The Police Didn't Kill Duggan, Compassion Did

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:52 pm

12th January 2014

We asked for it. We repeatedly voted for politicians who promised compassion. And now we have compassion coming out of our ears. And we moan that we don’t like the result. Yet we carry on with the same plan, madly expecting it to have a different outcome.

It was ‘compassion’ that abolished the death penalty for murder, so forcing us to arm the police – who had until then been guarded from violent criminals by the real threat of the gallows.

Look how compassionate that turned out to be. The lone armed constable in the dark and dangerous street now has to act as prosecutor, defence counsel, judge, jury, executioner and appeal court, and all in a matter of seconds.

No wonder the inquest jury in the Mark Duggan case ruled that this was a lawful killing. Which of us knows how he would act in such conditions?

And yet why is this bloody system morally better, more just, more kind, more proof against error than a jury trial with the presumption of innocence and the possibility of appeal and reprieve?

But we’re all so compassionate that, when we’re not bombing and invading foreign countries for their own good, we feign horror at the idea of bringing back the hangman.

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Because abolishing the noose is compassionate, the feeble logic of the abolitionists still triumphs. Try defending the death penalty in any ‘civilised’ gathering in this country and see how quickly you are sent to Coventry and dismissed as a Victorian monster.

And then we make ourselves angry at the spectacle of modern Britain on TV, the claimers of benefits turned into a sort of national entertainment.

But why do these unhappy, hopeless people exist? Who corrupted them, by offering them the chance to live in this dreadful, doomed way, while at the same time giving them no moral guidance or help?

We did, repeatedly electing governments that offered compassion to the poor, in the form of a welfare state with its moral heart ripped out.

Try suggesting that there is a difference between the deserving and the undeserving poor, in any public forum, and feel the temperature drop below freezing. And yet a welfare state which refuses to recognise this is bound to corrupt people into idleness and worse.

Roughly 50 years ago, beguiled by smiley reformers, we chose the wrong future. We adopted ideas which were mistaken and have proved to be disastrous.

We called them ‘compassion’. But who were we really being compassionate to? Not, as it turns out, to the poor we claimed to be helping. They suffer most from the compassion of our criminal justice system – which in 2012 was so compassionate it refused to imprison 28,997 offenders who had committed at least 25 crimes.

It is the lives of the poor that are blighted by anarchic schools that can’t teach, and by amoral handouts. It is their streets which are full of the drugs whose use we won’t punish. It is they who have been first to experience the abolition of fathers and stable families, which leads directly to the growth of criminal gangs.

All these policies were implemented in the name of compassion. But who were we being gentle to? Why, we were being nice to ourselves, sparing ourselves the hard and unpopular decisions and choices that make civilisation possible, like indulgent parents who mingle neglect with bribes, only on a vast scale. And we still are.

To hell with compassion. Give me good honest harshness any day. It’s far kinder in the long run.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:01 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2537775/The-police-didnt-kill-Mark-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html

Now I happen to know Andy, that if you copy anything from the Mail the link is automatically copied as well, so you must have taken it off. Peter Hitchens, THE most biased journalist on a biased paper. No wonder you copied it.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:06 pm

Just because someone is biased it does not mean their views have zero value or that they do not raise points that should be considered.

Declaring the source biased as a way of ending a debate is just avoiding the subject.

Does a welfare state that refuses to consider the reasons for a person being poor corrupt people into idleness?
Are the lives of the poor blighted by schools that do not teach?
Are the streets full of drug use we do not punish?
Have the poor been most affected by family breakdown?

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:08 pm

Have thousands (low estimate) of people had their views and morals warped by the Daily Mail over the years. Big fat YES

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:12 pm

Sassy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2537775/The-police-didnt-kill-Mark-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html

Now I happen to know Andy, that if you copy anything from the Mail the link is automatically copied as well, so you must have taken it off. Peter Hitchens, THE most biased journalist on a biased paper. No wonder you copied it.

There's no such thing as THE most biased.

You are biased and so am I. And so is everybody else on here - biased towards their own opinions.

The question is, did you read it and what are your views sassy?

