"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
Recognising that the police routinely use violence against peaceful protesters is nothing to do with being pro- or anti- police, it's about having a grasp of reality. Look up the case of the George Fox 6 for an example of an entirely peaceful protest where the police were called and responded with completely unnecessary violence (or "home office approved leg sweep" as I recall it being named when I was in the public gallery to hear the verdict on the ludicrous aggravated trespass charge).
Way to miss the point. I asked Arethosemyfeet to desist from hurling insults, rather than as you read it, accused you, Telford, of doing so.
My daughter, who with me passes as English as she's obviously my daughter and I spend much of the year enough of a peely wally to advertise my largely Celtic roots, on her own is seen as Turkish or middle eastern. She does not like meeting the police as she is usually stopped and interviewed when walking down the street. It's such a frequent occurrence if she sees police ahead she'll choose to walk a different route to avoid them.
Because I come from a white background and when she was of the right age, wasn't working in as multicultural settings as I later did, didn't know to give my daughter The Talk™ she was unprepared for this bias and it came as an unwelcome surprise.
Please don't assume the police in this country are all wonderful and working well because that's assuming some of us do not know from personal experience that police bias is alive, well and kicking, or be all too well aware of the police officers who like being involved in riot control as it gives them a chance to get a bit of action.
"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
But it is your responsibility that you continue to say things that the actual experiences of other shipmates as well as easily and widely available evidence show to be generic platitudes at best and outright untruths at worst. Rather than impugning the motivations of anyone calling you on it with things like “anti-police,” it would be good to see you actually own up to that responsibility.
"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
But it is your responsibility that you continue to say things that the actual experiences of other shipmates as well as easily and widely available evidence show to be generic platitudes at best and outright untruths at worst. Rather than impugning the motivations of anyone calling you on it with things like “anti-police,” it would be good to see you actually own up to that responsibility.
My experience is that the vast majority of officer behave properly so I have nothing to 'own up to'
Way to miss the point. I asked Arethosemyfeet to desist from hurling insults, rather than as you read it, accused you, Telford, of doing so.
My daughter, who with me passes as English as she's obviously my daughter and I spend much of the year enough of a peely wally to advertise my largely Celtic roots, on her own is seen as Turkish or middle eastern. She does not like meeting the police as she is usually stopped and interviewed when walking down the street. It's such a frequent occurrence if she sees police ahead she'll choose to walk a different route to avoid them.
Because I come from a white background and when she was of the right age, wasn't working in as multicultural settings as I later did, didn't know to give my daughter The Talk™ she was unprepared for this bias and it came as an unwelcome surprise.
Please don't assume the police in this country are all wonderful and working well because that's assuming some of us do not know from personal experience that police bias is alive, well and kicking, or be all too well aware of the police officers who like being involved in riot control as it gives them a chance to get a bit of action.
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
But it is your responsibility that you continue to say things that the actual experiences of other shipmates as well as easily and widely available evidence show to be generic platitudes at best and outright untruths at worst. Rather than impugning the motivations of anyone calling you on it with things like “anti-police,” it would be good to see you actually own up to that responsibility.
My experience is that the vast majority of officer behave properly so I have nothing to 'own up to'
That that is your experience is fair enough. That’s my experience (as a white male) with the police officers I have interacted with as well. But you (and I) need to own up to the reality that our experiences are not everyone’s experiences.
You haven’t been limiting to or qualifying what you’ve been saying with “in my experience.” You’ve been stating your assertions as categorical fact, with unqualified statements like “the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters,” when anyone watching TV for the last two weeks has seen many (not all) police do precisely that.
And that’s the problem—your assertions are framed in such a way as to present your experience as a universal, unassailable truth and so as to dismiss the experiences of others as either wrong (with statements like they must have been breaking the law or the police wouldn’t have responded with violence) or resulting from anti-police bias.
And they’re framed as universal, unassailable truth even though that’s at odds with what you yourself have said here—that your experience is that “the vast majority“ of officers behave properly. When you say “vast majority,” you appear to acknowledge that at least some police officers in your experience do not behave properly, yet you’re dismissive when others make that same observation.
"the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters" is far more insulting (insulting our experience and our intelligence) than a forthright "oh do fuck off". So, yes you do hurl insults. If you could understand just this one bit, then that would be progress.
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
But it is your responsibility that you continue to say things that the actual experiences of other shipmates as well as easily and widely available evidence show to be generic platitudes at best and outright untruths at worst. Rather than impugning the motivations of anyone calling you on it with things like “anti-police,” it would be good to see you actually own up to that responsibility.
