I must say that I was flattered when I scanned The Times Online, Comment Central, Friday's comment from the papers in...The Daily Fix, and clicked on Dominic Lawson: (The Independent)- If we respect the law, then we must also respect Learco Chindamo's right to be free, only to find my name and blog user name in the first line. "John Hirst, the self-styled "jailhouse lawyer" who successfully took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of prisoners' votes, has little time for Frances Lawrence. In the wake of her attack on the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo, Mr Hirst writes: "If Frances Lawrence still wishes to wallow in self-pity after 12 years, that's her problem."
"There's more where that came from. Hirst describes as "an irrational whine" her broadcast complaint that she was "unutterably depressed that the Human Rights Act has failed to encompass the rights of my family to live a safe and happy life". Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is, he is right that Frances Lawrence's outburst against the Human Rights Act was irrational".
It is not that I have little time for Frances Lawrence. She hasn't asked me for any of my time. I have little time for anyone who is displaying self-pity, including myself. Whenever I catch myself slipping into self-pity mode, I tell myself to snap out of it because it serves no good purpose. Therefore, it makes me cringe when I hear and see it in others.
What jumped out at me from Dominic Lawson's otherwise excellent piece was this quote: "Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is...". It is not that I lack sympathy for Frances Lawrence, losing a husband to the killer Learco Chindamo, that is deserving of anyone's sympathy, including mine. Having said that, it does not follow that I should block my senses and refrain from comment when I hear her coming out with something that gets my goat up. And that was the irrationality of her statements.
It is not nice for someone to be told that they are truly revolting, especially if that is not true. Dominic Lawson is trying to create the impression that I am an unfeeling person and that is not the case. At least, Dominic Lawson then goes on to say that what I say is right. However, I recall my personal officer in Hull Prison Special Unit, the late Trevor Drewery, once saying: "John is right 99.99% of the time, it's the way that he says it which is wrong". There may well be some truth in that.
Dominic Lawson points out that Frances Lawrence had attacked "the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo". Experience has taught me that if you are to attack such a decision, then it has to be done in a rational manner. Similarly, if you are speaking to the media you need to come across as cool, calm and collected to get your message across. Getting emotional defeats the objective. The Tribunal decided the merits of the case dispassionately. By being emotional, it feeds the gutter press, and this is read by politicians who then knee-jerk an emotional response, and speak sound bites without thinking it through properly what they are saying. It has the effect of becoming infectious. I cannot be fairly criticised for not wanting to become embroiled up in all of that.
It wasn't just that Frances Lawrence attacked the tribunal decision, she also attacked Learco Chindamo and the Human Rights Act 1998. She was lashing out all over the place. Like a bear with a sore paw. It's time that injury was treated and given a chance to heal. If Dominic Lawson wants to know what sympathy is, that's a dose of it. You can feel for someone without agreeing with what they are saying. Dominic Lawson is wrong when he states: "if anyone could be said to have a reason for becoming "irrational", Frances Lawrence is that person". I would have used the word cause, because reason and irrational are opposites. Someone who is applying reason is not irrational, and someone who is irrational is not applying reason. The solution here is to apply logic and not illogic to the situation.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
11 comments:
Looks like you got him there at the end! Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke, being pulled up for language by a self taught Jailhouse Lawyer!!
Chris: Cheers. They don't like it up them...
Well, John, I think you are a Sweetie and my husband who also reads this will not mind my saying so. I understand what you say about self-pity, as will anyone who has experienced aspects of life that others have not, which in turn provides insights that can't be gained any other way. About 40 years ago, I lived in Hong Kong (child of Forces' parents) and on one of my school reports it said "Elizabeth is a bossy pupil" (or similar) and something along the lines of "it's not what she says but the way she says it". To a child of 5 or 6, that was a tad confusing, after all, like most things in life, people are wont to tell us that we are "wrong" but not why we are. So the feelings of negativity and having done something displeasing to others but not knowing why, remain to this day.
