Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The police are already armed – in that specialist squads and other officers who are firearms trained are deployed every day and can be called upon if armed violence threatened.
The two police officers were ambushed, so it is unlikely that arming them would have made any difference as they had no apparent reason to draw their weapons before they were actually shot. Armed police still get killed with appalling frequency both here and abroad.
An ostensibly unarmed police is one of the few British characteristics left in existence, let’s not surrender it to bogus ‘me-too’ paranoia.
All very good points ML.
I’m donating as much of myself to medicine and science as they can use – so be careful which transplant you agree to . . . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@rogue trader wrote:
i see where your coming from there j,
and it was only a u21 match
problem is,eastern europe is rife with racism
now i maybe treading on eggshells here
but werent the eastern bloc countries the first ones to moan,when they were persecuted and their countries raped in ww2
with good reason i hasten to add.
surely they of all should no better
and as for racism it sucks
we all bleed red.One of the consequences of the fall of Soviet Bloc communism is the surge of right-wing, racist and anti-Semitic movements. Let’s hope enough is done about it to make it a phase.
Dammit, i missed it! belated greetings!
@terry wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
Poli has had some criticism, but the personal comments have not been that harsh
I don’t think Kenty will agree with you. :roll:
That’s Kenty’s prerogative, but back to the thread:
One charity seems to be saying that that child sex abuse affects one in four members of the population. This resonates in my mind with the figure for mental illness.
Even if it’s a huge overestimate, it indicates a huge legacy, the potential for a lot of emotional damage and the likelihood that in any group of people you meet there will be at least one person who is or has been in some way dealing with the issue. There’s bound to be a huge diversity in the reactions, opinions and preferred outcomes of just the victims.
In addition it seems The Wright Stuff on Channel 5 will be discussing whether Savile’s family should apologise to victims – I presume for some of their comments, I can’t see how they can owe any apology for what Savile did.
It would be a shame if this thread ended up purely analysing itself instead of addressing its subject. I realise that Poli has had some criticism, but the personal comments have not been that harsh, that numerous or that one-sided. But that’s just my opinion. She has moved on because she’s said all she’s got to say on the subject. If there are other reasons, then it’s really for her to say.
Back to the subject: It’s important to do what I think Poli was trying to do: to separate the justice-related issues around Jimmy Savile from the entertainment and litigious hyperbole which is being whipped up in the media and to which we are all vulnerable.
Poli and other’s main arguments – about lack of resolution, police time, energy and cost come from one perspective of justice. She also questioned its value to the victims.
I and others have tried to start from the impact on victims – the need to be taken seriously, for catharsis and credibility and to balance the one-sided media portrayal of Savile as a harmless hero.
Both perspectives have weight and neither ‘side’ in this debate has eliminated the other. Rather each ‘side’ has tried to argue why its perspective outweighs the other.
As for boring:
QUICK! LOOK OVER THERE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@kent f OBE wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
I hope this isn’t going to turn into some sort of Poli bashing thread…and I am sorry if I have come across harsh to your opinions Poli….debate is excellent but prolonged has a danger of losing it’s way off topic
:roll:
Do rolleyes count as moral outrage . . . . . . . ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@(f)politics? wrote:
. . . . i’m not sure how it got personal or when i was put on trial as to ones ability or requirements to be on a jury or not, for merely trying to put forward a more level thought on this particular story rather than some moral outrage in something we actually know nothing about in factual terms just some person saying they saw something between two other people.That kind of debates not for me. I’m sure whatever the outcome of this people won’t be happy with the results.
Since we actually know nothing in factual terms, are you sure your ideas are any more level than anyone else’s? Are you sure the views disagreeing with yours are just ‘moral outrage’
