I don't care what their beliefs are, or whether they vote for a Democrat or the Man in the Moon. To stay home and not vote is an abdication of their citizenship.
Or to stay at home means people are saying None of the Above--a Pox on Both Your Houses.
But I happen to believe this year's election will see an unusually high turn out in nearly all states as indicated by the high turn out in the primary voting (even now) and the high turnout in the midterms. When you have the most recent poll on the direction of the Country showing only 28% of Americans thinking it is going in the right direction while 67% say it is going in the wrong direction, you can bet the bank that there will be a very high turnout.
No, no you cannot. Rather, you can bet, but it is not a safe bet.
When DJT's disapproval ratings continue to increase, and Biden continues to widen his spread between DJT. It is a pretty sure bet.
November is a long time away. The current protests and riots are drawing the attention for the need for change, Drawing attention in the same demographics that do not vote. Also causing white people to be afraid in the demographics that do vote.
Whist I hope for change, I fear continuity.
And you can bet Trump will be busting a gut to portray the protests as bad people, terrorists, and so on, and decent folk need to vote Trump to keep the barbarians out. Whether it will work, dunno.
And you can bet Trump will be busting a gut to portray the protests as bad people, terrorists, and so on, and decent folk need to vote Trump to keep the barbarians out. Whether it will work, dunno.
I think the real power of Generals Mattis and Kelly, e.g., opposing Trump is exactly with the center-right white voters who might be inclined to buy his "barbarians at the gate" pitch otherwise. The people that they look up to as the grown-ups in the room are blaming Trump for this mess, not the people in the streets.
. . . most transport other than on foot; coaches, carts, carriages and ploughs were all horse drawn and were until the early 1900s. For anything that needed more speed or power than could be provided on foot, horses were pretty much the only option.
What I'm taking issue with was your claim that "It's only recently that horses have become the seen to be the preserve of the rich". This is historically inaccurate. The whole structure of nobility and class in Western Europe for centuries was based on the expense of maintaining horses for military purposes. Best estimate is that it took the output of four mediæval agricultural workers to maintain one mounted knight. Interestingly knighthood as a social signifier of elite status has outlived the use of horses in warfare.
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
It’s also arguably unconstitutional.
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
The intention of the Framers regarding limiting who can vote aside, the argument is that political speech is at the core of the speech protected by the First Amendment, and that voting—expressing an opinion on who should govern—is quintessential political speech. Likewise, choosing not to vote is, or at least can be, an exercise of political speech. Under the First Amendment, the government can neither prohibit nor compel speech, especially political speech.
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it. I've lived in the inner-city for more than 30 years now, in both all-white and then multi-racial areas; at the start in both, opposition to the police was normative. It was a total shit-show - out of control burglary with no investigation, drug-related shootings, car crime which made it impossible to own a vehicle, all of it. I half-expect folks will pop up and say that all this is going on anyway in the US inner city, and that the police make it worse. I could believe it. But I have a sense that we are developing a story here which suggests that if only the police pulled back, it would all be peace and love. That is not, at all, my long-term experience of living in poor urban areas.
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
It’s also arguably unconstitutional.
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
The intention of the Framers regarding limiting who can vote aside, the argument is that political speech is at the core of the speech protected by the First Amendment, and that voting—expressing an opinion on who should govern—is quintessential political speech. Likewise, choosing not to vote is, or at least can be, an exercise of political speech. Under the First Amendment, the government can neither prohibit nor compel speech, especially political speech.
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it. I've lived in the inner-city for more than 30 years now, in both all-white and then multi-racial areas; at the start in both, opposition to the police was normative. It was a total shit-show - out of control burglary with no investigation, drug-related shootings, car crime which made it impossible to own a vehicle, all of it. I half-expect folks will pop up and say that all this is going on anyway in the US inner city, and that the police make it worse. I could believe it. But I have a sense that we are developing a story here which suggests that if only the police pulled back, it would all be peace and love. That is not, at all, my long-term experience of living in poor urban areas.
The police need to be restructured, retrained and restrained, not removed
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it.
many people in america already exist in a world where police and prisons do not exist. go to any middle to upper class suburb in america. cops arent wandering the streets. people aren’t being arrested. neighbors aren’t being sent to prison. and generally everyone is....fine.
many people say they cannot imagine this world. what most of them cannot imagine is someone not policing black brown and poor people. THAT is what is unimaginable to them. not the absence of law enforcement. if you are lucky, you already functionally life with that absence.
so how are these places without cops on every corner surviving? well. those places are more like to have people with decent jobs, access to housing, quality schools. it turns out that when people have the tools they need to survive, we can rely less on punishment.
