Scotland Yard Racism...

Scroll to see replies

This is in no way private though, he's a public servant carrying out his duty and being paid for it. Its not a comment made to another white person in private either, its a comment made by a police officer to a suspect he has detained.

Yeah, I know that hypothetical situation doesn't match this one. I was just wondering what the law is.

Original post by marcusfox

A racist incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

So is a "racist incident" necessarily illegal? What if the other white guy does perceive it to be racist, but isn't offended by it? What if it's recorded without his knowledge, and then the other guy posts it on the Internet? Would the guy who said it have committed a crime, or just the guy that posted it?

Reply 101

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

Jesus. Pragmatism and logic I said. Not mad flights of fancy.

Everything I am saying follows logically from your position.

Nope, but it's acceptable for the officer to physically remove the weapon from the toddler and to restrain them from injuring you further. That would probably be "assault" in your eyes depending on the ethnicities of the officer and the toddler.

If they are poking me with their fingers can the police officer break their fingers to obviate further injury to my person?

They could but they'd be a nob.

Assaulting a 5-year old 'white' working-class girl because she is throwing rocks is appropriate?

You saying that the England riots were an anecdote. The guardian has reported on them.

...So?

It is still a single event.

Cool. I don't care. I just want the police to have the ability to stop someone from injuring other people. That will entail "assault".

Then it's a good thing you're not in power if you believe the police won't severely abuse this liberty.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 102

marcusfox

Original post by Psyk

There are racial hate laws. That is the definition of 'racist incident that came about in MacPherson after the Lawrence incident. I'm sure people have been convicted of being racist without the victim hearing it. I very much doubt Muamba was aware about what Stacey said about him.

It's just a shame that ginger people, fat people, disabled people, skinny people, ugly people, short people, mentally ill people, etc, don't have a huge lobby of guilt-ridden white people fighting to stop *them* being abused, joked about and made to feel inferior.

If the criteria of an "-ism" is to be prejudiced about something other people can't help, then either all of it is acceptable, or none of it is.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 103

James82

Original post by Bonged.

I just want the police to have the ability to stop someone from injuring other people. That will entail "assault".

It could just entail "reasonable force".

Reply 104

Bonged.

Original post by James82

It could just entail "reasonable force".

Should do yeah. But then you get whyumadtho and co weeping whenever the cops actually do use reasonable force. And of course it's subjective what is reasonable. I imagine reasonable to whyumadtho would be getting out a feather duster and tickling them until they desist.

Reply 105

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

As much as is required to restrain them to ensure their safe detainment.

Reply 106

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

Everything I am saying follows logically from your position.

If they are poking me with their fingers can the police officer break their fingers to obviate further injury to my person?

Assaulting a 5-year old 'white' working-class girl because she is throwing rocks is appropriate?

...So? :confused:

It is still a single event.

Then it's a good thing you're not in power if you believe the police won't severely abuse this liberty.

Nope, massive exaggerations.

No, you aren't being injured. He can if they start punching you.

No there would be disproportionate force. A 30 year old (white working class :wink:

) man throwing rocks, yeah sure.

Not really it was lots of riots in different areas across the country.

To prevent criminals from harming people? What is the point of them otherwise?

Reply 107

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

As much as is required to restrain them to ensure their safe detainment.

that will change with each suspect.

Reply 108

Psyk

Original post by marcusfox

But that was said publicly and published on the Internet. That's equivalent to publishing it in a newspaper or saying it on TV. If it was said in private, where no one other than the person he's talking to can obviously hear it, has he committed a crime? If not, would it become a crime if it had been recorded then later published without his knowledge?

It's a bit like the racist tram woman. Except in her case she was shouting it out where lots of people could obviously hear and some of them were people who were likely to be offended.

Reply 109

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

Nope, massive exaggerations.

If your logic is inapplicable to all scenarios the logic is faulty.

No, you aren't being injured. He can if they start punching you.

They are poking my eyeball and it is causing injury.

No there would be disproportionate force. A 30 year old (white working class :wink:

) man throwing rocks, yeah sure.

Why is it disproportionate?

Not really it was lots of riots in different areas across the country.

Collectively termed the "August 2011 riots". Are you suggesting they were all completely isolated outbreaks that happened to occur within the same timescale with the same characteristics?

