|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 5, 2020 13:01:18 GMT
If a police office were to see, for example, a mother and baby decapitated right before their eyes and all they did was say "no comment" I would be appalled Which is unlikely. Then that comes under the 'protection of life and property' core value and a comment can be made, but not necessarily about the reason why the decapitation was done. If, as an exaggeration for example as you have, it was UK government policy to have public executions and the woman and child were subject to this and the police were there to maintain public order, then the individual policeman would be wrong to comment on the government policy. No matter what their opinion is and where their sympathies lie, and obviously they'd be against this and would any sane person, but it is an exaggeration, then speaking out against it is not in their remit. If it were done by a religious group then speaking out about violence is ok. Commenting on the actual religion is not. If it was accidental due to an industrial explosion by Shell/BP then commenting on the environmental aspects of the company is not ok. Nor at the level of the normal policeman could you comment on the lack of safety procedures for the plant but you can give whatever facts you may know, like 'at 11:30pm a safety valve did not activate causing a build up of pressure which resulted in an explosion resulting in the deaths of......' Again though, these circumstances would not occur but if, for example, there is a demonstration organised in aid of Greta Thunberg you would never make any overt display of agreement for her or her principles no matter how strongly you felt. There is a reason why on police uniforms you are not allowed to pin on any badge or any indication of any affiliation not authorised by the Chief of Police in Standing Orders.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 5, 2020 13:07:35 GMT
I did notice how totally impassive the police were (and all of their colleagues) after pushing the old man down yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 5, 2020 13:14:42 GMT
And they've seen plenty of blood in their careers, so all of that blood running out of his ear was a detail of no importance.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 5, 2020 14:49:05 GMT
You are aware I am referring to the UK police and not those in the USA. They can for me take a knee, do a black power salute or whatever. There are many differences between policing and police in the UK and in the USA. Poor effort at provocation.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jun 5, 2020 15:26:33 GMT
Seems everybody wants to provoke Mark.
Cops are cops. All over the world. Some good cops some bad cops. Some lazy guys hoping to reach retirement some idealists who want to save the world, some sadists some arseholes getting an erection when using some little power. Human beings. To be controlled.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jun 5, 2020 15:28:18 GMT
Belgium is not authorizing but tolerating a demonstration in memory of George Floyds and all the Floyds to come. Several thousands expected. Masks and distanciation not guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 5, 2020 16:22:26 GMT
You are aware I am referring to the UK police and not those in the USA. Mark, we have been talking about police in the United States. I fully appreciate information from you, even if it is about the situation in the previous century, but I didn't notice where you said that your police philosophy was not valid for ALL police. If I am not mistaken, most of the police in the UK still do not regularly carry firearms, so this would already make a major difference in crowd control. I have not followed British information about the use of tear gas, tasers or flash balls in local demonstrations, so I can't comment on that. Frankly, I find it pretty amazing that there do not seem to be any reports about American police using firearms this time regarding these demonstrations, so in spite of all of these incidents over the past ten days, perhaps things are improving there.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 5, 2020 19:22:07 GMT
Certainly my mistake in not clarifying at post number 29 that I was referring to the UK police and that the principle of neutrality applies for any century.