It goes on from there.
The underlying premise of arguments like @mark_in_manchester's is that those people, those who are poor and "urban", they need that boot on their throat to keep them in line and that the occasional murder or frame job by police is just the way things have to be. At least in those neighborhoods.
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it. I've lived in the inner-city for more than 30 years now, in both all-white and then multi-racial areas; at the start in both, opposition to the police was normative. It was a total shit-show - out of control burglary with no investigation, drug-related shootings, car crime which made it impossible to own a vehicle, all of it. I half-expect folks will pop up and say that all this is going on anyway in the US inner city, and that the police make it worse. I could believe it. But I have a sense that we are developing a story here which suggests that if only the police pulled back, it would all be peace and love. That is not, at all, my long-term experience of living in poor urban areas.
The police need to be restructured, retrained and restrained, not removed
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it.
many people in america already exist in a world where police and prisons do not exist. go to any middle to upper class suburb in america. cops arent wandering the streets. people aren’t being arrested. neighbors aren’t being sent to prison. and generally everyone is....fine.
many people say they cannot imagine this world. what most of them cannot imagine is someone not policing black brown and poor people. THAT is what is unimaginable to them. not the absence of law enforcement. if you are lucky, you already functionally life with that absence.
so how are these places without cops on every corner surviving? well. those places are more like to have people with decent jobs, access to housing, quality schools. it turns out that when people have the tools they need to survive, we can rely less on punishment.
It goes on from there.
The underlying premise of arguments like @mark_in_manchester's is that those people, those who are poor and "urban", they need that boot on their throat to keep them in line and that the occasional murder or frame job by police is just the way things have to be. At least in those neighborhoods.
Oh, that's not at all what I meant - because it would have to be 'these', not 'those' for me, as that's where I live. But I totally agree that people need a stake to lose, in order to worry about losing it; that was a large part of what was wrong in the inner-city in northern England through the 80s and early 90s in response to a very rapid de-industrialisation.
I'm quite worried about Brexit, post-Covid recession, currency depreciation etc. I think a lot of cheap Chinese stuff has kept us amused for a long time, and once it becomes possible once again to flog a TV ( / phone / laptop) in a pub, I may go back to getting broken into once a month.
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
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it. I've lived in the inner-city for more than 30 years now, in both all-white and then multi-racial areas; at the start in both, opposition to the police was normative. It was a total shit-show - out of control burglary with no investigation, drug-related shootings, car crime which made it impossible to own a vehicle, all of it. I half-expect folks will pop up and say that all this is going on anyway in the US inner city, and that the police make it worse. I could believe it. But I have a sense that we are developing a story here which suggests that if only the police pulled back, it would all be peace and love. That is not, at all, my long-term experience of living in poor urban areas.
The police need to be restructured, retrained and restrained, not removed
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.
I'm horrified by what happened to Mr Floyd. But the people of Minneapolis are in for yet more pain as the police structures are chopped up in response to it. I've lived in the inner-city for more than 30 years now, in both all-white and then multi-racial areas; at the start in both, opposition to the police was normative. It was a total shit-show - out of control burglary with no investigation, drug-related shootings, car crime which made it impossible to own a vehicle, all of it. I half-expect folks will pop up and say that all this is going on anyway in the US inner city, and that the police make it worse. I could believe it. But I have a sense that we are developing a story here which suggests that if only the police pulled back, it would all be peace and love. That is not, at all, my long-term experience of living in poor urban areas.
Let's face it, increasing police presence and militarizing them hasn't worked.
Mandatory Sentencing and three times you're out laws have not worked.
What has worked is increased social services in poor urban areas. I worked for a County Rehabilitation Center. I developed a program working with co-occurring disorders. My purpose was to keep people out of jail and out of mental health institutions. In the first year, I saved the county $30 million. My program had good relations with the city police and county sheriff's office. They knew we were working with them to reduce their workload. They had no problem seeing money being spent on social services that worked.
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 Met literally had to change the name of the SPG because it had such a terrible reputation for unprovoked violence. They became the punchline to jokes, and a byword for police brutality. If you had grown up in the UK in the 70s and 80s, you'd know this.
That you don't appear to know this because you had a news blackout where you lived is the most charitable explanation I can put on your comments.
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
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
Let's face it, increasing police presence and militarizing them hasn't worked.
