Meanwhile, back at the topic, The Week magazine has a thoughtful op-ed aimed at the odd conservative argument that white people are abused by police, too.
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
Meanwhile, back at the topic, The Week magazine has a thoughtful op-ed aimed at the odd conservative argument that white people are abused by police, too.
Essentially, that poor white folk have far more in common with poor black folk than they do with their (largely white) oppressors, and should join in solidarity with them to affect change.
I would normally say at this point "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", but I already do...
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
That rumbling sound you heard was Telford dragging the goalposts along the ground at speed .
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Meanwhile, back at the topic, The Week magazine has a thoughtful op-ed aimed at the odd conservative argument that white people are abused by police, too.
Essentially, that poor white folk have far more in common with poor black folk than they do with their (largely white) oppressors, and should join in solidarity with them to affect change.
I would normally say at this point "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", but I already do...
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
You're cool with police attacking the public if they think members of the public might attack them later?
That's licence for any of them to beat anyone up they don't like the look of.
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
I think there is a difference between arresting an individual and charging at a crowd of protestors while clad in riot gear and/or on the back of a horse.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
On which topic you disagree with the wooly liberals at the IPCC.
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
"I hit him, M,lud, because he was going to hit me. As evinced by him hitting me after I hit him."
Make sure you stretch before twisting that much.
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.
Late mediæval history, actually. Or possibly the high middle ages, at a stretch. (Still being pedantic.) Very early English history is much less horse-intensive. Pre-Norman England was much more militarily reliant on infantry than cavalry. (e.g. the Bayeux tapestry depicts Saxon foot soldiers fighting Norman horsemen.)
Interestingly this is about the time (c. 1000) horses start to replace oxen (the previous preferred draught animal) for agricultural applications in Europe, made practical by the development of horse collars and the heavy plow. Farmers of this era could usually not afford their own teams and would share draught animals with neighbors.
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.
At least three horses. One for combat, one for everyday riding, and at least one for carrying supplies and equipment. And, of course, when you have a ratio of ten people to one horse (and probably higher if you're going further back in time), if a knight has three horses then twenty-nine peasants have zero horses.
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.
I think you misunderstood my point. I understand your process and the idea that it means "all citizens participate. in the choice of who governs them." But you said "No-one compels you to vote, just attend." My "what's the point" was related specifically that—if the desired goal is that "all citizens participate in who governs them," than merely compelling attendance but not compelling voting wouldn't seem to further that goal, or to only partially do so.
But this, too, is a tangent, so I'll leave it there and say no more.
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
Every good thing about this country has been wrested from the hands of the rich and powerful by force. Including your ability to vote, which the Tories are currently trying to take away.
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.
Once again, is criminalizing public gatherings or speech the government doesn't like consistent with a free society? Or as someone else once put it:
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
"The government says the government's actions are totally okay" seems a bit circular.
Two law enforcement agencies acknowledged Monday that officers patrolling Minneapolis during the height of recent protests knifed the tires of numerous vehicles parked and unoccupied in at least two locations in the midst of the unrest.
Images from S. Washington Avenue at Interstate 35W also showed officers with knives deflating the tires of two unoccupied cars with repeated jabs on May 31. Department of Public Safety spokesman Bruce Gordon confirmed that tires were cut in "a few locations."
"State Patrol troopers strategically deflated tires … in order to stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement," Gordon said.
"Pre-emptive" policing through property damage is a step up from "pre-emptive" policing via physical assault I guess, but I'm not sure it's that big of an improvement.
I was genuinely surprised at the size of some US police force budgets, compared with the amount spent on other services.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
I was genuinely surprised at the size of some US police force budgets, compared with the amount spent on other services.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
Meanwhile, back at the topic, The Week magazine has a thoughtful op-ed aimed at the odd conservative argument that white people are abused by police, too.
Essentially, that poor white folk have far more in common with poor black folk than they do with their (largely white) oppressors, and should join in solidarity with them to affect change.
I would normally say at this point "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", but I already do...
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
A 'poor working class chap'? Any regime that obtains 'working class' labour from its population while still leaving them 'poor' is bound to be oppressive, to some extent. Or did you not really mean 'poor, working class' to mean 'in poverty, despite the fact I work'?
