Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't clear
whether they would support all police officers who are suspended or
sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? The
comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't clear
whether they would support all police officers who are suspended or
sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and searched black
people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok to
lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of innocent
people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok to
lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of innocent
people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers?
The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't
clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and
searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok to
lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of innocent
people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, for
what?).
How do the families of these officers differ from the families of
burglars sent to prison?
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so,
for what?).
How do the families of these officers differ from the families of
burglars sent to prison?
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers?
The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't
clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and
searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok to
lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of innocent
people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so,
for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
... ( say convicted of
drink/drug driving ) so they can no longer do their job, who bails out
their family? NOt some misguided crowdfund that's for sure. I find it
obscene that the ex police officers are effectively gettting bailed out...
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 17:42:54 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, for >>> what?).
How do the families of these officers differ from the families of
burglars sent to prison?
Or, indeed, the families of anyone else sacked for misconduct.
I don't think it's wrong per se to raise funds to support family members who have lost their source of income as a consequence of the misconduct of the main breadwinner. They are, in many ways, victims too. There are charities which exist to support the families of prisoners. I have even donated to one of them. I think they do a very important, and very necessary, job.
But the large number of donors to this particular appeal, and the sums of money raised, does somewhat suggest that the motives of many of the doners are not to help people who are also victims of a family member's misconduct, but rather out of a belief that there was no misconduct involved. And I can fully understand why that sticks in the craw a bit.
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't
clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped
and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok
to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so,
for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied.
I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers?
The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't
clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped
and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok
to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families
who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so,
for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't clear
whether they would support all police officers who are suspended or
sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied. >> I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied. >>> I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't
clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped
and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have
families who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so,
for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied.
I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't clear
whether they would support all police officers who are suspended or
sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied. >> I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences.
I wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are >>>>>>>>> suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied. >>>> I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >>> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or
could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to some extent.
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >>> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or
could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to some extent.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >>>> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who
started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
On 01/11/2023 11:42 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are >>>>>>>>>> suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of >>>>>>>>> innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied.
I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the >>>>> hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >>>> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who
started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >> some extent.
I was asking about the police pensions.
On 01/11/2023 06:17, Dr Dave wrote:
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.If we want police to carry out effective crime detection, using stop and search as one of their tools, then perhaps we ought to encourage
profiling? Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sure that's a common view.
A young black couple in an expensive car might be drug dealers. That
fits the profile, or at least a stereotype. It's certainly more likely
than me, an elderly white guy, in a 17 year old Volvo.
The snag is, of course, that with profiling the same people keep getting stopped.
Anyway, there are enough people who think that racist profiling is okay
that £100k+ has been raised.
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are
suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok >>>>>>> to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of
innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied. >>> I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the
hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police
officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences.
It seems at least reasonable to assume that in more or less ANY of these "crowdfunding" appeals, the person administering the appeal (and
gathering the money) will have some sort of connection to the person or family for whom the appeal is made.
I wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
Why do you wonder that?
Do their families not only deserve to be destitute at their current
ages, but also right through to the ends of their lives?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their >>>> relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who
started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on
their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who
started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
On 02/11/2023 09:33, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on
their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent >> (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who
threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
My assumption would be that Roger would be assured, to some extent, that
the petition was not politically motivated. i.e. Reassurance that the petition was non created by a racist group seeking to use it to
encourage police officers to discriminate against black people.
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural interpretation.
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC, GB wrote:
On 01/11/2023 06:17, Dr Dave wrote:
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.If we want police to carry out effective crime detection, using stop and
search as one of their tools, then perhaps we ought to encourage
profiling? Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sure that's a common
view.
A young black couple in an expensive car might be drug dealers. That
fits the profile, or at least a stereotype. It's certainly more likely
than me, an elderly white guy, in a 17 year old Volvo.
The snag is, of course, that with profiling the same people keep getting
stopped.
Anyway, there are enough people who think that racist profiling is okay
that £100k+ has been raised.
Profiling has become a dirty term. We surely all think that Police
officers should be able to look into things where they have suspicion.
So it comes down to how that suspicion arises.
I don’t think it is plausible to argue that black people in nice cars
will lead to drug dealers. If that was the case the drug dealers would
own their cars for a short time only and they would learn to separate
the driving of their cars from the driving around of the drugs.
It’s really a question of conditional probability - how far do you
have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can’t function if they are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to get
stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words - they didn’t
normally run me through their database. If you are outwardly
aggressive, uncooperative or indignant then that may exacerbate
suspicion.
