Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
This is an incredibly brave Thunderer column from today’s Times. It could have gone horribly wrong, but I think that Martin Samuel has managed to pull off a very difficult stunt: Make an extremely controversial point in a good humoured way, and not end up Boris-ing himself.
For what it’s worth, I do tend to agree with him, and my initial reaction to the announcement of a three minutes’ silence was one of surprise at the length. More of a super-silence than anything else. And whilst this has clearly been a super-disaster, does having an extra-long silence really add anything to the sentiment? I think not. The tradition has always been that we have a two-minute silence, unless it’s felt that a one-minute silence is more appropriate. But now we’re having a three-minute one. Why? Is this disaster considered more tragic than the deaths of millions in wars worldwide?
Well done Martin for having the guts to write this brillian column, and well done to The Times for publishing it.