The Student Room Group

Scotland Yard Racism...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
If I had dropped an N-bomb in front of the police i'd be nicked and probably get hawled up in court. I am sick to death of these fat mentally deficient bellends being allowed to keep their jobs time after time. Kill an innocent man in the street? Ah that's fine. Beat the crap out of a disabled student? Ah that's fine. Call someone an N, and it gets recorded on a phone? Ah that's fine.

Reply 61
Original post by All Black Everything
"Your problem is that you'll always be a ******."

How can this be justified? This statement does not imply that anybody was playing the "race card." I dont know where you got this idea of everybody that gets arrested "shouting racism;" this is a pure assumption.


Life experience in London. Not everyone obviously but you hear "iz it cos I is black?" frequently.

He shouldn't have used that word.
Original post by najinaji
Hmm. It's definitely an interesting exchange. The policeman's comments still don't appear to me to be particularly racist though, barring the use of the word '******' (though the 'strangling' bit was pretty suspect). I think his statements could be interpreted as 'don't think you have to act this way because you're black' or 'don't pull the 'race card'', rather than 'I dislike you because you're black'.
I don't see how that theory is congruous with the other man's replies—the dialogue seems disjointed.

Original post by Bonged.
Not relevant to the thread but if a yout is throwing rocks, nicking trainers etc I expect that they will at least give that yout a slap.

Problem being the public expects different things. I expect humanity from police, ambulance, fire.
They arrest people on suspicion of breaking the law. This suspicion is either validated or invalidated in a court of law and any appropriate punishment is allocated by the judge. People are incredibly fickle with their views and demand oppressive systems until it affects them; suggesting officers should act as judiciaries means they have the right to assault anybody they feel fit without reprimand. I do not want to live in a state where an officer's prejudices influence their duties, especially where they can manifest as unwarranted violence against a suspect. The state should operate on a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and where 'proof' is established only in a court of law.

If somebody cannot repress their emotions in the emergency services they shouldn't have applied for the role.
Original post by Bonged.
Life experience in London. Not everyone obviously but you hear "iz it cos I is black?" frequently.

He shouldn't have used that word.


I also live in London and it is very rare. Not as common as you are making out. From what that police officer said; the people that accuse the police of racism may have a point.
Reply 64
Original post by whyumadtho
I don't see how that theory is congruous with the other man's replies—the dialogue seems disjointed.

They arrest people on suspicion of breaking the law. This suspicion is either validated or invalidated in a court of law and any appropriate punishment is allocated by the judge. People are incredibly fickle with their views and demand oppressive systems until it affects them; suggesting officers should act as judiciaries means they have the right to assault anybody they feel fit without reprimand. I do not want to live in a state where an officer's prejudices influence their duties, especially where they can manifest as unwarranted violence against a suspect. The state should operate on a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and where 'proof' is established only in a court of law.

If somebody cannot repress their emotions in the emergency services they shouldn't have applied for the role.


hahaha! As it's likely I'll never burn down peoples homes or murder people trying to put out fires I COULDN'T GIVE A **** if looters feel like they are discriminated against.

Yes, they should be able to "assault" people that are burning down homes and killing people.
Original post by najinaji
I think his statements could be interpreted as 'don't think you have to act this way because you're black' or 'don't pull the 'race card'', rather than 'I dislike you because you're black'.

Wow.
I think the met should crack down on this, the same way they did to the looters. Otherwise it sends a bad message if you crack down on looters but give racist police officers(the people meant to set an example), a slap on the wrist.

I also think this guy had the right to be smug, knowing that the racist police officer who was abusing him would soon be out of a job.
What did the officer mean by 'don't hide behind your skin colour'? What's that supposed to mean? And you 'will always be black'? :wtf:
"you will always be a n****r"?
Tell that to Michael Jackson.
Original post by Bonged.
hahaha! As it's likely I'll never burn down peoples homes or murder people trying to put out fires I COULDN'T GIVE A **** if looters feel like they are discriminated against.

Yes, they should be able to "assault" people that are burning down homes and killing people.
Yeah, the police will draw an unerring line between unrestrained violence against looters and having an amiable deportment around everyone else. :rolleyes: They will assault anybody they suspect of committing a crime, or anybody in general. "You're wearing a hoody so I'm going to assault you because I don't like people wearing hoodies" is a situation that can arise out of your ridiculous policy. I'd rather have a police force that can be held accountable for its actions, Bonged.
Original post by najinaji
They aren't, but I wouldn't treat someone who burns down, smashes up and robs shops with any respect at all, and I don't see why I should. Race shouldn't have really entered into things (though one must bear in mind that a disproportionate number of black teenagers were involved), but if he'd called the looter a 'scumbag' or something like that, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.


So why do you support court hearings? Clearly you think it's sufficient for a policeman to decide on the spot whether or not someone is actually guilty.
Original post by why_you_little
racist cops > black people




If you really believe that, anyone > you :colonhash:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 72
Original post by whyumadtho
Yeah, the police will draw an unerring line between unrestrained violence against looters and having an amiable deportment around everyone else. :rolleyes: They will assault anybody they suspect of committing a crime, or anybody in general. "You're wearing a hoody so I'm going to assault you because I don't like people wearing hoodies" is a situation that can arise out of your ridiculous policy. I'd rather have a police force that can be held accountable for its actions, Bonged.


Nope, just people that they see throwing rocks at them, attacking them, attacking members of the public, burning down peoples homes.

We saw how useful your idea of a police force was in the riots, didn't we.
Reply 73
im sure it can be argued that it was against the officers rights to be recorded without consent and therefore this cannot be used as evidence against him?
Original post by trixx
An ignorant Swansea University student racially abuses an ill football player = custodial sentence.

An on-duty police officer racially abuses a handcuffed youth = ...


'The CPS initially said charges should not be brought against MacFarlane because the remarks did not cause the man harassment, distress or alarm.'

I can almost gurantee the man will keep his job. Five-O gon take care of their own.

I'm just glad the guy recorded the exchange otherwise they'd be a lot of people denying that this sort of thing takes place. As a black youth that grew up in Hackney - I know for a fact that it does.


Same same!
And they say ohh Black people always play the race card, and some do dont get me wrong. But it happens and because others have never gone through this they dont really understand themselves.
Im glad he recorded it
Can someone please explain this to me, why is being racist a crime? I would not get in trouble with the police for calling someone a ginger **** but I would get in trouble for calling a someone a black ****, how is that different?
Interesting comment from the abused man:

"It's not right. We've just got different skin colour underneath it we're all the same."


I wouldn't say everybody is the same (but that isn't what he's trying to say anyway) - but he means that skin colour has (and indeed, should have) no bearing on the individual. Namely, prejudices and characters and whatnot should not be associated with people merely on the colour of their skin, on how light or dark their pigmentation is!
Reply 77
Original post by rainbow_kisses
Can someone please explain this to me, why is being racist a crime? I would not get in trouble with the police for calling someone a ginger **** but I would get in trouble for calling a someone a black ****, how is that different?


Ginger people are white fyi, so it's not racist.:colone:
Original post by Bonged.
Ginger people are white fyi, so it's not racist.:colone:


What? :s-smilie: I'm talking about how if I discriminate against someone for a different characteristic it's not a crime but suddenly when I bring up skin colour it is
Original post by Bonged.
Ginger people are white fyi, so it's not racist.:colone:


Wes Brown.

MIND. BLOWN.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending