/ the worlds mad (in Rotherham anyway)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dale1968 - on 24 Nov 2012
Talius Brute - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

As a local authority "strategic" director she'll be on about 150k and she sounds like a moron.
dale1968 - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Talius Brute: yeah, did not want to be overly judgmental, but now you mention it..........
subalpine - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968: how long will she last?
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1076097-council-protected-children-from-strong-views

common purpose in action..
dale1968 - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to subalpine: thanks, fantastic, cohesive arguments are not her strong point! she needs to get on ukc
subalpine - on 24 Nov 2012
gribble - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

I can see why the decision was made, and it would have been a difficult one as the risk is the spin the media might have put on it. Who'd have thought - the media have put a giant spin on it!
Simon4 - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to gribble: Thank you for that fine effort sir, congratulations!

I knew one could rely on UKC to have someone to produce ludicrous sophistry to defend the indefensible.
gribble - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Simon4:

You're welcome dear chap. I take it you're well acquainted it social services fostering procedures...!
subalpine - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Simon4: and what about the Christian foster parent decision? completely different?
Siward on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Simon4: There's always one. Absolutely appalling. Legal action should be considered,
subalpine - on 24 Nov 2012
Ken Lewis - on 24 Nov 2012
I am in Berlin at the moment.

Yesterday i visited the Topographies del Terror museum.

The 1933-1935 section had a lot of stories like this.
subalpine - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Siward: what if they were BNP members or even witches?
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

We no longer have the right to free speech.
Now;-
we no longer have the right to think what we want.
Timmd on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Dave Perry:It could be a funny one, in the past in Rotherham they've been ticked of for not meeting the cultural needs of the children they place in fostercare, and they could quite possibly have jumped the gun, in that these could be UKIP members who'd have quite happily met the cultural needs of these immigrant children, even if they don't want more immigration into the UK themselves.

If (good in all other aspects) foster carers who more closely match the culture of these children are found is it still the wrong decision?

More of an open question than a reatorical one...
Andy Say - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Ken Lewis:
> I am in Berlin at the moment.
>
> Yesterday i visited the Topographies del Terror museum.
>
> The 1933-1935 section had a lot of stories like this.

Stories that suggested that they didn't foster Jewish kids with Nazi Party members? Or the other way round?

C'mon, Ken. You are really suggesting that Rochdale Social Services are part of a long-term plot to create a fourth Reich by cleansing the world of UKIP members? Or are you over-reacting?
Timmd on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Andy Say:It does open a can of worms a bit all the same though.
Timmd on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Andy Say:I think it was the wrong decision really.
andyathome - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

To prevent heated argument I have created two threads upon which you can post your thoughts without fear of disagreement.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=528573

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=528571
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Isn't this about meeting the policy needs of the council rather than the needs of the foster kids to have a loving and caring family upbringing.

Poor kids.

"But I want to stay. My new mum and dad are great".
"You can't they don't meet your (our) needs!!"

(....Later.....) (After a short stay with emergency carers)

"Look we've found another couple who'll have you. And they'll meet your cultural and political needs because they are not members of.. UKIP. the conservatives, the liberals, BNP, Communist party, monster raving loony party. etc., etc., - They are LABOUR members and believe in all our policies!!"
PATTISON Bill - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:Spot on Dave Perry
The New NickB - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Dave Perry:
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> We no longer have the right to free speech.
> Now;-
> we no longer have the right to think what we want.

Not when we are looking after vulnerable children on behalf of the state, no! Isn't that rather obvious.

I don't agree with Rotherham Council based on the way it has been presented in the media, but am also aware that media presentation isn't always reliable.
Ken Lewis - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Andy Say:

I said similar, and who mentioned jews?

Person X suffered arbitrary state punishment Y for being a member of partyA/trade union B/ social club C.

That is what i am referring to. If you see that as an over reaction, then you are what the history books refer to when it says "the regime could not have succeded without the will of the people."
In reply to dale1968: I think we're missing the bigger question, which is what the f*ck are we doing placing vulnerable kids in foster care in ROTHERHAM?
Philip on 24 Nov 2012
UKIP members aren't extremists but I would have thought they were inappropriate for fostering EU migrant children. Presumably the fostering services have to find the best matches and use all sorts of background information to make that decision.
dissonance - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Ken Lewis:

> Person X suffered arbitrary state punishment Y for being a member of partyA/trade union B/ social club C.

but what has this got to do with this case?
The decision was made on the grounds that immigrant children would not have their best interests served by being with these fosterers. Not that they should be banned from fostering at all which would tick the box of arbitary state punishment.

The New NickB - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to Ken Lewis)
> [...]
>
> C'mon, Ken. You are really suggesting that Rochdale Social Services are part of a long-term plot to create a fourth Reich by cleansing the world of UKIP members? Or are you over-reacting?

Rotherham! But yes it is a tasteless and rather silly comparison.
Ken Lewis - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dissonance:

The state placed ethnic minority children with the couple, had the ethnic issue been a problem this wouldnt have happened.

The state then discovered (by tip of from one of the states willing citizens) that the couple were member of a political party the state didnt agree with and removed the children.

Therefore the reason for removal was not the ethnicity, it was the membership of party A.

It may be inconvenient, but that is exactly the same as what is documented in the museum i referred to.

For the record, its hopefully obvious, but i believe ethnicity should be irrelivent in deciding foster carers- and that was the decision initially made by the relevant authorities.
abr1966 - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968: Sounds a poor decision to me but there may well be more to it that isn't being reported.

Iys a tough job to foster kids...and tough to place kids in them and get it right.

Being a social worker is like being a mechanic with no workshop and no tools these days..
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:
If the parents were otherwise 'good enough' parents who would do a good enough job then depriving them of that chance and more importantly the stability of a good foster home for the kids, then there is something wrong. Just because the parent/s think or disagree with something you do not, does not, in my view - or many other peoples' views should prevent them fostering.

Surely there must be loads of parents on here and elsewhere who might posses views, that they choose not to tell or influence their own kids with?

Surely if your good enough you are not going to cloud your own kids with your own judgemental views, especially if those views may be held controversial and detrimental to being a foster parent?
Ken Lewis - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
> [...]
>
> Rotherham! But yes it is a tasteless and rather silly comparison.

To suggest "Rotheram" is somehow relevant is rather tasteless and silly.

Ken Lewis - on 24 Nov 2012
Commentator on news just raised the question... Should a gay teenager be removed from a catholic foster house?

I would say not, even though I think Catholics are weird and very offensive where sexual equality is concerned.
The New NickB - on 24 Nov 2012
In reply to Ken Lewis:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> To suggest "Rotheram" is somehow relevant is rather tasteless and silly.

Don't be a dick!
dale1968 - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Dave Perry: exactly, I know BNP parents there kids are not raving looonies
Ben Sharp - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:
> (In reply to Dave Perry) exactly, I know BNP parents there kids are not raving looonies

Yeah but the difference is that the BNP are an openly racist party who don't allow anyone who isn't white and British to join them. I don't think anyone would have a problem with black children being taken away from BNP party members. UKIP have had black candidates in the past, yes they're anti-immigration but they're not anti-immigrant.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Surely the fact that this couple accepted these children in the first place is an indication that they are not racist? They may have joined UKIP on issues like the membership of the EU or something of the sort - their experience with children of different origins is likely to be beneficial too as it's hard to hate the children you are bringing up, day by day, in sickness and health.

