Off Topic Politics Thread

[----HistoryRepeating----]

When someone uses a firearm to defend their property as happened with Anthony Martin twenty years ago, it is a talking point because to shoot someone is not the natural reaction to a burglary
------------------------------

Being continuously broken into by scum bags made Tony very paranoid. He would often sit on his staircase at night listening to creaking sounds while holding his gun. An illness had taken hold of him. Then one fateful night they returned, he waited while pointing his weapon at the sound of disturbance, and then fired. To be scared into a paranoid state, and forced to defend his home from constant attack, I'd say he had no case to answer. I only hope he has found solace since those dreadful days of trial by media.

 

[Schad]

When someone uses a firearm to defend their property as happened with Anthony Martin twenty years ago, it is a talking point because to shoot someone is not the natural reaction to a burglary
------------------------------

Being continuously broken into by scum bags made Tony very paranoid. He would often sit on his staircase at night listening to creaking sounds while holding his gun. An illness had taken hold of him. Then one fateful night they returned, he waited while pointing his weapon at the sound of disturbance, and then fired. To be scared into a paranoid state, and forced to defend his home from constant attack, I'd say he had no case to answer. I only hope he has found solace since those dreadful days of trial by media.

If their home had been broken into, under the castle doctrine, they would have been justified in the use of lethal force.

You do not get to threaten to do so before such an event has occurred, however. Passersby are not judged to be potential burglars until proven otherwise. Threatening people with a firearm when they have not demonstrated any intent to cause you harm is a crime. If we're going to compare notes here, trespass without damage will typically -- for a first offense -- result in the police informing you not to trespass again, after which you will face criminal sanction (usually a misdemeanor). Brandishing a weapon is a felony.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Nah, there's way to do things, and that is not one of them.

There has been a concerted campaign to remove Colston’s statue in Bristol for decades. Every attempt to negotiate even a compromise position met with deaf ears. Please suggest what else could have been done, short of a non-violent direct action.

 

[----HistoryRepeating----]

This is how you remove a statue.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Edward Coulson was a merchant, a philanthropist. He owned ships, the ships carried slaves, his primary concern was not the slave trade. And even if it was, where do we draw the line? How long before they march on the Palace, because I'll tell you a cold truth, the crown made a lot of money like everyone else at that time from the unsavoury slave trade.
Lets stop destroying, and start educating. The statue is more powerful on display where people can learn from it.

Edward Colston, on the other hand, was a major shareholder for 12 years in the Royal African Company, which shipped more African slaves (around 212,000) to the Americas than any other institution in the entire history of the Atlantic slave trade. Some 44,000 RAC slaves died in transit. Colston served as Deputy Governor of the RAC for a 2 year period. To suggest that his fortune, from which his philanthropy was funded, did not derive primarily from slavery is preposterous. But you are correct about the Crown‘s connection with the RAC, Charles II, his son James II, and his successor William of Orange all made vast fortunes from slavery. I entirely agree that Britain’s history, warts and all, needs to be taught in schools.

The campaigners who wanted Colston’s statue removed wanted it placed in one of Bristol‘s museums, where, as you suggest, it could be used to educate people and contextualise Britain’s connection with slavery. The mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees plans to salvage the statue and do just that.

 

[Schad]

Further to the police commitment to the common good: a bunch of right-wing nuts showed up to a protest in Philadelphia. Armed with golf clubs and baseball bats. They threatened protesters, they beat a journalist badly enough that he had to go to hospital.

The police treated them as allies and took photos with them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/04/philadelphia-armed-white-men-george-floyd-protests

 

[Ian Thumwood]

There has been a concerted campaign to remove Colston’s statue in Bristol for decades. Every attempt to negotiate even a compromise position met with deaf ears. Please suggest what else could have been done, short of a non-violent direct action.

I am fascinated by this concept of taking statues down because it is so much in keeping with what has happened throughout history. When Boudicca ransacked Colchester in 60AD, the statue of Claudius was immediately targeted. Throughout the Roman Empire, you can find hundreds of examples where statues have been removed , had new heads stuck on or even reincorporated in to other buildings.

The statues currently under debate are generally 19th century and I do feel a little sad that social and political history is being removed whilst understanding that these things do have a limited shelf life as the context no longer reflects the morals of the age or because the circumstances of their installation are lost to history. I remember having the same conversation with an Irish work colleague regarding the statues around the plinth of Nelson's Column as he had questioned who General Napier was when it was suggested that this stature should have been removed, You can see two sides of the story as Napier was an "imperialist" but he was also involved in a military operation that embarked from India for the East coast of Africa to rescue hostages who had been held captive . This was one of the first times that an amphibious assault had been carried out and you can see it as a precursor to D-Day 100 years later. I also think that a lot of the soldiers he used were actually Indian and not English. When I looked in to what Napier had achieved, it was an incredible expedition and clearly directed against some particularly unpleasant characters. As a feat of logistics, it was an incredible achievement whilst having little significance to anything in 2020. How would you decide whether this statue should be taken down or remain?

The Coulson statute is actually more clear cut. It was erected in the early 20th century and commemorates someone who may have been philanthropic but was a slave owner. Not a life necessarily worth celebrating and the statue was of now artistic value. I cannot understand the fuss. Throwing the statue in the river is itself something historians will remark upon in the future. The event is more important for what it represents than the statue itself. If you like, the BLM action has added historical value to this statue. They alone have made this statue significant and changed it's meaning completely. The people who threw it in the river are not vandals but people doing this to show what we value and wish to celebrate in life has changed, They have become historically significant.

I think that you should make a distinction with monuments which are near- contemporary with the circumstances or people they celebrate. Where it is part of our political and social history and of genuine significant, I would be disappointed to see things destroyed. There are some monuments in the public park in Portsmouth which fascinate me and explain long forgotten campaigns in places like China in the 1800s. I would not wish to see these removed and no one would then know about these incidents. I do not think there is anything quite as unpleasant as the confederate soldiers celebrated in the Southern US although I do recognise that the likes of Winston Churchill are hugely problematic and diversive. The Churchill statue was erected in 1972 and is relatively new . He was a controversial figure in his time and remains even more so now , if you know your history. I understand why some want to remove his statue (I believe it should be replaced by Aneurin Bevin) and also appreciate why others feel Churchill is worthy of celebration. I am sure that Churchill's reputation will be drastically diminished in the future and people start to understand that he was effectively a minor figure in the defeat of the Nazis. (80% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front and I think people probably need to appreciate that the campaign on the Western Front was effectively a side show to what ultimately brought down Hitler despite Stalin's best efforts to send his own army to destruction.)

In cases like Trajan's Column, it is important to recognise that we would know little about his Dacian campaign without this structure. I would vociferously argue that monuments which add to our historical understanding are important. This is why I feel the Coulson stature should be moved to a museum where a more rounded review of his life could be appreciated. I am less happy about the removal of some other figures . Nelson was mooted a few weeks back yet I do wonder if people genuinely understand his importance - probably the greatest ever Naval commander. I think our perception of people does change through time yet we need to be judgemental before electing which statues need to come down.

 

[Schad]

The statues currently under debate are generally 19th century

In the US, this is actually incorrect. Most of the statues of Confederate figures were erected in the 20th century. Because they were not erected to memorialize the Confederacy, but rather as a continuing signal under Jim Crow to minority populations that this wasn't a place for them.

The government of Tennessee installed a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Capitol in the 1970s. Forrest was a war criminal (he oversaw the massacre of surrendering Union troops, most of them black, during the Battle of Fort Pillow) during the Civil War, and he was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Those qualifications are not incidental.

 

[Osvaldorama]

You must log in or register to see images

Sure looks peaceful!

Schad, if a massive group of people smashed into your house, you wouldn't want to defend it?

Im sorry, but anyone defending this behaviour is harming society alnost as much as right wing idiots.

You cant condone breaking into people's homes, no matter the cause. At the end of the day, we humans in the western world have built a society that is worth protecting, and many people will want to protect themselves.

We need to stamp out all racial inequality, but we also need the radical left to stop living in a communist fairy world and smashing places up. This sort of thing will only polarise people more.

 

[Schad]

You must log in or register to see images

Sure looks peaceful!

