Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 Basically, ITV's Lunchtime News script has the following: Â We come on air with some sombre news. It's been announced that Nelson Mandela has died, at the age of 94. The former South African President passed away in hospital in Pretoria, bringing to an end the life of a man who changed a nation. Â Mr Mandela, who walked to freedom after 26 years in jail, symbolised the international struggle against apartheid. Â Â We'll have full coverage, reaction and tributes on ITV throughout the day. Â However, this might just be a holding thing. A "just in case" sort of thing. But it wasn't there for the 1125 bulletin, so it's not looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted June 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 10 minutes to transmission and they're still trailing Brady/Lawrence/Woolwich stuff off-air, nothing involving Mandela. So probably just a holding thing. Â He is probably going to go soon, though. What are people's thoughts on him? I know that there are some who aren't his biggest fans, some call him a terrorist, but overall he seems to be universally loved. I can't say I really know enough about that time and that country to comment with any authority./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 A number of news agencies have been reporting that he's been dead for a few days. It's all a bit strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Maverick Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 10 minutes to transmission and they're still trailing Brady/Lawrence/Woolwich stuff off-air, nothing involving Mandela. So probably just a holding thing. He is probably going to go soon, though. What are people's thoughts on him? I know that there are some who aren't his biggest fans, some call him a terrorist, but overall he seems to be universally loved. I can't say I really know enough about that time and that country to comment with any authority./ Like most people in his type of situation he did good and bad, the bad is often glossed over to a huge degree though by the media etc. Whether rightly or not i'm not really informed enough to decide. He was certainly directly involved in the deaths of numerous people through the ANC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted June 28, 2013 Author Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 A number of news agencies have been reporting that he's been dead for a few days. It's all a bit strange. Â It wouldn't be that surprising for that to be the case given the regard he is held in South Africa. They'd most certainly be thinking of the best way to break the news. But what reaction are they expecting? Nobody is going to riot in the streets about it. The man is 94 years old! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. It's all in your own context and opinion about if, what he did, was right. I don't have that answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Maverick Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 I suppose so, does that make him any different than say Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 I suppose so, does that make him any different than say Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness though? Â Nope - they were one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. They just happen to be OUR terrorist (in most cases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Top draw Pitcos. Â suppose so, does that make him any different than say Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness though? Â Well to some they're heroes, to others terrorists. They were fighting against an invading force. In many ways the only true freedom fighter you could say was Ghandi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathrey Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 No, he wasn't. He isn't universally loved by Indians as Hollywood would have you believe, many feel he sold them down the river and was a corrupt self serving fucker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 No, he wasn't. He isn't universally loved by Indians as Hollywood would have you believe, many feel he sold them down the river and was a corrupt self serving fucker  Any Indian worth his salt supported Ghandi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathrey Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 That's a massive judgement for you to make. Whilst most, if not all Indians wanted an independent India, many did not support Gandhi's vision of what that India would be. A significant number felt he was still bowing to much to the British and a significant number felt that Gandhi's only concern was for Hindu India, not for everyone else, he was quite happy to allow the British to mutilate the very multi-faith parts of Northern India, as well as sell people like Bhagat Singh down the river because their ideas didn't match with his. Indians in Northern India in particular feel he has a lot of blood on his hands. Much of the blood shed during the partitions is attributed to Gandhi not caring for non-Hindu's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted June 28, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted June 28, 2013 That's a massive judgement for you to make. Whilst most, if not all Indians wanted an independent India, many did not support Gandhi's vision of what that India would be. A significant number felt he was still bowing to much to the British and a significant number felt that Gandhi's only concern was for Hindu India, not for everyone else, he was quite happy to allow the British to mutilate the very multi-faith parts of Northern India, as well as sell people like Bhagat Singh down the river because their ideas didn't match with his. Indians in Northern India in particular feel he has a lot of blood on his hands. Much of the blood shed during the partitions is attributed to Gandhi not caring for non-Hindu's. Â It was a pun, based on the salt march. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.