Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@jen_jen wrote:
…..I hear people making innocent comments . . . and vilified as being racists when they are amongst the most peaceful, tolerant, respectful people I have ever met, then there are people who make comments with the sole purpose of antogonising etc. based on race but they are not seen as racist. . . . .
That’s one problem, Jen, words are bandied around, denied and misused, without meaning. For some people racism means violent attacks, and almost any accusation of racism short of that would be denied, so some quite serious racist behaviour would be excused. For others, even unintentional, minor offence would be slammed so a mere slip-up could result in sacking, arrest or worse. So the same incident can elicit reactions from a pat on the head to an angry mob.
Perhaps a better way is to get away from either/or/is/isn’t and use a continuum from verbal slip-ups at one end to genocide at the other. (This has been written up by Allport and others). Racism could be recognised and responded to proportionately.
Another difficulty is that racism can be cultural or institutional rather than personal. So racist behaviour might be a legacy of some long-forgotten (or suppressed) history. in those circumstances, punishing an individual might be meaningless if the structure within which they operate is not changed and the historical legacy managed.
@jen_jen wrote:
OK I’m struggling with something here…how can someone deliberately use racially offensive language with the intention to provoke, antogonise or belittle yet not be considered a racist?
I started something wordy and learned (lol), but in short, I can crawl, growl and bark without being a dog, but is my behaviour dog-like? Yes, even when unconvincing.
As to intent, it is less important to me than impact. I think it’s possible to display racism (sexism or anything else) without intending to as it remains to some extent or other in language and other aspects of culture. But that doesn’t stop words from wounding harshly and destroying trust and confidence.
Add conflict, mob culture, shock reactions, drink/drugs and degrees of passion and it’s quite possible for words and behaviour to be out of character but racist in themselves.
However, in my opinion, John Terry was in a professional situation where he is being highly paid to be professional. People on far less money than him would be heavily disciplined for the language he used, even if it seemed unavoidable at the time. So even if it was out of character, some form of discipline and apology was definitely called for.
@kent f OBE wrote:
I agree with you Momes….personally I don’t think JT is a racist……he certainly used inappropriate language and is paying for it…if he had come across a Ginger haired person would he have ranted abuse relevant to that person….ie the immediate obvious thing? We will never know
However having said that….why couldn’t he have called him a fucking stupid tvvat or somthing without referring to his colour? Again I don’t know….those offensive words did come out of his mouth…im my earlier post I did say that that even when I have had racial abuse thrown at me I have NEVER retaliated with similar back……..ie you honkey or white trash….are those words offensive or are there worse words used against white people?
I had to report an incident once…theft…and I was asked what the person said blah blah I said…blah blah p@ki….I was then asked if this was a racial attack…….and I said no….the person was ignorant, uneducated and the only way they thought they could get to me was making me feel small by calling me names….the person was a thiefThe trouble is, when passions are roused words come to mind which we might never use otherwise and we all probably have some taboo area into which we stray. The words we use might not come from our essential character but maybe from something ingrained from key experiences.
However Terry was in a professionally ‘normal’ situation. His failure to deal with it ‘professionally’ reflects upon him and upon his profession.
Having said that: is there a way to remove instinctual reactions from life completely without moving towards sociopathy?
@terry wrote:
. . . . Judgmental as ever.
Oh Terry, Oh Terry, Oh baby!
Personal opinions always reflect a level of judgement.
I reserve judgement on how much of your repeated failure to distance yourself from your petard is deliberate.
@terry wrote:
I agree.
But there are people – from all corners of the world – exploiting a system that they know will hand them benefits and free housing.
She was already being removed from the country. I doubt the decision to remove her included tipping over her wheelchair. But if she was kicking out, her legs would have to be restrained.
Mistreating people at the point of removal is unlikely to deter them from coming to the country, more likely to motivate them to avoid detection more determinedly.
Of course at such a sensitive point of law enforcement, it must be reassuring that G4S represent the best Britain can do.
