General News Discussion

[kaosmark2]

Isn't this argument just stemming from a misunderstanding of Neil's original point?

From my interpretation he was saying:

When civilians get shot the public doesn't call for a universal right to bear arms to protect themselves. Why should it be any different when the police get shot?

Seems a sensible point to me.

[eFestivals]

Isn't this argument just stemming from a misunderstanding of Neil's original point?

From my interpretation he was saying:

When civilians get shot the public doesn't call for a universal right to bear arms to protect themselves. Why should it be any different when the police get shot?

Seems a sensible point to me.

Yup, that's exactly what I was getting at, thanks.

The precise numbers of shootings in either direction doesn't matter much. The point is that (given how small the chance is of either thing happening) in the overall scheme of things the chance of either thing happening is around the same - and yet the call from gun-toting fascist types is (unsurprisingly) one-sided.

----

In a similar vein, did anyone see that female senior Scotland Yard copper talking to the press the other day, after the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson was sacked? The way she was trying to claim with all sincerity that that copper was the only bad egg that existed within the Met was vomit inducing.

When the senior coppers are so clearly living on a different planet which doesn't fit reality it's hardly surprising that the likes of the Hillsboro cover-up, and so much more, can happen. And happen still.

[kaosmark2]

In a similar vein, did anyone see that female senior Scotland Yard copper talking to the press the other day, after the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson was sacked? The way she was trying to claim with all sincerity that that copper was the only bad egg that existed within the Met was vomit inducing.

When the senior coppers are so clearly living on a different planet which doesn't fit reality it's hardly surprising that the likes of the Hillsboro cover-up, and so much more, can happen. And happen still.

[eFestivals]

Urgh. That's disgraceful. Not all coppers are twats, some are just stupid, but it's a disgusting situation we've got to.

I'm not so stupid as to be thinking that even the 'bad' coppers are always bad.

But there's a major problem within both the police service and which then spreads into the wider justice system from the cultural view they take that coppers are always beyond reproach. It gives them the licence to take the piss no less than would happen if burglars were allowed to rule on their own guilt in court.

There was a good article in last weekend's Observer, about how the police are the last unreformed public service. But I can't see how that's going to change, because Thatcher bought them off as the private army she needed to impose all she did thru the 80s (and which created a divide between the police service and the people as a result).

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Last year I remember reading an article in the New York Times about the London riots. The reporter was blaming the fact that our police are not armed and that was the root cause of it getting out of hand. Dont they have riots in New York and since when has shooting people been a good form of crowd control. The British would never do that.

Oh, hang on.......;-)

[lost]

I don't think the police should be armed but the argument should be based on if guns would help police protect themselves and the Uk's citzens better not based on if our public services are incompetent or corrupt which should be a different argument.

Take certain stronger painkillers administered by Doctors for example. These have to be prescribed and administered by the health service because we expect the people to have a certain level of training in which to administer and use them safely, anyone can't just go up and buy them from the pharmacy. There have been cases in the past where doctors have killed people unintentionally or deliberately (Harold Shipman) but we accept that the majority know how to do their job properly and these stronger drugs help them in doing that.

[eFestivals]

I don't think the police should be armed but the argument should be based on if guns would help police protect themselves and the Uk's citzens better

and on just that basis, all the joined up thinking says that it wouldn't.

Arming the police is not a (potential) benefit without an attached downside. Because if the old bill are to be habitually armed, it would mean more wrongful shooting of people by the police along with (perhaps) more criminals getting shot.

And on top of that, many more criminals will feel its necessary to carry a gun, because they know that they'll come up against an armed copper - which will lead to more coppers getting shot, as well as others.

Just as with the case of Jean Charles Menezes where the police expect the public to accept that death as an unhappy consequence of the police doing their job, then it follows that the police must similarly accept that sometimes shit happens in their direction too.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I don't think the police should be armed but the argument should be based on if guns would help police protect themselves

[TalkShow Bob]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9564006/In-full-Police-log-detailing-Andrew-Mitchells-pleb-rant.html Full log of Mitchells rant. Intresting reading. Turns out he was vaugly threatend with arrest!

[kaosmark2]

http://www.telegraph...-pleb-rant.html Full log of Mitchells rant. Intresting reading. Turns out he was vaugly threatend with arrest!

[Spartacus Mars]

the fact that you had to look it up gets to show me as right and your words as wrong ... unless you already knew of both of those cases without need of a googled reminder?

[eFestivals]

The fact I did research that contradicts your assertion does not prove your assertion, it proves the impression we have each gotten from our media

my assertion WAS about the impression we get from the media.

Your position/worry was people might start needing to be armed to protect themselves from the police. The evidence demonstrates, if anything, the reverse is true.