It should also be good for the kids, helping them to integrate rather than live in an ethnic ghetto, scientifically chosen by the council officials, a sort of social colour coding.
Paul F - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ben Sharp:

The BNP has had to allow black/asian party members since 2004 or it would face legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

UKIP are pro controlled immigration not anti immigration.

I'm not supporting or defending either party, but it's important to get it right :0)
dale1968 - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Paul F: It's about democracy the right to vote without interference from left wing social workers who think they know best, If i had my way if you vote labour you could not be a social worker :)
Ben Sharp - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Paul F: Cheers for the info, but the BNP allowing black/asian members is a joke. Wasn't it more recent than 2004 that they voted on it? Sure I remember it on the news a few years ago at most.

I remember reading about a guy trying to join the BNP who was warmly welcomed (British name) until he turned up in person and they saw he was black, needless to say he wasn't welcome anymore. I'm sure they didn't send him a letter or state on their website that blacks aren't allowed but that doesn't mean that that guy wasn't going to get his head kicked in if he stayed around. It was embarrassing when they "let in" a black guy and a couple of asians (pretty sure that's close to griffins exact words), a total stunt designed to make them look not-racist but having the absolute opposite effect. Anyone who thinks the BNP aren't a largely racist party is living in dream land.
dale1968 - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ben Sharp: large numbers of the BNP are racists, but plenty who vote are whites who have been discriminated because they are white. If my word is not good enough even the head of CRE Trevor Philips said it had swung to far against white people
Paul F - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ben Sharp:

I googled it and it came back to an article from August 2004. According to Griffin "Anyone can be a member of this party. We are happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/01/uk.race
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/813138-bnp-votes-to-allow-black-members#ixzz2DEfyknSp
dissonance - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ken Lewis:

> Therefore the reason for removal was not the ethnicity, it was the membership of party A.

correct because it was seen as an indication that it was not in interests of the children. If the children were a different ethnicity it wouldnt be an issue.

> It may be inconvenient, but that is exactly the same as what is documented in the museum i referred to.

no it really isnt. If they were banned from any fostering it would be somewhat closer.
The New NickB - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to Ben Sharp)
>
> I googled it and it came back to an article from August 2004. According to Griffin "Anyone can be a member of this party. We are happy to accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/01/uk.race
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/813138-bnp-votes-to-allow-black-members#ixzz2DEfyknSp

Strange then that they had to change their membership policy to be more inclusive so they could get their Euro MP salaries and funding.
elsewhere on 25 Nov 2012
It's difficult to believe that the foster parents wouldn't provide appropriately supportive answers to any questions* from a child about immigration or politics. The only legitimate concern I can think of is that the foster parents might have to be slightly dishonest to provide those supportive answers to a child.

The council would have to dicuss those concerns with the foster parents and make a decision based on the foster parents' views on politics, immigration & parenting.

Definitely not a blanket UKIP fostering ban but unfortunately (and legitimately in my opinion) that is political discrimination in fostering.

*eg if child encounters anti-immigrant comment outside the home or sees something on the TV news.

The foster parents in this case sound like good people so I've no idea if the council made the right decision. Even if the council have made the right decision they should not break the confidentiality of their discussions with the paerents.

Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Joyce Thacker, The head of children's services in Rotherham, has said that the decision was justified on the basis of UKIP's "rejection of multiculturalism".

As I understand it is UKIP's view that a common British culture should be promoted into which immigrates should be encouraged to integrate,as opposed to the deliberate promotion and thus separation of other cultures. This is a common official view in many West European countries such as France, is shared by, for axample Gordon Brown, and was acknowledged and even embraced by Trevor Phillips who argued that multicultural policies risked segregating communities along ethnic lines and prevented second-generation minorities from integrating fully into British society.

That Thacker appears either to conflate such a view with racism or is simply is so bigoted that she believes such a view is so extreme to be a barrier to good fostering is a pretty sad reflection on her. The only possible excuse is that the poor sods are running so scared of being seen to get it wrong either way that they can no longer think straight.
subalpine - on 25 Nov 2012
Postmanpat on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to subalpine:

"Politician smears oppo shock horror...."

Actually I don't doubt there are supporters of ukip with some pretty fruity views but that is hardly unique to ukip and we have yet to see any evidence that the fosterers in question held notably fruity views.

The New NickB - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to subalpine:

Dave must have been really pissed off given the work that Michael Howard had put in securing the closet racist vote.
Ridge - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to subalpine)
> [...]
>
> Dave must have been really pissed off given the work that Michael Howard had put in securing the closet racist vote.

Which party came up with "British Jobs for British Workers" just before the last election? I don't think any member of any political party would be allowed to foster children under Rotherham social services criteria.
The New NickB - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ridge:

I don't think I'm thinking what you're thinking!
The New NickB - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Which party came up with "British Jobs for British Workers" just before the last election?

I think as a bid for the closet racist vote it was a poor effort.
Timmd on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to dale1968)

> The only possible excuse is that the poor sods are running so scared of being seen to get it wrong either way that they can no longer think straight.

I think that is what's happened actually, that they've been criticised for not meeting the cultural needs of some other children they've put into foster care, so they've swung too far in the other direction this time.
Ridge - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Ridge)
>
> I don't think I'm thinking what you're thinking!

Erm...possibly not :-)
fred99 - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to :

In appears that Ms. Thacker only wants children to be with persons of their own culture.
This leads therefore to only 2 options being available;

1) They are sent to whichever country their parents came from.
or
2) They find foster parents of their own ethnicity and ensure that they are brought up within some form of "separate development".

Now option 1 is racist, and option 2 is apartheid.

Furthermore, hasn't she now made it quite possible for members of UKIP to take up a "Class Action" against Rotherham Social Services for the (libellous) accusation of being racist.

Looks to me that Ms. Thacker is in danger of becoming an even bigger wally (or whatever other description you prefer),
Timmd on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to fred99:Apartheid?
fred99 - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:

Separate Development was the (polite ?) other term for Apartheid.

The idea that groups of people living in the same place should (or even can) develop separately is highly questionable.
Timmd on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to fred99:If they're immigrant children it might help them feeling less adrift and without roots, or just less weird generally if they have thier 'cultural needs met' though.

I heard on the BBC Asian Network about a study done which found amongst Bangladeshi people, that the more cultural links they maintained with thier origions once over here (how they measured this i'm unaware of by the way), the less mental health problems they had.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to fred99)Apartheid?

Apartheid: separate development.

I'm sure in S Africa or the Southern states of the USA you could have found well meaning individuals who would have explained to you how "separate development" gave rise to "less mental health problems" for the different "races" concerned too!
Wanderer100 - on 25 Nov 2012
My understanding of how this decision was reached was due to a Judge berating the council for not doing enough to ensure the cultural and ethnic needs (of previous children placed in foster care in Rotherham) was being respected. Another example of the completely out of touch judiciary in our country.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 25 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:I was expecting you to post something like that.

