Re-examining and learning from history

[Weston Super Saint]

27 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Could there be other reasons for a higher black prison population do you think beyond simply discrimination and racism? 

Ssshhhh!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53165938 

Quote

"I ran from the police because I had a small amount of cannabis in my possession for personal use - and I had fresh in my mind the memory of a similar encounter with TSG [Territorial Support Group] officers only the previous day when I was mistreated, arrested and charged for possession of a similar amount of cannabis."

He said he believed he was targeted by police because he is black.

"I know that I would not have been the subject of police attention, on either day, if I had not been a young black man," he added in the statement.

Not sure I agree with the sentiment here that 'white' criminals are free to roam their respective cities in possession of illegal drugs.  There seem to be a number of allegations against the police which will presumably be investigated thoroughly and lead to the appropriate actions being taken...

[Lighthouse]

Hmmmm that’s dodgy if you ask me. Being sacked for something which was nothing to do with his employer, in his own time. He hasn’t ACTUALLY said anything racist, just been a bit of a knob. You can’t have a whole country saying, "BLM," and sack someone for saying, "WLM". It’s just not right, whatever you believe his motivation to be. That’s a pretty concerning step into the abyss as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Like sacking someone for voting UKIP, because even though they’re a legitimate party we, "sort of know they’re a bit racist."

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think he can have many complaints. He must have known the score when he did it. 

We’re sacking people for what we think they meant by words, rather than the actual words written. 

I’ve posted earlier, the blokes clearly a halfwit, but if we sacked people for being half wits, we’d have 5 million unemployed. It’s sinister. 

Would he have been sacked if he said Disabled lives matter, what about Muslim lives matter, or brown lives matter. If he’d flown a banner over the Labour Party conference with a Jewish lives matter banner, would he have lost his job. Of course not, only stating white lives matter gets you the sack in England 2020. Think about that.
 

How on Earth is this going to help race relations in poor working class white areas? 

Edited 24 June, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Hmmmm that’s dodgy if you ask me. Being sacked for something which was nothing to do with his employer, in his own time. He hasn’t ACTUALLY said anything racist, just been a bit of a knob. You can’t have a whole country saying, "BLM," and sack someone for saying, "WLM". It’s just not right, whatever you believe his motivation to be. That’s a pretty concerning step into the abyss as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Like sacking someone for voting UKIP, because even though they’re a legitimate party we, "sort of know they’re a bit racist."

Again, depends how long he has been employed.  Less than 2 years the company can do what they want.  Who knows, he may have been due to work when he was pissing around with planes.  There are a number of reasons a company can use to 'get rid' of someone and they only have to do it properly if the employee has over 2 years service.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

We’re sacking people for what we think they meant by words, rather than the actual words written. 

I’ve posted earlier, the blokes clearly a halfwit, but if we sacked people for being half wits, we’d have 5 million unemployed. It’s sinister. 

Would he have been sacked if he said Disabled lives matter, what about Muslim lives matter, or brown lives matter. If he’d flown a banner over the Labour Party conference with a Jewish lives matter banner, would he have lost his job. Of course not, only stating white lives matter gets you the sack in England 2020. Think about that. 

Don't get me wrong, I would rather people weren't sacked for things like this but everyone knows that in the current climate there's going to be social media warriors out for your job. 

[verlaine1979]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I find it odd that the BLM supporters... have shown zero empathy for.... the innocent people who would be negatively impacted were black lives matter able to successfully defund the police, end the family unit and end capitalism. 

 

Why are you assuming that BLM want to replace the police, capitalism and the atomised family with something worse?

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

Why are you assuming that BLM want to replace the police, capitalism and the atomised family with something worse?

Like what? 

[verlaine1979]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Like what? 

Mine was a simple question and I asked it first. Why are you assuming that they want to make the world worse?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, verlaine1979 said:

Mine was a simple question and I asked it first. Why are you assuming that they want to make the world worse?

Because whilst flawed, there's not been a better system invented than capitalism and there's numerous studies which tout the benefits of the traditional family unit for all sorts of outcomes.

Seeing as you asked that wasn't the only things in their list that I happen to disagree with, the notions of patriarchy and white supremacy are also nebulous and ridiculous. Whilst we speak, Chaz- the Capital Hill autonomous zone currently not being policed has seen its fourth shooting in just a couple of weeks so its quite plain what removing the police force would lead to. 