I’ve said it before, non racist people really should be less concerned when someone from a minority claims to be abused or insulted and more concerned when the media and politicians, who claim to represent them, assume that the majority of British people are supportive or tolerant of bigotry.
I believe the UKIP quotes insult the British people and reveal the speakers’ unworldliness.
If withdrawal from the EU is good for the British people then does the colour of the voter matter? If UKIP leaders can buy into the idea of black people as a single block vote, does that indicate that they view all white British people as one and the same? Not wise in a politician.
As for Terry, I don’t recall him directly abusing someone because of their colour. I have thought that on occasions he used even more passionate and personal criticisms for those who express anti-racist views than he has for those who are pro-Europe.
To me, it it seems his use of the slogan “one race, the human race” is more a wish than a commitment. But he’s human, fallible and entitled to display that fallibility and deal with any result.
As for the current Government: they appear committed to withdrawal not just on Europe, but on just about every bit of social progress for the last 60 years. They are unafraid who they offend or damage as they are laying ground which will be as difficult to dig up as the monetarist foundations laid by their 80’s predecessor. Protected by 21st century Britain’s anathema for revolution, they are happy to ride roughshod and cocksure over any ‘pleb’ who gets in their way.
@anc wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
What have you been led to believe anc? The armed forces in Afghanistan are under different rules from UK armed police units who are not forbidden from shooting first.
That is precisely what I wanted to know, whether or not the same rule applied to the british police or not – ta! Bloody stupid ruling for the armed forces though, in my opinion anyway – and my m8’s brothers’!!
It does depend on the circumstances, and on the individual or standing orders under which they are operating, however, as the cases of Harry Stanley and Colin Farmer show, being able to shoot first doesn’t always leave a satisfactory result.
As for the armed forces, unfortunately we have put them in a police action situation in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban while trying to keep the peace so their role is simultaneously military and civil. Impossible.
@kent f OBE wrote:
. . . . . . there must be instances where criminals don’t shoot at armed officers for fear of being shot and killed themselves…shooting unarmed officers has no fear of that
Unfortunately Kenty it’s far less clear. There are cases of armed criminals shooting first for fear of being shot and killed themselves. Also cases labelled ‘suicide by cop’ where desperate people make themselves appear armed and/or dangerous in order to goad the police into shooting them.
In policing, rather than battlefield situations, a standard tactic for diffusing a situation is to reduce the appearance of threat. Our police operate on a presumption they are unarmed. Unfortunately in countries with armed police, officers still get shot.
What have you been led to believe anc? The armed forces in Afghanistan are under different rules from UK armed police units who are not forbidden from shooting first.
@anc wrote:
I’m not sure about this, but a m8 of mine has two brothers in the army in Afghanistan – they are not allowed to shoot first ffs! So, does anyone know if that is the same for the police?! If so, not so much of a deterrent is it? Answer is yes they should be armed, as long as they are trained, and manage to get a shot back!
Online reports show confused official statements about this. It seems that while UK defence chiefs say the rules of engagement haven’t changed, US chiefs have instructed the international force not to shoot first to stop civilian woundings – looks like a cautious step too far if it’s applied to armed Taliban. Maybe it’s more difficult to tell out there, but it shows how having your policing done by force of arms doesn’t necessarily clarify your security issues.
Training doesn’t undo instinctive reactions in high-stress situations. Highly trained armed police the world over shoot innocent people, convinced that they are a danger, but finding out afterwards that they were not, their true status obscured by a highly deceptive ‘red mist’.
The consequences of a fatal knee-jerk error in Afghanistan could be catastrophic long term. Starting from an over-cautious base might compensate for the high pressure conditions.
Guns make the police stronger by making them more dangerous. Rather than a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’, A clearer consent to arming the police would be a signed indemnity in the event a loved one is accidentally shot.
Of course the other factor would be whether police officers themselves want to be routinely armed. Up until now most UK officers, who didn’t join an armed force, don’t want to belong to one.
The last person to whom you should give (fire)power is the person who wants it.