And just to add that the principle of neutrality doesn't refer the the violent incidents portrayed. To me that was obvious but maybe I should have clarified that previously so no-one misinterpreted my meaning. There is a difference between showing a preference to one group over another, showing agreement or disagreement, and passivity during a violent incident. I'm sure you understand that. It's apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 5, 2020 20:04:58 GMT
I see photos of some taking a knee and some not and immediately the public wonder why some have not. This then opens up the question of if that policeman/woman agrees and condemns the subject or not and this then further questions the neutrality of the Police in performing their core duties to all without exception. Doing this is an appeal to be liked and an 'I am one of you' expressions. I am more disturbed by the religious connotation of it, not to mention the fact that it is ambiguous. You're never sure exactly why they are taking a knee, and many of them are doing it to just not be conspicuous when a lot of the others are doing it. I disagree with both of you in ascribing motives to those who do kneel in solidarity. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate in all situations, but it could be very useful in defusing volatile situations wherein all police are being branded as the enemy. And cops in full riot gear confronting a peaceful crowd can only look like they're on the opposite side. As far as any religious connotation, even though I was raised Catholic I don't see "taking a knee" as genuflection. I associate it with the football players who -- as far as I know -- initiated this silent gesture as a way to protest racism. My friend Mary says that (no matter how sympathetic I am) I can never really understand what it's like to be the victim of racism. We don't speak about racism at all usually....but I am aware that I could be unintentinally racist (which is also unforgivable). Everybody was appalled by the murder of George Floyd by a policeman. It's tragic that even in the 21st century we are still struggling with issues that should have simple solutions in a properly civilised society. Cheery, your comment sums up why these protests are so important right now. This crap has and will go on forever until people are forced to take hard looks inside themselves. And in the case of the US, we have to confront the fact that we have enshrined violence and bullyboyism as an integral part of our country. We let schools get shot up repeatedly. We know Black people are harassed and killed by the police. We must figure that all our wars were not "pure". But generation after generation we just say, "Oh, that's too bad" and move right along with just the smallest efforts to rectify the situation.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 5, 2020 20:24:57 GMT
but it could be very useful in defusing volatile situations wherein all police are being branded as the enemy. And this is where I can see the value in doing so, but I doubt that there has been any demonstration where the police aren't viewed as an enemy no matter what the demonstration is about. Be it gay rights, racism, a worker's strike, environmental protest or whatever and I'd be happy to hear of one where the demonstrators were all huggy and happy for the police to be there. Imagine you have a demonstration one week where the police showed an opinion in support of the demonstrators, then the following week the opposite group demonstrated. Bit of a problem there then for the police. They've already shown who they support so they can't do it again to alleviate a volatile situation and because they have shown an opinion, they then really become a target. Can't see an answer to that except the police show no public bias to one side or another.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 5, 2020 21:21:44 GMT
Well, that certainly went out of the window.
57 of America's Finest from Buffalo have resigned out of solidarity with the two officers who were suspended for shoving the old man to the ground. Can't imagine the citizens feeling secure when they face the police after something like that.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 5, 2020 22:57:21 GMT
Imagine you have a demonstration one week where the police showed an opinion in support of the demonstrators, then the following week the opposite group demonstrated. Bit of a problem there then for the police. They've already shown who they support so they can't do it again to alleviate a volatile situation and because they have shown an opinion, they then really become a target. Can't see an answer to that except the police show no public bias to one side or another. Not to dismiss what you said, nor to be insulting, but honestly ~ that reasoning is awfully close to the teacher who tells a student, "I can't let you go to the restroom, because then the whole class will want to go."
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 5, 2020 23:25:51 GMT
I remember photos of soldiers in the "Great War" taking a knee mourning a fallen comrade (no political connotation). They half-kneeled as they had to spring up if combat resumed. (I worked on the series Apocalypse). It is a gesture of mourning.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Jun 6, 2020 5:31:06 GMT
Back in 1982 the Tasmanian govt. decided to dam the last wild river in the country. A small village of protesters sprang up who camped in the bush near where the earth movers would have to start ripping the rainforest down. Many people joined in and a police tent was set up. The organisers insisted that as a peaceful group they had to follow the rules in a booklet that was issued to all ...police and workers as well.
Some of the rules were common sense...sharing tasks, cooking, cleaning etc. Others taking it in turns to man observation posts to alert the camp if the workmen started to move up. The protesters had been divided into groups of six and each group was to look after their own team. The booklet taught things like self defence (with practise sessions) keeping your cool and not engaging in verbals with the workers and police etc.
As the camp grew and the workers got very angry, they were losing wages etc some of the women went over the river to share food and warmer clothes. The protesters were, of course, breaking the law and if they took part in a demonstration would be arrested and charged. If the workmen started any disturbances they would also be charged. It was all laid out in the booklet. If a police person wanted to arrest someone, that officer only had to touch the arm of the protester and tell him he was under arrest. The others in his group would stay with him for reassurance. Meanwhile the workers would have their demo, running on alcohol and attacking the police.