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because whilst flawed, there's not been a better system invented than capitalism and there's numerous studies which tout the benefits of the traditional family unit for all sorts of outcomes.

Seeing as you asked that wasn't the only things in their list that I happen to disagree with, the notions of patriarchy and white supremacy are also nebulous and ridiculous. Whilst we speak, Chaz- the Capital Hill autonomous zone currently not being policed has seen its fourth shooting in just a couple of weeks so its quite plain what removing the police force would lead to. 

I think you may want to read up on what defund the police actually means. Terrible term I think as scares people and plays into the look they are left wing nutters brigade. 

[Hockey_saint]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Hmmmm that’s dodgy if you ask me. Being sacked for something which was nothing to do with his employer, in his own time. He hasn’t ACTUALLY said anything racist, just been a bit of a knob. You can’t have a whole country saying, "BLM," and sack someone for saying, "WLM". It’s just not right, whatever you believe his motivation to be. That’s a pretty concerning step into the abyss as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Like sacking someone for voting UKIP, because even though they’re a legitimate party we, "sort of know they’re a bit racist."

Might be dodgy.....I might ask an employment lawyer I know in the US about this but I'm pretty sure his contract would stipulate that he needs to not bring the good name of his company into disrepute and since it's very easy to find out where he works, the cross contamination as it were could be argued to sully their reputation. Plus you have to consider the context. "White lives matter" on it's own of course wouldn't be offensive or breaking any laws....as the police have said....but put it into the context of stirring up race relations in a negative way, as opposed to pointing out that minorities would prefer to be treated equally and that's where it get's into the gross misconduct bit I would assume.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

We’re sacking people for what we think they meant by words, rather than the actual words written. 

I’ve posted earlier, the blokes clearly a halfwit, but if we sacked people for being half wits, we’d have 5 million unemployed. It’s sinister. 

Would he have been sacked if he said Disabled lives matter, what about Muslim lives matter, or brown lives matter. If he’d flown a banner over the Labour Party conference with a Jewish lives matter banner, would he have lost his job. Of course not, only stating white lives matter gets you the sack in England 2020. Think about that.
 

How on Earth is this going to help race relations in poor working class white areas? 

Getting worried? Imagine your employer would take a dim view of a lot of your posts

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Again, depends how long he has been employed.  Less than 2 years the company can do what they want.  Who knows, he may have been due to work when he was pissing around with planes.  There are a number of reasons a company can use to 'get rid' of someone and they only have to do it properly if the employee has over 2 years service.

Not doubting the first bit, it’s the reason why they’ve sacked him which concerns me. As I understood the quotes on the BBC article, it was for the banner and not for any other reason.

 

it doesn’t sit right with me and I think it’ll do more harm than good. I do wonder whether some people (not aimed at you) are more interested in improving race relations or p*ssing off racists, because this definitely falls into the latter.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

I think you may want to read up on what defund the police actually means. Terrible term I think as scares people and plays into the look they are left wing nutters brigade. 

Think I already mentioned the demands from what I could see were to defund the police and replace it with some sort of community-led initiative. The details unfortunately were not forthcoming in the three articles I read beyond the puzzling description and I didn't have much of a desire to hunt further than that so happy for you to enlighten me. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Hockey_saint said:

Might be dodgy.....I might ask an employment lawyer I know in the US about this but I'm pretty sure his contract would stipulate that he needs to not bring the good name of his company into disrepute and since it's very easy to find out where he works, the cross contamination as it were could be argued to sully their reputation. Plus you have to consider the context. "White lives matter" on it's own of course wouldn't be offensive or breaking any laws....as the police have said....but put it into the context of stirring up race relations in a negative way, as opposed to pointing out that minorities would prefer to be treated equally and that's where it get's into the gross misconduct bit I would assume.

He may have signed some sort of behaviour or conduct policy which would cover his actions outside of work too. 

[verlaine1979]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because whilst flawed, there's not been a better system invented than capitalism and there's numerous studies which tout the benefits of the traditional family unit for all sorts of outcomes.

Seeing as you asked that wasn't the only things in their list that I happen to disagree with, the notions of patriarchy and white supremacy are also nebulous and ridiculous. Whilst we speak, Chaz- the Capital Hill autonomous zone currently not being policed has seen its fourth shooting in just a couple of weeks so its quite plain what removing the police force would lead to. 