To prevent criminals from harming people? What is the point of them otherwise?

What prevents the police harming innocent people if they can assault anybody?

Reply 110

Bonged.

Original post by marcusfox

Never seen this point addressed.

Reply 111

AP1989

Original post by najinaji

This instantly sprung to my mind as well...

Reply 112

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

that will change with each suspect.

I know. The intention is to restrain and detain; bludgeoning somebody is never required to restrain and detain them, but this liberty is what you're advocating.

Reply 113

marcusfox

Original post by Psyk

Well, there you have it. None of those people reported her for racism. Not even the person posting the video.

Nope, the police only took action when they noticed it.

Reply 114

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

If your logic is inapplicable to all scenarios the logic is faulty.

They are poking my eyeball and it is causing injury.

Why is it disproportionate?

Collectively termed the "August 2011 riots". Are you suggesting they were all completely isolated outbreaks that happened to occur within the same timescale with the same characteristics?

What prevents the police harming innocent people if they can assault anybody?

Maybe, if you don't actually live in the real world. Really, all of the mad situations you've come up with aren't going to happen.

Are you disabled? Are you able to defend yourself? If not then yes I expect the police officer to defend you even if it hurts their feelings or gives liberals pangs of guilt.

Are we talking about my definition of assault here or yours? Mine would be an actual fight/beating. In this discussion I'm going on what I presume to be your definition of assault, stopping criminals by means other than feather duster tickling.

No. They were separate riots in separate areas though. Though the areas did all have one thing in common.

Nothing. That's why I'm saying they can only "assault" people that are causing physical danger to other people.

:pierre:

Reply 115

AP1989

Original post by marcusfox

Original post by Bonged.

Never seen this point addressed.

Isn't it obvious?

Have any of those groups faced the discrimination that black people have throughout history? Were any of those groups ever made into slaves? Were any of them repressed via discriminatory laws?

Reply 116

Psyk

Original post by marcusfox

Well, there you have it. None of those people reported her for racism. Not even the person posting the video.

Nope, the police only took action when they noticed it.

Yes, but as I said her case was different to my hypothetical case because she was clearly offending the people around her. Even if they didn't report her, she was still causing them offence. She was saying things somewhat publicly, not really in private.

I don't suppose anyone will have an answer until it actually happens. I'm just wondering if it's actually illegal to ever say anything racist to anyone.

Reply 117

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

Maybe, if you don't actually live in the real world. Really, all of the mad situations you've come up with aren't going to happen.

Toddlers poke people and act as general annoyances. A police officer who hates toddlers in general, a characteristic of that toddler, or the relations of the toddler, may take their anger out on that toddler because they feel it is appropriate to make them stop. This is a very plausible situation if you feel it is appropriate for emotions and opinions to manifest in the emergency services.

Are you disabled? Are you able to defend yourself? If not then yes I expect the police officer to defend you even if it hurts their feelings or gives liberals pangs of guilt.

By breaking their fingers?

Are we talking about my definition of assault here or yours? Mine would be an actual fight/beating. In this discussion I'm going on what I presume to be your definition of assault, stopping criminals by means other than feather duster tickling.

Yours. That said, do you stand by your position?

No. They were separate riots in separate areas though. Though the areas did all have one thing in common.

Then it is an anecdote.

Nothing. That's why I'm saying they can only "assault" people that are causing physical danger to other people.

:pierre:

So they can bludgeon a rock-throwing toddler?

Reply 118

Sovr'gnChancellor£

Original post by Bonged.

thats wrong.

I was discussing with whyumadtho his position that the police should not "assault" people that are burning down homes, murdering people trying to put out fires etc.

ps. i'd be careful about circumventing the swearblocker with that word. you could literally end up in prison.

I wouldn't however, because the intention is lacking there. Put into its context, my post is clearly not intended to provoke or cause offence. If I, however, wrote for example you 'black F-ing N' and you were to be deeply offended and reported me to the Mods who in turn reported me to the police, then we're talking....

Original post by rainbow_kisses

In the past? Last time I checked we live in 2012.

The so-called 'N-word' was in widespread use in the past of the slave trade. It is now only used by a minority to either cause offence or by silly people who are themselves black who want to be 'cool' or something...