ChatterBank5 mins ago
Tommy Robinson Arrested Again...
Is there a thread about it?
Answers
Andy, I agree that while you're not entirely to blame, you're always central to events leading to derailment. That's my tuppence worth, but I'm not commenting further unless it's to do with the thread's original topic.
23:56 Mon 02nd Nov 2020
//I would've thought you may have been on the side defending the police, but I guess not. //
I support intelligent policing which is not politically motivated. If Robinson commits an arrestable offence then so be it. You do not arrest someone because you assume what might be.
I am sure you might defend the black youth who claims he has been stopped by police 30 times in one week for nothing yet you are now endorsing Robinson's arrest on speculation and assumption. You have no knowledge what did or did not happen and you don't comment on his release without charge but 20 or so coppers frogmarching him off because of who he is ! Of course you must wish a police state to exist. I don't.I was proud to serve as an officer and I did it without fear or favour and was totally impartial when dealing with the public.
I support intelligent policing which is not politically motivated. If Robinson commits an arrestable offence then so be it. You do not arrest someone because you assume what might be.
I am sure you might defend the black youth who claims he has been stopped by police 30 times in one week for nothing yet you are now endorsing Robinson's arrest on speculation and assumption. You have no knowledge what did or did not happen and you don't comment on his release without charge but 20 or so coppers frogmarching him off because of who he is ! Of course you must wish a police state to exist. I don't.I was proud to serve as an officer and I did it without fear or favour and was totally impartial when dealing with the public.
retrocop - // I suppose Mr Hughes, having never worn a uiniform in his life, does not realised how th police have become a politicised organisation, puppets of the government and not impartial as we were in the days of my service. It's blatantly wrong and they are losing public support as a result. //
Then not for the first time, your suposer is malfunctioning.
You appear to be making a classic debating mistake - that only people with direct relavent experience of a subject have the right to hold and to offer an opinion on it.
This of course is minifestly untrue.
Wheras I could not, and would not, attempt to offer direct experience of police matters, because I have not been a police officer, that does not mean that I do not hold, and in turn am not entitled to express, an opinion on police matters, and I do have an opinion, and I am free to express it as and when I wish to do so.
That means that my wearing, or indeed not, or a uniform of any description, is completely irrelavent to holding and offering an opinion, because direct experience is not and never has been a pre-requisite of a viewpoint, merely a curious mind with the ability offer a view and ask questions, and I have one of those already.
That means that next time you sit watching Strictly Come Dancing, you are not prevented from offering an opinion on what you see to either your fellow viewers in the room, or indeed viewers on this site, to whom ytou may wish to offer your insights.
Rest assured I would not upbraid you for doing so on the basis that you wouldn't know a sequin from a sequence, if either were to jump up and bite you, because personal knowledge does not mean your opinion is the only valid offering in the debate, and it equally does not mean that any and everyone else is entitled to their thoughts and opinions.
That is how debate works.
Being an ex-policeman gives you a degree of personal experience, it does not make yours the only view that can be expressed or debated, so maybe you'll consider that next time you want to belittle someone whose views may oppose yours, or, as in this case, an opinion which you belittle was not actually offered in the first place.
To be clear, I did not offer a view on the politicisation of the police service - despite your criticism of my non-offered opinion - but for the record, I am happy to confirm that I do actually agree with your opinion.
That's because you don't need to have been a police officer to have an opinion on how the police service operates - you just need to be a citizen with an enquiring mind, and an opinion, and as advised, on that basis, I qualify as much as you in that regard.
Then not for the first time, your suposer is malfunctioning.
You appear to be making a classic debating mistake - that only people with direct relavent experience of a subject have the right to hold and to offer an opinion on it.
This of course is minifestly untrue.
Wheras I could not, and would not, attempt to offer direct experience of police matters, because I have not been a police officer, that does not mean that I do not hold, and in turn am not entitled to express, an opinion on police matters, and I do have an opinion, and I am free to express it as and when I wish to do so.
That means that my wearing, or indeed not, or a uniform of any description, is completely irrelavent to holding and offering an opinion, because direct experience is not and never has been a pre-requisite of a viewpoint, merely a curious mind with the ability offer a view and ask questions, and I have one of those already.
That means that next time you sit watching Strictly Come Dancing, you are not prevented from offering an opinion on what you see to either your fellow viewers in the room, or indeed viewers on this site, to whom ytou may wish to offer your insights.
Rest assured I would not upbraid you for doing so on the basis that you wouldn't know a sequin from a sequence, if either were to jump up and bite you, because personal knowledge does not mean your opinion is the only valid offering in the debate, and it equally does not mean that any and everyone else is entitled to their thoughts and opinions.
That is how debate works.
Being an ex-policeman gives you a degree of personal experience, it does not make yours the only view that can be expressed or debated, so maybe you'll consider that next time you want to belittle someone whose views may oppose yours, or, as in this case, an opinion which you belittle was not actually offered in the first place.
To be clear, I did not offer a view on the politicisation of the police service - despite your criticism of my non-offered opinion - but for the record, I am happy to confirm that I do actually agree with your opinion.
That's because you don't need to have been a police officer to have an opinion on how the police service operates - you just need to be a citizen with an enquiring mind, and an opinion, and as advised, on that basis, I qualify as much as you in that regard.
is this another long long post
A.H, you said I said - - - - but I didnt !
Retro for it is he - - - so?
which can be summed up as - "you dont have to be an expoliceman to have an opinion about policing - and I wont tell you what my opinion is because I have run out of ink and paper...."
bits of this I accept are true
A.H, you said I said - - - - but I didnt !
Retro for it is he - - - so?
which can be summed up as - "you dont have to be an expoliceman to have an opinion about policing - and I wont tell you what my opinion is because I have run out of ink and paper...."
bits of this I accept are true
