Great Get Together in Abingdon

June 18, 2017

Great Get Together
The Great Get Together took place today in memory of the late MP, Jo Cox, who represented the constituency of Batley and Spen in Yorkshire. Many thousands of events have taken place across the country including the one in Abingdon at St Ethelwolds House. People brought food to share.
Great Get Together
On what was a very hot day it was good that there were lots of salads and cool drinks.
Great Get Together
And people sat out on the lawns and terraces sharing the food and meeting new people.
Great Get Together
Entertainment was provided by, among others, the Mayor on penny whistle, her escourt on the piano accordian, and members of the John Mason folk players.

The event was organised by Emma, inspired by Jo Cox to found Better off Together in Abingon; and by Sue of Host Abingdon, and other groups such as the Abingdon Peace Group.
Great Get Together
Both Emma and Sue gave a short speech, as did the Mayor, Cllr Jan Morter. The final speech was given by Layla Moran, the new MP for this area who remembered Jo Cox and her maiden speech in the House of Commons.

Jo Cox said “Batley and Spen is a gathering of typically independent, no-nonsense and proud Yorkshire towns and villages. Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration, be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir. While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”

Filed under: Events

29 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Angela  |  June 19, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    It looks as if it was a wonderful event and a fitting memorial to Jo Cox. I’m very disappointed to have missed it.
    Well done to the organisers.

  • 2. Iain  |  June 19, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Very sad that the day ended with the appalling far right murderous attack on innocent people outside Finsbury Park Mosque.

  • 3. Captainkaos2  |  June 19, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Shame about Manchester, Borough Market and the bridge murders too eh Iain ?

  • 4. Iain  |  June 19, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    Yes absolutely – i’m not sure what your point is steve

  • 5. Julian  |  June 20, 2017 at 6:51 am

    I saw that Corbyn shed a tear for this latest atrocity. And Diane abbot twice tweeted about “an incident” occurring, but this last one was “a terrorist attack”…
    Just sayin…

  • 6. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 20, 2017 at 11:00 am

    “Just saying…….” what Julian?
    That Diane Abott is a competent MP who does a good job for her constituency (clearly evidenced by her increased majority in the last election) who occasionally uses a variety of words to express herself? Or something else?
    I notice that above CK2 chose to use the word “murders” to describe the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London. Is there some reason why you haven’t mentioned that?
    Just sayin…..

  • 7. Chris John  |  June 20, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    Julian, you really are the lowest of the low trying to score political points on what was a great day to remember and celibrate the life of a wonderful Labour yes Labour MP. You should be ashamed

  • 8. Captainkaos2  |  June 20, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    Think a few commentators on here need big dose of reality ? You don’t seem to want to openly criticise anyone of Islamic faith/following when “they” commit acts of terrorism against the faith/following that is the very bedrock of our country and society, namely Christianity, some of you can’t wait (Iain) to criticise and slate anyone who dare reacts to their far worse and more numerous atrocities!
    I just st don’t get the tolerance at all costs for a following whose mandate is to overwhelm Christianity at all costs?
    Stupid nativity that will ultimately end in tears (rivers of blood)

  • 9. Iain  |  June 20, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    What a load of garbage Steve.

    First you need to read back the posts that I and others with similar views have made. I have not read any views in this site supporting the acts of jihadist terrorists. They are appalling people and are deserving of no sympathy.

    What me, and others with similar views, have said repeatedly is that the overwhelming majority of muslims are not jihadists and are not in any way culpable for the behaviours of these people.

    I have argued here against things like internment for people who have the ‘wrong colour’ skin, and against blanket controls on immigration, because they punish the innocent and do more harm than good.

    I will however say that it says a lot about your moral compass when you respond in this way to a post pointing out with sadness that some right wing bastard has ploughed into a group of muslims going about their normal business, on the anniversary of the murder of a law abiding MP by another right wing fanatic.

    I really don’t like your views at all Steve. They smack of bogotry and although I am not a Christian, I suspect most people of your faith would be keen to disociate themselves from your views.

  • 10. Iain  |  June 20, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    What a load of garbage Steve.

    First you need to read back the posts that I and others with similar views have made. I have not read any views in this site supporting the acts of jihadist terrorists. They are appalling people and are deserving of no sympathy.

    What me, and others with similar views, have said repeatedly is that the overwhelming majority of muslims are not jihadists, do not share their views and are not in any way culpable for the behaviours of these people. In fact they are far more iften the victims thanthose of other faiths.

    I have argued here against things like internment for people who have the ‘wrong colour’ skin, and against blanket controls on immigration, because they punish the innocent and do more harm than good.

    I think it says a lot about your moral compass when you respond in this way to a post pointing out with sadness that some right wing bastard has ploughed into a group of muslims going about their normal business, on the anniversary of the murder of a law abiding MP by another right wing fanatic.

    I really don’t like your views at all Steve. They smack of bigotry and although I am not a Christian, I suspect most people of your faith would be keen to disociate themselves from your views.