Okay, so your position is pretty clear then. You reject the notions of white supremacy, patriarchy and equity, and want to maintain the status quo on race relations, sexism and economics.

So why are you trying to argue that you aren't right wing?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, verlaine1979 said:

Okay, so your position is pretty clear then. You reject the notions of white supremacy, patriarchy and equity, and want to maintain the status quo on race relations, sexism and economics.

So why are you trying to argue that you aren't right wing?

There you go again ascribing things to me that I haven't said. I think that white supremacist thinking very obviously has existed and still exists in a small minority of people. I think the idea that Britain is a white supremacist country and that all institutions and the vast majority of white people are systemically racist is complete nonsense. I think the term patriarchy is invented and goes by a different definition depending on who you ask. It's deliberately vague so that it can be twisted to suit the need sof whoever is using it at the time. 

I can definitely support arguments to make sensible adjustments to our economic system in order to make it fairer and improve things but that isn't the same as destroying the capitalist system which is insane, I think there are issues on both sides of the gender divide which could do with being sorted (see well known left winger jk Rowling and the abuse she has received lately and things like parental rights for fathers which I'm very passionate about and I'm a chair of a charity which seeks to tackle that particular injustice.) and undoubtedly race relations could be improved, just not by dividing everyone down racial lines and judging people because of their skin colour. 

 

So the answer is no I don't want to just keep the status quo and I don't believe any of those viewpoints are particularly "right wing". 

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

You're right and it's why he won't offer any definition of what he means by alt right. 

You can let your buddy know that I didn’t embarrass myself at all. If he knew what he was talking about he would know that the person he refers to posts are usually very right wing. Not that Turkish would understand that because the way that he talks you would think there were no far right wing or racist views ever posted on football forums. 

[egg]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

There you go again ascribing things to me that I haven't said. I think that white supremacist thinking very obviously has existed and still exists in a small minority of people. I think the idea that Britain is a white supremacist country and that all institutions and the vast majority of white people are systemically racist is complete nonsense. I think the term patriarchy is invented and goes by a different definition depending on who you ask. It's deliberately vague so that it can be twisted to suit the need sof whoever is using it at the time. 

I can definitely support arguments to make sensible adjustments to our economic system in order to make it fairer and improve things but that isn't the same as destroying the capitalist system which is insane, I think there are issues on both sides of the gender divide which could do with being sorted (see well known left winger jk Rowling and the abuse she has received lately and things like parental rights for fathers which I'm very passionate about and I'm a chair of a charity which seeks to tackle that particular injustice.) and undoubtedly race relations could be improved, just not by dividing everyone down racial lines and judging people because of their skin colour. 

 

So the answer is no I don't want to just keep the status quo and I don't believe any of those viewpoints are particularly "right wing". 

I'm intrigued. What are these "injustice" in parental rights for fathers that you mention? The law does what's best for the child, there's no parental bias. 

[Hamilton Saint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

 I think the term patriarchy is invented and goes by a different definition depending on who you ask. It's deliberately vague so that it can be twisted to suit the need sof whoever is using it at the time.

Of course all abstract terms which attempt to describe social, political and historical relations are "invented". But that doesn't mean they cannot usefully characterise the nature of those relations. The notion of patriarchy is not vague at all; it's a simple one: a social system that is dominated by men to the extent that women are systematically discriminated against--excluded from positions of power, denied ownership of property (especially through inheritance), and ignored in the halls of opinion. The notion is not vague, but how the different elements of patriarchy play out in a particular social system can vary in scope and severity.

[st.bangkok]

So, why was there no WLM campaign after this occurence? I have no doubt at all it will be said that it is not at all the same, totally different, only happens a little bit compared to how many times it happens to blacks, blah blah blah. 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/07/31/you-re-gonna-kill-me-dallas-police-body-cam-footage-reveals-the-final-minutes-of-tony-timpa-s-life/

 

[skintsaint]

29 minutes ago, st.bangkok said:

So, why was there no WLM campaign after this occurence? I have no doubt at all it will be said that it is not at all the same, totally different, only happens a little bit compared to how many times it happens to blacks, blah blah blah. 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/07/31/you-re-gonna-kill-me-dallas-police-body-cam-footage-reveals-the-final-minutes-of-tony-timpa-s-life/

 

Always said could never be a cop in the States, you can see why officers have to arrest people with a bit more urgency/force that try and resist arrest due to the fact anyone could be packing, and I'm sure 99% of the time nothing comes from it. But every now and again as highlighted above officers go too far when they are restrained and giving no threat, and it is what happened with Floyd too especially when they have underlining health issues. These officers need to be punished as no excuse for that and other officers educated better to prevent this in the future. 

