ChatterBank3 mins ago
Should There Be A Lasting Memorial For Murdered Lee Rigby, Such As The One That Was Placed For Stephen Lawrence, A Few Miles Away In Eltham?
170 Answers
Answers
Andy, you're a very vociferous and opinionated person. So much so that you often have to issue apologies. Yet if you feel transgressed against, you don your moderator cap and threaten people. Imo, you should either moderate your own behaviour or stop issuing threats to others.(or better still, both)
15:57 Wed 29th Oct 2014
If I am reading the story correctly, the memorial which is to be erected is to commemorate the fallen in two World Wars, and obviously Lee Rigby does not quaify under that listing.
Gunner Rigby's death was a terrible tragedy, but it would not be fitting for him to be included in a memorial for fallen soldiers.
Yes, there should be a memorial for him - I fail to see the relavence of mentioning Stephen Lawrence, perhaps you would like to expand that point AOG?
Gunner Rigby's death was a terrible tragedy, but it would not be fitting for him to be included in a memorial for fallen soldiers.
Yes, there should be a memorial for him - I fail to see the relavence of mentioning Stephen Lawrence, perhaps you would like to expand that point AOG?
//Gunner Rigby's death was a terrible tragedy, but it would not be fitting for him to be included in a memorial for fallen soldiers. //
Why Andy-Hughes??
The reality is we are at war with the terrorists that perpetrate these crimes, Lee Rigby has fully earned his place as a fallen soldier despite the fact that it happened in London's streets. Not to class him as such totally disrespect's him and every other soldier.
Why Andy-Hughes??
The reality is we are at war with the terrorists that perpetrate these crimes, Lee Rigby has fully earned his place as a fallen soldier despite the fact that it happened in London's streets. Not to class him as such totally disrespect's him and every other soldier.
andy-hughes
/// I fail to see the relavence of mentioning Stephen Lawrence, perhaps you would like to expand that point AOG? ///
I would have thought that would be obvious Andy unless you are trying to back me into a 'racist' argument.
But it matters not the colour of the murdered person's skin, if a plaque was allowed to be placed on the site where Stephen was murdered, why shouldn't there be one to show the place where Lee was murdered?
/// I fail to see the relavence of mentioning Stephen Lawrence, perhaps you would like to expand that point AOG? ///
I would have thought that would be obvious Andy unless you are trying to back me into a 'racist' argument.
But it matters not the colour of the murdered person's skin, if a plaque was allowed to be placed on the site where Stephen was murdered, why shouldn't there be one to show the place where Lee was murdered?
Slapshot - "//Gunner Rigby's death was a terrible tragedy, but it would not be fitting for him to be included in a memorial for fallen soldiers. //
Why Andy-Hughes??
The reality is we are at war with the terrorists that perpetrate these crimes, Lee Rigby has fully earned his place as a fallen soldier despite the fact that it happened in London's streets. Not to class him as such totally disrespect's him and every other soldier."
This is going to sound terribly cynical and cold, but it is not intended to - it's a penalty we all pay for communicating in print -
Gunner Rigby's death was not because he fell in battle - which as I understand it is what the memorial is to commemorate, but was a result of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am not for one minuite attempting to minimise the impact of Gunner Rigby's death - my point is that the circumstances of his death appear to make him inelligible for inclusion.
That is not a decision on which I am offering comment - but it is I believe the reason why the decision was made.
Why Andy-Hughes??
The reality is we are at war with the terrorists that perpetrate these crimes, Lee Rigby has fully earned his place as a fallen soldier despite the fact that it happened in London's streets. Not to class him as such totally disrespect's him and every other soldier."
This is going to sound terribly cynical and cold, but it is not intended to - it's a penalty we all pay for communicating in print -
Gunner Rigby's death was not because he fell in battle - which as I understand it is what the memorial is to commemorate, but was a result of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am not for one minuite attempting to minimise the impact of Gunner Rigby's death - my point is that the circumstances of his death appear to make him inelligible for inclusion.
That is not a decision on which I am offering comment - but it is I believe the reason why the decision was made.