As for preferring the ballot box to chaos and anarchy. In the UK the ballot box is admirably serving up huge doses of both! But, heigh-ho, that's democracy!
I was genuinely surprised at the size of some US police force budgets, compared with the amount spent on other services.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
It was a deliberate policy choice. The worst thing an American politician can be accused of (short of a criminal offense) is being "soft on crime". This naturally leads to an arms race to dump ever more funding on policing, to show that you're "tough on [ some classes of people who commit certain types of ] crime".
The "war on drugs" is the national-level equivalent of this, and of course there's a racial component. Compare the "solutions" offered for heroin or crack addiction (more policing, longer sentencing, harsher prison conditions), drugs that are perceived as being used primarily by black Americans, with the plans proposed for dealing with opiate addiction (rehab, social services, medical aid), something perceived as mostly affecting white Americans.
Cops also put a lot of money into election coffers of pro-cop politicians. You can buy whatever you want in the marketplace of American politics, if you have sufficient cash.
How can you believe that the police always do what is right? How? Clergy don't always do what is right and their whole lives are ostensibly devoted to thinking about the right. I just don't understand this level of confidence in the police.
It appears to be willful blindness. Cops re human, so even if there were not systemic problems, there would be fuck ups.
I was genuinely surprised at the size of some US police force budgets, compared with the amount spent on other services.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
Yes, they have excellent PR departments, they are called unions. As mentioned, "tough on crime" is a big seller. Librarians cannot as easily claim to be in the interest of public safety. There is probably a real connection between librarians and the reduction of crime, but that is a harder sell than cops have.
Police, and fire, leveraged rising housing prices to inflate their budgets. Few were lowered when that bubble, and the revenue drawn from it, collapsed.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing. That strikes me as entirely feasible. Defunding the police may well make municipal budgets smaller, as well as more effective.
Another question, because I don't know the answer to this: how are police in the US recruited? We have a problem in the UK of police officers not being representative of the areas they're policing (often the last professional people in a poor neighbourhood are the clergy). I'm assuming cops don't live in the neighbourhoods they're assigned to, unless it's a rural beat.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing. That strikes me as entirely feasible. Defunding the police may well make municipal budgets smaller, as well as more effective.
Another question, because I don't know the answer to this: how are police in the US recruited? We have a problem in the UK of police officers not being representative of the areas they're policing (often the last professional people in a poor neighbourhood are the clergy). I'm assuming cops don't live in the neighbourhoods they're assigned to, unless it's a rural beat.
Speaking to your last point, most US municipal police will live in outlying suburbs.
Cops also put a lot of money into election coffers of pro-cop politicians.
Do they? Maybe the prison industry does. But cops are pretty popular in the US in general; I would think the most valuable thing they have to offer a law-and-order politician is their public endorsement, not money.
I was genuinely surprised at the size of some US police force budgets, compared with the amount spent on other services.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
It was a deliberate policy choice. The worst thing an American politician can be accused of (short of a criminal offense) is being "soft on crime".
That one political path is via being an AG probably also exacerbates this effect.
Maybe the prison industry does. But cops are pretty popular in the US in general; I would think the most valuable thing they have to offer a law-and-order politician is their public endorsement, not money.
Cops also put a lot of money into election coffers of pro-cop politicians.
Do they? Maybe the prison industry does. But cops are pretty popular in the US in general; I would think the most valuable thing they have to offer a law-and-order politician is their public endorsement, not money.
Oh, the police have a very strong Political Action Committee under the Fraternal Order of Police. Another organization that pours a lot of money to municipal elections is the Americans for Law Enforcement.
I'd bet it varies. Where I live two of the current city council members have received markedly less money from the local cop union than the others, but they still got some. The mayor got a lot.
Maybe the prison industry does. But cops are pretty popular in the US in general; I would think the most valuable thing they have to offer a law-and-order politician is their public endorsement, not money.
They like both.
Again, I'd bet it varies. I don't tend to think of cops as being all that popular, but that's because the people I hang out with don't tend to think that well of cops. But when I've been in jury pools I've been struck by how trusting people are of cops. When asked if they believe cops more, less, or the same as other people testifying at trial, most people believe cops more. ::facepalm::
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
I think there is a difference between arresting an individual and charging at a crowd of protestors while clad in riot gear and/or on the back of a horse.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
On which topic you disagree with the wooly liberals at the IPCC.