You see, I'm interested in what you and the other posters have to say, on this and on all the other threads I post - that's why I'm here.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:14 pm

As I added it after you posted:

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:16 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Sassy wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2537775/The-police-didnt-kill-Mark-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html

Now I happen to know Andy, that if you copy anything from the Mail the link is automatically copied as well, so you must have taken it off. Peter Hitchens, THE most biased journalist on a biased paper. No wonder you copied it.

There's no such thing as THE most biased.

You are biased and so am I. And so is everybody else on here - biased towards their own opinions.

The question is, did you read it and what are your views sassy?

You see, I'm interested in what you and the other posters have to say, on this and on all the other threads I post - that's why I'm here.

You left the link off, because you know that as soon as those of sane mind see that it's an article from the Daily Heil, most won't even bother to read it!

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:18 pm

Sassy wrote:Have thousands (low estimate) of people had their views and morals warped by the Daily Mail over the years. Big fat YES

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

So instead of responding to the points made in the article of the OP you choose to try and divert into questioning concerning the quality of the source of that article.

I take it to mean that you do not have answers to the points raised by the article.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:25 pm

sad diversion tactics going on,,,,,,what about the points raised in the OP people?? nothing to say??

for what it's worth andy, i heartily agree with what he said

hi btw

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:38 pm

gelico wrote:sad diversion tactics going on,,,,,,what about the points raised in the OP people?? nothing to say??

for what it's worth andy, i heartily agree with what he said

hi btw

No Gelico actually the article misses some important points.

One there is a history of racism within the Police force.

The Police were found to have lied immediately after the shooting.

This backs the views already what many black people have of the Police, in thinking he was shot because he was black and that the Police are found to be lying stating gunshots were exchanged. Of course I do not think all Police are racist far from it, but to a community that has dealt with racism from the Police on countless occasions there is no suprise this reaction happened
Is there anything wrong arming our Police?

No

Do we question the legality of when someone is shot?

Of course we do, in this case it was more error brought on by a situation no doubt where feared played a part where they had intelligence of the fact he had a gun in possession. They were not to know he had thrown it, though it was found easy enough behind a fence which poses questions, but to me when they lie at the start they belief and conviction of statements from those involved will also been seen to be lies also, when especially things do not add up. So anger comes about because from the start the Police lied thus leaving people with the view if more lies are stated.

So this is more about how the whole thing was handled. To me the Police were too afraid to say he had no gun in his hand when they shot him and they reacted to an arm movement, in the knowledge already that he was in possession of a gun and with the adrenaline of a situation the Police no doubt in fear he was reaching for a gun shot him. Of course he did not have the gun, but to say they shot him on just movement leaves open the question if lawful when it was clearly a mistake by the Police nothing more.

So the article is missing the boat completely on this

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:41 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
gelico wrote:sad diversion tactics going on,,,,,,what about the points raised in the OP people?? nothing to say??

for what it's worth andy, i heartily agree with what he said

hi btw

No Gelico actually the article misses some important points.

One there is a history of racism within the Police force.

The Police were found to have lied immediately after the shooting.

This backs the views already what many black people have of the Police, in thinking he was shot because he was black and that the Police are found to be lying stating gunshots were exchanged.

Is there anything wrong arming our Police?

No

Do we question the legality of when someone is shot?

Of course we do, in this case it was more error brought on by a situation no doubt where feared played a part where they had intelligence of the fact he had a gun in possession. They were not to know he had thrown it, though it was found easy enough behind a fence which poses questions, but to me when they lie at the start they belief and conviction of statements from those involved will also been seen to be lies also, when especially things do not add up. So anger comes about because from the start the Police lied thus leaving people with the view if more lies are stated.

So this is more about how the whole thing was handled. To me the Police were too afraid to say he had no gun in his hand when they shot him and they reacted to an arm movement, in the knowledge already that he was in possession of a gun and with the adrenaline of a situation the Police no doubt in fear he was reaching for a gun shot him. Of course he did not have the gun, but to say they shot him on just movement leaves open the question if lawful when it was clearly a mistake by the Police nothing more.

So the article is missing the boat completely on this

The article missed it because that is not what the article is about. The article is about whether the structure of society we have is causing some of the problems within that society not what went wrong in the Mark Duggan case.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:42 pm

No the article misses the point on why anger has been found over this Sphinx and then plays of why there is anger on a different parallel which has little meaning to the anger

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:50 pm

PhilDidge wrote:No the article misses the point on why anger has been found over this Sphinx and then plays of why there is anger on a different parallel which has little meaning to the anger

Sorry didge but you seem to be fixated on the racist lying police thing. Wherever Duggan is mentioned in a thread you come on with the thing about race and anger and lying police even when those are nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is becoming slightly obsessive.

Andy highlighted the bits of the article he was interested in and they were only marginally to do with the Duggan case - it was just the episode that provoked them.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:55 pm

Sassy wrote:As I added it after you posted:

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

He said liberal, not Liberal, i.e. the word liberal meaning applied fully and generally, i.e. to scatter liberally, not the Liberal Party.

Has Phildidge been teaching you English?

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:56 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No Gelico actually the article misses some important points.

One there is a history of racism within the Police force.

The Police were found to have lied immediately after the shooting.

This backs the views already what many black people have of the Police, in thinking he was shot because he was black and that the Police are found to be lying stating gunshots were exchanged.

Is there anything wrong arming our Police?

No

Do we question the legality of when someone is shot?

Of course we do, in this case it was more error brought on by a situation no doubt where feared played a part where they had intelligence of the fact he had a gun in possession. They were not to know he had thrown it, though it was found easy enough behind a fence which poses questions, but to me when they lie at the start they belief and conviction of statements from those involved will also been seen to be lies also, when especially things do not add up. So anger comes about because from the start the Police lied thus leaving people with the view if more lies are stated.

So this is more about how the whole thing was handled. To me the Police were too afraid to say he had no gun in his hand when they shot him and they reacted to an arm movement, in the knowledge already that he was in possession of a gun and with the adrenaline of a situation the Police no doubt in fear he was reaching for a gun shot him. Of course he did not have the gun, but to say they shot him on just movement leaves open the question if lawful when it was clearly a mistake by the Police nothing more.

So the article is missing the boat completely on this

The article missed it because that is not what the article is about. The article is about whether the structure of society we have is causing some of the problems within that society not what went wrong in the Mark Duggan case.

That's what I read.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:57 pm

Loki wrote:
Sassy wrote:As I added it after you posted:

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

He said liberal, not Liberal, i.e. the word liberal meaning applied fully and generally, i.e. to scatter liberally, not the Liberal Party.

Has Phildidge been teaching you English?

I noticed that too.

I'm staying out of this, just letting it flow.

You learn so much by being a watcher and listener sometimes.

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:59 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:No the article misses the point on why anger has been found over this Sphinx and then plays of why there is anger on a different parallel which has little meaning to the anger

Sorry didge but you seem to be fixated on the racist lying police thing. Wherever Duggan is mentioned in a thread you come on with the thing about race and anger and lying police even when those are nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is becoming slightly obsessive.

Andy highlighted the bits of the article he was interested in and they were only marginally to do with the Duggan case - it was just the episode that provoked them.

This is a very complicated issue because there seems to be no middle ground anywhere between lawful killing and unlawful killing.
I really can't see that killing an apparently unarmed man can be lawful but I can see that there is the possibility that the policeman who shot him made a mistake in believing he had the gun and his life was in danger. None of us were there so it's difficult to judge but nowhere can it ever be considered lawful. A mistake possibly but that doesn't figure anywhere in what may havehappened.

Very complicated.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:59 pm

May I direct you to the "devastating dossier" thread and my comments at the bottom.

I feel they link very nicely with this topic.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:59 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:No the article misses the point on why anger has been found over this Sphinx and then plays of why there is anger on a different parallel which has little meaning to the anger

Sorry didge but you seem to be fixated on the racist lying police thing. Wherever Duggan is mentioned in a thread you come on with the thing about race and anger and lying police even when those are nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is becoming slightly obsessive.

Andy highlighted the bits of the article he was interested in and they were only marginally to do with the Duggan case - it was just the episode that provoked them.

I am not fixated on anything but showing views people have which you seem to ignore, no doubt why you are having difficulty understanding this. This is about also many black people reacting to his death, or did this not escape you?

