  |
 ANOTHER Boris Johnson Gaffe |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 21st March 2018, 08:39 PM
Post
#61
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,856 User: 17,376 
   |
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Mar 21 2018, 07:43 PM)  Of course Putin will use it for propaganda purposes. However, the man who used the 2012 Olympics as an opportunity for shameless self-promotion is not the person best placed to complain about it. Thankfully he has no power to force England to boycott the tournament. As Thatcher found out with the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, either does the PM. Hah! What a two-faced hypocrite Bozza is. Not least by trying to use Sports as the weapon of choice (it's of no consequence who attends or wins, except to football fans, and nothing bad comes out of attending or not attending), while actually doing something about all the corrupt links with Russian dirty cash carries merrily on, along with the Tories happiness to sell weapons of destruction to people as bad or worse than Putin. |
 |
 
|
|
21st March 2018, 09:08 PM
Post
#62
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,679 User: 3,272
       |
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jan 19 2018, 11:11 AM) On the day that the French president has said that there should be no special deal for the City of London, the government needed a distraction. Naturally, they were able to rely on Johnson to provide it with his suggestion of a bridge over the Channel. Never mind the underfunded NHS, what we really need is a bridge over one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. A bridge to link the UK with the very countries the government is busy severing ties with. Please tell me we have been living in a Yes Minister episode for the past few years and that normality will be resumed soon. QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 21 2018, 08:39 PM) Hah! What a two-faced hypocrite Bozza is. Not least by trying to use Sports as the weapon of choice (it's of no consequence who attends or wins, except to football fans, and nothing bad comes out of attending or not attending), while actually doing something about all the corrupt links with Russian dirty cash carries merrily on, along with the Tories happiness to sell weapons of destruction to people as bad or worse than Putin. Indeed. When the government need to deflect attention from their incompetence and corruption, they have just the person to provide it. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 07:13 AM
Post
#63
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
 |
Does this count...?
Boris raps May on knife crime saying the Prime Minister is ‘wrong to cut back on stop-and-search’ At Cabinet meeting on Tuesday he criticised PM's move to limit stop-and-search Foreign Secretary told Prime Minister that more stop-and-search was needed Ex-civil servant said little evidence to back up PM's claim black men suffer more http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...nife-crime.html |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 07:21 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,856 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 22 2018, 07:13 AM) Does this count...? Boris raps May on knife crime saying the Prime Minister is ‘wrong to cut back on stop-and-search’ At Cabinet meeting on Tuesday he criticised PM's move to limit stop-and-search Foreign Secretary told Prime Minister that more stop-and-search was needed Ex-civil servant said little evidence to back up PM's claim black men suffer more http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...nife-crime.html There has been lots of evidence for decades that people of a particular colour and age and gender get stopped and searched as compared to those who aren't in that demographic, which just builds up resentment issues. I got stopped once while doing my job, because I was a single man inspecting a football field and children's playground, because I looked a bit suspicious hanging around childrens play areas while not having a dog with me, essentially (kids were at school, and it's not a crime to walk round public open spaces). I'm still resentful about it, and I was very stroppy and curt with the officer responsible who had no business making assumptions based on nothing. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 07:31 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 22 2018, 07:21 AM) There has been lots of evidence for decades that people of a particular colour and age and gender get stopped and searched as compared to those who aren't in that demographic, which just builds up resentment issues. I got stopped once while doing my job, because I was a single man inspecting a football field and children's playground, because I looked a bit suspicious hanging around childrens play areas while not having a dog with me, essentially (kids were at school, and it's not a crime to walk round public open spaces). I'm still resentful about it, and I was very stroppy and curt with the officer responsible who had no business making assumptions based on nothing. Choosing who to stop & search based on racial/other stereotypes is always going to be a controversial issue, but there has to be a balance between tackling crime & avoiding offending minorities, otherwise we end up with situations where genuine crime is ignored for PC reasons, as in Rotherham, Rochdale & Telford. 
|
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 08:00 AM
Post
#66
|
|
 Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,119 User: 18,639
     |
Stop and search is discriminatory. Mind your own business, coppers. The establishment needs to have its powers curtailed. They're all in bed together. We have a right to go about our business in public spaces without being stopped. Being stopped on SUSPICION of a future crime, without like a gun-shaped outline under a coat, etc, is abuse of establishment power. It is VERY Victorian and utilitarian: you can't be in public spaces without having a set agenda, otherwise SUSPICION!!! Wandering around? SUSPICION!! Coat in summer? SUSPICION!! VERY Victorian.