Funny how having some cultural links with where somebody comes from has morphed into seperate development for some people.

It isn't as if there isn't some middle ground between two extremes at either end, but there you go.

Call children having cultural needs being met aparthied if it makes you happy...
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:

You queried the word "apartheid", we were just explaining to you what it meant. Given your age you are probably not familiar with the fight against apartheid in S Africa, a fight that influenced the political views of many of my generation enormously. The same is true for the "separate development" efforts in the Southern states of the USA, I grew up with images of the battle black people went through to get rid of buses with seats reserved for "whites only". These are now things of the past, something us oldies tend to forget when discussing the subject with those who did not live through the period.

For you "multicultural society" is all good but we can remember the more sinister applications of this sort of notion in the past. Apartheid is simply a more extreme version of multiculturalism, it's logical extension. The preferred metaphor for humanists in those dark days was the "melting pot", all humans coming together, sharing their diverse cultural aspects in a common universal society. I've yet to hear a convincing argument against this. Can you provide one?
IainRUK - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
> Given your age you are probably not familiar with the fight against apartheid in S Africa,

eh? You for real.. that's like Saying we have never heard of Martin Luther King or Gandhi...
The New NickB - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

An interesting development in the case appears to be that Rotherham Social Services may have been reacting to more general critisism by a judge for not ensure that cultural sensitivities of fostered children not being met.
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> You queried the word "apartheid", we were just explaining to you what it meant. Given your age you are probably not familiar with the fight against apartheid in S Africa, a fight that influenced the political views of many of my generation enormously. The same is true for the "separate development" efforts in the Southern states of the USA, I grew up with images of the battle black people went through to get rid of buses with seats reserved for "whites only". These are now things of the past, something us oldies tend to forget when discussing the subject with those who did not live through the period.
>
> For you "multicultural society" is all good but we can remember the more sinister applications of this sort of notion in the past. Apartheid is simply a more extreme version of multiculturalism, it's logical extension. The preferred metaphor for humanists in those dark days was the "melting pot", all humans coming together, sharing their diverse cultural aspects in a common universal society. I've yet to hear a convincing argument against this. Can you provide one?

Absolutely not, and i'm well aware of aparthied.

To me a multicultural society would be a melting pot, hence my puzzlement at the use of aparthied on this thread.

Immigrant children speaking english at school and at home with thier foster parents as well as being able to speak the language of the country where they come from and whatever else 'having thier cultural needs met' involves, fits quite well with the idea of a melting pot to me. Why shouldn't there be more than one cultural influence in peoples' lives?

If anybody can point out how Rotherham social workers were trying to make seperate devlopment happen, i'd be very glad to be know?
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> An interesting development in the case appears to be that Rotherham Social Services may have been reacting to more general critisism by a judge for not ensure that cultural sensitivities of fostered children not being met.

Indeed, that's what I heard yesterday.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> eh? You for real.. that's like Saying we have never heard of Martin Luther King or Gandhi...

Heard of may not be quite the same as being around at the time.. I "knew" about what happened in Palestine in the 40s but I'm only just really starting to see the details. The anti-apartheid movement was a founding one for a generation, as was the anti-Vietnam War movement for young people who lived though it in the USA, or often outside it as many had to leave.

Bruce Hooker - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:

> To me a multicultural society would be a melting pot,

It isn't though, it is the opposite... the former aims at a multitude of cultures functioning in a country, in parallel as it were - the "melting pot" metaphor is where all the different cultures that are introduced into a country blend in to provide an essentially homogeneous culture.

British multiculturalism is often held as a counter example to the French "single united Republic" notion, for example.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> British multiculturalism is often held as a counter example to the French "single united Republic" notion, for example.

And of course both are hugely over-simplified models that don't have much to do with lived reality in either case.

Bruce Hooker - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> [...]
>
> And of course both are hugely over-simplified models that don't have much to do with lived reality in either case.

They do to the French :-), clearly most Brits don't even realise the difference, but there is one. I hardly dare say it as you will insist on links but the two approaches have been compared on the BBC web site a few times, mostly either to say the "melting pot" was hasbeen, or to slag off "multiculturalism" as PC gone mad, although the latter may have been on the Mail or Telegraph sites.

I think the link between apartheid and multiculturalism is valid though, it just pushes it further and inverts the majority with the minority. I'm very much into the melting pot myself though, much nicer, get rid of the dross and keep the good bits of each component.
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I'm not totally certain what you mean, but it's obvious that in the UK plenty of people who are from various ethnic minorities live pretty well integrated lives in the majority white community, whilst in France just because you are a citizen doesn't mean society around you is colour/religion blind.

Of course there are difference between different countries but I suspect in both the France and the UK, class is now even more important than race. If you are middle class and well educated you'll be reasonably well integrated, if you are poor and badly educated you end up ghettoised.
Bruce Hooker - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:

That would be all very comforting if in both countries the race relations were on the up and up and extreme right wasn't growing steadily.... not to mention a happy lack of race come alienation inspired riots in London, Croydon, St Denis and Montfermeil and so on.

Different approaches, similar failures.
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) I'm not totally certain what you mean, but it's obvious that in the UK plenty of people who are from various ethnic minorities live pretty well integrated lives in the majority white community, whilst in France just because you are a citizen doesn't mean society around you is colour/religion blind.

I think there is something valid in the concern over communities living side by side without ineracting with each other too though. Perhaps more in some cities in the UK than in others, or more so in some areas. Sharrow in Sheffield really is a melting pot it seems, with asian and chinese and white and black people all living in the same area. Where in Bradford or Oldham, from what I gather, it can be more seperate. Where Darnell in Sheffield seems to be largely asian, and Tinsley does as well.

> Of course there are difference between different countries but I suspect in both the France and the UK, class is now even more important than race. If you are middle class and well educated you'll be reasonably well integrated, if you are poor and badly educated you end up ghettoised.

Within the being ghettoised I think, at least in the UK, it can take different forms depending on the race of the people it's happening to, in that different negatives can apply depending on thier background.
Dauphin - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not race riots in London / Manchester/ Birmingham at all Bruce, definitely class riots.

D
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Not race riots in London / Manchester/ Birmingham at all Bruce, definitely class riots.
>
> D

That's what I was thinking. You had that historian making a fool of himself saying that black street culture played a part, but it was people of all races, and some richer people being stupid as well, but they were class riots.
off-duty - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Not race riots in London / Manchester/ Birmingham at all Bruce, definitely class riots.
>
> D

I think they were more just criminal riots. We had an ethnically diverse array of offenders from a variety of backgrounds. United by their common belief that they thought they could just get away with it.
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:They were socially diverse melting pot riots, so something to be celebrated as part of modern Britian.

Hooray for modern Britian, where anybody can riot...

(:-))
Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:I'm sure you're right that there was a range of backgrounds, but I wonder what the proportions were for the backgrounds which people came from?
off-duty - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:

I think the cause of the riots (after their initial trigger) was a desire for free stuff. The symptom of which was that more criminals and those in "poverty" were involved.
Dauphin - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

>United by their common belief that they thought they could just get away with it.