Saw Flint Town on Netflix the other month, and I'm sure its severly edited but can see the problems with both the poorer community and the police has to face, fucked if I know the answer to sort it all out.

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

You can let your buddy know that I didn’t embarrass myself at all. If he knew what he was talking about he would know that the person he refers to posts are usually very right wing. Not that Turkish would understand that because the way that he talks you would think there were no far right wing or racist views ever posted on football forums. 

Without you offering a definition of what you mean by "right wing" your descriptions are meaningless I'm afraid. 

[hypochondriac]

5 hours ago, Hamilton Saint said:

Of course all abstract terms which attempt to describe social, political and historical relations are "invented". But that doesn't mean they cannot usefully characterise the nature of those relations. The notion of patriarchy is not vague at all; it's a simple one: a social system that is dominated by men to the extent that women are systematically discriminated against--excluded from positions of power, denied ownership of property (especially through inheritance), and ignored in the halls of opinion. The notion is not vague, but how the different elements of patriarchy play out in a particular social system can vary in scope and severity.

That's your definition but I can assure you that the definition varies wildly depending on who you ask. If we are to use your definition though then I don't believe we live in a patriarchal system at all. Men historically have been called up to fight and die if we went into a war, have higher prison sentences for the same crimes, are often harshly treated by the family court system, see chronic underfunding for things like testicular cancer in comparison to breast cancer which predominantly affects women etc etc. I say these things not to moan at the system in particular but to challenge the idea that women are systematically discriminated against by our society. Both sexes have a degree of discrimination and prejudice to overcome. 

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Always said could never be a cop in the States, you can see why officers have to arrest people with a bit more urgency/force that try and resist arrest due to the fact anyone could be packing, and I'm sure 99% of the time nothing comes from it. But every now and again as highlighted above officers go too far when they are restrained and giving no threat, and it is what happened with Floyd too especially when they have underlining health issues. These officers need to be punished as no excuse for that and other officers educated better to prevent this in the future. 

Saw Flint Town on Netflix the other month, and I'm sure its severly edited but can see the problems with both the poorer community and the police has to face, fucked if I know the answer to sort it all out.

Yep. There are very specific issues that cops have to deal with and as someone who lives there pointed out recently, the problems are largely to do with the guns. I wouldn't want to do the job! 

[hypochondriac]

Interesting. 

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, st.bangkok said:

So, why was there no WLM campaign after this occurence? I have no doubt at all it will be said that it is not at all the same, totally different, only happens a little bit compared to how many times it happens to blacks, blah blah blah. 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/07/31/you-re-gonna-kill-me-dallas-police-body-cam-footage-reveals-the-final-minutes-of-tony-timpa-s-life/

 

Of all the anti BLM arguments this one has to be the shittist. If you are claiming there was no revulsion when he was killed then you are very wrong.

What were doing to campaign about the awful death by police of Tony Timpa, did you even care about it a month ago or is it just a convenient flag to now wave.

Tony Timpa was schizophrenic and deaths of disabled and mentally ill people at the hands of police are 16 times higher than other Americans and is a national disgrace that is campaigned against https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976-people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement- and another example of the failure of funding the police to military levels at the sake of social services.

I sure his mum is pleased you are now willing to take up his cause, keep us posted.

[Batman]

The MET police are just pathetically weak.  Look at the state of this (largely peaceful) 'gathering'

Im sure it will will reported as the main news any moment now

https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/1276059446393933824?s=20

Edited 25 June, 2020 by Batman

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

You can let your buddy know that I didn’t embarrass myself at all. If he knew what he was talking about he would know that the person he refers to posts are usually very right wing. Not that Turkish would understand that because the way that he talks you would think there were no far right wing or racist views ever posted on football forums. 

He is your definition of right wing for sure. Which basically means that he disagrees with much of the drivel you post and tells you so, repeatedly makes you look stupid (not that you need any help with that).  it was hilarious how after a couple of post you took your usual tactic of screaming how he was right wing and the Tommy Robinson of saints forums. That is your default response when you dont like what someone says isn't it. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is intolerant and right wing, cant you see how ironic that is?

