Unnecessary. I can read that he's dead.

me at all.

Its GOTCHA ! all over again.

could only be the Sun.

But I wish he wasn't dead. I wanted a drawn-out trial in the Hague where something might (might) have come out about the truth of Lockerbie.

I find it disrespectful to the dead, and the readers. Recently, on popular tabloid websites, I've seen the corpses of Quaddafi, Michael Jackson & some poor woman who died in a helicopter accident.

None of it is in the public interest, in my view.

And don't get me started on the endless, slow-mo, multi-angled footage of Dan Wheldon's fatal crash.

the video footage with him bleeding to death, pleading for his life being dragged by a bloodthirsty mob that Sky News keep showing are much better*

* Gervais style irony employed. Or maybe not, See, its easy.

and people love to see that stuff. I'm sure the papers would justify it by saying "he was a murdering dictator" etc etc. but they're also happy to show photos of Jo Yeate's flat or Meredith Kercher's bedroom, with the blood-stained duvet on the floor.

We don't need to see these things - personally I think it desensitizes people. I know Michael Jackson's dead, I don't need to see him naked with tubes in his arms. But it gets a few extra clicks on a website and drives advertising rates up. Feckin' depressing, but there we are.

Democracy would have been better served by putting him on trial not dragging him through the streets before (what looks suspicially like) summary execution, followed by this Victorian freakshow of front pages.

And if the NTC is going to be such a leap forward in leadership towards a stable democratic state, where are all the women?

and probable death sentance would it just have descended into the brutal and sickening end of Saddam being barracked bnd insulted as the noose was put round his neck?

Wouldn't the end be the same either way?

keep a load of people under the heel with a regime that utilises violence and fear to inculcate suspicion and political paralysis for 42 years, then fight to the last bullet against all common sense and then expect fair treatment when you're dragged whimpering from a storm drain by the very crowd you've just been spraying with 7.62 cal ammunition?

What did anyone expect would happen? Gentlemanly last requests? Slap up brekkers on execution day? Final fag in front of the firing squad? Get out of here, he was lucky they didn't stone him to death. He should have buggered off when he had the chance; we might have learned more from him while he pigged out and boozed by the pool in Kampala or wherever, before either succumbing to some ghastly western malaise of over indulgence or being picked off by an anonymous hit squad.

Don't want his bloodied frightened corpse with my corn flakes, though.

if it's Thatch.

Nah - On reflection - not even that.

...but it's too late. I think possibly the Libyans needed to see it though.

...a quick search of the hashtag #talktoteens on Twitter right now will reveal the delightful Sam Smith of the Billericay Gazette. Full story here:

http://scruffymutt.posterous.com/how-to-ruin-someones-life-for-no-good-r...

Needless to say, this absolutely wretched, foul bit of journalistic camel-shit had his story picked up by the Daily bastard Mail. A teacher, of whom her school has nothing but glowing things to say, is facing public humiliation, an investigation and possible career-ending sanctions for having the temerity to be a grown-up, on her own time.

Luckily, as I say, the school appears to being as supportive as it possibly can be. Let's hope the "investigation" yields absolutely nothing and that somebody successfully frames Sam Smith for some appalling crime of which he's entirely innocent. That'd do me. The CUNT.

Sorry. That was massively off-topic, but it's made me so mad.

should stick to reporting on local dog shows

(and no I don't mean "Miss Essex" pageants - 90's ed)

'That's For Lockerbie'

It's completely embarassing isn't it?

I was dismayed and shocked by the almost immediate coverage of what appears to have been a summary execution on the Guardian's website. I'd heard a news flash and went straightaway to the website to be confronted by a graphic still image of Gadaffi. Clicking on this - I know, I shouldn't have - took me straight into the phone footage, which repelled me more than I would have thought possible. Dignity in death is another issue; this was about the ethics of putting the footage on a public forum and the ensuing media coverage, which was sickening and entirely unnecessary

All have something in common. Yes, they are all bastards. They were all also supported by the West when it suited us. The sickening crap that I have witnessed in our newspapers today says more about us than it does about them. I can understand the Libyan people wanting to exact revenge for the crimes he perpetrated against them. There is no reason for us to glorify this though.

Never mind that I don't want to see it, what about all the kids going to buy The Beano or sweets or whatever and having to see that in the newsagents? It revolts me. There's some heartless bastards out there under the guise of journalism.

all very Medieval isn't it?
Like hanging the corpse in public to prove a point or cutting off bits and leaving them in strategic places throughout the kingdom.
I'm suprised he didn't get the full Mussolini treatment.

he's currently the No.1 tourist attraction inside some ahipping container

one point in the graphic coverage's favour *might* be that if it's seen by just one would-be dictator/thug/whatever, and gives him (it's bound to be a "him") pause for thought, then that's a good thing.

Not the greatest argument in the world, I know, but I think there's a point in there somewhere: some people do terrible things because they believe it's consequence-free. An occasional graphic reminder that they may be brought horribly and publicly to justice is no bad thing?

I keep thinking it's vaguely similar to the argument that Britain has been a *relatively* peaceful country to live in for a few centuries because we beheaded Charles I (publicly at that), thus reminding all subsequent sovereigns that their power was not absolute.

Of course, practically all the other graphic/blood-stained/voyeuristic news photos mentioned above are beyond the pale however.

Easy to forget facts - where did his wealth come from? Where did his ability to keep his own people in check for so long come from? Supported, armed, befriended by our Politicians. The ones that we elected, who were behaving in our interest.

So what was this mans actual personal involvement in the outrages that happened under his rule in Libya? What were his instructions with regard to this? How far are we away really from knowing without doubt that this man had any personal involvement in something like the Lockerbie bombing? That's what a system of justice is supposed to do, to prove these things beyond doubt. Forget any of that. Instead, not just the man himself, but his entire family are hunted down into ditches, and massacred. And the legal process is sneered at with the words "who cares!". Clearly the Middle Ages, often referred to when observing the MIddle East no less, is not so far away from home as we would like.

So why is the image of his blood spattered corpse on a front page so disgusting, and such a horrifying thing to witness? And why should it make anyone with any rational conscience so uncomfortable? Because we are more responsible the story and it's conclusion than we would like, that's why.

it depends whose it is and how it happened.

Gadaffi? Hell yes. It was quite funny in fact.

That silly little beard!

http://www.8ball.co.uk/FunnyT-shirts/ColonelGaddafi-Prickt-shirt.html

with the very young Libyan girl on the telly tonight who said, with a baby on her arm and looking not happy amidst the celebrations,said "No more blood"