Sure that is what Cameron wanted us to believe and maybe your good selves/ MET who kicked the whole thing off by mismanaging the aftermath of the shooting in Tottenham. Apparently there is no social context for crime.

There were oddly no kangaroo courts set up to hand out maximal sentencing for the perps in the house of commons/lords when the expenses scandal broke. Common looting as that was.

D

Timmd on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:That's what I was thinking. Guess they weren't in actual poverty. Pretty unnerving how quickly chaos seemed able to spread.
off-duty - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> >United by their common belief that they thought they could just get away with it.
>
> Sure that is what Cameron wanted us to believe and maybe your good selves/ MET who kicked the whole thing off by mismanaging the aftermath of the shooting in Tottenham. Apparently there is no social context for crime.
>
> There were oddly no kangaroo courts set up to hand out maximal sentencing for the perps in the house of commons/lords when the expenses scandal broke. Common looting as that was.
>
> D

Yep. Many people in Birmingham and Manchester could be heard shouting the name of Duggan as they broke into JJB sports and ran off with flat screens from Curry's.
It was undoubtedly the fault of the police who only provided a Superintendent to speak to the mob outside the nick and try to explain why the IPCC had cocked up already.

It's good to see that wilfully blind socialist view that -
A) That the riots were all some civil protest about the shooting of a black gangster
Or B) that shows such contempt for the "lower class" that they believe they will resort to looting as a class at any opportunity.

Perhaps if the legislation and expense regulations in respect of fraud and false accounting were more straightforward then we would have seen more MPs jailed for longer but trying to compare tomatoes and apples is a bit pointless.
Postmanpat on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:

The outcomes of the different policies are inevitably blurred and overlapping but for once I don't disagree with Bruce: french top down policy was that immigrants should be French first and anything else second whereas UK policy was that their cultural distinctiveness should be protected and thus promoted at the expence of their integration into British society. I don't think that is a controversial statement.
It seems that the crime of the fosterers was to adopt the French approach. Well, I'm usually up for abit of French bashing but their are limits.
Postmanpat on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to Postmanpat:

There
Dauphin - on 26 Nov 2012
In reply to on-duty:
> (In reply to Dauphin)
> [...]
>
> Yep. Many people in Birmingham and Manchester could be heard shouting the name of Duggan as they broke into JJB sports and ran off with flat screens from Curry's.
> It was undoubtedly the fault of the police who only provided a Superintendent to speak to the mob outside the nick and try to explain why the IPCC had cocked up already.
>
> It's good to see that wilfully blind socialist view that -
> A) That the riots were all some civil protest about the shooting of a black gangster

Where did I write that I was a socialist or that the the riots were ALL about civil protest. Easy and contemptible for you to do that as you manufacture a straw man.

> Or B) that shows such contempt for the "lower class" that they believe they will resort to looting as a class at any opportunity.

You are putting words in my mouth.
>
> Perhaps if the legislation and expense regulations in respect of fraud and false accounting were more straightforward then we would have seen more MPs jailed for longer but trying to compare tomatoes and apples is a bit pointless.

Clearly depends which side of the law you sit.

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to on-duty)
> [...]
>
> Where did I write that I was a socialist or that the the riots were ALL about civil protest. Easy and contemptible for you to do that as you manufacture a straw man.
>



Loving your change of my user name. Must have taken a while to think of that.

I apologise for calling you a socialist, though I haven't heard many others argue so determinedly that the riots were "class riots". Glad to see that it didn't take much to make you temper that position.


> You are putting words in my mouth.

I am just following through the consequences of your position. Either you didn't see the widespread destruction and looting that really occurred, or you don't believe that a class riot can occur without widespread looting and destruction of utterly uninvolved third parties. Unless as a third possibility you think stealing TVs is just a reasonable expression of class protest?

> Clearly depends which side of the law you sit.
>
> D

I sit on the side that would happily have jailed all the MPs. Unfortunately I am also constrained by what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For what it's worth those MPs convicted did get custodial sentences - harsher than a first time offender with no previous.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Dauphin)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Loving your change of my user name. Must have taken a while to think of that.

Well you clearly are getting paid to promote the Polis on here as you have nothing to say on climbing/walking/ any other issues.
>
> I apologise for calling you a socialist, though I haven't heard many others argue so determinedly that the riots were "class riots". Glad to see that it didn't take much to make you temper that position.

NO tempering required, no need to apologize either, just a poor attempt at ad homimem by tarring me with the socialist bush. Plenty of evidence of class structure and it's effect on say health, educational attainment so why not crime and it's provocation?
>
>
> [...]
>
> I am just following through the consequences of your position. Either you didn't see the widespread destruction and looting that really occurred, or you don't believe that a class riot can occur without widespread looting and destruction of utterly uninvolved third parties. Unless as a third possibility you think stealing TVs is just a reasonable expression of class protest?

None of the above. Plenty of factors as play not all them of 'criminal intent' though I appreciate that is where you turn a crust. 'If you only have a mallet it is tempting to treat everything as a nail'


> [...]
>
> I sit on the side that would happily have jailed all the MPs. Unfortunately I am also constrained by what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For what it's worth those MPs convicted did get custodial sentences - harsher than a first time offender with no previous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8776160/Expenses-MPs-and-their-sentences-how...

Really.

D
Timmd on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:I do actually think there was a class element to the riots, even if it only went as far as to do with consumerism being what's seen as important now in this country, rather than it being about poverty and people actually being in want.

It's arguably less justified than if it had been about actual poverty, but I think it's something important to take notice of, in what we might be doing to ourselves with the focus on material goods as a sign of status and worth. That's not to say the people who committed crimes should go unpunished, but more that we probably need to look at how we're shaping society.

Though i'm guessing there were some geuninely poor people rioting as well, as well as richer people taking advantage, and people in between the two.



Timmd on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty: Think i've decided that the causes for events can be as multifaceted as the number of different opinions people have.

There were some people saying they were rioting to say something to the establishment and the poeple in the city as they put it, but there were people out for free goods as well.

There endeth posts about the riots...
Bruce Hooker - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Not race riots in London / Manchester/ Birmingham at all Bruce, definitely class riots.
>

Not just race riots, I agree, but I don't think problems of cohabitation of different ethnic groups can be excluded - remember the murder of the Asian man (men?)? The films showed people of all appearances running amok but it was clear that a lot of groups had a fair level of racial homogeneity, as did the gangs that we were told took advantage of the violence. Many journalists spoke of jealousy and frustration that existed between different immigrant groups, for example some who had come to Britain earlier than others but who were, in general, less successful in a material sense.

Going back to the incident that sparked it all off there was a lot in the press about the drug related violence in "communities" - the figure of nearly a hundred deaths by firearms over the previous two years, in London IIRC, and this was said to be specific to one ethnic minority. So all in all I don't think it is reasonable to ignore "race" as a factor, amongst others.