My experience is that the vast majority of officer behave properly so I have nothing to 'own up to'
That that is your experience is fair enough. That’s my experience (as a white male) with the police officers I have interacted with as well. But you (and I) need to own up to the reality that our experiences are not everyone’s experiences.
I agree that it will be a different experience for those who chose to break the law.
You haven’t been limiting to or qualifying what you’ve been saying with “in my experience.” You’ve been stating your assertions as categorical fact, with unqualified statements like “the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters,” when anyone watching TV for the last two weeks has seen many (not all) police do precisely that.
We see the Police moving towards the crowd but we rarely see everything what has happened before.
And that’s the problem—your assertions are framed in such a way as to present your experience as a universal, unassailable truth and so as to dismiss the experiences of others as either wrong (with statements like they must have been breaking the law or the police wouldn’t have responded with violence) or resulting from anti-police bias.
I admit that I have a pro police and pro law and order bias
And they’re framed as universal, unassailable truth even though that’s at odds with what you yourself have said here—that your experience is that “the vast majority“ of officers behave properly. When you say “vast majority,” you appear to acknowledge that at least some police officers in your experience do not behave properly, yet you’re dismissive when others make that same observation.
I disagree. I am only dismissive when the complaint is made against all officers
We see the Police moving towards the crowd but we rarely see everything what has happened before.
Who is “we”? Perhaps you rarely see everything that has happened before, but you are simply not in a position to tell others what they have or haven’t seen, much less to tell them they’re wrong, with no basis other than it doesn’t fit with your experiences and biases, when they say what they’ve seen.
At least you acknowledge your bias. Thank you.
I am only dismissive when the complaint is made against all officers
Perhaps that is what you intend. But the way you actually word your posts simply does not bear this out.
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
But when the ethnic minority officers have experiences like those of Kevin Maxwell (link to BBC story), previously of the Metropolitan Police counter terrorism command, who
... was exposed to racist and homophobic comments from other officers and seniors during duty and training sessions, causing an offensive environment to work in.
I agree that it will be a different experience for those who chose to break the law.
If you have never been in a situation where exercising your rights to free association and expression, and not engaging in illegal behaviour, still means that the police harass, assault, and arrest you, then please listen to those who have. Better still, watch citizen-recorded footage where this sort of thing happens far too often.
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
But when the ethnic minority officers have experiences like those of Kevin Maxwell (link to BBC story), previously of the Metropolitan Police counter terrorism command, who
... was exposed to racist and homophobic comments from other officers and seniors during duty and training sessions, causing an offensive environment to work in.
I agree that it will be a different experience for those who chose to break the law.
If you have never been in a situation where exercising your rights to free association and expression, and not engaging in illegal behaviour, still means that the police harass, assault, and arrest you, then please listen to those who have. Better still, watch citizen-recorded footage where this sort of thing happens far too often.
The situation is that Police officers have their hands full with dealing with those who are being violent. Why would they need to look elsewhere?
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. You are either alarmingly stupid, a classicist and a racist or a troll.* If you are simply stupid, then you have an excuse.
... I agree that it will be a different experience for those who chose to break the law. ...
You clearly are not paying attention. In just the last couple of weeks, we've seen many, many cases in the United States in which peaceful demonstrators were teargassed and beaten; journalists doing their jobs were deliberately singled out for gassing and beatings.
In one of the most egregious cases, a priest, seminarians, and laity at St. John's Episcopal Church, across from the White House, were gassed and clubbed, driven from the church's patio, where they were ministering to protesters, and even from their kitchen, in which they were preparing food, from their own church. Protesters and journalists were attacked, with little or no warning, so that Donald Trump could pose for a photo op in front of the church, using a Bible as a prop.
In another case, in Buffalo, New York, a 75-year-old man who approached police was shoved and knocked over backward; he hit the sidewalk hard (it's appalling to hear), and a pool of blood quickly formed, coming from his ear. The police kept moving, and let him bleed; in their official report, they said that the man "tripped."
Please note that I am not referring to rioters and looters. But we have a Bill of Rights in this country that specifically allows for the rights to peaceful assembly and a free press, and the police are absolutely not observing it.
And before we get the "oh that was the US" excuse I think we need to consider the Ian Tomlinson case, where a Met Officer beat a man and killed him. Not only that, the officer had gone out of his way to remove badge numbers and other means of identification, a clear indicator of pre-meditated brutality. He had a long history of previous dodgy behaviour.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. You are either alarmingly stupid, a classicist and a racist or a troll.* If you are simply stupid, then you have an excuse.
