Tell Telford "Shut the f*** up"

12357

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Bullshit. You won't respond to clear evidence of your disingenuousness. And nobody here is posting in their capacity as Crew. (If they had been, you would be breaching Commandment 6 in your above post).

    I refer you to commandment 5...Do not be easily offended.
    The key word there is "easily". Avoid acting offended over minor things. But, if we're not offended by police murdering a man for the "crime" of not noticing the $20 in his wallet was possibly counterfeit while being black ... well, then there's something wrong with us. And, if we get told that that, on top of thousands of other people murdered by police and others for being black, is not something that should lead to protests is almost as offensive.

    I would certainly be offended if the the authorities ignored the killing and took no action.
    They've taken the minimum possible action. One of four officers who were accomplices in the murder has been charged. Why not the other three? What about an investigation of whether this was a form of restraint that officers were trained in, and if so why train police to assault people like that? Why not a review of training to improve awareness of race issues for all officers, and to equip the police with the skills of de-escalation that will reduce the frequency of these events?

    The reason the protests continue is that the action taken so far is far too inadequate to even address the issues of justice for George Lloyd, let alone address the systemic injustices people of color live with everyday. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    The main reason they continue is a cover for looting.
    This is simply untrue. It seems you’re either massively ignorant or are being massively obnoxious on purpose—though I guess it could be both.

    That you play the victim and refuse to own up to what you very clearly said is simply pathetic.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Bullied by the Admins so I am ignoring this thread

    I think I recognise that line. Are you donald trump?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    Having caught up with this now I agree Telford is at best miss understanding, at worse deliberately playing games maybe.
    Imagine if the Me Too movement had not happened. The injustices there would not have been pointed out. How much more important is it in this case because people are being killed because there have a certain cultural background. As far as I know (being English) it is not in line with law or constitution in the US to treat another person different because of race.
    So the murderer has been arrested. The other 3 are guilty of aiding him at least. Change comes through protest. Peaceful protest is not illegal.
    Let’s address the looting etc. Over here violence follows football. Any proper fan will tell you it is not the real fans that cause fights.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Bullshit. You won't respond to clear evidence of your disingenuousness. And nobody here is posting in their capacity as Crew. (If they had been, you would be breaching Commandment 6 in your above post).

    I refer you to commandment 5...Do not be easily offended.
    The key word there is "easily". Avoid acting offended over minor things. But, if we're not offended by police murdering a man for the "crime" of not noticing the $20 in his wallet was possibly counterfeit while being black ... well, then there's something wrong with us. And, if we get told that that, on top of thousands of other people murdered by police and others for being black, is not something that should lead to protests is almost as offensive.

    I would certainly be offended if the the authorities ignored the killing and took no action.
    They've taken the minimum possible action. One of four officers who were accomplices in the murder has been charged. Why not the other three? What about an investigation of whether this was a form of restraint that officers were trained in, and if so why train police to assault people like that? Why not a review of training to improve awareness of race issues for all officers, and to equip the police with the skills of de-escalation that will reduce the frequency of these events?

    The reason the protests continue is that the action taken so far is far too inadequate to even address the issues of justice for George Lloyd, let alone address the systemic injustices people of color live with everyday. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    The main reason they continue is a cover for looting.

    His name is Floyd by the way.

    I would never protest about a crime by commiting crimes against others

    I had kind of a busy day, so coming to this late. But let's clarify something about protests.

    There is no right way to protest because that's what a protest is : it cannot be considered the right by the very system that it is protesting against. I abhor violence, hate it, but this does not mean I don't understand it. One definition of privilege is only accepting change that makes you comfortable. Everything about these protests makes me uncomfortable, but I'm not going to tell anyone not to protest the hell out this.

    And we're seeing a classic manipulative tactic under way. There are white supremacists observed in multiple locations who are doing their damnedest to instigate conflicts between the protesters and the police. We've seen this many, many times.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Bullshit. You won't respond to clear evidence of your disingenuousness. And nobody here is posting in their capacity as Crew. (If they had been, you would be breaching Commandment 6 in your above post).