In France the regular explosions of violence and arson take place in areas of high levels of immigration, which also correspond to areas of great poverty and very high unemployment, especially youth unemployment so "class" aspects and race aspects are involved too - the poor are often immigrants or children of immigrants, the two aspects are intertwined, obviously.

So in both countries the reality of ghettos of poverty coincide with racial ghettos too and neither governments can be too smug about the results of their policies - the results are similar even if the theory may differ. Basically, people in a job with decent housing and who are in little danger of crime or drug gangs are less likely to riot and burn than the opposite, whatever their origins... but nobody's going to deny that.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Well you clearly are getting paid to promote the Polis on here as you have nothing to say on climbing/walking/ any other issues.
> [...]

This old chestnut gets raised again and again.
It must be a poor attempt at humour as noone could be either daft or self important enough to think that in this time of austerity the cops would
ay someone to post on of all things a climbing web site.
As I have previously said on numerous occasions I may also have another
osting name on UKC. I used this id to post originally when niggle was on board as I didn't want my opinions to result in me getting disciplined if someone took exception to the

d> NO tempering required, no need to apologize either, just a poor attempt at ad homimem by tarring me with the socialist bush. Plenty of evidence of class structure and it's effect on say health, educational attainment so why not crime and it's provocation?
> [...]
> None of the above. Plenty of factors as play not all them of 'criminal intent' though I appreciate that is where you turn a crust. 'If you only have a mallet it is tempting to treat everything as a nail'
>
>

Given you have changed your opinion from "class riots" to multi faceted reasons for rioting I am more inclined to agree with you. However in my experience not s single person expressed an ideological class motive - other than the routine criminal "class" - 'We hate the police, innit' view. Neither did anyone other than a few of those involved initially in London, even appear to know who Duggan is.
They did all share a desire for nice shiny things for free. The consequence being that a criminal subsection of those who had less nice shiny things - ie a proportion of those with less money and of lower "class" decided to go out and steal.
Similarly the reasoning behind setting things on fire and smashing things up appears to have been 'because we could' rather than any motivation about class warfare.

The only disproportionatelt represented 'class' that o could see was the criminal class, and though they might be over represented in lower socio-economic groups they appear defined by morality and principles rather than class.

I haven't had a look at the article - I'll get back to you ;-)

off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:

Had a look at that telegraph article. All the MPs received custodial sentences - quite harsh for first time offenders, though I would have had no objection if they had been sentenced to longer.
All appear to have been released in accordance with our rather weak system - ie automatic release half way through a sentence combined with early release on curfew, and similar schemes to ensure non-violent offenders at low risk of re-offending are released from custody well before their sentence concludes.
That is the way the system works for everyone and is the hard bit that I have to explain to victims.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Dauphin)
> [...]
>
> This old chestnut gets raised again and again.
> It must be a poor attempt at humour as noone could be either daft or self important enough to think that in this time of austerity the cops would
> ay someone to post on of all things a climbing web site.

Costs minimal - effect large. UKC has an enormous UK and world wide readership. Doesn't cost much to have a sockpuppet moderating the narrative on polis or law and order issues.

> As I have previously said on numerous occasions I may also have another
> osting name on UKC. I used this id to post originally when niggle was on board as I didn't want my opinions to result in me getting disciplined if someone took exception to the

Delete it then and lets see the 'real' you.
>
> d> NO tempering required, no need to apologize either, just a poor attempt at ad homimem by tarring me with the socialist bush. Plenty of evidence of class structure and it's effect on say health, educational attainment so why not crime and it's provocation?
> [...]
>
> Given you have changed your opinion from "class riots" to multi faceted reasons for rioting I am more inclined to agree with you. However in my experience not s single person expressed an ideological class motive - other than the routine criminal "class" - 'We hate the police, innit' view. Neither did anyone other than a few of those involved initially in London, even appear to know who Duggan is.
> They did all share a desire for nice shiny things for free. The consequence being that a criminal subsection of those who had less nice shiny things - ie a proportion of those with less money and of lower "class" decided to go out and steal.
> Similarly the reasoning behind setting things on fire and smashing things up appears to have been 'because we could' rather than any motivation about class warfare.

Jesus Christ Fella - do you normally accept peoples expressed reasons for doing anything on face value? Questioning must be pretty quick.

I've had plenty experience of dealing with the metropolitan police both professionally and on the odd occasion 'on the street'. Two entirely different faces. If I was black/working class/hoodie/unemployed and lived in Tottenham I can well imagine what the relationship was like. As do you.
>
> The only disproportionatelt represented 'class' that o could see was the criminal class, and though they might be over represented in lower socio-economic groups they appear defined by morality and principles rather than class.
> [...]
>

> I haven't had a look at the article - I'll get back to you ;-)


D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: So their real reason for looting and burning was the class struggle but they covered that up by taking a few goodies home?
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: no oddly just the ones you talked to.

Lived in Tottenham? Constantly stopped by the Police? Reported a crime to have the police turn up a week later and have it casually dismissed. No job?, shit education?, no hope of getting a job above minimum wage, parents haven't worked for a decade?

Sure just a criminal class. Or you are what you eat.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: No, and you don't have that experience either.
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Costs minimal - effect large. UKC has an enormous UK and world wide readership. Doesn't cost much to have a sockpuppet moderating the narrative on polis or law and order issues.
>

Laughable paranoia. Who's views am I supposed to be espousing - ACPO, the Federation, the NPOIU?
You really believe that someone would be paid to waste their time indulging in pointless arguments on a climbing website? Much as I like UKC I think you are overestimating the influence of this forum. Vastly (sorry mods).

Even if it were true does that somehow make my opinions invalid?
I do find it really, really funny though that in sport that I know there are a fairly decent number of cops people get all wound up about a cop posting on a discussion forum.
>
> Delete it then and lets see the 'real' you.
> [...]

No thanks. Fun though this is the consequences of me getting in the poo due to malicious complaints is reason enough not to.



Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

really. take the black & hoodie bit out (well sometimes) and I do.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Yes, really, you've just admitted it. Or do you go around telling black people that you know what it's like cos you've got a hoody too?
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

ACPO have form for this don't they - Mark Kennedy ring any bells?

With the rise of online communication / discussion fora they / we would be stupid not to believe that there is a well paid internet ghost warriors / hasbara on the tippity tap.

D
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Know whats what like? Living in Tottenham , having a shit education, no money for years or being alternatively intimidated / dismissed by the Police? I admit I know nothing about the experience of being black, having lived and worked with black people for decades.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: And, with that experience, did you burn people's businesses and steal their property?
Bruce Hooker - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Even if you were allowed time at work to give the "viewpoint of a policeman on the beat" I don't see that as a problem. Your pseudo makes your background clear and often you can provide technical information that most of us are unaware of so all in all a very useful contribution to ukc...

On the other hand it seems unlikely that the police force would appoint a person per forum to "manage" internet opinion, if they did then being less obvious would be more cunning.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Nah - but I put a lot of thought into not doing it.

Point being that all that angry energy and violence where already there boiling under the surface across many parts of the country all it took was a mismanaged incident to ignite. I think you would be ill advised to dismiss it as 'a criminal class' rioting if you want to understand what happened or maybe try to prevent it happening again.