*Not ruling out any combination of those.
I had hoped for an educational moment. But apparently, @Telford has all the grace of a Tory politician on Newsnight.
And before we get the "oh that was the US" excuse I think we need to consider the Ian Tomlinson case, where a Met Officer beat a man and killed him. Not only that, the officer had gone out of his way to remove badge numbers and other means of identification, a clear indicator of pre-meditated brutality. He had a long history of previous dodgy behaviour.
Or Kingsley Burrell, asphyxiated after being detained for mental health reasons. Sheku Bayoh, beaten by police and later dying by asphyxiation. Anthony Grainger, shot by police as he sat in a stolen car. Richard Davies shot by police 15 mins after they arrived on the scene of a domestic incident. The list could go on, even from the last few years. Many many more earlier than that (including a lot of incidents in Northern Ireland during the Troubles).
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. You are either alarmingly stupid, a classicist and a racist or a troll.* If you are simply stupid, then you have an excuse.
*Not ruling out any combination of those.
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? How about a bit of constructive criticism?
... I agree that it will be a different experience for those who chose to break the law. ...
You clearly are not paying attention. In just the last couple of weeks, we've seen many, many cases in the United States in which peaceful demonstrators were teargassed and beaten; journalists doing their jobs were deliberately singled out for gassing and beatings.
In one of the most egregious cases, a priest, seminarians, and laity at St. John's Episcopal Church, across from the White House, were gassed and clubbed, driven from the church's patio, where they were ministering to protesters, and even from their kitchen, in which they were preparing food, from their own church. Protesters and journalists were attacked, with little or no warning, so that Donald Trump could pose for a photo op in front of the church, using a Bible as a prop.
In another case, in Buffalo, New York, a 75-year-old man who approached police was shoved and knocked over backward; he hit the sidewalk hard (it's appalling to hear), and a pool of blood quickly formed, coming from his ear. The police kept moving, and let him bleed; in their official report, they said that the man "tripped."
Please note that I am not referring to rioters and looters. But we have a Bill of Rights in this country that specifically allows for the rights to peaceful assembly and a free press, and the police are absolutely not observing it.
I am unable to defend the actions of some USA Police officers
And before we get the "oh that was the US" excuse I think we need to consider the Ian Tomlinson case, where a Met Officer beat a man and killed him. Not only that, the officer had gone out of his way to remove badge numbers and other means of identification, a clear indicator of pre-meditated brutality. He had a long history of previous dodgy behaviour.
An unfortunate incident but the officer who has left the police, was not convicted of any criminal offence.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I was wrong. You are either alarmingly stupid, a classicist and a racist or a troll.* If you are simply stupid, then you have an excuse.
*Not ruling out any combination of those.
I had hoped for an educational moment. But apparently, @Telford has all the grace of a Tory politician on Newsnight.
I am pleased that you chose someone from the winning side
And before we get the "oh that was the US" excuse I think we need to consider the Ian Tomlinson case, where a Met Officer beat a man and killed him. Not only that, the officer had gone out of his way to remove badge numbers and other means of identification, a clear indicator of pre-meditated brutality. He had a long history of previous dodgy behaviour.
Or Kingsley Burrell, asphyxiated after being detained for mental health reasons. Sheku Bayoh, beaten by police and later dying by asphyxiation. Anthony Grainger, shot by police as he sat in a stolen car. Richard Davies shot by police 15 mins after they arrived on the scene of a domestic incident. The list could go on, even from the last few years. Many many more earlier than that (including a lot of incidents in Northern Ireland during the Troubles).
In none of these cases was anyone convicted of any criminal offence.
In respect of Northern Ireland are you refering to the hundreds of Police officers and military personal murdered by terrorists ?
You are aware that one can commit a crime and not be convicted of it, right? The wrongness of an action isn't determined by conviction in a court of law.
An unfortunate incident but the officer who has left the police, was not convicted of any criminal offence.
The repeated failures of the CPS to hold the police to account for brutality are part of the problem, not an indication that there is nothing to worry about.
8 The Home Office should commission evaluation and action research on the effectiveness of specialist training in issues of race and diversity for practitioners in the criminal justice system, and disseminate the findings to all interested parties and individuals.
9 All candidates for appointment to ACPO and ACPOS-status posts should have taken an accredited training module on issues of race equality and cultural diversity.
