George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Wee-Bey]

I'm not sure that 'the police also kill unarmed white people' is quite the zinger you think it is tbh.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

3 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said:

I actually think there were attempts made to stop protests about the grooming - mostly by left-wing groups and the police, mostly, is I recall. 

Wasn't able to find any evidence of that mate, probably made up bollocks. Are you thinking of Tommy Robinson being arrested for assault, again, in Barrow at the start of the month? 

You're really not doing yourself any favours by the way with this literal White Lives Matter bollocks. At least the All Lives Matter folk are just dim. What you're saying is, essentially, why should brown and black folk not be discriminated against when all these brown and black folk are out here grooming lassies? Do you think bame people are more likely to be paedophiles?

[Marshmallo]

19 minutes ago, Old Pack said:

 

The UK is more right -wing in its politics probably due to the fact that the Labour Party has been led by a bunch of Pro Marxist idiots for the last 10 years.

 

"I had no option but to become a white supremacist because Jeremy Corbyn wanted to give everyone tax payer funded broadband"

[Brother Blades]

If promoting the message 'Black Lives Matter' results in the police literally taking a knee, whilst promoting the message 'White Lives Matter' results in arrest, then we have a problem and I'm not sure people are willing to accept that. 
It's exactly the same message applied to different races.
This is what I have found regarding the stats on unarmed people being shot dead by police in the US:
 

Yeah great graphic!
Fails to recognise that there are 5 times more white people in the US than there are black.
60% vs 12%.
Hardly an even rate of attrition.

[The Moonster]

14 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said:

'What about black on black crime though? type post.'

No, it's really not. It's about examining the statistics to verify the cause is genuine before tearing down statues and cheering on a cause that is potentially very divisive and antagonistic, rather than listen to media hysteria.

It surely isn't difficult to see how someone from Burnley, a town roughly about the same size as Paisley, might know of girls who have been groomed by gangs and think to themselves "where were all these hysterical protests when that was happening over here?" 

You are the fucking problem mate. Just f**k off with this pish.

[ICTChris]

I don't know about protests but it's certain that actual investigations into grooming gang sexual offences were influenced by the worry that publicising the crimes would cause racial disharmony.  

Regarding that banner, I'm not sure you could prosecute anyone for it, what laws are being broken by it?  I'm sure Burnely will be banning the guy who arranged it though.  I'd also have to question the firm who flew it though, do they need the money that much?  

[Shandon Par]

24 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said:

If promoting the message 'Black Lives Matter' results in the police literally taking a knee, whilst promoting the message 'White Lives Matter' results in arrest, then we have a problem and I'm not sure people are willing to accept that. 

It's exactly the same message applied to different races.

This is what I have found regarding the stats on unarmed people being shot dead by police in the US:

 

With some very rough calculations, that shows police shoot 2x as many white people as black people. Yet the white population is roughly 4.5x that of the black population. You're about 2.5 or 3 x more likely to be shot by police if you're black. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

4 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Anyone making that comparison is an idiot, though.

The reading attacks were carried out by a guy on his own who decided he wanted to go and stab people.

The blm protests relate to overwhelming evidence of racism in America's police forces. It's a campaign that's spread around the world due to the everyday racism that black people suffer in other countries, including this one.

Unfortunately, the UK is full of them.

3 hours ago, Detournement said:

The vast majority of people in the UK understandably don't think a great deal about police violence in the USA any more than they think about police violence in Egypt or India. 

To understand why Black Lives Matters isn't exclusionary and White Lives Matters should be avoided requires contextual knowledge that British voters largely don't have. Celebrities using racial discourse they have picked up from American Twitter to scold white people in the UK is only going to increase reactionary tendencies. 

Well, let's talk about Police violence in the UK then. Menezes, Duggan - two men who might be alive today (even if one, at least, may well be in prison) had it not been for British Police being too keen to use the shiny toys they get issued.

Or let's talk about the imbalance in the British Justice system. Black males far more likely to be stopped and searched, UK Prison population is over 26% BAME, and that rises to over 50% in the Youth and Juvenile Estate (Under 21s)  compared to the population in general being  around 13% BAME. Is that because that's who commits all the crimes? There are actually people who believe this to be the case.

At a possibly lower level, although imho massively important in the suppression of the public's rights, look at the student protests in 2010*. The footage from one clearly showed Police leaning over the barriers on College Green to beat across the back (with what I can tell you is an efficient weapon) protesters trying to leave the area. The dragging of a wheelchair-bound protester out of his chair and over to the side of the road while mounted police were about to sweep the embankment was another highlight. None of the Met's brain donors thought that they could have, y'know, wheeled him out of the way...

"Yeah, but they rioted and damaged Government buildings. The Prince of Wales got attacked." Did he? did he really? Any damage done was maybe, just maybe, contributed to by the tactice of kettling innocent British citizens on Westminster Bridge for hours - Rosette No. 1 included. She asked politely to be allowed to leave, so as to find a toilet. She was told no.

"OK, then, I'll just have to pee in the gutter."