The end result was that the 2500 protesters in the camp collected 1200 fines. The river was saved. The police and protesters formed some long-lasting friendships and from the protest camp was born the Greens political Party
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 7:04:56 GMT
Not to dismiss what you said, nor to be insulting, but honestly ~ that reasoning is awfully close to the teacher who tells a student, "I can't let you go to the restroom, because then the whole class will want to go." I'm still puzzling over what the connection is and how you get from one thing to the other. The connection between the police not showing sympathies to any group so they avoid problems and accusations of bias when faced with the opposite group and comparing it to not letting one person go to the toilet in case the whole class will want to go. That must just be my failing that I can't see your side of it. The police should say nobody goes to the toilet or everyone can go to the toilet, impartiality. If someone feels it is ok for the police to show they are 'with' one group, they have a view in agreement with that group ('group' being a catch all term for a number of people with a common cause) I can only see the consequences being fraught with danger regarding accusations of bias, of not treating people equally, of it viewed that people are not 'equal under the law' and that some will be treated differently, whether better or worse - then all I can say is my view is that the police should always display impartiality no matter the obviousness or merits of the cause and conversely should not display hatred or disagreement to an opposite cause. No matter what is displayed to one group the opposite is intrinsically applied to the other group. The police should be there equally for every single person and also be perceived as being so. Not only should they be impartial in their professional duties, but they should be seen to be so. Be this not so then they will lose the confidence of the public as the public will be unsure as to where their loyalties lie. UK Police Code of Ethics - "As a police service, we must show impartiality throughout all our dealings with colleagues, partners and members of the public. This is achieved by being unprejudiced, fair and objective. We consider different sides of a situation and ensure that each side is given equal consideration. We do not favour one person or group over another, acknowledging that discrimination increases feelings of unfairness and makes our jobs harder to do. We must not allow personal feelings, beliefs or opinions to unfairly influence our actions in any situation." I can't really see what there is to disagree with and for anyone who does disagree, I remain open to persuasion. Or have I missed the point entirely? It all began with me saying that I was uncomfortable with the UK police 'taking a knee' because no matter how good the reason is, it doesn't show impartiality.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 6, 2020 8:36:15 GMT
One good (?) thing that has come out of all of this in France is that a confidential Facebook group was discovered -- reserved to law enforcement workers -- which was nothing but racist, sexist and homophobic slurs illustated by many of the news photos that we have been seeing in recent days. Of course, these police officers may have been performing their jobs in total impartiality and just needed to blow off steam about their true feelings once they got home from work. Everybody knows, for example, how easy it is for a woman to file a rape report in just about every country, with questions like "how were you dressed?" (Do they ask the rapist how HE was dressed?) The Facebook group has 8000 members, so the justice department here is going to take a certain amount of time investigating the worst members.
But as for showing impartiality during a demonstration supporting the values of the country, it seems to me that basically everybody, including the police, should be on the same side at such an event. The police should just be there to stop agitators (and looters), not clobber the media or lob tear gas at everybody.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 10:25:28 GMT
But as for showing impartiality during a demonstration supporting the values of the country, it seems to me that basically everybody, including the police, should be on the same side at such an event. Is it worth me continuing? Not really, but I have a moment in between errands - in reality they probably are, but the point is and always is, they shouldn't take sides. When there is a demonstration against the values of the country, 'should' the police be impartial then? Only be impartial to values that are against and disagree with, or visibly be against, but visibly support those that they do or, better yet, just be impartial to everything? The police should just be there to stop agitators (and looters), not clobber the media or lob tear gas at everybody. One hundred percent correct. That is it in a nutshell and should require no further comment. They should just be there just to keep the peace. Just that and nothing else, no sides, no opinions displayed, no nothing other than their duty. Reality may be different but that is the standard they should aspire to. Hence showing overt support for anything, good or bad, leaves me uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 6, 2020 17:55:11 GMT
I'm still puzzling over what the connection is and how you get from one thing to the other. The connection between the police not showing sympathies to any group so they avoid problems and accusations of bias when faced with the opposite group and comparing it to not letting one person go to the toilet in case the whole class will want to go. I'm referring to your rosy view that one size fits all, that the police are neutral and can be counted on to respond appropriately to law breaking. Perhaps that has been your experience and perhaps you are unaware of what is happening in the United States right now. This out of control violence against citizens is not something that happened overnight, but in fact has been the norm for far too long. Police involved in individual acts against the public have been over-protected. Police departments are now armed as though they're going into combat. All of the protests going on right now have been triggered by a murder perpetrated by a policeman in broad daylight as his co-workers stood by and let it happen. That was the trigger, but it's in response to a culture of impunity by law enforcement and a feeling by citizens that they're targets. So yeah -- there are police who feel the need to demonstrate to their fellow citizens that they are not mindless violence machines nor the enemy. Have you seen none of the police aggression captured in the past few days? Over and over police are attacking -- attacking people running away, attacking demonstrably unthreatening and often helpless citizens. The police in Austin look as though they're shooting fish in a barrel for fun. The LaFayette Square disgrace shows cops pursuing people who are fleeing -- pushing them down, and even throwing them. If somehow you have missed all these news reports, here are two graphically covering why some police in America feel the need to express solidarity with the populace and indeed, even to prove that they are human. Apologies that the three articles I'm linking are all from the same source, but I'm using them because they are not paywalled: Police brutality: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/police-violence-protests-us-george-floyd?Police targeting journalists: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/06/george-floyd-protests-reporters-press-teargas-arrestedThe push for reform: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-the-police-us-what-does-it-mean
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Jun 6, 2020 19:44:05 GMT
Imagine you have a demonstration one week where the police showed an opinion in support of the demonstrators, then the following week the opposite group demonstrated. Bit of a problem there then for the police. They've already shown who they support so they can't do it again to alleviate a volatile situation and because they have shown an opinion, they then really become a target. Can't see an answer to that except the police show no public bias to one side or another. Not to dismiss what you said, nor to be insulting, but honestly ~ that reasoning is awfully close to the teacher who tells a student, "I can't let you go to the restroom, because then the whole class will want to go." There ought to be a way for police to show support for peaceful demonstrations of our freedom of speech, without it being construed as absolute support of the position taken by the demonstrators.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 21:25:33 GMT
Bixa, I don't know why you can't see you are agreeing with me. You are saying that the reason for the violence by the police is that they were not impartial. A long standing display of bias. So they should be impartial, no?
