|
U-Know! Forum » Guess what verdict the cop got |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Edited Apr 08, 2010, 01:42
Apr 08, 2010, 01:39
|
||
|
I'm not sure if I agree with this 100%, but I like the way Buk cuts through the crepe. Mmm pancakes. Charles Bukowski wrote: the pest is always full of dry standard nonsense that he mistakes for self-wisdom, some of his favourite remarks are:
"there is no such thing as ALL bad. you say that all cops are bad. well they're not. I've met some good ones. there is such a thing as a good cop." you never get a chance to explain to him that when a man puts that uniform on that he is the paid protector of things of the present time. he is here to see that things stay the way they are. if you like the way things are, then all cops are good cops. there is such a thing as ALL bad, but the pest is soaked in these addled and homespun philosophies and he will not let them go.
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Apr 08, 2010, 11:49
|
||
|
[quote The misbehaviour of any one is failure of the discipline of the force as a whole. quote] Not sure where this goes? Using your adage, Squid, if one postie steals a letter - are all of them thieving scum? Is the Mail plunged into chaos...(actually don't answer that!!) but you know where I'm going... There have been a number of tragic cases involving murder on the part nurses and doctors in recent times - do we tar them all with the same brush? I'm with Daminxa on this - namely that just because one copper is a twat it doesn't follow that they all are
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Edited Apr 08, 2010, 11:56
Apr 08, 2010, 11:54
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: [quote The misbehaviour of any one is failure of the discipline of the force as a whole. quote] Not sure where this goes? Using your adage, Squid, if one postie steals a letter - are all of them thieving scum? Is the Mail plunged into chaos...(actually don't answer that!!) but you know where I'm going... There have been a number of tragic cases involving murder on the part nurses and doctors in recent times - do we tar them all with the same brush? I'm with Daminxa on this - namely that just because one copper is a twat it doesn't follow that they all are How about this then... It is the responsibility of the police higher up the food chain to maintain the discipline of those on the front line, as it were. Someone somewhere along the line has to take responsibility for the actions of the misbehaving "footsoldiers". Otherwise it reflects badly on the force as a whole. The same is true of, say, doctors in hospitals, or social workers etc. If something goes wrong, someone in the hierarchy needs to take responsibility or the whole regime is brought into disrepute.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 08, 2010, 13:11
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Are you really saying that it is ok to bash someones head because you believe in something and they dont? I think the terms 'bash head in' and the verb 'believe' load the question somewhat. We're not talking about beliefs but acting on those beliefs. For instance, there's a difference between someone having racist ideas and someone acting on those ideas. What we're talking about is action. And yes, I think that in some circumstances it is acceptable to be violent as a response to the political action of others. More, I think everyone does. All we really argue about is which circumstances are justified. pooley wrote: I dont get why you think police have to believe in every rule they enforce? I don't say that. But I don't see how anyone can respect someone who uses violence and coercion to ensure compliance with rules that they haven't thought about or actively disagree with. pooley wrote: I work in publishing - some books that we publish, I actively despise - should I forbid their publication? I take your point that our employment commonly forces us to act against our consciences. But there's a degree of scale here. If your book were inciting some completely reprehensible action then yes, you should forbid its publication. If it's less of a big deal, then I understand why you would let it slide. But I don't think the comparison really stands up well. The police are a lot more powerful than a publisher. Their actions have a huge impact, and much of what they do is repressive. Anyone who signs up to blindly enforcing all rules they are given - or will be given - and is prepared to use whatever violence and coercion it takes to ensure compliance abdicates their position as a person of conscience. Unless, that is, they think that obedience to authority is more important than what that authority decrees. and it's that attitude that lies at the core of policing.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Apr 08, 2010, 13:45
Apr 08, 2010, 13:41