The point is the article starts off going on about the emotions of the case and makes comparisons over issue like the death penalty, bombings etc, missing the point in the first place that many within the black community, let me stress that again many black people themselves hold the view the Police are institutionally racist.

Do you understand this that they hold this perception of the Police?

Next if as seen the Police lied, of which they did, this adds weight to their belief, being the fact the person shot is black that the people are again trying to cover up things as they have done in other cases, example Stephen Lawrence.

Thus tension further builds because of this, hence why the article has missed the point on why it has brought up so many emotions especially in the black community.

Not sure how you fail to even understand this and why the article misses the point from the very start, as I am not saying the Police is rife with racism or that racism had anything to do with the actions or any of the lies by the Police, but the black community will think it is.

Do you understand that now?

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Sorry didge but you seem to be fixated on the racist lying police thing. Wherever Duggan is mentioned in a thread you come on with the thing about race and anger and lying police even when those are nothing to do with the topic being discussed. This is becoming slightly obsessive.

Andy highlighted the bits of the article he was interested in and they were only marginally to do with the Duggan case - it was just the episode that provoked them.

I am not fixated on anything but showing views people have which you seem to ignore, no doubt why you are having difficulty understanding this. This is about also many black people reacting to his death, or did this not escape you?

The point is the article starts off going on about the emotions of the case and makes comparisons over issue like the death penalty, bombings etc, missing the point in the first place that many within the black community, let me stress that again many black people themselves hold the view the Police are institutionally racist.

Do you understand this that they hold this perception of the Police?

Next if as seen the Police lied, of which they did, this adds weight to their belief, being the fact the person shot is black that the people are again trying to cover up things as they have done in other cases, example Stephen Lawrence.

Thus tension further builds because of this, hence why the article has missed the point on why it has brought up so many emotions especially in the black community.

Not sure how you fail to even understand this and why the article misses the point from the very start, as I am not saying the Police is rife with racism or that racism had anything to do with the actions or any of the lies by the Police, but the black community will think it is.

Do you understand that now?

Of course they will, Didge but some people are blind to it.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:06 pm

You're looking too deep.

Why was Duggan being driven around carrying a gun and dealing in drugs?

Why were Lawrence's killers roaming the streets with knives?

As the article points out - a breakdown of family life, no punishment - liberalism.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:09 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

I am not fixated on anything but showing views people have which you seem to ignore, no doubt why you are having difficulty understanding this. This is about also many black people reacting to his death, or did this not escape you?

The point is the article starts off going on about the emotions of the case and makes comparisons over issue like the death penalty, bombings etc, missing the point in the first place that many within the black community, let me stress that again many black people themselves hold the view the Police are institutionally racist.

Do you understand this that they hold this perception of the Police?

Next if as seen the Police lied, of which they did, this adds weight to their belief, being the fact the person shot is black that the people are again trying to cover up things as they have done in other cases, example Stephen Lawrence.

Thus tension further builds because of this, hence why the article has missed the point on why it has brought up so many emotions especially in the black community.

Not sure how you fail to even understand this and why the article misses the point from the very start, as I am not saying the Police is rife with racism or that racism had anything to do with the actions or any of the lies by the Police, but the black community will think it is.

Do you understand that now?

Of course they will, Didge but some people are blind to it.

Sadly so Irn some people are blind to it, which is why I am trying to show them the root cause of the anger and emotions.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:09 pm

If I told you children need discipline (a smack) you'd say I'm a cruel Victorian dad.

If I told you people needed to go to tough prisons for a very long time, you'd call me backward-thinking.

If I told you people needed to work for what they get, you'd call me cruel and insensitive.

From the cradle to the grave - no punishment.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:15 pm

You still not understanding this Andy, emotions are born about not from one incident but countless cases of where injustices happen.

That is the root cause here.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:17 pm

Loki wrote:
Sassy wrote:As I added it after you posted:

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

He said liberal, not Liberal, i.e. the word liberal meaning applied fully and generally, i.e. to scatter liberally, not the Liberal Party.

Has Phildidge been teaching you English?

