as it was within the House.

And he also made the request after being asked by one of his MPs so it wasn't his 'personal comment', it was done as the leader of the coalition on the request of a party member.

Full article here…

"I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man.

That's the article I had read, but thanks anyway.

The MP asked him to address the problem with Facebook, nothing more.

"I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man.

First person singular, not the party, not the coalition, not the government but I.
You also seem to think that he can not use his position as leader to express personal views. 🙄

It still isn't proven yet that he is a murderer, or am I missing something.
Three shootings and only one death, not a crack shot is he?? (sympathy to the families of the dead).

And he also made the request after being asked by one of his MPs so it wasn't his 'personal comment', it was done as the leader of the coalition on the request of a party member.

it was during PMQs

If that's directed at me, he used first person. 😉

Three shootings and only one death, not a crack shot is he??

by his own admission, he wasn't trying to kill the girl, the traffic cop* was just damn lucky..

splitting hairs a bit aren't we mate ? you suggesting he might not have done it ? (for the purposes of this discussion on this forum)

*did I read somewhere this PC had actually previously pulled Moat for some motoring offence, driving an uninsured van IIRC. Said Moat was very aggressive and anti police !

so speculating wildly then, as the cop was parked up on a roundabout which is en route north to Rothbury, along comes our hero, "hang on a minute, I recognise that b*stard… " …..

any takers ?

/<pure speculation>

Politicians are supposed to be shaped by their constituencies aren't they? I would expect that the majority find the support for Moat disturbing, so surely it's right for politicians to reflect this in PMQs.

I also think that the media are well within their rights to report this – it's 35,000 people, not a few nutters.

I'm all for freedom of thought, freedom of speech – but there is a responsibility that comes with this which get lost on the web sometimes. I would hope that the UK government don't take down the page, but if Facebook Corp took it down for commercial or ethical reasons then I would be fine with it.

splitting hairs a bit aren't we mate ? you suggesting he might not have done it ? (for the purposes of this discussion on this forum)

I am working from the innocent until proven guilty aspect of law, rather than the hang the psyco bastid law of the gutter press.

Many people are convinced he was a murderer, pre meditated etc, there are better educated people than me in this area, but what if it is proventhat the victim had a weak heart and died of a heart attack and not the gunshot. Murder or manslaughter? The other two didn't die.

It's the knee jerk hysteria that I don't like, so yes, for the purposes of making peole think for the forum. Take a step back and think about the bigger picture. I am not defending him, just saying he has a right to a fair hearing from the facts, and I don't think anyone here has the full facts. I might be wrong on the last point though!!

it should come as no surprise that the world (not just this country) has its fair share of idiots, it's just that social media have given them a voice which is easily accessible (read: cheap) to the press and TV media and is something which they can exploit; because it gains air time they regard it as a 'win'.
people who are too dim-witted and feeble-minded should turn off their TVs and internets for a couple of weeks, they will learn not to give a f&ck about all this shite.

yep, good points I guess. However I think the victim was a young bloke, karate instructor etc – my money's on the gunshot.

massive sorry mess, all of it.

my opinion and that of mates I've spoken to in the pub (!) is that the whole OTT (?) police reaction to this was to simply avoid another Cumbria scenario, which had only just so recently shocked us all.

Not taking anything away from Dani Jarque, I have a friend who has recently been told that he has to hang up the bike until his heart problem is sorted, one of the most successful current mtbers in Madrid.
Karate eh, self defence?

my opinion and that of mates I've spoken to in the pub (!)is that the whole OTT police this was to simply avoid another Cumbria scenario, which had only just so recently shocked us all.

Possibly, and on that note I'm off for a ride. 😉

Many people are convinced he was a murderer, pre meditated etc, there are better educated people than me in this area, but what if it is proventhat the victim had a weak heart and died of a heart attack and not the gunshot. Murder or manslaughter? The other two didn't die.

It was pre-meditated (he had a gun with him).

If the deceased had a weak heart and it was brought on by being shot at in cold blood then it is still murder.

Jeez

In summary

Moat deserved what he got.
His victims did not.
Anyone who thinks he is a hero is an idiot and should be ignored.
The PM is entitled to his personal opinion.
Yesterday at PMs questions he was putting across the opinion of the house judging by the number of "hereheres"
Facebook should consider taking these sites down as a matter of decency.
They should not be forced to as everyone is entitled to free speach.

