Invalid or Broken rss link.

The moment it was first reported that the killer of the British MP Jo Cox had allegedly shouted ‘Britain first!’ or ‘Put Britain first!’ the die was cast. This tragic incident was immediately politicized and used to make wider points. There was an unseemly rush to judgement by people on social media who seemed to care more about pushing their agenda than in the fate of the victim.  Point scoring about Brexit, Islam, and the extreme right were almost instantaneous. The grubby side of some users of social media, particularly Twitter, were on display in a seminal example of the increasing lack of respect in the digital world.

If it is proven the words were said, and if it is proven that the attacker has links with the extreme right wing, then the situation is political, and the wider points are germane.

If they are not, but the other suggestion, that mental illness played a role is proven, then they are not.

If mental illness is found to have played a role but also that the perpetrator was influenced by extreme right wing propaganda, then we are back to the scenario of this indeed being connected to wider issues of politics.  However, the point will remain – there was a rush to use a murder to support a political view.

The ‘mainstream media’ or ‘MSM’ as armchair warriors call it, was rightly cautious about sprinting down the inflammatory road of calling it a political assassination before the facts were in. Because the ‘MSM’ is damned either way, some on social media believe this to be a conspiracy, or cowardice.

In fact, the broadcasters, and most ‘print’ media handled a sensitive story about the brutal death of a magnificently admirable women with maturity.

They reported the testimony of eye witnesses, but, as experience has long taught that this is not always reliable, and sometimes contradictory, they did not draw hard conclusions. They were quick to spot the potential arguments some people might make, such as linking the attack to the EU debate. However, as no-one with any authority, who knew anything concrete about the event, had said that this was the case, or not, wisely did not pronounce on the veracity of the opinions. However, many on social media, were already pronouncing, and with a disturbing degree of conviction.

More than 24 hours on, with more evidence emerging, it is now looking more reasonable to examine the possibility that this was an act of terrorism linked to far right extremism.

And so to the religious elephant in the room; Some of the numerous ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islamism are perpetrated by mentally ill people. This does not divorce the attack from the ideology but does put it into context. That the mentally ill person was influenced by the views of Islamists requires looking at those views, how they were propagated, and by whom.

So it is in this case. If the murderer is found to be mentally ill, and, for example, a white supremacist, how he came to those views, who he associated with, and how the views are spread needs to be looked at.

The authorities, media, and public all need to be aware of where the extremist ideology and narratives come from, and help expose the degree to which they help create the atmosphere in which the mentally ill, and others, are susceptible to them. That applies across the board.

The husband of Mrs Cox, Brendan, appeared to hint at this shortly after his wife died when he said “Hate doesn’t have a creed, race or religion, it is poisonous.”

He was, and always will be closer to the event than any of us. He may well have by then been told certain information by the police which led to those words. We however, had not, and the cheap, immediate, politicizing of the tragedy on social media was also – poisonous.

Remainers point to the Leave campaign’s dog whistle politics. Leavers now argue that Remainers are politicising the issue to score cheap points. Some people argued that there was a reluctance to call the attack terrorism. All sides have valid arguments but minutes after the confirmation of the death of Jo Cox was not the time to make them.


34 Comments on "Jo Cox: The Rush To Be First"

  1. Lesley Lubert | 17th June 2016 at 5:17 pm | Reply

    I rushed to say I would not post any more tweets yesterday, to show respect. It is not political to murder someone; it is a crime, and at present this matter is sub judice. We need to know the facts, that is the job for the police to handle, not us.

    It will take time, there is no hurry. The important thing is for the people who knew and loved Jo to say how they feel.

    We feel for them. No doubt most of us have lost loved ones and we appreciate the calm and time which is needed to just get through the next few days, and weeks. I cannot imagine what the extra pressure will be for the family when all this is played out in the media.

    We should be kind and thoughtful.

  2. Peter Kennedy | 17th June 2016 at 7:48 pm | Reply

    No politics, no analysis, no points scoring, just R.I.P. Jo

  3. “More than 24 hours on, with more evidence emerging, it is now looking more reasonable to examine the possibility that this was an act of terrorism linked to far right extremism.”

    Well, no, actually, it isn’t. You’re a fine one to whitter about “dog whistle politics”.

  4. Graham Douglas | 17th June 2016 at 8:15 pm | Reply

    You are very careful (and correct) to warn about the need for not rushing to judgement and the need for more evidence before ascribing this attack to political motivation.

