Turn on thread page Beta

For those wondering what really happened. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    How is this article in unbiased? She is clearly left-wing and anti-Tory.

    What from that article makes her anti-tory?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    How is this article in unbiased? She is clearly left-wing and anti-Tory.
    If she's so biased could you be so kind as to cite what it was she said that contained so much anti-tory bias? Because as far as I'm aware she didn't use the word tory or conservative nor did she explicitly name any of their politicians.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rory :))
    What from that article makes her anti-tory?
    This is the beauty of the article, she gets the truth across without resorting to opinionated rhetoric.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I'm sure the police had no idea that to carry out the arrest there and then could create a violent confrontation, there just happened to be scores of riot police hiding in the background, just a lucky coincidence.
    No. If the majority of protesters there weren't violent, then they would have stayed out of the polices way. There's no way that they just picked a random person and said "LETS CHARGE HIM AND REALLY STIR THINGS UP". He was a suspected criminal and so they had a right to arrest him. Let the police do their jobs rather than fighting them then complaining when things escalate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mxr808)
    No. If the majority of protesters there weren't violent, then they would have stayed out of the polices way. There's no way that they just picked a random person and said "LETS CHARGE HIM AND REALLY STIR THINGS UP". He was a suspected criminal and so they had a right to arrest him. Let the police do their jobs rather than fighting them then complaining when things escalate.
    Don't be so naive.

    Instead of doing their job and carrying out necessary arrests in the safest and most sensible way possible they deliberately went into a crowded area to arrest one individual who posed no immediate threat to anyone and was most likely accused of smashing a window in or something equally trivial.

    The riot police were bored and wanted some action before they went home, and you know it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Don't be so naive.

    Instead of doing their job and carrying out necessary arrests in the safest and most sensible way possible they deliberately went into a crowded area to arrest one individual who posed no immediate threat to anyone and was most likely accused of smashing a window in or something equally trivial.

    The riot police were bored and wanted some action before they went home, and you know it.
    Yes because every single police officer is a blood thirsty monster. Way to stereotype. I bet you think all lorry drivers just can't wait to murder a hooker as well. They were doing their job. They were apprehending a criminal. It doesn't matter how they were going about doing it, people should leave them to it. If they had, he would have been arrested and they would then find out whether he is guilty or not, then release him with or without charges. Instead, protesters decide to intervene in a situation they know nothing about and end up causing an escalation of violence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mxr808)
    Yes because every single police officer is a blood thirsty monster. Way to stereotype. I bet you think all lorry drivers just can't wait to murder a hooker as well. They were doing their job. They were apprehending a criminal. It doesn't matter how they were going about doing it, people should leave them to it. If they had, he would have been arrested and they would then find out whether he is guilty or not, then release him with or without charges. Instead, protesters decide to intervene in a situation they know nothing about and end up causing an escalation of violence.
    You have no idea how the police operate. Most arrests are carried out in an appropriate and professional manner, this one clearly wasn't. The sensible, albeit tedious, way to arrest this man would be to wait until the protest died down and you could get him on his own or in a smaller group, but with a dozen vans of tired and restless riot police desperate for a ruck, they chose to do otherwise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    You have no idea how the police operate. Most arrests are carried out in an appropriate and professional manner, this one clearly wasn't. The sensible, albeit tedious, way to arrest this man would be to wait until the protest died down and you could get him on his own or in a smaller group, but with a dozen vans of tired and restless riot police desperate for a ruck, they chose to do otherwise.
    As far as I'm aware, by this point the protests HAD died down. Even the article says that it was all relatively peaceful and protesters were just chilling out. Why not make the arrest then than risk him escaping? They didn't expect protesters to suddenly turn on them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mxr808)
    As far as I'm aware, by this point the protests HAD died down. Even the article says that it was all relatively peaceful and protesters were just chilling out. Why not make the arrest then than risk him escaping? They didn't expect protesters to suddenly turn on them.
    Oh no they expected anti-establishment protesters to just passively observe as one of their comrades was dragged away by a police snatch squad:rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rory :))
    My point is, I pretty much was beside her I saw the exact same things she did.
    I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, it's that her report is being touted as "fact" by many when it's just her point of view - a very narrow view of the situation.

    If truth be told, i'm utterly cynical about damn near all news reporting these days. I've worked in the media (hence why i'm now a student again, got sick of it!) and have come across the "grassy knoll syndrome" a few times - where different people viewing the same situation from different angles come up with totally different reports after the event.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Oh no they expected anti-establishment protesters to just passively observe as one of their comrades was dragged away by a police snatch squad:rolleyes:
    You should always expect to be able to do your job as a police officer. Rather than getting mobbed. No matter what the situation is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heinz the German)
    I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, it's that her report is being touted as "fact" by many when it's just her point of view - a very narrow view of the situation.