On 2023-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 09:33, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>>> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent >>> (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who
threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
My assumption would be that Roger would be assured, to some extent, that
the petition was not politically motivated. i.e. Reassurance that the
petition was non created by a racist group seeking to use it to
encourage police officers to discriminate against black people.
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
On 2023-11-02, Dr Dave <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC, GB wrote:
On 01/11/2023 06:17, Dr Dave wrote:
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.If we want police to carry out effective crime detection, using stop and >> search as one of their tools, then perhaps we ought to encourage
profiling? Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sure that's a common
view.
A young black couple in an expensive car might be drug dealers. That
fits the profile, or at least a stereotype. It's certainly more likely
than me, an elderly white guy, in a 17 year old Volvo.
The snag is, of course, that with profiling the same people keep getting >> stopped.
Anyway, there are enough people who think that racist profiling is okay
that £100k+ has been raised.
Profiling has become a dirty term. We surely all think that Police
officers should be able to look into things where they have suspicion.
So it comes down to how that suspicion arises.
I don’t think it is plausible to argue that black people in nice cars will lead to drug dealers. If that was the case the drug dealers would
own their cars for a short time only and they would learn to separate
the driving of their cars from the driving around of the drugs.
It’s really a question of conditional probability - how far do you
have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention. Society has to recognise that the Police can’t function if they are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words - they didn’tIt's very easy to be polite and co-operative when it happens to you
normally run me through their database. If you are outwardly
aggressive, uncooperative or indignant then that may exacerbate
suspicion.
a few times in your entire life. If it's the fifth time you've been
stopped this week then it may be a bit harder. Which leads us back
to the bit about profiling...
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
On 2 Nov 2023 at 19:45:50 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 09:33, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
My assumption would be that Roger would be assured, to some extent, that >>> the petition was not politically motivated. i.e. Reassurance that the
petition was non created by a racist group seeking to use it to
encourage police officers to discriminate against black people.
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
Assuming he intende the second 'not' to be 'nor' he didn't imply it was.
On 02/11/2023 19:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
Well, yes, and no. The tendency is that the more natural an
interpretation, the more universally it will be made.
Did you have a point to make about the distinction between the two?
On 2023-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 09:33, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>>> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent >>> (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who
threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
My assumption would be that Roger would be assured, to some extent, that
the petition was not politically motivated. i.e. Reassurance that the
petition was non created by a racist group seeking to use it to
encourage police officers to discriminate against black people.
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on
their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent >> (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who
threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally
then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would
seem rather undesirable.
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would
seem undesirable and concerning.
On 1 Nov 2023 at 17:42:27 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
Why do you wonder that?
Do their families not only deserve to be destitute at their current
ages, but also right through to the ends of their lives?
It didn't say I wanted this to happen. It was merely an observation about how the crowdfunding might not be all positive for the families.
On 2 Nov 2023 at 00:44:54 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/11/2023 11:42 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Oct 2023 at 22:32:44 GMT, "TTman" <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/10/2023 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 10:23 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17:34, JNugent wrote:
On 30/10/2023 03:19 pm, TTman wrote:
On 30/10/2023 15:06, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? >>>>>>>>>>> The comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't >>>>>>>>>>> clear whether they would support all police officers who are >>>>>>>>>>> suspended or sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped >>>>>>>>>>> and searched black people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
Basically, you're rewarding criminal behavour and saying it's ok
to lie if you're a police officer... That's the root cause of >>>>>>>>>> innocent people getting convicted.
I dunno about "reward", but as I understand it, they DO have families >>>>>>>>> who need to be supported materially.
Unless, of course, their families deserve to be punished (and if so, >>>>>>>>> for what?).
Is that the bit the contributors have missed?
When an 'ordinary ' criminal loses their job ...
Have a care. There have been no criminal cases (AIUI).
Do you know different?
No, but I know they were dismissed for gross misconduct because they lied.
I have no sympathy at all. A member of my family has suffered at the >>>>>> hands of a lying policeman and goading him into assaulting a police >>>>>> officer. I was there, it's not 3rd party info.
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser and their
relationship with the police officers could have embarrassing consequences. I
wonder if a decision has been made on their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>> some extent.
I was asking about the police pensions.
As far as I am concerned, withdrawing a public sector pension that has been contributed to is a travesty of justice, and should not be an available extra-judicial administrative punishment.
The fact remains that the sanction
exists, to be used politically to gain approval from whichever pressure group is louder, presumably.
For the record, the political power to increase sentences or refuse parole is equally reprehensible IMHO.
"Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote in message news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef-8e10-9270e815c2c0n@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
And then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 11:23:54 UTC, GB wrote:driving around of the drugs.