D
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

On the other hand it seems unlikely that the police force would appoint a person per forum to "manage" internet opinion, if they did then being less obvious would be more cunning.

Why? It's a P.R. job.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I agree with you, there are a lot of angry, violent people out there and the police should have been much more heavy handed initially.
In reply to Dauphin:
> UKC has an enormous UK and world wide readership. Doesn't cost much to have a sockpuppet moderating the narrative on polis or law and order issues.

Come on, you are joking... aren't you?!?

Bruce has accused me numerous times down the years of being in the pay of at least the CIA and Mossad that I remember. But I've always thought he was just annoyed with me, I didn't think he really, truly, believed that the Israeli/US government gives two shits about what is written on UKC about mid-East politics!
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:

So you dismiss the idea of a Hasbara? We're not talking about Israel/US government politics but if you must.

D
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

They normally are. Outnumbered in this scenario so there was a risk they'd take a beating.

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> ACPO have form for this don't they - Mark Kennedy ring any bells?
>
> With the rise of online communication / discussion fora they / we would be stupid not to believe that there is a well paid internet ghost warriors / hasbara on the tippity tap.
>
> D

That level of paranoia is almost frightening.
Its also logically inconsistent. If I'm covert then I need a to be authorised at superintendent level for the purposes of preventing crime or public disorder. I am struggling to see that getting authorised and I kind of defeat my own objectives by identifying myself as a cop.
If I am here for PR then what "message" am I supposed to be presenting. I am fairly confident that a PR stooge would identify themselves as they would be under no risk of posting something that would get them into trouble.

Isn't it just possible that I am who I say I am. A cop who posts (and less often tha I should) actually climbs.

Incidentally perhaps you could expand on how you deal with the Met in a professional capacity? You don't appear to be involved in the criminal justice system as your link to the Telegraph would indicate you are unaware of the realities of sentencing.
You aren't some covert poster from the UAF or some clas paid to influence public opinion through the UKC forums are you
In reply to Dauphin:

> So you dismiss the idea of a Hasbara?

What do you mean "dismiss" it? Doesn't anyone with a passing interest in Israeli foreign policy know what Hasbara entails? Although I know plenty of people, including some who are or have been involved in national hasbara groups, question its worth these days.

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: This footage of food theft at the height of the riots tells us all we need to know about the brasen attitude of the vermin class taking the p1ss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rRlNLpW0k
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Totally unaware of sentencing, realities or otherwise. No idea about the UAF or membership or affiliation to any political group past or present.

Your message is always consistent and never controversial - from the point of view of attempting to paint the Police in the best possible light. I don't understand how anyone from the force could consider it be worth a disciplinary - so why the sock puppetry?

I've given my occupation away on this forum numerous times and on threads with you involved. Daily contact with the Met during a working day never a problem, on the street without a wearing a uniform a totally different picture.

D
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:

Where does the money for your think tank come from?

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:

I am glad you consider my viewpoints to be uncontroversial.
I have never just defended the police regardless. I have quite often attempted to explain or argue about the reality of a set of circumstances as opposed to the media portrayal.

Even if I was a fully paid up member of the ACPOO undercover PR brigade my points are as valid as the next person's. As someone who so vehemently objected to what you felt was an ad hominem attack perhaps its time for you to stop playing the man and start playing the ball.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you do.

I do agree that sometimes cops aren't as good as they could be, and on occasion they may be downright bad. In my experience that is very much the exception rather than the rule.
I don't agree that poor behaviour by police was the main (or even a major) contributory factor to the three days or so of retail rioting that took place throughout the country.
I am not aware of any study that suggests that either.
In reply to Dauphin: I don't work for a think tank and haven't for nearly two years. Where I used to work was owned and funded by the Finnish parliament.

Who pays your wages because surely that must solely account for what you write on UKC? You, like off-duty, choose to use a pseudonym but he tells us what he does.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Dauphin)
>
> I am glad you consider my viewpoints to be uncontroversial.

As far as the Police are concerned.

> I have never just defended the police regardless. I have quite often attempted to explain or argue about the reality of a set of circumstances as opposed to the media portrayal.
>
Not always a media portrayal though is it? Often it has been personal experience.

> Even if I was a fully paid up member of the ACPOO undercover PR brigade my points are as valid as the next person's.

Glad you admit they exist ;)

As someone who so vehemently objected to what you felt was an ad hominem attack perhaps its time for you to stop playing the man and start playing the ball.
>
> I'm afraid I have no idea what you do.
>
> I do agree that sometimes cops aren't as good as they could be, and on occasion they may be downright bad. In my experience that is very much the exception rather than the rule.

My point was that it depends which section of society the police think they are dealing with - I've experienced both.

> I don't agree that poor behaviour by police was the main (or even a major) contributory factor to the three days or so of retail rioting that took place throughout the country.

I wouldn't be so sure, main definitely not, contributing factor yes.

> I am not aware of any study that suggests that either.

D

Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to TobyA:

Who pays your wages because surely that must solely account for what you write on UKC? You, like off-duty, choose to use a pseudonym but he tells us what he does.

The Gobermint. I've written numerous times what I do on here. I don't claim to speak for the whole or any of my profession on professional issues or otherwise.

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to TobyA)

> The Gobermint. I've written numerous times what I do on here. I don't claim to speak for the whole or any of my profession on professional issues or otherwise.
>
> D

Then why is it so hard to believe that I don't speak on behalf of my employer either?
I tend to argue in favour of the police on general terms because I am in the police and , in general, have some faith and belief in what we do.
I identify my occupation to provide a basis for my experiences and thus in part, my views.
Andy Stephenson - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968: what annoys me is the assumption that someone who thinks that immigration should be limited, and/or multiculturalism has gone too far, is automatically assumed to dislike foreigners and has to be kept away from children with a non-British ethnic background.
It seems that this is the underlying assumption in the Rotherham case.

Perhaps a parallel is if I keep a dog but I'm heard criticising people who have four dogs in a small house. Should my dog be taken away, on the assumption that I hate dogs?
In reply to Dauphin:

> The Gobermint. I've written numerous times what I do on here.

Fair enough, sorry - I've obviously not read those thread as I didn't know.
Ridge - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> ACPO have form for this don't they - Mark Kennedy ring any bells?
>
> With the rise of online communication / discussion fora they / we would be stupid not to believe that there is a well paid internet ghost warriors / hasbara on the tippity tap.

Well paid jobs spouting drivel online? Where do I apply?
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

I can understand you not wanting to be directly identified especially when posting on er contentious issues, one of the reasons for my pseud. I do find it odd that whenever a police matter/ law and order/ political is being discussed you weigh in with a Status Quo narrative. i.e. the above about criminal class rioting, or the police a few bad eggs, generally good guys doing a difficult job.

