Thursday, August 5, 2010

Ian Gow memorial mooted

A follow-up to my recent post about the murdered MP, Ian Gow:
Twenty years after he was killed by the IRA, there are calls for a permanent memorial to Sussex MP Ian Gow.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell says a permanent tribute is needed to remember the former treasury minister, who was killed by the IRA.

"He was a magnificent member of this House and somebody that I believe should be recognised permanently in the same way that Airey Neave is recognised," said Mr Rosindell .

The MP knew Mr Gow when he was a teenager and described him as a close personal friend and political mentor.

Mr Gow's widow, Dame Jane Whiteley, said that she was "delighted and very proud" to hear of the call for a memorial.
Rather bizarrely, whilst Gow is described as being "killed" by the IRA his colleague in the Commons Airey Neave, who suffered exactly the same fate at the hands of Irish Republicans, was, according to the BBC, "murdered" by the INLA. It does make you wonder why the BBC differentiates between the two crimes- after all, the motives and end results were exactly the same.

Going back to the main topic, Andrew Rosindell is an appropriate choice to be the driving force behind this campaign. As well as his close personal connection with Ian Gow, he is also an MP who dearly loves his nation and its democracy which the IRA also directly attacked by murdering Gow. I'm not sure if such a campaign for a memorial will be an internal House of Commons' one or whether the general public can also get involved. Hopefully, it'll be the latter.


michaelhenry said...

no need to say my views on ian gow again, i just do not understand why he fell out with the conservatives over the anglo IRISH
agreement in 1985,
ian gow stayed loyal after thatcher
was forced to concede those 5 demands over to the prisoners in the H-blocks, but being thatcher she give some of the demands to criminals also in prison, even now criminals get 50 per cent remission,
it looks like the hunger-strikers are going to get another memorial in the shape of a museum and a conflict resolution centre.

ian gows memory should be promoted
by his family, the people who he represented, conservatives and unionists, and his many friends,
just surprised to read here that there was no memorial to mr gow.

kavak yelleri 125. bölüm izle said...

thank you

tony said...

Quite right Oneill I am sick fed up by countless stories relating to the 'dead' of bloody sunday or 'the shootings'!

I think we should all call murder for what it is.................right?

O'Neill said...

"SS Sinn Fein",

Check my comments policy and reword your comment minus the personal abuse.


Your opinion on the BBC's differing descriptions for the same crime, what made Neave's death a "murder" and Gow's "only" a "killing"?

Closest defintion to murder in UK Common law was Lord Chief Justice Coke who (writing in the early seventeenth century) said:

"Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party who, or hurt die of the wound or hurt within a year and a day of the same."

"Malice aforethought" causing unlawful death . Did the IRA set out to kill Gow, yes; was it unlawful, yes. "Murder" then it’s got to be.

Re other killings/murders there's a hint of whataboutery, but it’s usually easy enough to tick one, both or none of those boxes for everyone who died in the Troubles.

If there is no doubt concerning especially motives, then, it’s both the boxes and it’s murder.

tony said...

>>Closest defintion to murder in UK Common law was Lord Chief Justice Coke who (writing in the early seventeenth century) said:<<

Actually Oneill there is no such thing as UK law.

Facitious? Perhaps same with your silly response.

British soldiers commited murder that day in Derry, whether they decided they would kill some 'Paddy/Mick/fenian bastard' that day, month, or minute before doing so is neither here nor there.

Go read Mckay's 'Northern Protestants' for similar coments from people who obviously think like you do regarding the bloody sunday massacre.

Oh and in case you haven't got my point............shame on you!!!!!

O'Neill said...

"Actually Oneill there is no such thing as UK law.

Facitious? Perhaps same with your silly response."

I outlined the legal framework for murder, without that framework you are making your own subjective definitions.

