Also in the news

[ozleicester]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

#ALLlivesmatter

 

Just saying

this is just pointless, of course they do.. but right now ALL lives are not under threat.

If you house is on fire you hope the fire brigade come and pour water on it.... all the other houses in your street matter too... but they dont need the fire brigade now!

[MPH]

You have to be a little insecure surely to object to the ‘black lives matter ‘ slogan. 

[Gordon the Great]

15 hours ago, the fox said:

Japanese civilians getting nuked is a crime. No matter how you put it. I actually can't believe that people will defend that act. 

 

Just because their military did crimes doesn't mean that civilians should be melted with a nuke.

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly, as in all wars it is the innocent that suffer the most.

As for bombing and killing civilians the axis forces used it as a tool.The Germans used the Spanish civil war to actually practice it prior to the second world war.

They then upgraded it with the desolation of Rotterdam, Warsaw, Coventry and numerous others.

There can never be justification for this from ANY side but.......when your backs to the wall and the whole future of your Country, way of life and the very essence of civilisation is at stake I`m afraid it is a case of "He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind".

And that is exactly what happened. And will, if needs be, happen again.

Hitler, from his position of massive strength in 1939 - 40 never envisaged the 10 fold retribution he subsequently received and, in my opinion , would probably would have continued with this policy if he had.

If you can formulate a policy of the  Industrial scale systematic murder of millions and millions of innocent men, women and children then a few extra thousand here or there is but a sideshow.

Even if they happen to be your own people, which of course the German Jews were.

[nnfox]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but this isn't just a little mistake - it's a litany of errors.

 

They had the chance to stop and talk more to a clearly unthreatening man as they advanced - they didn't. (Why, exactly, should police be "types that are not going to stop for a chat" - is that what we're looking for from fuzz?)

They had the chance to secure the situation by removing him out the way in a safer manner - they didn't.

They had the chance to offer the man immediate medical aid and attention once it was clear he was on the ground and seriously injured - they didn't.

 

If someone can't deal with a situation like this in a non-aggressive manner, they shouldn't be a cop. And that goes for all the others supposedly feeling the "pressure of the job" too - you chose that job, responsibility and serious accountability should come with it, and if that's not to ones liking numerous other jobs exist.

 

I get where you're coming from, but this is no stitch-up and there shouldn't be much sympathy for the way things have played out IMO.

I understand why people are angry and upset about it - it doesn't look great.  But to address your points:

 

It emerges that they were given an instruction to clear the square of people.  The Nuremberg Defence line is a little wide of the mark here.  An organised group of police officers, soldiers, company employees - anyone working together in a team, need direction.  Clearing the square containing a gathering of people amidst civil unrest is a reasonable instruction given what has been going on (I would argue). 

 

The police here are dressed in full riot gear, they are not bobbies on the beat ready to stop and tell the time or give directions to the train station.  I don't know what the conversation between the officers and the man was, but in these types of situation the unit has to act as one.  Individual officers cannot choose to stop and chat and try to reason with people and get isolated from the rest of the unit, it is a very dangerous position to be in.  It also weakens the unit as a whole, risking the safety of their colleagues.  As for the man's threat level, I agree that he doesn't look threatening and his age is a factor, but at the same time you can't prevent the police from doing their job by stopping them to talk in an unthreatening manner in the middle of a riot.  It would quickly become a tactic of the protesters - engage half the police in innocent conversation knowing that they can't touch you and suddenly the riot squad is ineffective.  They aren't there to talk in this situation.

 

I'm not sure how they could have removed him in a safer manner - perhaps two or three of them could have carried him away kicking and screaming?  They didn't look like they wanted to arrest him, and they can't really allow him to just walk through them, otherwise everyone will think they can just walk through.