I am following the violence in America and we know why they people are protesting, so it raises a couple of questions. What is the reason for the police violence? Is it because they disagree with the protesters? Or is it that they are gratuitously being violent for violent's sake and want to stamp out any challenge to their authority in the only way they know how? Both are wrong but only the first is relevant to this discussion - the discussion of neutrality. The second reason is a different subject and the more likely in my mind as to why there is the police violence. The violence is happening now because of the second one because I believe the police don't really care who is protesting now as long as they can show who is the boss. It has gone beyond why it started and are now just 'protests' that the police want to clamp down on. The subject/reason is now of lesser importance than (over-)reacting to the protest itself - and was started because -
The whole incident kicked off because a policeman (or several) was not impartial, was not neutral and unbiased in his treatment of a member of the public. In black and white this shows what happens when the police, either individually or collectively, are not impartial, neutral and unbiased and do not treat everyone, no matter their affiliation, their race, their stance or whatever equally. They did not - "show impartiality throughout all our dealings with colleagues, partners and members of the public." And to repeat myself, this is my point - the police should be impartial otherwise there is always the possibility that if they aren't and seen not to be, the shit will hit the fan. The violence now is a consequence of all the biased acts the police have done, and often gotten away with. They have treated different people differently. It cannot be clearer as to why the police should be impartial in their dealings with the public and not let their own biases affect how they do deal with someone or a group of people. Don't mix up what is happening now with what the underlying cause of it is. They are two things. What is happening is because the original reason instigated it and the reason for the police violence and continuing violence has probably moved away from the original reason for the protests.
I cannot explain myself more clearly. I do not have the words to do so. If you are not persuaded that the police should be impartial, unbiased, neutral and never show a preference for one side over another, no matter how abhorrent the opposite side may be and no matter how it is common sense to side with the good guys, even when the result of them not being so is what is happening now in the USA, then you'll never be persuaded. In reality things obviously may be different but the police should, and have a duty to, stand above any overt act of agreement or disagreement, any bias or preference to or against anything at all that is not directly associated with their duty to protect life and property and uphold the law.
The results are evident when they don't uphold that principle. They can't have it both ways. They can't show a preference, a bias, either way and still say they are impartial. If they are impartial to everything without exception, apart from their duty, then they are impartial. If they show the slightest difference to that in either way, then they fall off the knife edge and are not impartial. It is clear. There is no middle ground. You are impartial or not.
And they should be. And that causes me to circle back yet again to the UK police 'taking a knee'. That is an overt show of being the opposite of impartial. I disagree with what they did. Others may agree, no problem, but not being impartial and not rising above anything that shows any degree of preference or agreement, or disagreement, leads on to other consequences. To avoid that happening, they must be without exception, be it a good thing they are not reacting to or bad thing, impartial.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 21:30:10 GMT
The shorter version of the above post is - see what happens when the police show a bias, show a preference, do not treat all equally? Hence, impartiality in all matters both good and bad, is best.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 6, 2020 22:10:18 GMT
The whole incident kicked off because a policeman (or several) was not impartial, was not neutral and unbiased in his treatment of a member of the public. Lotta words to say the cop MURDERED a citizen. And to repeat myself, this is my point - the police should be impartial otherwise there is always the possibility that if they aren't and seen not to be, the shit will hit the fan. HOW impartial should they be. We're really talking about what is going on in the US right now and why some law enforcement personnel have chosen to show they understand the protesters. I guess you are splitting hairs for the pleasure of debate, because you are deliberately leaving out the fact that all police are expected to be able to use judgment in whatever situation in which they find themselves. They can't turn that judgment on and off. In the instances of the last 10 days where cops decided to show solidarity with the protesters, it would appear that confrontations were avoided. Further, at what point does it stop being "neutrality" or "lack of bias" and turn into "I was only following orders?" Don't mix up what is happening now with what the underlying cause of it is. They are two things. What is happening is because the original reason instigated it. Nope, not mixing up anything.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 22:27:36 GMT
Bixa, should the police be impartial and treat everyone equally without exception? Yes, I expect.