There are pretty good indications that it's actually counterproductive, at least when applied to public protests. If your goal is to prevent disruptions, that is.
You will be shocked, simply SHOCKED, to learn that after decades of researching effective methods for police response to large crowd actions, researchers have found — and you’re never going to believe this — that when cops show up in military gear and get aggressive, they actually make protest violence worse!
That’s one of the findings in “New Directions in Protest Policing,” a 2015 paper that reviews decades upon decades of police history and the conclusions of multiple separate commissions. Police that dress like they’re going to war, who try to control First Amendment expression rather than facilitate it, and who act in arbitrary ways can inflame violence and jeopardize their own safety and that of the public.
So what’s a better approach? According to the paper, there’s a bunch of steps cops should take instead of showing up for war: They should view their role as facilitating the protest, rather than regulating it; communicate with protesters throughout by taking off the riot gear and walking with the crowd; and differentiate between bad actors and peaceful protesters.
The rest is worth a read, for those who are interested.
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.
Is banning all public assemblies consistent with a free society? For that matter, is the concept that police can do whatever they want to those they claim are lawbreakers consistent with a free society?
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
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point. Scargill's illegal mob should never have been there.
Let's face it, increasing police presence and militarizing them hasn't worked.
There are pretty good indications that it's actually counterproductive, at least when applied to public protests. If your goal is to prevent disruptions, that is.
You will be shocked, simply SHOCKED, to learn that after decades of researching effective methods for police response to large crowd actions, researchers have found — and you’re never going to believe this — that when cops show up in military gear and get aggressive, they actually make protest violence worse!
That’s one of the findings in “New Directions in Protest Policing,” a 2015 paper that reviews decades upon decades of police history and the conclusions of multiple separate commissions. Police that dress like they’re going to war, who try to control First Amendment expression rather than facilitate it, and who act in arbitrary ways can inflame violence and jeopardize their own safety and that of the public.
So what’s a better approach? According to the paper, there’s a bunch of steps cops should take instead of showing up for war: They should view their role as facilitating the protest, rather than regulating it; communicate with protesters throughout by taking off the riot gear and walking with the crowd; and differentiate between bad actors and peaceful protesters.
The rest is worth a read, for those who are interested.
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.
Is banning all public assemblies consistent with a free society? For that matter, is the concept that police can do whatever they want to those they claim are lawbreakers consistent with a free society?
There was a specific law about picketing. It was totally illegal.
The Met literally had to change the name of the SPG because it had such a terrible reputation for unprovoked violence. They became the punchline to jokes, and a byword for police brutality. If you had grown up in the UK in the 70s and 80s, you'd know this.
That you don't appear to know this because you had a news blackout where you lived is the most charitable explanation I can put on your comments.
The SPG had a reputation for being efficient in all things.
They changed the name but their efficiency remained.
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
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "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" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
And now the ground has shifted to "well the picket wasn't legal" which apparently justifies the plod splitting a few heads. Which starts to sound very much like fascism.
Essentially all the council concluded on is exploring alternatives to the current policing model. I'm quite confident that there is a better way than what we have right now.
What is it then?
Nick Tamen - I can understand the argument, but don't agree with it in an era of secret voting. No-one compels you to vote, just attend.
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
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
You totally miss the point.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "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" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal. However, the Police only had sufficient resources to keep the plant open. They would not have been able to arrest everyone.
And now the ground has shifted to "well the picket wasn't legal" which apparently justifies the plod splitting a few heads. Which starts to sound very much like fascism.
This was nothing less than an attempt by Scargill to remove an elected government. This was not a one day event. It had lasted for weeks and every day the illegal mob tried to close the coking plant by force
And now the ground has shifted to "well the picket wasn't legal" which apparently justifies the plod splitting a few heads. Which starts to sound very much like fascism.
This was nothing less than an attempt by Scargill to remove an elected government. This was not a one day event. It had lasted for weeks and every day the illegal mob tried to close the coking plant by force
Therefore the police should have acted illegally. Yes we get it. You think it's okay for the police to be beyond the bounds of the laws they are meant to enforce. Because rah rah cops.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
It can vary from state to state. Here, sheriffs have various non-police duties, such as serving court documents and executing and enforcing court orders. They also exercise police duties.
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
It’s also arguably unconstitutional.
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
The intention of the Framers regarding limiting who can vote aside, the argument is that political speech is at the core of the speech protected by the First Amendment, and that voting—expressing an opinion on who should govern—is quintessential political speech. Likewise, choosing not to vote is, or at least can be, an exercise of political speech. Under the First Amendment, the government can neither prohibit nor compel speech, especially political speech.
