Lawrence

[Big Tone]

Back on page one, somone made a valid point that the police almost daren't open their mouth for fear of being call a racist. It then expanded, as this sort of topic always does, into a much broader topic, in this case on racism. Much later, I almost daren't open MY mouth and was accused of being a racist. So I feel like I could empathise with how the police may feel.

Also, there's not much more you can say about poor Lawrence and what the bent police did. Joe, to his credit, made quite a salient point very early on, albeit rather abrupt. 'Just give the grabbing family what they want etc..' since it looks like a pay-off is the way things are always done these days.

So all anyone can realistically do is let the powers that be try and get to the bottom of it. I assume you weren't looking for a forum to solve a crime or get answers to something we are not entirely privy to

Oh and IMO 'they' are not looking to integrate, they are expecting surrender. So when it comes to the drip-drip of us having to acquiesce to their cultures it reminds me of an ad I saw on TV. Remember the one of a frog or toad in a pan of cold water on a hob? The frog would just stay there as the water gets to boiling and die. But put the frog into a pan of already boiling water and it'll jump out.

So the way to do things and get away with them is slowly slowly, so the frogs don't know what's cooking....

 

[Micilin]

You are of course right that many of those threads expand .

However-

Back on page one, somone made a valid point that the police almost daren't open their mouth for fear of being call a racist.

Really means' someone expressed an opinion that I agree with'

Of course the police should be mindful of what they say. And the easiest way to avoid being called racist is to not make racist remarks.

But the above makes an unsupported claim, in that police are hampered in their investigations by being unable to state facts. Straw man?

Genuine question -as it means I might have to reflect more-What truths did the police avoid saying in this case in order to avoid appearing racist? What could they not open their mouths about?

In the Lawrence case, among others, they avoided or blurred the truth . It seems they are too ready to open their mouths without thought for consequences.

Some of this motivation was racist, some to cover up ineptitude or corruption.

What always seems inevitable is that the absence of a logical argument in one instance, leads to using the behaviour of other groups in other areas, as a justification for illegal behaviour. (Other comparison, illegal action by troops is accepted /justified by illegal action by terrorists)

If we are blasé about police corruption when its extent is revealed then we relinquish our rights to appropriate checks and balances when we ourselves are affected. We also owe it to the majority of honest police officers if we accept that the rule of law can be applied selectively.

It is always ironic to me that the most self proclaimed upright ,pro 'law and order' people can accept illegal acts: depending on the parties involved.

 

[Big Tone]

Of course the police should be mindful of what they say. And the easiest way to avoid being called racist is to not make racist remarks.

Agreed. But how do you do that when the anally retentive brigade keep shifting the goalposts and expect everyone else to keep up?

My neighbour, who’s 76ish, still refers to a coloured man or woman. Out of respect for him, and because I actually don‘t think it’s a racist remark, (just very out of date), I don’t correct him.

There was a positive discrimination initiative long ago in the form Blaxploitation, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People or NAACP. But now anyone saying that word is a racist are they?

I told before of my irritation at Bonnie Greer on Question Time correcting a, (white), MP on the panel when he dared to say Afro-American. “NO NO! It’s African American” she insisted as she wagged her finger in disdain at him. So he bowed down to her magnificence.

I thought to myself “Awe F*%k off!” Who was complaining about that FFS; that it suddenly became an issue and racist remark? I can still say it to my black friends, not that I have to use that term often. They don’t have a problem.

We’ve all heard of Sexploitation, no doubt, but what we have got now is Britsploitation because we’re absolutely swimming in PC sensitivity and desperate not to offend anyone to the point we have become subservient and servile. They’ve got us dancing to their tune like a bunch of pansies.

How’s that for a vaguely on-topic rant?

 

[jockscott]

Of course the police should be mindful of what they say. And the easiest way to avoid being called racist is to not make racist remarks.

And when they are looking for a male suspect, aged 18 - 25, 6ft tall, they're deemed racist for daring to tell us the suspect is also black.
To keep the public informed, means telling us the colour of a suspected criminal...

Remember the assistant chief constable of the Met, hauled over the coals for saying that the majority of street crime in London was committed by young , black men?? Statistics showed that he was clearly correct, but the statistics were ignored and he was accused of being racist. I'm surprised he wasn't also accused of ageism.

 

[Big Tone]

Or the other that always makes me laff Jock; again referring to Question Time. There's a black guy in the audience amongst a field of white but Dimbles starts taking about the gentleman wearing a blue tie or stripped shirt or horn-rimmed specs

Would the man or woman really be mortified to be referred to by their colour if it helped?

I know I wouldn't if I were the only white face in an area of the audience. I think I might even be proud of my colour; just as any black or yellow or old or female or.......... should be.

That's how stuffy and pc we have become IMHO.

 

[Micilin]

Big Tone -

Your post on the changing language is interesting, and I agree that generational differences and cultural differences can make things confusing . A couple of examples on US- UK differences are the use of US 'Asian' to include Chinese origin, which is different to ours; and moving away from ethnicity, 'Handicapped' is common in the US whereas 'Disabled' is the norm here. Even then we have the prgression here from 'Disabled toilets' to 'Accessible Toilets' because the toilets are not actually Disabled.