"Do that and you'll be nicked."

"What for?"

"We'll decide that when you're in the van."

Not all Police are cúnts, but the powers invested in the uniform and equipment allow cúnts to flourish.

*Student Riots, if you're a Mail/Express reader.

 

[Mr Waldo]

6 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

4egarding that banner, I'm not sure you could prosecute anyone for it, what laws are being broken by it?  I'm sure Burnely will be banning the guy who arranged it though.  I'd also have to question the firm who flew it though, do they need the money that much?  

It was http://air-ads.com .

Why wouldn't they?    Maybe they agreed with it.  Or should they refuse to do this because they do not agree with it?   People get taken to court for that.   Or trolled out of business.

[Guest JTS98]

10 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

With some very rough calculations, that shows police shoot 2x as many white people as black people. Yet the white population is roughly 4.5x that of the black population. You're about 2.5 or 3 x more likely to be shot by police if you're black. 

While that's true, it's also true that black people commit a disproportionally high amount of crime in America.

For example, according to the Department of Justice more than 50% of murders in the USA are committed by black people. Back in 2002 a think tank mob produced a study that said black offender-white victim robberies were 12 times more common in American than the reverse. Black people account for 35% of gang membership in the USA.

To any sensible mind, all of these things are quite easily explained by history and economic conditions. But for the discussion of this issue to go anywhere there has to be acceptance of facts. Not just the facts people like.

It is a fact that black people in America are responsible for a disproportionate level of crime. It is also an established fact that men commit more crime than women. Therefore, it shouldn't really be a surprise that black men are the section of the US population who attract the most heat from the police.

10 million arrests are carried out in the USA every year. Every time someone resits arrest in the USA using physical force, it is reasonable that the copper assumes his or her life is in danger, since they are carrying a gun they can be shot with if they are overpowered. It's easy to see why some of these incidents will get out of hand. The relatively high representation of black people in criminality means that this will affect them more than other sections of society.

I don't doubt there are plenty of racist police. There are racists everywhere. I don't doubt that some incidents are caused or exacerbated by racist police. But I think the public discussion on this issue is missing a sober and difficult analysis of the facts.

While black people are worse off than white people, black people will commit more crime. While black people commit more crime, the police will continue to have an eye out for them. In a highly-armed society that is and will continue to be a recipe for disaster.

This is, at heart, an economic issue. Taking a knee, having a slogan, celebrity support etc are all things that can be admirable, but they are not what is going to sort this problem out. Part of sorting the problem out is an acknowledgement that this is not as simple as the police all being racist.

[Dunning1874]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Every time someone resits arrest in the USA using physical force, it is reasonable that the copper assumes his or her life is in danger, since they are carrying a gun they can be shot with if they are overpowered.

This is spectacular logic - police have to shoot unarmed suspects because the fact they have guns puts them in danger.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

This is spectacular logic - police have to shoot unarmed suspects because the fact they have guns puts them in danger.

This is quite an emotive issue and I'd appreciate it if you would represent my position accurately.

1) I didn't say they 'have to' shoot anyone.

2) Yes. Having guns does put the police in danger. American police have a low level of physical combat skills and will often be arresting someone bigger, younger or fitter than they are. If they are overpowered, they are carrying something that could be used to kill them in a second. I think you can see why that might raise the tension in an already tense situation.

3) It is, obviously, quite difficult to be sure that someone is unarmed.

[Dunning1874]

Just now, JTS98 said:

This is quite an emotive issue and I'd appreciate it if you would represent my position accurately.

1) I didn't say they 'have to' shoot anyone.

2) Yes. Having guns does put the police in danger. American police have a low level of physical combat skills and will often be arresting someone bigger, younger or fitter than they are. If they are overpowered, they are carrying something that could be used to kill them in a second. I think you can see why that might raise the tension in an already tense situation.

3) It is, obviously, quite difficult to be sure that someone is unarmed.

 

8 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Every time someone resits arrest in the USA using physical force, it is reasonable that the copper assumes his or her life is in danger, since they are carrying a gun they can be shot with if they are overpowered.

 

4 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

This is spectacular logic - police have to shoot unarmed suspects because the fact they have guns puts them in danger.

I fail to see how I could have been any more accurate in representing your position. Perhaps I could have replaced 'have to' with 'feel they have no choice but to', but that's splitting hairs: this is what your argument amounts to.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

 

 

I fail to see how I could have been any more accurate in representing your position. Perhaps I could have replaced 'have to' with 'feel they have no choice but to', but that's splitting hairs: this is what your argument amounts to.

It's not splitting hairs. There's a big difference between 'have to' and 'may end up doing so because of X'. It makes my position seem more extreme than it is and is untrue.

Secondly, we'll probably have to agree to disagree here. But I'd ask you how you would feel as a copper in a tense situation with a suspect considering.

1) You've got a gun. He knows that you've got a gun.

2) He might have a gun. You don't know whether he does or not. He does know. So already the information gap is in his favour.