I was just being flip. I take your point.
No problem. I assumed you were, but it seemed like an opportunity to flesh out what I’d said earlier.
Essentially all the council concluded on is exploring alternatives to the current policing model. I'm quite confident that there is a better way than what we have right now.
Nick Tamen - I can understand the argument, but don't agree with it in an era of secret voting. No-one compels you to vote, just attend.
What’s the point of compelling someone to attend if they aren’t compelled to vote? What’s the governmental or public policy interest in compelling someone, on pain of penalty, to waste their time?
In any event, secret voting really doesn’t matter. Just compelling someone to go to the polls could be problematic. If I don’t want to vote for whatever reason, that is my right. If I choose not to go the polls in order to avoid giving the appearance that I support the system, that is my right. I have the right to vote and the right not to vote, both of which are acts of free speech, and the government can not compel me one way or the other.
I’m not saying it’s an open and shut case, but I am pretty confident that if any jurisdiction here attempted to implement compulsory voting, it would be challenged on First Amendment grounds (among others). And I very well might be wrong, but my money would be on the courts, particularly federal courts, agreeing that it violates the First Amendment.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
It can vary from state to state. Here, sheriffs have various non-police duties, such as serving court documents and executing and enforcing court orders. They also exercise police duties.
One of the police problems that isn't there fault is that more and more jobs are pushes onto them. Dealing with drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill. Whilst I do think they should be better trained to deal with that because they are the first responders, those jobs should be filled by other people. Ones that don't respond with batons and guns.
One of the police problems that isn't there fault is that more and more jobs are pushes onto them. Dealing with drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill. Whilst I do think they should be better trained to deal with that because they are the first responders, those jobs should be filled by other people. Ones that don't respond with batons and guns.
Preach! So much of the time what we need is not a cop with a gun whose job is to deal with crime but a social worker whose job is to deal with people in crisis.
And even when dealing with crimes, we often don't need armed cops. Most of the time with property crime they're showing up well after the criminals are gone and they're taking reports and maybe investigating. Every time someone gets their car broken into -- which is a lot where I live -- they need a police report to give to the insurance company, and this is just paperwork, nothing but paperwork.
Nick Tamen - the point of compulsory voting is that all citizens participate in the choice of who governs them. Voting is taught from primary school onwards. You turn 18 and within a few days you go along to register to vote. It's just one of those things that you do. Just as you find it hard to understand the process, we find the position in the US and many other countries inexplicable. The series of propositions you set out as being your right would not arise for consideration here.
About 95% of the votes cast are valid. Some errors are made, and I don't think anything can be said one way or the other about the votes that are accidental errors and those which are deliberate. In past days, it was a lot easier to make an error, but simplification of the requirements for casting a valid vote had the effect of reducing the numbers discarded. Voting here is not on a first-past-the-post basis, being either preferential or proportional so there is more chance of an accidental error.
I of course accept your assessment of the effect which the First Amendment may have on compulsory voting; there is no equivalent constitutional requirement here.
In the US, I expect most people have only seen a horse on TV--especially anyone who doesn't live on or near a farm/ranch, and isn't wealthy.
If someone goes to summer camp, they might get a chance to ride. Otherwise, they might see live horses at a fair, in a parade, or when some level of law enforcement officers are riding. (E.g., for show. But some places still use horses in law enforcement work. NYC, I think. We've had them in SF in the past. Might have been park rangers, or local police.)
I have a teeny, tiny bit of experience with/around horses. So, all other things being equal, I wouldn't totally freak out to be around a horse *if I see it ahead of time* and if I can easily step out of the way.
But...I don't like crowds--especially big, loud ones. Very determined ones. Angry ones. If I were in one of them, and horses moved in, and I couldn't get away to a safe, quieter place, I'd have trouble. If things got chaotic,...yuck.
Golden Key, you're U.S., right? Because my experience is quite different from yours. I won't say I'm hugely familiar with horses, but it's certainly more than just seeing them on TV--and while I might be hesitant to be left alone to cope with a horse in a one-on-one situation (not having any idea what to do), a horse-with-rider would be a very different thing. In fact I'd feel safer with a cop-on-a-horse than a cop-in-a-car, because I doubt very much that a normal horse would willingly run somebody down--or even accidentally trample someone--squishy underfoot, which would upset the horse surely!--whereas a car doesn't know or care what it does. And a cop-with-a-horse is unlikely to have trained the horse to do anything awful, unlike a cop-with-dogs.
