howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
moving aside from littlejohn, it cannot help team spirit if officers all have different groups.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Groups are one of those odd things in society. Usually formed by underdogs trying to get out from under the yoke. Or underdogs trying to have a voice. Hence you have lots and lots of womens groups and so on...but no mens groups. Odd anomoly..maybe in the years to come the way things are going there will be many mens groups!
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Good oxymoron there Barry, 'right wing common sense'.
Roger, I would never accuse you or anyone else on here of being anymore stupid than myself, it was merely a fairly obvious quote from a left-wing paper. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there in middle England that don't possess the reasoning to be able to see Littlejohn's column as just one narrow and right-wing view. It all just affirms their already blinkered outlook, this is the reason they buy the paper. Although not 'from' middle England both you and I could easily be classified as being 'in' it. To me this generally means that everything is alright in someones life (socially/economically) and it is very easy for people that are 'OK' to forget that some people do not have it as easy. These bigoted views actually make it harder for those 'without' to to become those 'with'.
It's the general theme of the Daily Mail; don't rip off the system; if you work hard, you can own a nice semi detached house; our country should be for those people who are prepared to exist by our rules and traditions. All of these would be OK if actually true! The actual reality is those 'with' have it already and as a result don't want anything to change, also a common theme of the paper. Poor people getting rich or any change in the traditional social structure of this country could possibly lead to things changing in a way that is actually meritocratic...god forbid!
You only have to look at the Rothermeres and the lack of adherence to these mantras they preach: The protestant work ethic and not ripping off the system.
Oh yes *sarcastically* they inherit their position and wealth within society, were strong supporters of the fascist party, and more interestingly the last Lord Rothermere was a tax exile. Nice bunch, I'm glad so many buy their papers.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
There are many biggoted, narrow minded, blinkered left wing liberals out there DT1....
I see little common sense coming from the left. Ideas such as 'being kind to criminals' and they will be good boys and girls in future is so daft to be off the scale. Common sense says increase the severity of punishment to act as a deterrant. You can reduce the amount of pain and misery in society by targetting judicial pain and misery to those relatively few law breakers who deserve it!
That is just one example, education, defence, health and social security are all littered with failed 'liberal left' policies that have failed and often simply compounded and increased our problems.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Hang on Barry wasn't it your leader who came out with the famous statement 'hug a hoody' wouldn't say that was common sense, unless of course you want new teeth.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I would like to question Barry what you think common sense is? I know it is often used incorrectly to put down ideas that are incongruent to ones own. This is not common sense but the sense of individuals using the term 'common' to suggest other people feel the same. Much like my dislike of the Red Indian busker (On another thread) is the view of an individual (me) I could go out and find others that shared this view but it would not make it 'common' The underlying principles of the left are based within commonality and sharing. This 'common sense' is exactly the same and not 'individual sense' (that is for the rightwing, you know 'no such thing as society' and all that!).
It's also funny that many of these minority groups that Littlejohn lists fall into the types of groups that marxism attempted to secularise. Moving from a society led by religion/belief to one of reason and science. You confuse the actions of political parties (most of them poor) with political philosophies!
Also you haven't disagreed with any of my points about the Daily Mail, I think they're a fair reason to discredit mnost of the trash that is printed in it!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Dave1 - That is not exactly what he said to be fair. Just because a youngster is seen in a 'hoody' (as one of my sons at times) it does not automatically mean they are anti-social thugs. Me, I would bring back corporal punishment for anti-social thugs and stop providing labels to act as excuses for their behaviour.
DT1 - the fact is that a lot of left-wing reformist ideas go against the strain of hard experience. One example is the way liberal ideas that may be effective with, for instance, nice middle class kids are attempted for hard nosed would be criminals where a good whack would be more effective.
