#BlackLivesMatter

[PunkStep]

6 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Out of interest, are you the former JobberToTheStars?

Nope

[BomberPat]

3 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

I agree on the point that a cop who doesn't turn in the ones who are doing stuff they shouldn't are just as bad as those doing it. 100%.

If you or anyone else believes that every single person in that job is either active or complicit in wrongdoing though I think respectively, thats a wild opinion.

How could the organisation and its many faults ever be changed if anyone who joins it is seen as "choosing a side" and being by default a bastard.

 

This is the point of systemic racism, though. It doesn't mean "it's a system that has racists in it", it means it's a system that is inherently racist. 

I'm sure the vast majority, if not all, police officers join the police in order to make a difference and do good. Considerably moreso than in the US, where in many - perhaps all - states one of the key attractions of the police force is that it's a well-paying job that you don't need a bachelor's degree to go into. 

But as Houchen said, the reason people talk about the police as being inherently corrupt isn't because of the actions of individual police officers, it's because it is (or certainly appears to be from the outside) a closed shop that will close ranks when faced with criticism, to protect their own rather than to root out the individuals causing the problem. And when the institution becomes complicit in protecting, defending or excusing the actions of individuals, that's when the institution itself becomes the problem. It's not that individual cops aren't turning in bad cops, it's that the entire judicial system seems to be designed with the express intent of protecting the bad cops.

 

As for the broader discussion on race and class, there are absolutely sections where the two intersect - I dislike talking about "black on black crime" or "knife crime" as that tends to be a dog whistle to suggest violent black male gangs in London, but if you look at crime rates, particularly violent crime (with the exception, for the purpose of this point, of domestic violence), the common denominator is economic/lack of opportunity, not race. The two tend to intersect - 40-50% of black households fall into the bottom quarter of household income, compared to 10-20% of white households, while for the top quarter of household income the % of white households remains roughly the same, but black households represent less than 10% - but where youth crime is divided on economic grounds and not racial grounds, we don't talk about it as "white" crime. When Glasgow was the most violent city in Europe, there weren't people clutching their pearls about "white on white crime" or asking why white people as a whole weren't doing more to tackle white crime. Adjusted for economic factors, the racial split disappears - poor white kids are committing more crimes than rich black kids. 

Where that class differences becomes more or less irrelevant, though, is in policing, and in perception. Countless black academics, lawyers, doctors, and other middle class professions have stories of being stopped by police that would be completely anomalous within their profession if race weren't an issue. I've spoken to the chancellor of a London university who was pulled over by police on the way to a graduation ceremony.

On a more personal, anecdotal level, and outside of the topic of policing, I grew up in a small village in East Yorkshire that, for most of the time I lived there, was overwhelmingly white - I could literally count on the fingers of one hand the non-white individuals who lived there, not even different non-white families. I have mixed race family who live elsewhere. A few years ago, my parents moved back to the area. While they were house-hunting, I was on a train with my Dad and my aunt, and they were talking about where they might move to, and named one of the nearby towns. My aunt said that she couldn't live there because people would stare at her (black) daughter. That isn't economic or class-based; she's the daughter of a social worker, lives in a decent part of London, has a good degree and works for a tech start-up - she's not being stopped because of her class, or because of her economic standing, she's being stopped because she has black skin.

 

That's all a bit rambling, and I'm not convinced I've made my point - but I'm stumbling towards it. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by BomberPat

[stewdogg]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

On a more personal, anecdotal level, and outside of the topic of policing, I grew up in a small village in East Yorkshire that, for most of the time I lived there, was overwhelmingly white - I could literally count on the fingers of one hand the non-white individuals who lived there, not even different non-white families. I have mixed race family who live elsewhere. A few years ago, my parents moved back to the area. While they were house-hunting, I was on a train with my Dad and my aunt, and they were talking about where they might move to, and named one of the nearby towns. My aunt said that she couldn't live there because people would stare at her (black) daughter. That isn't economic or class-based; she's the daughter of a social worker, lives in a decent part of London, has a good degree and works for a tech start-up - she's not being stopped because of her class, or because of her economic standing, she's being stopped because she has black skin.

The tone of this may get lost as it is in writing.

Did your Aunt know for sure that people would stare at her daughter or is she making an assumption?

[BomberPat]

It's an area we all grew up in, still have extensive family ties in, and the specific town in question is where my brother and his kids live, so we've all spent a lot of time there over the years, it's definitely not an assumption. 