On 01/11/2023 06:17, Dr Dave wrote:
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.If we want police to carry out effective crime detection, using stop and
search as one of their tools, then perhaps we ought to encourage
profiling? Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sure that's a common view. >>
A young black couple in an expensive car might be drug dealers. That
fits the profile, or at least a stereotype. It's certainly more likely
than me, an elderly white guy, in a 17 year old Volvo.
The snag is, of course, that with profiling the same people keep getting
stopped.
Anyway, there are enough people who think that racist profiling is okay
that £100k+ has been raised.
Profiling has become a dirty term. We surely all think that Police officers should be able to look into things where they have suspicion. So it comes down to how that suspicion arises.
I don’t think it is plausible to argue that black people in nice cars will lead to drug dealers. If that was the case the drug dealers would own their cars for a short time only and they would learn to separate the driving of their cars from the
It’s really a question of conditional probability - how far do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention. Society has to recognise that the Police canâ€t function if they are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words - they didn’t normally run me through their database.If you are outwardly aggressive, uncooperative or indignant then that may exacerbate suspicion.
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef...@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how farAnd neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention. Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
On 02/11/2023 11:30 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef-8e10-9270e815c2c0n@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
And then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
Being quite regularly stopped by police late at night or early in the
morning when driving old bangers (with lights and tyres then being
inspected) was something I accepted as quite normal.
I even understand that at 21, with rather more hair than I have these days and driving a seven year old car (in the days when many such cars were
almost ready for the scrapyard), I fitted some profile or other.
Even before that (at the age of say, 12 or 13), it was far from unknown to
be stopped by foot patrol officers late at night (say 21:00 or later) and briefly searched.
That was inner Liverpool. I expect that it was less frequent in Woolton.
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser
and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to >>>> some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent >>> (non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who
threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally
then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in question).
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that
minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these
ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would
seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing financial protection for families who need it?
What if it was a "racist" (see above for qualification) member of the
family?
Is it acceptable because they are a family member or is it unacceptable because someone - rightly or wrongly - classifies that person as a "racist".
Schrodinger's family member?
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that
police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would
seem undesirable and concerning.
Why?
The consent of third parties is not required for the carrying out of charitable acts.
And irrespective of what others think of the matter, there is the little matter of the families of the officers concerned.
So while one might be of the opinion that it is wrong "...that police
should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences for
their actions...", there are other people whose needs fall to be considered.
BTW: What sort of consequences" were you thinking of?
Is dismissal and unemployment not drastic enough?
On Thursday, 2 November 2023 at 23:33:01 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef...@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
Well it has always been the case so that claim doesn't stand up to examination. There is more awareness these days so maybe there is
hope for better application of their powers.
The part of society being alienated is actually small (albeit
potentially large parts of certain areas). That still matters of
course because it isnn't good having certain demographics not
trusting the Police. But their voices alone probably won't change
things.
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably isn’t an effective approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:00:38 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally
then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in
question).
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that
minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these
ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would
seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the
financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing
financial protection for families who need it?
Because their intention would not be charitable, but the dissemination of racist propaganda.
What if it was a "racist" (see above for qualification) member of the
family?
Is it acceptable because they are a family member or is it unacceptable
because someone - rightly or wrongly - classifies that person as a "racist". >>
Schrodinger's family member?
One would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, unless, like the golliwog licencees, they spouted racist propaganda when asked about their motives.
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that
police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would
seem undesirable and concerning.
Why?
The consent of third parties is not required for the carrying out of
charitable acts.
And irrespective of what others think of the matter, there is the little
matter of the families of the officers concerned.
So while one might be of the opinion that it is wrong "...that police
should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences for
their actions...", there are other people whose needs fall to be considered. >>
BTW: What sort of consequences" were you thinking of?
Is dismissal and unemployment not drastic enough?
That's the whole point! The police rank and file may not want this to happen and that might be their reason for contributing, rather than compassion for the unfortunate offenders.
On 2023-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@Proton.Me> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 19:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to
understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
Well, yes, and no. The tendency is that the more natural an
interpretation, the more universally it will be made.
So, er, "yes" then.
Did you have a point to make about the distinction between the two?
Yes, my point that you equating them was a false statement. Something
can easly be "not a universal intepretation" without being an "unnatural interpretation".
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:00:38 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that
police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would
seem undesirable and concerning.
Why?
The consent of third parties is not required for the carrying out of
charitable acts.
And irrespective of what others think of the matter, there is the little
matter of the families of the officers concerned.
So while one might be of the opinion that it is wrong "...that police
should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences for
their actions...", there are other people whose needs fall to be considered.
BTW: What sort of consequences" were you thinking of?
Is dismissal and unemployment not drastic enough?
That's the whole point! The police rank and file may not want this to happen and that might be their reason for contributing, rather than compassion for the unfortunate offenders.
