Independent Leyton Orient Forum

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:24 pm

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:07 am

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:09 am Yeah , on replacing the police with social workers. God help them

Yeah, dont bother trying anything new. The current system seems to be working perfectly.

What happens if these social workers come under fire and shot ?

I think you're very clearly missing the point here.

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:24 pm

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:07 am

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:09 am Yeah , on replacing the police with social workers. God help them

Yeah, dont bother trying anything new. The current system seems to be working perfectly.

What happens if these social workers come under fire and shot ?

Well obviously they'll be "armed social workers" - der!

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:51 pm

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:24 pm

Apple Wumble wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:07 am

Yeah, dont bother trying anything new. The current system seems to be working perfectly.

What happens if these social workers come under fire and shot ?

Well obviously they'll be "armed social workers" - der!

The idea of defunding or dismantling police department's it that some of them are very obviously beyond the reform stage, that the violence carried out by them is so endemic that you have to change them wholesale. And if you're going back to first principles of what a police department is for, you begin to establish a lot of situations where a social worker or mediator would be more appropriate than a heavily militarised police officer who's first instinct too often is to shoot or hurt first, ask questions later.

Apart from a radical few, noone is suggesting getting rid of police entirely and it's sad to think that there are those on the right who are so unwilling to engage their brains on it that they unquestioningly swallow whatever nonsense Breitbart or the like pumps out

It's a silly slogan though isn't it? Because it should be possible to adequately fund both services without one being 'defunded'.

It also shows how shallow and fickle some on the left in the UK that use it are

At the Decemeber election the line was more funding for the police. To this day the cuts are quite rightly used as a stick to beat the Tories and a shield for Sadiq Khan's record on violent crime.

But as soon as the Defund the police narrative grew in America the same weirdos who are desperate to draw parallels between the UK/USA read a few threads on Twitter and now parrot the lines being used in America

Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:14 pm It also shows how shallow and fickle some on the left in the UK that use it are

At the Decemeber election the line was more funding for the police. To this day the cuts are quite rightly used as a stick to beat the Tories and a shield for Sadiq Khan's record on violent crime.

But as soon as the Defund the police narrative grew in America the same weirdos who are desperate to draw parallels between the UK/USA read a few threads on Twitter and now parrot the lines being used in America

You throw a head today, after yesterday's tails?

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:01 pm It's a silly slogan though isn't it? Because it should be possible to adequately fund both services without one being 'defunded'.

It's been successful in shifting the conversation about how policing is done there after decades of police militarisation and aggression, so as a slogan it seems to have worked. Police forces are generally the only branches of the state that have seen funding increase significantly since the Reagan era. Look at the 1033 programme, they've been handing surplus military kit to police officers to use against their own population.

I'd agree it makes no sense here, where the Tories have been genuinely defunding the police for a decade now.

Is anyone else becoming bored with this "taking the knee" discourse ?

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:37 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:01 pm It's a silly slogan though isn't it? Because it should be possible to adequately fund both services without one being 'defunded'.

It's been successful in shifting the conversation about how policing is done there after decades of police militarisation and aggression, so as a slogan it seems to have worked.

I think I have to disagree, but only to a certain degree. It makes the ever fatal error of assuming the public are smart enough to understand all of this. But they're not, they're generally as thick as pig shiit.

As a slogan it is being widely adopted by the protest movements that gravitate in and around BLM. As a collective, I think it's fair to say that they most closely align with the Democrats and will therefore be hoping for a Biden victory in November. But the Right has quickly captured the slogan and spun it in exactly the way it was always bloody obvious they would. And it's part of their arsenal to discredit the Democrats and get Trump re-elected.

Yep, agree with Dunners on this one. Sometimes a slogan being instantly recognisable has a shelf life. This one was very early. Or, required far better cooperation from the politicians that would have to make sense of it and it didn't get that. Biden seems to have distanced himself without being forcefully dismissive, which seems wise. The slogan itself (not the premise) is probably a good example of 'good idea! But no'.

Anything to annoy the Rabid Righties
has to be a good thing , all part of the fun

Dunners wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:28 pm

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:37 pm

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 3:01 pm It's a silly slogan though isn't it? Because it should be possible to adequately fund both services without one being 'defunded'.

It's been successful in shifting the conversation about how policing is done there after decades of police militarisation and aggression, so as a slogan it seems to have worked.

I think I have to disagree, but only to a certain degree. It makes the ever fatal error of assuming the public are smart enough to understand all of this. But they're not, they're generally as thick as pig shiit.

