THUGS beat up the police

[markie]

I think i might be in his list, sorry i'm def in his list.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry to disappoint you..

 

[hermes]

it's a list of 2.

 

[Zampa]

From that clip it looked like the cozzer provoked the situation a little by pulling out his magic wand in front of the gutless scum.

Before the groovy word benders get on my case im not saying he or his mate deserved it...it was pure cowardice a disgusting assault, made worse by the fact the the two blokes involved didnt look like they could have punched their way out of a wet paper bag.

You almost see the conditioning set in, attack is the best form of defence, but they just bent over and took all they got.

But surely common sense should have told him to walk away from half a dozen ****ed up blokes in that situation?

I remember a case a few years ago when someone actually got prosectued or they attempted it for not helping a police officer when asked...

Well...sorry to say it nor would I..unless it was two unto one, I certainly wouldnt have tried to take on 6 of them in the 'name of the queen'....they are asking you to fight...they are asking you to break the law, supposing you got involved and sparked someone out, worse, inflicted a serious injury on them, you would be in the **** for sure.

Its not far short of taking the law into your own hands...and we all know where that gets you..

What else would you be expected to do?...stand there with your hand on one of their shoulders saying 'stop your actions or I will make a citizens arrest'?

I hope the guys didnt have to many bruises (both mental and physical) and im sure that knowing that some fool of a magistrate would have given their assailents a damn good slap on the wrist would have made it all worthwhile!

 

[Thermo]

From that clip it looked like the cozzer provoked the situation a little by pulling out his magic wand in front of the gutless scum.

trouble is you are only looking at whats going on, you dont hear whats being said. The officer may well have been reacting to verbal threats. Believe me when they start spewing forth from someone through clenched teeth, you know whats coming.

But surely common sense should have told him to walk away from half a dozen p****d up blokes in that situation?

would be nice, but you wear the uniform, youre expected by the public to intervene, especially on a town centre street at night. Its also about the example they set. If they stand by and let a brawl go on what then?

You almost see the conditioning set in, attack is the best form of defence, but they just bent over and took all they got

I have to say i agree with you their Zampa. Its not that easy though. I learnt the hard way when to call in help first and when you went in you finished it there and then. One whack and they go down. may sound a bit hard, but if you look at the publics perception, what looks worse, a copper breaking up a fight having to use force, hitting the guy once, stopping the fight, cuffing him and calming it all down, or having to hit the bloke lots of times with a stick to stop it and ending up as a mass of wriggling bodies sprawling all around the floor........didnt always work though!

 

[baldy01]

it's a list of 2.

I've got -

1. Anyone who has the temerity to hold an opinion which differs from mine.
2. eeerm......


Some help here?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My list is of those with whom I am no longer prepared to debate, because of the sheer pointlessness of it. Not because of opposing views, but because of the way they subvert the process of the debate away from the real subject, making it almost a meta-debate, as if abstract acts of discussion and argument are all that matters.

 

[baldy01]

What and you don't subvert the process of the debate?


You jump to conclusions about peoples characters, from too limited information.

You imply that because someone doesn't agree with you that they are mentaly impaired in some way.

You place childishly simplistic labels on people and then smugly condemn anything they say based on your label.

When it looks like someone might actually be succesful in arguing with you, you turn the attack from the idea to the person. Its not enough that the idea is stupid, the person stating it must be labeled as stupid as well.

You can't take a joke.

You try to big yourself up by trying to make others feel small.

In short you behave like a long-winded blustering bigot who cannot and will not countenance that anyone can have an opinion that contradicts his.

Sorry to break it to you but the title of this forum is General Discussion not the Church of the all-wise BAS where the faithfull come to have wisdom dispensed upon them.

Actually I'm not sorry, its just life, people disagree with you, deal with it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What and you don't subvert the process of the debate?

No.

You jump to conclusions about peoples characters, from too limited information.

I form opinions about what people are like on the basis of what they write.

If they post racist or violent rants then I judge them to be racist, or violent, as I cannot begin to comprehend the mindset or motivation of somebody who would write things that they don't believe just to wind other people up - I mean, how sad and dysfunctional is that?

You imply that because someone doesn't agree with you that they are mentaly impaired in some way.

No, not simply because they don't agree with me.

You place childishly simplistic labels on people and then smugly condemn anything they say based on your label.

I form opinions about what people are like on the basis of what they write.

