Can anyone explain ...

1235»

Comments

  • Yeah, @asher - not buying it.

    You made a deliberate attempt at painting the posters here as hypocrites and not caring about POC if they happen to be police officers.

    And iirc, the Diocese of Chichester were widely and roundly criticised for knowing exactly what was going on, and doing nothing. That criticism extends to everyone who knew or heard and did nothing - and I'm pretty certain that covers a very great number of priests.

  • I also recall a lot of criticism of the Labour Party, including statements like "why are you still a member?" addressed to individuals in the Party, in regard to the perceived anti-semitism.

    None of the comments about the character of Matui Ratana I've seen have commented on his outspoken rejection of racism in the Met, nothing about him report colleagues who had engaged in racist behaviour, nothing about standing out as a non-white officer calling on his colleagues to up their game on racism. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing all those things, but it's not been something that's been highlighted in all the talk of him being a good officer, father, partner, rugby coach. To all appearances (admittedly skewed by what the media choose to report) he served in the Met through some of the years when institutional racism came to the fore, and decided to keep his head down rather than be part of the solution (which, of course, could also be a reflection of the institutional racism of the police force - that someone who isn't white finds themselves with little choice except to keep their head down).
  • asher wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Before @asher can get any further, Sgt Ratana was an officer in the Metropolitan police force, which has literally the worst reputation for racism, violence and corruption in the entire UK. He was close to retirement, so has absolutely seen some things, and tolerated them at the least, because he'd know what happens to coppers who speak out. So let's not paint him as some paladin of justice. He was a police officer, within a force that has been labelled by a senior judge as institutionally racist - he may have been a fair and decent man, doing the best he could within the system, but until police officers as a group start rooting out the bad apples from the barrel, the whole crop is rotten.

    Obviously, he didn't deserve to die - let alone through an act of utter and complete negligence by one (or most likely several) of his fellow officers. That the suspect was able to shoot someone with a firearm he should never have had, and then shoot himself, while handcuffed, with his hands behind his back, is a gross dereliction of duty by the Met. Suspects don't deserve to die either.

    Asher's unspoken point is that we're the first ones to point our fingers at the police when they murder a black person. But what happens when someone murders a non-white police officer? Alan cogently points out that the police aren't supposed to go around murdering people, let alone especially targeting black people. While criminals do sometimes kill police officers.

    So, false equivalence.

    Your first paragraph seeks to denigrate the character of a murdered police officer based on significant structural and cultural racism and other failings within the organization he worked for.
    I see it as putting things in context. A person's character is in what they tolerate as well as what they do personally. It is fair and accurate to assess based on the failure to act as well as actions themselves.

    asher wrote: »
    The analogy that comes to my mind would be denigrate the character of all clergy in Chichester, based on the very large cluster of paedophile priests that flourished in that diocese, and the associated significant institutional failings.
    Bad attempt at a counter as it falls into a similar problem. It takes intentional blindness for something to get that bad.
    asher wrote: »
    Or to denigrate the character of all labour supporters based on the apparently significant anti-semitism that Corbyn apparently failed to tackle.
    Not all Labour supporters knew. But, as a whole, they are indeed responsible.

    Institutional problems need the members of the institution to actively or passively support the problem.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    [I see it as putting things in context. A person's character is in what they tolerate as well as what they do personally. It is fair and accurate to assess based on the failure to act as well as actions themselves.

    A lot of feminists criticized Baroness Thatcher for having done little to aid the cause of women whilst she was Prime Minister. And yet she was a very successful Prime Minister* at a time when women leading anything was quite rare. And sometimes, examples do more good than placard-waving.

    I know we've discussed before the rapid advance of gay rights - basically going in one generation from gay-bashing being normal to gay marriage being normal, and have attributed the rapidity of this social change to the fact that people in positions of power suddenly found that they had gay relatives and gay friends, and that they could see that gay people were first and foremost normal people, rather than a gang of degenerate perverts. And we've contrasted this with the fact that middle-aged white men aren't going to wake up one day and discover that their child is black.

    *you might not like many of the things that she did, but I don't think you could deny that she was a successful leader, even if you oppose all of her policies.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I see it as putting things in context. A person's character is in what they tolerate as well as what they do personally. It is fair and accurate to assess based on the failure to act as well as actions themselves.

    <snip>

    Institutional problems need the members of the institution to actively or passively support the problem.

    From They Thought They Were Free:
    "You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

    "Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

    A lot of corrupt systems don't require obedience so much as passive acquiescence from most people.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    [I see it as putting things in context. A person's character is in what they tolerate as well as what they do personally. It is fair and accurate to assess based on the failure to act as well as actions themselves.

    A lot of feminists criticized Baroness Thatcher for having done little to aid the cause of women whilst she was Prime Minister. And yet she was a very successful Prime Minister* at a time when women leading anything was quite rare. And sometimes, examples do more good than placard-waving.
    There has been one other female Prime Minster and she also promoted the status quo.
    Thatcher showed you could participate in male politics if you did nothing to change it. May proved one could be an ineffectual tool and still be prime minister.

    go go girl power, yea
  • Fortunately we have a highly successful, trailblazing politician like Diane Abbott who is, to this day, monstered in the press and subject to all manner of abuse, both racist and sexist. Nicola Sturgeon - by anyone's reckoning one of the most (if not the most) astute politicians in the country - continually belittled and ignored by the national media. Jo Cox of blessed memory. An MP local to me, Chi Onwurah - representing a broadly white, broadly working class constituency, and an engineer to boot.

    Thatcher and May wouldn't be my go-to examples.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Thatcher showed you could participate in male politics if you did nothing to change it. May proved one could be an ineffectual tool and still be prime minister.