Phildidge couldn't teach anyone English, and I wasn't referring to the Liberal Party. The Capital L was because it was the beginning on a sentence.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:19 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Have thousands (low estimate) of people had their views and morals warped by the Daily Mail over the years. Big fat YES

Just an example:

There’s no logic to it. The liberal bombing of Baghdad and Belgrade unavoidably and predictably killed innocent human creatures. Yet the people who backed the bombing claim that the much smaller risk of hanging an innocent makes capital punishment unacceptable.

Liberal bombing? What the fuck does that mean and what a manipulative phrase. People who OPPOSED the bombing of Baghdad are more likely to OPPOSE hanging. Manipulation in every word by a disgusting man.

So instead of responding to the points made in the article of the OP you choose to try and divert into questioning concerning the quality of the source of that article.

I take it to mean that you do not have answers to the points raised by the article.

There are no points raised in the article, it is a mishmash of statements that are the subject of the imaginings of a very strange man indeed. Even the opening bit about the abolition of hanging producing more murders is not correct. The whole thing is rubbish.

by Irn Bru Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:You still not understanding this Andy, emotions are born about not from one incident but countless cases of where injustices happen.

That is the root cause here.

You're dead right on this, Didge. And don't forget to add the Daily Mail for continually focusing on crime within the ethnic community usually based on misleading articles and those who pick up on them and spread them like wildfire over social networks. Remember, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:26 pm

PhilDidge wrote:You still not understanding this Andy, emotions are born about not from one incident but countless cases of where injustices happen.

That is the root cause here.

For fuck sake Andy opened the thread to talk about whether the whole case emotions included had deeper implications for society itself not about the case or emotions themselves- he understands what he opened the thread about it is his bloody thread.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:29 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

So instead of responding to the points made in the article of the OP you choose to try and divert into questioning concerning the quality of the source of that article.

I take it to mean that you do not have answers to the points raised by the article.

There are no points raised in the article, it is a mishmash of statements that are the subject of the imaginings of a very strange man indeed. Even the opening bit about the abolition of hanging producing more murders is not correct. The whole thing is rubbish.

The points raised in the article are as follows

Does a welfare state that refuses to consider the reasons for a person being poor corrupt people into idleness?
Are the lives of the poor blighted by schools that do not teach?
Are the streets full of drug use we do not punish?
Have the poor been most affected by family breakdown?

They were highlighted by Andy in the very first post suggesting those are what he wants to debate - a debate which seems to be being avoided at all costs by some to the extent of denying the points even exist.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:39 pm

They are, really, I don't think so.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:46 pm

Sassy wrote:They are, really, I don't think so.

Obviously you dont want to because if you admit they are points you would have to consider them and you dont want to do that.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:53 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:You still not understanding this Andy, emotions are born about not from one incident but countless cases of where injustices happen.

That is the root cause here.

For fuck sake Andy opened the thread to talk about whether the whole case emotions included had deeper implications for society itself not about the case or emotions themselves- he understands what he opened the thread about it is his bloody thread.

Yet as seen you cannot see what is the root cause to these emotions, which is the only point on the matter, as once you understand the root cause it shows where it leads to more, which sadly you cannot see on this.

Again the article made he mistake of not getting at the root cause hence why it has gone off in the wrong direction on the emotions surrounding the case, that is what again you fail to see.

Others see this, so why can you not?[/quote]

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:54 pm

Sassy wrote:They are, really, I don't think so.

how do you feel on those points though? you haven't said. you just talked about some other article

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:They are, really, I don't think so.

Obviously you dont want to because if you admit they are points you would have to consider them and you dont want to do that.

I'm really not going to fall for that, about twisted points from a twisted writer in a twisted paper. LOL

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:59 pm

gelico wrote:
Sassy wrote:They are, really, I don't think so.

how do you feel on those points though? you haven't said. you just talked about some other article

sorry i meant in the same article but some other point

but how do you feel about all that is highlighted in red??

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

For fuck sake Andy opened the thread to talk about whether the whole case emotions included had deeper implications for society itself not about the case or emotions themselves- he understands what he opened the thread about it is his bloody thread.

Yet as seen you cannot see what is the root cause to these emotions, which is the only point on the matter, as once you understand the root cause it shows where it leads to more, which sadly you cannot see on this.

Again the article made he mistake of not getting at the root cause hence why it has gone off in the wrong direction on the emotions surrounding the case, that is what again you fail to see.