[hypochondriac]

10 hours ago, egg said:

I'm intrigued. What are these "injustice" in parental rights for fathers that you mention? The law does what's best for the child, there's no parental bias. 

I'm sorry but there's no point engaging you in that subject if that's your stance. Go and do some research about young fathers in particular and how the family court system works and how genuinely loving fathers who have never done anything wrong have been denied any access to their children. Those who are less well educated especially are helpless in the face of the system without proper representation and some mothers who want to weaponise the children against their father. Many have been driven to suicide. I think you'd probably have a different perspective if you've been at court hearings or provided social workers to some of these desperate individuals or had to talk people out of self harm because they haven't been able to see their children in months. I expect you won't listen to this reply though and will just keep going on about a lack of empathy and how the court system is entirely fair. 

Edited 25 June, 2020 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Batman said:

The MET police are just pathetically weak.  Look at the state of this (largely peaceful) 'gathering'

https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/1276059446393933824?s=20

Be fair. Flying a plane over a stadium with white lives matter on it is definitely more deserving of losing your job and public vilification. Who cares about a couple of police cars? 

[aintforever]

37 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Be fair. Flying a plane over a stadium with white lives matter on it is definitely more deserving of losing your job and public vilification. Who cares about a couple of police cars? 

Jesus wept

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Jesus wept

If I understand it correctly, the argument of those more sympathetic to white lives matter is that there is a double standard and what appears to be a two tier system of treatment. So a white working class lad rattles a fence at the football, joins a demonstration or puts up a poster saying its OK to be white or that white lives matter and they are met with riot police, slung in prison, prosecuted for hate speech, lose their jobs and widely condemned as nazis and far right agitators (some would say quite rightly). Then in the black lives matter movement there appears to be a rather insidious element that daubs offensive racist slogans on walls and statues, picks fights with police, smashes up cars, writes that white lives don't matter on social media etc and they are actively protected by their employer, by the mayor of London, the police tactics are wildly different and almost subservient, actions are either downplayed or largely absent in the media and the repercussions appear to be much less severe for this group which as I said appear to be a smaller subset within the larger movement itself. 

Now I could have that wrong but that seems to be the argument advanced by these people. It does seem to me to be a bit counterproductive therefore to go apoplectic at the phrase "white lives matter" or that it's OK to be white. As someone else has already said, a far more powerful and effective response would be to either agree with the idea that we want equality for everyone regardless of their skin colour or to ignore provocative actions from people who want to try to provoke a reaction because otherwise it just supports this idea of a double standard of treatment in society based on race and ideas. 

Edited 25 June, 2020 by hypochondriac

[egg]

53 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm sorry but there's no point engaging you in that subject if that's your stance. Go and do some research about young fathers in particular and how the family court system works and how genuinely loving fathers who have never done anything wrong have been denied any access to their children. Those who are less well educated especially are helpless in the face of the system without proper representation and some mothers who want to weaponise the children against their father. Many have been driven to suicide. I think you'd probably have a different perspective if you've been at court hearings or provided social workers to some of these desperate individuals or had to talk people out of self harm because they haven't been able to see their children in months. I expect you won't listen to this reply though and will just keep going on about a lack of empathy and how the court system is entirely fair. 

I've worked in the family justice system for 30 years, and still do. I've represented parents and the children through their guardians. There is no gender bias, that's a fallacy. 

Both parents see their kids unless there is a cogent reason otherwise. That's the law,  it's how it happens in practice and it's wrong to suggest that courts shut kids off from seeing a parent for no good reason. I've dealt with hundreds of cases where contact cannot take place safely, or to be safe it must be supervised. There not cases where fathers have been treated unfairly, rather cases where the court has made orders in the best interests of the children. Sure, there'll be cases where the court make decisions that a parent feels is wrong, but to be frank one never knows where the truth lies and the court must do it's best with the evidence available. 

There are cases where parental alienation happens, and it's very sad when it does. However, that's a different issue and not the justice systems' fault. rather, that is a parent who is unable to put the child's needs above his/her own feelings. That said, I've dealt with loads of cases where the courts have fought hard to reinstate and maintain contact against that background with the use of psychologists, guardians for the children, and policing/enforcing the orders it makes. I've also dealt with a number of cases where residence has been flipped as that's the only way that the child can have an effective relationship with both parents. The key in those cases is to act quickly - delay allows the rot to set in and that can be tragic for the kids and the impacted parent.