As a slogan it is being widely adopted by the protest movements that gravitate in and around BLM. As a collective, I think it's fair to say that they most closely align with the Democrats and will therefore be hoping for a Biden victory in November. But the Right has quickly captured the slogan and spun it in exactly the way it was always bloody obvious they would. And it's part of their arsenal to discredit the Democrats and get Trump re-elected.

If it acts as a catalyst for change at city or state level (which is slowly starting to happen in a lot of dem areas), then it'd have achieved a lot. Plus their primary system means they will likely get a higher number of police reformer types filtering through into national and state congresses. Harris was cutting her teeth as a public attorney around the time that the Clinton administration was going big on its crime crackdown and you can see it in her very conservative track record. This stuff can take decades to filter through.

I think the length of this and similar debates on here just prove that it's a divisive issue, and such issues tend to fall short of achieving as much as intended as a result.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:33 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:30 pm

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:24 pm

That's what it is. It highlights those that are not doing what the tv companies believe to be the right thing.

Its got nothing to do with what tv companies believe is right !!
That's rubbish .

So BBC, Sky or BT would not highlight any teams or individuals not taking the knee?

Like they did with Israel Folau in the rugby?

As expected Sky were apparently up in arms last night when Coventry and QPR did not take the knee before the game and making a big issue of it.

Launched an investigation which uncovered that it was QPRs decision not to do it. You know one of the few clubs with a black Director of Football.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:02 am

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:33 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:30 pm

Its got nothing to do with what tv companies believe is right !!
That's rubbish .

So BBC, Sky or BT would not highlight any teams or individuals not taking the knee?

Like they did with Israel Folau in the rugby?

As expected Sky were apparently up in arms last night when Coventry and QPR did not take the knee before the game and making a big issue of it.

Launched an investigation which uncovered that it was QPRs decision not to do it. You know one of the few clubs with a black Director of Football.

It's a free country and people have the right to protest or not protest, and long may that remain the case. One of my issues with it is that I have a suspicion that anyone not taking the knee would be subject to criticism/ misinterpretation in some quarters.

Which is exactly what has happened in last nights game. QPR now getting stick and having to grovel and apologise. Surely people can see that this is just dividing people in two groups again and of the two groups, the ones that need the most education about racism (the right if you like) are the ones that are going to be ideologically opposed to this kind of thing (lack of free will and told to do it by more left leaning organisations) will make them even more bigoted. Makes no sense to me.

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:02 am

Ornchurch wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:33 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:30 pm

Its got nothing to do with what tv companies believe is right !!
That's rubbish .

So BBC, Sky or BT would not highlight any teams or individuals not taking the knee?

Like they did with Israel Folau in the rugby?

As expected Sky were apparently up in arms last night when Coventry and QPR did not take the knee before the game and making a big issue of it.

Launched an investigation which uncovered that it was QPRs decision not to do it. You know one of the few clubs with a black Director of Football.

In that case we’ll probably still be doing it in five years time .

Beradogs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:02 am Which is exactly what has happened in last nights game. QPR now getting stick and having to grovel and apologise. Surely people can see that this is just dividing people in two groups again and of the two groups, the ones that need the most education about racism (the right if you like) are the ones that are going to be ideologically opposed to this kind of thing (lack of free will and told to do it by more left leaning organisations) will make them even more bigoted. Makes no sense to me.

Sky are a Left leaning organisation ?


F*ck thats Comedy Gold !

Where did I say Sky. Sky are beholden to advertisers.

Beradogs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:02 am Which is exactly what has happened in last nights game. QPR now getting stick and having to grovel and apologise. Surely people can see that this is just dividing people in two groups again and of the two groups, the ones that need the most education about racism (the right if you like) are the ones that are going to be ideologically opposed to this kind of thing (lack of free will and told to do it by more left leaning organisations) will make them even more bigoted. Makes no sense to me.

Anything that goes against their way of ‘thinking’ will make them dig their heels in further.

I’m think I’m correct in that Murdoch doesn’t own the Sky channel in the UK . It was something to do with the Monopoly laws . Every time I watch Sky News they come across as biased as the left leaning BBC

RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:24 am I’m think I’m correct in that Murdoch doesn’t own the Sky channel in the UK . It was something to do with the Monopoly laws . Every time I watch Sky News they come across as biased as the left leaning BBC

Beradogs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:21 am Where did I say Sky. Sky are beholden to advertisers.

My apologies Bear
That was meant to be put on Orny's use of Sky up in arms comment
Dont know how it got here instead .

Beradogs wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:21 am Where did I say Sky. Sky are beholden to advertisers.

Did you actually read that back before posting?

Advertisers, i.e. multi-national capitalist conglomerates with executives who earn millions, beholden to billionaire shareholders, are all lefties.