Any London left?

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The have form of shooting people who didn't deserve to get shot... .

Who?

What form?

Your Forest gate example didn't fly did it? So have another go. Who?

Menezes was innocent, he got shot. The forest gate chap was innocent, he got shot. In both cases the police/media smeared the victim. Thats enough for me, and I don't really feel the need to put together a dossier to try and convince you of something that wouldn't stop you giving the police the benefit of the doubt anyway.

For the record, as a middle class person living in Sheen I've personally had mostly good experiences with the police where they've been very helpful public servants. But I am aware of the ways in which they often abuse their authority, or are forced by policy and circumstance into difficult positions. I'm not anti them, I just take their version of events like this with a pinch of salt.

garnett

EDIT:

DonDaddyD wrote:

But that isn't limited to just black people as Alf Garnett and Antfly suggest.

FFS - continue to exercise the very same prejudice your very same post purports to denounce. Even though it uterly undermines everything else you say, everything else you say is so woeful the hypocrisy actually represents a high water mark.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

That's hardly evidence, is it? In fact if you look at this shot:



Again, poor young men with no prospects and little hope.

UE, I'm actually keen to separate myself from the "Get rid of the blacks" posts so I'm going to leave the thread I think. I acknowledge there were people from all walks of life involved in the looting. I have seen secondary evidence of such (photos in paper and on the web). My first hand primary evidence, ie, what I saw with my own eyes (which, obviously, is useless to everyone else) was a different story.

I'll concede now that what I saw could easily be explained as down to demographics. I am still not wholly convinced (given what I saw of some of these people's apparent wealth), but I think I was further shaken by the happy open nonchalance and clear lack of any internal moral conflict with which the people I saw carried out violent crime. These are people I see every day, and had hitherto considered law abiding and decent citizens.

Is it prejudice to allow what I saw to affect my attitude? Should I be allowed to adopt a different attitude because a different part of society came into unpleasant contact with my daily life? Feck knows. Anyway, a good debate, and some insightful stuff for me to take away.

notsoblue

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

I never said two wrongs make a right, and I never made any excuses. I was just speculating as to how this dysfunctional situation may have arisen and was suggesting that simply vilifying the rioters and leaving it at that is the right solution. I think some introspection is necessary here.

Yes fair enough, but along this line one could be coming very close to seeing the rioters as victims. And that's the last thing they are.

I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

notsoblue

Garnett wrote:

Is it prejudice to allow what I saw to affect my attitude? Should I be allowed to adopt a different attitude because a different part of society came into unpleasant contact with my daily life? Feck knows. Anyway, a good debate, and some insightful stuff for me to take away.

I don't think it is. And I'd class your attitude as being very different from Antfly's.

Paul E

DonDaddyD wrote:

In places like Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Wolverhampton etc where there is genrally less ethnic minorities and still high numbers of young people, some poor, there were still riots.

I lived in Birmingham for most of my life and believe me it's as ethnicly mixed as it is down here, even more so in lots of neighbourhoods around where I used to work, same goes for Wolverhampton too. Manchester and Liverpool I can't comment on.

Race wasn't the reason for it happening, they did it because they knew they could do it without being opposed by the police, simple as that, why work for the money and then spend it when you can just smash a window and get it for free. Trouble is with all the cctv about the object might be free but end up paying with years of you life in prison if you are identified.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

dhope wrote:

You can't just come out with tripe like that then continue with your post as if nothing happened.

Implying that there's even the slightest chance that he surrendered (and presumably in the process made it abundantly clear that he was no longer a threat) and was then shot is preposterous.

The rest of the post is fairly inoffensive but that particular bit is mind numbingly idiotic.

Oh! So you know the full set of details to say that the police acted impeccably? You know of all the possible outcomes the one that actually happened do you?

No. Your single minded view that you know what happened despite a lack of clarity, evidence and confirmation is mind numbingly idiotic.

I’m not saying that the guy shouldn’t have been shot. I’m not disputing that he was a criminal. NOTHING I SAID SPOKE IN ABSOLUTES!!!