You make a good point re representation. The lack of availability of legal aid in these cases will inevitably mean some rough justice, that's indisputable. McKenzie friends can help with assistance, but many of them can do more harm than good and some proper legal advice, even just a short chat with a specialist, is vital.

Genuinely, fair play for supporting people in these cases. 

[hypochondriac]

Fair enough and that's a good post. I think the legal system is stacked against young, uneducated fathers from poor backgrounds especially. I've seen too many cases where mothers hellbent on a squabble with their former partner have been coached by their representative or legal advisor about what to say and do to get their desired outcome. I'm not talking about more clearcut cases of abuse or times when they have clearly shown themselves to be unfit parents. I'm not directly responsible for securing visitation rights myself but indirectly we have secured better relationships for young fathers in Hampshire with their children, which in turn has saved the local authorities millions, created better long term outcomes for children and prevented a number of suicides in the process which is very satisfying.

Imo it's undeniable that some fathers are denied contact with their children or treated harshly by the courts because they are either incapable or unwilling to play the system properly to have a fair outcome. Many of these fathers are unable to express themselves proficiently and some have a questionable history due to their own failed upbringing but without question they love their children and it is in the best interests of the children to have their father in their lives in some form. There seems little understanding in the court system for things such as allowance for mental health issues which may cause problems and often it's very black and white. If any parent misses a court date or an appointment because they've had a panic attack or a breakdown of some kind or they have a poor grasp of finances and little assistance outside of charities in the form of someone who can do a proper family shop for them that's very rarely because they've put their own needs or feelings above their children's. Yet in the eyes of the court these instances often count as a black mark against the father in particular. Judges have their own biases of course and although it's a slightly different thing, child protection conferences and family courts can often come down to which social worker makes the most persuasive case for a particular course of action (though I don't particularly blame social workers as they are hugely overworked as it is.) There have definitely been times that without advocates from charitable organisations, fathers would not have secured the access that they ended up getting and many examples exist of men who have fallen through the cracks who have ended up dead as a consequence. How is that a fair system? This is also by the way why it makes me smile when I get accused by the usual empty vessels on here of not having any empathy. 

Edited 25 June, 2020 by hypochondriac

[st.bangkok]

3 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Of all the anti BLM arguments this one has to be the shittist. If you are claiming there was no revulsion when he was killed then you are very wrong.

What were doing to campaign about the awful death by police of Tony Timpa, did you even care about it a month ago or is it just a convenient flag to now wave.

Tony Timpa was schizophrenic and deaths of disabled and mentally ill people at the hands of police are 16 times higher than other Americans and is a national disgrace that is campaigned against https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/criminalization-of-mental-illness/2976-people-with-untreated-mental-illness-16-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-law-enforcement- and another example of the failure of funding the police to military levels at the sake of social services.

I sure his mum is pleased you are now willing to take up his cause, keep us posted.

I dont recall any riots, campaigns or trothes of black guys beating white guys half to death on the streets daily. As ever, you simply miss the point and dare not admit they are one and the same in every way. Yes, I did see it at the time. Did you? Probably not as you were likely too busy self-loathing and rubbing your beard.

[egg]

31 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Fair enough and that's a good post. I think the legal system is stacked against young, uneducated fathers from poor backgrounds especially. I've seen too many cases where mothers hellbent on a squabble with their former partner have been coached by their representative or legal advisor about what to say and do to get their desired outcome. I'm not talking about more clearcut cases of abuse or times when they have clearly shown themselves to be unfit parents. I'm not directly responsible for securing visitation rights myself but indirectly we have secured better relationships for young fathers in Hampshire with their children, which in turn has saved the local authorities millions, created better long term outcomes for children and prevented a number of suicides in the process which is very satisfying.

Imo it's undeniable that some fathers are denied contact with their children or treated harshly by the courts because they are either incapable or unwilling to play the system properly to have a fair outcome. Many of these fathers are unable to express themselves proficiently and some have a questionable history due to their own failed upbringing but without question they love their children and it is in the best interests of the children to have their father in their lives in some form. There seems little understanding in the court system for things such as allowance for mental health issues which may cause problems and often it's very black and white. If any parent misses a court date or an appointment because they've had a panic attack or a breakdown of some kind or they have a poor grasp of finances and little assistance outside of charities in the form of someone who can do a proper family shop for them that's very rarely because they've put their own needs or feelings above their children's. Yet in the eyes of the court these instances often count as a black mark against the father in particular. Judges have their own biases of course and although it's a slightly different thing, child protection conferences and family courts can often come down to which social worker makes the most persuasive case for a particular course of action (though I don't particularly blame social workers as they are hugely overworked as it is.) There have definitely been times that without advocates from charitable organisations, fathers would not have secured the access that they ended up getting and many examples exist of men who have fallen through the cracks who have ended up dead as a consequence. How is that a fair system? 

