Scotland Yard Racism...

Dunno, yutes are usually pretty skinny. I imagine about 10 cops could beat 40 yutes.

In east london yutes don't always disperse when police come, they've lost any kind of threat to criminals.

They do need serious overhauls , yes.

My "hypothetical situation" was the riots. If the police had got out their truncheons maybe that old guy wouldn't have been murdered? Or the 3 shopkeepers in Bham. Anyone who was in London at the time will tell you the cops just stood there gormless while yutes ran rampant savaging people.

At point of entry into the slave trade it was quite often black people selling their countrymen into slavery.

And plenty of Arab slave traders from North Africa took white slaves from Europe.

We have laws against gender discrimination, disability discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination.

You can't pull the slavery card as a reason for those, or for race laws. In that case it would only be illegal to discriminate against black people.

However, it is illegal to discriminate against any race.

Yes, whyumadtho. You got me. I want the police to beat up disabled people.

1:4? I don't think so. This is discounting any weaponry that may be involved. How can one police officer reasonably incapacitate one person without the other three taking action in the meantime?

They're not exactly going to continue with their assault on somebody upon hearing sirens. Beatings would not provide any benefit, as I have explained in the post you quoted. The amount of officers needed will remain equal.

The fact that the police are not in a position to evaluate the full range of information leading up to the offence means 'justice' cannot be delivered effectively.

Maybe = hypothesis. We do not know what would or could have happened if X, Y or Z occurred, so we are arguing hypothetically.

Nah not really, the only reason why race lobbies are so successful is because there are a wealth of guilty liberals ready to right their great-great-great etc grandfathers wrongs.

'Yes' or 'no' answer, because I know it pains you to lose yet another argument to your best friend, whyumadtho :

Is it appropriate to attack mentally impaired people? Take into account the fact that their mental impairment can cause them to escalate in their violence very quickly, and perhaps 'necessitate' fatal force. All of this could be avoided if the sole goal is to restrain, however.

You'll find that most are headed up by black or ethnic minorities. So you prefer to assume that any white people involved are guilty liberals as opposed to those actually interested in addressing discrimination. Nice.

Yutes aren't known for their loyalty to friends, the other 3 would run.

..sirens go off all the time, how would they know its for them? I've seen police literally chased off this estate before, so they really aren't fearful of them.

blabla, yeah if the cops would have let the yutes know who "runs da streetz" then the riots wouldn't have escalated. end.

well yeah, otherwise they would be equally flummoxed about other forms of discrimination. but they aren't. speaks for itself.

Dunno, yutes are usually pretty skinny. I imagine about 10 cops could beat 40 yutes. In east london yutes don't always disperse when police come, they've lost any kind of threat to criminals.

They do need serious overhauls , yes.

My "hypothetical situation" was the riots. If the police had got out their truncheons maybe that old guy wouldn't have been murdered? Or the 3 shopkeepers in Bham. Anyone who was in London at the time will tell you the cops just stood there gormless while yutes ran rampant savaging people.

haha! jokes! pierre buddies!

nope. not unless they are in the process of attacking someone.

Because, like I have previously said, this is discrimination on a larger scale.

So it's appropriate to assault somebody who isn't attacking somebody out of their own volition, or does not understand what they are doing?

I believe the right spelling is 'youths'. It does help to be well-versed in the English language.

You misunderstand, they are attacked to prevent them from attacking someone.

You lose your freedom from physical assault when you assault people. Simple really.

They don't need to be attacked, only restrained with reasonable force.

They do not understand their freedoms or why assaulting somebody is wrong. Is this not tantamount to beating a toddler without explaining why the preceding action was wrong?

If they are really that incapacitated they wouldn't be out assaulting people.

Yes I am well aware, thank you for the history lesson.

It doesn't change the fact that when society hears slavery they think black slaves. The numbers don't compete.

The point, which you seem to have missed, perhaps caught up with the excitement of delivering a history lesson, is that black people have and do face far more discrimination than the groups you mentioned.

Yes I am well aware, thank you for the history lesson.

It doesn't change the fact that when society hears slavery they think black slaves. The numbers don't compete.

The point, which you seem to have missed, perhaps caught up with the excitement of delivering a history lesson, is that black people have and do face far more discrimination than the groups you mentioned.

I see.

So because of this 'history', the only possible -ism that matters is racism, specifically racism against black people.

By the way, you were the one introducing 'history lessons'. Lest we forget, eh? Sins of the father and all that.