    And yet… “mental illness”? Totes believable. No need to check on that – it’s a well-known trope that people who do things that are beyond the pale are probably mentally ill.

    I’m sure you don’t mean it, but this article serves to perpetuate the stigma attached to mental illness. Very few conditions lead the sufferer to perform acts such as this: paranoid delusion, psychopathy (if that can even be classed as a mental illness) and not much more.

    To casually suggest that “Some of the numerous ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islamism are perpetrated by mentally ill people” is irresponsible. The vast, VAST majority of mentally ill people do not carry out murderous attacks and are not influenced by extreme ideologies.

    We should not speculate about the mental health of terrorists—or murderers, etc—without very specific evidence of a RELEVANT illness in the past.

    As I understand it, Mair seems to have been treated for something that sounds a lot like depression or bipolar syndrome. These are not relevant conditions.

    Mental illness is not the default backup explanation for abhorrent or aberrant behaviour.

    I would be much more impressed with this article if you had spent an equal amount of time warning about casually accepting the “mentally ill” diagnosis as you did warning about accepting the “right-wing nut job” diagnosis.

    • Ponderous One | 18th June 2016 at 4:12 pm | Reply

      While this is very true and you do have some valid points, the links do have to be pointed to, regrettably.

      If anything, the later emergence of Mair going into a mental health drop in centre the day before the attack points to a need for a wider discussion about mental illness and how we treat it. His presence there after saying he had walked past it for years without ever picking up the courage to go inside suggests that it was Mair’s final call for help.

      It’s also, sadly, not the first time Care in the Community appears to have failed individuals resulting in innocent people being murdered. Indeed, it appears to be the latest sad episode of this system failing resulting in the deaths of innocents.

      While is it not the default explanation it could be a highly contributing factor, especially as a lot of his family seem surprised at the sudden political spouting he has done after, allegedly, never being interested for years.

      His statements since however, point to it being either hidden, or a recent development.

      I personally think Tim has done a pretty good job here, especially compared to the lurid reporting by The Guardian and Daily Sport. The BBC and Sky were both reasonably responsible and seemed to twig early on nobody was interested in point scoring. The Sun and Mail have both been careful with their reporting also.

      • Good point about Care in the Community but utterly wrong about the press. The only reason that The Sun and The Daily Mail have been careful is because the politics of the story don’t suit their agenda. Tim is right to say that politics are significant but only once the facts started to emerge.

  5. Lars Thorwald | 18th June 2016 at 9:07 am | Reply

    ‘…All sides have valid arguments but minutes after the confirmation of the death of Jo Cox was not the time to make them….’

    So you waited er…just 24 hours, by the looks of things.

  6. I thought better if you, could you not have waited until all the relevant facts are known, simply using the word ‘if’ doesn’t justify jumping on this particular bandwagon of chattering class

  7. mahatmacoatmabag | 18th June 2016 at 12:35 pm | Reply

    “The point of the article was to say there should not be a rush to judgement – i have not rushed to judge.” Whilst you have not rushed to judge the mainstream media which is the tool of the Remain camp has. They have made a Saint out of a Politician, who along with Lawyers & 2nd hand car salesman don’t qualify for Sainthood. Just this morning on TV Londons new mayor Sadiq Khan, a leading remain campaigner, heaped praise on Jo Cox whilst alluding that the Brexit campaign was being led by the extreme right. The Referendum has thus become for the Remain camp not just a struggle to prevent the UK leaving the EU but to continue with the failed economic, social & ethnic favouritism policies that has dragged the UK down for decades.

    • What planet are you living on? The mainstream media a tool of the Remain camp? The Sun and the Daily Mail are the two most popular newspapers in the UK and are both for Brexit. The BBC and Sky have been fairly even handed. The majority of the media are for Brexit, unlike the majority of the experts.

      • David, the Mail on Sunday has come out today for remain, presumably their sister paper will do the same on Monday. Laughable given they have spent the last two decades lambasting the EU but there you go. I wish I could have seen my father in law choking on his cornflakes this morning when he picked it up from his front porch, if it’s circulation collapses as a result then at least one good thing will have come from this referendum . They join the Times, the Independent, the Mirror and the Guardian for remain versus the Sun and the Telegraph for brexit, with the Daily Star, Express and Metro undeclared. I suppose this shows the difference in perception depending on which side of the debate you are on, I have found the BBC has a moderate bias to remain despite the best efforts of Andrew Neil and the daily politics, Channel 4 square on for remain, ITV moderately biased to remain and I haven’t seen enough of Sky to comment, RT is full on for brexit mind you. The implied linkage between the death of Jo Cox and the Brexit campaign has been done very subtly but it has been there nonetheless.