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: coercion doesn't equal violence. No, and violence is rarely used because the the threat of violence, harrassment or incarceration are enough. Locodogz wrote: "The additional role that's accepted is to enforce obedience to their will" Accepted by you (and maybe even some of your mates) but you have any evidence of any wider acceptance of this point? Have a look at any public order situation. Have a look at the film that started this all off, Sergeant Smellie hitting that woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM There is a long, boring bit of no action; this was no heated riot, it's standing around with a lot of cops and no aggression. Then a cop pushes someone over. People shout, the woman remonstrates with Smellie. He's told her to go away, she doesn't, so he slaps her. Then he calmly takes his baton out and strikes her legs so she goes down. It is, by any standards, an over-reaction. This is clearly not reasonable force. She is not doing anything criminal. She has simply disobeyed him. As with the footage of the assault on Ian Tomlinson, we should pay attention to the casual nature it. Note the reaction - or more accurately, non-reaction - of the colleagues. They would be shocked if it were anything unusual. Can anyone plausibly believe this was the only such assault Smellie committed that day? Given the total lack of reaction from colleagues and the readiness of the attack, can anyone believe they hadn't all seen and done similar things many times that day? Do we really think this is the first and only time they'd ever done anything like this? It's treated as normalised, like it shouldn't warrant our attention. The officer at 4.30, seconds after Smellie's assault, actually says to people with cameras 'there's nothing to see'. All of them have a duty to report any such conduct by themselves or any colleagues. Where were the queues round the corner outside London police stations as officers hand over their testimony and guilty ones turn themselves in? Or is this normal and accepted behaviour? Locodogz wrote: My involvement in this thread arose when you blithely stated that you "hated 99% of the police" with the implication that they'd use violence against peaceful protesters. I know a couple who tell me they wouldn't (not over 1% of the force I acknowledge but possible as statistically meaningful as your insight into 99% of the police) and that's why I'm saying you're wrong on this. Have a look at the film from the Climate Camp protest the day before the Smellie incident. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJRi7YR1bU Just as Tomlinson was not threatening and had his hands in his pockets, when the police wade in with batons, the crowd here hold their hands in the air to show they're unarmed and chant 'this is not a riot'. What sort of orders do you think are being given to the group of officers being briefed at the start of the film? Every single officer is behaving like the one who attacked Ian Tomlinson. It is not them acting on private motivations, they have clearly had orders to do it. How many of them do you see turning away and leaving? As with the Smellie thing, how many - as is their duty - reported their colleagues for doing this? Are you really telling me the coppers you know would have done that? This is not just the odd officer losing their cool, it's how they work as a body, it's institutional.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 08, 2010, 14:02
|
||
|
Wasn't sure how to reply to this, cos a lot of it applies to stuff I've just said in reply to Locodogz's post http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/u_know/topic/57377/threaded/723413 Is it fair to put replies to two posts in one response? Or does that break the thread up and perhaps make the person being responded to miss what gets said, and so lose the chance to reply back? Anyway, the link above covers a lot of why I think the 'one bad apple' thing isn't true. Daminxa wrote: That copper was a wanker, a tosser, a twat of the highest order, but that wasn't BECAUSE he was a copper, he'd have been a tool whatever his profession. To me, he doesn't necessarily represent ALL policemen. To me, he does. This is evidenced by the way his colleagues are unperturbed at his violence, and the thousands of similar assaults they committed during those protests, even before we get on to other ones. And the way none of his fellow officers turned him in, even before we get on to the routine tallying of lies in police statements to back one another up when they do get taken to court. Daminxa wrote: You can't generalise about people just on the grounds that they're in the police force, and the same should be said of protestors. You can. It's fair to say the protesters share certain perspectives, so you can generalise. You can say that people on a climate camp protest are against the fossil fuel industry and are in favour of direct action including damage to property. You can say people on an EDL march are racist. If people are in the police then they are prepared to use whatever coercion and violence it takes to ensure compliance with the law. Beyond that, there is a clear culture of ensuring compliance not just with the law, but with their instructions, and those who refuse to obey get get treated as if they were a threat and a guilty criminal. Daminxa wrote: Yeah well like I say, that particular copper got it badly wrong - yes they are supposed to be able to deal with a physical assault without giving someone a damn good pasting. In the case of Smellie, he wasn't being assaulted. Also, you the woman he hit was being 'violent and aggressive'. Check out the film and see if you think her outrage at the guy being smacked over overand the way it was expressed was understandable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
Apr 08, 2010, 16:19
|
||
|