If they post racist or violent rants then I judge them to be racist, or violent, and I will condemn what they say on the subject of race relations or crime and punishment. I do not extend that to an ad hominem condemnation of their views on, say, the control of dogs.

When it looks like someone might actually be succesful in arguing with you, you turn the attack from the idea to the person. Its not enough that the idea is stupid, the person stating it must be labeled as stupid as well.

You've got it almost completely wrong. I've got 2 people on my list, and yes, one I have labelled as "stupid", because of the consistency with which he demonstrated that he was by his behaviour, not by disagreeing with me or (fat chance) being successful in arguing with me. The other I have not, and would not label as stupid.

You can't take a joke.

I actually have a very good sense of humour. But apart from jokes, and asides which are meant to be obviously humorous, or a flagged as such, I do not make jokes in my posts.

If someone says that they think the eyes of parking offenders should be put out with red hot pokers, I take them at their word. It doesn't make me laugh, it's not an amusing prospect, and I don't think it's right to call everyone I disagree with a liar.

You try to big yourself up by trying to make others feel small.

I can't make anybody feel small who doesn't already have a sense that they are, or might be.

In short you behave like a long-winded blustering bigot who cannot and will not countenance that anyone can have an opinion that contradicts his.

Of course people can have opinions that contradict mine. But I hope that doesn't mean that I should not do everything I can to produce facts that show them to be wrong, or to expose flaws in the logic of their position.

Sorry to break it to you but the title of this forum is General Discussion not the Church of the all-wise BAS where the faithfull come to have wisdom dispensed upon them.

Oh I would never claim to be able to do that. I might be able to make them better informed, but wiser? Not a chance.

Actually I'm not sorry, its just life, people disagree with you, deal with it.

I'm quite happy to deal with it. Often by attempting to show that the person who disagrees does so because he is ignorant of certain facts or has applied insufficient thought to the implications of their position. What's wrong with that?

Mind you - I still can't work out if you don't like the fact that I argue with people I disagree with, or you don't like the fact that I won't argue with some people....

 

[baldy01]

I encourage debate and argument. Of course I encourage open mindedness too, I suppose you've got the first bit right.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It's funny, isn't it, how those who object most loudly to my views, and call me the most names, are often the people who don't want to be told that they should have an open mind about immigration, crime and punishment, guilt and responsibility, don't want to consider an opposite view...

Moderator 4

Keep the subject on track, drop the personal arguments or ill start deleting posts to keep it on track. Thats not just aimed at you Bas

 

[paulbrown]

BAS wrote.

You've got it almost completely wrong. I've got 2 people on my list, and yes, one I have labelled as "stupid", because of the consistency with which he demonstrated that he was by his behaviour, not by disagreeing with me or (fat chance) being successful in arguing with me. The other I have not, and would not label as stupid.

If you don't consider the second person on your list as stupid why would you choose to ignore them?

not by disagreeing with me or (fat chance) being successful in arguing with me

Why would anyone need to be successful to argue with you? If you meant there was a fat chance of said person defeating you in a debate(in your opinion) it could be seen as a very arrogant comment.

Continuously insisting on the last word doesn't mean you've won every debate.

Any chance of giving these people a chance of defending themselves BAS?

 

[Softus]

If you don't consider the second person on your list as stupid why would you choose to ignore them?

He doesn't ignore the first person because he considers that person to be stupid, it's because he can't win an argument against that person; and winning an argument is paramount.

Any chance of giving these people a chance of defending themselves BAS?

I don't think that either of those people consider that the said "chance" is actually something of value.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Keep the subject on track, drop the personal arguments or ill start deleting posts to keep it on track. Thats not just aimed at you Bas

My comments were, genuinely, aimed at nobody in particular.

There are any number of posters on this forum to whom they could apply.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you don't consider the second person on your list as stupid why would you choose to ignore them?

//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=433474#433474

Why would anyone need to be successful to argue with you?

I was trying to highlight the fact that I did not disengage because the other person was successful in arguing with me.

If you meant there was a fat chance of said person defeating you in a debate(in your opinion) it could be seen as a very arrogant comment.

It could, I guess, by anybody not paying attention.

Continuously insisting on the last word doesn't mean you've won every debate.

Surely by ceasing to respond, I am doing anything but insisting on the last word?

Any chance of giving these people a chance of defending themselves BAS?

They have as many chances of defending themselves as they care to take. They can write what they like when they like where they like and as often as they like - in the literal meaning of the phrase, I could not care less.