Not if he shot a dead person. 🙄

Possibly, and on that note I'm off for a ride.

Reads 'I am talking shite so I am making an excuse to exit stage left'.

Don Simon – even a defence lawyer wouldn't try that sort of rubbish out in court.

Reads 'I am talking shite so I am making an excuse to exit stage left'.

Read it how you want.

You've just confirmed that without any knowledge or facts you can take a perfectly true statement interpret it in your own way and spit out some utter crap.

By your own admission, you're argumentative.

i'm going for a ride because it's only 27ºC (or am I bullshitting about that too?) and cool enough to ride (more bullshit??), also as greyman pointed out, or as I read it, not appropriate after so many deaths.
I suggest you also go for a ride.

Have a nice day and don't argue with yourself too much.

It is also an incorrect statement unless he has been proven in a court of law to be a murderer, or don't you have innocent until proven guilty anymore?

You suggesting he was stitched up? You been taking some recreational drugs today?* That is a fairly tenuous point you are making there. I await the made up conspiracy theory that he was stitched up and they shot him to protect the true killer who was Gazza or perhaps Kevin Keegan.

*I have just read some more of your hypothetical [in this sense it means made up incorrect fictional nonsense] on the innocence of Moaty and possible causes of the deaths and injuries. Interesting intellectually if you feel the need but utter sh1te is pouring out from your keyboard.
Please go for a ride.

By your own admission, you're argumentative.

Doesn't make me wrong though. And you have made many statements I could happily argue with you about as they are nonsense.

😆

Whether the 'censorship' is right or wrong, it should be unnecessary. By that, I mean foolish, Moat-sympathetic comments should be kept to oneself. There's a family missing a son, here; and regardless of your opinion, common decency should be the only reason to keep your mouths shut.

It still isn't proven yet that he is a murderer, or am I missing something.
Three shootings and only one death, not a crack shot is he?? (sympathy to the families of the dead).

He was using a sawn-off shogun; not generally regarded as being highly accurate. It's sawn-off to increase the scatter effect at close range as well as for easy concealment. Firing through the window of a car would also affect the spread pattern especially if fired from several feet away, and he deliberately tried to avoid killing his girlfriend.

Ohh that's alright then, poor little lambkin.

Lets not forget that David Cameron (and all who voted for him), with his reckless destruction of the welfare state/public sector, will be personally responsible for the deaths and misery of many more people than Raoul Moat 😐

Here's a question for those pro censorship of these pages – do you also favour censorship of the Daily Mail/Sun/Express which regularly print vile inflammatory lies, distortions and right wing propaganda?

Ohh gawd this is just getting silly.

Ohh gawd this is just getting silly.

Oh because your tabloid style frothing at the mouth was so sensible wasn't it.

My statement might sound a bit silly but please explain how it is factually inaccurate?

It just makes me very angry that the tabloids are allowed to print page after page of vile bigoted drivel – but that's apparently fine – then a few morons make a facebook group and suddenly we are talking about censorship.

My statement might sound a bit silly but please explain how it is factually inaccurate?

grum- it won't happen, do you think a few facts will get in the way of a good argument?

Just back at my computer…

Do you honestly – really HONESTLY believe that any Government will deliberately take any action to *directly* lead to the death of a single person without just cause?

And what on earth this has to do with a steroid-fuelled madman shooting people in the face I honestly don't know.

Regarding the papers – I am 100% neutral on what papers write as I take anything written by any of them (left, centre or right) with enough salt to not believe much of it anyway. After all, they are all writing to please THEIR customers so write what they think they will want to read.

And I am not sure what I have written that could be construed as 'frothing'.

And

Lets not forget that David Cameron (and all who voted for him), with his reckless destruction of the welfare state/public sector, will be personally responsible for the deaths and misery of many more people than Raoul Moat

sounds like frothing to me….

Do you honestly – really HONESTLY believe that any Government will deliberately take any action to *directly* lead to the death of a single person without just cause?

A lot ofdead Iraqis and Afghani citizens may wish to suggest that they would
David Kelly – allegedly but certainly suspicious
Jean Charled de Menzes- well he twitched didnt he.
Yes no governemnt would ever kill someone without just cause

Now will you concede this or keep digging?

with his reckless destruction of the welfare state/public sector,

Okay, so I wasn't clear in my post that I was responding to the post containing the above statement…

🙄