|
U-Know! Forum » Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
keith a 9573 posts |
May 10, 2011, 01:06
|
||
Sorry PMM, but that analogy doesn't work for me at all.
|
|||
Ziggypop 300 posts |
May 10, 2011, 02:45
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Merrick wrote: How his colleagues don't react at all, indicating they had all done similar things dozens of times that day. Somewhat tenuous logic it seems IMHO - like saying that other football fans that stand by when small hooligan groups kick off must have "all done similar things"? And before I get shot down - yes I know there's no 'bond of employment' betwwen football fans but (again IMO) the analogy still has relevance - as the actions of a few idiots can have the result of tarring all a club's support and image by association I'd go so far as to say that their standing by does constitute a tacit (and obviously unacceptable) acknowledgement that certain individuals within their ranks would almost inevitably act this way under these conditions? Don't get me wrong - I think my earlier posts make it clear I'm no apologist for wankers like PC Harwood - but the claim that a lack of reaction from his colleagues mean "they had all done similar things" seems sonething of a stretch.... Merrick is 100% correct in his conclusion remember this?- http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/policeman+caught+on+cctv+assaulting+woman/3760882.html Take a look at 1.40 in again no reaction.. Are the police there to uphold the law or not? If so why no reaction to one of their own breaking the law? You see regardless of "bond of employment" football fans are not at a football match to uphold the law. Get a grip on what's going on!
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 10, 2011, 08:58
|
||
|
Its the phrase "All but one were lucky enough not to kill someone and have it caught on film that went to a lefty media outlet." The implication is that every single police officer on duty at that protest hit a protester with enough force to kill albeit someone with pre-existing medical conditions. That's every single officer - presumably including those who made the complaints against Harwood. I've yet to see any evidence of this and frankly struggle to understand how Merrick can claim to know the actions of every single officer that day - omniscient or what?!? Without this evidence the statement as I said earlier is 'flimsy' at best?
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
May 10, 2011, 09:01
|
||
Not sure what your point is seeing as it says "Sgt Andrews was reported by a female police officer".
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Edited May 10, 2011, 09:14
May 10, 2011, 09:11
|
||
Er, it says "Sgt Andrews was reported by a female police officer".
|
|||
|
dave clarkson 2988 posts |
Edited May 10, 2011, 09:29
May 10, 2011, 09:28
|
||
|
That's how I understood it to mean and what I presume Keith understood the line to mean too. I have not read a single reply on this thread yet to justify that line but wouldn't expect too as it's not based on fact. 8)
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited May 10, 2011, 18:06
May 10, 2011, 17:58
|
||
|
dave clarkson wrote: That's how I understood it to mean and what I presume Keith understood the line to mean too. I have not read a single reply on this thread yet to justify that line but wouldn't expect too as it's not based on fact. 8) What happened was vile, if utterly predictable - though not predictable using the stastistical analysis widely favoured here. I was toying with posting something to the effect that this is a substantially less unjust Britain than the one I grew up in but the reaction is probably equally predictable. Anyone who felt safer and more free in the 70s and 80s can't possibly have been there. Put the police of 1985 in the midst of the protests today and imagine the outcome! Who do I fear on the occasions that I consider my personal liberty? Zealots. Zealots wearing any kind of colours in the service of any kind of cause. At least biddable people following orders can get their orders changed or revoked and they generally respond with barely a flicker. People following the trail of other people's bile not so much.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 12, 2011, 14:08
|
||
|
You said what i said was crass. You were invited to elaborate and responded that it was sick. I asked you to elaborate and you gave a dictionary definition of 'crass'. My problem, as I suspect you realise, is not that I don't understand what your word means; it's that I don't see why it applies. You said it was not 'rational', and when asked to explain you chose instead to say 'there is no point carrying on this conversation'. That is, in itself, carrying on the conversation; it would have been a matter of seconds more to have said what your problem actually is. Rhiannon pointed out that this is a discussion board and asked if you would respond as it had been presented logically. You acknowledged the logical point and still - having been asked four or five times do do so - refused to elaborate. By raising points and not explaining them, you're not actually discussing anything. To merely repeat or paraphrase yourself doesn't help anyone understand your point or agree with you, and so negates the purpose of saying anything in the first place. But that is still more communicative than - as you've done more than once on this thread - telling people that what they've said is what they've said, which as a response is something akin to barking. The purpose of discussion boards is to set out points so that we disabuse one another of misunderstandings and falsehoods. Even if someone's own position is too cherished to be relinquished, it's a public forum with far more reading than participating, so if you're right then you can persuade the reasonable independent third party of your view. Coming on and going 'bad!' then when being asked why you think that saying 'bad!' again doesn't convince anyone of anything, except that you are unwilling or incapable of giving your reasons. It makes your perspective look unfounded and actually serves to reinforce the position you oppose. If there are sound reasons for what you think on an issue being discussed, let's hear them. If there are not, and you wish to avoid appearing foolish, then perhaps it's better not to post anything on that topic.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 12, 2011, 14:10
|
||
I didn't say all police do that; but certainly, hundreds of them did that day, and the overwhleming majority there either did it or saw it, and yet it appears none bar Harwood have faced disciplinary proceedings. How is acknowledging that counter-productive?
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 12, 2011, 15:29
|
||
|
While we're on the subject of asking questions I made this point a little while ago "The implication is that every single police officer on duty at that protest hit a protester with enough force to kill albeit someone with pre-existing medical conditions. That's every single officer - presumably including those who made the complaints against Harwood. I've yet to see any evidence of this and frankly struggle to understand how Merrick can claim to know the actions of every single officer that day - omniscient or what?!? " Still waiting to hear how you can definitively comment on the actions of every officer on duty that day?
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