    Thatcher, I think, would have denied that "male politics" was a thing. We agree that May is inept, and selected from a whole field of ineptitude.

    I know several women who were inspired to pursue leadership and excellence in their own fields by the existence of Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi on the world stage in their childhoods. So apparently in their case, these examples were good for something.

    Contemporary politics, of course, has a greater number of successful women to provide an example. Doc Tor fields Nicola Sturgeon, to whom I would happily add Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern, and perhaps Julia Gillard as leading examples of competence. Unlike Doc, I don't rate Diane Abbott, although I'm in complete agreement with him about the racist and sexist crap she's had piled on her. I have long admired Mo Mowlam's competence, and very much regret her untimely death.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Why are there examples EVERYWHERE of the same abuses, covered up and ignored by the police? Why are there so few police officers willing to stand against the cops who directly commit these violations?

    Why do you think cops are somehow special in this regard? Aravis just posted an example on another thread of therapists doing exactly the same thing - closing ranks to try to conceal wrongdoing. Cops have more power over us than therapists or shop assistants, and so bad behaviour by cops causes much more harm. But as far as I can see, cabals close ranks everywhere.

    Cops get to fucking SHOOT PEOPLE without consequence, except a few extra vacation days. No other profession gets to do that.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Cops get to fucking SHOOT PEOPLE without consequence, except a few extra vacation days. No other profession gets to do that.

    That's why it's worse when cops do it. Not that cops are worse at doing it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    In a fairly timely action Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, released an unredacted version of a 2006 FBI report [PDF] on white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement. The key findings:
    • Although white supremacist groups have historically engaged in strategic efforts to infiltrate and recruit from law enforcement communities, current reporting on attempts reflects self-initiated efforts by individuals, particularly among those already within law enforcement ranks, to volunteer their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they sympathize.
      -
    • The primary threat from infiltration or recruitment arises from the areas of intelligence collection and exploitation, which can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources and personnel.
      -
    • White supremacist presence among law enforcement personnel is a concern due to the access they may possess to restricted areas vulnerable to sabotage and to elected officials or protected persons, whom they could see as potential targets for violence. In addition, white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and passive tolerance of racism within communities served.
      -
    • The intelligence acquired through the successful infiltration of law enforcement by one white supremacist group can benefit other groups due to the multiple allegiances white supremacists typically hold.

    While some shipmates may bemoan the "ain't it awful" tone associated with white supremacists in American policing instead of "debate" over whether the KKK can provide a positive benefit to law enforcement, most people seem to believe that overt racism is destructive to good policing.
  • Doc Tor--
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Jo Cox of blessed memory.

    Is she the one who was killed?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    Yes she was shot and stabbed on the main street near her constituency in Yorkshire, by a far right racist yelling "Britain First", Thomas Mair. This happened during the Brexit referendum campaign.

    Almost the last thing she did was to urge people near to get away and get to safety. A passerby, a man in his 70s - Bernard Kenny - intervened trying to protect her and was badly injured - he received the George Medal, our highest award for civilian bravery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Cox
  • Thx for the info. I remember how upset UK Shipmates were when it happened.
  • I also recall a lot of criticism of the Labour Party, including statements like "why are you still a member?" addressed to individuals in the Party, in regard to the perceived anti-semitism.

    None of the comments about the character of Matui Ratana I've seen have commented on his outspoken rejection of racism in the Met, nothing about him report colleagues who had engaged in racist behaviour, nothing about standing out as a non-white officer calling on his colleagues to up their game on racism. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing all those things, but it's not been something that's been highlighted in all the talk of him being a good officer, father, partner, rugby coach. To all appearances (admittedly skewed by what the media choose to report) he served in the Met through some of the years when institutional racism came to the fore, and decided to keep his head down rather than be part of the solution (which, of course, could also be a reflection of the institutional racism of the police force - that someone who isn't white finds themselves with little choice except to keep their head down).

    He may have thought that keeping his head down and remaining was doing his bit to tackle racism in the Met - being part of the solution. The alternative was leaving and there being one less black police officer. Which must have been pretty grim on occasions.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Thatcher showed you could participate in male politics if you did nothing to change it. May proved one could be an ineffectual tool and still be prime minister.

    Thatcher, I think, would have denied that "male politics" was a thing. We agree that May is inept, and selected from a whole field of ineptitude.

    I know several women who were inspired to pursue leadership and excellence in their own fields by the existence of Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi on the world stage in their childhoods. So apparently in their case, these examples were good for something.

    Contemporary politics, of course, has a greater number of successful women to provide an example. Doc Tor fields Nicola Sturgeon, to whom I would happily add Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern, and perhaps Julia Gillard as leading examples of competence. Unlike Doc, I don't rate Diane Abbott, although I'm in complete agreement with him about the racist and sexist crap she's had piled on her. I have long admired Mo Mowlam's competence, and very much regret her untimely death.

    I do. Abbott was the first black woman to be elected to Parliament, and she is the longest-serving black MP in the House of Commons. She was the only black pupil at her grammar school, went to Oxbridge and got a Masters, successful journalist, has won awards for her work on civil liberties and was really funny on This Week.

    She's got where she is through hard work and competence rather than being posh and being able to string some Latin tags together. Part of the reason she has the reputation she has is due to the media coverage. Abbott got some costings wrong in an interview during the election and was front page news for week. BoJo gave an interview the same week that was incoherent even by his standards and not a peep.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Sorry, I'm a bit late to this discussion, but the policeman's first name name is Matiu, not Matui. I know it has no bearing on the argument, but it's been annoying me, so I double checked because occasionally people do weird things with the spelling of names.
Sign In or Register to comment.