|
Because I think ian tomlinson's death is a good example to use when challenging the belief that more police make us safer, whereas I was unconvinced that sarah everards was. But I'm not sure, and the arguments are compelling.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
If it helps, it's worth remembering that there's plenty of rapes and murders committed by the police where their attempts to cover it up have been far more successful, it's just that the perpetrator in this case was dumb enough to target someone who's white and not a sex worker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Because I think ian tomlinson's death is a good example to use when challenging the belief that more police make us safer, whereas I was unconvinced that sarah everards was. But I'm not sure, and the arguments are compelling. If Couzins or whatever is name is wasn't a cop he'd not have been able to flash a warrant card to get her in his card. If he wasn't a cop the Met wouldn't have given him time to delete his phone. If he wasn't a cop his previous indecent exposures wouldn't have been swept under the rug. The police responded to a vigil for the victim with a psychotic violence that they'd never show at a fascist parade. The police do not react well to scrutiny in the slightest, even a mild condemnation of one of their number being a rapist. The Everard and Tomlinson & de Menezes cases all show different reasons that ACAB is right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Knives are out for Keith if even the Grauniad is publishing a steady stream of "Labour in Disarray" opinion articles. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/keir-starmer-support-politician-national-mood Now we know: Keir Starmer won’t generate a surge of support Keir Starmer’s speech this afternoon was billed as his “make or break”, his “turnaround” moment, the biggest hour of his career. As if it would be the talk of the school gates, top of the agenda at every Wetherspoon’s. As if. In a week when there have been punch-ups on forecourts and soldiers readied to drive petrol tankers, a 90-minute soliloquy by any opposition politician is barely going to register in the public consciousness. That is perfectly natural; far more troubling is how little the public’s concerns impinged on the consciousness of anyone in the conference hall. The Labour leader rattled through a perfunctory list of the factors behind the giant cost-of-living squeeze – fuel bills, empty supermarket shelves, the imminent cut to universal credit – and blamed the lot on the government, while giving little indication of what he would do differently. Then he settled back into the well-worn patter of failing Labour leaders, from Gordon Brown to Jeremy Corbyn: conference, let me tell you who I am. Advertisement For their part, most delegates dutifully stood and applauded every couple of minutes, alternating with hecklers. It was a kind of pantomime, in which Starmer put in a decent performance in front of an audience visibly wishing him well. It should garner him kindly headlines, but it will be long forgotten by the time Boris Johnson opens his mouth next week in Manchester. “It will not take another election defeat for the Labour party to become an alternative government,” declared Starmer. Yet no one I’ve spoken to in his party – whether on its right wing or its left, whether MPs or advisers or council leaders – expects him to win the next election. “It is Schrödinger’s cat,” one of Labour’s most powerful local government bosses told me after watching his leader on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday. “He is asked about an election that he will never win, and refuses to disclose policies that he will never enact.” What we have seen in Brighton most of this week is not a Labour army preparing for almighty battle, for bloody noses and crack’d crowns. It is a party caught plotting, looking past its current leader and idly eyeing up possible replacements. “Make or break?” said one seasoned MP and a former frontbencher. “He’s already broken. He has been since losing Hartlepool, only just getting over the line in Batley and then getting buried in Amersham,” he said of the three spring byelections. Outside the conference hall Starmer is a loser, runs the argument, so he must be a goner. And on both wings of the party, they sigh: we never imagined he could be so bad at politics. Such pre-emptive obituaries of a politician only a year into the top job are rather too definite. The next few weeks could prove crucial in shaping our politics. Just after the benefit cuts and end of furlough comes what could be a tough budget and spending round. Given how close these events are and how profound they will prove, Starmer should have spent a lot more time addressing them. At a time when it’s as hard to score a gallon of diesel as it is to see your GP, and even friendly newspapers implore the prime minister to “prenez un Grip”, Johnson is by no means guaranteed his longed-for decade at Number 10. Nevertheless, it is now impossible to imagine his Labour counterpart ever commanding a surge of enthusiasm or interest, even from the ground troops who will eventually go door-knocking for him. The top seafront attractions this week have been a past leader, in Jeremy Corbyn, the deputy leader (Angela “scum” Rayner) and a would-be leader (Andy Burnham). The great