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:122406a5-2a22-4d68...@googlegroups.com...
On Thursday, 2 November 2023 at 23:33:01 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef...@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
Well it has always been the case so that claim doesn't stand up to examination. There is more awareness these days so maybe there is
hope for better application of their powers.
The part of society being alienated is actually small (albeitPossibly I've misunderstood you here. In your first paragraph you state
potentially large parts of certain areas). That still matters of
course because it isnn't good having certain demographics not
trusting the Police. But their voices alone probably won't change
things.
that my "claim doesn't stand up to close examination" while in this second paragraph, you're admitting that "it isn't good having certain demographics not trusting the Police"
Which is exactly what I said. Or do you think I'm claiming something
else
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably isn’t an effective approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?Er no. As I explain in another post, *by way of comparison* I can't see
any equally simple way, for a black person to stop being black.
bb
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:00:38 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or >>>>>> could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally
then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in
question).
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that
minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these
ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would
seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the
financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing
financial protection for families who need it?
Because their intention would not be charitable, but the dissemination of racist propaganda.
What if it was a "racist" (see above for qualification) member of the
family?
Is it acceptable because they are a family member or is it unacceptable
because someone - rightly or wrongly - classifies that person as a "racist". >> Schrodinger's family member?
One would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, unless, like the golliwog licencees, they spouted racist propaganda when asked about their motives.
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that
police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would
seem undesirable and concerning.
Why?And irrespective of what others think of the matter, there is the little
The consent of third parties is not required for the carrying out of
charitable acts.
matter of the families of the officers concerned.
So while one might be of the opinion that it is wrong "...that police
should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences for
their actions...", there are other people whose needs fall to be considered. >> BTW: What sort of consequences" were you thinking of?
Is dismissal and unemployment not drastic enough?
That's the whole point! The police rank and file may not want this to happen and that might be their reason for contributing, rather than compassion for the unfortunate offenders.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or
could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally >>>> then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in
question).
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that >>>> minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these >>>> ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would >>>> seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the
financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing
financial protection for families who need it?
Because their intention would not be charitable, but the dissemination of
racist propaganda.
So, a person who happens to have racist thoughts cannot just be capable of
a charitable act.
Sounds a bit like “any black person in a decent car must be a drug dealer”.
What if it was a "racist" (see above for qualification) member of the
family?
Is it acceptable because they are a family member or is it unacceptable
because someone - rightly or wrongly - classifies that person as a "racist". [?]
Schrodinger's family member?
One would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, unless, like the
golliwog licencees, they spouted racist propaganda when asked about their
motives.
And if serving police were to start a fundraise because they think that >>>> police should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences
for their actions, no matter how dishonest or illegal, then that would >>>> seem undesirable and concerning.
Why?
The consent of third parties is not required for the carrying out of
charitable acts.
And irrespective of what others think of the matter, there is the little >>> matter of the families of the officers concerned.
So while one might be of the opinion that it is wrong "...that police
should be unaccountable and should never suffer any consequences for
their actions...", there are other people whose needs fall to be considered.
BTW: What sort of consequences" were you thinking of?
Is dismissal and unemployment not drastic enough?
That's the whole point! The police rank and file may not want this to happen >> and that might be their reason for contributing, rather than compassion for >> the unfortunate offenders.
Must be over 15 years ago now, but mr Kat did IT work, on contracts, for
the Met., and even then ordinary policemen were worried about something
going wrong, even when their intentions were just to do their job, but were then accused of racism.
Regardless of what we might think of this particular case,
misunderstandings and mistakes do occur, and maybe some innocent officer might get thrown to the wolves, to satisfy the baying mob. Or, just let crimes happen as they are too scared to stop them.
Compassion, fear for their own future? Does it really matter?
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kqivd6FqfjaU1@mid.individual.net...
On 02/11/2023 11:30 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christopher.astles@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54931f12-8d9c-4aef-8e10-9270e815c2c0n@googlegroups.com...
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
And then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
Being quite regularly stopped by police late at night or early in the
morning when driving old bangers (with lights and tyres then being
inspected) was something I accepted as quite normal.
I even understand that at 21, with rather more hair than I have these days >> and driving a seven year old car (in the days when many such cars were
almost ready for the scrapyard), I fitted some profile or other.
Even before that (at the age of say, 12 or 13), it was far from unknown to >> be stopped by foot patrol officers late at night (say 21:00 or later) and
briefly searched.
That was inner Liverpool. I expect that it was less frequent in Woolton.
Indeed, And as I explained above, as soon as you stopped driving
old bangers, and in your case stopped wearing your hair so long,
you were no longer bring stopped.