You asked exactly the same question in May, and you linked the two unconnected murders in that question. Has your view changed in the last 6 months? Mine haven't.
http://
My answer is still the same.
The Stephen Lawrence memorial is a mistake in retrospect because it attracts vandals and bigots. A memorial to Lee Rigby will do the same. It will keep the Daily Mail in endless outraged copy if it is erected and attacked, but no good of it will result. I would support a memorial at his nearby barracks which could be viewed by the public, but adequately protected 24/7.
http://
My answer is still the same.
The Stephen Lawrence memorial is a mistake in retrospect because it attracts vandals and bigots. A memorial to Lee Rigby will do the same. It will keep the Daily Mail in endless outraged copy if it is erected and attacked, but no good of it will result. I would support a memorial at his nearby barracks which could be viewed by the public, but adequately protected 24/7.
or the one to Peter Pan in Parliament Square ?
Steven Lawrence's was raised by public subscription
and I notice dear old AOGs question was NOT: I wish to subscribe to a memorial to Lee Rigby, where do I put my money ?
I think the parallel is just: Lee Rigby's murder investigation was marked by public reluctance to investigate properly, police slowness to follow up leads and then prosecute and worst - spying needlessly on the mourning family.
Steven Lawrence's was raised by public subscription
and I notice dear old AOGs question was NOT: I wish to subscribe to a memorial to Lee Rigby, where do I put my money ?
I think the parallel is just: Lee Rigby's murder investigation was marked by public reluctance to investigate properly, police slowness to follow up leads and then prosecute and worst - spying needlessly on the mourning family.
AOG - "/// I fail to see the relavence of mentioning Stephen Lawrence, perhaps you would like to expand that point AOG? ///
"I would have thought that would be obvious Andy ..." Obviously it was not obvious to me, which is why I queried it.
"...unless you are trying to back me into a 'racist' argument."
I am not trying to 'back you' into anything! I made no mention of the ethnicity of either victim - you brought that up, for reasons of whcih I am usnure.
"But it matters not the colour of the murdered person's skin, if a plaque was allowed to be placed on the site where Stephen was murdered, why shouldn't there be one to show the place where Lee was murdered?"
This is where things become difficult.
At what point does a council or authority decide that a murder is tragic enough to merit a memorial?
All murders are violent tragic losses of life, but if everyone attracted a memorial, then the streets would be impassible in a very short space of time.
So decisions must be made about who'se death merrits a memorial, and whose does not - not a decision I would like to have to make.
"I would have thought that would be obvious Andy ..." Obviously it was not obvious to me, which is why I queried it.
"...unless you are trying to back me into a 'racist' argument."
I am not trying to 'back you' into anything! I made no mention of the ethnicity of either victim - you brought that up, for reasons of whcih I am usnure.
"But it matters not the colour of the murdered person's skin, if a plaque was allowed to be placed on the site where Stephen was murdered, why shouldn't there be one to show the place where Lee was murdered?"
This is where things become difficult.
At what point does a council or authority decide that a murder is tragic enough to merit a memorial?
All murders are violent tragic losses of life, but if everyone attracted a memorial, then the streets would be impassible in a very short space of time.
So decisions must be made about who'se death merrits a memorial, and whose does not - not a decision I would like to have to make.
I have now read your previous answer, which is...
// Perhaps it would be a good idea to install a memorial plaque, then a careful watch could be taken to see who tried to deface it, these could then be arrested as potential terrorists. //
So you want the memorial to be damaged. You do not want to remember him, you just want a honey trap.
// Perhaps it would be a good idea to install a memorial plaque, then a careful watch could be taken to see who tried to deface it, these could then be arrested as potential terrorists. //
So you want the memorial to be damaged. You do not want to remember him, you just want a honey trap.
andy-hughes, These soldiers didn’t die in battle either, but in a terrorist bombing. There’s a memorial to them – and they’re named.
http://
Yes, there should be a memorial to Lee Rigby.
Peter, I think the Peter Pan statue is in Kensington Gardens.
http://
Yes, there should be a memorial to Lee Rigby.
Peter, I think the Peter Pan statue is in Kensington Gardens.