10 Every death in custody should be independently investigated when it occurs; in cases where it is considered that the actions of officers and other staff may have contributed to the death, they should be suspended from duty pending and during investigation; legal aid should be available for families during deaths in custody investigations; there should be full disclosure to families of all evidence and documents in deaths in custody investigations; information about the organisation INQUEST, which is able to provide counselling, advice and moral support, should be provided.
which strongly suggests that current policing is failing in these areas and all the other 13 bulleted points.
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
But when the ethnic minority officers have experiences like those of Kevin Maxwell (link to BBC story), previously of the Metropolitan Police counter terrorism command, who
... was exposed to racist and homophobic comments from other officers and seniors during duty and training sessions, causing an offensive environment to work in.
said the Met "directly discriminated" against Ms Howard "on the grounds of sex and race" between 31 January and 29 October 2012.
becoming police officers does not look a particularly good career path for BAME people.
It can be a very good career move for those who get several promotions.
Police are not promoting their BAME officers - several of the current police tribunal cases are because officers from BAME backgrounds have not received expected promotions.
An unfortunate incident but the officer who has left the police, was not convicted of any criminal offence.
The repeated failures of the CPS to hold the police to account for brutality are part of the problem, not an indication that there is nothing to worry about.
I never claimed there was nothing to worry about. It's a CPS policy to not prosecute anyone if there is insufficient chance of a guilty verdict.
8 The Home Office should commission evaluation and action research on the effectiveness of specialist training in issues of race and diversity for practitioners in the criminal justice system, and disseminate the findings to all interested parties and individuals.
9 All candidates for appointment to ACPO and ACPOS-status posts should have taken an accredited training module on issues of race equality and cultural diversity.
10 Every death in custody should be independently investigated when it occurs; in cases where it is considered that the actions of officers and other staff may have contributed to the death, they should be suspended from duty pending and during investigation; legal aid should be available for families during deaths in custody investigations; there should be full disclosure to families of all evidence and documents in deaths in custody investigations; information about the organisation INQUEST, which is able to provide counselling, advice and moral support, should be provided.
which strongly suggests that current policing is failing in these areas and all the other 13 bulleted points.
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
But when the ethnic minority officers have experiences like those of Kevin Maxwell (link to BBC story), previously of the Metropolitan Police counter terrorism command, who
... was exposed to racist and homophobic comments from other officers and seniors during duty and training sessions, causing an offensive environment to work in.
said the Met "directly discriminated" against Ms Howard "on the grounds of sex and race" between 31 January and 29 October 2012.
becoming police officers does not look a particularly good career path for BAME people.
It can be a very good career move for those who get several promotions.
Police are not promoting their BAME officers - several of the current police tribunal cases are because officers from BAME backgrounds have not received expected promotions.
The problem is that they cannot promote everyone and the higher you go the less vacancies there are.
First of all, I doubt it. I am probably your elder by a bit. Second of all, "growing up" in this context does not refer to physical age at all. Your posts indicate a great degree of immaturity.
First of all, I doubt it. I am probably your elder by a bit. Second of all, "growing up" in this context does not refer to physical age at all. Your posts indicate a great degree of immaturity.
You have been given a great deal of constructive criticism on this thread, but you just reply in your customary smarmy, snide manner, making you sound like an entitled 20-something with issues. So my advice to you is, as I have said, show some maturity in your posting. Take the sneer out of your tone, it is seriously unbecoming.
Nope. I (and others) have, on multiple occasions, explained why this is not the case. The fact that you can't or won't hear that is entirely on you.
You refered to me as really really stupid. What should I make of that ?
That you come across through your posts on the board as really, really stupid?
Then I was right all along. You just dopn't like me.
I can only judge by what you post here.
I've encountered some very stupid people in my life. Some have been lovely, some not. The worst examples are those with severe cases of Dunning-Kruger.
You keep repeating the same nonsense but am unable to explain yourself
You mean like when I wrote this which you completely ignored.
Or this. And this is one of my favourites. You made a statement that @Alan Cresswell debunked at length. Then stated that you had responded to his comments when you had done nothing of the sort.
So here's the thing: Either you do not understand why you are creating ire because you cannot grasp that you at no point engage with discussion or answer anyone's points. I mean seriously, you probably still believe that Windrush is the fault of Home Office beaurocrats and not the responsibility of the government. Or you know this and are doing it deliberately. One is stupid (deliberate or otherwise) the other is trolling.
The truth is that this place reflects my favourite quote from the late Pat Moynihan Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. You can hold whatever opinion you like. When you express it in this place (especially Purgatory), you will be asked to justify it. The fact that you never do is the problem.