    I refer you to commandment 5...Do not be easily offended.
    The key word there is "easily". Avoid acting offended over minor things. But, if we're not offended by police murdering a man for the "crime" of not noticing the $20 in his wallet was possibly counterfeit while being black ... well, then there's something wrong with us. And, if we get told that that, on top of thousands of other people murdered by police and others for being black, is not something that should lead to protests is almost as offensive.

    I would certainly be offended if the the authorities ignored the killing and took no action.
    They've taken the minimum possible action. One of four officers who were accomplices in the murder has been charged. Why not the other three? What about an investigation of whether this was a form of restraint that officers were trained in, and if so why train police to assault people like that? Why not a review of training to improve awareness of race issues for all officers, and to equip the police with the skills of de-escalation that will reduce the frequency of these events?

    The reason the protests continue is that the action taken so far is far too inadequate to even address the issues of justice for George Lloyd, let alone address the systemic injustices people of color live with everyday. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    The main reason they continue is a cover for looting.
    This is simply untrue. It seems you’re either massively ignorant or are being massively obnoxious on purpose—though I guess it could be both.

    That you play the victim and refuse to own up to what you very clearly said is simply pathetic.

    I was only refering to those who have been doing the looting and have been involved in violence.

    It is an historical fact that whenever people organise a peaceful protest others only tag along to commit crime.

    I am not the victim. The victims are those killed by the police and those attacked by criminals
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Bullied by the Admins so I am ignoring this thread
    [Hostly winged helmet ON:] If you are serious about this accusation (despite the fact that they're all acting in an unofficial capacity), then take it to the Styx. It is totally out of place here.
    6. Respect the Ship’s crew – If you disagree with an admin, host or editor in their Ship role, raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on crew members for their official actions aren’t tolerated.
    [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]

  • Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Bullshit. You won't respond to clear evidence of your disingenuousness. And nobody here is posting in their capacity as Crew. (If they had been, you would be breaching Commandment 6 in your above post).

    I refer you to commandment 5...Do not be easily offended.
    The key word there is "easily". Avoid acting offended over minor things. But, if we're not offended by police murdering a man for the "crime" of not noticing the $20 in his wallet was possibly counterfeit while being black ... well, then there's something wrong with us. And, if we get told that that, on top of thousands of other people murdered by police and others for being black, is not something that should lead to protests is almost as offensive.

    I would certainly be offended if the the authorities ignored the killing and took no action.
    They've taken the minimum possible action. One of four officers who were accomplices in the murder has been charged. Why not the other three? What about an investigation of whether this was a form of restraint that officers were trained in, and if so why train police to assault people like that? Why not a review of training to improve awareness of race issues for all officers, and to equip the police with the skills of de-escalation that will reduce the frequency of these events?

    The reason the protests continue is that the action taken so far is far too inadequate to even address the issues of justice for George Lloyd, let alone address the systemic injustices people of color live with everyday. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    The main reason they continue is a cover for looting.
    This is simply untrue. It seems you’re either massively ignorant or are being massively obnoxious on purpose—though I guess it could be both.

    That you play the victim and refuse to own up to what you very clearly said is simply pathetic.

    I was only refering to those who have been doing the looting and have been involved in violence.
    I’m sorry, but it’s really difficult to square this claim with what you actually said.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I was only refering to those who have been doing the looting and have been involved in violence.

    I think this is the fourth time I've pointed out this is not what you said and not why you were recalled down here. If what you said in Purgatory is not what you meant, retract it. Every failure to do so despite having your attention repeatedly drawn to this point is further evidence of bad faith.
    I am not the victim.
    Then why did you claim you were being bullied here? You're not being bullied, you're being called to account for not owning your assertion in Purgatory.

