Ship of Fools: "Never speak ill of the dead"

Thread: "Never speak ill of the dead" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025262

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

My simple question is why?

Obviously this is sparked by the death of a high profile and rather divisive personality earlier today. Various people who did not respect her have reveled in her demise, prompting those who admire her to suggest that this is inappropriate. But I don't understand why this social norm has come to be. What's wrong with voicing an honest opinion about someone after they have died?

Posted by Casineb (# 15588) on :

The reason is usually "because they can't defend themselves" (although you can't libel the dead!). It's also not nice to speak of the recently deceased if you're liable to upset their loved ones (not that I imagine Carol and Mark ever appreciated criticism of their mother).

One reason not to criticise or speak ill of the dead is simply because... simply what's the point? Any constructive criticism of their character, policies, views etc., goes out of the window. They can't change themselves.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm guessing this was meant primarily for people in one's own social circle--relatives and neighbors--not people in the news. In that case, you can see how speaking ill of the dead might be a major temptation (since you would know their failings well AND they would be unable to retaliate) but would also lead to all kinds of heartache for the survivors. And since those people are also probably your friends and relatives, well...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think it is rooted in the thought that ill will might impede their route to the afterlife.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Wikipedia traces the sentiment back to a Roman philosopher of c.300AD, who was quoting a Greek sage from about 1000 years before that.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I've only understood this to refer to the recently deceased. The idea, I think, is that death is the great leveler, a common thread-breaker that links us on our deeper level than our political disagreements. It's our basic duty to accompany them with singing, not with bitching. The biblical injunction to bury the dead isn't limited to people you liked.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Perhaps it started from fear that the dead in question would come back and show their displeasure?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Perhaps it started from fear that the dead in question would come back and show their displeasure?

I think there's some truth to this, at least on the subconscious/ instinctual level. I know my own unreflective reaction to speaking ill of, say, my departed (and not-always-so-nice) grandmother seems to swing widely between having the complete freedom of anonymity to endowing her with an almost divine-like omniscience. It's not like I expect her to haunt me, just more like she would *know* what I'm saying, in a way she didn't when she was living. (Speaking of which... do the dead have access to IP addresses?)

On a reflective/conscious level that all sounds superstitious (and a bit self-absorbed; surely the departed have better things to worry about). But on some level that kind of thinking seems to operate, at least for me...

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

De mortuis nil_nisi bonum Of the dead speak no evil.

Supernatural concerns about dwellers in the afterlife aside, there's a sense that all mortals are on the same side in a battle we will all lose.

That's a noble sentiment. However,I remember when Reagan died, and many people kept a dignified silence, until certain right wing pundits started saying it showed that the leftists were silent because they realized they had been wrong to criticize him. The silence ended shortly thereafter.

I think the silence for the dead is reasonable when the person is not the figurehead of a partisan faction.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The dead can't defend themselves. That would make it "unfair" to come up with new accusations never raised in their lifetime. But in Thatcher's case, probably every criticism said now was said to her face too.

Some people use "don't speak ill of the dead" as a effort to shut up the opposition, as if once a political leader is dead only his or her supporters are allowed to say anything about the person including their motives and policies.

Some use "don't speak ill of the dead" to avoid facing family secrets, like that Uncle was a family rapist.

In general I think it's an obsolete concept. Except where the estate of the dead can sue, which is apparently true in some USA states.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
What's wrong with voicing an honest opinion about someone after they have died?

Lack of tact, sensitivity, compassion. Someone has died: they didn't suffer just an ordinary, everyday illness, but (assuming it was a natural death) a condition that radically affected, terminated their wellbeing, may have made them incapacited and a former shadow of themselves if they'd lived. IMO that deserves some compassion in itself.

There may also be some relatives around who might be hurt by your saying "I always thought he was a bastard anyway".

To show malicious pleasure and outright delight in someone's death shows mean-spiritedness. Yes, you might be relieved by the death of a dictator who murdered your immediate family, but he is dead and will have to account for his own actions to a greater judge than any of us. I find that thought sobering: the idea that someone's life, their actions and the consequences of them will be brought home to them.