I agree with much of that, save that re judicial bias. I've never experienced that as an advocate, although some Judge's are more cautious than others and that can be perceived as bias. Putting yourself in the Judge's shoes, you sometimes have to take a punt and decide if something is a sufficient risk to justify no direct unsupervised contact. It takes a brave Judge to throw caution to the wind. Thus, the decision is made in the interests of the child, but erring on the side of caution. 

Representation is the biggy. With effective preregistration, many people would achieve a better outcome for themselves and their kids. Nobody should be unrepresented in children cases, or as a minimum where one side is, then legal aid should be available to the other to give equality of arms. Where there is that imbalance, then I agree, there is an unfairness and believe me the judiciary do not want unrepresented parents in their courts.

Edited 25 June, 2020 by egg

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I agree with much of that, save that there is judicial bias. I've never experienced that as an advocate, although some Judge's are more cautious than others and that can be perceived as bias. Putting yourself in the Judge's shoes, you sometimes have to take a punt and decide if something is a sufficient risk to justify no direct unsupervised contact. It takes a brave Judge to throw caution to the wind. Thus, the decision is made in the interests of the child, but erring on the side of caution. 

Representation is the biggy. With effective preregistration, many people would achieve a better outcome for themselves and their kids. Nobody should be unrepresented in children cases, or as a minimum where one side is, then legal aid should be available to the other to give equality of arms. Where there is that imbalance, then I agree, there is an unfairness and believe me the judiciary do not ant unrepresented parents in their courts.

Well at least on that point you can see what I meant by unfairness with regards to parental rights. 

[egg]

21 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Well at least on that point you can see what I meant by unfairness with regards to parental rights. 

In terms of representation, there are cases where mum's are unrepresented and Dad's have lawyers, and vice versa. That is unfair, but it's not a gender issue. That looking at it objectively is the only part of the system where there is unfairness imo.

Keep on doing what you're doing, support has to be given. Perhaps a local law firm will help your group ? There'll pick up some work (perhaps have a banner ad on a website). Just a thought.

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

In terms of representation, there are cases where mum's are unrepresented and Dad's have lawyers, and vice versa. That is unfair, but it's not a gender issue. That looking at it objectively is the only part of the system where there is unfairness imo.

Keep on doing what you're doing, support has to be given. Perhaps a local law firm will help your group ? There'll pick up some work (perhaps have a banner ad on a website). Just a thought.

We started seven years ago with the goal of helping men and then it evolved into what we do now after seeing where we were needed. The main obstacle was gaining the trust of the social workers who are very reluctant to advise people on the to seek help from other people. It's a lot better now and we routinely get referrals but it's only a small operation but it's good to know you're making a tangible difference when people literally say that the charity saved their life. I disagree that there's not an issue with gender. Public sympathy and thus support is massively weighted towards women. It's very rare to see many advocates for the rights of men at all (in fact we were the only group that many had seen and they had been doing it for decades.) and a lot for women by comparison. I have been disheartened when we've tried to build partnerships with female advocacy groups in the best interests of child welfare how hostile and unfriendly most of them have been. I don't know if that's a Hampshire problem or if it's more widespread but it seems to me that some of these groups have a man hating problem and are suspicious of people advocating for a group that they don't like. 

Edited 25 June, 2020 by hypochondriac

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

If I understand it correctly, the argument of those more sympathetic to white lives matter is that there is a double standard and what appears to be a two tier system of treatment. So a white working class lad rattles a fence at the football, joins a demonstration or puts up a poster saying its OK to be white or that white lives matter and they are met with riot police, slung in prison, prosecuted for hate speech, lose their jobs and widely condemned as nazis and far right agitators (some would say quite rightly). Then in the black lives matter movement there appears to be a rather insidious element that daubs offensive racist slogans on walls and statues, picks fights with police, smashes up cars, writes that white lives don't matter on social media etc and they are actively protected by their employer, by the mayor of London, the police tactics are wildly different and almost subservient, actions are either downplayed or largely absent in the media and the repercussions appear to be much less severe for this group which as I said appear to be a smaller subset within the larger movement itself. 