You want to make a strong argument supporting the police in a difficult situation? Fine, you'll probably find a lot of agreement here. But if you do so by pretending that Police Brutality isn't real and isn't a big deal then two things follow: 1) People will be offended because that's offensive and 2) You'll be asked to justify this assertion and people might (for example) point to various examples of Police brutality that rightly deserve criticism.
You keep repeating the same nonsense but am unable to explain yourself
You mean like when I wrote this which you completely ignored.
Or this. And this is one of my favourites. You made a statement that @Alan Cresswell debunked at length. Then stated that you had responded to his comments when you had done nothing of the sort.
So here's the thing: Either you do not understand why you are creating ire because you cannot grasp that you at no point engage with discussion or answer anyone's points. I mean seriously, you probably still believe that Windrush is the fault of Home Office beaurocrats and not the responsibility of the government. Or you know this and are doing it deliberately. One is stupid (deliberate or otherwise) the other is trolling.
The truth is that this place reflects my favourite quote from the late Pat Moynihan Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. You can hold whatever opinion you like. When you express it in this place (especially Purgatory), you will be asked to justify it. The fact that you never do is the problem.
You want to make a strong argument supporting the police in a difficult situation? Fine, you'll probably find a lot of agreement here. But if you do so by pretending that Police Brutality isn't real and isn't a big deal then two things follow: 1) People will be offended because that's offensive and 2) You'll be asked to justify this assertion and people might (for example) point to various examples of Police brutality that rightly deserve criticism.
[ Hostly winged helmet ON ] In accordance with the recently announced brief lives of personal Hell calls, it gives me great pleasure to declare this one closed. [ Hostly winged helmet OFF ]
Comments
What I said was not an insult. It's not my fault that you are anti police.
Recognising that the police routinely use violence against peaceful protesters is nothing to do with being pro- or anti- police, it's about having a grasp of reality. Look up the case of the George Fox 6 for an example of an entirely peaceful protest where the police were called and responded with completely unnecessary violence (or "home office approved leg sweep" as I recall it being named when I was in the public gallery to hear the verdict on the ludicrous aggravated trespass charge).
My daughter, who with me passes as English as she's obviously my daughter and I spend much of the year enough of a peely wally to advertise my largely Celtic roots, on her own is seen as Turkish or middle eastern. She does not like meeting the police as she is usually stopped and interviewed when walking down the street. It's such a frequent occurrence if she sees police ahead she'll choose to walk a different route to avoid them.
Because I come from a white background and when she was of the right age, wasn't working in as multicultural settings as I later did, didn't know to give my daughter The Talk™ she was unprepared for this bias and it came as an unwelcome surprise.
Please don't assume the police in this country are all wonderful and working well because that's assuming some of us do not know from personal experience that police bias is alive, well and kicking, or be all too well aware of the police officers who like being involved in riot control as it gives them a chance to get a bit of action.
My experience is that the vast majority of officer behave properly so I have nothing to 'own up to'
A good reason why we need a greater proportion of officers from ethnic minorities.
You haven’t been limiting to or qualifying what you’ve been saying with “in my experience.” You’ve been stating your assertions as categorical fact, with unqualified statements like “the police don't use violence on peaceful protesters,” when anyone watching TV for the last two weeks has seen many (not all) police do precisely that.
And that’s the problem—your assertions are framed in such a way as to present your experience as a universal, unassailable truth and so as to dismiss the experiences of others as either wrong (with statements like they must have been breaking the law or the police wouldn’t have responded with violence) or resulting from anti-police bias.
And they’re framed as universal, unassailable truth even though that’s at odds with what you yourself have said here—that your experience is that “the vast majority“ of officers behave properly. When you say “vast majority,” you appear to acknowledge that at least some police officers in your experience do not behave properly, yet you’re dismissive when others make that same observation.
At least you acknowledge your bias. Thank you.
Perhaps that is what you intend. But the way you actually word your posts simply does not bear this out.
But when the ethnic minority officers have experiences like those of Kevin Maxwell (link to BBC story), previously of the Metropolitan Police counter terrorism command, who by a tribunal in 2012, and Carol Taylor (link to BBC story), who served in the firearms unit, whose tribunal becoming police officers does not look a particularly good career path for BAME people.
If you have never been in a situation where exercising your rights to free association and expression, and not engaging in illegal behaviour, still means that the police harass, assault, and arrest you, then please listen to those who have. Better still, watch citizen-recorded footage where this sort of thing happens far too often.