No, I was stating that the people who say the police should be armed to protect themselves from the public never say the same thing about the need of the public to protect themselves from the police - when (when only counting the 'wrongful' shooting by the police) the incidents in each direction are about the same, so the need in each direction is about the same.

The evidence demonstrates that is true - that the incidents ARE about the same.

As I said I was surprised by the findings, but the findings stand - the police are four times more likely to be murdered than shoot dead unarmed civilians.

1. I said "incidents', not 'deaths' (and I did that very deliberately).

2. you've used a time-limited data set, which gives a greater support to what you found from your look at the 'deaths'.

3. the police are the ones who very largely decide if a shooting from their side was 'wrongful', so the figures are heavily skewed by that (for example, Mark Duggan's shooting was without doubt 'wrongful' when working by the police's operational rules, but they're doing their damnedest to try and ensure that the 'official' version of events doesn't say that ... it's now been revealed that the police tampered with the evidence around the car involved, contrary to everything that is stated as happening within the police notebooks).

He had a firearm with him, a BBM Bruni 92. The person who sold him the firearm is currently being prosecuted for that crime. Duggan was shot fifteen minutes after picking the gun up, having been under surveillance for two days.

that's the police's version, yup.

But the police's version also says that the taxi was secured as evidence so it couldn't be tampered with, which has been proven untrue.

That comes on top of many other lies that have been exposed, such as the initial claim that Duggan was aiming his gun at police when he was shot - when he'd never even touched the gun, let alone pointed it at the police (and yet, from the links you've given, the police are still trying to put forwards the proven-as-false version).

I'm not trying to suggest that Duggan was a nice guy btw - I don't know either way. But it's beyond all doubt that the old bill have attempted to mislead the public over what happened via their press statements, and that they've lied to the IPCC and the courts. This of course means that nothing of what they're claiming can be trusted as true.

Some people might say the police don't lie, or ask why would they lie. One word back to that is "Hillsboro".

You can cry over dead armed gangsters as long as you like. My tears and sympathy are exclusively with the innocents those c**ts harm. Every armed gangster shot dead by the police is a win.

I side with fair laws and not mob rule - and that works in both directions.

A wrongful shooting leading to death by the old bill is no less of a murder than anything Duggan might have done if not wrongfully shot down by the police.

[eFestivals]

this current 'missing Megan' story....

I'm not in anyway condoning the conduct of the teacher involved, but ... I feel a bit sorry for him. The police will catch up with them soon enough, and then the guy is going to get slaughtered, both because she's underage and because he's abused his position of trust as a teacher.

Whereas if the situation was just very slightly different - with her a year older, and him not a teacher - then he'd be completely in the clear.

That's a HUGE difference in consequences for a very small difference in circumstances.

I'm not thinking that the law is wrong with its expectations of both age and profession, but at the same time that massive difference in consequences for a very small difference in circumstances somehow feels not quite right.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Abu Hamza. You know J.M.Barrie could not make up a better bad guy. The guy really does not do himself any favours. All he needs is a white abu and a swivel chair and it would make him look more sympathetic.

[Spindles]

You don't think that men in their 30s being attracted to girls of 16, let alone younger is a bit creepy regardless of their job?

I used to have a friend who, when we went out for a drink, would spend the entire night eyes darting at every woman and would regularly announce "I'd get myself arrested for that" as he declared some barely old enough to drink girl a target (before making a dick of himself, getting called a dirty old man and going home to drunkenly row with his missus, then spend the next week moaning about how unreasonable SHE was). I stopped associating with him, people like that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe its just my age or values, but I don't think that older men chasing younger women is exactly healthy for either side.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

You don't think that men in their 30s being attracted to girls of 16, let alone younger is a bit creepy regardless of their job?

I used to have a friend who, when we went out for a drink, would spend the entire night eyes darting at every woman and would regularly announce "I'd get myself arrested for that" as he declared some barely old enough to drink girl a target (before making a dick of himself, getting called a dirty old man and going home to drunkenly row with his missus, then spend the next week moaning about how unreasonable SHE was). I stopped associating with him, people like that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe its just my age or values, but I don't think that older men chasing younger women is exactly healthy for either side.

[eFestivals]

Yeah you are right..., But with him being her teacher they theory is he holds much more sway over her and her mindset than the average joe...

In theory he defo does, but the realities of life get to mean that's not always the case.

Anyway, as I tried to make clear i'm not trying to defend what he's done, because he knows that as far as the law is concerned it's wrong, and he also knows the consequences that come with it. So he's not going to get anything he's not expecting.

But it's still the case that there's a massive difference in consequences for a small change in circumstances, and that massive difference makes me feel a little uncomfortable that perhaps we (society) have got something badly wrong in law about this situation (tho that 'wrong' might be the no-consequences with a small change in circumstances rather than the consequences for a teacher).

