Posted on 08/04/2009 9:17:48 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Well you didn’t read the article very well. The church officials said the next funeral wasn’t for another 50 mins and that there was plenty of time to allow this woman to grieve. Moreover the child’s body had been kept by authorities for “testing” for three months -— this implies that they weren’t 100% certain of the manner of death and that this mother may have been under suspicion during that time. How dare you tell someone else how they should express their grief at the loss of a child?
Hmm. Apparently even in death Socialism doesn’t work very well.
I'm thinking this is an unfortunate misunderstanding ... but that her outrage is misplaced.
Just to point out, this follows a tried-and-true media pattern of manufacturing outrage.
As usual in such articles, the circumstances of the situation are described by the aggrieved parties, who are putting their own best face on the situation.
In reality, the situation being reported upon usually turns out to be a lot less clear-cut than the reporters would have you believe: the "other side" has good reason for what they did, or the reporter has even (gasp!) completely misrepresented the situation.
Let's just say that I don't think the situation is nearly so mean-hearted as it's being presented here. I think she probably took more than 10 minutes, and was beginning to intrude on the next group's time ... and maybe she wasn't terribly polite when they suggested that she was running against her limits.
No, you didn't read it well. Somebody ... it sounds like the lady's "partner," said that the funeral directors (not the church officials) said that. But that's spin -- understandable, but still spin.
“However, the couple’s funeral directors said there was plenty of time for the next funeral which was not due to take place for another 50 minutes.”
You still didn’t read the article direct quote is above. Lee could be a male name or a female name and in England many couples do not get married any more ( sorry has been that way for awhile now). It does not obviate the woman’s grief. you are so quick to want to blame and cast aspersions that you understand nothing of losing a child. I hope you never have to go through that pain
You mean, the quote you originally misquoted? I did read it ... and it's not at all clear whether the "funeral directors" said that to the reporter; or whether it was passed on second-hand. Just reading the article, it appears to me that it is not a first-hand quote, but rather a "they told me" sort of quote.
Granting the horrendous circumstances of the lady's plight, I'm quite cynical about stories like this one, which are designed to provoke outrage.
There's a pattern to such stories, and this one fits it to a "T".
From whom did the reporter learn that? There's no direct quote, no names ... so it's almost certainly second-hand information. Who said it?
If you ever want compassion, you better start giving it.
I have a great deal of compassion for the woman. I don't trust the reporter. See the difference?
Oh wow, three months had passed and she wasn’t done mourning?? How crass of her!
/total and complete disrespect of your hard hearted attitude
You should have said "letting your emotions get the better of you, rather than wondering if the reporter is telling you the truth."
As I said before (had you bothered to read it), I feel very sorry for the woman. But I do not trust stories like this to tell the truth. The reporter is manufacturing an injustice ... do you trust him?
Aas I said I hope you never have to experience the pain of such a loss. Glad you are so perfect in everything you do and everything you are that you can see the nuance of such things everywhere you look
Sigh....
To repeat what I have already repeated: I feel very sorry for the lady.
But I do not trust the veracity of this article. You're soooo ready to accept the report as absolutely true. Are you always so accepting of what the media tell you? No? Then why do you believe this one?
The truth is that this kind of article is quite common, and quite easy to spot. Its sole purpose is to make you mad at somebody ... normally "the authorities," and the real details of the situation are seldom reflected in what the reporter tells you.
The sole purpose of this article was NOT to make you mad at someone. Too bad that you are so cynical. It is informational and probably showed up in a side bar on some local page. It does underscore what happens when you let the government control every aspect of your life but I am not even going there.
I just note that you have no soul
LOL!
I'm cynical about the media, so I have no soul? Oh, my.... You need to get control of your emotions, FRiend.
May God bless and comfort you. I’m so sorry.
I'm suggesting that there's almost certainly more to the story than the reporter is choosing to tell you, and that it is less sympathetic to the woman's situation than what the reported did choose to tell you. That's how it is with stories like this one. Yes, the circumstances are very distressing ... but no, I don't think we've been given all of the circumstances.
The "facts" as reported appear to come from the aggrieved parties ... and, understandably, they're going to put the best possible face on their complaint. If you have kids, you've no doubt learned to get both sides of the story, rather than just accept the tattle-tale's version. Why would you do otherwise here?
Really? I must have missed it. Is this your compassion?
Sigh.... you're irrational on the point. Do you actually believe that I don't feel sorry for the woman?
I will point out, however, that somebody went off to the media with this.... somebody has made it "our business." Are we then to believe only what we're told?
You not only don't have compassion - you don't even know what it is.
Oh, piffle. You're upset because I have compassion for the other grieving people, too. "I'm sorry, ma'am ... your husband's funeral will have to wait."
I don't trust the media ... why should I make an exception when they're obviously trying to provoke a response?
I saw you made one casual reference to her loss and sadness. You’re right, I completely missed that you were doubting the reporter’s story. In fact, I still miss that, even after reading it again. Completely invisible, how was I to know?!
Heartless b*stards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.