And as been said on this thread, the dead aren't there to defend themselves. It's attacking someone who can't fight back.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

What is to be gained in publicly denigrating the memory of someone who has died? None of us are perfect and many of us will have committed just as many mistakes as the person who has just died. It is also possible that history will prove our opinions to be wrong and that the deceased was justified in their past behaviour. As our Lord said:'Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone'.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What is to be gained in publicly denigrating the memory of someone who has died? None of us are perfect and many of us will have committed just as many mistakes as the person who has just died. It is also possible that history will prove our opinions to be wrong and that the deceased was justified in their past behaviour. As our Lord said:'Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone'.

Jimmy Savile.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Sometimes, it's impossible to talk about someone and their misdeeds until they are dead because of their ability to retaliate or conceal. Death of a tyrant, national or family, allows people to speak truths that need to be spoken.

As for the claim that nobody's perfect, and you might have just as many flaws, well if people can talk about you after you are dead too.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

There’s a difference between telling the truth about someone (i.e. no longer covering up misdeeds) and vindictively making it clear how delighted you are that they’re dead, serve them right and you’d say more but you’re just on your way to dance on their grave.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The irony in Mark Antony's speech following the assassination of Caesar may strike a chord here.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.

For public figures, a death will invariably produce all kinds of comment these days. The world of the goldfish bowl. Also, in these days, whether a public figure is alive or dead, the distinction between criticism of actions and character-shredding often gets blurred. Not just public figures either. Our neat distinctions here between what can go on in Purgatory and what is suitable for Hell don't carry as much RL weight as they used to.

I suppose the central issue is one of timing. In grief counselling, there is the concept that bereavement has different levels of complexity. It's argued that adjustment to a more simple bereavement, with few emotional loose ends and unfinished business, will take 18 months to 2 years. Complicated bereavement requires longer periods of time.

Harsh words spoken about the dead when bereavement is fresh will make the experience of bereavement harder and more complicated for close relatives and friends. In pastoral support work, I met a woman who had looked after a difficult mother for years before her death who was still suffering from grief complications caused by harsh words a decade after her mother died. That was the most severe example, but by no means the only one.

Basically, I think we should bear in mind the grief of the living relatives first of all when we speak of the dead. Even when the dead person is seen to have caused other kinds of grief during their lifetime. There's time enough for the considered record of history about the life of public figures. But whether we're talking about those well known publicly, or the rest of us, it seems decent and respectful to me to give the close relatives a bit of a breathing space.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
it seems decent and respectful to me to give the close relatives a bit of a breathing space.

Aye. And decent and respectful are characteristics that not everybody always displays. I think the inclination to speak ill of the dead in an indecent and disrespectful way merely illustrates Good Ole Human Nature. Everything does, really.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Repost.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Basically, I think we should bear in mind the grief of the living relatives first of all when we speak of the dead.

I think that is a secondary concern, unless perhaps if one is the pastor called in on the case, and making it the primary concern otherwise de facto says that the dead are ... dead, as in "really gone". Rather, the dead stand before the Great Judge, and He doesn't need our amateurish legal opinion. Indeed, if we can say nothing but bad things about the dead, then we side with the Accuser. And one should rather want to be dead oneself than to be seen on His side...

I think it is entirely fair to make statements, public or private, about the ill effects of a dead person's life - as far as that truly serves the purpose of preventing other people to do similar things in future. In fact, I think this concern overrides the concern for the grief of living relatives, generally speaking. The common good is a greater thing than the comfort of a few. I also think that it is natural that the heart rejoices when a bitter enemy leave this earth. And in particular where that happens spontaneously, I do not think that it is wrong to let that joy show. But when these combine into a sustained dancing on the grave and spitting on the grave stone, then we are starting to tell God how to do His job. And that's sinful.

Even worse though is the opposite tendency, of speaking only good of a person that one personally reviles and whom one considers to have had an evil impact on the common good. Again, that is telling God His job, He also does not need to hear such amateurish defense of a person. But in addition, there we are lying through our teeth. If we truly want to influence God in the positive there, we should instead pray for God's mercy. (In the case of the pastor dealing with the case, the concerns of friends and relatives do come to the fore. But this is a special case, and not one that should guide our general thinking about this.)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think Ingo is on the button, but it also depends on the person. I can understand that in the situation of Thatcher there is a certain invective that appears unseemly so quickly after her death, but I can think of other situations were someone's death might produce an invective that is, to a degree, cathartic and maybe even necessary.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Interesting question. It's only happened once to me with someone I knew. He was a preacher at our Church and respected local headteacher. When I was a young woman he put his hand up my skirt in the Church kitchen. I didn't tell my anyone until after he died. Then I felt I could. Maybe because now it wouldn't be seen as 'pulling down' a much loved figure.