 

I don't know the ins and outs of US Law relevant to situations like this, but my bet would be that police are able to use reasonable force to move protesters on.  What reasonable force is depends very much on the situation but I suppose could range from shouting at someone, through varying degrees of physical contact, water cannons, tear gas, dogs and rubber bullets.  Clearly, the force used here is at the lower end of the scale.  To me, the push didn't look super-aggressive and that is the crux of the matter here.  Was the level of force used unreasonable?  The aggravating factor is that the man stumbled backwards and fell to the floor and in doing so sustained a serious injury.  There is no way that that was the intent of the officers here.  Like I said before, most of the time the person wouldn't have fallen over and most of the time even if they did fall over, there would be nothing more than the odd bruise or scratch.  As far as accountability goes, I can't imagine the officers have any great difficulty with accounting for their actions here "I told him to move, he didn't, I pushed him at about 50% strength, it's something I'm trained to do and have done a thousand times before with no problem.  I did not intend to hurt him".

 

I agree about the lack of immediate first aid.  The video stops before he gets any attention so I don't know exactly how long it was, but nevertheless the "pushing" officers could have advanced, being at the front of the line, the unit could then have stopped and other officers intervened to provide assistance.  That said, the video doesn't show clearly what was in front of them - and there lies another point that should be addressed.  If there were only four or five protesters in the square, then I would say that it could have been dealt with differently, but I don't know how many protesters there were or how aggressive they were.  If there were a hundred, or a thousand, it makes a difference.

 

One final point - I wonder how much of the anger of the police about this situation relates to the officers being suspended following political intervention?  It seems the state governor and the mayor took the decision to suspend the officers, or at least apply some pressure in the situation.  Due process should be applied if there is going to be an investigation, not opportunist political point scoring.

[leicsmac]

First, thank you for the clear and careful response. I'll try to address each point in turn myself:

 

6 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I understand why people are angry and upset about it - it doesn't look great.  But to address your points:

 

It emerges that they were given an instruction to clear the square of people.  The Nuremberg Defence line is a little wide of the mark here.  An organised group of police officers, soldiers, company employees - anyone working together in a team, need direction.  Clearing the square containing a gathering of people amidst civil unrest is a reasonable instruction given what has been going on (I would argue). 

 

 

It's absolutely true that units, echelons, battalions, divisions, all of it, need direction from a commander. If the instructions here were merely to clear the square, then fair enough. However, if these police were indeed just following orders, then their orders clearly did not include prioritising the welfare of the civilians they signed up specifically to protect, which is a failure on either the part of the commander (if they did not order the populace protected) or the police themselves (if they did). Saying that it was simply orders being followed does not absolve one of responsibility if bad things happen as a result of those orders (no matter real intent) and someone still has to answer somewhere.

 

19 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

The police here are dressed in full riot gear, they are not bobbies on the beat ready to stop and tell the time or give directions to the train station.  I don't know what the conversation between the officers and the man was, but in these types of situation the unit has to act as one.  Individual officers cannot choose to stop and chat and try to reason with people and get isolated from the rest of the unit, it is a very dangerous position to be in.  It also weakens the unit as a whole, risking the safety of their colleagues.  As for the man's threat level, I agree that he doesn't look threatening and his age is a factor, but at the same time you can't prevent the police from doing their job by stopping them to talk in an unthreatening manner in the middle of a riot.  It would quickly become a tactic of the protesters - engage half the police in innocent conversation knowing that they can't touch you and suddenly the riot squad is ineffective.  They aren't there to talk in this situation.

 

I'm not sure how they could have removed him in a safer manner - perhaps two or three of them could have carried him away kicking and screaming?  They didn't look like they wanted to arrest him, and they can't really allow him to just walk through them, otherwise everyone will think they can just walk through.

 

 

Unless they are under direct imminent assault (at which point the situation is obviously different), I don't see why even riot police cannot handle such situations with care rather than with force. These officers were not under assault, nor did it look like they were going to be imminently. You would think that people hired as fuzz would be trained to know the difference between a calm and escalated situation and be able to moderate behaviour accordingly depending on which one they are in. So yeah, unless in certain situations, any police should always be ready to talk - if they are not, they are unfit to serve.

 

If physical force is necessary on a man of this age and stature, I'm sure one of them could have taken him by the arm and escorted him to one side - it wouldn't have taken long and, again, given the lack of an escalating situation I really don't see the need for urgent unit cohesion that would be disrupted by doing so.

