Sports fixtures being cancelled in sympathy with BLM.

[avondalemiller]

...i saw somewhere that the new BBC drama based about Singapore has come in for some stick because it shows the old empire days.....

Switch it off then.........we have thousands of Mary Whitehouses' now.....

[millersrus]

I see the world of film luvvies are joining in the party with their 'conditions' that a film must meet to be worthy of the Best Film Oscar from 2025 including one of the lead or major supporting actor from an underrepresented minority. Needless to say, those criticising the move have already been labeled 'racist'.

Wonder if same would apply to any Bollywood submissions

[great_fire]

I see the world of film luvvies are joining in the party with their 'conditions' that a film must meet to be worthy of the Best Film Oscar from 2025 including one of the lead or major supporting actor from an underrepresented minority. Needless to say, those criticising the move have already been labeled 'racist'.

Black/ African American people are hardly underrepresented in Hollywood films either, so the whole thing seems dishonest.

[CAMiller]

Well the NFL returned here tonight with the opening game of the season and the reaction from the fans to the players pre-game protest, booing!

Yes, there were fans in the stadium at 22% capacity (about 16,000 of 70,000 seats filled). If Tony would have only extended NYS to a capacity of around 25,000 then all our season ticket holders could fit in

[KerrAvon]

Yes, I see the merit in stop checks.

However when something is open to abuse of power I like to think about what steps can be taken to prevent that.

If police have a reason to pull over a vehicle (poor driving, speeding, etc), that’s not what I would consider to be a stop check.

If the police are performing random stop checks it should be random by a predetermined neutral method. Maybe that they stop every x vehicles, or every x vehicles with a number plate there the first number listed is a ‘3’ or something that can’t be subject to subconscious bias.

IF they see a vehicle that gives them cause, then its fair game.

Even if they aren't being biased, the mere perception they are is harmful in itself and inhibiting their ability to do their job. Steps like this prevent these potential perceptions of injustice.

So I'll ask you, do you think the police can do a better job of stop checks without leaving themselves open to the perception of bias? If so, do you think it might be a good idea that they do?

You also ignored my question again... do you think stopping vehicles for no other reason than being from Yorkshire is a good reason? Would you be happy to have your time taken up with that as the justification? What if it happened very frequently? Daily? I'm not suggesting this happens, but would you have a threshold where being repeatedly and randomly inconvenienced in the name of 'public safety' strayed beyond what is acceptable?

You chose to 'have a word' when you found yourself stopped twice in the space of a week. Why did you feel the need to do that, did you not blindly trust that they had good reasons and you should comply indefinitely as a good obedient citizen?

I am unsure if you are joking here, but as you have not followed Raging’s helpful advice, will assume that you are aren’t.

Are you seriously suggesting that coppers out on patrol should have to have to sit filling out five bar gates to see to determine when its okay to pull a vehicle over? How do see that working in a single crewed vehicle? It’s going to be tricky for him or her to do that whilst driving, don‘t you think?

Seriously though, how do you think any of your observations helps? If it suits someone to cry ‘racism’ wouldn’t they simply accuse the officers of deliberately miscounting or having invented some other ‘cause‘ to justify the stop.

Taking away the discretion of officer’s to make stops hampers them from doing their job. That discretion can and should involve taking an interest in vehicles that look out of place.

If I were stopped on a daily basis, I would ask the police to explain and if they could not provide a compelling answer, would consider a complaint and ultimately legal action for harassment.

I had a word with the police because I suspected that an officer had seen a fairly serious villain in my car and put a ‘vehicle of interest’ marker on it. If I was right then that would mean that the police would be wasting their and my time. I would have thought that obvious. If the stops had continued I would have made a formal approach with a view to taking the steps described above. Under no circumstances would I have made very public and damaging allegations against individual officers without determining if they were true.

As I mentioned above, fettering the ability of officers to make stops will inevitably hamper their ability to combat crime. In the case of the likes of drink driving that will mean more people avoiding detection and a consequential increase in road deaths. That will mean more body bag jobs. I note your unhappiness that I contemplated making that point, but think is perfectly valid. Your (seemingly now abandoned) view that people should not be subject to random stops wold cost lives. It’s that simple.

I note your comments concerning your naivety. Surely that is something for other people to determine for themselves based upon your posts?

I don't know how I can make my position any clearer for you. My position is that those who attacked or injured those in question should be held accountable and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for their actions.

