Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
I think Ken was very diplomatic explaining what actually went on. He could have gone into great depth about the shenanigans that went on but appears to have quite rightly instead played it all down a little. I was quite disappointed when I learnt from a few sources what had gone on. Some of those should have know better how to deal with it and others were involved for either personal or totally wrong reasons.
Ken has taken the flak for implementing government guidelines. I posted some comments in the Facebook thread myself which I promptly removed when I found out what was going on so I would not be used for the benefit of others
|
What we do not know, we cannot comment on.
I just think it was distasteful for a deceased member(whom Ken presumed, rightly or wrongly, would have agreed with him) to be brought into the discussion.....with the aim of scoring points.
I think that is a cheap shot and one which Ken should not have used.
What ever wranglings happened in the council chamber, it should have been foreseen that the removal of the cross would have repercussions.(and any political party will make as much mileage out of the situation as they can...that is the nature of politics.....whether it be local or national)
And to justify the act as 'following government guidelines' is just a fudge.
Guidelines are just that...they are not an edict......and that is because the government hope that local representatives will know and understand the feelings of their local voters.......and do what they feel is in accord with what local people will accept.
Just because many people do not profess a religion does not mean that they will be offended by the religious artefacts that may be present in crematoria.
We are all tolerant of other peoples religions yet we want to wipe the Christian religion out of daily life(this is the religion on which the fabric of this country was built)...how sad!