ghost haunting Labour this week was that of a leader who left almost a decade and a half ago. Starmer now has Tony Blair’s speechwriter, one of his communications officials and his great consigliere, Peter Mandelson. The references to Blairism in Starmer’s speech got increasingly arch. “Education is so important I am tempted to say it three times!” ran one joke. For the Blairites, the secret to electoral success is to be seen to be antagonising your own party. Those advisers will have been rubbing their hands each time a heckler shouted about nurses’ pay. The observers who have wondered this week just why the leader is fussing about party rules rather than fuel bills, and attacking Corbyn not Johnson, miss the point – this is how Starmer’s team believes the electorate will be won over. It is what they call “doing a Kinnock”, a reference to Mandelson’s first boss in politics. Except it didn’t win any elections for Neil, and it won’t for Keir. Nobody has outlined the dangers of this strategy better than the late Stuart Hall. In his classic essay, The Crisis of Labourism, written in 1984 shortly after Neil Kinnock was elected Labour leader, Hall noted that the new man “shows little sign as yet of becoming a popular political force, as opposed to a (not very successful) electoral machine. Apart from the issue of the health service,[he] has shown little understanding of the need to confront the real basis of Thatcher populism in the country at large… [Kinnock] has no feel for the language and concerns of the new social movements, and that is dangerous.” Without that, warned Hall, Labour would ossify into mere bureaucracy. Swap Kinnock for Starmer and Thatcher for Johnson, and you have about as good a summary of our moment as any that will be published this week. The great paradox is that it is Old Etonian Johnson who sits atop a social movement. He has morphed the Tory party into the Brexit party, his regime feeds off the splenetic energy of talk radio, and his advisers know precisely which stories to feed the Telegraph’s desire for competitive victimhood. Never mind that this is a party funded by shadow bankers and trumpeted by media oligarchs, and whose core voter is a wealthy pensioner in the home counties; Johnson wants to build a hegemony that stretches up through the Midlands to the north-east, and whose chief identity is a post-Brexit, weaponised Englishness. He acts the tousle-haired insurgent. Starmer, by contrast, spends his days auditioning for the role of red-faced, purse-lipped manager, perennially disappointed in us, his ungrateful customers. “Labour is under new management,” he declared last summer. At times today, it felt as though we were sitting through the best speech ever delivered by the head of the Crown Prosecution Service. But a politician’s speech, reading the mood of the moment or weaving his own story into that of the country? Not that. Leave aside the obvious irony of the party of Labour bragging about its managerial “competence”, it is badly out of sync with both the realities and the rhetoric of the “gently caress business” era. Starmer rules out nationalisations; the Tory government takes over yet another rail firm. A Survation poll presented at Brighton shows that 69% of potential Labour voters agree that “the economy is rigged against ordinary people”, while 74% want more public ownership of assets. These voters would run a mile from anything termed “radical”, but in practice those are the policies they pick. The mood for what the LSE professor Jonathan Hopkin terms “anti-system politics” is still very much alive. Sadly it is being served by Johnson’s Tories, not Starmer’s Labour.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:07
|
|
|
And this is from succlib prime Rafael Behr of all people. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/28/labour-keir-starmer-replacement-opposition-leader Labour looks aimless because it’s already searching for Starmer’s replacement Anational fuel crisis coinciding with Labour’s annual conference was good and bad news for Keir Starmer. The bad news was that most of the country was too busy worrying about petrol supplies to notice what the opposition was doing in Brighton. Or maybe that was the good news. On balance, it helps when the Tories spectacularly fail at running the country. Flagrant uselessness in a government is a vital step towards persuading people to vote for a replacement. But it is not sufficient. The opposition has to look ready. Relegation from the top of the news agenda might, perversely, have done Starmer a favour. With a veil drawn over the proceedings, the public can still imagine that somewhere there is a Labour party chastened by successive defeats, united behind a leader with a plan for winning back trust and a talent for explaining what is broken in the country and how to fix it. That imaginative leap is made harder by exposure to the actual Labour party. A common gripe about Starmer this week has been a lack of initiative in response to the fuel farrago. A dynamic leader might have seized the moment, or at least seized 15 memorable seconds near the top of the 10 o’clock news. But seizure is not Starmer’s style. There was nothing spontaneous in the campaign that won him the Labour leadership last year. He trod a ponderous path to victory, avoiding traps and swerving positions to avoid offence against left and right. I