        • Thanks Rob, though not quite so simple. The Daily Mail (the more important paper since it’s daily) will definitely be for Brexit. Different editors/teams and, apparently, not much love lost between editors. The Sunday Times and The Times are also split with, today, The ST coming out for leave. Sun and Times most interesting split but Murdoch apparently gave Times editor free hand in deciding. I would be surprised if the Express doesn’t go for Brexit. Guardian and Mirror would obviously be for remain. Spectator also for Leave. Also, ignore headline decisions: commentators inside the papers have their own opinions and Brexit is certainly not underrepresented.

          I agree it’s down to perceptions. I’ve honestly not noticed much bias on TV. Coverage I’ve seen seems balanced but I think Remain have run such a woeful campaign that it’s perhaps natural for me to think that Brexit is getting the better press, until very recently, of course. As for the link: I think it’s valid but not an easy subject to debate and perhaps not quite now. I was just writing about it and actually your name/arguments crossed my mind repeatedly. There have been very few people arguing for Brexit whose rhetoric I admire. You have presented some of the best cases I’ve read. I have also found myself warming to Gove, who I’ve never much liked. I think he’s been calm, intelligent, and convincing. Except he cannot disguise his lack of evidence and I really dislike his line about distrusting experts. Between the two of you, I could have been convinced. However, there is a lot of background chatter and it is, I’m afraid, horrible. I cannot ignore what I read on Twitter and I’ve received in my inbox. I began weeks ago by doubting the economic arguments for Brexit (I do think that a UK in the hands of the Tory right would be a free market hell) but I find myself increasingly concerned about English nationalism. If I hadn’t been struck ill last week (today my first day out of my bed in days) I’d have written about the hooligans in France. (I suspected state involvement and today I read that Whitehall suspects the same. Brexit would aid Putin.) The rhetoric I hear from ordinary good working class people around me is quite shocking. I do genuinely fear what is being stirred. If people were like you, Gove, and others who make reasonable cases, them I might have voted for Brexit. Sadly, you are not the majority of people and that’s why I have absolutely no doubts that voting Remain was the only rational option (and I’ve already sent my postal vote vote there’s now no chance of changing my mind).

          • Rob Walker | 19th June 2016 at 2:46 pm |

            Fair comment David and thank you for your kind words re myself. I figured the Mail would follow suit as it ran the Sunday Mail editorial today but of course you may be right. I agree with you about the remain campaign, they were warned not to go too negative but ignored the advice. In essence they have nullified their best argument, the economic case for staying by being too extreme with their forecasts and inventing figures to suit (I know they aren’t alone in this). Of course there will be economic consequences to leaving in the short to medium term but to try to quantify them is to invite ridicule when your track record of predicting such outcomes has been fairly woeful, result, most people don’t believe what they are saying. They haven’t been helped by having a Labour leader who backs Brexit but is being forced to half heartedly campaign for remain. Also agree with you about Gove, he’s been surprisingly good while Johnson has been predictably bad for me. Still think when it comes down to it people will vote to remain, a view shared by the bookies. Unfortunately this is only likely to inflame anti immigrant far right sentiment and the feeling of some that they are completely disenfranchised.

          • mahatmacoatmabag | 20th June 2016 at 9:28 am |

            David it comes as No surprise that you have voted Remain & attempt to justify voting Remain as ” the only rational option ” History has a number of lessons for us, if we care to learn them & one of them is that in the recent past an electorate in a supposedly civilised Western European democracy voted for tyranny as the only rational option. I will be voting to Leave the current European tyranny led at present by that very same state.

          • And it comes as no surprise that you’re for leave. In fact, I’d be disappointed were it otherwise. I take immense pleasure in cancelling out your vote. As John Oliver so succinctly put it, we’d be batshit crazy to leave the EU. [LINK]

          • mahatmacoatmabag | 20th June 2016 at 1:13 pm |

            David you quote John Oliver, a Lefty Cambridge graduate & comedian in the USA who hates the UK. Rather a weird choice for an inspirational thinker on the UK remaining in the EU since he left the UK a long time ago & makes his living in the USA from deriding & defaming the UK & its indigenous people. From Wiki: According to Edward Helmore in The Guardian: “His style leans toward the kind that Americans like best from the British – exaggerated, full of odd accents and mannerisms, in the vein of Monty Python.” Oliver has used his English culture as a primary subject of his jokes. Oliver describes his own accent as a “mongrel” of Brummie, Scouse and Bedford influences.
            David maybe you should quote for the benefit of as yet undecided readers the inspirational speeches of Baroness Warsi or some other leading Remain camp intellectual giant.