Others see this, so why can you not?

Because Andy and Myself are actually trying to focus on the root cause of what causes the emotions that are represented by the actions.

My point dear didge is you cannot tell the person who opened a thread that they are missing the point of the thread - they are the one who sets the point of the thread and if you think they are not getting it then it means you are the one not getting and so should go and open your own thread to concentrate on your own point.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:10 pm

gelico wrote:
gelico wrote:

how do you feel on those points though? you haven't said. you just talked about some other article

sorry i meant in the same article but some other point

but how do you feel about all that is highlighted in red??

I don't, because the are false. At the time of the workhouses we had the deserving and undeserving poor for example. I'm not commenting on opinion based on lies and half truths and bigotry.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:13 pm

Sassy wrote:
gelico wrote:

sorry i meant in the same article but some other point

but how do you feel about all that is highlighted in red??

I don't, because the are false. At the time of the workhouses we had the deserving and undeserving poor for example. I'm not commenting on opinion based on lies and half truths and bigotry.

So in your opinion the man who has got money (from whatever source - wages, benefits, gift, lottery win) and takes that money and spends it all on alcohol drugs and gambling so he has nothing left and cannot buy food or shelter is just as deserving of help as the man who has got money (from whatever source - wages, benefits, gift, lottery win) and been beaten up and the money stolen so he has nothing left and cannot buy food or shelter?

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Yet as seen you cannot see what is the root cause to these emotions, which is the only point on the matter, as once you understand the root cause it shows where it leads to more, which sadly you cannot see on this.

Again the article made he mistake of not getting at the root cause hence why it has gone off in the wrong direction on the emotions surrounding the case, that is what again you fail to see.

Others see this, so why can you not?

Because Andy and Myself are actually trying to focus on the root cause of what causes the emotions that are represented by the actions.

My point dear didge is you cannot tell the person who opened a thread that they are missing the point of the thread - they are the one who sets the point of the thread and if you think they are not getting it then it means you are the one not getting and so should go and open your own thread to concentrate on your own point.

But the fact is both you and Andy have failed to see the root cause to the emotions of which i have provided for you Sphinx, hence why the article has gone off in the wrong direction from the start. If you cannot see this, that is your issue really, but when something starts in the wrong direction the points just become irrelevant to the root cause that created the anger within the black community/ So I am showing you how the article is missing the point and the root cause here, so yes I can say what I fucking well like thanks

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:23 pm

Sphinx why would Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe say this?

"But I recognise that some in the community are still angry at Mr Duggan's death.

"In particular, I know that we have much work to do with black Londoners to build trust and confidence in the Metropolitan Police.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:57 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Because Andy and Myself are actually trying to focus on the root cause of what causes the emotions that are represented by the actions.

My point dear didge is you cannot tell the person who opened a thread that they are missing the point of the thread - they are the one who sets the point of the thread and if you think they are not getting it then it means you are the one not getting and so should go and open your own thread to concentrate on your own point.

But the fact is both you and Andy have failed to see the root cause to the emotions of which i have provided for you Sphinx, hence why the article has gone off in the wrong direction from the start. If you cannot see this, that is your issue really, but when something starts in the wrong direction the points just become irrelevant to the root cause that created the anger within the black community/ So I am showing you how the article is missing the point and the root cause here, so yes I can say what I fucking well like thanks

No didge we are look at the root causes of the root causes and are not focusing on just on perceived group in society but on society itself.

The statement earlier in the article about if we still had the death penalty the police would not need to be armed - in what way is this specific even remotely to the black community?

Your point is that "members of the black community are highly emotional and upset because they perceive that they are unfairly treated" - that is actually so basic a premise that its a total no brainer and I tend not to waste time debating such points (on the other thread my point was that any illegal activity should be quashed immediately not the vigil stopped, and that in the meantime life should continue as normal which means police stations not closed down). Now apply that premise to us still having the death penalty. Would us having the death penalty change in on iota the black community feeling they are unfairly treated?

Now take my selected points - a welfare system failing to distinguish between deserving and undeserving poor increases people doing nothing for themselves. Poor people suffering from failing schools. Drug taking going unpunished. Poor people excessively affected by family breakdown. How to they relate to the black communities feeling of unfair persecution.