Jimmy Saville anyone?

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

There may also be some relatives around who might be hurt by your saying "I always thought he was a bastard anyway".

They're not going to be surprised, though, are they?

Thurible

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I think that the reasonable idea of after somebody has died not taking the opportunity to say 'well I never liked them anyway' and upset the grieving. Has somehow turned into 'once somebody is dead we can't tell the truth about them.' And then it has been taken further into 'once somebody is dead we can only say good things about them even if they are not true'.

I dislike the glee at her death, but as her proponants are taking every opportunity to say how wonderful she was,then surely her opponants can with justification say the opposite.

Surely honest debate about her time in office and policies can be had, without without personal attack or sanctification?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Why not speak ill of the dead?

Personally, I think I need as many friends on the far side of it as I can get.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And as been said on this thread, the dead aren't there to defend themselves. It's attacking someone who can't fight back.

But often the powerful living fight back in ways not open to the less powerful - with threats of libel actions, and the like. It's one thing to stop people printing downright lies and fabrications and another thing to stifle honest debate, which libel laws do, to some extent, despite the fact that fair comment is a possible defence.

I think some of the public rejoicing is pretty ugly - on the other hand, I was surprised, when Savile died, that there was no immediate talk of all the allegations about him - that silence was not healthy.

It's inevitable that, when a once-prominent politician dies, there are going to be attempt to evaluate their contribution to public life. I'm with Voltaire - we owe nothing to the dead except the truth. Of course, each individual's view of that is partial, but we still need to speak our truth - that's part of the process of history.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
Posted by Zacchaeus
I dislike the glee at her death, but as her proponants are taking every opportunity to say how wonderful she was,then surely her opponants can with justification say the opposite.

Surely honest debate about her time in office and policies can be had, without without personal attack or sanctification?

I think you may find that some of what you deem to be Baroness Thatcher's proponents may make a more nuanced, dispassionate assessment in the months and years to come; what they are doing at the moment is simply applying the old-fashioned principle that in the first days after a death - and certainly before the funeral - one should apply the old maxim "if you can't say something good, then say nothing": it is called good mannes. It is a shame - and, with the pure vitriol on display from some, even shameful - that the opposing voices seem unable or unwilling to display any taste, manners or charity. With possibly a few exception no one is trying to sanctify Margaret Thatcher, but it would be very wrong not to acknowledge that she achieved many good things and will be sincerely mourned by many not her family.

As for honest debate, a review of reactions to the lady from when she became leader of her party in 1975 to the present shows that this is not possible because, with few exceptions, those who opposed the policies of her governments - especially from the trades union perspective - are incapable of looking back at the years 1979 to 1991 with any honesty and resolved to continue to paint events in black-and-white cartoon.

No, not a conservative party member, never voted for her or her party during the relevant period, but admired her honesty and deplore the current display of malevolence and vituperation.

A footnote perhaps of interest:
I was in touch with an acquaintance who was asked before the 1984-5 miners' strike to start seeking out investors who would be prepared to go into the mining areas to set up new businesses, so ending a dangerous reliance on a single-industry. There were no takers of size from within the UK but there was interest from abroad, particularly the Canada and the USA; in particular there was interest in investing in a smaller coal industry to bring it level with the heavily mechanised norm elsewhere in the developed world and also in building ultra fuel-efficient coal-powered power stations. These potential investors melted away when they saw the purblind, violent actions of the NUM since they decided that if the NUM and its 'leadership' were capable of destroying an industry for which they claimed an historic love, then how would those same people - in particular that same workforce - be if they made a significant investment to bring new, modern industry to the mining areas. It wasn't just the NUM leadership, it was particularly the potential workforce that worried since every day that they stayed on strike and every statement of blind support seemed to underline that these were people who could not be reasonable. Perhaps television reports of violence - seen all around the world, don't forget - painted an untrue picture but immense harm was done. South Wales, which attracted little publicity during the strike (with one ghastly exception) fared much better than the English mining areas and inward investment came in from across the atlantic and the far east.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for honest debate, a review of reactions to the lady from when she became leader of her party in 1975 to the present shows that this is not possible because, with few exceptions, those who opposed the policies of her governments - especially from the trades union perspective - are incapable of looking back at the years 1979 to 1991 with any honesty and resolved to continue to paint events in black-and-white cartoon.