Equally unsure how to reply to this - as this 'conversation' does seem to have spread somewhat. Equally unsure, given that I'm sure I 'bowed out' of this one earlier whether I should - but hey ho whatever... Two points really; For someone who purports to understand statistics, weight of evidence etc to post 3 clips featuring (some tiny percentage of the) police behaving badly and claim it dams the entire force somewhat beggars belief. I've just walked back through Covent Garden and (if so minded) could have filmed an equal amount of shots of coppers happily helping tourists to depict them all as saints. Lets get this clear I'm not disputing for one second that (based on the evidence that I've seen) Smellie looks like a prime wanker who should have got his desserts HOWEVER this leads to my second point.... You don't know (apologies for the assumption if its wrong) all or indeed 99% of the UK's police officers so to tar them all morally corrupt and sociopathic on this evidence seems incredibly arrogant. As I've previously stated I know a couple (one being a family member) and - not being a fan of swinging generalisations - I find your petty 'fuck the police' mentality at worst offensive and at best something that you should have grown out of when you started to wear long trousers - I mean it's all a bit Young Ones-ish really? One of the people I’m talking about is frankly way over qualified for the police and could have earned much more money, far more easily elsewhere but feels that her vocation gives an opportunity to put something back into society. How many ‘interactions’ with the public do you think the police have every single day? To base your entire viewpoint on a tiny fraction of these seems slightly naïve – still keep doing the lottery… To put this simply - I have no idea what your chosen trade or profession is, however if I were to label everyone else in it as egotistic, boorish and incapable of rational argument I'd (quite rightly) be called an idiot. However it’s OK for you to do this? Oh and in case you think otherwise I've participated in my fair share of demos and protests but always confined my 'beef' to the policies not the paraphernalia. Anyway - I've always perceived something of a 'cult of Merrick' in this part of the site so - with little hope that you'll acknowledge any of the above I'll leave the last word(s) to you. Toodle pip
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 08, 2010, 17:55
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: to post 3 clips featuring (some tiny percentage of the) police behaving badly and claim it dams the entire force somewhat beggars belief. I picked stuff from those days as it was the incidents that sparked the debate, but from that I pointed out details - there are hundreds of officers there invlved in assualts, there appears to be no evidence of any of them refusing to participate or even being surprised by it. Locodogz wrote: I've just walked back through Covent Garden and (if so minded) could have filmed an equal amount of shots of coppers happily helping tourists to depict them all as saints. It's not that this is what all police do all the time. Clearly, most of the time they don't. It's that they all do it when ordered to do so, and that doing so has always been part of the role of the police. Locodogz wrote: You don't know (apologies for the assumption if its wrong) all or indeed 99% of the UK's police officers so to tar them all morally corrupt and sociopathic on this evidence seems incredibly arrogant. I make no claim to having met them all, but it is fair to make assumptions about people who have all volunteered to take on a particular role. Locodogz wrote: I have no idea what your chosen trade or profession is, however if I were to label everyone else in it as egotistic, boorish and incapable of rational argument I'd (quite rightly) be called an idiot. However it’s OK for you to do this? No, it's not. But I didn't do that. I make my judgements on the morality of the people who hold that position, based on the inherent morality of the position. A better comparison would be to judge beef farmers on the way they feel about cattle. I'm sure there are some cruel ones and some kind ones, but they all raise animals and have them killed long before their natural lifespan's over. If you believed in the sanctity of all animal life, it would be fair to make strong negative judgements against beef farmers despite not having met them all. Locodogz wrote: One of the people I’m talking about is frankly way over qualified for the police and could have earned much more money, far more easily elsewhere but feels that her vocation gives an opportunity to put something back into society. How many ‘interactions’ with the public do you think the police have every single day? I have no doubt that many people join the police for noble reasons. I have no doubt that the vast majority of interactions officers have with the public are not overtly repressive. But their role is to defend the status quo. So, when it gets challenged they act against it. In the case of rampaging murderers, good on them. However, certain types of political action also get deemed as unacceptable and they get sent in to attack. The G20 protests were one such example. On the evening of April 1st last year, before the death of Ian Tomlinson was known, the media and police were reporting it as quite a quiet demo all things considered and that the police had been relatively restrained. And, having been there myself, I agree. I've seen far greater carnage from them with far less provocation other times.
|
|||
laresident 861 posts |
Apr 09, 2010, 03:49
|
||
|
I think that’s put across very well. I enjoyed the gang mentality of winding up the police in the Poll Tax protests but in my old age, I would like to see more restraint on both sides. Anyway you’re lucky. You should see what the cops get away with on this side of the pond, with guns.
|
|||
Jim Tones 5142 posts |
Apr 09, 2010, 08:48
|
||
|
laresident wrote: Anyway you’re lucky. You should see what the cops get away with on this side of the pond, with guns. Actually, in most european countries other than the UK, the police would wade in to stop any type of aggressive behaviour, whoever it was, sometimes with guns.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
