Printable View
Some here may not be aware of the march or applause(s)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram Pant
Purely my take on the various events:
18th minute applause - I will, in the round he was one of us
March - what for, seems very vague and prone to hijacking even if its origins were worthy, Ill make a point of approaching from the other direction
21st - 40th minute applause - as above, very vague and we struggle to chant (enough) as it is
Not sure what you mean by the duck theory
GP, I’ve said throughout that I accept we all make assumptions and generalisations. I certainly have since the ‘70’s when I’d have consciously avoided groups of ‘skinheads’. Nowadays I’d probably judge a group wearing red MAGA hats negatively and you, I know, make assumptions about people who are heavily tattooed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
Some of those assumptions are more well founded than others but all are based upon decisions about behaviour and appearance that individuals have made.
Personally I do not think it is remotely helpful to judge people according to the ethnic/racial group that individuals belong to. That seems to have been what happened in the Friargate incident and I find it sad that some people are still trying to make political capital out of something the police have long since clearly said was NOT terrorist related.
Fair response, all I can say is that I would add ethnicity etc to my profiling list WHERE RELEVANT. Eg of there was a terrorist attack somewhere I would consider it a relevant factor, as I would religion. Not saying everyone with those characteristics are guilty but the statistics suggests it's more likely than not.
On the other hand if there is no indication of terrorism in an offence when that profiling is inappropriate absent further evidence such as a witness description of the perp
I don’t think anyone has suggested otherwise and the recent attack on the Jewish ambulances in London was obviously a case in point, where the attack was always likely to have been racially (and - imo - stupidly) motivated by the actions of two deeply conflicted religions in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
That was never the case however in Friargate. Ethnicity wasn’t relevant and to jump to conclusions, simply because the driver happened to be of Asian appearance, was always unhelpful and, in many cases, racist.
But did anyone jump to that conclusion re Friargate??
RP closely followed by rA did on this thread, it was almost like one needed the other to help make a point about the issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
What a strange and inaccurate observation, RP's post quite clearly states he is remaining on the fence until further details are known, whilst RA merely agreed with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
Either you misinterpreted, or your parnoia is warping your judgement!
Well apparently lots of people did. That’s why the incident became such an issue and why the police had to clarify that terrorism wasn’t involved. Sorry you missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
As for AF’s observation. Just, not for the first time, genuinely peculiar. As Swale says, RP commented on the level of assumption, I agreed and AF promptly jumped in with his ‘there’s a reason for that’ comment which he’s been struggling to justify ever since.
It became 'such an issue' because 7 people nearly died! What planet are you on rA?Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
No they didn’t. That’s just Faber hyperbole in action again. It was doubtless an extremely unpleasant incident for all those involved but every report agrees and confirms that there were ‘no life threatening injuries’, hence no one ‘nearly died’.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
As has been said, and neither RP or I need each other to agree btw, we (including you) don’t know the facts so maybe just just stop pontificating in an effort to fuel what would increasingly appear to be your agenda.