 

25 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

I don't know the ins and outs of US Law relevant to situations like this, but my bet would be that police are able to use reasonable force to move protesters on.  What reasonable force is depends very much on the situation but I suppose could range from shouting at someone, through varying degrees of physical contact, water cannons, tear gas, dogs and rubber bullets.  Clearly, the force used here is at the lower end of the scale.  To me, the push didn't look super-aggressive and that is the crux of the matter here.  Was the level of force used unreasonable?  The aggravating factor is that the man stumbled backwards and fell to the floor and in doing so sustained a serious injury.  There is no way that that was the intent of the officers here.  Like I said before, most of the time the person wouldn't have fallen over and most of the time even if they did fall over, there would be nothing more than the odd bruise or scratch.  As far as accountability goes, I can't imagine the officers have any great difficulty with accounting for their actions here "I told him to move, he didn't, I pushed him at about 50% strength, it's something I'm trained to do and have done a thousand times before with no problem.  I did not intend to hurt him".

 

 

I'm sure "reasonable force" in this case is legal and that may well hold up under inquiry, but I'm also damn sure it isn't "right". Sometimes, simply, the law is an arse.

 

While we might assume no ill intent on the part of the fuzz who shoved the guy, unintended consequences are still consequences, the man should have known (or been trained to know) that pushing a man in this condition might result in those consequences and as such he should answer for it. A lot of cops in the US seem to delight in using all the muscles except the one that really matters the most.

 

29 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

I agree about the lack of immediate first aid.  The video stops before he gets any attention so I don't know exactly how long it was, but nevertheless the "pushing" officers could have advanced, being at the front of the line, the unit could then have stopped and other officers intervened to provide assistance.  That said, the video doesn't show clearly what was in front of them - and there lies another point that should be addressed.  If there were only four or five protesters in the square, then I would say that it could have been dealt with differently, but I don't know how many protesters there were or how aggressive they were.  If there were a hundred, or a thousand, it makes a difference.

 

One final point - I wonder how much of the anger of the police about this situation relates to the officers being suspended following political intervention?  It seems the state governor and the mayor took the decision to suspend the officers, or at least apply some pressure in the situation.  Due process should be applied if there is going to be an investigation, not opportunist political point scoring.

I strongly doubt that these fuzz were in a directly escalating situation (judging by the video footage they seemed neither rushed nor panicked), and so, just as they had time to deal with the guy in a much less aggressive fashion, they also had time to come to his aid. That they didn't is, again, either on them or their commander (or both).

 

I'm sure the police union closing ranks to protect their own is down to what they believe to be outside interference, but that doesn't come anywhere close to justifying their stance on the incident itself.

[StanSP]

4 hours ago, MPH said:

You have to be a little insecure surely to object to the ‘black lives matter ‘ slogan. 

I don't know about insecure. But just a misunderstanding from them. 

 

They'd just need to realise by saying Black Lives Matter doesn't equate to 'only' black lives matter and that all lives don't matter either. 

 

They just want to be included to the level of all lives matter. At the moment they don't feel this and understandably so when you see some examples of how black people are treated in some parts of the world. 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

this is just pointless, of course they do.. but right now ALL lives are not under threat.

If you house is on fire you hope the fire brigade come and pour water on it.... all the other houses in your street matter too... but they dont need the fire brigade now!

 

5 hours ago, MPH said:

You have to be a little insecure surely to object to the ‘black lives matter ‘ slogan. 

No, but racism isn't exclusively perpetrated by white people on black people. Native Americans are treated just as bad, probably Hispanic people, especially thanks to Trump. In parts of USA you would be very unwise to walk alone as a white person.

 

And it's not just USA. On any give day you will find thousands of accounts of violence and murder by one race on another around the world, because of their race.

 

It's not just black houses on fire, the whole world is on fire! Racism is a sickening disease.

 

It annoys me that people seem to only get angry about racism when it's directed at people of their own race. Therein lies much of the problem. If you're only bothered then, and it doesn't concern you that it happens to other people, then you're racist too. 

 

But hey, I guess I'm just "insecure" for pointing out this truth.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

No, but racism isn't exclusively perpetrated by white people on black people. Native Americans are treated just as bad, probably Hispanic people, especially thanks to Trump. In parts of USA you would be very unwise to walk alone as a white person.