  • This is doing the rounds on Facebook. I think it captures it perfectly; the message from White America to Black people is Sit down, shut up, stop complaining.

    Just a tiny bit of insight @Telford, that's all we ask.

    AFZ
  • Telford wrote: »
    It is an historical fact that whenever people organise a peaceful protest others only tag along to commit crime.
    So, you've decided to change your position, again. You'd earlier said
    Telford wrote: »
    The main reason [the protests] continue is a cover for looting.
    Which is it? Are the protests cover for looting? Or, are the looters only tagging along?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Bullshit. You won't respond to clear evidence of your disingenuousness. And nobody here is posting in their capacity as Crew. (If they had been, you would be breaching Commandment 6 in your above post).

    I refer you to commandment 5...Do not be easily offended.
    The key word there is "easily". Avoid acting offended over minor things. But, if we're not offended by police murdering a man for the "crime" of not noticing the $20 in his wallet was possibly counterfeit while being black ... well, then there's something wrong with us. And, if we get told that that, on top of thousands of other people murdered by police and others for being black, is not something that should lead to protests is almost as offensive.

    I would certainly be offended if the the authorities ignored the killing and took no action.
    They've taken the minimum possible action. One of four officers who were accomplices in the murder has been charged. Why not the other three? What about an investigation of whether this was a form of restraint that officers were trained in, and if so why train police to assault people like that? Why not a review of training to improve awareness of race issues for all officers, and to equip the police with the skills of de-escalation that will reduce the frequency of these events?

    The reason the protests continue is that the action taken so far is far too inadequate to even address the issues of justice for George Lloyd, let alone address the systemic injustices people of color live with everyday. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

    The main reason they continue is a cover for looting.
    This is simply untrue. It seems you’re either massively ignorant or are being massively obnoxious on purpose—though I guess it could be both.

    That you play the victim and refuse to own up to what you very clearly said is simply pathetic.

    I was only refering to those who have been doing the looting and have been involved in violence.
    I’m sorry, but it’s really difficult to square this claim with what you actually said.

    No need to apologise.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I was only refering to those who have been doing the looting and have been involved in violence.

    I think this is the fourth time I've pointed out this is not what you said and not why you were recalled down here. If what you said in Purgatory is not what you meant, retract it. Every failure to do so despite having your attention repeatedly drawn to this point is further evidence of bad faith.
    I am not the victim.
    Then why did you claim you were being bullied here? You're not being bullied, you're being called to account for not owning your assertion in Purgatory.

    I have answered the call and I will be saying no more on the subject.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.
  • *sigh*

    That's on a par with 'The dog ate my homework', or 'I needed to go on a 60-mile trip by car to test my eyesight'...
    :disappointed:
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
  • @Telford , you are Dominic Cummings, and I claim my £5!
  • @Telford , you are Dominic Cummings, and I claim my £5!

    That £5 was just a suggestion, not a promise, whether it was written on the side of a bus or not.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
    Having looked that up, I feel rather hurt.
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
    Having looked that up, I feel rather hurt.

    FFS, stop posting shit then. Come clean on your mistakes when someone calls you on it.
  • @Telford , you are Dominic Cummings, and I claim my £5!

    That £5 was just a suggestion, not a promise, whether it was written on the side of a bus or not.

    O of course. Silly me, for believing it...
    :confounded:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
    Having looked that up, I feel rather hurt.

    FFS, stop posting shit then. Come clean on your mistakes when someone calls you on it.

    Give me a list and I will comment on each one
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
    Having looked that up, I feel rather hurt.

    FFS, stop posting shit then. Come clean on your mistakes when someone calls you on it.

    Give me a list and I will comment on each one

    Really? Really????

    You expect me to go back through your posts and point out again the stupid, offensive things you wrote?

    I wouldn't mind so much but a) I - and many others - have already pointed out several examples and b) past performance suggests you will ignore the points made, showing wilful ignorance.

