A comment from Lawrence Grodecki on my last post:

‘I’m not American. When my prime minister and his cabinet take office, they take an oath to protect the queen, her family and their assets. I live in Canada, but I don’t know what this oath means.

Over here there are limits to publicly expressed opinions. When they are exceeded is when the opinions become what is referred to as “hate literature”.

Over here domestic police are separate from the armed forces – you brought up that whole issue, not me. You’ve gone from a domestic act of violence committed by one or two men, and then you’ve spread that out into an “international problem”, if I may summarize your non-domestic comment in those two words. I suppose the next part will be your view on what the correct religion is, the one the foreigners refuse to accept?

I’ve tried to say goodbye in my last post, but it seems you prefer to keep this discussion going…it’s your blog!

As for your national situation, every story has two sides, or more, right?’

The above video was sent as a link to myself in a previous comment by Mr Grodecki.

Why thank you Mr Grodecki and thank you for posting the link to Glenda Jackson’s tirade on Margaret Thatcher. I do believe that if you re-educated yourself on Baroness Thatcher’s Manifesto from 1979 that you may have a different view. Just for the benefit of other readers I will highlight the five main objectives that Thatcher and her party were working towards.

(i) To restore the health of our economic and social life, by controlling inflation and striking a fair balance between the rights and duties of the trade union movement.

(2) To restore incentives so that hard work pays, success is rewarded and genuine new jobs are created in an expanding economy.

(3) To uphold Parliament and the rule of law.

(4) To support family life, by helping people to become home-owners, raising the standards of their children’s education, and concentrating welfare services on the effective support of the old, the sick, the disabled and those who are in real need.

(5) To strengthen Britain’s defences and work with our allies to protect our interests in an increasingly threatening world.

Taken from: Conservative General Election Manifesto 1979

Now by posting your link I am thinking two things – you either completely agree with Baroness Thatcher’s manifesto or you are in utter disgust as many were at the amount of time and money spent on this ladies Funeral. The first I find hard to believe going on your previous comments.

You state that when your prime minister took office he took an oath – now if I am mistaken please do correct me. Canada is part of the common wealth which ties in with the British government which is there as you rightly said to protect the queen, her family and assets (in essence as we say it here in the UK – to protect Queen and country). If you are unsure as to what that oath means then by all means further educate yourself as I am sure with a little research you would find out what exactly it is you would like to know. A small point here however before you carry on reading – your current Prime Minister Mr Stephen Harper is member of the same government as Thatcher no?

I cannot say that there are limits for public expression everywhere as I do not believe this to be true however in most developed countries there are boundaries as there are in the UK and as you have stated in Canada. You then went further to state that when such boundaries are crossed it is known as ‘hate literature’ I can only imagine that you meant to include ‘hate crimes’ etc?

Your next point has me wondering if you have ever been to the UK? It is clear even from a google search that the British Armed Forces and the Metropolitan Police are two separate entities that collaborate together on extreme occasions. We also have various other services in the UK but as you do not already know about the separation of the previous two I will not confuse you any further than I already seem to have done.

Now the point in which you say I have gone from a ‘domestic’ act of violence and spread it to an ‘international problem’ please do elaborate where exactly I did this and if necessary I will explain my meanings. But before you do that please re-read everything you have written on my post and highlight the exact place where I seem to have deviated from my disgust at this heinous crime and started to spread malicious word to an international level.

My belief with regards to religion is that these two people are individuals – regardless of what religion, colour or creed they are they acted on their own judgement and decided to take another mans life. Therefore their religion is in no way responsible as is nobody else’s. If you believe that there is a correct religion I think it is time yet again for some re-education on your part. Individuals are free to practice many religions in the UK and that has been embraced and fought over somewhat however my personal opinion as you can see from the prior statement is that whatever religion the individual chooses is completely up to them however it is the individual that should be held accountable for their acts of omissions in daily life.

As you ‘tried’ ever so hard to say goodbye in the last post I am sure you have something to say and I welcome it with open arms but please before you do so again on my blog actual think logically and factually before you type.



One thought on “Re-iteration

  1. I hope he doesn’t reply Fay, he’s probably just a blog troll out to cause trouble. You haven’t said anything wrong, the solider that died was someone’s baby and someone’s dad, it’s heartbreaking. There is no justification for their actions.


Please do share . . .

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s