I Googled IPCC and got something about Climate Change. For the sake of the old and stupid, can there be a limit on acronyms? Please?
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing.
This sort of "statistic" is common and almost always BS. Whenever an interest group produces a study that shows that spending one dollar on them returns a million dollars into the economy or makes the average life expectancy quadruple or ..., the one thing you can rely on is that the people conducting the study were a lot more committed to the study's outcome than they were to its methodology.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing.
This sort of "statistic" is common and almost always BS. Whenever an interest group produces a study that shows that spending one dollar on them returns a million dollars into the economy or makes the average life expectancy quadruple or ..., the one thing you can rely on is that the people conducting the study were a lot more committed to the study's outcome than they were to its methodology.
Police do not prevent crime. The threat of punishment probably it, but police are most often involved after the crime has been committed.
Involving people in their community, especially at a young age, gives incentive to avoid harming the community. Whilst dollar figures might be hard to quantify, giving children something positive to do seems a no-brainer in reducing delinquency
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
Every good thing about this country has been wrested from the hands of the rich and powerful by force. Including your ability to vote, which the Tories are currently trying to take away.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing.
This sort of "statistic" is common and almost always BS. Whenever an interest group produces a study that shows that spending one dollar on them returns a million dollars into the economy or makes the average life expectancy quadruple or ..., the one thing you can rely on is that the people conducting the study were a lot more committed to the study's outcome than they were to its methodology.
Police do not prevent crime. The threat of punishment probably it, but police are most often involved after the crime has been committed.
When they make arrests and the offender goes to prison, the Police have prevented future crimes by that person.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing. That strikes me as entirely feasible. Defunding the police may well make municipal budgets smaller, as well as more effective.
Another question, because I don't know the answer to this: how are police in the US recruited? We have a problem in the UK of police officers not being representative of the areas they're policing (often the last professional people in a poor neighbourhood are the clergy). I'm assuming cops don't live in the neighbourhoods they're assigned to, unless it's a rural beat.
They used to when there were Police houses.
In large cities there are afluent areas and poor areas. The majority of tax is paid by people living in the afluent areas. Afluent areas pay for the Police service. However, the vast majority of officers spend their time in the poor areas.
Meanwhile, back at the topic, The Week magazine has a thoughtful op-ed aimed at the odd conservative argument that white people are abused by police, too.
Essentially, that poor white folk have far more in common with poor black folk than they do with their (largely white) oppressors, and should join in solidarity with them to affect change.
I would normally say at this point "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", but I already do...
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
A 'poor working class chap'? Any regime that obtains 'working class' labour from its population while still leaving them 'poor' is bound to be oppressive, to some extent. Or did you not really mean 'poor, working class' to mean 'in poverty, despite the fact I work'?
I wrote poor because I am not rich. Perhaps 'ordinary' would have been a better word.
As for preferring the ballot box to chaos and anarchy. In the UK the ballot box is admirably serving up huge doses of both! But, heigh-ho, that's democracy!
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
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.
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
It turns out, as witnessed in the police 'slow down' in New York City, that daily acts of aggression against the police magically disappear when the police take themselves out of the equation.
The conclusion is that the police cause the problem, and then have an excuse to batter a few heads. This happens in this country too, as recently as last weekend.
I've heard that one dollar/pound spent on youth clubs saves ten dollars/pounds on policing.
This sort of "statistic" is common and almost always BS. Whenever an interest group produces a study that shows that spending one dollar on them returns a million dollars into the economy or makes the average life expectancy quadruple or ..., the one thing you can rely on is that the people conducting the study were a lot more committed to the study's outcome than they were to its methodology.
<snip>
Involving people in their community, especially at a young age, gives incentive to avoid harming the community. Whilst dollar figures might be hard to quantify, giving children something positive to do seems a no-brainer in reducing delinquency
I have no problem with that, and am content to support such efforts without regard to the economics involved. But there is a real point to be made here -- pulling statistics out of your ass is bad practice, whether done by Trump and his supporters or progressives and theirs. You can't be "fact based" if you make up your facts.