[Jonny Vegas]

3 hours ago, BomberPat said:

But as Houchen said, the reason people talk about the police as being inherently corrupt isn't because of the actions of individual police officers, it's because it is (or certainly appears to be from the outside) a closed shop that will close ranks when faced with criticism, to protect their own rather than to root out the individuals causing the problem. And when the institution becomes complicit in protecting, defending or excusing the actions of individuals, that's when the institution itself becomes the problem. It's not that individual cops aren't turning in bad cops, it's that the entire judicial system seems to be designed with the express intent of protecting the bad cops.

Where that class differences becomes more or less irrelevant, though, is in policing, and in perception. Countless black academics, lawyers, doctors, and other middle class professions have stories of being stopped by police that would be completely anomalous within their profession if race weren't an issue. I've spoken to the chancellor of a London university who was pulled over by police on the way to a graduation ceremony.
 

Some really interesting stuff there thankyou but I've highlighted the two bits for me that I disagree with.

I think the public perception of the Police is that it's a closed shop and they will all protect their own when cornered or questioned but I don't know how accurate that is.

I live in Glasgow and the perception of the Police across a lot of the Irish descended mostly catholic community the protestant community is that it's made up almost entirely of protestant's who are intertwined with the freemason's and/or the orange lodge who were largely anti catholic. 

That's something which is definitely historically accurate and as such a reputation fairly gained due to that however I wouldn't have said it was anywhere near reflective of the current situation.

I don't have much direct knowledge however out of curiosity I discussed that perception with a husband of a work colleague who I wouldn't call a friend and he told me that wasn't the case but that when he joined that had been his pre conception.

He told me that he himself was a catholic and that lots of his colleagues were catholic including some of the higher ranks which due to the public perception up here I was very very surprised by.

The reason I use that example is that historically the Police have inexcusably particularly in high profile incidents done exactly what your perception is and closed ranks to protect themselves as a whole on the instruction of the organisation, for example after Hillsborough. As such the perception of "thats what they do" is historically accurate and a reputation fairly gained.

I googled to see if Police complaints are investigated interally or externally and found out it was both.

I'm not going to disagree that individual cops still lie and protect each other by doing so as I'm sure that is the case. I don't know that I believe in 2020 however that when there are independant entities carrying out investigations into Police complaints that the organisation would or does systematically "close up and protect its own".

I dont know, thats just my thoughts.

My second point is in the same vein of perception and fact regarding you speaking to the chancellor of London being pulled over by the Police and their belief it was solely due to their race.

I'm going to redact names, places and specifics to try and protect the anonimity of the person involved here but give you a real life example of mine.

A lad I grew up with, went on holidays with, played football with, worked with and am still friendly now with won a decent sum of money on a popular TV gameshow.

He's english, born to two parents from the carribbean.

Some time after the show he bought himself a flash car, got pissed and drove it the wrong way down an A road in the early hours of the morning. He was arrested.

Several years maybe as much as 6 or 7 from memory he was arrested again. He was now selling cannabis on the side of his job and had been for a good few years. He was quite open and flash about it and the money he had. I know his house was raided by the Police following the arrest and they allegedly found 10s of thousands of pounds and 10s of thousands of pounds worth of cannabis.

Now he never told me or any of our group of friends to my knowledge that he was stopped  or arrested by the Police any time between those two seperate incidents which were years apart. Not to say he wasn't, just that I was never aware of it which I believe I would have been if he was.

He whole heartedly believed that on both occasions he was only arrested because of his skin colour. There was absolutely no suggesting to him that he had been committing crimes both times, he was absolutely 100% fully of the belief he was being targeted. 

In the 5 or 6 years between me meeting him and the drink driving he again to my knowledge never had any dealings with the Police. He 100% may just have not told me but with how vocal and anti Police he always was coupled with him telling me and all our group about his 2 arrests I think he would have if it happened.

He told anyone who would listen that the Police had stolen his winnings from the gameshow and must have been wanting to get him since they saw him on it. He wasnt just saying it he fully believed it.

I knew he had spent every penny of his winnings years before the second arrest. My belief from knowing him personally is that the lifestyle he started with his winnings was unsustainable with the income of his job and at some point he decided to sell drugs to try and continue that lifestyle.

Maybe he was right and he was targeted, I know nothing about it other than what he told me and what was in the news but even his version of events sounded like it wasnt due to racial targeting.

