Sir David Amess MP. RIP

[thirdcrank]

An interesting one here

'Amess amendment' for last rites at crime scenes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58982505

An interesting development here, which has the air of something likely to be rushed through. Presumably, in the interests of equality, this must be available to people of every faith and treat victims and suspected assailants alike.

At the cost of allowing the defence to argue in court that any forensic evidence from the scene has been potentially contaminated.

It's a non-starter.

But the forensic evidence is only a starter.

If this were to be adopted, it must surely include some police discretion and it's in the nature of this type of scenario that the most junior officers are likely to be the first there and securing the scene is only one priority, second only to preserving life and preventing further crimes. Expecting them to know who can be given immediate access (last rites remember) apart from medics etc is asking too much. In those circumstances, how can they be expected to differentiate between a genuine cleric and an impostor?

One more person adding evidence of their presence to the scene is bad enough but there's the likelihood that once back outside, they'll be pumped by the media for every possible titbit of information. If there's been violence, it's possible that the apparently dying casualty has been involved in some way. What I'll term a religious sympathiser might have the opportunity to remove eg a weapon and even had they not done so, it's that much harder to prove that they did not do so. That's before the possibility that they might join in.

All this and more against the likelihood that Department Y would be round in due course to apply the benefit of hindsight why they acted as they did.

I'm only surmising but I fancy the police first on the scene are to be congratulated for insisting that the priest could not enter.

As an example of how crime investigation overrides religious custom, I think it's correct to say that some faiths specify that the funeral and disposal of the body occurs the same day. The body of a murder victim may remains stored for a very long time.

[Oldjohnw]

...... If someone because of faith disagrees with abortion why should they not vote accordingly? ....

Maybe because they were elected to represent their constituents not to provide them a platform for their personal ideology?

Ian

Some of their constituents might approve. MPs are not delegates. They cannot possibly speak for every single constituent.

[Oldjohnw]

I think I am with Syd here. I am deeply saddened by what I can only assume is a lack of humanity with some. I started this in good faith but some have seen fit to turn it into a rant.

[pwa]

A person can be anti-abortion without being a bad person. All that is required is a belief that there are two human lives involved in a pregnancy, not just one.

No they can't. It is one life involved - the woman's. Her choice, her body, her life.

You take a stance there, which leads you down a particular path. Fine. But your stance is not the only possible stance a well meaning and thoughtful person could take. A kind and thoughtful person could also take a stance based on a belief that a pregnant woman and her unborn child are both human lives, and both worthy of consideration. I'm not suggesting that you should think that way, but that you should try to understand how someone else might think that way without being a bad person.

[pwa]

No one said they should be excluded but they should keep those beliefs out of political decision making.

I have no "faith", but for people who do, it is part of who they are and how they see the world. It is where their "values" are shaped. So indirectly their faith will inevitably be behind their views. How could it be otherwise?

Amess was a Catholic, but I should point out that his variety of Catholic is far from being the only type. I know RCs who are a lot more liberal in their views.

I'm sorry Amess was murdered, and I hope his killer gets locked away for life. But I'm not going to pretend that I would have voted for Amess if he had been standing in our constituency. I probably wouldn't. Too many of his views clash with my own. I don't think it is disrespectful to say that. But I very much regret that an MP has had their accessibility exploited by someone who does not respect democracy, or the right of people to have alternative views to their own. Cox and Amess were very different people, but both were killed while doing a job for us.

[reohn2]

Amess' political leanings are beside the point.
The only fact relevant is that a democratically elected representative of the people of the UK was brutally murdered by a terrorist/madman(take your pick) and the UK is the worse for that act.

[mattheus]

If he truly held the Christian faith he should not have been voting against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.

Not everyone of faith is against the poor, or in support of capital punishment. Or opposes abortion or LBGT equality. It appears you are now arguing, not that he should have views but he had the wrong kind of Christianity. I am sure you will realise that given my other posts, whilst I have faith, I oppose almost everything that Amess stood for except, perhaps, some of his views of women in prison that I have just learned about, and his opposition to fox hunting. My faith has informed my views of prisoner rehabilitation. Should I have not been involved in prison reform because I am a person of faith?

It show that we are all very complex and cannot always be simply pigeonholed.

I don't think there is any branch of Christianity that is not in favour of helping the poor. It's a central tenet of Christ's teachings. I;m not arguing that he had the wrong kind of Christianity but that he had a selective kind.

I don't recall Christ's teachings on how benefit systems should be designed.

[DaveReading]

I have no "faith", but for people who do, it is part of who they are and how they see the world. It is where their "values" are shaped. So indirectly their faith will inevitably be behind their views. How could it be otherwise?