When people see things in a way that's different from your way, they're not being honest? Oh no, even worse, they're not capable of being honest/ And the proof of that is ...

..oh, obviously, just the fact that their perception is different. Boy, that's some argument you've got there.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

@ L'organist

The problem is, when discussing Thatcher's life and especially her term in office, is she never set out to be universally liked and popular. She was quite content to cause divisiveness and arguments about her policies and programme - in fact, I've a feeling she thrived on them and if she hadn't had that reaction to what she did, she'd have been a one-term PM without much of a legacy (good or bad) to speak of. I read her autobiography last year and it reads at times like she saw everything in terms of a battle, almost as if in every decision she made, she had to find an enemy to attack. That may be a cariacature, but there's no doubt she relished a fight and loathed consensus about anything - and she was quite open about that.

You can't have that attitude, or even support someone with that attitude, and then expect everyone to love her and spout nothing but platitudes when she's gone. If someone defines themselves to whatever degree by conflict, if someone governs without worrying too much if they make enemies, then those enemies will speak from that position, from the experience of having Thatcher fight against them and of having fought against Thatcher.

So, while I too am less than impressed with the "Ding Dong the witch is dead" that's been going on (and I'd count myself of the less), why should anyone expect universal appreciation and people only speaking good of her when she's gone (or anyone like of that outlook on life)? I've a feeling that she'd be quite glad people were arguing about her, that her death wasn't greeted with a universal outpouring of grief and affection towards her.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

Just noticed a typo waaaay out of the edit time-limit there: the bit in brackets in the first line of the last para of my post should read "and I'm one of the left".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
Posted by QLib
When people see things in a way that's different from your way, they're not being honest? Oh no, even worse, they're not capable of being honest/ And the proof of that is ...

..oh, obviously, just the fact that their perception is different. Boy, that's some argument you've got there.

No, QLib, I'm aiming for balance. If you don't agree with what you think is my opinion, fine: but you don't know me, you don't know my political views or allegiances.

In fact many of my family in earlier generations were from a mining area and worked in mines; I have a very close and personal connection with one of the greatest mining-related disasters ever in these islands - one, moreover, that was directly caused by "the management". However, none of the ex-miners in my family ever had the wish that their child or children should have a "safe" job down a pit and they longed for the day when the industry was, if at all possible, entirely mechanised so that no-one had to spend their working life in the dark. Do I feel a family bitterness at "the management" for the lives that were lost - you bet your sweet life I do! Do I attach personal blame to the leaders of the NCB at the time - no, because in such organisations decisions are reached by faceless committees, there is no single person at whom to hurl rocks.

The proof is the continuing misquotation saying that the lady stated "there is no such thing as society" as if it were a stand-alone statement. If you take the trouble to look at exactly what she said, the words before and after, you'll see that she was arguing against am impersonal "society" and for support for family and community, whereas the misquoters suggest the very opposite of that.

As for perception "Milk-snatcher" is still trotted-out (we all love a good rhyme, after all) but in fact the decision to end free school milk was made in the dying days of the 1964-70 Wilson government having been proposed by senior mandarins in the Department for Education who saw its discontinuance as killing two birds with one stone: a cost saving on the liquid and dealing with what many of the increasingly vocal teaching unions quoted as a burdensome duty to oversee its distribution. Likewise her signature on all the closure notices for grammar schools - the decision had already been made even if the Act to enshrine it was only passed in 1975: the lady's own thoughts on the subject were "I should have been braver and fought it".

Don't presume, QLib: nowhere have I expressed support for the politician, her party or her governments. As my signature tag should tell you I'm just asking for balance, equal rights for differing viewpoints if you like. And, thinking of families and bereavement, good manners and courtesy - is that so terrible?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I believe it is simply good manners to not speak ill of the dead the moment they die. By all means let history give honest evaluations but in the period during which grieving relatives and friends are coming to terms with the loss of a loved one it's simple human decency not to go about bad mouthing the recently deceased.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

@ Stejjie

...perhaps because I'm an old-fashioned type who thinks that gratuitous unkindness is never acceptable. Margaret Thatcher is not here to have a fight. Her children are mourning their mother and, mindful of today's CofE's buzzy imperative that we should "walk beside" each other at difficult times I am horror struck at the hurt they must be feeling to see and hear the reactions to their mother's death.