I dont know anything about the incident with the London chancellor and I assume all you know is what he told you. I don't believe that merely being stopped or spoken to the Police can ONLY be because of race systematically as by design of the organisation nor that every cop regardless of race, circumsrsnce or culture inherently becomes a part of that as a cop.

Was he slightly over the speed limit, did he gamble an amber light, was he using his mobile phone or doing something else illegal? Would he tell you if he was?

Would he have been stopped in the same circumstances regardless of his race or was it just his belief that it was only due to his race.

If like my friend it appeared it was only his belief it was solely due to his race then it is horrible that things led him to that belief and we could discuss the reasons for that all day but its not the point im arguing.

Is it in my opinion fair to blame the Police as an organisation or every single one of the people doing it because that is some peoples belief whether or not it is factually correct?

Not in my opinion.

It's human nature when anyone tells a story that its skewed in their favour even if not intentionally. If I tell a story about an interaction or argument with someone its always in the vein that I was in the right and they were unreasonable whether or not that was the case. Due to my own and everyone's natural belief that they were right.

Will there be racist cops who see a black guy driving a nice car and their piece of shite racist immediate thought is "something isnt right", definitely.

I just haven't ever been told of or seen in my own life any example that it's an organisationally led or promoted thing nor that it is factually inherent.

To tie my two examples together i'll move onto your aunt and her not wanting to live in an area due to concerns over how her daughter would be treated.

Ive considered moving to Ayrshire from Glasgow. Its closer to the coast, house prices are cheaper so I could afford much more on my budget, its less congested and has much less pollution.

My perception though is though that it has lots of people and places that are still to this day anti catholic and I am worried about my kids growing up there and having to experience that.

Now I know a good few people who are catholic and live there, grew up there or have kids growing up there and whilst they have sporadic examples of anti catholicism and that years ago it was rife but now theyre overall opinion is that its nowhere near how I think or worry it is and that day to day life is near identical to Glasgow.

I still wont move there though as Im not taking that risk for my kids. Is that the fault of the local government, councils, school, pubs etc or is it just a pre conceived opinion based on factual information that I have and refuse to change?

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Jonny Vegas

[Keith Houchen]

8 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

How could the organisation and its many faults ever be changed if anyone who joins it is seen as "choosing a side" and being by default a bastard.

Through legislation and protest, through genuine independent scrutiny and, most importantly, accountability.  Again, it isn't about the individual, but the system that is in place to maintain the status quo that favours white men, wealthy white men in particular.  The Police are the enforcers of this status quo and often act like the systems boot boys, selectively and violently bullying whoever they choose to use their power over.  Those who benefit from the status quo are who they are accountable to, like their own private militia.  They by and large know they can operate with impunity and keep their pensions when they take early retirement due to ill health.

It isn't a case of a few bad apples on the branches, it's a case of the whole tree being rotten from inside to out and needs to be uprooted and a new tree planted in its place.  This is something that is always overlooked when people say dismantle the police.  That's what get focussed on, whereas those three words are just the start.  It's usually dismantle the police, and then replace it with a system that is more open and more accountable, with nuances for different communities and promoting community outreach.  Funnily enough, we've even see a police officer in this thread support that approach.

Regarding unjust laws, to be honest that is probably the wrong choice of words on my account.  It is an individual opinion as to what laws are unjust so what I find unjust, others wouldn't and vice versa.  What I probably should've said is the disproportionally and demonstrable unjust enforcement of these laws is what the problem is for most people.  Just to reiterate, it isn't about the individual "Just doing their job", it's about the racist authoritative institution they willingly sign up to be a part of.  Whilst not police, ever seen that "Can't Pay Won't Pay" show?  A couple of the bailiffs  seem like really nice people but they're still evicting people from their homes and scaring pensioners, they've chosen that line of work.

EDIT - Religious bigotry isn't the same as racism and the two shouldn't be compared.  I don't think you're doing that but it's dangerous territory to compare the two.  One day, a religious person can choose to no longer be a religious person, or even a different religion.  Black people don't have that privilege.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Keith Houchen

[BomberPat]

20 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

One day, a religious person can choose to no longer be a religious person, or even a different religion.  Black people don't have that privilege.

While this is theoretically true, one can also be a victim of religious persecution/prejudice while not being a follower of the religion, they just need to be perceived as one. Someone who blames Protestants, or indeed Muslims or Jews, for everything they dislike in life probably isn't interested in a theological discussion to determine the precise religion of the target of their ire. 