  • 11. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 21, 2017 at 12:27 am

    CK2, it reads very much to me that the only person on this forum failing to speak out against terrorism is you. You accuse others and then go on to say of the terrorist in Finsbury Park that he ‘dared to react’ that sounds to me very much like justification not condemnation.
    Enoch Powell was as offensive and wrong about the result of immigration in his speech from 1968 that you allude to as you are today.

  • 12. Old Ghost  |  June 21, 2017 at 9:45 am

    I think that the saddest thing is that people are afraid to say what is on their mind for fear of being branded racist, or some other -ist, merely for questioning the effect of mass migration of people of different cultures and religion, ‘just say’in’. The Marxist political correct conflation of this with actual far right hatred suppresses any real dialogue and feeds into the very things Enoch Powell was prescient enough to foresee in 1968.

    The desperate attempts by the ‘establishment’ to equal two horrid murders by lone white men with the organised, almost weekly attacks (across Europe) by jihadis, shows how tinderbox they fear the situation may become.

    Have a picnic, sing Lennon songs, feel warm and fuzzy. They still want to kill you.

    On a brighter note, the Three Stooges are indeed back fighting fit full strength, ready to steer the great ship Britain into the nearest rocky reef. But of course any criticism of Diane Abbott falls into that self same p/c victim narrative trap doesn’t it? Eh, just sayin’.

  • 13. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 21, 2017 at 11:37 am

    I think the saddest thing is that people are increasingly emboldened to express their racist views spurred on by the hateful rhetoric of pseudo journalists like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and the Daily Mail. These people are as culpable for right wing terror attacks as the hate preachers of radical Islam are for terror attacks like those in Manchester, London and across the world.
    I have no idea what “The Marxist political correct conflation of this with actual far right hatred suppresses any real dialogue and feeds into the very things Enoch Powell was prescient enough to foresee in 1968.” even means or is supposed to mean, but are you familiar with Enoch Powells so called Rivers of blood speech from 1968? Have you read a transcript or considered it’s political purpose at the time?
    It’s main aim was to prevent the Race Relations bill becoming law because it would give, and I quote, “the black man the whip hand”.
    I’m old enough to remember that speech being broadcast on TV (or was it the radio?) and the reaction it got from my late father, a man who had served and suffered incarceration beside men of all nationalities during WWII and had lived and worked alongside immigrants from all backgrounds in the brickyards. It was not his vision of or for Britain, there was no sense that Powell spoke for him or anyone he knew or respected. And no, he wasn’t a Marxist or even a Labour supporter. He was a Conservative but like many conservatives today he was keen to disassociate himself from their devisive policies and the vociferous far right who were in his mind not significantly different from a traitor like Oswald Moseley.

  • 14. Old Ghost  |  June 21, 2017 at 11:50 am

    You prove my point precisely: you’ve conflated far right racist views with my (seriously, not far right) questioning of the effect of mass migration into this country, and suggested that far right violence is equal to that of radical Islam. You’ve dampened down my ability to express myself by suggesting that I, by using Enoch Powell (yes I am familiar with his views) am somehow of the same political views as Oswald Moseley! Bless. That’s a leap of logic worthy of your name.

    My father served too, he was a lifelong Christian Socialist. I weep for the Labour Party (the only political party I’ve ever belonged to, actually). Sixth form politics for sixth formers.

  • 15. ppjs  |  June 21, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Jo Cox would be horrified by some of the above.

    Yes, people have the freedom (not the right) to say what they wish – but they then have to take personal responsibility for what they have said/written. I have to say that a national day of rage definitely sounds to me like sixth form politics – but then so does the idea that uniting as a country means all saying and believing the same thing.

    We live in a sound bite and Twitter world. Most of life is rather more complicated….

  • 16. Julian  |  June 21, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    Chris John, Why should I be ashamed? For daring to voice an opinion? For stating facts? It wasn’t a comment to “score political points” at all…in fact if you actually knew me, you would know that I am very Apolitical, and scathing of ALL politicians, especially those that shed crocodile tears at just certain events and not others, ones who condone terrorist organisations but then “weep” when a madman decides in his obviously deranged mind that he should take the law into his own hands. Or ones who tweet that the two obvious terrorist attacks (someone constructing and detonating a bomb in Manchester, and a van with three terrorists in, mowing down innocents and then jumping out to stab as many people as they can), were “incidents”…yet the deranged individual was “a terrorist attack”! (This from someone who IS a racist and her racist comments are on record, if you care to look them up?). Yes, reverse racism still counts!
    Old Ghost is correct, it is a sad state of affairs now, when everyone is frightened to speak their mind, because some individuals WILL brand them a racist or “Right Wing” just for having an opinion!
    I think all three attacks were terrible, and shouldn’t have happened, and what really gets me is the amount of media coverage that these things get now. (I saw an interview the other day talking to the COUSIN of a witness, to ask her opinion!), This excessive puerile coverage feeds right into the terrorists hands…and that is what they want, people frightened to go about their daily business!

  • 17. Old Ghost  |  June 21, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    I really liked Jo Cox, I didn’t agree with her, but she seemed the sort of person who would talk to people, what I can’t stand is being tarred as a racist, or seeing others being accused merely for asking questions. It closes discussion down in a very Orwellian way, something Jo would have not stood for I believe.