No, not necessarily.

For example Roman Catholics believe that suicide is a sin. So a Catholic couldn't possibly be a Samaritan, could they, since the latter believe that people have the right to find their own solution, even if that includes suicide ?

And yet a fair number of Sams are indeed Roman Catholics - the deal for a volunteer is that when you're answering the phone, or emails, or sitting face-to-face with a caller, you leave your religious beliefs at the door.

It's no different for a politician.

[mattheus]

And yet a fair number of Sams are indeed Roman Catholics - the deal for a volunteer is that when you're answering the phone, or emails, or sitting face-to-face with a caller, you leave your religious beliefs at the door.

It's no different for a politician.

The trouble with that is we all carry biases and beliefs around, even if subconsciously. A Samaritan will always want to behave in a way that is morally good - so any time they have to make a judgement call, those beliefs/values etc will be a factor.

Where there are clear binary choices (e.g. legality of abortion), yes, that is a different and problematic area. But then again, the voters have a range of beliefs and values, so it's not unreasonable for a politician to act on them; a complex situation where I think honest is the best policy.

[mattheus]

For example Roman Catholics believe that suicide is a sin. So a Catholic couldn't possibly be a Samaritan, could they, since the latter believe that people have the right to find their own solution, even if that includes suicide ?

As an aside; is that true, and to what extent? Would a samaritan just hang-up once someone declared they were going to end it all?
Would they not try everything to talk them out of it?

[pete75]

Not everyone of faith is against the poor, or in support of capital punishment. Or opposes abortion or LBGT equality. It appears you are now arguing, not that he should have views but he had the wrong kind of Christianity. I am sure you will realise that given my other posts, whilst I have faith, I oppose almost everything that Amess stood for except, perhaps, some of his views of women in prison that I have just learned about, and his opposition to fox hunting. My faith has informed my views of prisoner rehabilitation. Should I have not been involved in prison reform because I am a person of faith?

It show that we are all very complex and cannot always be simply pigeonholed.

I don't think there is any branch of Christianity that is not in favour of helping the poor. It's a central tenet of Christ's teachings. I;m not arguing that he had the wrong kind of Christianity but that he had a selective kind.

I don't recall Christ's teachings on how benefit systems should be designed.

The benefits system is there to help the poor. The connection with Christ's teachings is obvious.

[mattheus]

I don't think there is any branch of Christianity that is not in favour of helping the poor. It's a central tenet of Christ's teachings. I;m not arguing that he had the wrong kind of Christianity but that he had a selective kind.

I don't recall Christ's teachings on how benefit systems should be designed.

The benefits system is there to help the poor. The connection with Christ's teachings is obvious.

But it's a very loose connection, isn't it?
You are not talking about someone disbanding the benefits system, are you?? I hardly think Jesus would sling people out of his church (or government) every time they suggest reducing some benefits


(Or perhaps you are just using this as a cunning-and-subtle ruse to bash a politician with different views to yourself ... )

[mjr]

Amess' political leanings are beside the point.
The only fact relevant is that a democratically* elected representative of the people of the UK was brutally murdered by a terrorist/madman(take your pick) and the UK is the worse for that act.


*a very flawed type of democracy IMO

I agree and mourn for that reason, but sadly people keep making political points here, from the opening post to the above!

So.... isn't making Southend-on-Sea a city an insult to Amess? His arguments in Parliament for nearly four decades were ineffective and insufficient, but his murder convinced Boris? Amazing but it seems no one in the media dares question it.

[[XAP]Bob]

A person can be anti-abortion without being a bad person. All that is required is a belief that there are two human lives involved in a pregnancy, not just one.

No they can't. It is one life involved - the woman's. Her choice, her body, her life.

That's an absolute statement of faith.
It is easy to demonstrate that there are two lives at stake, simply wait about nine months.


Not that this discussion has any place in this thread.

Murder of an MP is not justifiable - Hopefully the ensuing by election will be a single candidate affair, removing any possible motivation to try and change the parliamentary arithmetic by violent means.

[pete75]

I don't recall Christ's teachings on how benefit systems should be designed.

The benefits system is there to help the poor. The connection with Christ's teachings is obvious.

But it's a very loose connection, isn't it?
You are not talking about someone disbanding the benefits system, are you?? I hardly think Jesus would sling people out of his church (or government) every time they suggest reducing some benefits


(Or perhaps you are just using this as a cunning-and-subtle ruse to bash a politician with different views to yourself ... )

No. What I originally said was that a politician with true Christian beliefs would not have "Almost always voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability."

And no it isn't a loose connection.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10009 ... west/votes