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Well it certainly brings us back to the bit about how profiling ought to be done. I would hope that the stops were recorded and that this would help the system develop some knowledge if not intelligence. They can put markers on vehicles for variousattributes and so they ought to be a corresponding record of ‘nothing untoward’ stops over some period.
On 03/11/2023 00:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@Proton.Me> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 19:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Of course Roger can speak for himself, but I sometimes suspect that
people deliberately misinterpret my comments, and it is reassuring to >>>>> understand their interpretation is not universal, not a natural
interpretation.
"Not a universal interpretation" and "not a natural intepretation"
are not at all the same thing.
Well, yes, and no. The tendency is that the more natural an
interpretation, the more universally it will be made.
So, er, "yes" then.
Yes, they are not equal.
Did you have a point to make about the distinction between the two?
Yes, my point that you equating them was a false statement. Something
can easly be "not a universal intepretation" without being an "unnatural
interpretation".
I did not equate them. I just gave two different characterisations. As
in telling a child their behaviour is not big, not clever, not funny.
Standard use of English in my neck of the woods.
On 03/11/2023 10:10 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:00:38 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or
could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who >>>>>> started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally >>>> then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about.
Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in
question).
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that >>>> minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these >>>> ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would >>>> seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the
financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing
financial protection for families who need it?
Because their intention would not be charitable, but the dissemination of
racist propaganda.
Money is racist propaganda?
Are you thinking clearly on this?
On 02/11/2023 22:08, Dr Dave wrote:attributes and so they ought to be a corresponding record of ‘nothing untoward’ stops over some period.
Well it certainly brings us back to the bit about how profiling ought to be done. I would hope that the stops were recorded and that this would help the system develop some knowledge if not intelligence. They can put markers on vehicles for various
Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment:
Suppose I am up to no good. So, I get a shady looking character to drive
my car around, whilst making sure he does nothing illegal at all.
Let's suppose he gets stopped 6 times in the first month, and 6 times in
the next month, and then suddenly there are no more stops. Great! I have
a car that's now on the white list. Let's go on a crime spree.
On 03/11/2023 09:27 am, billy bookcase wrote:
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Stop looking so young?
It worked for me.
Yes, my point that you equating them was a false statement. Something
can easly be "not a universal intepretation" without being an "unnatural >>> interpretation".
I did not equate them. I just gave two different characterisations. As
in telling a child their behaviour is not big, not clever, not funny.
Standard use of English in my neck of the woods.
I think it would appear that if you find yourself misunderstood
it is more likely to be down to your writing than their reading.
On 11/3/23 19:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, my point that you equating them was a false statement. Something
can easly be "not a universal intepretation" without being an "unnatural >>>> interpretation".
I did not equate them. I just gave two different characterisations. As
in telling a child their behaviour is not big, not clever, not funny.
Standard use of English in my neck of the woods.
I think it would appear that if you find yourself misunderstood
it is more likely to be down to your writing than their reading.
Well, that might be true.
That is why I'm trying to understand why you think I was implying
equality. I still do not understand why you think someone giving a list
of characteristics, or alternative characterisations, means they are
implying the characterisations or characteristics are equal.
If I understand what I'm doing wrong, I can correct it.
"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message news:kqkprk...@mid.individual.net...
On 03/11/2023 09:27 am, billy bookcase wrote:
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Stop looking so young?
It worked for me.
You used to be black ?
bb
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kqkprkF6b73U2@mid.individual.net...
On 03/11/2023 09:27 am, billy bookcase wrote:
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Stop looking so young?
It worked for me.
You used to be black ?
On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 10:35:28 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
The claim was that the Police would lose the support of Society
which is demonstrably false. They might lose the support of some
sections of Society. Those sections are, whilst still important
to most people, too small significant to effect a withdrawal of
support on the whole.
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably isn’t an effective
approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?
Er no. As I explain in another post, *by way of comparison* I can't see
any equally simple way, for a black person to stop being black.
bb
No, in this subthread you said that getting a better car and job were the simple factors which changed things for me.
For what it's worth, non of the non-whites I know get stopped more than
I do. Being young is a temporary disability in this regard.
I and my non-white acquaintances have outgrown that so that is one
factor that will change over time.
On 03/11/2023 08:16 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kqkprkF6b73U2@mid.individual.net...
On 03/11/2023 09:27 am, billy bookcase wrote:
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Stop looking so young?
It worked for me.
You used to be black ?
Well... the equivalent in age.
Believe me, I was a target.
Not that it ever did me any harm.
On 3 Nov 2023 at 17:47:57 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/11/2023 10:10 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Nov 2023 at 01:00:38 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:10 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-02, Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:Agreed (except that it's hard to see how and why that should even be in >>>> question).
