Players taking the knee

Short answer: When presented like that, as bullet points with no explanation, yes, all of them, as they are any or all of vague, misguided, and downright dangerous to society.

(Very) Long boring answer:

• An end to prison and police expansion.

If we continue to rely on prisons to punish criminality, then we need suitable places to house the criminals. And if crime rates do not drop, then... That said, in cases where a warning or a fine or a suspended sentence are insufficient punishment, many "criminals" would be better served by sentences of house arrest and/or community service. Those who are truly incorrigible, or are threats to other people -- indeed lock them away.

If defunding police would mean lessening the bureacracy and bureacrats that bedevil just about every organisation nowadays, then sure. But I fear that the result would be continued cutbacks of the people who do the real work. And some equipment indeed seems like overkill, but if it is coming as military surplus, at reduced rates, then perhaps the money is being well-spent. Also, some equipment may be like the tools I have for car- or reno-work: only needed once in a blue moon, but vital when that moon comes.

• Immediate dismissal of any police officer who is discriminatory, corrupt or uses excessive force.

Add in the words "convicted of", and I'll agree in the cases of corruption and violence. Discrimination is an altogether different matter, which needs to take in the overall context. If, as the bobby on the beat, you know that people of type X -- use whatever characteristic you wish for X -- make up most of the criminals in your patch, then would it be unreasonable, or discriminatory, of you to be more leery of type-X people than others? It is, though, a fine line that you have to walk.

• An end to police surveillance and data-collection technologies (e.g. facial recognition and digital comms monitoring).

And allow criminals to make their plans and communicate with each other freely? In most cases, however, it should only be done after permission from a suitable authority has been obtained. Rather like the old-fashioned wiretap. And even if the police weren't to do it, one can be sure the national intelligence agencies will be.

• An end to ‘Prevent’, the ‘war on terror’ and the surveillance and criminalisation of Muslim communities.

Nope. Those who wish to injure our societies and citizens need to be stopped. At the moment, a certain subgroup of Muslims is a major problem -- but that same group is equally a major problem to the Muslims themselves. Consider how many have been killed, wounded, oppressed in their own lands by this group. It is in all of our interests that this group is eliminated, wherever it and its supporters may be found.

• An end to the incarceration of children, including in so-called ‘secure schools’.

Define "children" first of all. It may sound rather Biblical, but evil does exist, and some people are born that way. What to do about them? I certainly don't know. In the old days, a stint in the Forces would set a lot of just slightly-bent people straight, but now that method mighn't be available.

• An end to the gangs databases, gang injunctions and joint enterprise doctrine.

Nope. Another subgroup of society that needs to be eliminated. But that will require a revision of society itself, so that the gang lifestyle is no longer seen as an attractive option for people.

• An end to the arming of police (e.g. tasers, spithoods and firearms).

So only the criminals will have weapons? If one could trust them not to use their weapons against the police, then maybe. But this is an incredibly naive position to take.

I could write more on each point, but this is long enough as it is! Back to mudding and taping.

RCB

 

I haven’t read the whole thing in depth much, but i do think the framing of how prisons work is wrong.

There are many factors that contribute to being a criminal. To punish them is a mistake. To rehabilitate yes.

obviously if someone cant be rehabilitated they will stay in prison but will be released and reoffend. This is what happens currently anyway.

Like drugs of any sort should not be a criminal offence. If they were nationalised and given out on prescription (with recommendations from GPs such as to treat addiction (in some cases going cold turkey on strong narcotics can kill them.))

And also i do wonder if they have kept that from the US where it is profitable to send someone to prison. I do not think it is profitable to send people to prison here and it shouldn’t be.

 

But 'you lot' implies a different connotation. Imagine if i used the term 'you lot' when describing an act of criminality by a black guy, for instance when there is a stabbing in London. 'Its typical of them lot.' Sounds quite disparaging and would be jumped on as a racist stereotype. My mum is 80, she uses the word 'coloured' when describing black people. Would it be described as offemsive? Some would take offence but then thats the world we live in. Is my mum racist? Well shes used what could be described by some as a racial slur. Put into context, shes an 80 year old woman whos never so much as hard a parking ticket. If the term chinky offends when used as going for a takeaway i'd suggest ones priorities in life are somewhat skewed. Theres worse things in life to be offended about.

 

Some of this i do agree with. Drugs laws are not fit for purpose in this country and yes, the prison system in the US is a licence to print money. So too it is over here, the criminal justice system keeps a lot of people in a decent lifestyle of luxury, the only people who lose out to the system are the victims. One part i'm not sure about is punishment and rehabilitation. Having being on the recieving end of crime a few times with not so much as a reply from a police officer my thoughts regarding no punishment is somewhat lacking. They say crime doesn't pay, but thats only true for the victim.

 

This kind of shows where we're at with racism in the UK.

If you look at it with a wider viewpoint it shows how we're generally tinkering around the edges when judged on the global scale.

If the Chinese are offended by what the English shorten their takeaway name to while their government apparently ethnically cleanses thousands of Uyghurs indicates that the focus might be in the wrong areas.

And for the record I don't think I've said either of the things you've claimed are common practice behind closed doors in the last 20 years. Maybe I'm not part of "you all"?

 

I'm thinking of reporting my old mum for her use of coloured, the daft old racist.

 

Wonder why ( Especially during a cricket match ) when we call Australians " Aussies " and they call us " Poms ", the world isn't in uproar.

 

Are you literally trying to justify racism of billions because of the actions of a government?

and when did i say “you lot”? You seem to have a knack for putting words in mouths.

 

I think you need to go back and read what you have written. As for racism of billions, i think this thread is ruuning its course now.

 

Wow. Really? So why dont you go around calling people P*** or N-word? Go on fella. You wont.

as a clue for you, no one has called me a P*** in a nice way. When people spray painted “go home P***” on my drive they weren’t excited for me to come back from holiday were they?

That was an embarrassing statement that.

 

You didn't, you said "you all" is that better? I will change it.

I didn't justify racism in the slightest. Just pointed out there is a range of racism in the world and when it comes to the Chinese examples given there I think we can agree which end is which.

 

So because it exists out there already we shouldn't do anything?
Thats not my view on the world. I am trying to leave it in a better state then i found it.

 

[

Who's putting words in whose mouth now?

Nope, didn't say we shouldn't do anything about it. Just pointing out there is a range of "badness".

 

Also @JudgeMental to educate you further. The word P*** actually came about from “P*** bashing” when yobs would beat up asians in the 60s and 70s hence the negative and offensive connotation.

 

But whats that got to do with racism in the UK?

 

Is reading an issue?

It was to demonstrate that on a global scale the UK is generally at the lesser end.

 

I never said “you lot”. And he started going on about Chinese policy with muslims when i was taking about racist words for Chinese people.

 

Right but I'm on about racism here. I want it to be reduced if not none existent here.

i never said where is the UK in terms of racism compared to other countries.

 

Also thank you for the insult please keep it civil.

 

Yeah, we've got global wars, a pandemic where hundreds of thousands have died and a culture of knife crime to name but three, but the chinese nation are incensed because Dave from Bradford has used the term 'chinky to describe his local takeaway. First world problems eh?