Ken Bigley - The Nation Grieves

[andy hughes]

I would not for one moment wish to minimise the dreadful circomstances of this onnocent man's dreadful death, or the suffering of his family, but why is the nation involved? I find the national outpouring of Diana-esque grief and the Liverpool minute silence to be totally out of proportion for a man whom non of us knew personally. Books of condolence, candles, tears, why is everyone treating this incident, dreadful though it is, as though this man is some sort of national martyr? Sympathy and thoughts, fine, but this OTT outpouring seems slightly creepy. Where are we going to draw the line? If every soldier or civilian who dies in Irao is to be treated in a similar fashion, the notion of appropriate dignified response will be diluted beyond repair. Any thoughts?

[Fat Boy]

so a man who gambled financial gain over being safe with his wife & family, who was lucky enough to have had many influential people on the world stage doing everything they could to get him released, and who even had one of his captors help him to escape (who was also murdered for this) tugs at our heart-strings but a man having his head cut off & dumped in the gutter (as happened to Eugene Armstrong) isnt 'emotive' enough...? The definition I have of hypocrisy is "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have". so if complete strangers hold a minutes silence for Mr B but not for his fellow captors (amd more importantly have a go at others that chose not to observe that silence) they ARE being hypocritical.

[cruthinboy]

Fat Boy - I think you should read your last post again "a man ... who was lucky enough ..." - yeah real lucky! What if one of the mourners had said "nah, don't give a monkey's about the other 2 - they were Yanks" would that be okay? They certainly couldn't be accused of hypocrisy. You don't know what motivated people to mourn, so you can't comment on their sincerity.

[Fat Boy]

i didn't say he was lucky to be a hostage. I did say he was lucky enough "to have had many influential people on the world stage doing everything they could to get him released". there is a difference. I'm sure I dont need to explain it to you. and sorry mate but until anyone here who "mourned" Mr B but didn't "mourn" the 2 americans actually bothers to explain why or if anyone even comes to close a rational explanation I'm afraid I am going to question their sincerity (and motivation).

[FP]

Your last two postings are very well put Fatboy. I am still keeping up with this thread, although I have said all I want or need to say.

[cruthinboy]

I know in what context you used "lucky" -i was just shocked to see anyone using "lucky" in any connection whatsoever with Mr Bigley. Why does the public mourning "aerate" you so much anyway? They're not doing you any harm, and I'm sure they all have much better things to do than explain their motivation to you ... and anyway why should they?

[Hgrove]

Speaking for myself, I think it is possible to feel genuine grief for someone we did not know personally, in the knowledge that something horrific happened to them. It is impossible to assess the effect of the media on this because inevitably, you only get to hear about certain things from the media. I shall give an example which has nothing to do with Diana. About 25-30 years ago, a dentist from Salt Lake City underwent a pioneering heart operation. He suffered terribly and, although he had consented to the op., he was recorded as wishing he were dead during the few days he survived after the op. I honestly felt great, profound anguish thinking about what he must be going through (and I have never even had any great sympathy for the US or anything American...). I think I would feel anguish and sorrow for anyone else suffering, should their suffering become known to me.

[linseli]

A couple of friends have already told me that while they feel natural human sympathy for this poor man and his family they know from past high profile deaths like Diana or the Beslan massacre that this won't be enough - these days big, public expressions of grief are 'expected' from their colleagues. I'm not sure if it says more about them or about their workplace but they are feeling peer pressure to grieve! Surely that brings into question the sincerity of a few people? For my part I mourn for everyone (Iraqis and foreigners, soldiers and civilians) caught up in the mess that is Iraq but I object to being told by the media that 'the nation mourns'. I wouldn't dream of mocking people who are genuinely distressed by all this but I don't need lazy journalism to tell me how I feel. For info on the other hundreds of hostages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3662562.stm

[Fat Boy]

Cruthinboy - public mourning per se doesnt aerate me. I firmly believe though that had Mr B been killed on the same day as Eugene Armstrong or Jack Hensley there quite simply would have been no minutes silence. But because the poor sod was paraded around the worlds media & THEN killed we GET TOLD to hold a minutes silence. And if you think people actually had that much of a choice to be silent or not do you honestly think anyone could have got away with talking to their mates at the football matches during the minutes silence? (Read some of the other threads in this section before you answer that)

[cruthinboy]

Well, I think the minute's silence was a nice gesture - it didn't do anyone any harm and it may have given some comfort (or may do in the future) to some of Mr Bigley's family and friends. And even if the football supporters didn't agree with it, it wouldn't have hurt them to keep quiet for a minute anyway. And if anyone of them had deliberately "broke" the silence (and I don't know if that was the case), well what were they trying to say - "all deaths are equal", "we shouldn't have invaded in the first place" - what point were they making?

[Greedyfly]

Callme insensitive but I didn't hold a silence.