What I’m pointing out is that despite what we know we still don’t know whether he still should have been shot or killed. We don’t know the circumstances of why the police shot him. It may be the case that they did so wrongfully, they may well have been right to do so.

What we do know is that he didn't fire his gun. So if that was the reason for his shooting, which is what the papers were reporting - which in part played a major part in the initial protest/riot - then police acted incorrectly. It may well turn out that they still had ground to shoot him. We just don't know that yet.

FACT US WE DON’T KNOW YET AND THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME TO LIGHT.

Argh. You have a habit of missing the point on purpose this when called on something.

You implied that it was feasible that the police made the concious choice of executing someone that had surrendered.
That is entirely different from saying he may have been shot in error.

We do not know what happened, of course. But there have been no cases that I can think of where the police have killed someone they knew to be unarmed after that person had surrendered.

Menezes - they were wrong to shoot him but the officers that did acted based on their (incorrect) understanding of the situation. They believed they were killing a terrorist, they did not believe they were killing someone that was late for a train.

Greg said "Are you saying he surrendered and was then executed?"
You (essentially) said "Maybe, we don't know"

That's what I was railing against, there is no reason to assert that.

roger_merriman

I don't think race is the issue, I'd agree with DDD that it's urban sink estates society.

as aside regarding the MET even if people where colour agonistic you'd expect it to be largely white, as london is largely white.

DonDaddyD

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

I never said two wrongs make a right, and I never made any excuses. I was just speculating as to how this dysfunctional situation may have arisen and was suggesting that simply vilifying the rioters and leaving it at that is the right solution. I think some introspection is necessary here.

Yes fair enough, but along this line one could be coming very close to seeing the rioters as victims. And that's the last thing they are.

I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

You don't need to repeat anything to me, I never accused you of excusing the rioters. And I actually replied with "fair enough" to your post i.e. I agree society is to blame.

I can make that agreement WITHOUT empathising; the state of society has left me unemployed since last November and sometimes I'm really quite angry about that given the reasons behind the spending cuts and subsequent unemployment (they're not as a result of my chosen lifestyle). So I could also go looting/rioting, using society as an excuse, if I was a dickhead.

Sorry, I'm digressing. In short; we are in agreement, but I maybe didn't make that so clear!

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

I never said two wrongs make a right, and I never made any excuses. I was just speculating as to how this dysfunctional situation may have arisen and was suggesting that simply vilifying the rioters and leaving it at that is the right solution. I think some introspection is necessary here.

Yes fair enough, but along this line one could be coming very close to seeing the rioters as victims. And that's the last thing they are.

I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

I can accept that. Complicated issues such as materialism, aspirational marketing and celebrity culture. Migration of social responsibility from the individual/parents to the state. Rich / Poor divide or at least perception of it. Poor education. I could go on. I can only hope the spirit of community the led to both the clean up and the people on the streets last night protecting there communities actually migrates in the pride in your local area and community in the long term which will start to redress the balance of social responsibility. However I'm concerned it will just lead to turf war on a larger scale than simply local gangs.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

DDD: I think you are misunderstanding Garnett's point, and as a result getting needlessly worked up about it. You are not the only one who finds racism unacceptable.

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

Not sure anyone would really disagree there is an element of social issue at cause here but it's not, nor near being the primary or majority cause. You can't blame society for parenting skills that allow a child to grow up thinking anything near the behaviour of late is acceptable.

Society is to blame for the reactions (ie post cause) of the police force against such behaviour. No baton usage because if more racial minorities "said" they had been beaten then there would be a massive outcry etc etc.

To re-educate the parents and those kids to a level at which they knew and believed what was morally correct to do would require buckets of cash and a willingness to change. The latter will control the former and I doubt they want to.

garnett

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

Sorry, I have to come back on that. You can be as dishonest as you like as long as it doesn't affect others, but you've taken what I said completely out of context, and as such your utter moral intellectual bankruptcy could lead others to get the impression what you've said represents my position.

