TIme to move on

« Stirring stuff | Red Letter Day »

TIme to move on

by EllieGant ^Pro @ 22.02.2008 – 18:32:01

Grief is grief is grief. But grief when someone dies suddenly, unexpectedly, in an accident or crime is compounded by shock that never ever entirely leaves you. At least in my experience. And when the facts of the accident or crime are aired all over the newspapers, for weeks or months, I can fully understand how difficult family and friends find it to move on. I can't blame them for calling for the death penalty or seeking someone to blame.

But in the case of the Diana and Dodi inquest, I really wish Mr. Al Fayed had spent his millions on bereavement counselling, as I cannot see that this circus is doing anything but causing more pain for the families involved, and putting people like Paul Burrell back in the limelight with the opportunity to cash in yet again.
Options:
Tags:
- grief
- bereavement
Trackback URL for "TIme to move on"

Enter this code:

18 Comments on TIme to move on

Hide subcomments

- ladee-bird ^Pro
- 22.02.2008 @ 18:48:37
Well said
- - EllieGant ^Pro
  - 22.02.2008 @ 23:32:40
  Thank you - I'm glad I am not alone feeling this way.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deana24
- 22.02.2008 @ 19:17:45
Let's be realistic, Mr Al Fayed could spend the world's wealth on bereavement counselling and he would still be in hell. Counselling isn't a magic wand. You don't get over losing someone suddenly, violently. You just learn how to manage your feelings. Eventually.

It might be painful to watch as a spectator but it's his actual pain and you I can't blame him for losing his sense of fair play.

With that much money and privilege would I behave with any more grace? I doubt it. Maybe being rich and privileged isn't so great.
- - Usksider ^Pro
  - http://www.usksider.co.uk
  - 22.02.2008 @ 19:20:54
  Spot on; I couldn't have put it better myself.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - blacksheep63 ^Pro
  - 22.02.2008 @ 19:27:37
  fair points deana but this ridiculous conspiracy case has now dragged on in public for years at great expense. it was very sad that a young woman and her boyfriend died in a car crash because their driver lost control of his car (due to driving at excessive speed under the influence of alcohol) but it happens every day to much more ordinary people. we dont have elongated inquests every time. i have little time for the royals but think it highly unlikely they had diana and dodi bumped off.. it is interesting because many of my students are convinced that the ripper murders in 1888 were carried out as part of a royal conspiracy to hush up the marriage of Q Victoria's grandson to a local prostitute. despite good evidence to refute such allegations we still like to believe conspiracies .. why is that?
  - - deana24
    - 22.02.2008 @ 19:54:47
    Conspiracy theories allow us, as a society, to distance ourselves from events. It's not us, it's 'them'. In the Ripper case, in modern-day murder cases, I think conspiracy theories allow us to demonise without sharing responsibility. To blame without looking inside ourselves as a collective to see what needs to be mended.
    
    And people do love scandal. Put the two together... whomph! *lit match to petrol-type sound effect*
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- - EllieGant ^Pro
  - 22.02.2008 @ 23:40:27
  I don't disagree with you - I know first hand that you never get over this type of loss, you just learn to live with it, somehow. But there eventually needs to be a line drawn so that you move forward, however painful. Whether this is harder if you have the money and position to delay that moment, I don't know.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- menhir
- 22.02.2008 @ 20:01:39
Some fair points made.

However my objection to the Dodi/Diana inquest does not lie in who is 'fuelling' it, nor the content of the material being examined, my objection lies in the fact that there were enormous attempts not to have an inquest, to hold an enquiry in camera, to create an inquest with unusual rules to circumvent normal procedures, rather than follow the law as is laid down for the likes of you and me.

Someone of Lady Butler Sloss's standing, should never have been party to political and other manipulations in matters of public law. Rather late in the day and after a successful challenge to her gagging tactics, she pathetically withdrew as 'inquests were not her area of expertise'. She must have known that before she agreed to take on the role.

