My feed

to access all these features


Event 'not for bombers' families'

26 replies

QueenOfQuotes · 05/09/2005 16:15


hmmm not sure what to make of this....especially

"It would not be fair for the families of the bombers to sit beside a mother or father who has lost a son or daughter, she said."

Now presuming that the families had no idea what the bombers were up to this seems a pretty unfair comment to make.

It would be different if the families of the victims had been asked for their opinion, but it appears this has been a DCMS decision without any input from those who were directly affected.

OP posts:
Freckle · 05/09/2005 16:17

Well, I think I'd agree with it as it is a memorial for the victims. Not sure you can call the bombers victims as they chose to die that way. If I were the mother of a bomb victim, I'd find it hard to sit next to the mother of the bomber, whether that person were at fault or not.

Perhaps some separate event should be planned for the families of the bombers.

madmarchhare · 05/09/2005 16:18

Perhaps they just dont want any 'Your son did this' or 'If it wasnt for your son, I wouldnt be here' etc

handlemecarefully · 05/09/2005 16:18

Agree with freckle

starshaker · 05/09/2005 16:19

the bombers may not be victims but there familys are (unless they knew about it in which care they are just as bad or even worse)

starshaker · 05/09/2005 16:20

actually i agree with mmh wouldnt really be right

happymerryberries · 05/09/2005 16:20

The bombers effectivy murdered the victims. However dreadful it is for the parents of the bombers I think it is totaly reasonable to exclude the bombers from the memorial. and by extension their families as well. Agree that is they want to set up a meorial day of their own that is a different issue

Mytwopenceworth · 05/09/2005 16:24

I think that the decision should be made be the relatives of the victims. If it is their wish that the families of the bombers are not present, then that should be respected.

I think that if I had lost someone in the bombings I might not be able to be reasonable if, in the midst of my grief, I was seated next to the family of the man who killed my loved one. Now, I know they are not responsible, and that they have lost someone they love as well, but I think that in a situation where emotions are bound to be running high, it may get ugly. I think that it would be an insult to the memory of those who died if there was a big punch up at their memorial.

QueenOfQuotes · 05/09/2005 16:27

Well I understand that - but for them to make the decision without consulting the victims families seems rather like the governemnt 'knowing best' once again.

And that comment from the spokesman at the DCSM really irritates me. I would be devestated if my children grew up to commit an atrocity like that and despite the fact I could never condone it, I would still have lost a son.

If all those that have been invited were consulted, and the majority didn't want them there - fair play to them, but I suspect there could be at least some who would see it as an oppurtinity to show those 'behind' the attacks that the division they hoped to cause by it wasn't going to suceed.

OP posts:
QueenOfQuotes · 05/09/2005 16:28

"Agree that is they want to set up a meorial day of their own "

and therefore create even more of a "them and us" situation???

OP posts:
madmarchhare · 05/09/2005 16:34

See your point with the division thing, but I still wouldnt want to be around the family of anyone who murdered any of my family, not at a memorial service anyway.

In fact the more I think about it the reasons behind it all are a separate issue, not to be gone over when mourning the loss of a person dear to you.

Caligula · 05/09/2005 17:27

I agree with mtpw. The decision should be made by the families of the victims.

None of us know how they feel, or how we would feel in that situation (unless of course, one of us is a victim's family-member).

And it's not for the government to decide for them. Perhaps they did consult them and went with the majority opinion?

QueenOfQuotes · 05/09/2005 17:29

Caligula - from what I read of the article I understood that they hadn't been asked - that's why I was so shocked. Like I said if the families don't want them to be there that's absolutely fine. But for it to be 'assumed' that they wouldn't want them to be there is just nanny stating (to me).

And I thought the womans comment about losing a son or daughter was very insensitive too.

OP posts:
Caligula · 05/09/2005 17:39

It also flies in the face of what we know about restorative justice and reconciliation. There are so many countless tales of the families of victims meeting the perpetrators (not of this bombing, but just of crime in general) and it going some way towards helping the healing process. It's an opportunity that shouldn't be automatically ruled out without asking the families first. (Although perhaps this memorial service is not the right time and place for something like this. But again, it's the families who should decide that, no-one else.)

alexsmum · 05/09/2005 18:19

and quite right too.It would have extremely insensitive if they had been invited.

alexsmum · 05/09/2005 18:21

if your son or daughter was murdered by someone who went on to take his own life, would you want to sit their parents and remember your children together?
I don't think so(to put it mildly)

happymerryberries · 05/09/2005 18:22

I'm realy not sure that the berieved can be asked to make such a reconciliation now, later, I agree would be a good thing.

Imagine that (god forbid) your child was killed by a drunk driver who was also killed in the crash. How would you feel if the family of the driver wanted him to be part of your child's memorial service?

This is a memorial to the murdered, not the murderers. Time for reconciliation when the families are ready

Caligula · 05/09/2005 18:22

I don't know how I'd feel alux.

And I wouldn't presume to know how anyone else would feel either.

alexsmum · 05/09/2005 18:22

merryberry- posts crossed!

Caligula · 05/09/2005 18:23

That's why I think the families should decide.

robinia · 05/09/2005 18:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

happymerryberries · 05/09/2005 18:52

I find it exceptionaly hard to see the bombers as 'victims'. their families , yes

hunkermunker · 05/09/2005 18:55

If they'd have been invited, it would have been mental.

So they've lost their children? No sympathy, I'm afraid. Yes, tragic, yes, if my son, etc, etc...but they are not families of victims, they are families of murderers.

hunkermunker · 05/09/2005 18:56

The bombers are victims?! In what way?! They chose to blow themselves up. Nobody forced them.

Caligula · 05/09/2005 19:10

I agree with HMB. The bomber's families may be victims, but the bombers themselves weren't.

From what I remember, one can't even make the claim that they were vulnerable young men vulnerable to brainwashing. One of them was a respected teaching assistant - so one would have expected him to have a more complex view of life and people than that of a loony suicide bomber, tbh. They chose to do what they do in full consiousness of what it meant. I can't see them as victims either.

Caligula · 05/09/2005 19:11

Blimey what's happened to my typing and spelling. Consciousness...

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.