Most problems that now arise in society do so in part, due to a lack of honesty and transparency by those who govern or who are in positions of trust/responsibility -presumably because being honest is perceived as being weak in some way - wheareas for the average soul, a spade is a spade. For instance, the response by Jacqui (is Jackie too "male" sounding?) Smith to the killing of Rhys Jones and what can be done to stem the flow of violence: ABCs are the answer - 100,000 of them. As a weaker version of an ASBO they are intended to nip crime in the bud before behaviour is allowed to develop. This is more Stalinist than Stalin ever conceived - and truly frightening. But, unlike Stalin who was somewhat obvious about his methods of quietening those with whom he disagreed, we here in the UK are plagued by apathy.
Given that as an alternative, what was written on my report all those years ago was not so bad, after all!
Liz: The trouble is that many people would prefer to hear a sweet lie than the brutal truth.
I think you could have been a lot kinder to Mrs Lawrence, however wrong her comments were. Such tremendous terrible pain takes a horribly long time to heal, if it ever does, as you ought to know, however right you are.
Think you will find John that he totally agrees with you but he is sh1t scared of the flak he would get.
So He takes the cowards approach. He agrees with all YOU SAY but to get the sympathy vote it is you who are heartless not him.
Don't worry John the press do this all the time. Your main audience is well able to see past this.
sceptisle: I am aware of that. However, I am also aware of people forgiving straight away and others taking longer. It's not a question of being hard upon her but being hard upon what she is saying. Can't you see the difference in this?
anonymous: I wondered about that too. I think it was the same with the McCanns and the media being softly softly. Sometimes its kinder to be blunt and honest.
"anonymous: I wondered about that too. I think it was the same with the McCanns and the media being softly softly. Sometimes its kinder to be blunt and honest. "
John. Matthew Paris took the easy way out on PM this evening. He said that Gerry had been very badly advised on the PR front. Yet neglected to memtion that Team McCann has taken Every opportunity that comes along to go public. No mention of the million pound fund that turns every stone as well.
Of course I can see the difference. However, when it's so patently obvious that Mrs Lawrence, regardless of her comments is still suffering, it only makes your uncompromising stance look cold and turns those who might be sympathetic off. You only have to read the response to your Telegraph blog to see that.
anonymous: They are all too scared to face criticisms. The German reporter got slated for asking what a lot of people were thinking. There is divided opinion on this.
Septicisle: I am not a diplomat. Others treat her with kid gloves. Don't forget, in effect, she said that she would commit suicide if Chindamo wasn't deported. I think that takes someone cold to morally blackmail a nation into giving her what she wants. I saw them off on the My Telegraph blog. My sympathy is with her for what Chindamo did to her husband, and for being misled by Jack Straw, et al. However, my sympathy is with Chindamo for what she and the gutter press and knee-jerking politicians are trying to do to him. I have stuck my colours to the mast. Feel free to blog it and I will pop along and respond.
septicisle,
it is interesting reading your comments, in response to John's, and indirectly, mine also with regard to Frances Lawrence and her emotional state.
You may be interested to know why it is that I choose to support John and others who see things differently, and who may appear cold or unfeeling. For those who are fortunate enough to never have experienced intense trauma in their lives, (I suspect this includes you), when someone who has experienced deep trauma speaks out, it tends to be with insight, rather than condemnation. This is perhaps why you see John's comments as being harsh and why others, including myself understand the more pragmatic "pull yer socks up, approach". It does not mean we do not or cannot see that others are in pain - far from it, we are more inclined to be able to truly identify with human suffering. What we recognise is that in order to survive, one must somehow deal with things. It does not mean that we do, or that we do it very well, but that we must find a way to try. What John is really saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is for Mrs Lawrence to not give in to what has happened. A sort of damn you woman, don't let the b******ds grind you down spirit. Which is not the same as saying she is weak.
Secondly, it is probably true that were two such people i.e. John and Mrs Lawrence ever to meet face to face, Mrs Lawrence would probably thank him for being straight enough to cut through everything and to tell her like it is. It is highly unlikely she would be upset with him for any reason.
When those who do not have experience of life-changing events attach their own feelings and thoughts to those who have suffered, it is with the view of feeling sorry for them - which might make you feel better but would do little to genuinely help Mrs Lawrence, for it is not pity that she and others like her need, it is understanding.
It is not that you are wrong with your appraisal, only that there is more to compassion than often meets the eye. Genuine compassion does not hold people up, it enables them to walk of their own accord.
Post a Comment