    If truth be told, i'm utterly cynical about damn near all news reporting these days. I've worked in the media (hence why i'm now a student again, got sick of it!) and have come across the "grassy knoll syndrome" a few times - where different people viewing the same situation from different angles come up with totally different reports after the event.
    Indeed you do have to be cynical of all media yet in this instance someone who was actually there has confirmed that this report is accurate which gives it a lot more credibility than a MSM journalist spewing out the simplistic buzz words like 'anarchists' and 'splinter groups'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    If she's so biased could you be so kind as to cite what it was she said that contained so much anti-tory bias? Because as far as I'm aware she didn't use the word tory or conservative nor did she explicitly name any of their politicians.
    OK maybe anti-tory was a bit OTT. She didn't explicitly say it in the article but it's obvious she is. She paints the picture of the brave common people fighting out against the oppressive police and how Osbourne is sucking up to the banks, and if only mega corporations stopped tax evasion then everything would be rosy.
    That is biased journalism because she didn't tell both sides.
    The police obviously have a reason for arresting him, there are economic reasons for not overtaxing the banks and the accusation that mega corporations avoid massive tax bills is highly debatable and flatly denied by HM Revenue and Customs. If she had countered these in with her article then yes I would agree it was unbiased, but she didn't so it's not.
    Even the BBC, who admit themselves that their journalists have left-wing sympathies, argue both sides of the story. Unbiased journalism is telling both sides of the story and letting the reader make their decision.
    If the left wing argument is so good then people would side with it even after hearing the right wing argument.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mxr808)
    You should always expect to be able to do your job as a police officer. Rather than getting mobbed. No matter what the situation is.
    Is it their job to deploy dozens of riot police to arrest a man suspected of smashing a window?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The police obviously have a reason for arresting him
    She explicitly states the reason

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    there are economic reasons for not overtaxing the banks
    It's her job to say the motives of their protest, not to argue the rights and wrongs, otherwise the article would go on forever

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    the accusation that mega corporations avoid massive tax bills is highly debatable and flatly denied by HM Revenue and Customs. .
    Except it's not highly debatable, everyone knows that corporations avoid tax where they can. HM Revenue and Customs deny that these corporations have done so illegally but UK uncut do not dispute the legality, they complain about the loopholes that make it legal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, very true garethDT. If I hear one more muppet journo go on about "anarchists" and "splinter groups" i'm probably going to throw something at the TV (though the idea of smacking them around the head and explaining what anarchism really is comes across as more appealing to me). However, just because two people happen to agree on a version of events doesnt neccessarily make it an accurate description of what happened.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heinz the German)
    Yes, very true garethDT. If I hear one more muppet journo go on about "anarchists" and "splinter groups" i'm probably going to throw something at the TV (though the idea of smacking them around the head and explaining what anarchism really is comes across as more appealing to me). However, just because two people happen to agree on a version of events doesnt neccessarily make it an accurate description of what happened.
    Obviously, the only truly accurate way to know what happened was to be there though, so you have to listen to both sides and make your mind up. For a protester I thought she did very well to keep her personal politics out of the article whilst at the same time not denying her affiliation. She stuck to the facts and explained the reality as to who the protesters were and why they were there.

    A lot of people in this thread are being very childish making personal attacks on her and when you press them for quotes which demonstrate her bias they go all quiet, which is what makes her such a skilled writer, you sense what her view is even though it is anything but an opinionated rant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    She explicitly states the reason
    And she disputes the Police's reason. In effect calling the police liars. Biased journalism.


    (Original post by garethDT)
    It's her job to say the motives of their protest, not to argue the rights and wrongs, otherwise the article would go on forever
    I never said she should argue the rights and wrongs, becuase obviously that is choosing sides. I said she should give both sides of the argument, if she doesn't then it isn't unbiased.

    (Original post by garethDT)
    Except it's not highly debatable, everyone knows that corporations avoid tax where they can. HM Revenue and Customs deny that these corporations have done so illegally but UK uncut do not dispute the legality, they complain about the loopholes that make it legal.
    So it is highly debatable. As you said tax avoidance is legal so all these figures being bandied about like how Vodofone owes £6bn is false. They have payed all they are legally required to by law so owe diddly squat. The left is condemning people for crimes they have not commited.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Is it their job to deploy dozens of riot police to arrest a man suspected of smashing a window?
    Are you trying to suggest that I am implying that was the only reason the riot police were there? Riot police arresting someone who was rioting? WHO'D HAVE THOUGHT!

    Police are police. They should arrest anyone who commits a crime that is worthy of an arrest. Just like I expect armed police to deal with assaults rather than responding "WELL WE'RE ONLY HERE TO DEAL WITH THE ARMED FOLK". The fact is he was a protester who committed a crime. The police are there to keep the protesters in line and arrest any criminals so they may be held accountable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rory :))
    I personally did not try and help the guy who they was trying to arrest. But if your friend was getting arrested, would you not try and pull them away from the riot police?
    At the risk of also getting arrested, no.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,917

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.