          • Thank you. You have given me my first good belly laugh of the day. For somebody who spends most of his time criticising the UK from Israel, your comments are loaded with delightful irony.

            And what’s wrong with hating the UK? I hate the UK and I live here. In fact, I also hate America, France, Russia, Denmark, Italy, the whole of the continent of Africa, South America, the Middle East, Asia… In fact, I hate the entire world because it is filled with people who are cruel, ignorant, greedy, malicious, and proud. I agree with Swift who wrote: ‘I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth’. If attacking human faults is a crime then that is crime that Oliver shares with all great satirists. If you hate him as much as you claim, then you should perhaps look at yourself to see if you exhibit any of the qualities he regularly condemns. If you get stuck, I’d be only too happy to give you a hint.

          • mahatmacoatmabag | 20th June 2016 at 3:32 pm |

            David with every reply you dig the hole you are in even deeper. To use a quote of Churchills, the left surrounds itself with a bodyguard of lies ( amended by me ). BTW I am both resident in the UK & Israel from time to time ( in the UK at present ) have property in both , paying council taxes, income tax, Nat’l insurance , utility bills etcetera in both

          • A hole? I can’t see a hole, except the obvious one.

            I mean, of course, the one you’ve been digging all these long months. You seem to labour under the misunderstanding that any opinion that diverges from your own is, by definition, wrong and that once you identify such a failing then the onus is upon the rest of us to cheer your clarity of vision. I’m sorry but, to an outside observer, your arguments are tautological, your evidence selective, and your bias all too evident. You routinely try to turn any debate into a debate on your pet subject of Israel and denounce any argument that differs from your own as being from the Left. That might well be true. If you are, as you appear, quite far to the Right, then any opinion is Leftist from your point of view. That you are far to the Right should be evident to anybody who has been reading your comments for these past months and I respect your right to be that wrong.

            I have always been quite open about my doubts. I don’t know with absolute clarity whether Remain is the right vote. I do understand that our civilisation has succeeded because we accept the opinion of experts. However you wish to parse the data, the expert opinions are overwhelmingly in favour of Remain. It makes no more sense rejecting those expert opinions than it would to ignore your doctor’s advice and listen to the opinion of a guy you meet at the pub. That you see this differently should make you stop and assess your own motives. Are you genuinely interested in what’s best for Britain or are you simply peddling your usual agenda that sacrifices the economic future of the UK simply to put one over on immigrants?

            In fairness to you, you might well be an expert so I will reserve a small part of my judgement until such times as you can provide certificates demonstrating economic and financial expertise as well as experience to match the Prime Ministers, MPs, economists, bankers, company directors, charity leaders, etc. who all say that leaving the EU would be the biggest mistake we’ve ever made. I accept there’s a slim chance you might be more experienced that all those people. Until that time, however, I will mark you down as ‘some generally ill informed bloke I read on the internet’. You have, of course, every right to do the same about me.

          • mahatmacoatmabag | 20th June 2016 at 5:44 pm |

            David was that the short version of your reply or just the prelude? I have stated on here from the outset that I am a right winger, a life long Tory voter & from the first time that the Referendum was debated on here that I am for Leave. I am not a flip flopper, there is more to Brexit than just economic benefit, there is regaining national sovereignty , reinstatement of our Anglo-Saxon & Judaeo-Christian values and Laws, regaining control over our borders & the future of our children from becoming a minority in a sea of EU sanctioned migrants. If all you see is your pocket then there is no reasoning with you at all.

          • It was a prelude if you wish it to be. Would you like another 1000, 5000, or 10,000 words to explain why you are so wrong? My rates are very reasonable but a book length screed would cost you quite a bit.