 

And it's not just USA. On any give day you will find thousands of accounts of violence and murder by one race on another around the world, because of their race.

 

It's not just black houses on fire, the whole world is on fire! Racism is a sickening disease.

 

It annoys me that people seem to only get angry about racism when it's directed at people of their own race. Therein lies much of the problem. If you're only bothered then, and it doesn't concern you that it happens to other people, then you're racist too. 

 

But hey, I guess I'm just "insecure" for pointing out this truth.

You're right, it's not. But in the US, that is the type of racism that is the most widespread in terms of institutionalised incidents meted out by authority, which many people evidently think currently represents the biggest societal problem to be addressed.

 

Of course, other people might disagree.

[Nalis]

Hardly surprisingly...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-52936580/coronavirus-is-china-bolder-in-the-wake-of-the-pandemic

[Benguin]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject but just interested to know what the justification is? 

 

Why is risking a second wave of coronavirus by mass gatherings for protests okay? Is it that the injustice of the George Floyd case out weighs the risk of potentially killing lots of people or is it a double standard? 

[Guest ttfn]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject but just interested to know what the justification is? 

 

Why is risking a second wave of coronavirus by mass gatherings for protests okay? Is it that the injustice of the George Floyd case out weighs the risk of potentially killing lots of people or is it a double standard? 

I have to say these are my thoughts too.

 

I think there’s probably a fifth circle you could add to the Venn diagram from a couple of pages ago which questions the wisdom of mass protest at the moment.

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject but just interested to know what the justification is? 

 

Why is risking a second wave of coronavirus by mass gatherings for protests okay? Is it that the injustice of the George Floyd case out weighs the risk of potentially killing lots of people or is it a double standard? 

 

20 minutes ago, ttfn said:

I have to say these are my thoughts too.

 

I think there’s probably a fifth circle you could add to the Venn diagram from a couple of pages ago which questions the wisdom of mass protest at the moment.

It's a fair comment about the timing - it's not exactly the greatest time for mass gatherings, is it?

 

It's not just about the George Floyd case, however - this has been simmering for some time. Whether or not the lives that the necessary action on this might save will outweigh what Covid-19 might take as a result of it is a question no one can really have a solid answer for and I doubt anyone ever will.

[MPH]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

No, but racism isn't exclusively perpetrated by white people on black people. Native Americans are treated just as bad, probably Hispanic people, especially thanks to Trump. In parts of USA you would be very unwise to walk alone as a white person.

 

And it's not just USA. On any give day you will find thousands of accounts of violence and murder by one race on another around the world, because of their race.

 

It's not just black houses on fire, the whole world is on fire! Racism is a sickening disease.

 

It annoys me that people seem to only get angry about racism when it's directed at people of their own race. Therein lies much of the problem. If you're only bothered then, and it doesn't concern you that it happens to other people, then you're racist too. 

 

But hey, I guess I'm just "insecure" for pointing out this truth.

ya see? you ARE leaping to a different injustice to nullify this one.

 

No one is saying racism on white people doesn’t exist or doesn’t need addressing... no one is saying anything is good or fair about looting.

 

 

they are simply responding to ONE perceived injustice that is particularly relevant to them. that’s all.

 

for a bit of a daft comparison... the RSPCA their cause is directly about the protection and care of animals. Are they saying the environment doesn’t matter? no! are they saying abused children  don’t matter? no! It’s just they have a particular cause is relevant to them.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52946789

 

It seems like ages since the nomination process began, but now it is concluded - there wasn't much doubt past early March but it's official, Trump v Biden.

 

IMO the Dems have to hit on what they will do differently (healthcare reform, environmental protection and other scientific policy) rather than just saying "look, we're not Trump, okay?" if they are going to do well here. Turnout, particularly black voting turnout, will be critical.

 

Edit: Just leave the fvcking Artemis Program alone.

Edited 6 June 2020 by leicsmac

[Izzy]

Banksy's take on things..

 

 

[MPH]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52946789

 

It seems like ages since the nomination process began, but now it is concluded - there wasn't much doubt past early March but it's official, Trump v Biden.