Try and step out of the world you inhabit and see it from over peoples point of view for a minute. The police treat people from different sections of society totally differently - sometimes they have no idea who they are dealing with but because they are not wearing a suit or a uniform think they can treat you with less than common respect and courtesy.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I do hope you tell them "do you know who you're dealing with?". Perhaps the more you behave like a tw*t the less courtesy you get.
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> I can understand you not wanting to be directly identified especially when posting on er contentious issues, one of the reasons for my pseud. I do find it odd that whenever a police matter/ law and order/ political is being discussed you weigh in with a Status Quo narrative. i.e. the above about criminal class rioting, or the police a few bad eggs, generally good guys doing a difficult job.
>
> Try and step out of the world you inhabit and see it from over peoples point of view for a minute. The police treat people from different sections of society totally differently - sometimes they have no idea who they are dealing with but because they are not wearing a suit or a uniform think they can treat you with less than common respect and courtesy.
>
> D

I can only comment on the way I see it. Feel free to disagree. If you object to what you perceive as me arguing for the status quo perhaps you could take a few steps back and realise that just because you disagree with the status quo doesn't mean either that you are right or that it is unreasonable to have that view.

As for the police treating people differently I guess you might be right. I would be an idiot if I approached a managing director in the same way as I approached a gangster, rape victim or drunken idiot who was kicking off.
That usually involves a base level of patience and politeness mixed in with varying degrees of compassion, tolerance and where necessary aggression and force.
I know that I sometimes get the balance wrong - so I would never suggest that other cops don't get it wrong either.

I like to think I deal with people as I find them - with the obvious difficulty that you don't always know who you are dealing with. Your rape victim can also be your gangster, and your drunken idiot can also be your managing director.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Give your gums/fingers a rest, knocker. I'd assume nothing if I were you.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I have assumed nothing.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Hey I see the police dealing with people everyday at work. I think inconsistent would be the word I'd use to describe it, as you might expect with different people having different levels of training, experience and motivation - same as any other walk of life. But then they are being watched. I find it amusing to have a perfectly courteous and professional with them at work and yet 7/10 times I've encountered them on the street they have been anything but, normally antagonistic followed by aggressive if you don't want to tow their line.

Not drunk, pissing on a street corner, fighting, raping or looting. What gives with that? Oh I get it I'm no longer their equal.

D
Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: When I've encountered police on the streets they've been professional and courteous. Does that mean they always behave like that? Of course not. If they started to behave badly in 70% of my encounters I might question my own behaviour.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Depends on whether you think being ordered about by men in uniforms is your thing. Never has been mine.

D
Rob Exile Ward on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Never been ordered about by men in uniform - except in France, obviously.

There seems to be a whole world out there that I'm missing out on. Not.
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Hey I see the police dealing with people everyday at work. I think inconsistent would be the word I'd use to describe it, as you might expect with different people having different levels of training, experience and motivation - same as any other walk of life. But then they are being watched. I find it amusing to have a perfectly courteous and professional with them at work and yet 7/10 times I've encountered them on the street they have been anything but, normally antagonistic followed by aggressive if you don't want to tow their line.
>
> Not drunk, pissing on a street corner, fighting, raping or looting. What gives with that? Oh I get it I'm no longer their equal.
>
> D

I still don't really know how you come into contact with them professionally, but like anyone my behaviour adapts whether I am in a rape suite.
n an office, doing a briefing or chatting crap over a brew.

Have you ever considered that the environment might be having more of an effect than "not seeing you as an equal". I very rarely come across police on the street, and even less often have interactions with them.
I have experienced the unpleasantness of trying to deal with people who feel they should be treated differently because of some connection they might have to the police though.

Sir Chasm - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I suppose it would depend on the order, never happened though. If it did I'd try not to let the chip on my shoulder influence my reaction.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

>I have experienced the unpleasantness of trying to deal with people who >feel they should be treated differently because of some connection they >might have to the police though.

Brilliant and typical Off Duty non sequitur. Almost a signature comment. Never the coppers fault is it, yeah that would be it, I get all uppity because I think I'm mates / equal with the police.

I'm not connected to the Police or criminal justice system in any way, I just work with them.

D

dissonance - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> You really believe that someone would be paid to waste their time indulging in pointless arguments on a climbing website? Much as I like UKC I think you are overestimating the influence of this forum. Vastly (sorry mods).

while i doubt it in this case (and for the police in general) it isnt a completely invalid claim. There are various companies providing lots of shiny software designed for reputation management (dedicated interfaces to make it easy to track all the identities) and any site with a reasonably usage would be a worth while target. Once you are dedicating someone to the job might as well get them working on a wide range of sites.


off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> >I have experienced the unpleasantness of trying to deal with people who >feel they should be treated differently because of some connection they >might have to the police though.
>
> Brilliant and typical Off Duty non sequitur. Almost a signature comment. Never the coppers fault is it, yeah that would be it, I get all uppity because I think I'm mates / equal with the police.
>
> I'm not connected to the Police or criminal justice system in any way, I just work with them.
>
> D

It's quite possible that the police that you have experienced whilst not at work treat you differently than when at work. The only person suggesting that it is because they don't see you as "an equal" is you.
If you behave identically to everyone in every environment you work in then I would suggest you need to get out a bit more. Though preferably somewhere where you don't regularly come into contact with police officers on the street. Though it would be interesting to know where all these cops are aimlessly wandering about as we have quite a lot of work to do.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Don't ignore the obvious. Police often don't treat the public with courtesy and respect because they seem to believe think they are better/harder/ in a bigger gang than civilians. Especially towards people who they think can't bite back. Or maybe that is only the specials?

If you live in a darker part of the city you meet them (police) everyday.

I'd be surprised if you hadn't experienced this while working with your colleagues as you come across on here as someone with at least a modicum of incite. Hence my suspicion of ACPO sock puppetry.

D
johncook - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Please repeat who you work for and what you do, as some of us may have missed it, and as it is open knowledge, repeating it won't do you any harm!
johncook - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I have always been dealt with couteously by the police. I am white, if that makes a difference, I have long hair now but was shaven headed 8 months ago (yeah, my hair grows really quickly, much to the dismay of many of my less well endowed friends), I wear a hoodie (habit, it kept my shaven head warm). I come from the rough end of Rotherham, and I drive a battered 15 year old car (All four corners are bent, the front of the bonnet has a 2ft wide dent in it!) and I drive at the speed limit and don't slow down for roundabouts. So, apart from being white, I tend to fit all the categories that, it would seem, that allow me to increase my material possessions by going out with the 'guys' breaking a window and helping myself to the odd TV etc. Now if I was really as badly off as many of these theives pretend to be I would be down at Sainsbury (Not in Rotherham, Aldi is the store of choice) nicking a trolly load of food.
The police have a shit job to do, often hampered by a variety of 'do-gooders' making excuses for the criminals (Nearly put 'scrotes' but that may be considered inflammatory). We should all support the police in their efforts to protect us and our property. Criminals are just what they are, there is never an excuse for stealing, violence drug taking, etc.
I support off-duty in his job and also think he has every right to his opinions on here, having declared what he does, even if a small minority of his collegues have turned out bad, which he accepts!
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to johncook:

Not sure hampered is the word you should be using - you know in a democracy it's policing by consent.

D
Rob Exile Ward on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Not by consent of the bad guys, obviously.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Everyone Rob. We're not all Bad all Good after all.