    Life is very complex as are the problems facing Abingdon and the wider country. Being unable to express myself or hear others views without passive aggressive accusations is very disappointing.

    Ranting here, must be the heat.

  • 18. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 21, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Do you make those phrases up yourself or is there a app I can download?

  • 19. Old Ghost  |  June 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    There’s a great, democratic, variety of views on This Abingdon which is one of it’s entertaining strengths. It’s great to hear diverse views from Iain through to CK2, I’m just sad to see people being branded racist, as I’ve said before, for asking questions and expressing views that our outside of your very narrow hard-Left politically-correct views.

    I’m sorry to everyone else if my English is wrong, I try my best, but please don’t bully people on here for their lack of skill.

  • 20. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 21, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Here’s a final thought.
    (for now ;) )
    I’m assuming that you are not using “hard-left politically-correct’ as a term of endearment and believe it to have significant negative connotations, so why is it that using such a term doesn’t close debate in an orwellian or passive aggressive way but terms like “right wing” or “racist” do?

  • 21. Old Ghost  |  June 21, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    Ok, ‘politically correct’ is just a descriptor isn’t it? I’ve had much experience of the hard-left and thought you’d be ok with it, no, obviously I don’t agree with you but was not trying to upset. Just ‘left wing’ then?

    ‘Racist’ is a socially unacceptable thing to be, rightly so, unless you self-identify for whatever idiot reason. Being branded so can have devastating consequences socially and even in employment, so to throw it around willy nilly does make a lot of people uncomfortable expressing views that are generated by a genuine anxiety for our society and to endeavour to find a way forward for it. Therefore it shuts debate down. I’d consider myself apolitical too, so calling me right wing… oh, who cares.

    Hope it makes sense

  • 22. ppjs  |  June 21, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    Why are tears “crocodile tears”. Politicians are human beings. Perhaps they weep because they see the tragedy; perhaps they weep because the world they want to build is broken; perhaps they weep because they are frustrated.

    I have wept for all the above reasons (and others not here identified). Would you know when I was being a crocodile?

  • 23. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 22, 2017 at 10:39 am

    I believe crocodile tears are shed when it doesn’t fit a particular narrative to accept they are genuine.

  • 24. ppjs  |  June 22, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Yes, but why did Julian use that expression on this occasion? Is it being suggested that the tears were not genuine?

    I suggested at three instances where someone cries, when apparently they might not be expected to do so. Is the accusation of crocodiles any less cynical than those whom it is alleged to describe?

    I believe that politician are human, they (like all of us) make mistakes. They (like all of us) turn wishes into horses. They promise and cannot always deliver.

    They are not crocodiles.

  • 25. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Crocodile tears is not so much used to describe unexpected crying but rather contrived or false tears to achieve some desired effect. (apologies if you already know that). As to why Julian would want to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn ’s tears over the Finsbury Park terrorist attack were not genuine, well I have my own ideas as to his (Julian’s) aims but that’s for him to say really..

  • 26. ppjs  |  June 22, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    Sorry, Reductio, I didn’t mean to question you – and yes your explanation of crocodile tears is absolute spot on. You have seen to the issue I raise: Is there contrivance in the tears of Mr Corbyn or, indeed, of others who have wept at the site of the fire or of the mosque attack or at Manchester or Westminster?

    We may ask why things were not done earlier – and that may be part of the reason why politicians are seen weeping. They know their own failings. I doubt if their tears are contrived. It is, in my opinion, a cheap shot.

  • 27. Julian  |  June 22, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    One has to question why a man that supported IRA terrorists, (those who caused loss of life to many many people..and caused fear amongst hundreds of thousands of people, in case you’ve forgotten or are too young remember), was moved to shed tears at just that moment, when a lone deranged man drove into a group of worshippers? Where were his tears for the victims of IRA bombs? This is a man who wants jihadist terrorists to be allowed to return to Britain. The same man that has blocked laws on security and voted against the Prevention of Terrorism (temporary Provisions) Bill several times. So yes, I do believe they were crocodile tears!
    By the way…i have no time for any politician of any persuasion who kisses babies just before election time either…but maybe that’s just the cynic in me. I’m sure some of you believe that makes them wonderful people!

  • 28. Reductio ad absurdum  |  June 23, 2017 at 3:05 am

    I’d be fascinated to know in what way Jeremy Corbyn supported IRA terrorists and how you know that he didn’t shed a tear for their victims?
    As for voting against anti terror legislation he was far from alone in expressing concern about enacting legislation that would take away the very freedoms and civil liberties that they were trying to prevent terrorism from curtailing. Theresa May voted against such legislation on 49 occasions as did many many other MPs on all sides of the house.
    There are two major issues facing our country at the moment, the way we should respond to migration and how to defeat terrorism and it’s a great shame that they are so often used by politicians and others with a vested interest to create division and hatred rather than to search for consensus.

  • 29. ppjs  |  June 23, 2017 at 5:30 am

    Better to kiss the babies than kill them though.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.


Blog Archives

Links

Other Backstreet Blogs City Daily Photo
Local Blogroll (Active) Local Blogroll (In-Active) Abingdon Sites
Visitors