BarryW and Roger, I think you have misinterpreted not only me but others too. I was being a little flip when I suggested a higher being had planted Littlejohn here - I really meant that i thought he had little purpose other than to reinforce stereotypical prejudices and make people feel better about holding grudges! BarryW - your comment about lefties wanting to be kind to criminals is not worthy of you! There have been some alternative views and proposals from the extreme left, and there is no doubt that a certain woolly-minded and fluffy pinko yummy mummy type person does exist (I am sure I have posted before about a social work student in one of my classes years ago who, quite seriously, suggested that the single-parent-under-17-unemployed-no-qualification-substance-misuser should sell her jewellery if she needed money) but on the whole, most lefties are quite aware of the challenges around addictions and prisons etc etc etc, often because they work in them in the real world. So don't let your prejudices hang out, there! I really think that you and I (red and blue!) have more in common than we realise.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Perhaps Bern but you have to admit that the stereotype 'leftie' does exist. I have met a few, I remember telling one social worker that drug dealers were 'scum of the earth' and I meant it, I would have a manditory death sentence for them. This woman almost burst into tears because I should not talk about her 'clients' like that, they are 'misunderstood' (it was when she said that I said they should be hung, in fact I added drawing and quartering too!!!). No doubt there are some who take a tougher line but there are plenty others.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the word stereotype has been over used in this thread, usually accompanied by "intellectual" views from left and right wing philosophies.
i would like to see stereotype coppers, feeling the collars of villains.
i bet that i am in a massive majority.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
a clip around the ear from them too Howard.....
I already said the stereotype exists, BarryW. As much as the grumpy florid-complexioned Major and pearl-adorned Pippa do on the Right. They exist in part, because stereotypes are always based on some kind of truth, but distorted and abused until it becomes grotesque. There is some truth in the idea that people can be victims as much as perp, and I am clear that people - any people - are capable of change and growth. Having said that, I would pay good money to see Howards stereotype copper feel the collar of the scumbag drugdealers in Dover, especially the ones outside our bloody house. Allowing for peoples capacity to change and enabling opportunities for those who really want to to do so does not need to run parallel with a soft touch or an inability to see the obvious!! It does not have to be one extreme or the other.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that is basically what i am getting at bern.
we have all these long posts in the thread full of words, some full of right wing answers, others with left or liberal views.
why this has entered a debate on the police force is quite beyond me.
the police force is made up of all different types of individuals, who actually cares.
the only important thing is whether they are good at coppering.
to read the prose of an headline seeking tabloid journalist and making a debate about it, says rather a lot.
I know that human societies have a basic tribal instinct but I always thought the police were supposed to be above these tribal urges and be a united front, a single force that protects and serves all the individual groups in a society? How wrong can a guy be?
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Does it Howard?
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
Roger
The conditions are where fellow officers are singled out, picked on, abused etc. because of who they are or what they believe - while senior officers allow this type of behaviour to carry on then the sort of groups mentioned are needed to level the playing field.
There are certainly Gay & Lesbian Associations in the law, armed forces, teaching, the civil service, health service, as well as many private sector employers (including my own) - in fact even the Conservative Party has a Gay & Lesbian affiliated section
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2559473.stm http://www.torche.gb.org/index.htm
I do agree that people should join because they want to be police officers and I for one cannot believe that anyone would join for any other reason, however once they have joined and find that their force is riven with institutionally condoned racism and/or homophobia then what are they to do
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Sid Pollitt
I always think that if someone wants something then let them have it, what's the point of opposing them. If it aint sustainable then it will fold. I [quietly] questioned a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly but I thought let them have it if they want. Looks to have been successful. If a group of people want to band together, or network or something what's the problem? Women have been mentioned and they make up a larger section of society than men so are not a minority, but what's the problem? I see no problem with a women's section or association. I see that there are womens' business networks, no-one seems to have a problem with them. If you see a problem there what about the WI, do you feel threatened by them?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Well wasnt it said by posters that right wing baz will blame it all on the PC group and he has!
Roger,
you will find many organisations have things such as gay or black sections, AND you quote teachers AND im sure they also have such sections.
Like Ross says, if we truely treated pepole in a fair and justified way these sections would have no need to be formed.
Sadly that is not the case, I hear comments about GAY people every day that are bigotted and misunderstand gays, just because that person doesn't agree with that type of lifestyle.
So sadly we are far from being tolerant and fair, once we get even close to reaching that stage then maybe we can question these groups