Schad, if a massive group of people smashed into your house, you wouldn't want to defend it?

Im sorry, but anyone defending this behaviour is harming society alnost as much as right wing idiots.

You cant condone breaking into people's homes, no matter the cause. At the end of the day, we humans in the western world have built a society that is worth protecting, and many people will want to protect themselves.

We need to stamp out all racial inequality, but we also need the radical left to stop living in a communist fairy world and smashing places up. This sort of thing will only polarise people more.

That's funny, the gate was intact (and open) when the protesters were going through it:

You must log in or register to see media

Of course, the people who brandished weapons at a crowd would have no reason to lie about the protesters' actions.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

“And you expect this crooked bunch of charlatans and liars to actually do what they say?”

No I don’t, which is why I posted it, as it has most of their lies in one easy to read list.
The left side of Labour need to pipe down a bit and keep the infighting until labour have gained control, or in-house, otherwise they will just undermine Starmer’s chances.

[HASHTAG]#Pragmatism[/HASHTAG]

 

[Schad]

On "few bad apples" versus "systemic problem", would it shift anyone's opinion if, I dunno, the federal government had launched multiple investigations of police forces that concluded that they routinely used excessive force, targeted minority populations, and violated the civil rights of the civilian population? And that the police departments signed agreements to allow federal oversight of their actions to prevent it from happening again? Because that has happened. Here's the complaint against the Cleveland Police Department, which doesn't really mince words:

https://www.justice.gov/file/441406/download

The investigation found that CDP, through its acts or omissions, engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force. DOJ also identified that CDP’s stops, searches, and seizures often violate the Fourth Amendment. DOJ found that Defendant’s systemic deficiencies and acts or omissions caused this pattern or practice of unconstitutional and unlawful conduct.

[...]Defendant and its agents, including CDP, through their acts or omissions, engage in a pattern or practice of using unreasonable force against persons in Cleveland. Many times these persons pose little or no threat of harm to the officers, themselves, or others. This pattern or practice of unreasonable force includes the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; the unnecessary, excessive, or retaliatory use of less lethal force, including electronic control weapons, chemical spray, and fists; excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called only for assistance; and the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable and places officers and civilians at unnecessary risk. These uses of force are objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Defendant and its agents, including CDP, through their acts or omissions, also appear to engage in a pattern or practice of unlawfully stopping, searching and arresting persons in Cleveland. These stops, searches, and seizures are objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

That's one of many consent decrees that the Obama administration entered into with police forces that were judged by the Department of Justice to be out of control. The Trump administration tore them up. This is not a few bad cops. Policing in the United States is fundamentally broken. While police in other modern countries have problems, none of them bear much resemblance to police in the US.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

On "few bad apples" versus "systemic problem", would it shift anyone's opinion if, I dunno, the federal government had launched multiple investigations of police forces that concluded that they routinely used excessive force, targeted minority populations, and violated the civil rights of the civilian population? And that the police departments signed agreements to allow federal oversight of their actions to prevent it from happening again? Because that has happened. Here's the complaint against the Cleveland Police Department, which doesn't really mince words:

https://www.justice.gov/file/441406/download

That's one of many consent decrees that the Obama administration entered into with police forces that were judged by the Department of Justice to be out of control. The Trump administration tore them up. This is not a few bad cops. Policing in the United States is fundamentally broken. While police in other modern countries have problems, none of them bear much resemblance to police in the US.

Ive only liked the last few posts you’ve made in this thread, but please take this a LIKE to all of them

I might suggest that Gated Communities are an elite variation of the US issue of White Privilege, Paranoia and Firearms

 

[Archers Road]

There’s a few gated communities in London. I found that out when working as a delivery driver in West London. I found them really ****ing annoying, and utterly unnecessary. I’m trying to deliver something to you that you’ve ordered, but I have to get past your security gates first? How about bollocks, who do you think you are?

 

[San Tejón]

Yay, a new Johnson slogan.
Build, Build, Build.
I expect we will hear this unceasingly from Tory MPs, as they try to avoid answering questions on a variety of things.