            You see, this is why I have encouraged you to speak more and have been become convinced that we should not moderate any of your comments. The more you say, the less convincing your arguments sound, the more shameful you become, and, I hope, readers will begin to understand what and who you are and why so many of your comments are moderated. If voting Leave means living in a nation cast in your image or that of Nigel Farage then I really want no part of that nation. Language such as ‘our children from becoming a minority in a sea of EU sanctioned migrants’ is inflammatory, inaccurate, and morally wrong. It is precisely the reason why we cannot have a mature debate about immigration. Such views belong with the rest of your discredited politics. You say there’s no reasoning with me? I would hope that readers will have read enough of my work to know that I cherish reason, which is why you fail to convince me about anything other than the hatefulness of your politics and the mediocrity of your argument.

          • mahatmacoatmabag | 20th June 2016 at 7:29 pm |

            David you seem to have missed that I wrote ” I am a life long Tory voter” I do not support UKIP who are a one issue party with no real policies & many of their voters are disenfranchised working class Labour voters.
            Reply if you wish, I am off out to dinner & leave the stage to you, I just wish you would stop pretending that this is a centrist website, its not.

          • Rob Walker | 21st June 2016 at 1:09 pm |

            I see another expert has come out for remain David. None other than David Beckham, expert in personal grooming and talking as if he’s inhaled a couple of helium balloons. His slogan: For a a squeakier more brylcreemy Britain, vote remain. Leave have countered by wheeling out Sol Cambell and John Barnes as Brexit supporters. Barnes is convinced that like him the UK can be a great success once in every 40 attempts. All it needs now is for the ultimate establishment celeb Gary Barlow to make a last minute intervention for remain by releasing a monotonous little ditty extolling the virtues of the EU, it’s a work in progress I’d imagine as it’s hard to find words that rhyme with Juncker other than dunker, bunker and spelunker.

          • As you might know, Rob, I’d be the first person to mock Beckham, but I can’t say I’m not happy with this. Of course, at the same time, it would be hypocritical of me no to regret that any debate can be so led by celebrities. The expert opinions are definitely for Remain and it would be a blow to my faith in our secular, evidence-led society if we voted for vague promises, celebrity endorsements, and inflammatory rhetoric. That said, I’d much rather have Beckham for than against. Given the latest count of his offspring, there’s probably enough votes there to sway the final tally by a few percentage points.

          • Rob Walker | 21st June 2016 at 2:53 pm |

            David, He would have garnered more support by promising Victoria would smile publicly on a remain vote I reckon. Mind you I say that, this is where I am actually very out of touch, I don’t know if David Beckham is widely liked or not really. I’m not as sold as you are on the experts, if they had no skin in the game and had a decent track record of economic forecasting then I would certainly be all ears, however when there were only a handful of economists and business leaders who saw something as big as the crash of 2008 coming or dissented about Greece’s entry into the Euro or conversely backed the UK’s decision NOT to join the Euro then I think you are entitled to doubt their competence. Perhaps it is because my wife has worked at a senior level in finance for years, so I am privy as to how these positions are arrived at and as she says the Zeitgeist is everything. Everyone follows everyone else because no one wants to dissent and look foolish if they turn out to be wrong. If someone does stand up and contradict the approved line then they will be replaced by someone who is ‘on message’. I think the only certainties about Brexit are an unquantifiable market shock, a fall in sterling and the euro and a certain level of capital flight in the week following the vote. What happens after that is anybodies guess really and what arises out of it would depend largely on whether the BOE decided to defend sterling. Personally I don’t think they would for three reasons. Firstly a weak pound actually improves our national debt situation, secondly with an inflation target of 2% we have room for some inflation growth in the economy and thirdly a large rise in rates would cause large scale defaults on mortgages. It’s true that securing future borrowing would become more difficult and the cost of living would rise by as much as inflation did but on the other hand a weak pound would give us a competitive advantage for as long as it lasted. Indeed depending on what the Euro does for two years you could find UK exporters benefitting from a weak pound AND the benefits of tariff free trade for the period prior to leaving. Of course Leave can’t explore any of this as the headline would simply read, PRICES TO ROCKET ON BREXIT VOTE. And this has been the shame of the whole campaign, no honesty, Leave put a utopian spin on Brexit as if nothing would change, Remain give you an apocalyptic scenario. Will have to make this the last thing I post about bloody Brexit, I seem to have become addicted to debating it. Next time we have a referendum on anything could they please keep the campaign short, I like politics and even I’m completely fed up with it, roll on Friday morning.

