Yes a couple of tweets and the press going through his bins and printing rubbish must have been bad.
Are you proud of this Malcolm?
It is absolute rubbish, just made up tripe. Complete and utter rubbish and only part was the political campaign and if he was not able to handle the hustings he should not have been there. Everybody knows what was wrong with him , his illness was very sad , but for this toilet paper of a rag to say the SNP drove him to death is for morons and idiots only. I cannot believe you as an educated person believe any of it is true Mike. The man was very well liked and respected by everyone.
PS, If true it would of course be despicable but it is pure fantasy.
To true @Malcolmg, CK was an un-rehabilitated alcoholic who was allowed to hold office despite his illness. Because he was a L/Dem MP he was left alone. If he had been a UKIP MP the heavens would have fallen in on him long ago, and I expect, hounded out of politics altogether.
I think it is right that this is raised at this point.
1. Why was someone with his longstanding illness allowed to stand by their supposedly caring party given the likely outcome of the election and stress that might reasonable be expected to impact on him?
2. Why was someone who was apparently also in very poor physical health due to this illness allowed to stand again given the pressures of any political campaign and, once more, the likely outcome?
3. Was it entirely Charles Kennedy's decision to continue and attempt to hold the seat or was he subject to undue pressure from his political party given their perilous situation?
These appear to me to be far more important questions than unsubstantiated allegations of bin raking (which to me would appear to be more likely to be from journalists), a few mild tweets and unattributed, weasel-worded accusations of a "hate campaign" by the SNP with no evidence provided at all.
You know what would be really nice and refreshing? A SNPer on here saying "If this is true, it's appalling. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and I wouldn't want them in my Party."
Instead we get skiploads of denials and rubbishing. Some SNPers have totally lost the plot when it comes to compassion and self-awareness.
Because your logic is utter nonsense.
A reply such as "if it is true, etc, etc" gives credence to what are COMPLETELY unsubstantiated allegations with NO EVIDENCE.
Do you think it would be reasonable that if a family member of yours was accused of being a paedophile with no evidence, no victim and no other supporting material other than someone who despised them made the claim out loud that your response should be "if it is true, etc, etc" or to point out that the accuser is an idiot, with no evidence and a grudge.
I know what course of action I would choose. And logically what anyone else would choose too.
Comments
1. Why was someone with his longstanding illness allowed to stand by their supposedly caring party given the likely outcome of the election and stress that might reasonable be expected to impact on him?
2. Why was someone who was apparently also in very poor physical health due to this illness allowed to stand again given the pressures of any political campaign and, once more, the likely outcome?
3. Was it entirely Charles Kennedy's decision to continue and attempt to hold the seat or was he subject to undue pressure from his political party given their perilous situation?
These appear to me to be far more important questions than unsubstantiated allegations of bin raking (which to me would appear to be more likely to be from journalists), a few mild tweets and unattributed, weasel-worded accusations of a "hate campaign" by the SNP with no evidence provided at all.
A reply such as "if it is true, etc, etc" gives credence to what are COMPLETELY unsubstantiated allegations with NO EVIDENCE.
Do you think it would be reasonable that if a family member of yours was accused of being a paedophile with no evidence, no victim and no other supporting material other than someone who despised them made the claim out loud that your response should be "if it is true, etc, etc" or to point out that the accuser is an idiot, with no evidence and a grudge.
I know what course of action I would choose. And logically what anyone else would choose too.
new thread