went to work for Keir Starmer because he promised to unite the party. I regret it now Simon Fletcher Read more Methodical risk aversion has been ineffective so far against Boris Johnson. When Labour gets frustrated in its fight against the Tories, it defaults to fighting itself. The Corbynite left is incensed because Starmer promised continuity and is delivering rupture. Andy McDonald, the shadow minister for employment rights, resigned on Monday, accusing Starmer of reneging on a pledge to “maintain our commitment to socialist policies”. A charge, widely aired on the conference fringe, is that a Blairite cabal has captured Starmer’s office and is working its way through the mid-90s playbook to marginalise the left. But bafflement at the leader’s strategy is not confined to any faction. Plenty of Starmer’s supporters think it was perverse to kick off the conference with an attention-repelling public wrangle over internal party rules. The outcome was a win for Starmer on the most significant revisions. It will be harder for a radical left caucus to get a candidate on the ballot paper in future leadership contests and then re-enact the grassroots mobilisation that propelled Jeremy Corbyn to victory in 2015. But even MPs who support the changes (some of which protect them from what they see as vigilante ideological deselection by local activists) think the process was mishandled. There was, they say, insufficient strategic preparation for the battle, and poor communication of the goals. Rancour was maximised inside the conference hall, while the message of renewal and repudiation of Corbynism failed to reach a wider audience. There is something peculiar about a leader so new to the role stamping his authority on the process by which his successor will be chosen. Starmer is still a relatively fresh figure in the eyes of the country, yet here he is squandering limited political capital on an argument that draws attention to his best-before date. When Tony Blair rewrote clause IV of the Labour constitution, he was using an internal theological dispute to send a wider signal. He was advertising the party’s accommodation to the settled facts of a privatised economy. (The scale of that acquiescence is still disputed but no one doubts that the point got made.) Starmer seems to want symbolic distance from Corbynism without saying what the symbols represent in the real world. All might become clear on Wednesday when the leader delivers his keynote address. Even if he wows the conference hall and his winged rhetoric soars to the top of the evening bulletins, the party will be relieved but not reassured. The weakness that has been exposed in Brighton is not something that can be fixed with florid phrases (although a few of those wouldn’t go amiss). Nor is it a problem of ideology (although left and right think the solution is purging each other). The conference has been marked by a deficiency in political craft – working the party and media machinery with agility and guile, so that by the end of the day the talk is all about your chosen subject, on your preferred terms. Some have that skill intuitively; others learn it on the job or surround themselves with pros who handle it. But Starmer looks lonely at the top. His mandate from the membership is wide but shallow. He has no tribe. Many MPs support him, but not for what he believes or in the expectation that he can win an election. They see his function as a doorstop against the hard left. The job, although few say so openly, is to squat the leadership for long enough to drive through structural changes that will benefit the next generation of candidates, who can get organised in the meantime. That calculation reflects brutal political arithmetic. Overturning Johnson’s 80-seat majority in one go requires a seismic electoral event of epoch-shaping magnitude. Such quakes cannot be summoned from the earth by wishful thinking. The likeliest scenario at the next election is an erosion of the Tory position, giving Labour a better shot at Downing Street for the election after. That is the real reason why the conference has felt detached from the daily news. The leader might think he is treading the road to government, but he is surrounded by people mapping routes for his replacement. The slow-motion contest is well under way. Any Labour figure with a high profile, or even a low one, is presumed to be a candidate: Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, David Lammy, Wes Streeting, Andy Burnham (always), Yvette Cooper (again). The roster changes. Names rise and fall in the speculative race – painted wooden horses on a rumour carousel spinning jauntily on the Brighton beachfront, with a queasy-looking Starmer carried along for the ride. And all that the public hears is the repetitive strains of the hurdy-gurdy, reminding them of a faded attraction, somewhere off in the distance, going round in circles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:08
|
|
|
Sanford posted:All joking aside if anyone has a job that involves sitting in the same place all day a jar with a bit of moss and some fancy woodlice scrumbling about will brighten your day no end. I am kind of interested in some of the red and black ones - how big a jar do they need, and do you just give them bits of rotten wood or plant based kitchen waste to eat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