And just why the foreign secretary bumbling country idiot is chiming in on home affairs, well, I do know, actually. He is still angling for her job to be the British fop-haired Trump. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 08:46 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 22 2018, 08:00 AM) Stop and search is discriminatory. Mind your own business, coppers. The establishment needs to have its powers curtailed. They're all in bed together. We have a right to go about our business in public spaces without being stopped. Being stopped on SUSPICION of a future crime, without like a gun-shaped outline under a coat, etc, is abuse of establishment power. It is VERY Victorian and utilitarian: you can't be in public spaces without having a set agenda, otherwise SUSPICION!!! Wandering around? SUSPICION!! Coat in summer? SUSPICION!! VERY Victorian. Should the police refrain from S&S even if the suspect is known to them to have previous convictions? The police's priority is to protect the public & uphold the law of the land, and despite what you might desire, avoiding offending suspects is not part of that law. If you prevent the police from doing their job to the best of their ability, you'll end up with anarchy. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 08:50 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,119 User: 18,639
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 22 2018, 08:46 AM) Should the police refrain from S&S even if the suspect is known to them to have previous convictions? The police's priority is to protect the public & uphold the law of the land, and despite what you might desire, avoiding offending suspects is not part of that law. If you prevent the police from doing their job to the best of their ability, you'll end up with anarchy. From stopping EMERGENCY powers? I don't think so. Stop and search has been contentious since it was introduced. It should be abolished IMMEDIATELY. They can both protect and uphold the law without intruding on people's lives. Previous offenders or otherwise, we have a right to go about our business unaccosted. Assuming this law was brought in as a cheap way to fight the war on drugs, just cancel that silly war and decriminalise already. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 10:02 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 22 2018, 08:50 AM) From stopping EMERGENCY powers? I don't think so. Stop and search has been contentious since it was introduced. A point I made myself. QUOTE It should be abolished IMMEDIATELY. They can both protect and uphold the law without intruding on people's lives. What's your alternative then (iro crime that is not related to WoD)?QUOTE Previous offenders or otherwise, we have a right to go about our business unaccosted. Assuming this law was brought in as a cheap way to fight the war on drugs, just cancel that silly war and decriminalise already. Perhaps a thread on decriminalization of drugs should be started, if there isn't already one?
|
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 10:11 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,119 User: 18,639
|
The alternative is to rescind these emergency powers and stop stop and search.
Name ONE instance it averted an attack. Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 10:33 AM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Mar 22 2018, 10:11 AM) The alternative is to rescind these emergency powers and stop stop and search. Name ONE instance it averted an attack. Exactly. That's a circular argument - the very act of S&S can prevent crimes, and you obviously can't enumerate crimes that were prevented... |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 10:40 AM
Post
#72
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,119 User: 18,639
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 22 2018, 10:33 AM) That's a circular argument - the very act of S&S can prevent crimes, and you obviously can't enumerate crimes that were prevented... These emergency powers were brought in r.e terrorism. If they stopped an attack, the BBTory and establishment media would not shut up! Completely monitoring EVERYONE's internet/ messages would ALSO prevent crimes, as would two-way tvs feeding into the Ministry of Peace (or was it Love?).However, giving up liberty is not an option. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 01:51 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,856 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Mar 22 2018, 07:31 AM) Choosing who to stop & search based on racial/other stereotypes is always going to be a controversial issue, but there has to be a balance between tackling crime & avoiding offending minorities, otherwise we end up with situations where genuine crime is ignored for PC reasons, as in Rotherham, Rochdale & Telford. Completely different issues. NOT chasing up people reported to be committing crimes is a police force failure. Their colour is irrelevant. Stop & search is completely subjective. |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 02:29 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 22 2018, 01:51 PM) Completely different issues. NOT chasing up people reported to be committing crimes is a police force failure. Their colour is irrelevant. Stop & search is completely subjective. I remember watching that at the time. 