If anyone is interested, the redacted report from the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Committee) following Orgreave is here (pdf link).
South Yorkshire police referred itself to the IPCC in 2012 over allegations officers colluded to write court statements. The watchdog later said the passage of time prevented a formal investigation but said there was “support” for the allegation that senior police exaggerated pickets’ use of violence.
The Yorkshire Post said it had seen redacted sections of the report, which it said reveals that the same senior officers and solicitor were involved both in the aftermath of Orgreave and Hillsborough in 1989.
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.
Link to police attacking a crowd of hunt protesters?
All of this reminds me of the debate that went on before women were allowed to join the police. Apparently one major concern was would they be able to break up drunken fights in pubs. In practice they turned out to be better than men at this, as they could talk the aggressors down rather than ramping up the testosterone.
All of this reminds me of the debate that went on before women were allowed to join the police. Apparently one major concern was would they be able to break up drunken fights in pubs. In practice they turned out to be better than men at this, as they could talk the aggressors down rather than ramping up the testosterone.
That might well have been true on the occasions when the drunks gave them a chance.
Telford I think you are underestimating the dynamic when you talk about the drunks "Giving them a chance."
As a teenager I was involved in the organisation of a weekly dance in the fairly rough area where I lived. Watching my mother 5 foot 11 and a half inches of her (and don't you forget the half) interacting with some of the toughest men there terrified me at first, but I learned a lot from it.
Comments
A matter for the courts and not the Police to judge; so your original comment ""The Police do not attack crowds in the UK." is presumably caveated by "unless they think they are doing something illegal".
Essentially, that poor white folk have far more in common with poor black folk than they do with their (largely white) oppressors, and should join in solidarity with them to affect change.
I would normally say at this point "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", but I already do...
That rumbling sound you heard was Telford dragging the goalposts along the ground at speed .
By your logic, every time the Police witness a crime they would be unable to make an arrest.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK. They defend themselves. Sometimes, as on one occasion at Orgreave, they take pre-emptive action in order to defend themselves.
I am a poor working class chap from The Black Country. I have never had any oppressors. In the UK we prefer the ballot box to chaos and anarchy
You're cool with police attacking the public if they think members of the public might attack them later?
That's licence for any of them to beat anyone up they don't like the look of.
Street hockey ala Wayne's World except the goal has rocket boosters and the opposing player has been drinking.
I think there is a difference between arresting an individual and charging at a crowd of protestors while clad in riot gear and/or on the back of a horse.
On which topic you disagree with the wooly liberals at the IPCC.
Make sure you stretch before twisting that much.
Late mediæval history, actually. Or possibly the high middle ages, at a stretch. (Still being pedantic.) Very early English history is much less horse-intensive. Pre-Norman England was much more militarily reliant on infantry than cavalry. (e.g. the Bayeux tapestry depicts Saxon foot soldiers fighting Norman horsemen.)
Interestingly this is about the time (c. 1000) horses start to replace oxen (the previous preferred draught animal) for agricultural applications in Europe, made practical by the development of horse collars and the heavy plow. Farmers of this era could usually not afford their own teams and would share draught animals with neighbors.
At least three horses. One for combat, one for everyday riding, and at least one for carrying supplies and equipment. And, of course, when you have a ratio of ten people to one horse (and probably higher if you're going further back in time), if a knight has three horses then twenty-nine peasants have zero horses.
But this, too, is a tangent, so I'll leave it there and say no more.
Every good thing about this country has been wrested from the hands of the rich and powerful by force. Including your ability to vote, which the Tories are currently trying to take away.
Resist.
Once again, is criminalizing public gatherings or speech the government doesn't like consistent with a free society? Or as someone else once put it:
"The government says the government's actions are totally okay" seems a bit circular.
Here's another, more recent example of police "tak[ing] pre-emptive action":
"Pre-emptive" policing through property damage is a step up from "pre-emptive" policing via physical assault I guess, but I'm not sure it's that big of an improvement.
How - given these are elected officials setting these budgets - did it get to that point? Was it a case of no one watching, or simply that the police had better PR than librarians and social workers?
Guns are pricey.