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 1 Nov 2023 at 11:09:49 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2023 11:03 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
[…]
Possibly an investigation into the people behind the fund raiser >>>>>>>>> and their relationship with the police officers could have
embarrassing consequences. I wonder if a decision has been made on >>>>>>>>> their police pensions yet?
OK, so some people have a "thing" about police officers. We all knew, or
could at least have predicted, that.
But what have you got against their families?
Nothing at all. For instance, if it turned out to be a family member who
started a collection for the wife and children that would be reassuring to
some extent.
Reassuring about what? Officers supporting former officers? Note the recent
(non-financial) support for a firearms officer from his colleagues who >>>>>> threatened to hand in their firearm certificates.
It isn’t clear what you seek reassurance about, or why.
If the family member of a disgraced police officer were to start
a fundraiser for them because they support their family unconditionally >>>>> then that is understandable and nothing particularly to grumble about. >>>>
If a racist were to start a fundraiser for them because they think that >>>>> minority races *should* be persecuted and oppressed and therefore these >>>>> ex-police are laudable for doing so and should be rewarded, that would >>>>> seem rather undesirable.
Not from the POV of the potentially-impoverished recipient(s) of the
financial assistance.
And why would it be wrong for a "racist" (however defined and
identified) to carry out charitable actions with a view to providing
financial protection for families who need it?
Because their intention would not be charitable, but the dissemination of >>> racist propaganda.
Money is racist propaganda?
Are you thinking clearly on this?
Why are we talking about this at all?
Because it raised a lot of money and gotWhat case would that be, exactly?
a great deal of publicity. I rest my case.
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fe7e682a-499c-4460...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 10:35:28 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
<snipped for clarity >"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an intervention. >> >> > Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
The claim was that the Police would lose the support of Society
which is demonstrably false. They might lose the support of some
sections of Society. Those sections are, whilst still important
to most people, too small significant to effect a withdrawal of
support on the whole.
No it wasn't. I never claimed that.
It was you yourself who introduced the concept of "Society" and the "attitude" that can reasonably expected of them - and "what they have
to recognise"
In response, I merely pointed out that neither can Society reasonably
expect much in the way of future co-operation, from alienated sections
of society towards the police
Which instead, it seems you're choosing to interpret as
"And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation from Society as a whole".
Which doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. To me at least.
Why would Society as a whole "expect" anything, if they simply weren't
going to co-operate ?
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably isn’t an effective >> > approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more regular >> >> hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work early >> >> > in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?
Er no. As I explain in another post, *by way of comparison* I can't see
any equally simple way, for a black person to stop being black.
bb
No, in this subthread you said that getting a better car and job were the simple factors which changed things for me.
For what it's worth, non of the non-whites I know get stopped more than
I do. Being young is a temporary disability in this regard.
Ah right. So you admit it’s a "disability" ?
But only a "temporary" one.
So that's all right then.
I and my non-white acquaintances have outgrown that so that is oneThat would clearly depend on personality type. Given that as with a lot
factor that will change over time.
of these things, for instance being touched up, or bullied as a child,
as with being picked on by the police, many people may simply be too embarrassed to ever admit that they too were ever victims of this
"temporary disability"
bb
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kqlldqFanf9U3@mid.individual.net...
On 03/11/2023 08:16 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kqkprkF6b73U2@mid.individual.net...
On 03/11/2023 09:27 am, billy bookcase wrote:
So do you have any suggestions, quick tips etc, as to how black
people can stop being black ?
Stop looking so young?
It worked for me.
You used to be black ?
Well... the equivalent in age.
So you weren't.
Believe me, I was a target.
You don't really need to try very hard, certainly as a youing
person, to attract the attention of the police. Which in fact
may simply enhance your status, as a rebellious youth.
Whereas others don't even need to try, don't regard
themselves as rebellious in any way, and yet they still
get stopped all the time. Which also affects their
status, but in a purely negative way.
Not that it ever did me any harm.
That surely, is a matter of opinion.
On 01/11/2023 06:17, Dr Dave wrote:
Some will think the punishment is disproportionate to the act.
If we want police to carry out effective crime detection, using stop and search as one of their tools, then perhaps we ought to encourage
profiling? Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sure that's a common view.
A young black couple in an expensive car might be drug dealers. That
fits the profile, or at least a stereotype. It's certainly more likely
than me, an elderly white guy, in a 17 year old Volvo.
The snag is, of course, that with profiling the same people keep getting stopped.
Anyway, there are enough people who think that racist profiling is okay
that £100k+ has been raised.