To anyone drawing that opinion, I'd ask that you go back and read what I had to say, in context. If it is not understood by any other than the most disingeniune or lacking in intelligence, then please say so and I will explain myself. I just wanted to say, what I said there is not at all racist in the slightest and wasn't intended as a slur or a criticism toward anyone.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

Menezes was innocent, he got shot. The forest gate chap was innocent, he got shot. In both cases the police/media smeared the victim. Thats enough for me, and I don't really feel the need to put together a dossier to try and convince you of something that wouldn't stop you giving the police the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Your Dossier will be thin as there are no examples.

Menezes - we all know why he was shot - yes wrongly by people thinking they were doing the right thing

Forest gate was an accidental discharge.

So your "the met police have form for shooting people without cause" argument is wrong

This is a fact and not opinion.

Distrust the Police all you want - you'll be the first one crying into your latte when Sheen gets turned over and Plod aren't there for you.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

So do you blame the police, or blame those that cause such preconceptions to be created? Do crime stats support police stop & search policy? Do we want police to waste disproportionate time S&Sing those who are less statistically likely to be out and about with criminal intend to avoid the appearence of discrimination?

These are good questions. But I think you're ignoring the effect of police considering a large racial group fair game as targets for stop and search. Either that or you think that effect is a fair or acceptable consequence. Which would set you apart from the Met who had in fact invested a great deal in community liaison, investments which are now being abandoned because of funding restraints.

Ben6899

Garnett wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

Sorry, I have to come back on that. You can be as dishonest as you like as long as it doesn't affect others, but you've taken what I said completely out of context, and as such your utter moral intellectual bankruptcy could lead others to get the impression what you've said represents my position.

To anyone drawing that opinion, I'd ask that you go back and read what I had to say, in context. If it is not understood by any other than the most disingeniune or lacking in intelligence, then please say so and I will explain myself. I just wanted to say, what I said there is not at all racist in the slightest.

I think you're alright, Garnett. What you said in that quote isn't remotely racist.

DonDaddyD

Garnett wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

Sorry, I have to come back on that. You can be as dishonest as you like as long as it doesn't affect others, but you've taken what I said completely out of context, and as such your utter moral intellectual bankruptcy could lead others to get the impression what you've said represents my position.

To anyone drawing that opinion, I'd ask that you go back and read what I had to say, in context. If it is not understood by any other than the most disingeniune or lacking in intelligence, then please say so and I will explain myself. I just wanted to say, what I said there is not at all racist in the slightest.

Very nicely worded. Here's mine.

I think you are a blinkered prick.

Here's why, based on your singular experience of witnessing the riots in Clapham you've continually asserted that the majority of rioters were black. Then you've jumped to the assumption that this must clearly be a race issue.

Despite every single report person and the rioters themselves saying that this was nothing to do with race you've stuck with that view.

I'm not denying that the majority of rioters may have been of another ethnicity other than white british. What is clear is that they the riots and the reason for rioting were not a race related issue.

If there is an overwhelming number of other ethnicities involved in the riots but the reason for rioting was not race related then it is highly probable that any solution (mirroring the cause) will have nothing to do with race.

I also asserted that under darkness, and a hoodie, cap or scarf around the face it may be hard to identify what ethnicity the person may be.

Ben6899

I'm drowning in irony here.

jzed

Quite a lot of misunderstandings, misstatements and forumites being labelled in here - for that reason I'm out.

Clever Pun

Ben6899 wrote:

I'm drowning in irony here.

I know... it's horrific to read now

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already:

You are a disgusting vile sickening human being.

And with that I'm out.

Sorry, I have to come back on that. You can be as dishonest as you like as long as it doesn't affect others, but you've taken what I said completely out of context, and as such your utter moral intellectual bankruptcy could lead others to get the impression what you've said represents my position.

To anyone drawing that opinion, I'd ask that you go back and read what I had to say, in context. If it is not understood by any other than the most disingeniune or lacking in intelligence, then please say so and I will explain myself. I just wanted to say, what I said there is not at all racist in the slightest.

Very nicely worded. Here's mine.

I think you are a blinkered prick.

