|
U-Know! Forum » CS Gas at Peaceful Protest |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 21:35
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: Needless to say, Vybik, that's not actually what I said. But the thread has dropped off the end of the Village Pump (probably a good thing) and I honestly don't recall the exact words that were used. Let me remind you. What you said was that you were going to ignore all my posts and not reply to anything I posted. grufty jim wrote: And as it happens, I actually meant that I would no longer engage with him specifically on that thread/issue rather than a blanket "I'm not talking to you" (though I perhaps didn't make that clear). As it happens, no you didn't make that clear at all.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 21:45
|
||
|
Vybik Jon wrote: Grufty actually said, "I'm not talking to you"? Really? I'll accept the evidence if it's there, but it's a very un-Grufty phrase. If you're summarising a longer thread down to "I'm not talking to you", that's poor. See my reply below. And it's not poor at all. It's certainly no poorer than Grufty replying to me on this occasion with a "Or maybe you could read the rest of the article to which that is the opening paragraph" put-down when I was questioning what someone had written in The Guardian (which, as it happens, is the newspaper I read) But from your recent posts on here and Unsung you seem hellbent on arguing about something.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 21:50
|
||
|
keith a wrote: grufty jim wrote: Needless to say, Vybik, that's not actually what I said. But the thread has dropped off the end of the Village Pump (probably a good thing) and I honestly don't recall the exact words that were used. Let me remind you. What you said was that you were going to ignore all my posts and not reply to anything I posted. grufty jim wrote: And as it happens, I actually meant that I would no longer engage with him specifically on that thread/issue rather than a blanket "I'm not talking to you" (though I perhaps didn't make that clear). As it happens, no you didn't make that clear at all. Fine. Well, I'm making it clear now. Sorry for any confusion, keith. I clearly forgot that you need to have everything spelled out in great detail. Heaven forbid that a person should be remotely ambiguous in your presence... they find themselves getting reminded about it six fricking months later. Jeez.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 21:54
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: keith a wrote: grufty jim wrote: Needless to say, Vybik, that's not actually what I said. But the thread has dropped off the end of the Village Pump (probably a good thing) and I honestly don't recall the exact words that were used. Let me remind you. What you said was that you were going to ignore all my posts and not reply to anything I posted. grufty jim wrote: And as it happens, I actually meant that I would no longer engage with him specifically on that thread/issue rather than a blanket "I'm not talking to you" (though I perhaps didn't make that clear). As it happens, no you didn't make that clear at all. Fine. Well, I'm making it clear now. Sorry for any confusion, keith. I clearly forgot that you need to have everything spelled out in great detail. Heaven forbid that a person should be remotely ambiguous in your presence... they find themselves getting reminded about it six fricking months later. Jeez. You can't help yourself can you? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smug Heaven forbid that a person should be in your presence...
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Feb 10, 2011, 22:28
Feb 10, 2011, 22:24
|
||
|
keith a wrote: It's certainly no poorer than Grufty replying to me on this occasion with a "Or maybe you could read the rest of the article to which that is the opening paragraph" put-down when I was questioning what someone had written in The Guardian (which, as it happens, is the newspaper I read) You wrote: keith a wrote: "After 20 years working for a housing and social care agency in inner-city Birmingham, I joined the IPCC, as one of 18 new commissioners, with the aim of righting injustices. We claimed to be the most powerful civilian oversight body in the world, and we prepared to change the world. Five years on, I decided to leave. So what had gone wrong?" I don't know. You were there for five years. You tell us. When in fact, he did tell us. That's what the article was about. Para 1: Only around 100 IPCC investigations, plus 150 police investigations "managed" by the IPCC, are undertaken each year, compared to 29,000 complaints. If a person joins the IPCC believing that it's role is to investigate complaints, and yet the organisation only takes action on less than 1% of those complaints; then I suggest that person is justified in believing something is wrong. The paragraph continues by suggesting that the criteria by which complaints are investigated are systematically flawed and that the idea "you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your case" is too near the truth. Again, if someone inside the IPCC sees the organisation ignoring 99.2% of all complaints and only investigating the high profile ones that have media attention, then they are justified in thinking that something's wrong with the IPCC. In the third paragraph, the writer highlights the limited successes that he had during his time there, but the rest of the article goes on to suggest systemic problems: 1. A tiny proportions of the complaints that were investigated got upheld. 2. Large regional variations in the upholding of complaints suggest inconsistent application of rules and procedures. 3. The inaccessibility of the IPCC to the public, despite it being accessible to the police (leading to a culture of bias and favouritism). 4. This inaccessibility is compounded by a lack of regional offices (the West Midlands has no IPCC office despite it being the 2nd largest force in the country) 5. A culture within the IPCC that views itself as part of the wider "family" of police agencies (again leading to inevitable cronyism and bias). 6. While commissioners must have no police background, many of the investigatory and management roles are filled by ex-police and customs officers, while two of the chief executives have come from the Home Office (which has a vested interest in portraying the police in a good light). 7. A culture of bureaucracy that appeared dedicated to impeding action rather than facilitating it. 8. A refusal to sanction internal scrutiny or criticism with policy and strategy rarely debated. 9. Because of this bureaucracy, more and more investigations are being passed directly back to the police themselves, and only 1% of such complaints are upheld (compared with the still paltry, but significantly higher 4 - 20% that are upheld when the IPCC investigates). This discrepancy suggests a further bias. 10. The IPCC costs millions of pounds of public money and yet the figures already quoted demonstrate that it is largely ineffective. Now, you may claim that some of those points are false; for example that the internal bureaucracy of the IPCC is not, in fact, preventing adequate investigations of the police. Though, you'd have to provide at least some reason why your argument should be accepted above that of someone who has been a commissioner in the IPCC for half a decade. I would suggest that taking those points at face value -- and lacking any coherent argument against them -- they are all valid reasons for suggesting that something has "gone wrong" at the IPCC. In other words, they provide clear answers to the rhetorical question asked at the beginning of the article and respond adequately to your "You tell us" demand. So why are you surprised when I didn't think you'd read it? What is wrong with the responses he gave to his own question? Did you read it and simply not understand it, perhaps? Or do you not think those are adequate examples of an organisation that has "gone wrong"?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 22:26
|
||
|
keith a wrote: You can't help yourself can you? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smug Heaven forbid that a person should be in your presence... Yes keith, very constructive.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 22:28
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: Did you read it and simply not understand it, perhaps? No it had too many big words in it. And there were no pictures to colour in.
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 22:29
|
||
Yawn...
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 10, 2011, 22:32
|
||
|
keith a wrote: grufty jim wrote: Did you read it and simply not understand it, perhaps? No it had too many big words in it. And there were no pictures to colour in. Right, so rather than actually engage constructively with an ongoing discussion, you'd prefer to drag up a frustrated remark I made six months ago, attack me personally and play "the victim" whenever you're challenged to actually justify what you've written. Can you explain why people shouldn't ignore you? Or would you prefer to just keep insulting me instead?
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7717 posts |
Edited Feb 10, 2011, 22:53
Feb 10, 2011, 22:47
|
||
|
EDIT: I'm really not going to bother. Keith - you can take this to mean whatever you want, remember it how you chhoose to, but I'm not going to respond to your posts in future. Let's say hello at Cope gigs and leave it at that.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