    I went back and looked at the Duck Femocracy thread where I was addressing the issue of Windrush. I lost count at 6 of the number of times you were picked up on a point that you refused to engage with and respond to. I won't rehash the arguments but if you'd care to pick up and address it there, it would be a start.

    On in the case here, you could simply retract your unhelpful statement about looters and try to understand the righteous anger at centuries of injustice.

    AFZ
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What would it cost you to walk back your original comment?

    I have forgotten what it was.

    You've been referred back to it often enough, you slippery little slimeball of mendacity.
    Having looked that up, I feel rather hurt.

    FFS, stop posting shit then. Come clean on your mistakes when someone calls you on it.

    Give me a list and I will comment on each one

    Really? Really????

    You expect me to go back through your posts and point out again the stupid, offensive things you wrote?

    I wouldn't mind so much but a) I - and many others - have already pointed out several examples and b) past performance suggests you will ignore the points made, showing wilful ignorance.

    I went back and looked at the Duck Femocracy thread where I was addressing the issue of Windrush. I lost count at 6 of the number of times you were picked up on a point that you refused to engage with and respond to. I won't rehash the arguments but if you'd care to pick up and address it there, it would be a start.

    On in the case here, you could simply retract your unhelpful statement about looters and try to understand the righteous anger at centuries of injustice.

    AFZ

    OK I retract that statement.
  • Well, that's a result.

    I think...
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?

    I guess it depends on whether you count deliberate trolling as uninformed.
  • More from that same thread that I can't respond to properly there.
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about

    Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).

    It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
    Rubbish. First, the nature of protest will make it at times illegal. Second, the BBC broadcast events out of order. The police own video shows them charging first.

    All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
    The actions of the Conservative government in sacrificing coal mining communities to pursue an ideological drive to break the power of unions to defend the rights of workers was immoral and deserved to be countered by all means necessary, even if that broke the law the same government had passed to make the inevitable consequences of their own policies illegal. When the government has manipulated the law to remove all legal routes to protest against immoral policies then breaking the law is entirely justified. I'd even say that when peaceful options (such as mass picketing) are exhausted violence against injustice is justified. Some laws just need to be broken, especially if they've been enacted for a political purpose such as abusing the rights of workers to organise to protect their own rights.

    If you follow your logic then presumably you would say that it was wrong for women to organise and struggle for universal suffrage, because they were breaking the law. Or, slaves shouldn't have run away, much less rise up in revolt, because that was against the law.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    His current line, the picket was illegal, seems to attempt to justify police violence simply because a crime is in progress.

    Telford has basically advocated for a fascist police state.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.
    I think it quite likely that he is not mean spirited. I think he had a belief prior to the discussion and is simply maintaining it, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is worse, IMO, than being mean spirited. It is why things have remained as bad as they have for as long as they have. People not affected by a problem can easily refuse to the the problem.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?

    I am very well informed about Policing issues and this includes the miners strike.
    More from that same thread that I can't respond to properly there.
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about

    Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).

    It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
    Rubbish. First, the nature of protest will make it at times illegal. Second, the BBC broadcast events out of order. The police own video shows them charging first.

    All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
    The actions of the Conservative government in sacrificing coal mining communities to pursue an ideological drive to break the power of unions to defend the rights of workers was immoral and deserved to be countered by all means necessary, even if that broke the law the same government had passed to make the inevitable consequences of their own policies illegal. When the government has manipulated the law to remove all legal routes to protest against immoral policies then breaking the law is entirely justified. I'd even say that when peaceful options (such as mass picketing) are exhausted violence against injustice is justified. Some laws just need to be broken, especially if they've been enacted for a political purpose such as abusing the rights of workers to organise to protect their own rights.

    If you follow your logic then presumably you would say that it was wrong for women to organise and struggle for universal suffrage, because they were breaking the law. Or, slaves shouldn't have run away, much less rise up in revolt, because that was against the law.