 

[Osvaldorama]

On "few bad apples" versus "systemic problem", would it shift anyone's opinion if, I dunno, the federal government had launched multiple investigations of police forces that concluded that they routinely used excessive force, targeted minority populations, and violated the civil rights of the civilian population? And that the police departments signed agreements to allow federal oversight of their actions to prevent it from happening again? Because that has happened. Here's the complaint against the Cleveland Police Department, which doesn't really mince words:

https://www.justice.gov/file/441406/download



That's one of many consent decrees that the Obama administration entered into with police forces that were judged by the Department of Justice to be out of control. The Trump administration tore them up. This is not a few bad cops. Policing in the United States is fundamentally broken. While police in other modern countries have problems, none of them bear much resemblance to police in the US.

The systemic problems have nothing to do with this issue though. This is two people feeling very scared of a load of people trespassing on their property.

But on to your point; in the whole of america, how many blacks were killed by white cops last year.... Drum roll.... Eleven.

Look, I am for Black Lives Matter, in politics I lean to the left, and I believe there is a racism issue in America. This needs to be looked into with as much urgency as possible.

BUT defending property and property rights is literally the foundation of society. You cant ignore the laws and threaten innocent people in their homes, or you are worse than the cops youre protesting about.

And to suggest people dont have a right to defend their property is starting down the path toward communism, and communism killed way more people than facism in the last century.

So what I'm saying is we have to be very careful to look at all the facts, instead of judging each situation with RAGING EMOTIONS.

The truth, is that the majority of humans of ALL backgrounds are good people, that care about each other. Unfortunately everyone is too busy trying to score points and use every situation to cancel everyone else.

 

[tiggermaster]

Yay, a new Johnson slogan.
Build, Build, Build.
I expect we will hear this unceasingly from Tory MPs, as they try to avoid answering questions on a variety of things.

We used to use this slogan 50 odd years ago when we got back to somebody's house/flat after a night out...

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Unless a miracle happens, in a few hours Britain will have missed the chance to request an extension to the Brexit transition period, so that means that in exactly 6 months we will be out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, possibly without a trade deal with the EU.

Whether or not we have a trade deal, the difficulties for both exporters and importers of the vast amount of goods we trade with the EU will be enormous. This thread reader shows a series of slides from HMRC detailing the hoops that, for example, every single lorry driver crossing the Channel in either direction will have to jump through:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1277716723702120448.html

Absolute madness.

 

[AberdeenSaint]

When someone uses a firearm to defend their property as happened with Anthony Martin twenty years ago, it is a talking point because to shoot someone is not the natural reaction to a burglary
------------------------------

Being continuously broken into by scum bags made Tony very paranoid. He would often sit on his staircase at night listening to creaking sounds while holding his gun. An illness had taken hold of him. Then one fateful night they returned, he waited while pointing his weapon at the sound of disturbance, and then fired. To be scared into a paranoid state, and forced to defend his home from constant attack, I'd say he had no case to answer. I only hope he has found solace since those dreadful days of trial by media.

Reminds me of a 28 year old bloke from Aberdeen who was in Houston on business in 1994 - he got a bit lost in the suburbs after a night out, and knocked on someone`s door for assistance. He was shot dead through the door as a suspected intruder. No repercussions for the householder.

 

[Archers Road]

The systemic problems have nothing to do with this issue though. This is two people feeling very scared of a load of people trespassing on their property.

But on to your point; in the whole of america, how many blacks were killed by white cops last year.... Drum roll.... Eleven.

Look, I am for Black Lives Matter, in politics I lean to the left, and I believe there is a racism issue in America. This needs to be looked into with as much urgency as possible.

BUT defending property and property rights is literally the foundation of society. You cant ignore the laws and threaten innocent people in their homes, or you are worse than the cops youre protesting about.

And to suggest people dont have a right to defend their property is starting down the path toward communism, and communism killed way more people than facism in the last century.

So what I'm saying is we have to be very careful to look at all the facts, instead of judging each situation with RAGING EMOTIONS.

The truth, is that the majority of humans of ALL backgrounds are good people, that care about each other. Unfortunately everyone is too busy trying to score points and use every situation to cancel everyone else.

Think you might want to revisit those stats...


https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/