It could be that, after the dust has settled, Carol and Mark Thatcher say a guilty "phew, now I can be me, not her child" but that is for then and for them, not us and not now.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't presume, QLib: nowhere have I expressed support for the politician, her party or her governments. As my signature tag should tell you I'm just asking for balance, equal rights for differing viewpoints if you like.

I didn't presume anything about your views, what I queried was your presumption of other people's honesty, or lack of. I have no particular quarrel with your opinion on the topic itself, but I'm not sure your proclaimed support for equal rights for differing viewpoints sits terribly well with accusing other people of dishonesty. As for balance: well, whether that's a good thing rather depends on what you're balancing. In a free society, in the context of a balanced debate, there is room for people to express wildly differing views - that is, after all, one of the ways in which balance is achieved.

For what it's worth, I recognise that the school milk issue was more complex than the 'milk snatcher' comment (not one I've used in the last 30 or so years) allows. However, I personally don't feel that the "there'a no such thing as society" comment comes over much better when read in context, and I therefore don't think the use of it out of context is either unfair or dishonest. We live in an age of sound bites and pro-Thatcherites are happy enough to quote the (horribly contrived) "Lady's not for turning".

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

@ L'Organist:

I agree that "gratuitous unkindness is never acceptable". But we're talking about a politician who, love her or loathe her, had an enormous effect on this country, whose legacy we're still living with and whose general direction all governments since have followed to a greater or lesser degree. More than that, we're talking about someone who associated herself with her policies to a great degree, hence the term "Thatcherism". She didn't implement those policies simply because she'd studied the pros and cons of them and decided, in cool reflection, they were the best way to follow: she implemented them because they came from her deep convictions about right and wrong and what was best about the country. In a way, she made it personal. And that makes it impossible to 100% apply the maxim "if you've nothing good to say, don't say anything".

Many, many people were deeply affected by those policies - for good or ill - and the news of her passing brings that all up again. Those who were affected badly bear the scars of that and will feel animosity towards her, precisely because of what they perceive as the attitude she took towards people of their kind and the way she identified so much, so personally with her policies and programmes.

So, yes, we should be mindful of those who are mourning her passing, for whom this is a difficult time of grief and loss, which is why I put a votive on the Thatcher thread here in Purg. But when any public figure dies, much of the discussion outside of that group who have suffered personal loss is going to focus on their legacy, the good and bad aspects of it - it's the price that's paid for that person being such a prominent figure. And when it's someone who was as charismatic and deliberately divisive as Thatcher, that discussion is going to have negative aspects to it. It is, I would suggest, unavoidable.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
The Midge grunts out:
Jimmy Savile

Running short of nouns and verbs in your quaint corner of the discuss-o-sphere?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Basically, I think we should bear in mind the grief of the living relatives first of all when we speak of the dead.
I think that is a secondary concern, unless perhaps if one is the pastor called in on the case, and making it the primary concern otherwise de facto says that the dead are ... dead, as in "really gone".

You mistook my point. Probably the wording. "First of all" speaks to the issue of timing, which I said was central. It is of course quite right that the death of some individuals may be a cause of general justifiable rejoicing. But that's rarely the case. For most people there's a question of balance.

Here's a story from Alistair Cooke, from "somewhere in the US" in 1945. He talked about being invited to a small celebratory drinks party when he was a guest in a hotel, and took up the offer, which was organised by a group of businessmen. He went into the room, accepted a drink, thanked them for the invite and asked the purpose of the celebration. "Haven't you heard? The cripple's dead!" President Franklin D Roosevelt had indeed just died.

That struck him (and me) as a singularly inappropriate act, regardless of politics. The questions of FDR's political and economic legacies were serious ones and good people would have different views. There's a time and a place.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I'm afraid I don't know who Jimmy Saville is. If a local issue is quoted, there needs to be some explanation for non locals. In regards to the death of a noted figure, it is fine to analyse their public mistakes and achievements, but I feel it is wrong to dance on their grave. Imagine if it was your own parent who had just died and the neighbours came round and cheered. I feel the golden rule applies in death as well as in life.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

bib

Here's a Wiki article. The emerging news last year made for a huge (and continuing) media interest in the UK and there was a big thread in Hell about him in the recent past.

[ 09. April 2013, 13:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Jimmy Saville isn't particularly a small local fellow. I did have to google though the first time I heard of him.