I know that we had police stables for years and years in the park in the heart of our city, and I suspect they're still there, just moved. IMHO the advantage of horses is as said above, you can get above the crowds and see what's going on. Also, I suspect, it's a bit harder for people who are getting rambunctious for any reason to menace the rider--you can't body slam him/her, for instance, and you'd have to reach pretty high to do harm to the head.
So all in all, cops on horses say "peaceful" to me. And since they are up so high and exposed, they also say "I'm not expecting anyone in this crowd to pull a gun on me."
Though, somewhat irrelevant here as that particular finding related to community policing. The brief article didn't give any information about perceptions of the use of mounted police in public order roles - and, this was a public order role.
Thanks for a moment I thought you were going to cite a reputable source.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.
Ever? Really? Tell that to the Irish.
Tell it to people protesting peacefully about Fox Hunting
For or against or both?
Against. There was a noticeable different approach to the "fors" as opposed to those against. Much more - shall we say - robust with the against party.
I remember seeing Orgreave on TV, and seeing a practiced set of manoeuvres that, if I had studied the period in detail, I could probably have labelled as a particular battle from the Middle Ages. They were ready to use their cavalry on unarmed people on foot.
Reading up about Bristol, I have found another case to add to Peterloo of cavalry being used against unarmed citizens.
Under that sort of circumstances, mounted police are not radiating peaceableness, and if they are enforcing laws which should not have been enacted, using illegality of the protestors as an excuse for using horses in an aggressive way remains questionable.
Also, admiration for the SPG is dubious. I remember waking up to find that someone I had met was dead at their hands, and the shock it was. I had been at a meeting addressed by Blair Peach, who, to be honest, I had not liked, but he was the first person I had known who had been killed, and at the hands of the police. This should not happen. Whether the group concerned is "efficient" or not.
One of the police problems that isn't there fault is that more and more jobs are pushes onto them. Dealing with drug addicts, the homeless, the mentally ill. Whilst I do think they should be better trained to deal with that because they are the first responders, those jobs should be filled by other people. Ones that don't respond with batons and guns.
Preach! So much of the time what we need is not a cop with a gun whose job is to deal with crime but a social worker whose job is to deal with people in crisis.
And even when dealing with crimes, we often don't need armed cops. Most of the time with property crime they're showing up well after the criminals are gone and they're taking reports and maybe investigating. Every time someone gets their car broken into -- which is a lot where I live -- they need a police report to give to the insurance company, and this is just paperwork, nothing but paperwork.
I have an idea that there are a significant number of police in Victoria with social work qualifications. My wife deals with the cops allot in court and negotiating DV matters. When asked how they were dealing with domestic violence, the comment was: its getting better.
Our police are not angels, but there has been a significant change over the past 20 years in approach, and that's been driven by policy change and management. Where our police have been out of control is in the area of ethical conduct. There is a major inquiry going on right now into the use of police informants. The most egregious case concerns the recruitment of a defence barrister to inform on her criminal clients. This is a massive, unbelievable and huge breach of ethics by the lawyer, and it also undermines the system of justice. Another scandal, some years ago, involved the improper swearing of affidavits by police. That called into question a large number of criminal cases too.
The cops do also use excessive force from time to time, often against people with known mental illnesses. I can think of 5 or 6 cases in Melbourne over the last 25 years,one awful one in particular against a guy with Schizophrenia, and a couple of inexplicable beatings in police cells. I think that people less privileged (or more switched on to this stuff) than me can probably think of a few more.
. . . most transport other than on foot; coaches, carts, carriages and ploughs were all horse drawn and were until the early 1900s. For anything that needed more speed or power than could be provided on foot, horses were pretty much the only option.
What I'm taking issue with was your claim that "It's only recently that horses have become the seen to be the preserve of the rich". This is historically inaccurate. The whole structure of nobility and class in Western Europe for centuries was based on the expense of maintaining horses for military purposes. Best estimate is that it took the output of four mediæval agricultural workers to maintain one mounted knight. Interestingly knighthood as a social signifier of elite status has outlived the use of horses in warfare.
When the time frame I'm using is 1760 - 1900 I find it interesting that you immediately jump to early mediaeval feudal history - knights were a feature of very early English history, not the early modern period I was referring to. Various kings encouraged the breeding and use of horses in Britain, leading to horses being ubiquitous:
the costly, exotic steeds of aristocratic portraiture represented only a fraction of the nation's horseflesh. Far more numerous were the nags and jades, hackneys and draught-horses that powered the English economy on humbler levels.