I am glad there is a public hearing, that the law as is laid down for these matters, is now being seen to be open; (whether it is, will always exercise the minds of conspiracy theorists who, so far, have been well fed).
- - EllieGant ^Pro
  - 22.02.2008 @ 23:43:10
  Yes, it was a mistake not to hold the public inquest, because apart from circumventing the norm, it has just fuelled the conspiracy theories. But I still wonder why it is necessary to make this inquest last so long, as I can't see it happening in the case of any other death by drunken driver.
  - - menhir
    - 23.02.2008 @ 09:33:03
    Ellie, the behaviour of the establishment has contributed to the length of the inquest. The inter-country legal differences required co-operation, not always offered. Once the inquest got underway, all elements of enquiry had to be considered. The likes of you and me don't have complex political and extended social links and the life and relationships of the type that this society scenario has generated. Our own personal complexities are in nutshells by comparison to the stratas of society that are being seen here.
    
    Sure, Al Fayed has axes to grind as well as being a bereaved parent. He also has the money to pursue the establishment that we know has rejected him, (not his brother by the way)who have been putting up all sorts of obstacles and now well rehearsed defences. He also has the wealth to ensure his right to a public inquest which was originally denied. In the final analysis, whatever the outcome of this enquiry, the common man should be thankful that the basic principle of the law has been upheld and not manipulated and circumvented - openly gagged - for a privileged few.
    - - EllieGant ^Pro
      - 23.02.2008 @ 19:00:16
      I wasn't disputing the fact that the inquest should have taken place. My issue is that now the evidence has surely all been presented and Mr. Al Fayed has had his opportunity to give his views, someone should say enough is enough - let's get the jury to decide and let's not consider recalling witnesses like Paul Burrell merely because he is patently trying to revive his celebrity status.
      - menhir
        
        23.02.2008 @ 23:35:10
        
        If all was done and dusted the winding up process would have already started.
        
        Whatever ones views on the dubious celebrity of any of the characters concerned, now that the procedure is underway, it has to be seen to be completed and due process executed as it should be.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- tylluanpenry ^Pro
- 22.02.2008 @ 21:52:23
I have to say I agree with menhir here.... there needed to be a proper inquest and efforts to avoid it may well have fuelled many of the conspiracy theories.

I suspect if it hadn't been for Mr Fayed's millions, the whole thing would have sunk without trace...
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- EllieGant ^Pro
- 22.02.2008 @ 23:52:38
I agree that without Mr. Fayed, this inquest is unlikely to have taken place. And it was foolish to avoid having a public inquest given the speculation and rumour. But given a two-year French investigation and a British Police investigation, it cannot be claimed that these deaths were allowed to pass unnoticed or unexamined. It's where the line is drawn that worries me.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- louidog
- 23.02.2008 @ 00:33:03
Totally agree Ellie!
- - EllieGant ^Pro
  - 23.02.2008 @ 19:01:42
  Thank you, Daisy - I was beginning to feel that I was alone in wondering what good this is doing us, let alone the families involved.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 23.02.2008 @ 15:26:23
This will sound callous, but his behaviour seems so self-indulgent to me.
I always want to know what people's motives are - and I wonder whether his are driven by the grief of an event that happened so long ago, or his own fear of allowing grief to happen.

i hate the whole litigation culture, too.

Sorry, you set me off ...
- - EllieGant ^Pro
  - 23.02.2008 @ 19:12:24
  I can understand his motivation - grief tempered with resentment about the establishment etc - but I feel, as Deana points out, that Mr Al Fayed may never move on from this. At some point, someone else needs to take control of this situation and conclude it. Let's move on and let Mr. Al Fayed and the other victims' families grieve privately. I don't think he'll be able to do that, and like you, I feel a bit callous in saying 'well, tough - other people have to deal with it privately because they don't have his wealth or position.'
  
  But to me the dead are less important than the living, and Mr. Al Fayed has caused immense grief to the friends and family of Diana by accusing them of trying to kill her. If this inquest was to result in some useful outcome like preventing paparazzi intrusion into private lives, then I could appreciate it more.
  
  My turn to be sorry now, but there are people on the island who have lost their children in car accidents, who have preferred to funnel their grief in trying to warn other youngsters of the dangers rather than making statements that would get most ordinary citizens had up for slander.
  
  (And now I think it is time for me to move on ...)
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink

TIme to move on

18 Comments on TIme to move on

Recent posts of "FLOWER GIRL"