Should the police show they agree with a stance?
Should the police show they disagree with a stance?
If you answer yes to any of the last two questions then the police are not being impartial and thus are not treating everyone equally without exception.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 22:30:24 GMT
"Lotta words to say the cop MURDERED a citizen."
Ok, no problem, The whole incident kicked off because a policeman murdered a citizen - because he wasn't being impartial and treating everyone equally.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 6, 2020 22:39:20 GMT
Further, at what point does it stop being "neutrality" or "lack of bias" and turn into "I was only following orders?" Nope, you are extrapolating too far. What orders? Orders not to be biased? Orders to be neutral and unfavouring with any member of the public? You make it sound like a bad thing. HOW impartial should they be. Completely. You want them to be a little bit in favour of one thing or another from time to time? Show an agreement sometimes but not others? Who is to say what they should show agreement with, or are they allowed to show disagreement and then who is to say to what or which that is shown, sometimes? Doesn't that make it complicated? To which cause, when, not to this one but to that one etc. Isn't it best to be impartial to everything? Obviously not. Edited to say I'm off to bed and I have a busy day tomorrow. With a bit of luck Mrs M should have arrived in Germany from Zambia for the last time. We have many things to do so carry on without me.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 7, 2020 0:00:00 GMT
As I said, debating for debate's sake. I stand by what I said, every bit of it.
Glad Mrs. M will be back & hope that all is wrapped up with Zambia.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Jun 7, 2020 1:12:54 GMT
Example from #46
It was BECAUSE the police were painstakingly impartial and treated the foresters and the protesters with the same stern courtesy that the blockade was successful. There were media crews from all the world there. Protesters were living up in trees and some had chained bulldozers to large rocks but unless they were causing danger to others the police let them alone.
Conservation leaders from many countries came and spent time at the blockade...and paid their fine like anyone else. The 'touch on the arm' arrest prevented people from either side getting hurt in the forest/river environment.
(If anyone wants to see the story, google "The Franklin River Blockade" Parts|I and II each +/- 10 minutes long)
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 8, 2020 15:44:41 GMT
Unfortunately, this predates the arrival of the bunker bitch (the new name of agent orange apparently) in the White House, but it has the merit of being brought to light for the world to see.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 8, 2020 16:55:47 GMT
Angela Merkel recently got even more of my respect for calling what happened to George Floyd exactly what it was: murder. Yesterday I read an article citing how newspapers report these killings, most often as "died in police custody". So polite! It sounds as though the police escorted the suspect to the jailhouse, gave him the beverage of his choice, and then the ungrateful sucker had a heart attack or something. Obviously the reason for every "died in police custody" death is not as grotesquely obvious as that of George Floyd. It will be interesting to follow how the media achieves a balance between not editorializing in strict reporting, but also not being so utterly bland that lies by politicians, for instance, are presented as "mis-speaking". There is an article in today's NYTimes about the traditional way of presenting objectivity in news journalist coming up against the new generation of reporters. One of those reporters is Wesley Lowery, a Washington Post reporter who resigned from his job there months after the executive editor, Martin Baron, threatened to fire him for expressing his views on Twitter about race, journalism and other subjects.
Mr. Lowery’s view that news organizations’ “core value needs to be the truth, not the perception of objectivity,” as he told me, has been winning in a series of battles, many around how to cover race. Heated Twitter criticism helped to retire euphemisms like “racially charged.” The big outlets have gradually, awkwardly, given ground, using “racist” and “lie” more freely, especially when describing Mr. Trump’s behavior. The Times vowed to remake its Opinion section after Senator Tom Cotton’s Op-Ed article calling for the use of troops in American cities infuriated the newsroom last week. source
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 8, 2020 17:26:28 GMT
Certainly a horrendous figure. So how many were murdered by the police and how many died of other causes out of that figure? Which year is that anyway?
|
|