It can be a very good career move for those who get several promotions.
The situation is that Police officers have their hands full with dealing with those who are being violent. Why would they need to look elsewhere?
*Not ruling out any combination of those.
How about you go back and answer all of what I said?
In one of the most egregious cases, a priest, seminarians, and laity at St. John's Episcopal Church, across from the White House, were gassed and clubbed, driven from the church's patio, where they were ministering to protesters, and even from their kitchen, in which they were preparing food, from their own church. Protesters and journalists were attacked, with little or no warning, so that Donald Trump could pose for a photo op in front of the church, using a Bible as a prop.
In another case, in Buffalo, New York, a 75-year-old man who approached police was shoved and knocked over backward; he hit the sidewalk hard (it's appalling to hear), and a pool of blood quickly formed, coming from his ear. The police kept moving, and let him bleed; in their official report, they said that the man "tripped."
Please note that I am not referring to rioters and looters. But we have a Bill of Rights in this country that specifically allows for the rights to peaceful assembly and a free press, and the police are absolutely not observing it.
I had hoped for an educational moment. But apparently, @Telford has all the grace of a Tory politician on Newsnight.
Seriously. Is that the best you can do? How about a bit of constructive criticism?
Already done. I am unable to defend the actions of some USA Police officers
An unfortunate incident but the officer who has left the police, was not convicted of any criminal offence.
I am pleased that you chose someone from the winning side
In none of these cases was anyone convicted of any criminal offence.
In respect of Northern Ireland are you refering to the hundreds of Police officers and military personal murdered by terrorists ?
Or really, really stupid. Who can tell?
Or he could be someone you just don't like.
The repeated failures of the CPS to hold the police to account for brutality are part of the problem, not an indication that there is nothing to worry about.
which strongly suggests that current policing is failing in these areas and all the other 13 bulleted points.
Police are not promoting their BAME officers - several of the current police tribunal cases are because officers from BAME backgrounds have not received expected promotions.
I never claimed there was nothing to worry about. It's a CPS policy to not prosecute anyone if there is insufficient chance of a guilty verdict.
I probably grew up long before you were born
The problem is that they cannot promote everyone and the higher you go the less vacancies there are.
Nope. I (and others) have, on multiple occasions, explained why this is not the case. The fact that you can't or won't hear that is entirely on you.
You refered to me as really really stupid. What should I make of that ?
That you come across through your posts on the board as really, really stupid?
Only after multiple attempts to get you to engage with discussion.
You post stupid things. You assert without evidence. When called on this you play the victim.
Therefore you are either a troll or being stupid.
Which is it?
First of all, I doubt it. I am probably your elder by a bit. Second of all, "growing up" in this context does not refer to physical age at all. Your posts indicate a great degree of immaturity.
Then I was right all along. You just dopn't like me.
Neither. I am just an honest person giving his opinion.
You are being very rude but I do forgive you.
Well that confirms it then. It's definitely troll or stupid.
AFZ
How about you try some constructive criticism.
You keep repeating the same nonsense but am unable to explain yourself
Thankyou.
I can only judge by what you post here.
I've encountered some very stupid people in my life. Some have been lovely, some not. The worst examples are those with severe cases of Dunning-Kruger.
You mean like when I wrote this which you completely ignored.
Or this. And this is one of my favourites. You made a statement that @Alan Cresswell debunked at length. Then stated that you had responded to his comments when you had done nothing of the sort.
So here's the thing: Either you do not understand why you are creating ire because you cannot grasp that you at no point engage with discussion or answer anyone's points. I mean seriously, you probably still believe that Windrush is the fault of Home Office beaurocrats and not the responsibility of the government. Or you know this and are doing it deliberately. One is stupid (deliberate or otherwise) the other is trolling.
The truth is that this place reflects my favourite quote from the late Pat Moynihan Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. You can hold whatever opinion you like. When you express it in this place (especially Purgatory), you will be asked to justify it. The fact that you never do is the problem.
You want to make a strong argument supporting the police in a difficult situation? Fine, you'll probably find a lot of agreement here. But if you do so by pretending that Police Brutality isn't real and isn't a big deal then two things follow: 1) People will be offended because that's offensive and 2) You'll be asked to justify this assertion and people might (for example) point to various examples of Police brutality that rightly deserve criticism.
Which brings me back to this point.
I have tried. I really have.
The rest is up to you.
AFZ
Can you not see the irony here?
Rossweisse, Hell Host