I liked the article linked in Hell that noted that if it's just fine to praise a public figure's politics, it's odd to be unable to criticize them. I wager that's a very different thing from insulting them personally. Calling FDR a cripple is insulting to him personally, but saying that Thatcher's policies were terrible for Britain for X, Y, and Z reasons seems no insult to me.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by bib
I'm afraid I don't know who Jimmy Saville is. If a local issue is quoted, there needs to be some explanation for non locals.

Jimmy (James) Savile (1925-2011) was a UK disc jockey who worked predominantly for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), our national public service broadcaster, on radio and TV. He started his career as a bouncer in dance halls during the 1950s, having previously been conscripted to work in the coal mines during WWII.

As well as presenting popular TV shows such as Top of the Pops - a run through the top 20 selling singles plus up-coming songs - he also had a weekly radio show.

Eventually he moved into light entertainment TV, in particular with a programme called Jim'll Fix It where members of the public (mainly children and young teens) wrote in asking if they could fulfill a wish or dream - anything from riding in a Rolls Royce limousine to mucking out horses in the royal stables.

After his death there were several TV programmes celebrating his achievements, in particular the huge amount of fund-raising he did for a national spinal injuries unit and other worthy causes.

However, it transpired that even during his lifetime there had been rumours of general sexual impropriety, particularly towards very young women and girls, but that these allegations of assault and rape had been covered-up, both by the BBC and by police forces (he was also a very publicly staunch defender of the police). Even more worringly, he had been famous for working as a volunteer in several hospitals, including one for the criminally insane, and it was alleged he had assaulted patients (including children); he had also been closely linked to a specialist unit for "troubled" teenaged girls, and similar allegations were made about that, too.

It has been asserted that the then Director General (CEO) of the BBC knew about these allegations before the hagiographic programmes were aired but that he chose to "publish and be damned" - furthermore, a proposed public affairs expose on another BBC TV channel was pulled at about the same time. The scandal that erupted about this forced the BBC's DG to resign and the ensuing row has also tarnished the reputations of other grandees, including Lord Patten, the Chairman of the BBC Trust.

The general consensus is that the allegations - many, most, maybe all? - are true and that there was police connivance in hushing-up behaviour that was, at the very least, sleazy and wildly inappropriate and, at worst, criminal.

There are still on-going police investigations into his actions because there are people associated with him still living who are implicated in the abusive activities. A number of people have been arrested and it is expected that trials for what is termed "historic" child abuse will begin either later this year or early 2014.

Sorry to be lengthy - but you get the full picture: the guy had been regarded as a national treasure but would seem instead to have been a national disgrace. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Barnabas62

quote:
That struck him (and me) as a singularly inappropriate act, regardless of politics. The questions of FDR's political and economic legacies were serious ones and good people would have different views. There's a time and a place.

I would agree, but add this should apply to approbation as well.
President Obama's remarks are an example of why. I doubt, based upon his politics, that he would praise everything Thatcher accomplished. And yet, his unbalanced remark will be what is recorded.
A public figure yields the right of courtesies afforded to the rest. Unfortunately, they also yield it on behalf of their families.
Dancing about on graves might be inappropriate, but a balanced review of the good and bad is not. IMO.

A curious question: There are some whose evil is so great they bear no praise save from those who share it. Most do not fall this far, yet few are perfectly praiseworthy.
So, between Ghandi and Hitler, where is the point at which this occurs?

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. Much to mull over.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are some whose evil is so great they bear no praise save from those who share it. Most do not fall this far, yet few are perfectly praiseworthy.
So, between Ghandi and Hitler, where is the point at which this occurs?

Excellent question. And the difficulty in drawing that line is one particular argument that makes me think that not speaking ill of the dead is not a watertight concept.

Of course, one might claim that even for Hitler you could just stay silent: no need to say anything bad just because you can't say anything good. But the spontaneous public jubilation in the UK and the US when it was announced that he was dead puts the lie to that idea.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Of course, one might claim that even for Hitler you could just stay silent: no need to say anything bad just because you can't say anything good. But the spontaneous public jubilation in the UK and the US when it was announced that he was dead puts the lie to that idea.

Hitler's death was linked to the end of the war, though. The implication was that it meant no more fighting, no more being away from home and the family, no more having to worry about being bombed, that normal life could resume. So there was more of a dimension to that than just a simple rejoicing in seeing him dead.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

That may be true of the European reaction, but the US was still deeply involved in a bitter war against Japan. Hitler's death in no way made it certain that the Pacific war would end.