 

IMO the Dems have to hit on what they will do differently (healthcare reform, environmental protection and other scientific policy) rather than just saying "look, we're not Trump, okay?" if they are going to do well here. Turnout, particularly black voting turnout, will be critical.

 

id also be be careful how much he insults trump and trump supporters as this will only harden their resolve to go out and vote for him..

[Lionator]

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52946789

 

It seems like ages since the nomination process began, but now it is concluded - there wasn't much doubt past early March but it's official, Trump v Biden.

 

IMO the Dems have to hit on what they will do differently (healthcare reform, environmental protection and other scientific policy) rather than just saying "look, we're not Trump, okay?" if they are going to do well here. Turnout, particularly black voting turnout, will be critical.

 

Edit: Just leave the fvcking Artemis Program alone.

Was reading a piece the other day about how Biden is probably the most likely to get a high black turnout. It was in the context of Biden v Sanders and how moderates who aren’t called Hilary appeal strongly to black communities. 

[StanSP]

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

ya see? you ARE leaping to a different injustice to nullify this one.

 

No one is saying racism on white people doesn’t exist or doesn’t need addressing... no one is saying anything is good or fair about looting.

 

 

they are simply responding to ONE perceived injustice that is particularly relevant to them. that’s all.

 

for a bit of a daft comparison... the RSPCA their cause is directly about the protection and care of animals. Are they saying the environment doesn’t matter? no! are they saying abused children  don’t matter? no! It’s just they have a particular cause is relevant to them.

Aaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhh!

 

I'm not talking about racism on white people, I'm talking about everyone! How am I saying that the treatment of George Floyd was not an injustice?

 

What I'm saying is that the day before that happened, millions of people didn't give a damn about Kurds in Syria, or Rohingyans in Myanmar, or many other tragedies occuring around the world, yet the next day they're up in arms because it was "one of us".

 

We'll get this. Until we collectively, as a HUMAN RACE, realise that all humans are "one of us", this will go round and round and round and round. It will never stop.

 

I'm not sure how this makes me an apologist for the Minneapolis PD, just because I'm looking at the big picture.

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I assume the presenter referenced the ‘good on her’ being blonde and blue eyed like she is (as she moves her arm to indicate ) rather than the way the vast majority will see it .....but it’s massively ignorant and her co presenter looks pretty concerned by it .....

 

btw, I love banksy’s analogy ......

Edited 6 June 2020 by st albans fox

[Bellend Sebastian]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

Oh Christ, I saw this. Difficult not to wince at the 'good on yer' bit

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I assume the presenter referenced the ‘good on her’ being blonde and blue eyed like she is (as she moves her arm to indicate ) rather than the way the vast majority will see it .....but it’s massively ignorant and her co presenter looks pretty concerned by it .....

 

btw, I love banksy’s analogy ......

She says the 'good on her' bit after the 'fair skin' comment, and preceded the rest of the blonde hair blue-eyed description though?

 

Yes, also agree with Banksy's analogy too.

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

10 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

Australia has a terrible record for its treatment of Aborigines. They portray themselves as a very welcoming, relaxed, accepting nation, but there's a huge blot on their copybook.

 

One of the most telling comments in all this has been Spike Lee's statement about the foundation of the US. The USA was created by white people just taking what they wanted by force and you could say the same about Australia.

 

Of course that comes back on the UK, the home of oppressing foreign people. 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

She says the 'good on her' bit after the 'fair skin' comment, and preceded the rest of the blonde hair blue-eyed description though?

 

Yes, also agree with Banksy's analogy too.

 

Yes, she says ‘fair skin’ and then looks at her arm, flicks it up, and says ‘good on her’ comparing it with her own.  It’s a bit like me (being bald) referencing a bald member of two siblings in the same way (no I’m not equating being bald with being black ). I can’t believe it’s anything other than shocking judgement and I’m sure the presenter will be devastated when she realises what she’s done .....

[Finnaldo]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I assume the presenter referenced the ‘good on her’ being blonde and blue eyed like she is (as she moves her arm to indicate ) rather than the way the vast majority will see it .....but it’s massively ignorant and her co presenter looks pretty concerned by it .....

 

btw, I love banksy’s analogy ......