          • Oh, I stopped wanting to debate it two weeks ago and only in my weaker moments find myself discussing it. Can’t say I’m sold on experts but that argument could be applied at some deep philosophical level to all forms of knowledge and then where does it get us? Back in the realm of the supernatural. So, I have just tried to listen to the arguments as carefully as I could, use what ability I have to read people, look at the records and their past achievements. My only true expertise, I suppose, is reading words and analyzing language so I’ve been guided by the rhetoric as much as anything. I agree: a little honesty would have been best. Oddly, Corbyn has been the most ‘honest’ in the sense of his message being so confused. Some say he was waffling but, in an odd way, at least he was true to whatever he believes and did (at least on Sky News last night) answer people by delving into details. The others have fallen into that paradise/apocalypse language too easily and have rarely discussed Europe in detail. Like you say, though, roll on Friday morning. Then I can at least begin to adapt to whatever we’ve decided and we might begin to talk about some more interesting questions such as what happens to the Tory party next.

  8. Unpalatable opportunism too from the MP’s and their friends predominantly in the written press but also amongst the commentariat to recast them as the hard done by virtuous servants of democracy. If you want to see hard done by then look at the 454 British service personnel killed in Afghanistan, no visit to their home town by the PM and leader of the opposition, no outpouring of shock and disgust from politicians worldwide and no media circus pointing out all of their qualities, yet were they doing less to defend our democracy?. Two women were killed in Liverpool on Monday, hardly a sausage in the press, nowt from politicians, a man died in Crawley last night, it ain’t going to get 3 days of continuos coverage, yet like Jo Cox they were human beings with people who loved them, but hey Jo was “one of their own” and that makes it different, “it could have been them”. I’ve heard many protestations in the last couple of days that they aren’t out of touch with normal people but the contrast of their response when a “normal” person is killed compared to one of their own class tells the opposite tale.
    Yes it’s a personal tragedy for Jo Cox and her family but when it comes down to it it’s a case of another nutjob killing someone because they are angry, a risk every taxi driver, policeman, late night bus driver, paramedic and many more take on ever time they go on shift.

  9. There was an interesting article in the Telegraph about the contrast in the reaction to the death of Jo Cox compared to that of the last MP to be murdered, Ian Gow, and also the last MP to be murdered during an election campaign, Airey Neave. In the case of Gow a Conservative MP murdered by the IRA , parliament wasn’t recalled for tributes and opposition parties didn’t stand down from the by-election caused by his murder (nor should they have in my opinion), the LibDems went on to take the seat. Neave was also murdered by the IRA in his case two weeks before the general election. Campaigning wasn’t halted because of his death and nor should it have been. Surely democracy is bigger than any one person, no matter how worthy of grief and peoples respect they may be. The people of Batley and Spen voted for Jo Cox to be their MP in 2015 by a large majority, presumably not just because she was Labour but based on her campaign and personal qualities too, the box they ticked did not say Generic Labour Candidate,. Now they will have precious little choice in who their MP will be going forward, they have been deprived of choosing their representative by the actions of the leaders of the main political parties desperate to look compassionate in they eyes of the public. Perhaps though they are better off not having candidates from these parties on the ballot paper if that is their attitude towards the right of the people of Batley to choose.

  10. Hear hear! This election shld go ahead, or we are acting as soppily insane!
    Margaret BBen

  11. For me one of the down sides of Social media and 24 hour rolling news is that people feel they have to give instant opinions or analysis. It is almost like a frenzy to be the first to announce “Breaking News”. The first to say we gave you the story first or our reporter broke the story to the nation. There seems little time any more for reflection or the gathering of all the facts. Rumours can lead to stories which then become facts. I know the clock can never be turned back and I often enjoy how quickly stories can break and how you can follow up to the minute live news. I agree with Tim that minutes after the tragic death of Jo cox was not the time to speculate but is this not the price we pay for live instant news as people want quick answers and it is only human to ask why? I sense a change of tone and atmosphere and reflection that I last remember after the sudden premature death of Labour leader John Smith in 1995 from 2 heart attacks. The talk then was of a kinder gentler politics. Twenty years on some are saying Politics has got too antagonistic and whether the murder of Jo Cox was just the result of one crazed madman or part of a wider issue will no doubt come out. I was shocked and saddened and that this could happen in our country. The fact that some have tried to use her death for political advantage is unseemly and disrespectful. I hope in time we get the full picture and lessons can be learned.

  12. I accept your decision! Margaret Burn

Leave a Reply to Tim Marshall Cancel reply

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.

Your email address will not be published.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.