    You clearly don't know that the Police action was supported by the vast majority of the public who re-elected the government at the next opportunity. Scargill was a very poor leader and refused to ballot his membership on strike action.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.
    I think it quite likely that he is not mean spirited. I think he had a belief prior to the discussion and is simply maintaining it, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That is worse, IMO, than being mean spirited. It is why things have remained as bad as they have for as long as they have. People not affected by a problem can easily refuse to the the problem.

    How on earth am I supposed to ignore the evidence I witnessed at the time. If I had been a miner I would have gone on strike if there had been a ballot as it was a just cause if you wanted to continue to work in the bowels of the earth
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

  • Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Does this make you sound more charitable?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Does this make you sound more charitable?

    My charitable contributions are none of your business.
  • Telford wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Does this make you sound more charitable?

    My charitable contributions are none of your business.

    Ah, passive aggression. Which in fact you are very very good at. Or at least, do a lot.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Odious, hateful, and dull.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?

    I am very well informed about Policing issues and this includes the miners strike.
    More from that same thread that I can't respond to properly there.
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about

    Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).

    It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
    Rubbish. First, the nature of protest will make it at times illegal. Second, the BBC broadcast events out of order. The police own video shows them charging first.

    All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
    The actions of the Conservative government in sacrificing coal mining communities to pursue an ideological drive to break the power of unions to defend the rights of workers was immoral and deserved to be countered by all means necessary, even if that broke the law the same government had passed to make the inevitable consequences of their own policies illegal. When the government has manipulated the law to remove all legal routes to protest against immoral policies then breaking the law is entirely justified. I'd even say that when peaceful options (such as mass picketing) are exhausted violence against injustice is justified. Some laws just need to be broken, especially if they've been enacted for a political purpose such as abusing the rights of workers to organise to protect their own rights.

    If you follow your logic then presumably you would say that it was wrong for women to organise and struggle for universal suffrage, because they were breaking the law. Or, slaves shouldn't have run away, much less rise up in revolt, because that was against the law.

    You clearly don't know that the Police action was supported by the vast majority of the public who re-elected the government at the next opportunity. Scargill was a very poor leader and refused to ballot his membership on strike action.

    Actually, the majority of the public voted for parties other than the tories. Opinion polling on the specific issue didn't form in a vacuum but against the backdrop of the same lies you are promoting (assuming you're not wrong about that).
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?

    I am very well informed about Policing issues and this includes the miners strike.
    More from that same thread that I can't respond to properly there.
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about

    Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).

    It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
    Rubbish. First, the nature of protest will make it at times illegal. Second, the BBC broadcast events out of order. The police own video shows them charging first.

    All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
    The actions of the Conservative government in sacrificing coal mining communities to pursue an ideological drive to break the power of unions to defend the rights of workers was immoral and deserved to be countered by all means necessary, even if that broke the law the same government had passed to make the inevitable consequences of their own policies illegal. When the government has manipulated the law to remove all legal routes to protest against immoral policies then breaking the law is entirely justified. I'd even say that when peaceful options (such as mass picketing) are exhausted violence against injustice is justified. Some laws just need to be broken, especially if they've been enacted for a political purpose such as abusing the rights of workers to organise to protect their own rights.

    If you follow your logic then presumably you would say that it was wrong for women to organise and struggle for universal suffrage, because they were breaking the law. Or, slaves shouldn't have run away, much less rise up in revolt, because that was against the law.

    You clearly don't know that the Police action was supported by the vast majority of the public who re-elected the government at the next opportunity. Scargill was a very poor leader and refused to ballot his membership on strike action.

    Police action was supported by the public simply because they believed the line they were being fed by Central Government. In reality would you support a group of anonymous uniformed men who walked through the streets of your town/village banging riot sticks on riot shields at 5 am?

    It was a come out and show us you're men kind of attitude. Why terrorise children and families?