But even if I concede that point, how about the US reaction to Osama bin Laden's death? That was (as far as I could see) pure grave-dancing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The iron lady might not be able to defend herself but many, many poor people couldn't defend themselves against her policies.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Leo
The iron lady might not be able to defend herself but many, many poor people couldn't defend themselves against her policies.

... just as many, many people lost wages because they couldn't get to work during a rail strike, had to spend a fortune on pest control because of striking dustmen, needed to have a broken leg pinned having plunged downstairs in the dark during the "winter of discontent" - I could go on.

Ever met someone whose grandmother couldn't have a funeral because of striking local authority workers? I have and the family is traumatised by it to this day.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Right, and there may well be plenty of people who want to dance on Arthur Scargill's grave when he dies. But the rights and wrongs of Thatcher's specific policies and the response of others to them isn't really the point here.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is rooted in the thought that ill will might impede their route to the afterlife.

More likely because you don't want them coming back to haunt you, or drink your blood.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Repost.

That argument only makes sense if you forget about the timing element.

What I think has happened is this. The older standard of "get them into the ground first" denied neither hagiography nor criticism in due course. It said no more than "allow space for mourning". It was fundamentally an act of restraint that used to have a lot of social backing.

[There is a complication involved when the funeral becomes a major media event in itself. There is this sense that without allowing immediate public criticism, the public pageantry acts as a kind of lionisation in itself. I don't personally see that argument as particularly convincing. It doesn't have that effect on me anyway. But I see it has some force]

In the current competitive newsworld, however, I guess editors feel they no longer have the luxury of waiting. Someone else will break ranks. So they argue that there is no real issue of morality involved in a period of restraint. And also advance the pageantry argument as an excuse for some sort of "balance" by means of criticism. It still looks to me like following a media agenda, rather than thinking through the value of a period of restraint as an act of social responsibility.

I suppose the other side of that coin was revealed by the outpouring of emotion following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. That was unrestrained in a different kind of way. I think the original spontaneous responses were ramped up because it intensified the media event dimension, produced some controversy and release of anger, and generally was good for media business. If that seems cynical, if you view that event as the media following rather than helping to foster the news, well that's tenable. I just don't think it's very likely.

So I guess I am arguing that the move away from a period of restraint primarily benefits the media. I really don't see what the value is to the rest of us, still prefer the restrained approach. But I'm probably tilting at windmills.

[ 09. April 2013, 18:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
.. I think some of the public rejoicing is pretty ugly - on the other hand, I was surprised, when Savile died, that there was no immediate talk of all the allegations about him - that silence was not healthy. ...

Why? Did you know about them at the time?

Most of us didn't. Quite a lot of us didn't all that care for his public persona but weren't very interested in him.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I was surprised, when Savile died, that there was no immediate talk of all the allegations about him - that silence was not healthy. ...
Why? Did you know about them at the time?

Most of us didn't. ..

TGo cut a long tangent short, yes - I knew there had been rumours and I (wrongly) assumed that pretty much everybody knew about them.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The Saville experience has pretty much killed off the change of people keeping silent about anyone else who has died.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

This all reminds me of the po-faced idolatry that went on after Ronald Reagan's (from my PoV, Maggie's partner-in-crime; I'm still aghast at his "ketchup-is-a-vegetable" pronouncement along with union-busting, homelessness-increasing, poverty-enhancing policies) death.

I agree with Doublethink's article: public political figures are fair game for critique. Their policies can affect millions, and often for ill; don't see why we can't say so after they die as well as beforehand. Policies, after all, CAN be changed, even when their instigaters are impervious to improvement.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm not usually a fan of A C Grayling, but this article in the "Indy" seems to be sensible ...

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

We do not speak ill of the dead because we believe that through Christ,

"Things which were cast down will be raised up, things which have grown old will be made new, and all things will be brought to perfection by him, through whom all things were made."

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I'm not involved with Thatcher. However I did put a bottle of champagne aside to celebrate the death of Ronald Reagan. As for his wife, she implemented his policies after he went senile.

I plan to celebrate when Fred Phelps finally kicks off. If it damages part of his family who disrupted the funerals of other, so much the better.