<snip>
'In 1558 the Venetian ambassador reported that English peasants were accustomed to ride on horseback and concluded that the country could be called the land of comforts' source
That same source discusses that Crecy and Agincourt showed that horses were not that useful on the battlefield, even with the adaptations of lighter armour for cavalry. That horses were better used to haul artillery. The same source continues
'early modern England was very largely a '"horse-drawn" society' and its reliance upon horses - as opposed to mules and similar livestock - increased over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries before reaching a high point in the 1700s and 1800s.
At the end of this period, when we already had steam trains and steam engines replacing horse use in many areas:
It has been estimated that there were about 3 ¼ million horses at work in Britain in 1901. About half of these were used on farms, but over a million were used commercially, to pull goods traffic, buses and trams or hackney carriages for hire. More goods were delivered by horse - an estimated 671 million tons - than by rail. source, National Archives
the same census records that the
population of England and Wales on 1 April 1901 was recorded as 32,527,813,source National Archives
so there was a horse for every 10 persons, man, woman or child, even towards the end of the period when literal horse power drove Britain. You really could not go far without encountering a horse somewhere, as the street and landscape paintings of the time suggest.
I could link to a fascinating 589 page thesis discussing how animals, including horses, are written out of much social history, but enough already. [/end continuing tangent]
The whole structure of nobility and class in Western Europe for centuries was based on the expense of maintaining horses for military purposes. Best estimate is that it took the output of four mediæval agricultural workers to maintain one mounted knight.
While knights were indeed expensive that is in part because some of their horses were highly specialised. A knight would have ordinarily had at least two horses, one for ordinary use and one for battlefield.
I think it would be an exaggeration most people had routine access to horses. For special occasions it might be different. But the Canterbury Tales depict all the pilgrims riding. (I would think that mules may have been commoner than horses though.)
Horses were still used for routine haulage in my lifetime. I remember the rag-and-bone man (the scrap merchant) from my childhood.
@Dafyd - where did I say "routine access to horses"? My intention was to suggest that most goods were transported by horse, travel was powered by horse, farms were worked by horses and that horse power drove most industry (that not driven by wind or water), so that most people routinely encountered horses, breeding familiarity, not that they necessarily had personal access to them.
In the 1980's, there was a market gardener who used to pull into the servo I worked in to grizzle about fuel prices. I reckon his truck was first generation after he gave up the pony. I reckon he would have hung onto the horse for as long as possible. He was also very upset about Ted Heath. I think his family had land in the green belt.
My intention was to suggest that most goods were transported by horse, travel was powered by horse, farms were worked by horses and that horse power drove most industry (that not driven by wind or water), so that most people routinely encountered horses, breeding familiarity, not that they necessarily had personal access to them.
I would agree with you that more people had occasional access to horses than Croesos is suggesting, and most people were familiar with them. That said, I think oxen in the middle ages were more commonly used than horses for a lot of those tasks.
Oxen were used in the middle ages tailing off into the eighteenth century, although I note with interest that the first record from Smithfield Market of horses being sold for farm work was 1145 (source Wikipedia). What partly drove the change was intensive breeding of horses, particularly through the reigns of Edward III and Henry VIII to improve horses and make them more useful, and that trickled down, so that horses became the preferred farm power as they were more agile. (That lot comes from the Wikipedia article on horses through the years.)
However, I was basing my comments on familiarity with horses on the early modern period, not the middle ages.
Comments
Whist I hope for change, I fear continuity.
I think the real power of Generals Mattis and Kelly, e.g., opposing Trump is exactly with the center-right white voters who might be inclined to buy his "barbarians at the gate" pitch otherwise. The people that they look up to as the grown-ups in the room are blaming Trump for this mess, not the people in the streets.
I am. Of course I am.
What I'm taking issue with was your claim that "It's only recently that horses have become the seen to be the preserve of the rich". This is historically inaccurate. The whole structure of nobility and class in Western Europe for centuries was based on the expense of maintaining horses for military purposes. Best estimate is that it took the output of four mediæval agricultural workers to maintain one mounted knight. Interestingly knighthood as a social signifier of elite status has outlived the use of horses in warfare.
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).
I was just being flip. I take your point.
An interesting Twitter thread on this subject from a few days ago.
It goes on from there.
The underlying premise of arguments like @mark_in_manchester's is that those people, those who are poor and "urban", they need that boot on their throat to keep them in line and that the occasional murder or frame job by police is just the way things have to be. At least in those neighborhoods.