ContinuityNewTimes posted:Please don't kill your woodlice, they don't spread disease or damage structures, they just like a nice cool damp place to chill  And you can get fancy cockroaches too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:31
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Starmering continues at pace It feels like the point of talking to them was so to provide an anecdote about having talked to them, rather than to actually listen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
I mean that's the only reason politicians talk to people ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
Like whoever that Labour SWERF who "talked to sex workers but also talked to some people who agreed with me already and so I disagree"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean that's the only reason politicians talk to people ever. Except for that one guy. What was his name?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:53
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:Because I think ian tomlinson's death is a good example to use when challenging the belief that more police make us safer, whereas I was unconvinced that sarah everards was. But I'm not sure, and the arguments are compelling. Yeah I understand what you mean - there *is* a difference between a murder which is dismissed as "just doing their job" [1] and a police officer who uses their position to abuse and kill, and the solutions are different for them (although obviously the solution for neither is "More cops with less red tape!"). Of course the solution to the problems also isn't "Just have less cops" because all that happens then is the people who stay in are more likely to be abusers, not less. [1] Likewise there's a difference between Tomlinson's death and, say, Jean-Charles de Menezes' death even if the underlying issue is an institutional disregard for life - it's perfectly possible for a theoretically reformed force to allow one to happen but not the other, because Tomlinson ultimately died because of a cop *not* following use-of-force rules and de Menezes died because a cop *did* follow them. Both represent a rot in the institution but it's a different kind of rot and explains why basing reform around a single case is always dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
domhal posted:Except for that one guy. What was his name? Can't remember, probably a wrongun though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:05
|
|
|
domhal posted:It feels like the point of talking to them was so to provide an anecdote about having talked to them, rather than to actually listen. Why even talk to them then, why not just wholesale fabricate 'I met a woman in Darlington, and she told me...' style anecdotes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:If Couzins or whatever is name is wasn't a cop he'd not have been able to flash a warrant card to get her in his card. If he wasn't a cop the Met wouldn't have given him time to delete his phone. If he wasn't a cop his previous indecent exposures wouldn't have been swept under the rug. Would you know how to spot a fake warrent card? Or would you just trust that they are legitimate? Even his membership of the police wasn't nessacery for the physical act of the murder, it's not like it was done in a marked patrol car. His membership of the police was important for the reaction afterwards, but the murder itself only required audacity. Society functions under a illusion of safety - that things like this Don't Happen, therefore they Can't Happen, therefore you are Safe. That's what makes this case so scary, it reminds people that there is nothing stopping someone kidnapping you off the street beyond our shared belief that things like that aren't possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
Because while they don't actually want to listen to what people are saying, part of their image, and I think self image too, is to appear as if they do. I think some of them genuinely believe that going and talking to people (preferrably curated people who will agree with you but in a pinch anyone will do) and then doing whatever you wanted to do beforehand anyway is "listening to the public". I think it's part of the lovely centrist politician philosophy, they are surrounded by people who think that that is an important thing to do and they think that too, and they generate this endless stream of pictures of them talking at people to put on election flyers, or in keith's case pictures of him lurking in the background of other people's existence like a business casual flasher. Either way I do think that they are not quite at the level, either institutionally or possibly personally, where they just go "who cares what anyone else thinks I am just doing whatever". It has to be filtered through this process where they talk to people and then ignore them, but phrase it to themselves and others as "well I have listened and this is what I have decided" I really think it's just one of those stupid politics rules people follow because tha'ts How It Is Done and nobody is institutionally capable of pointing out that it's a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:17