It's not just arguing with the dead. He knows that there are a large number of celebrants waiting.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Christopher Hitchens on Hannity & Colmes about Rev. Falwell's Death

Christopher Hitchens maintaining a respectful silence on the subject of Rev. Falwell's Death.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It's not kind and therefore not Christian to speak ill of the dead, for the sake of those who love the deceased and who are grieving. Perhaps it is one example of the diminishing Christian influence in Britain that some are disrespecting this tradition.

Self-control is to be desired, but it's not always easy to contain glee at someone's death when that person had power to affect the lives of others and seemed not to care about the hardship they went through as a result. Respect for her can't be expected, and it may well be galling for some when she is being hailed as a heroine and given a ceremonial funeral fit for one.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Self-control is to be desired, but it's not always easy to contain glee at someone's death when that person had power to affect the lives of others and seemed not to care about the hardship they went through as a result.

If someone doesn't use self control in how they treat me in life why should I use selfe control over what I say about them in death?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not kind and therefore not Christian to speak ill of the dead, for the sake of those who love the deceased and who are grieving.

I rather suspect Thatcher's family is VERY used to seeing her criticized in the press. They've been doing it as long as I've been alive.
Anyway, are you implying that it is it kinder to criticize the living politicians than the dead ones? Or that we should never discuss what is wrong with politicians?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It seems that one would never regret being kind, no matter how much one disagreed with her. It's doubtful that one would always remain proud of being Phelpsy about this.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

Anyway, are you implying that it is it kinder to criticize the living politicians than the dead ones? Or that we should never discuss what is wrong with politicians?

No, I'm not implying either. I'm suggesting that when someone dies, it's kind to their nearest and dearest to refrain from commenting on their faults for a while, whether or not they were in the public eye.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Doesn't work, though, when people use that same time to deify said dead person.
You wish dignity and respect? It must go for both sides or neither.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

A dignified silence can speak volumes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If everyone did so, yes. In response to the OTT adulation? Not how it works.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I recently saw a diagram of how to respond to emotional crises, whether life threatening illness, grief, whatever. It was a blog responding to the author's experience of dealing with life-threatening disease, having someone respond in an unwelcome way (i.e. visiting when the author really wanted to be alone to rest) and being told by the unwelcome visitor "well, it's not about you". (Really?!? My cancer is not about me??? she thought).

The author drew a set of concentric circles. In the innermost circle was the person immediately affected-- e.g. the person with cancer, the spouse of the deceased, etc. In the next circle would be the immediate family/caregivers of the person affected. The circles widening outward to friends and extended family, acquaintances, and so on.

The author's simple rubric was-- when you are speaking from the INSIDE outward-- e.g. from inner circles to those in the outer circles-- there are no rules. You can say whatever you want, whatever you are feeling, whatever is true for you in that moment. When you are speaking from the OUTER circles inward (e.g. friends speaking to the bereaved) you speak words of comfort and support.

That makes sense to me, and seems like it applies here. Those closest to the dead person may feel the need to share "family secrets" long hidden-- abuse, for example. They may be more hurt than helped by the adulation of those on the outside who don't know what the inside was like. Those closest to the inner circle should, at least when speaking to those on the outer layers, be able to speak whatever is true for them in that moment, whether they are hurt, angry, sad, or relieved by the death. Those on the outer layers should speak words of comfort to those on the inside.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

The author drew a set of concentric circles. In the innermost circle was the person immediately affected-- e.g. the person with cancer, the spouse of the deceased, etc. In the next circle would be the immediate family/caregivers of the person affected. The circles widening outward to friends and extended family, acquaintances, and so on.

The author's simple rubric was-- when you are speaking from the INSIDE outward-- e.g. from inner circles to those in the outer circles-- there are no rules. You can say whatever you want, whatever you are feeling, whatever is true for you in that moment. When you are speaking from the OUTER circles inward (e.g. friends speaking to the bereaved) you speak words of comfort and support.

That makes sense to me, and seems like it applies here. Those closest to the dead person may feel the need to share "family secrets" long hidden-- abuse, for example. They may be more hurt than helped by the adulation of those on the outside who don't know what the inside was like. Those closest to the inner circle should, at least when speaking to those on the outer layers, be able to speak whatever is true for them in that moment, whether they are hurt, angry, sad, or relieved by the death. Those on the outer layers should speak words of comfort to those on the inside.

This may work in the short term immediate impact area of any emotional disaster. Care must be taken to ensure that long-term habits of neediness and unbalanced relationship are not fostered.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0