Yes all of those things might affect the way the black community feels persecuted but they are not relevant to whether that feeling of persecution exists or not in the first place.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:01 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Sphinx why would Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe say this?

"But I recognise that some in the community are still angry at Mr Duggan's death.

"In particular, I know that we have much work to do with black Londoners to build trust and confidence in the Metropolitan Police.

Because he has to.

Just like they will have to give Duggan's family a victory of some sorts in the future.

Just like they have to give the thugs of London what they ask to keep them quiet.

Just like they have to feed the lazy, idle of the country to keep them quiet.

Liberal Britain Didge.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Who do they reward at school - the good boy who never misses a day and behaves well in all his classes or the boy who has misbehaved 90% of the time and shows a tiny bit of improvement - the bad boy - Liberal Britain.

It's everywhere - the wrong people being rewarded in every aspect of life in Britain, all in the name of Liberal PC do-gooding society.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:08 pm

Every public enquiry that is held is used as an apology for something of the past.

Slavery - my fault? No.

Going off on a tangent there - i'll start another thread, let's have a good debate about something else...

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:25 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

But the fact is both you and Andy have failed to see the root cause to the emotions of which i have provided for you Sphinx, hence why the article has gone off in the wrong direction from the start. If you cannot see this, that is your issue really, but when something starts in the wrong direction the points just become irrelevant to the root cause that created the anger within the black community/ So I am showing you how the article is missing the point and the root cause here, so yes I can say what I fucking well like thanks

No didge we are look at the root causes of the root causes and are not focusing on just on perceived group in society but on society itself.
There is only one root cause it is finate

The statement earlier in the article about if we still had the death penalty the police would not need to be armed - in what way is this specific even remotely to the black community?
The death penalty as seen through history has been no deterrent to crime, the step to arm the Police is out of necessity and not anything in anyway to do with the death penalty as there is a need to challenge such weaponry on level terms when dealing with people armed. Thus this point has no root cause to the problem that allowed emotions which have been within the black community for years. So again as the root has not been started in the right place as seen this point has no relevance

Your point is that "members of the black community are highly emotional and upset because they perceive that they are unfairly treated" - that is actually so basic a premise that its a total no brainer and I tend not to waste time debating such points (on the other thread my point was that any illegal activity should be quashed immediately not the vigil stopped, and that in the meantime life should continue as normal which means police stations not closed down). Now apply that premise to us still having the death penalty. Would us having the death penalty change in on iota the black community feeling they are unfairly treated?
Dear me a no brainer, you make me laugh now after making such a daft assumption bring ing me back to the issue do you know what it is like to be judged by your skin colour of which you failed on each occasion to answer or even understand. So you are basically saying racism plays no part in the belief that the black community thinks the Police treat them unfairly? You think they do not feel this prejudice on a daily bases when they are stopped by some of the Police because they are black? That they do not see also with studies showing they are both not only stopped way over whites in stops by the Police, but arrests and how they are convicted? You think this plays no part within the black community, when a criminal who is black is shot dead then immediately after the Police lie stating there had been an exchange of gunfire? You do not think this led many people to assume again here in this case that the Police were being prejudice? You think this never played any part in reality situation that we faced today where blacks do not trust the Police? I have to ask what planet you are living on?

Now take my selected points - a welfare system failing to distinguish between deserving and undeserving poor increases people doing nothing for themselves. Poor people suffering from failing schools. Drug taking going unpunished. Poor people excessively affected by family breakdown. How to they relate to the black communities feeling of unfair persecution.
I think you did not watch the videos yesterday did you on the affect of discrimination did you Sphinx? What did it show happens to people discriminated against? What affect does this have on people suffering discrimination. Your points here are off on a tangent to if we should feel sorry for certain situations, where they did not play a part in why the black community was angry, years of racism created that. Now your points would fit well with the main population being as there are issue's with some crimes not being punished but many others are, so again you are well off tangent

Yes all of those things might affect the way the black community feels persecuted but they are not relevant to whether that feeling of persecution exists or not in the first place.