On Monday, 30 October 2023 at 15:06:51 UTC, The Todal wrote:
Why would people contribute? Is it usual to have such fundraisers? The
comments from contributors have been taken down, so it isn't clear
whether they would support all police officers who are suspended or
sacked, or just those who have unreasonably stopped and searched black
people.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/Clapham-Franks
see also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67261517
A fool and his money are easily parted?
On Saturday, 4 November 2023 at 11:17:28 UTE, Billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe7e682a-499c-4460...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 10:35:28 UTE, Billy bookcase wrote:<snipped for clarity >
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it
becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an
intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of
society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
The claim was that the Police would lose the support of Society
which is demonstrably false. They might lose the support of some
sections of Society. Those sections are, whilst still important
to most people, too small significant to effect a withdrawal of
support on the whole.
No it wasn't. I never claimed that.
But you did. You said aaneither can Society <unqualified or
as a whole entity> > realistically expect much in the way of future co-operation
It was you yourself who introduced the concept of "Society" and the
"attitude" that can reasonably expected of them - and "what they have
to recognise"
Yep. Correct, those are the Normaso that will have to apply if we
are to have a fu cationic go investigative and prevention service.
In response, I merely pointed out that neither can Society reasonably
expect much in the way of future co-operation, from alienated sections
of society towards the police
But you dineto. You wrote about Society as an entity.
Which instead, it seems you're choosing to interpret as
"And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation from Society as a whole".
Thetaso because it is exactly what you said.
Which doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. To me at least.
Iotaso what you said.
Why would Society as a whole "expect" anything, if they simply weren't
going to co-operate ?
Because it expresses an expectation/desire different from the current
state
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably sineto an
effective
approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used toAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more
get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to work
early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
regular
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?
Err no. As I explain in another post, *by way of comparison* I can't
see
any equally simple way, for a black person to stop being black.
bb
No, in this sub you said that getting a better car and job were
the
simple factors which changed things for me.
For what it's worth, non of the non-whites I know get stopped more than
I do. Being young is a temporary disability in this regard.
Ah right. So you admit iotaso a "disability" ?
It certainly disables them in some respects such as their ability to move freely.
But only a "temporary" one.
Not many are permanently young.
So that's all right then.
You might think so. Ianvet never said that.
The claim was that the Police would lose the support of Society
which is demonstrably false.
No it wasn't. I never claimed that.
But you did.
For what it's worth, non of the non-whites I know get stopped more than
I do. Being young is a temporary disability in this regard.
Ah right. So you admit it’s a "disability" ?
It certainly disables them in some respects such as their ability to move freely.
But only a "temporary" one.
Not many are permanently young.
So that's all right then.
You might think so. I've never said that.
I am glad to hear it. And I expect you know that police officer<snip>
contribute a very large proportion of salary into the various pension schemes, and not out of choice.
On 03/11/2023 01:11, JNugent wrote:
I am glad to hear it. And I expect you know that police officer
contribute a very large proportion of salary into the various pension
schemes, and not out of choice.
<snip>
It's about an eighth of their salary, depending on income. That doesn't
seem an awful lot to buy an index linked pension from age 55.
My back-of-a-packet figures suggest that if they work 35 years (20-55)
and retire for nearly 30 years (based on life expectancy), they should
be putting aside nearly half of their salaries.
I haven't found how much the employer puts in. I bet it's more than an eighth.
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f8996173-c192-4687...@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, 4 November 2023 at 11:17:28 UTE, Billy bookcase wrote:
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fe7e682a-499c-4460...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 10:35:28 UTE, Billy bookcase wrote:<snipped for clarity >
"Dr Dave" <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's really a question of conditional probability - how far
do you have to go down a decision tree of events before it
becomes
sufficiently unusual to warrant suspicion worthy of an
intervention.
Society has to recognise that the Police can't function if they
are expected to have complete certainty for every engagement.
And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation, if the police merely succeed in alienating
large numbers of totally innocent members of particular sections of >> >> >> society. It's almost a foolproof recipe for failure
The claim was that the Police would lose the support of Society
which is demonstrably false. They might lose the support of some
sections of Society. Those sections are, whilst still important
to most people, too small significant to effect a withdrawal of
support on the whole.
No it wasn't. I never claimed that.
But you did. You said a€a€¦neither can Society <unqualified orIndeed! And there's no need for you to add your own extraneous
as a whole entity> > realistically expect much in the way of future co-operation
qualifiers
I stand by exactly what I wrote. Which was
"And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation"
So this is co-operation by whom, and with whom, exactly ?
( I'm claiming its co-operation by minorities with Society as a Whole,
which is the only interpretation which makes any sense; whereas
you seem to be claiming there's another possible interpretation.