3) He might be a champion boxer or martial arts expert. He might just be hard as nails. You don't know. He knows his own skills/levels of hardasnailsness.

If you're telling me that the presence of the gun on your belt doesn't make this situation worse, and that you don't potentially feel quite vulnerable given the information gap between you and the suspect, then you're just harder than me.

[Homer Thompson]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's not splitting hairs. There's a big difference between 'have to' and 'may end up doing so because of X'. It makes my position seem more extreme than it is and is untrue.

Secondly, we'll probably have to agree to disagree here. But I'd ask you how you would feel as a copper in a tense situation with a suspect considering.

1) You've got a gun. He knows that you've got a gun.

2) He might have a gun. You don't know whether he does or not. He does know. So already the information gap is in his favour.

3) He might be a champion boxer or martial arts expert. He might just be hard as nails. You don't know. He knows his own skills/levels of hardasnailsness.

If you're telling me that the presence of the gun on your belt doesn't make this situation worse, and that you don't potentially feel quite vulnerable given the information gap between you and the suspect, then you're just harder than me.

So how do police in countries where they dont carry guns deal with the same situation?

[oneteaminglasgow]

“I had to murder him in case he was a black belt in karate” seems like an airtight defence IMO. 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Mr X said:

So how do police in countries where they dont carry guns deal with the same situation?

It's a question of consequences.

Being a copper is a dangerous job. I think few of us would dispute that. But in non-armed societies it is more difficult for the situation to quickly develop into a mortality. A gun provides an easy way for either party to panic/lose the head and kill another person. Or, short of that, the higher level of tension is more likely to lead to bad decision making in general, and an overly aggressive or confrontational approach. People make bad decisions under stress.

Where the cops aren't armed, the stakes are lower. You could still be attacked. You could still be killed. But it's immediately less likely, so the level of tension around the encounter is lowered.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

“I had to murder him in case he was a black belt in karate” seems like an airtight defence IMO. 

And it's a point nobody is making.

[Homer Thompson]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's a question of consequences.

Being a copper is a dangerous job. I think few of us would dispute that. But in non-armed societies it is more difficult for the situation to quickly develop into a mortality. A gun provides an easy way for either party to panic/lose the head and kill another person. Or, short of that, the higher level of tension is more likely to lead to bad decision making in general, and an overly aggressive or confrontational approach. People make bad decisions under stress.

Where the cops aren't armed, the stakes are lower. You could still be attacked. You could still be killed. But it's immediately less likely, so the level of tension around the encounter is lowered.

Only if you decide to take the gun out the holster.

You're scenario is actually more dangerous, for the policeman, in non-armed countries

1) You dont have a gun. He knows you dont have a gun

2) He might have a gun. You don't know whether he does or not. He does know. So already the information gap is in his favour.

3) He might be a champion boxer or martial arts expert. He might just be hard as nails. You don't know. He knows his own skills/levels of hardasnailsness.

So, the question is still there - how do non-armed police deal with the exact same situations?

[Sinner-to-Saint]

36 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

While that's true, it's also true that black people commit a disproportionally high amount of crime in America.

For example, according to the Department of Justice more than 50% of murders in the USA are committed by black people. Back in 2002 a think tank mob produced a study that said black offender-white victim robberies were 12 times more common in American than the reverse. Black people account for 35% of gang membership in the USA.

To any sensible mind, all of these things are quite easily explained by history and economic conditions. But for the discussion of this issue to go anywhere there has to be acceptance of facts. Not just the facts people like.

It is a fact that black people in America are responsible for a disproportionate level of crime. It is also an established fact that men commit more crime than women. Therefore, it shouldn't really be a surprise that black men are the section of the US population who attract the most heat from the police.

10 million arrests are carried out in the USA every year. Every time someone resits arrest in the USA using physical force, it is reasonable that the copper assumes his or her life is in danger, since they are carrying a gun they can be shot with if they are overpowered. It's easy to see why some of these incidents will get out of hand. The relatively high representation of black people in criminality means that this will affect them more than other sections of society.

I don't doubt there are plenty of racist police. There are racists everywhere. I don't doubt that some incidents are caused or exacerbated by racist police. But I think the public discussion on this issue is missing a sober and difficult analysis of the facts.

While black people are worse off than white people, black people will commit more crime. While black people commit more crime, the police will continue to have an eye out for them. In a highly-armed society that is and will continue to be a recipe for disaster.

This is, at heart, an economic issue. Taking a knee, having a slogan, celebrity support etc are all things that can be admirable, but they are not what is going to sort this problem out. Part of sorting the problem out is an acknowledgement that this is not as simple as the police all being racist.

 

There you go again with your facts and statistics!

"FaCtS dOn'T MaTtEr, It'S fEeLiNgS tHaT cOuNt!" - they probably think you should be locked up for some sort of hate crime, as those facts are RaCiSt!

No wonder half of the folk that frequent the politics forum also post in the depression thread, and wonder why people vote Tory. I laugh at their stupidity. 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Sinner-to-Saint