Again you have no idea how a black person walking down the street is judged by the colour of his skin, you never face any such discrimination Sphinx like that and thus would not understand. The point is poor perceptions and stereotypes have been formed of black people which has created the fact people like you do not understand what it is like again to be stereotyped like that and because of this they receive countless unfair treatment throughout the years of discrimination not only from people in society but by the Police.

So the reason is that why you are not understanding this sphinx is you have no conception what it is like to be constantly judge for being black, when you do you will understand the emotions that have built up in the black community

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:40 pm

I did not ask you if the death penalty deterred crime I asked you whether it being present would change the black communities perception they were treated unfairly.

I have not said racism does or does not play a part (and while I may not know judgement on my skin colour I do know it on my relatives skin colour, and I know it on my health basis) I have said the perception of unfairness exists.

Yes I know there is genuine discrimination. Do you accept that there are also perceptions of discrimination where there actually is no discrimination?

And what the fuck has the fact that the black guy walking down the street feels judged because of the colour of his skin got to do with poor people being affected by failing schools? Would the guy be judged any differently if there were no failing schools? Would he stop feeling judged if there were not any failing schools?

For some reason best known to yourself you wish to focus on the black community. What about the white community that provided the other half of Duggans parentage?

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:41 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Sphinx why would Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe say this?

"But I recognise that some in the community are still angry at Mr Duggan's death.

"In particular, I know that we have much work to do with black Londoners to build trust and confidence in the Metropolitan Police.

Because he has to.

Just like they will have to give Duggan's family a victory of some sorts in the future.

Just like they have to give the thugs of London what they ask to keep them quiet.

Just like they have to feed the lazy, idle of the country to keep them quiet.

Liberal Britain Didge.

So you say he has to, why does he have to if there are no problems with even he admitting basically that the Police have a poor relationship with the Black community?

Why does he need to say anything about he black community, if as seen this was a lawful shooting?

You see I am bringing you to the point of the thread where as seen the root cause is wrong, because why would he need to say bridges need to built and mended?

This is why you and Spinx are not grasping it, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe does though, he understand the problems and why there anger is anger within the black community, he understands the points I am making.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:43 pm

Ok didge - andy and me are talking about why the dog barks and you are yelling at us we fail to grasp that the cat is furry.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:50 pm

sphinx wrote:I did not ask you if the death penalty deterred crime I asked you whether it being present would change the black communities perception they were treated unfairly.
Of course it would change nothing, if already seen injustices happen and more were to happen and someone was executed wrongly, it would still not change the views and perceptions that the black community have of the Police which has built up over many years

I have not said racism does or does not play a part (and while I may not know judgement on my skin colour I do know it on my relatives skin colour, and I know it on my health basis) I have said the perception of unfairness exists.
But it is also dealing with daily unfairness which you need to try and understand because of the colour of your skin.

Yes I know there is genuine discrimination. Do you accept that there are also perceptions of discrimination where there actually is no discrimination?
There are many perceptions but the realty is of here know history of racism towards a community and by the Police

And what the fuck has the fact that the black guy walking down the street feels judged because of the colour of his skin got to do with poor people being affected by failing schools? Would the guy be judged any differently if there were no failing schools? Would he stop feeling judged if there were not any failing schools?
What has failing schools got to do with any of this fucking argument on a black community who feel discriminated against by the Police? The fact is though we have one of the best education systems and schools in the world, the fact is he would be and still is judged whether there is or not failing schools. Jesus wept, you bring in things that have no relevance, a failing school does not even mean all pupils would be failing in that school, and you tell me about basic arguments

For some reason best known to yourself you wish to focus on the black community. What about the white community that provided the other half of Duggans parentage?

Yes who is equally angered over this, but what affect has this had on the white community? I am so glad you brought this up, because are white people continually judged for their skin colour? No, are they constantly discriminated against because of their colur? No, this might give a you a clue now how the anger has built up and yes he was mixed race and one half of that was black. Thanks that last point really brings home the reality of the issue

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:51 pm

sphinx wrote:Ok didge - andy and me are talking about why the dog barks and you are yelling at us we fail to grasp that the cat is furry.

No you are claiming the dog is barking when in fact it is growling! I am not yelling either so that point was very pathetic to say the least.

by Sponsored content