Which does, of course, have reasonably successful precedent, albeit in a somewhat different context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ireland
Oh, that's not at all what I meant - because it would have to be 'these', not 'those' for me, as that's where I live. But I totally agree that people need a stake to lose, in order to worry about losing it; that was a large part of what was wrong in the inner-city in northern England through the 80s and early 90s in response to a very rapid de-industrialisation.
I'm quite worried about Brexit, post-Covid recession, currency depreciation etc. I think a lot of cheap Chinese stuff has kept us amused for a long time, and once it becomes possible once again to flog a TV ( / phone / laptop) in a pub, I may go back to getting broken into once a month.
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
The evidence offered was inaccurate.
Only in parts of the USA
Are you saying I was lying about my experience?
Let's face it, increasing police presence and militarizing them hasn't worked.
Mandatory Sentencing and three times you're out laws have not worked.
What has worked is increased social services in poor urban areas. I worked for a County Rehabilitation Center. I developed a program working with co-occurring disorders. My purpose was to keep people out of jail and out of mental health institutions. In the first year, I saved the county $30 million. My program had good relations with the city police and county sheriff's office. They knew we were working with them to reduce their workload. They had no problem seeing money being spent on social services that worked.
Where was your experience ?
Lancashire.
All mass picketing was illegal so the mob was illegal and should never have been there.
That you don't appear to know this because you had a news blackout where you lived is the most charitable explanation I can put on your comments.
That's false; it was shown after the event that the BBC had edited the footage resulting in an apparent reversal of cause and effect.
The IPCC review in 2015 concluded that the police had used excessive force, and that the officers involved had committed perjury to exaggerate events.
There are pretty good indications that it's actually counterproductive, at least when applied to public protests. If your goal is to prevent disruptions, that is.
The rest is worth a read, for those who are interested.
Is banning all public assemblies consistent with a free society? For that matter, is the concept that police can do whatever they want to those they claim are lawbreakers consistent with a free society?
You totally miss the point. Scargill's illegal mob should never have been there.
There was a specific law about picketing. It was totally illegal.
The SPG had a reputation for being efficient in all things.
They changed the name but their efficiency remained.
Well, so much for charitable.
I do not. Your original contention was "The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.". When Orgreave was originally raised your contention changed to "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" (emphasis mine).
As above, it was the police that acted first, they were not 'responding' (and picketing at Orgreave itself was legal at the time).
What is it then?
Nick Tamen - I can understand the argument, but don't agree with it in an era of secret voting. No-one compels you to vote, just attend.
You are totally wrong. The picketing was illegal. However, the Police only had sufficient resources to keep the plant open. They would not have been able to arrest everyone.
This was nothing less than an attempt by Scargill to remove an elected government. This was not a one day event. It had lasted for weeks and every day the illegal mob tried to close the coking plant by force
Therefore the police should have acted illegally. Yes we get it. You think it's okay for the police to be beyond the bounds of the laws they are meant to enforce. Because rah rah cops.
No problem. I assumed you were, but it seemed like an opportunity to flesh out what I’d said earlier.
What’s the point of compelling someone to attend if they aren’t compelled to vote? What’s the governmental or public policy interest in compelling someone, on pain of penalty, to waste their time?
In any event, secret voting really doesn’t matter. Just compelling someone to go to the polls could be problematic. If I don’t want to vote for whatever reason, that is my right. If I choose not to go the polls in order to avoid giving the appearance that I support the system, that is my right. I have the right to vote and the right not to vote, both of which are acts of free speech, and the government can not compel me one way or the other.
I’m not saying it’s an open and shut case, but I am pretty confident that if any jurisdiction here attempted to implement compulsory voting, it would be challenged on First Amendment grounds (among others). And I very well might be wrong, but my money would be on the courts, particularly federal courts, agreeing that it violates the First Amendment.
Preach! So much of the time what we need is not a cop with a gun whose job is to deal with crime but a social worker whose job is to deal with people in crisis.
And even when dealing with crimes, we often don't need armed cops. Most of the time with property crime they're showing up well after the criminals are gone and they're taking reports and maybe investigating. Every time someone gets their car broken into -- which is a lot where I live -- they need a police report to give to the insurance company, and this is just paperwork, nothing but paperwork.
About 95% of the votes cast are valid. Some errors are made, and I don't think anything can be said one way or the other about the votes that are accidental errors and those which are deliberate. In past days, it was a lot easier to make an error, but simplification of the requirements for casting a valid vote had the effect of reducing the numbers discarded. Voting here is not on a first-past-the-post basis, being either preferential or proportional so there is more chance of an accidental error.