However, the Police are fully briefed on all of this, so no excuses there for them. They are not to be judged by the same standards as my Uncle (for example) who uses the term 'darkie' without any sense of 'wrongness'

And anyway, their corruption in the Lawrence case was not a matter of using the wrong terminology but a question of attitude . So the point is a bit of a red herring

And while an interesting area for discussion, and vaguely on topic
it doesn't address the question I asked of you (in direct response to your post)

"Genuine question -as it means I might have to reflect more-What truths did the police avoid saying in this case in order to avoid appearing racist? What could they not open their mouths about?"

So of course we go off on tangents (note the 'we' ), that is the beauty of the forum. But what I find detracts from a debate is when a tangent is used either to avoid a direct point, or is used to set up a spurious example for the person to then argue against.

So a statement is made, off topic, then used as a basis to for some kind of 'proof' to back up the opinion of the poster on the original topic .

This seems the form for a lot of avoidance on the forum ( a general point, not aimed at you), with a lot of frothing about on the tangent dressed up as genuine discussion .

However, it is easy to see through and I sometimes think that posters (again, a general point) genuinely do not see how their thread of argument is illogical and transparently so.

 

[Micilin]

And when they are looking for a male suspect, aged 18 - 25, 6ft tall, they're deemed racist for daring to tell us the suspect is also black.
To keep the public informed, means telling us the colour of a suspected criminal...

Remember the assistant chief constable of the Met, hauled over the coals for saying that the majority of street crime in London was committed by young , black men?? Statistics showed that he was clearly correct, but the statistics were ignored and he was accused of being racist. I'm surprised he wasn't also accused of ageism.

Can you give me some examples of your first point ie that the police are called racist when they describe a suspect's colour/ethnicity?
I think that is a perception of yours presented as a fact!

On your second, I think the issue was more one of the context he used to present the figures .

On a statistical basis,

Burglary is a 'white' crime
Child abduction/rape/murder is a white crime
London gun crime is a black crime

If it was broken down into socioeconomic groups the pitcure is more complex, and lends itself more into causes of crime.


So if Condon had put his stats and concerns into context better, it would not have been perceived as racist in the same way. IMO he was not racist to say this but was naive in how he presented it.

So all of that said - in what way does the uproar about Condon's comments tie in with the Lawrence case?

Could it even bolster the case for anti police sentiment in some quarters
- The poice are happy to target young black men as a group for street crime, but couldn't care less when one is killed?

Not my opinion but I can see how that perception would arise.

 

[Micilin]

Or the other that always makes me laff Jock; again referring to Question Time. There's a black guy in the audience amongst a field of white but Dimbles starts taking about the gentleman wearing a blue tie or stripped shirt or horn-rimmed specs

Would the man or woman really be mortified to be referred to by their colour if it helped?

I know I wouldn't if I were the only white face in an area of the audience. I think I might even be proud of my colour; just as any black or yellow or old or female or.......... should be.

That's how stuffy and pc we have become IMHO.

Or it could be that we just generally deem it impolite to refer to people's physical characrteristics eg the large man, bald man, slim lady etc

And run the risk of letting people assume we are defining people by their appearance?

 

[EFLImpudence]

There is no logic to whether a word is considered 'PC' or not.

For example, doesn't 'disabled' mean rendered inoperative?
Not according to the first few dictionaries to be Googled. According to most it now only refers to people so I was wrong to wonder why the disabled toilets were never repaired.

Other words:

I think 'dwarf' sounds much more unnacceptable than 'midget; but apparently I am wrong.

I also think 'black' sounds more aggressive than 'coloured'. Could it be that is why it is preferred even though the people are not actually black?

So, a word becomes unacceptable when those to whom it refers, or others who have appointed themselves protectors of those, deem it so.

Perhaps one day 'white' will be considered offensive and it will be replaced with 'pink'.

 

[Micilin]

EFL

I am involved a little in coaching Disabilty sport, and understand entirely the 'Dwarf' / 'Midget' comment!

I think some other words are in a kind of arms race between insulters and non insulters.

The nons come up with a new term to move on from the last one being insulting, then the insulters start using is as insult then the nons have to go again. 'Spastic' is a good example of this. In sport we use the classification CP now.

 

[joe-90]

Imbecile used to be a medical term.

 

[Micilin]

Imbecile used to be a medical term.

Exactly so.

(Joe, please note my restraint on this one )

 

[JBR]

Imbecile used to be a medical term.

As did 'idiot'. (No, I'm not calling you, Joe!)

 

[JBR]

EFL

I am involved a little in coaching Disabilty sport, and understand entirely the 'Dwarf' / 'Midget' comment!

I think some other words are in a kind of arms race between insulters and non insulters.

The nons come up with a new term to move on from the last one being insulting, then the insulters start using is as insult then the nons have to go again. 'Spastic' is a good example of this. In sport we use the classification CP now.

You're right. The 'professionally offended' brigade are one day going to run out of alternatives! What will they do then?

They seem unable to understand that it is not what is said, but how it is said.

 

[Dextraneous]

Imbecile used to be a medical term.

As did 'idiot'. (No, I'm not calling you, Joe!)

Indeed. So was "cretin".

From my old faithful 1930's home doctor book, if defines "Cretinism" as a "peculiar form of idiocy"