This is a rather surprising position you appear to have taken in holding some people accountable for the crimes commited by others. It creates a rather dangerous precendent and a slippery slope, and has dangerous implications for free speech don't you think? Who gets to decide what issues are allowed to be raised, do they need to put in a written request to KerrAvon so you can issue a decree permitting or denying the sharing of that view?

You have taken the subjective position that the police in this instance should not have their actions publically scrutinised for some niche hypothetical "just in case" scenario.

I’ve put up with some straw manning on this thread, but you have gone too far this time. I have stressed that I think the actions of police officers should be scrutinised and at no time have suggested that it shouldn’t happened here. Where we appear to differ is in the meaning of the word scrutiny and the method by which it should take place.

For you, scrutiny appears to mean ‘making very public allegations and then letting the internet based lynch mob do their thing’. For me, it means 'dispassionately considering all of the available the evidence and applying the rules of natural justice before reaching conclusions’.

Of course people can bear some responsibility for crimes committed by others. If someone were to post the names and addresses of every Labour Party member on the internet and a series of attacks from far right extremists followed, would you be okay with that? If someone petrol bombed your camper van as a consequence, would you stand by the burned out remains and feel no animus towards the person who handed out your address as they were only exercising free speech? As far as I am concerned, the exercise of free speech carries responsibility. It seems that we fundamentally disagree upon that point.

I love your double standards; your position seems to be that if the officers are attacked as a consequence of Butler’s actions it is only the fault of those who commit the attack, but it seems okay for the two officers to bear responsibly for the possible racist actions of other officers irrespective of whether they themslves hold such views and were motivated by them when they stopped Butler.

Probably not the best example from me since I was 4 at the time, but I felt I had read that the police had been feeding these stories to the newspaper.

I think you mean that is an inconvenient example for you? It shows what happens when you leave things to the lynch mob – sorry, court of public opinion - as opposed to adopting an evidence based and just approach.

Yes, some police officers fed the 'fans forced the gate' line to the press. It was untrue, just as Butlers' claim that she was racially profiled may be untrue.

It was the raise the issue of whether the police can be trusted to police themselves, which you blindly seem to be suggesting they can, whereas I feel the evidence shows reasons to be concerned that they might not?

Did you have an example of where the police have found themselves guilty of racial bias? You've dodged that one a few times.

A bit more straw manning.

Where have I suggested that the police should be trusted to police themselves? I have pointed out the desirability of scrutiny and the possibility of complaining within the police and of the existence of the IOPC. Hillsborough was examined within the Taylor Inquiry and the killing of Stephen Lawrence in the Macpherson Inquiry – both about as far as you can get from the police policing themselves as it is possible to get.

I feel that's a poor example.

A more accurate one would be that if I chose to work as a lifeguard for an organisation that had been subjected to accusations of antisemitism and then I yelled at a kid wearing a kippah"what are you doing" as they walked past. And when they said "nothing", and I said "good, you're doing nothing wrong, I just wanted to check you weren't planning on running, but I got you confused with the other kid wearing a kippah who looked like he was going to swim in the deep end. I am lifeguard for the shallow end so for some reason I felt justified in stopping him from walking too".

So you firstly ignore the question and then, when pressed, you criticise its structure as opposed to answering it.

No worries. I will answer it for you. You would hate being publicly accused of something that you were not guilty of (I’m willing to make that assumption). You would fear that people would believe it and that you might lose friends and employment prospects as a consequence. If you continued to work in a job that required you to have contact with Jewish people, you would worry about the treatment you might receive and even the possibility that you might suffer physical harm.

That is what Butler has exposed the officers to whether she was being racially profiled or not. That was grossly unfair and unjust.

[KerrAvon]

The individuals committing the crimes are responsible for their own actions. Unless you believe 'all Rotherham fans' are responsible for the actions of hooligans who get into a fight after a match?

So once again your position is that the individuals committingthe crimes are solely responsible for their actions, but its okay for individual police officers to be accused of racism and found guilty in your court of public opinion irrespective of whether they are guilty or not, because some police officers are racists.

Can you not see the double standard that you are applying?

[John2]

I'll respond to the rest in course, but first wanted to get your response to some of the missing bits...

Do you acknowledge there is evidence of institutional racism in the police?

Did you have an example of where the police have found themselves guilty of racial bias?

If no isolated incidents are 'fair game' and the benefit of the doubt should always be given and never publicised, and the police can't be trusted to police themselves... how does this issue ever get attention or addressed?

Are you aware that the doxing you describe is itself illegal?