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:

I think "policing by consent" is understood to be the consent of the public as a whole, rather than asking permission of each individual burglar before we arrest them. I would guess that they as individuals might not be too keen on consenting.


Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Clearly that's what it means. We're not all criminals though either. Maybe it is a lack of emotional intelligence in your recruiting base or something about police culture that doesn't endear itself with much of the population. I'm quite happy to find some common ground with you. Demographically I bet we are fairly typical.

D
johncook - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: As I asked earlier, and you must have read it, as you replied to my subsequent post, what do you do that regularly brings you into contact with the police, both in work and private life.
My dealings with the police have always been good natured, probably because if I was doing wrong I knew it and I had been caught and didn't argue (Nothing serious, just warranted a stern warning!)
Just a simple answer to the question "What do you do that brings you into regular contact with the police?" Off-duty is open and up-front and you attack him for it, but you feel the need to ignore a polite question, the answer to which you have already stated you have publicised on this forum in the past.
stroppygob - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> ACPO have form for this don't they - Mark Kennedy ring any bells?
>
> With the rise of online communication / discussion fora they / we would be stupid not to believe that there is a well paid internet ghost warriors / hasbara on the tippity tap.
>


Your tinfoil beanie has slipped.
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to johncook:

I put it up for bit. Do some research. Nothing much up front and open about Off-Duty except he posts continually defending the Police on a climbing forum. Not attacked the fellow at all, even after he called me a socialist. Snigger.

D
off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to johncook)
>
> I put it up for bit. Do some research. Nothing much up front and open about Off-Duty except he posts continually defending the Police on a climbing forum. Not attacked the fellow at all, even after he called me a socialist. Snigger.
>
> D

Ah - humour. I wouldn't really call it attacking though. Not compared to the real world.
Still intrigued at what role you have where you have so much interaction with the police on and off-duty, yet appear unaware of sentencing and appear to consider that police only "behave" when you are around to see them.
Timmd on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Are you never tempted to change your username and post gobbledeegook?

I'd get tired of defending the police I think even if I believed in my job.





off-duty - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to Timmd:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Are you never tempted to change your username and post gobbledeegook?
>
> I'd get tired of defending the police I think even if I believed in my job.

I don't always defend the police, but I do sometimes object to people posting nonsense about the criminal justice system/law and order topics.
And sometimes I like arguing ;-)

I wouldn't call continual debates with Coel about freedom of speech - "defending the police" for example.

I really should think about logging on again as the original me a bit more though ;-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dauphin - on 27 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

That is a little confused matey - I was pretty clear I said I had a job where I work with them on a day to day basis, out of work, out of uniform I see another side which is less courteous and respectful. You can read back in my history of posts whenever you like or I can PM you if you think its in any way necessary. I doubt that it is, we're not having a pissing contest.

D
Oceanrower - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: I'm guessing here so bear with me.

You posted about working for a year at UCLH.

You work in a uniform.

Your spelling isn't good enough for 7 years at Uni so that rules out a doctor.

Probably also not a nurse for the same reason.

Security guard?
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to johncook:

> "What do you do that brings you into regular contact with the police?"

I wouldn't worry, no one else knows either :-)

I don't think he can really be the heir to the French throne though as I don't think that would bring him into contact with the British police much, not unless he landed in Scotland with a group of armed men to reclaim the British throne... of something.

Some mysteries are perhaps left unresolved.
Dauphin - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Oceanrower:

>Your spelling isn't good enough for 7 years at Uni so that rules out a >doctor.

Funny boy. Not met or worked with many doctors have you.

No I work in the laundry.

D

stroppygob - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Dauphin) I'm guessing here so bear with me.
>
> You posted about working for a year at UCLH.
>
> You work in a uniform.
>
> Your spelling isn't good enough for 7 years at Uni so that rules out a doctor.
>
> Probably also not a nurse for the same reason.
>
> Security guard?


I'm thinking social worker, the vapidity of his/her views would indicate so.


Dauphin - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to stroppygob:

I out on this one. Dull times trading insults with keyboard heroes. I doubt you have would of met many social workers or have a clue what kind of effort they put into humbly supporting gnarly and degrading human experiences. A day in working life of one would spit you out and leave you questioning your sanity for weeks. Perhaps the Daily Mail gave you a different story.

Not many wear uniforms though.

D
dale1968 - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Yeah, your well nails, go hug a tree,social workers well regarded, I think not, Ive got more perspicacity in my left toe nail, you don't know low life...
off-duty - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> I out on this one. Dull times trading insults with keyboard heroes. I doubt you have would of met many social workers or have a clue what kind of effort they put into humbly supporting gnarly and degrading human experiences. A day in working life of one would spit you out and leave you questioning your sanity for weeks. Perhaps the Daily Mail gave you a different story.
>
> Not many wear uniforms though.
>

No. That'll be the police officers who usually get there first, who deal with the families day in day out as victims, criminals and witnesses, who are responsible for regularly making decisions to remove kids from these places, resolving tangled and unpleasant offences within these families and supporting victims through these degrading experiences.

Dauphin - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to dale1968:

roflcaust
Dauphin - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:

heroic mr policeman you do it all alone. it's all just crime....perps & victims. yawn.

maslow quote yesterday 'if you only have a mallet, you see everything as a nail'

anywayz laterz.

have a great day a work.

:)

D


off-duty - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> heroic mr policeman you do it all alone. it's all just crime....perps & victims. yawn.
>
> maslow quote yesterday 'if you only have a mallet, you see everything as a nail'
>
> anywayz laterz.
>
> have a great day a work.
>
> :)
>
> D

Ah. More humour. You don't really have much involvement with the police do you.
I don't really see the crime aspect of dealing with flood victims, hunting for missing people, sectioning mentally ill people, preventing suicides etc etc.
You don't really "do" reasoned debate do you? Is that a personal or professional trait?
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Dauphin:

> Dull times trading insults with keyboard heroes.

With all due respect, and having been guilty of this crime myself on several occasions, this term would seem to apply to you more than anyone else on this thread :-)

Off-duty is a policeman, we all know that, he wouldn't be a policeman if he didn't broadly accept the values this implies and it's easy enough for those who disagree to apply their own filter. On the other hand he does often provide information about the way the judicial system works which is interesting, so why chase him off?
Rob Exile Ward on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: 2nd time in a year Bruce I agree with your every word.

We must both be slipping!
Bruce Hooker - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's just senility, no worry.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) 2nd time in a year Bruce I agree with your every word.
>
> We must both be slipping!


+1

Bruce, you are becoming the voice of measured and reasonable moderation...

at this rate we will soon need another thread about the malvinas to get the temperature rising again in the face of all this reasonableness from everyone...!

;-)

cheers
gregor
Enty - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) 2nd time in a year Bruce I agree with your every word.
>
> We must both be slipping!

Me too. Whats going on?

E
off-duty - on 28 Nov 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks for that Bruce.
Just off to check the ACPO stance on the Middle East and the Falklands to see if I can find something to disagree with you about in my undercover job as internet sockpuppet of the state. ;-)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.