|
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 07:46 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,093 User: 3,474
   |
I fully support Stop and Search. I do think that officers need better training and there is an institutional racism problem that needs addressing, but the core concept of stop and search is absolutely something that I agree with.
Knife crime needs to be tackled, drug crime needs to be tackled, petty theft needs to be tackled. All of this sort of low level crime gets swept up and dealt with under S&S. Especially where police are empowered to act reasonably in a way that's best for the community and those involved (i.e. street cautions for weed possession) Unfortunately the facts of life are that certain groups of people commit certain types of crime at higher frequency than the general population. However, currently the police are rather fond of forgetting to S&S white people in those situations. That drastically needs addressing. Gangs of youths are not a unique feature of one community or race and police need to stop thinking that this profile begins and ends with the racial background of the person in front of them. QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Mar 22 2018, 07:21 AM) There has been lots of evidence for decades that people of a particular colour and age and gender get stopped and searched as compared to those who aren't in that demographic, which just builds up resentment issues. I got stopped once while doing my job, because I was a single man inspecting a football field and children's playground, because I looked a bit suspicious hanging around childrens play areas while not having a dog with me, essentially (kids were at school, and it's not a crime to walk round public open spaces). I'm still resentful about it, and I was very stroppy and curt with the officer responsible who had no business making assumptions based on nothing. Yeah if I was a cop I'd probably have had a conversation with you. Unless you had uniform and ID cards in which case I'd have left you to do your jobs. Single male, children's playground looking a bit suspect is a pretty good grounds for a conversation. I totally support their actions here. They have a lot of issues, but trying to prevent crime is not something we should be hassling them for. (in circumstances where it is proven they aren't acting with a racial bias of course. This is one of those times) |
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 08:45 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,856 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Mar 22 2018, 07:46 PM) I fully support Stop and Search. I do think that officers need better training and there is an institutional racism problem that needs addressing, but the core concept of stop and search is absolutely something that I agree with. Knife crime needs to be tackled, drug crime needs to be tackled, petty theft needs to be tackled. All of this sort of low level crime gets swept up and dealt with under S&S. Especially where police are empowered to act reasonably in a way that's best for the community and those involved (i.e. street cautions for weed possession) Unfortunately the facts of life are that certain groups of people commit certain types of crime at higher frequency than the general population. However, currently the police are rather fond of forgetting to S&S white people in those situations. That drastically needs addressing. Gangs of youths are not a unique feature of one community or race and police need to stop thinking that this profile begins and ends with the racial background of the person in front of them. Yeah if I was a cop I'd probably have had a conversation with you. Unless you had uniform and ID cards in which case I'd have left you to do your jobs. Single male, children's playground looking a bit suspect is a pretty good grounds for a conversation. I totally support their actions here. They have a lot of issues, but trying to prevent crime is not something we should be hassling them for. (in circumstances where it is proven they aren't acting with a racial bias of course. This is one of those times) If I expand on the circumstances. They didnt see me inspect the equipment, they didn't see me hanging about dodgy furtively looking at playgrounds, they didnt see me making notes of litter and dog mess or checking the football pitch markings, they only saw me drive out of the open space in my car, followed my car and pulled me over - so they were basically stopping me and questioning me on the grounds that I was a man apparently enjoying public open space because "there had been reports of a man near the play area" which was more or less part of the walk round the football field and woodlands. To me that's an invasion of privacy and the freedom to enjoy government-provided open spaces. Going for a walk should not be regarded as a crime for single men on the grounds that they might be paedophiles. A man who IS a paedophile and has a child with them would get by fine, or if he had a dog, that's fine. But not if you are alone, a man on his own is a danger to children? I appreciate the (very young) officer was well-intentioned and I was sort of happy they were around the area and keeping an eye, and they have to respond to reports, but one in an ideal world shouldnt assume anything of the many people who enjoy POS without proof of suspicious activity. For all they know I could have been suffering from severe depression trying to get my head together having a breath of fresh air at a quiet time of the morning while kids are in school, and that incident might have been enough to tip me over the edge. Now if I had been lurking in the shrubs next to the playground, or pointing a camera at it while children were using it, quite another issue entirely.. But ignoring all of that, the resentment that I hold (in a very minor way for a minor incident) some 30 years later for being thought to be dodgy must be much worse for people who are regularly questioned because they look up to no good hanging about on street corners. How much crime is prevented from stop & search? I'd like to see the figures that it's an effective policy because I suspect it just breeds resentment in the community and doesnt achieve much. Mind you not an issue these days outside London, finding a random policeman at all, even in an emergency, is something of an achievement, and outside of a car is a rarity...! 