And against that, as people might say in different circumstances of two people running off together, "you can't help who you fall in love with". If that can rightly be given and accepted as an excuse for what people chose to do in other circumstances, then perhaps it might apply here too.

I'm not trying to defend the teacher - but those different ways of looking at things makes me feel that society has got something badly wrong somewhere, I'm just not sure where it is.

[eFestivals]

You don't think that men in their 30s being attracted to girls of 16, let alone younger is a bit creepy regardless of their job?

yup, defo.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, or that there's anything wrong *by default* in a relationship like you say above. Who am I to say who a person can or can't fall in love with?

Maybe its just my age or values, but I don't think that older men chasing younger women is exactly healthy for either side.

I'd say it depends on the ages of both. There's a very big difference between this teacher/kid case than there'd be with the same age difference but where the woman was (say) 40 - and at a guess it's probably the case that relationships with that sort of age difference isn't particularly unusual.

I'm not trying to stick up for the teacher, I'm not trying to stick up for relationships with that sort of age difference (cos I reckon they'd go tits up far more often than a closer match in ages), and I'm not even trying to say that the punishment he'll surely get will be wrong or too harsh. I'm merely pointing out that with some very small changes in circumstances then the whole thing is massively different with its legal consequences, and that makes me feel uncomfortable that we've got something badly wrong with the laws in this sort of area - but not where that 'wrong' is.

Edited September 25, 2012 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

The story reminds me of 'Soap Opera' by Harvey Andrews but I can't find it on the net - so I'll just have to say it rather than provide a link.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

yup, defo.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, or that there's anything wrong *by default* in a relationship like you say above. Who am I to say who a person can or can't fall in love with?

I'd say it depends on the ages of both. There's a very big difference between this teacher/kid case than there'd be with the same age difference but where the woman was (say) 40 - and at a guess it's probably the case that relationships with that sort of age difference isn't particularly unusual.

I'm not trying to stick up for the teacher, I'm not trying to stick up for relationships with that sort of age difference (cos I reckon they'd go tits up far more often than a closer match in ages), and I'm not even trying to say that the punishment he'll surely get will be wrong or too harsh. I'm merely pointing out that with some very small changes in circumstances then the whole thing is massively different with its legal consequences, and that makes me feel uncomfortable that we've got something badly wrong with the laws in this sort of area - but not where that 'wrong' is.

[eFestivals]

I was going to mention maturity but lets face it his behaviour is not exactly rational or mature. We dont know the wheres and whys of any investigation that there may have been happening (we dont know he sex is involved), but running off when thie chips are down does not seem like you are able to deal with the reality of the situation.

from what I've read of the case he strikes me as fanny-stuck - tho that doesn't necessarily mean he's getting access.

And, from what I've read, it's been going on for a long time. They did a school trip to LA* in February, and were reported to the council for holding hands on the way back. Also, that about 4 months ago he blogged about having a moral dilemma, and he came down on the "if you can look yourself in the face" side of things, which is now being read as about her.... and meanwhile, for at least the last 4 months, he's been giving her extra curricular "maths lessons" (nudge nudge, wink wink ).

(* are there many "school trips to LA"? ..... I can't say I can see many of them happening in the likes of Hackney, anyway )

But as for "rational or mature", at the end of the day - from one angle, at least - it's nothing much different to anyone who runs off with their new lover - which people of every age do.

He's gonna get absolutely slaughtered by the law.

Edited September 25, 2012 by eFestivals

[Spindles]

He's 30. Saying he's in his 30s implies he's older.....

just to clarify

[Rufus Gwertigan]

from what I've read of the case he strikes me as fanny-stuck - tho that doesn't necessarily mean he's getting access.

And, from what I've read, it's been going on for a long time. They did a school trip to LA* in February, and were reported to the council for holding hands on the way back. Also, that about 4 months ago he blogged about having a moral dilemma, and he came down on the "if you can look yourself in the face" side of things, which is now being read as about her.... and meanwhile, for at least the last 4 months, he's been giving her extra curricular "maths lessons" (nudge nudge, wink wink ).

(* are there many "school trips to LA"? ..... I can't say I can see many of them happening in the likes of Hackney, anyway )

But as for "rational or mature", at the end of the day - from one angle, at least - it's nothing much different to anyone who runs off with their new lover - which people of every age do.

He's gonna get absolutely slaughtered by the law.

[eFestivals]

I know a couple who are married with a 12 year gap...

They met when she was 23 and he was 40..

I think you need a maths lesson matey.

[eFestivals]

I do wonder what they teach at teacher training school when the first answer to a moral dilemma is "Fuck her brains out".

-----

I don't think any moral training comes into it really. Aren't all blokes lead by the dicks to a certain extent? I doubt there's any one of us who hasn't done something (tho perhaps only very minor) that we wished we'd rather not done because of an attraction we have for another.