    The large nationwide (ahem) firm I worked for then took the unprecedented step of telling every branch not to pursue people in those areas for non payment for the duration of the strike. It shows that someone saw a bigger picture. I was given to understand much later, when I was in a position of more seniority, that this approach resisted pressure being applied by Government.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Odious, hateful, and dull.

    I'm not the one throwing the insults
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about
    Strangely, I've come to the same conclusion (about you, not @Doc Tor who is very well informed about many issues). Is there any subject on which you can express a view that isn't uninformed nonsense?

    I am very well informed about Policing issues and this includes the miners strike.
    More from that same thread that I can't respond to properly there.
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.

    That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.

    I have come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you are on about

    Orgreave alone would have proved your original assertion incorrect, as would the actions of the TSG over the years (including the Tomlinson case).

    It was not the Police who started the problems at Orgreave. The probledm originated with the presence of an illegal mob and it was their violence that caused the Police to respond. The horses were used to protect the outnumbered officers
    Rubbish. First, the nature of protest will make it at times illegal. Second, the BBC broadcast events out of order. The police own video shows them charging first.

    All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
    The actions of the Conservative government in sacrificing coal mining communities to pursue an ideological drive to break the power of unions to defend the rights of workers was immoral and deserved to be countered by all means necessary, even if that broke the law the same government had passed to make the inevitable consequences of their own policies illegal. When the government has manipulated the law to remove all legal routes to protest against immoral policies then breaking the law is entirely justified. I'd even say that when peaceful options (such as mass picketing) are exhausted violence against injustice is justified. Some laws just need to be broken, especially if they've been enacted for a political purpose such as abusing the rights of workers to organise to protect their own rights.

    If you follow your logic then presumably you would say that it was wrong for women to organise and struggle for universal suffrage, because they were breaking the law. Or, slaves shouldn't have run away, much less rise up in revolt, because that was against the law.

    You clearly don't know that the Police action was supported by the vast majority of the public who re-elected the government at the next opportunity. Scargill was a very poor leader and refused to ballot his membership on strike action.

    Police action was supported by the public simply because they believed the line they were being fed by Central Government. In reality would you support a group of anonymous uniformed men who walked through the streets of your town/village banging riot sticks on riot shields at 5 am?

    It was a come out and show us you're men kind of attitude. Why terrorise children and families?

    The large nationwide (ahem) firm I worked for then took the unprecedented step of telling every branch not to pursue people in those areas for non payment for the duration of the strike. It shows that someone saw a bigger picture. I was given to understand much later, when I was in a position of more seniority, that this approach resisted pressure being applied by Government.

    Your firm realised that you can't get blood out of a stone.
  • It might also be said that that firm showed a degree of compassion...unlike the Government of the day.
  • Or, the government of today
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Odious, hateful, and dull.

    I'm not the one throwing the insults

    Oldest trick in the book. Be obnoxious politely. But still obnoxious.

    "I think all children should be fed through bacon slicers; people might think this is unnecessary but they haven't weighed up the pros and cons"

    "You sick fuck!"

    "Hmm. Resorting to insults. Clearly you don't have a rational argument."
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    If only Telford supplied the information after the semicolon in your example. As it is, we just get a proposition and no reasoning.
  • You want Reasoning...?
    :lol:

    No, no - all you'll get is Rubbish.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited June 2020
    . never mind can't be bothered.
  • Quite so - and that's one of the reasons why it's not really worth wasting time and effort in trying to engage with the New Town.
    :tired_face:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford is quite odious. I have a hard time believing anyone is mean-spirited enough to believe what he claims to.

    Did that make you feel better?

    Odious, hateful, and dull.

    I'm not the one throwing the insults

    Oldest trick in the book. Be obnoxious politely. But still obnoxious.

    "I think all children should be fed through bacon slicers; people might think this is unnecessary but they haven't weighed up the pros and cons"

    "You sick fuck!"

    "Hmm. Resorting to insults. Clearly you don't have a rational argument."

    All your words, not mine
This discussion has been closed.