A 'poor working class chap'? Any regime that obtains 'working class' labour from its population while still leaving them 'poor' is bound to be oppressive, to some extent. Or did you not really mean 'poor, working class' to mean 'in poverty, despite the fact I work'?
As for preferring the ballot box to chaos and anarchy. In the UK the ballot box is admirably serving up huge doses of both! But, heigh-ho, that's democracy!
It was a deliberate policy choice. The worst thing an American politician can be accused of (short of a criminal offense) is being "soft on crime". This naturally leads to an arms race to dump ever more funding on policing, to show that you're "tough on [ some classes of people who commit certain types of ] crime".
The "war on drugs" is the national-level equivalent of this, and of course there's a racial component. Compare the "solutions" offered for heroin or crack addiction (more policing, longer sentencing, harsher prison conditions), drugs that are perceived as being used primarily by black Americans, with the plans proposed for dealing with opiate addiction (rehab, social services, medical aid), something perceived as mostly affecting white Americans.
Police, and fire, leveraged rising housing prices to inflate their budgets. Few were lowered when that bubble, and the revenue drawn from it, collapsed.
Another question, because I don't know the answer to this: how are police in the US recruited? We have a problem in the UK of police officers not being representative of the areas they're policing (often the last professional people in a poor neighbourhood are the clergy). I'm assuming cops don't live in the neighbourhoods they're assigned to, unless it's a rural beat.
Speaking to your last point, most US municipal police will live in outlying suburbs.
That one political path is via being an AG probably also exacerbates this effect.
Oh, the police have a very strong Political Action Committee under the Fraternal Order of Police. Another organization that pours a lot of money to municipal elections is the Americans for Law Enforcement.
I'd bet it varies. Where I live two of the current city council members have received markedly less money from the local cop union than the others, but they still got some. The mayor got a lot.
Again, I'd bet it varies. I don't tend to think of cops as being all that popular, but that's because the people I hang out with don't tend to think that well of cops. But when I've been in jury pools I've been struck by how trusting people are of cops. When asked if they believe cops more, less, or the same as other people testifying at trial, most people believe cops more. ::facepalm::
I Googled IPCC and got something about Climate Change. For the sake of the old and stupid, can there be a limit on acronyms? Please?
This sort of "statistic" is common and almost always BS. Whenever an interest group produces a study that shows that spending one dollar on them returns a million dollars into the economy or makes the average life expectancy quadruple or ..., the one thing you can rely on is that the people conducting the study were a lot more committed to the study's outcome than they were to its methodology.
Involving people in their community, especially at a young age, gives incentive to avoid harming the community. Whilst dollar figures might be hard to quantify, giving children something positive to do seems a no-brainer in reducing delinquency
Where do you get this stuff from ? When they make arrests and the offender goes to prison, the Police have prevented future crimes by that person.
They used to when there were Police houses.
In large cities there are afluent areas and poor areas. The majority of tax is paid by people living in the afluent areas. Afluent areas pay for the Police service. However, the vast majority of officers spend their time in the poor areas.
I wrote poor because I am not rich. Perhaps 'ordinary' would have been a better word.
You think the voters are to blame ?
Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host.
Orgreave was closely planned by Senior Police Officers some days before. It was an attempt to crush miners by force which changed the perception of the Police forever in the minds of the general public.
No longer are the Police "on side" unless it's their side or the whim of a politician.
I agree that the action was planned. Something had to be done to put a stop to the daily acts of aggression against the Police.
The conclusion is that the police cause the problem, and then have an excuse to batter a few heads. This happens in this country too, as recently as last weekend.
I have no problem with that, and am content to support such efforts without regard to the economics involved. But there is a real point to be made here -- pulling statistics out of your ass is bad practice, whether done by Trump and his supporters or progressives and theirs. You can't be "fact based" if you make up your facts.
From the same Guardian article:
Link to police attacking a crowd of hunt protesters?
That might well have been true on the occasions when the drunks gave them a chance.
As a teenager I was involved in the organisation of a weekly dance in the fairly rough area where I lived. Watching my mother 5 foot 11 and a half inches of her (and don't you forget the half) interacting with some of the toughest men there terrified me at first, but I learned a lot from it.
ETA: a very important +.5"
Still is.