Now I could have that wrong but that seems to be the argument advanced by these people. It does seem to me to be a bit counterproductive therefore to go apoplectic at the phrase "white lives matter" or that it's OK to be white. As someone else has already said, a far more powerful and effective response would be to either agree with the idea that we want equality for everyone regardless of their skin colour or to ignore provocative actions from people who want to try to provoke a reaction because otherwise it just supports this idea of a double standard of treatment in society based on race and ideas. 

I'm not sure what all that has got to do with the riot in Brixton though, I've only seen a small clip and there are clearly black and white people involved.

Anyway, police tactics for these sort of things seem Ito have been quite passive for a while, since the 2012 riots there seems to be an element of let it happen, video it and arrest the perpetrators afterwards. Wether black or white I think anyone convicted from last night's disgraceful episode with get a severe 'example making' sentence. Just like many black and white people did in 2012 and any BLM/statue lovers convicted from those riots.

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I'm not sure what all that has got to do with the riot in Brixton though, I've only seen a small clip and there are clearly black and white people involved.

Anyway, police tactics for these sort of things seem Ito have been quite passive for a while, since the 2012 riots there seems to be an element of let it happen, video it and arrest the perpetrators afterwards. Wether black or white I think anyone convicted from last night's disgraceful episode with get a severe 'example making' sentence. Just like many black and white people did in 2012 and any BLM/statue lovers convicted from those riots.

Not sure I mentioned race? There's different races involved on both sides although clearly its largely divided along racial lines. I look forward to hearing about the harsh sentences dished out, though given the disparity in the media coverage and on social media, it seems unlikely I'd get to hear about it in quite the same way even if it does happen. 

With regards to Brixton specifically, there's clearly a level of hostility that's been whipped up, partly due to social media, partly due to the current climate but also because of the media and the way they have behaved during all this. No police officer deserves to get chased out of an area or their vehicles smashed up for doing their job. 

 

Edited 25 June, 2020 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

From what the news has reported, the riot in Brixton broke out when a group from another district gatecrashed an estate's street party. It was anti-lockdown, not BLM.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

From what the news has reported, the riot in Brixton broke out when a group from another district gatecrashed an estate's street party. It was anti-lockdown, not BLM.

TBF I didn't say it was, simply that the level of hostility shown by the group was similar and I expect comes from the same sort of place. I take your point though. 

[whelk]

6 hours ago, Batman said:

The MET police are just pathetically weak.  Look at the state of this (largely peaceful) 'gathering'

Im sure it will will reported as the main news any moment now

https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/status/1276059446393933824?s=20

Anymore in the know info about the BLM Reading stabbing?

[whelk]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

From what the news has reported, the riot in Brixton broke out when a group from another district gatecrashed an estate's street party. It was anti-lockdown, not BLM.

Why didn’t the old bill swiftly stop it escalating by ‘taking the knee’?

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Why didn’t the old bill swiftly stop it escalating by ‘taking the knee’?

It appears to me and some other police that actions like that have actually made policemen less safe because they've lost any residual respect they may have had and people feel they now have a license to go after the police with less blowback. 

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It appears to me and some other police that actions like that have actually made policemen less safe because they've lost any residual respect they may have had and people feel they now have a license to go after the police with less blowback. 

There has never been a time when the mob won’t riot. Although dothink pent up sh1t with lockdown has made many a bit more mental.

Mancheser police appear to have tiptoed around such gatherings which I don’t agree with.

Edited 25 June, 2020 by whelk

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

There has never been a time when the mob won’t riot. Although dothink pent up sh1t with lockdown has made many a bit more mental.

Mancheser police appear to have tiptoed around such gatherings which I don’t agree with.

I agree with that too. However there are members of the police who are starting to get annoyed and are reporting a risen in the amount that people feel they can get away with now after the widely viewed tactics from the last few weeks. Whatever your views on police kneeling, imo its very bad optics to see that level of subservience. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I agree with that too. However there are members of the police who are starting to get annoyed and are reporting a risen in the amount that people feel they can get away with now after the widely viewed tactics from the last few weeks. Whatever your views on police kneeling, imo its very bad optics to see that level of subservience. 

For the record and realise may not help me in Turkish’s anti-racism table but I think police taking the knee is pathetic.