|
|
|
|
|
22nd March 2018, 10:37 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,679 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Mar 22 2018, 07:46 PM) I fully support Stop and Search. I do think that officers need better training and there is an institutional racism problem that needs addressing, but the core concept of stop and search is absolutely something that I agree with. Knife crime needs to be tackled, drug crime needs to be tackled, petty theft needs to be tackled. All of this sort of low level crime gets swept up and dealt with under S&S. Especially where police are empowered to act reasonably in a way that's best for the community and those involved (i.e. street cautions for weed possession) Unfortunately the facts of life are that certain groups of people commit certain types of crime at higher frequency than the general population. However, currently the police are rather fond of forgetting to S&S white people in those situations. That drastically needs addressing. Gangs of youths are not a unique feature of one community or race and police need to stop thinking that this profile begins and ends with the racial background of the person in front of them. Yeah if I was a cop I'd probably have had a conversation with you. Unless you had uniform and ID cards in which case I'd have left you to do your jobs. Single male, children's playground looking a bit suspect is a pretty good grounds for a conversation. I totally support their actions here. They have a lot of issues, but trying to prevent crime is not something we should be hassling them for. (in circumstances where it is proven they aren't acting with a racial bias of course. This is one of those times) That attitude has serious unintended consequences. I've lived on the south coast for the last 20+ years so there are a lot of visiting families around in the summer. On one occasion when I was enjoying a stroll along the promenade, I saw a boy aged about eight who looked lost. I felt unable to approach him for fear of what other people might think. Instead I asked a woman nearby to intervene. On another occasion I saw a boy, probably about nine or ten, walking past looking a little worried. A few minutes later has was running back in the opposite direction looking a lot more panicky. Again, I felt unable to intervene. How would it have looked if a single man had stopped a boy who was running? The number of children abducted and killed by a stranger in the UK is around six per year. It has remained at that level for a long time. |
|
|
|
|
27th March 2018, 01:43 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
Another one for you - even despite the source, you might like it :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-55...on-Commons.html Speaker Bercow rages at 'sexist' Boris Johnson in the Commons after he calls shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry 'Lady something' Speaker John Bercow has clashed with Boris Johnson in the House of Commons Mr Bercow berated Foreign Secretary for 'sexist' jibe about Emily Thornberry Mr Johnson apologised for referring to Labour counterpart as 'Lady something' |
|
|
|
|
27th March 2018, 03:18 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,856 User: 17,376
|
Coming from Bercow it's a bit rich. He's accused of far worse to female employees in parliament.
Not that Johnson isn't sexist tho! Or extra marital activities... |
|
|
|
|
27th March 2018, 06:42 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,093 User: 3,474
|
*locates Julia Gillards misogyny speech to the Australian House of Reps*
|
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 28th April 2024, 06:15 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