I of course accept your assessment of the effect which the First Amendment may have on compulsory voting; there is no equivalent constitutional requirement here.
Golden Key, you're U.S., right? Because my experience is quite different from yours. I won't say I'm hugely familiar with horses, but it's certainly more than just seeing them on TV--and while I might be hesitant to be left alone to cope with a horse in a one-on-one situation (not having any idea what to do), a horse-with-rider would be a very different thing. In fact I'd feel safer with a cop-on-a-horse than a cop-in-a-car, because I doubt very much that a normal horse would willingly run somebody down--or even accidentally trample someone--squishy underfoot, which would upset the horse surely!--whereas a car doesn't know or care what it does. And a cop-with-a-horse is unlikely to have trained the horse to do anything awful, unlike a cop-with-dogs.
I know that we had police stables for years and years in the park in the heart of our city, and I suspect they're still there, just moved. IMHO the advantage of horses is as said above, you can get above the crowds and see what's going on. Also, I suspect, it's a bit harder for people who are getting rambunctious for any reason to menace the rider--you can't body slam him/her, for instance, and you'd have to reach pretty high to do harm to the head.
So all in all, cops on horses say "peaceful" to me. And since they are up so high and exposed, they also say "I'm not expecting anyone in this crowd to pull a gun on me."
Thanks for a moment I thought you were going to cite a reputable source.
Against. There was a noticeable different approach to the "fors" as opposed to those against. Much more - shall we say - robust with the against party.
Reading up about Bristol, I have found another case to add to Peterloo of cavalry being used against unarmed citizens.
Under that sort of circumstances, mounted police are not radiating peaceableness, and if they are enforcing laws which should not have been enacted, using illegality of the protestors as an excuse for using horses in an aggressive way remains questionable.
Also, admiration for the SPG is dubious. I remember waking up to find that someone I had met was dead at their hands, and the shock it was. I had been at a meeting addressed by Blair Peach, who, to be honest, I had not liked, but he was the first person I had known who had been killed, and at the hands of the police. This should not happen. Whether the group concerned is "efficient" or not.
I have an idea that there are a significant number of police in Victoria with social work qualifications. My wife deals with the cops allot in court and negotiating DV matters. When asked how they were dealing with domestic violence, the comment was: its getting better.
Our police are not angels, but there has been a significant change over the past 20 years in approach, and that's been driven by policy change and management. Where our police have been out of control is in the area of ethical conduct. There is a major inquiry going on right now into the use of police informants. The most egregious case concerns the recruitment of a defence barrister to inform on her criminal clients. This is a massive, unbelievable and huge breach of ethics by the lawyer, and it also undermines the system of justice. Another scandal, some years ago, involved the improper swearing of affidavits by police. That called into question a large number of criminal cases too.
The cops do also use excessive force from time to time, often against people with known mental illnesses. I can think of 5 or 6 cases in Melbourne over the last 25 years,one awful one in particular against a guy with Schizophrenia, and a couple of inexplicable beatings in police cells. I think that people less privileged (or more switched on to this stuff) than me can probably think of a few more.
When the time frame I'm using is 1760 - 1900 I find it interesting that you immediately jump to early mediaeval feudal history - knights were a feature of very early English history, not the early modern period I was referring to. Various kings encouraged the breeding and use of horses in Britain, leading to horses being ubiquitous:
That same source discusses that Crecy and Agincourt showed that horses were not that useful on the battlefield, even with the adaptations of lighter armour for cavalry. That horses were better used to haul artillery. The same source continues
At the end of this period, when we already had steam trains and steam engines replacing horse use in many areas: the same census records that the so there was a horse for every 10 persons, man, woman or child, even towards the end of the period when literal horse power drove Britain. You really could not go far without encountering a horse somewhere, as the street and landscape paintings of the time suggest.
I could link to a fascinating 589 page thesis discussing how animals, including horses, are written out of much social history, but enough already. [/end continuing tangent]
I think it would be an exaggeration most people had routine access to horses. For special occasions it might be different. But the Canterbury Tales depict all the pilgrims riding. (I would think that mules may have been commoner than horses though.)
Horses were still used for routine haulage in my lifetime. I remember the rag-and-bone man (the scrap merchant) from my childhood.
However, I was basing my comments on familiarity with horses on the early modern period, not the middle ages.
BroJames, Purgatory Host