START
So in your interpretation of my phrase
"And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation "
Who(a) are you claiming will or won't be co-operating with whom ?(be)
As it clearly doesn't make any real sense to suggest that Society as
whole (a) is or isn't co-operating with itself, Society as a Whole(be)
now does it ?
So how could Society as a Whole *not* co-operate with itself ?
It was you yourself who introduced the concept of "Society" and the
"attitude" that can reasonably expected of them - and "what they have
to recognise"
Yep. Correct, those are the Norma€™so that will have to apply if we
are to have a fu cationic go investigative and prevention service.
In response, I merely pointed out that neither can Society reasonably
expect much in the way of future co-operation, from alienated sections
of society towards the police
But you dine€™to. You wrote about Society as an entity.
Indeed! See START above
Which instead, it seems you're choosing to interpret as
"And neither can Society realistically expect much in the way of
future co-operation from Society as a whole".
Theta€™so because it is exactly what you said.
Indeed! See START above
Which doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. To me at least.
Iota€™so what you said.
Indeed! See START above
Why would Society as a whole "expect" anything, if they simply weren't
going to co-operate ?
Because it expresses an expectation/desire different from the currentAn expectation or desire for Society as a Whole to stop co-operating
state
with itself Society as a Whole, in other words
Well yes, but are you really sure about this ?
Or has the penny finally dropped ?
What we don't know is how effective that approach is. If it rarely
uncovers anything sufficiently serious it probably sine€™to an
effective
approach.
I suspect that the way that people interact also helps. I used to >> >> >> > get stopped quite a lot when I was driving an old car to workAnd then once you got a better car and/or started working more
early
in the morning. Mostly I was free after a few brief words -
regular
hours, guess what ? You no longer got stopped.
If only it were that simple, for everyone.
bb
You think it is simple to do those things?
Err no. As I explain in another post, *by way of comparison* I can't
see
any equally simple way, for a black person to stop being black.
bb
No, in this sub you said that getting a better car and job were
the
simple factors which changed things for me.
For what it's worth, non of the non-whites I know get stopped more than >> > I do. Being young is a temporary disability in this regard.
Ah right. So you admit iota€™so a "disability" ?
It certainly disables them in some respects such as their ability to move freely.
But only a "temporary" one.
Not many are permanently young.
So that's all right then.
You might think so. Ian€™vet never said that.
But you yourself implied it; by stressing the "temporary" nature of
their "disability". Otherwise, why mention it at all ?
bb
On 06/11/2023 02:25 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 03/11/2023 01:11, JNugent wrote:
I am glad to hear it. And I expect you know that police officer
contribute a very large proportion of salary into the various pension
schemes, and not out of choice.
<snip>
It's about an eighth of their salary, depending on income. That
doesn't seem an awful lot to buy an index linked pension from age 55.
What one gets out of it years in the future doesn't make the compulsory
high monthly contributions seem any lower, especially during the years
when a house is being bought and maintained, as well as there being a
family to support.
Added to 20% Income Tax and 12% National Insurance (admittedly, those
two are only at the margin), you're soon talking big money: 12.5% + 20%
+ 12% = 44.5% of each marginal pound. And 12.5% taken out of the
tax-free allowance part of gross income.
My back-of-a-packet figures suggest that if they work 35 years (20-55)
and retire for nearly 30 years (based on life expectancy), they should
be putting aside nearly half of their salaries.
I haven't found how much the employer puts in. I bet it's more than an
eighth.
I expect it is. There will still be a significant ongoing liability for
the Treasury.
On 06/11/2023 14:43, JNugent wrote:
On 06/11/2023 02:25 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:If you're paying tax & NI on the money you put aside in your pension
On 03/11/2023 01:11, JNugent wrote:
I am glad to hear it. And I expect you know that police officer
contribute a very large proportion of salary into the various
pension schemes, and not out of choice.
<snip>
It's about an eighth of their salary, depending on income. That
doesn't seem an awful lot to buy an index linked pension from age 55.
What one gets out of it years in the future doesn't make the
compulsory high monthly contributions seem any lower, especially
during the years when a house is being bought and maintained, as well
as there being a family to support.
Added to 20% Income Tax and 12% National Insurance (admittedly, those
two are only at the margin), you're soon talking big money: 12.5% +
20% + 12% = 44.5% of each marginal pound. And 12.5% taken out of the
tax-free allowance part of gross income.
My back-of-a-packet figures suggest that if they work 35 years
(20-55) and retire for nearly 30 years (based on life expectancy),
they should be putting aside nearly half of their salaries.
I haven't found how much the employer puts in. I bet it's more than
an eighth.
I expect it is. There will still be a significant ongoing liability
for the Treasury.
you're doing it wrong.
You should pay tax (and no NI) when you take it out instead.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:57:47 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,638 |