[Jonny Vegas]

38 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

EDIT - Religious bigotry isn't the same as racism and the two shouldn't be compared.  I don't think you're doing that but it's dangerous territory to compare the two.  One day, a religious person can choose to no longer be a religious person, or even a different religion.  Black people don't have that privilege.

Yeah for absolute avoidance of any doubt you're right I wasn't comparing or trying to compare the two but only using an example of my personal experiences applied to my thought process between the differences of believing you are or will be treated a particular way because of a certain thing and that being the actual case.

Just on your thoughts for how the organisation could be changed, I'm not saying that it's wrong, I don't know the answer but I am interested to know which ones of the new entity would be bastards?

Are the ones who were part of the old regime with all its faults then stayed to try and better things under the new model still bastards for having been part of the old model?

Are all the ones who join the new model bastards for joining a new untested regime which they have absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be better or not and will likely have to apply the vast majority of the laws and procedures already in place with amendments which will likely take a period of decades of trial and error to perfect or measure the potential benefits?

Are they all bastards still because they're descendants of an organisation you believe is inherently racist?

I'm not sure if the tone via text comes across as a genuine question but it is.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Jonny Vegas

[Keith Houchen]

As it stands, all cops are bastards.  If a societal revolution leads to the abolition of the police and replaces it with a balanced and fair system that helps communities and is not accountable to a racist and sexist system, then no.  For me, the default for them will be a clean slate and they will be judged accordingly.  Hopefully the racist wankers will be held to account and removed from their position of power.  You'll no doubt still have cunts there, but for me that isn't the default setting. As I say, the problem is the system, not the staff.  However, they know what they are currently a part of and sign up for, regardless of their good intentions.

2 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Yeah for absolute avoidance of any doubt you're right I wasn't comparing or trying to compare the two but only using an example of my personal experiences applied to my thought process between the differences of believing you are or will be treated a particular way because of a certain thing and that being the actual case.

 

I'm not naive enough (despite thinking we can all live in my anarcho-communist Utopia) to know it doesn't happen.  Isn't it even the case with job applications?  A potential employer can see your surname and which school you went to and determine your religion and if they think you'll fit it with their company?  I'm an old fucker, I grew up in an Irish family in the midlands in the late 70s and 80s.  I guess a lot of my feeling towards the police force stem from how we were treated there.  There was a journalist, John Junor, who once wrote a piece bemoaning how he wished the Irish had green skin so that you could tell by looking at them.  I guess that ties in with your point about the sectarianism that still exists.

 

2 hours ago, BomberPat said:

While this is theoretically true, one can also be a victim of religious persecution/prejudice while not being a follower of the religion, they just need to be perceived as one. Someone who blames Protestants, or indeed Muslims or Jews, for everything they dislike in life probably isn't interested in a theological discussion to determine the precise religion of the target of their ire. 

Indeed, but I was more commenting on how you can't tell someones religion by looking at them.  Even if some people think all brown skinned people are muslims.  But they aren't being racist because Islam isn't a race etc etc.  I think Sajid Javid is a prime example of this.  He is an atheist, his wife and kids are christian, but he gets Islamophobia levelled at him constantly.

 

[JNLister]

 

[Loki]

Keith really doesn't like the police.

[Dead Mike]

Judging from news and social media this morning the BLM movement is now just snowflakes who hate Fawlty Towers & who just want everything you love banned.

Job well done there lads. Chalk that up as yet another depressing win for the racists. 

[westlondonmist]

39 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

Judging from news and social media this morning the BLM movement is now just snowflakes who hate Fawlty Towers & who just want everything you love banned.

Job well done there lads. Chalk that up as yet another depressing win for the racists. 

This is the big issue for me with the TV and the statues, it has given something to the right wing to spin and use against a much greater movement. Which is unfortunate as some TV needs to be taken down, others need warnings at the start and loads of statues need taken down and venues changed names. But unfortunately people take the lies that people are trying to erase history (I would say actually tell history as it is as much of British history has been rewritten to make us the good guys) on board. I'm seeing loads of it on Facebook and wonder how fucking thick people are. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by westlondonmist

[Chris B]

Thick enough to use terms like 'retards' in 2020, perhaps?

[westlondonmist]

2 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Thick enough to use terms like 'retards' in 2020, perhaps?

Yeah you're right, I'm sorry. I appreciate you pointing that out. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by westlondonmist