Green Custard

Okay, I have a right to be protected from anyone who thinks they could throw any kind of missile at me, whether it be from a distance or close up; whether the missile be hard soft gelatinous or liquid. At the very least I would be shocked to be assaulted in this way. And oh yes….. in case it hasn’t hit home, such behaviour would be an assault.

If there was a police presence, who in all likelihood would have witnessed such an assault, I would expect at the very least, for the offender to be apprehended. If I wasn’t in that fortunate position, to have the benefit of a police presence, I would like to think that as a victim of an assault, my safety and my well-being would be cared about sufficiently for proper enquiries to ensue.

I am not interested in the personalities involved in what occurred this week, I am very concerned about the response from all quarters to the assault that took place.

In the media, a guy was brought on to talk about the ‘grand gestures’ in history, ‘A Dummies Guide’. How tame by comparison were the actions of the present day. The inference was that modern day gestures have room to be ratcheted up several notches in order to compete with our forebears. This can lead to places I would not like to see us go. How cavalier, how irresponsible. What sort of examples are being set and what sort of mentalities lie behind those facile choices of programming.

I am not interested in the performance league tables of history. I am interested in every effort being seen to be made, to maintain my freedom to move around unmolested and safely.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Green Custard

  1. When you’ve got senior politicians playing the incident down it’s no wonder people get away with these things!

    Quote:
    Lord Mandelson said security was a police matter but he did not want to “go back” to the 24-hour protection he had when Northern Ireland Secretary.
    No wonder he said that people should not “over-react” to the incident.

  2. I don’t know if I would make the same interpretation as you, Isadora. To take your view one stage further, it would mean that we all should take the same route and allow ourselves to be fair game for anyone who chooses to manipulate the system or the law. I totally refute that should be so.

    My post was not just about Mandelson and his personal views, probably made in part, to neutralise the single issue group protester, (unsuccessfully) there are wider, much wider issues that have to be considered. So far the law has been neutralised by perverse judgements, meaning that the law enforcers and the CPS will be cautious at what points they will take action for anyone; how seriously hurt can one be, for example, before the law can competently step in. I find this point alone, a diabolical prospect. I don’t advocate heavy-handed, totally unrestrained law-enforcing, conversely I don’t advocate ignoring the protection of life and limb, and the freedom to move around relatively unhindered. There has to be a safe balance for all of us.

  3. I wasn’t condoning the quote, actually I am in agreement with you as I think it is diabolical that no action has been taken so far for the very reasons you mention.

  4. I am pleased to hear today, that the woman who committed the assault has now been arrested. What were the law enforcers waiting for?

    John Prescott had an incisive approach to this matter, as well he might. What caught my attention was, he said, when he felt the trickling down his neck, after a missile had been thrown at him, (an egg in his case) he thought he was bleeding. I could easily understand that and in hindsight, understand more so, his reaction.

    What we have seen in recent times is not acceptable and it must be seen to be unacceptable. The idea that we aren’t as rough or dangerous as our forebears is also unacceptable.

  5. Thanks, I just did.
    It’s not often i’m in agreement with Jacqui Smith but regardless of the personalities involved for once she is right.

    Quote
    Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told Sky News’ Sunday Live programme: “I don’t think in a democracy where people are able to speak up that anybody should chuck custard at anybody in the street. It’s not appropriate.”

  6. we are both totally agreed on that one.

    As I said in my para No.3 neither am I interested in the personalities involved in this, other principles at at issue here.

  7. Perhaps.

    The personalities are not the issue here for me, it is the way the offence was handled. I have a right, as everyone else does, to be able to peaceably move around and have my well-being protected. No-one should have to accept that anyone can throw missiles of any sort at them and have the behaviour ignored. It is just not acceptable, whoever is involved.

  8. You are comparing yourself as a private citizen with someone who has generated a tidal wave of loathing by his misdemeanors, actions and policies.

    He has not only chosen such a high profile position but deliberately espoused policies and issued personal statements guaranteed to evoke huge resentment. The custard throwing was not some Friday night brawl but an act of immense frustration and impotence in the face of a legal steamroller.

    I’m afraid the whole issue for me IS who is involved and thus have no sympathy for Mandelson at all.

  9. You and I are viewing this incident from different perspectives which both have their validity, but I am not taking a political viewpoint here. I am not mixing up the political issues, nor personal feelings about personalities in this argument. There are far wider ramifications here. My perspective as a private citizen, who does not wish to be affected by inaction because someone in the limelight has a precedent set with a lack of law enforcement is pertinent. It is not a healthy outcome for any of us and cannot be allowed to go unchecked.

    To say who is entitled to be assaulted and who is not, is in itself is wrong. This is where the alternative line of thought seems to go.

    Wherefore the respect agenda for any of us when we cannot discern what is unacceptable?

  10. I can’t help but agree with your logic as an abstract concept (or indeed a practical reality on the personal scale) however in the greater scheme of things no one has an absolute right to personal safety regardless of all the circumstances.

    Take two (admittedly extreme) examples – the kidnapping of Eichmann by the Israelis or shhoting of Mugabe would (probably) be viewed by the wider world as positive proactive actions yet if this happened to a private individual then this would be seem as mere criminality.

    I was struggling to find some less crass illustrations but only personal cases spring to mind and those (for obvious reasons) I canot reveal. Perhaps my judgement is skewed.

    The general point I am trying to make is that in certain situations, individuals by their own actions give up the right to unqualified personal safety and, whether it’s Mandy or not I think this situation falls squarely into the basket.

  11. I have no wish to get netted into the web of political intrigues and issues.

    Here, there are no abstract concepts, these are firm legal ones that are being deconstructed by perverse judgements, leading to laissez-faire policing. I am strictly dealing with the criminality of events, the legal points linked to everyone’s personal safety and the visible dilution of the law.

    While I agree there are residual risks in all things in life, which cannot always be provided for, I would conject that is not the same as ‘no-one has the right to absolute personal safety’.

Thanks for visiting me. Please share your thoughts and ideas. Comment here.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s