Oh, you're back.

Why not deal with the issues raised rather than looking to be offended adn then getting your handbag out? I think you need to read and then think about what is being said, rather than attacking someone. You misread NSBs post and I think you've misread Garnets post.

Gussio

Leaves thread >>>>>>>>>>>

MonkeyMonster

wot who when but?

</coat>

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

Quite.

More eloquently than I could have put.

By saying there are clearly socio-economic problems that have forged a group of people who don't feel bound by acceptable behaviour does not mean you are making an excuse for people who are behaving unacceptably.

antfly

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

Is it prejudice to allow what I saw to affect my attitude? Should I be allowed to adopt a different attitude because a different part of society came into unpleasant contact with my daily life? Feck knows. Anyway, a good debate, and some insightful stuff for me to take away.

I don't think it is. And I'd class your attitude as being very different from Antfly's.

Funny that because he has said a whole lot more than me and what little I have written he has elaborated on at much greater length. You only think you know my attitude.
BTW as a white male youth where I grew up I used to get stopped by the police all the time, it was a bit irritating but it never inspired me to burn the place down.

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Menezes was innocent, he got shot. The forest gate chap was innocent, he got shot. In both cases the police/media smeared the victim. Thats enough for me, and I don't really feel the need to put together a dossier to try and convince you of something that wouldn't stop you giving the police the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Your Dossier will be thin as there are no examples.

Menezes - we all know why he was shot - yes wrongly by people thinking they were doing the right thing

Forest gate was an accidental discharge.

So your "the met police have form for shooting people without cause" argument is wrong

This is a fact and not opinion.

Distrust the Police all you want - you'll be the first one crying into your latte when Sheen gets turned over and Plod aren't there for you.

Wow, strong opinions. Look, I'm just saying I can understand why people who have had negative experiences with the police distrust them in situations like this. Innocent people get killed every now and again, and however understandable it seems in retrospect from our point of view, if you're from a community that is under heavy scrutiny from the police I don't think its unreasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Besides, I don't like milky coffee.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

So do you blame the police, or blame those that cause such preconceptions to be created? Do crime stats support police stop & search policy? Do we want police to waste disproportionate time S&Sing those who are less statistically likely to be out and about with criminal intend to avoid the appearence of discrimination?

These are good questions. But I think you're ignoring the effect of police considering a large racial group fair game as targets for stop and search. Either that or you think that effect is a fair or acceptable consequence. Which would set you apart from the Met who had in fact invested a great deal in community liaison, investments which are now being abandoned because of funding restraints.

You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that even if statistically it's a "waste" to S&S those who do not necesarily fit the criminal demographic in order to avoid being accused of being discriminatory, then that "waste" is in fact worthwhile to have good community relations. Yes, I can see the value of that and hadn't considered it before.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

And I am not wrong that the police could have wrongfully shot the fella. They could have been well within their right. What we do know is that he didn't shoot his gun and having a gun on you person (until it's confirmed that he threatened to use it in some way) isn't enough to justify being shot.

It may well turn out that he needed six more bullets in him.. just because.

Absolutely. This is what we have enquiries and courts for - to find out if anything wrong was done. And if it turns out that the Police were wrong, and nothing is done about it, or it turns out that that things are covered up - then, and only then is there a pathetic and feeble justification for demonstration etc. This is all about greed, theft, burning things for fun and nothing more.

Ben6899

DDD, if you accuse someone of being racist, then you have to be absolutely, ABSolutely, ABSOLUTELY sure that you're correct in that accusation.

I believe you calling Garnett "vile" and "sickening" was based on you thinking he is making racist comments. I also believe you don't have any real credible evidence to do that.

I'm trying to be the voice of reason here - I'd suggest Garnett double checks the fact in bold.

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims

Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?

Quite.

More eloquently than I could have put.

By saying there are clearly socio-economic problems that have forged a group of people who don't feel bound by acceptable behaviour does not mean you are making an excuse for people who are behaving unacceptably.

Did you both read my reply to this point? Not being funny, but I hope you did.