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Would you know how to spot a fake warrent card? Or would you just trust that they are legitimate? Even his membership of the police wasn't nessacery for the physical act of the murder, it's not like it was done in a marked patrol car. His membership of the police was important for the reaction afterwards, but the murder itself only required audacity. I would probably suggest that there is a very reasonable possibilty that because he was a known creep and used his police power to get away with it, that probably had a bearing on him feeling like he would get away with killing her. Like I don't buy that there is no correlation whatsoever between his job being to threaten people and beat them up and order people around all the time and him being the sort of person who thinks he can just rape and murder people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:26
|
|
|
Suppose we're going to need to keep up the homeworking then. https://twitter.com/Glasgow_Times/status/1443475700808249344
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
Fondly remembering the 2010 debates and every answer Cameron gave being preceded with 'i recently spoke to a 74 year old black man/one-legged sheet metal worker from Sheffield/Elvis impersonator and they told me that...'
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
Lmao https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1443460194374148097?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
it's the UK version of "number go up"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:03
|
|
|
bumbahole go up
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:13
|
|
|
domhal posted:Except for that one guy. What was his name? Peter Mandelson? forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Sep 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:34
|
|
|
Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
Lady Demelza posted:That agreement of some kind is what we opted to leave. The only reason that Leave pooh-poohed the time and expensive of trade was because they either didn't understand, or believed that EU countries were so desperate for our imports that they would waive all the rules. Which has always been the undercurrent of UK politicians public attitude towards the EU and how the whole Brexit disaster was created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:52
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Peter Mandelson? Peter was only talking to that person because he didn't know which belt looked better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I've always wondered why there's a metal polish called Brasso and a drain cleaner called Drano, but no washing up liquid called Plato. Already named not loving after him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 09:57
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" So, you just post this in every single thread or what? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong but
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
hahahaha... I needed this https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1443487482209882112?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:hahahaha... I needed this Lol please let there be pictures/video
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:07
|
|
|
You're not supposed to park on the roundabout nigel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:09
|
|
|
The CCTV and on-car footage showing the lead up to the murder of Everard is really chilling. The fake arrest being performed so blatantly in public with Couzens using his own car and making very little effort to not be trackable to me implies that he expected it to be covered up by the police. It also then begs the question of has something like this happened previously, with Couzens or others. I'd be willing to wager that his nickname of "the rapist" is because he has raped women previously and not just because he makes people uncomfortable in the office. There are clearly deeply criminal elements of the Met and they are this very second covering up serious crimes like this one to protect their own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
Wizard Master posted:Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" Looked that up on Wikipedia..... and it made me feel happy to understand it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/brokenbottleboy/status/1443250884360773637?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:hahahaha... I needed this Wonder what Farage's solution to this crisis would be, probably say we need to leave the U.N.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:29
|
|
|
How many other police officers are convicted criminals? Would it be wrong to suggest that convicted criminals should be automatically fired from their jobs as police officers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:30
|
|
|
Got NieR:AutomataTM half-price on Steam at the moment. Bit good, innit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:41
|
|
|
bessantj posted:Wonder what Farage's solution to this crisis would be, probably say we need to leave the U.N. AFAIK it's "remove red tape", i.e. allow anyone on a provisional to haul 40 tons of flammable liquid around with no restrictions on hours worked etc. so the poor overworked haulage company owners don't have to actually pay a driver what they're worth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Dead Goon posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 10:47
|
|