Gromit - with reference to your quote - "// Perhaps it would be a good idea to install a memorial plaque, then a careful watch could be taken to see who tried to deface it, these could then be arrested as potential terrorists. //"
I would not think for a moment that anyone who defaces a memorial is a potential terrorist.
They are more like drunken numpties on a night out who have blurred what little is left of their intelligence and common sense, and deface things with the same motivation that people vandalise cars in the street - because they are there.
It sounds like a pathetic excuse - that's because it is - but surely terrorists are busy trerrorisng - defacing memorials does not create that effect.
I would not think for a moment that anyone who defaces a memorial is a potential terrorist.
They are more like drunken numpties on a night out who have blurred what little is left of their intelligence and common sense, and deface things with the same motivation that people vandalise cars in the street - because they are there.
It sounds like a pathetic excuse - that's because it is - but surely terrorists are busy trerrorisng - defacing memorials does not create that effect.
naomi - "andy-hughes, These soldiers didn’t die in battle either, but in a terrorist bombing. There’s a memorial to them – and they’re named.
http://
A fiar point - but I return to my last post, wondering about how anyone is going to differentiate the tragedy of one murder over another.
Do soliders who sign on as professionals and die in the action of the duties create any more of a motivation for a memorial than someone who is knifed by a stranger in the street?
My issue is, who draws the line, and where?
"Yes, there should be a memorial to Lee Rigby." - please see above.
http://
A fiar point - but I return to my last post, wondering about how anyone is going to differentiate the tragedy of one murder over another.
Do soliders who sign on as professionals and die in the action of the duties create any more of a motivation for a memorial than someone who is knifed by a stranger in the street?
My issue is, who draws the line, and where?
"Yes, there should be a memorial to Lee Rigby." - please see above.
I too fail to see the connection between the two murders. In one the Police consistently failed to its job properly, or even take the murder seriously, and had to shamed into taking action. In the other they acted promptly, and were assisted by a member of the public, a very brave lady indeed. I also don't recall the family of Rigby being spied on by the Police
But I can't see much of a problem with Lee being commemorated somewhere, perhaps in the manner of the way Police that are killed in the course of their duty. I would be quite happy to contribute to any fund set up to pay for any memorial, providing its what the family want.
But what does his Mum say ? She is on record for being very angry when the murder of her son was hi-jacked by racist and Fascist groups, like "Britain First" I would be interested in her opinion here.
But I can't see much of a problem with Lee being commemorated somewhere, perhaps in the manner of the way Police that are killed in the course of their duty. I would be quite happy to contribute to any fund set up to pay for any memorial, providing its what the family want.
But what does his Mum say ? She is on record for being very angry when the murder of her son was hi-jacked by racist and Fascist groups, like "Britain First" I would be interested in her opinion here.
AOG - "andy-hughes
/// Gunner Rigby's death was not because he fell in battle - which as I understand it is what the memorial is to commemorate, but was a result of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ///
Are not all those who have fallen in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
That is semantics.
If you want to derail your own thread, go ahead, excuse me if I elect not to join you on this occasion.
/// Gunner Rigby's death was not because he fell in battle - which as I understand it is what the memorial is to commemorate, but was a result of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ///
Are not all those who have fallen in the wrong place at the wrong time?"
That is semantics.
If you want to derail your own thread, go ahead, excuse me if I elect not to join you on this occasion.
Andy-hughes
That was not my quote it was AOGs quote, which is why it is in the // quote // format.
I do not see the sense in designing monuments for attack, and then sending the perpetrators to prison as terrorists.
A memorial in a safe place, where it can be protected is the sensible course. Lee Rigby's barracks is nearby, so that is the sensible place for it. I am sure a public subscription would quickly raise the money.
That was not my quote it was AOGs quote, which is why it is in the // quote // format.
I do not see the sense in designing monuments for attack, and then sending the perpetrators to prison as terrorists.
A memorial in a safe place, where it can be protected is the sensible course. Lee Rigby's barracks is nearby, so that is the sensible place for it. I am sure a public subscription would quickly raise the money.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.