I'm not capable of retrospectively looking into the souls of the paras that day; if they set out with the intention of murder, then obviously murder it was. Adding up all the evidence which was what Saville spent years doing, Iagree with Saville in saying that I don't think they did. By thinking that you seem to assume that I'm justifying their actions, "unlawful killing" is as unjustifiable as murder.

"Go read Mckay's 'Northern Protestants' for similar coments from people who obviously think like you do regarding the bloody sunday massacre."

McKay is by far the weakest MSM commentator on the republican side; she's not even on the same planet never mind league as Collins, McIntyre,TP Coogan (anti-Brit/Prod bigot though he may be), even Chris Gaskin, for crying out loud all. The only reason she has come to any kind of prominence is her religion, the truth is only a Hun can get away with telling us that all "Hun are Scum"; that in itslef doesn;t make the argument true or her a writer worthwhile reading.

So, no, I haven't read it. Bt tell me what was point of you personally reading a book which merely reinforces rather than challenges your own prior opinion?

My history teacher once gave us Farrell's "The Orange State", told us to go away for a week read and set up 5 points for and against his main core argument.
Didn't change any minds, but it taught us the value of critical thinking and also the fact merely because we disagree with an opponent's argument doesn't on it's own dismantle that argument.

You telling me you've read and agreed with McKay doesn'timpress me; you telling me you've read Ruth Dudley Edward's "Orange Tribe" and this is where she got it right and this is where she got it wrong would.

tony said...

There is no such thing as UK law, there is different jurisdictions. And while there are similar definitions of homicide throughout the rest of the UK, in Scotland it differs.

>>So, no, I haven't read it.<<

You write so much but say so little, the above being the only bit with worth.

As for McKay "being on the Republican side" don't be so bloody stupid! Oh and as far as accusing everyone of being a "hun-hater" grow up! I often think that where Unionists go wrong is believing the shite that one side definitely is as bad as the other, hence the judging by their own geneticly bigotted standards.

Until people like you can address the crimes commited on bloody Sunday substantively instead of hiding behind legalese the better. The actus reus itself is often enough to conclude mens rea, otherwise we may as well finish with murder and settle for culpable homicide/manslaughter at every turn. The actus reus of those murdering British soldiers, some of whom shot young men as the lay dying or in the act of crawling away wounded hardly needs a deep exploration of the mens rea.

The Aberdonian said...

To be pedantic O'Neil, Tony is correct when stating about the law of murder in the UK. Scotland has a different law of murder from the rest of the UK.

English law defines murder as either an intention to kill or death caused when the assailant made an attack with the intention of committing grevious bodily harm as defined in the Offences against the Person Act 1868(?)

Scots law defines murder as either an intention to kill or committing an act which has wicked reckless regard towards human life (this common law doctrine was developed just before the 1603 union of the crowns).

"Wicked recklessness" is defined as a homicide where either a) a lethal weapon was used b) multiple injuries were inflicted c) the assailant intended to do some serious injury d) the assailant knew the action could lead to death but carried on e) the homicide happened during a theft/robbery. Normally two of the criteria are needed for it to be deemned murder.

English and NI court rulings are regarded as "foreign" in Scotland with no binding effect although they can be deemned to be "persuasive", particularly if it is concerning a common statute like the Misuse of Drugs Act for example which is a reserved area of criminal law.

Having worked in the prison system, warrants of imprisonment from English/NI courts have similar status. Such warrants can only be enforced in Scotland by a Scottish court ordering their enforcement. These warrants are classed as "foreign". Many an English court used to send up their warrants ordering custody for unpaid fines without asking the Scottish authorities. Therefore the English classed them as served but actually they were not and just shoved into the prisoners file and not enforced.

tony said...

Interesting insite to your practical experience Aberdonian.

Scots law is as we speak in the process of moving away from the need for the 'wicked' definition. Murder seems to be too hard for fiscal's to prosecute these days with culpable the preffered option to secure conviction. And don't get me started about the seemingly total abeyance of of art and part liability.