Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Eldorion]

I recognize that protests like these can get extremely heated, and the Occupy protesters are hardly blameless as a whole. I think most of the clashes have had a back-and-forth with protesters throwing bricks, bottles and the like at police. I also understand that the police were given their orders from politicians and others; people who are mad that protests are being broken up should be criticizing the people who made the decision to break them up, not the officers who are on the street.

However, I think the exception to that is when you have cases of gross brutality like this. The police were under no threat from the group of people trying to help Mr. Olsen, and I can't imagine that they were unable to see the man lying and bleeding on the ground. That someone suffered a fractured skull was bad enough, although that may have been an accident, but the device (whatever it was) that was thrown into the crowd of people trying to get Mr. Olsen to safety was just ... wrong. That's the only non-profane way I can think of to say how I feel.

Geez, where's GB when I'd actually agree with him?

[Pettytyrant101]

Thing is, was it wrong? Yes. He throws a flash grenade at a group of unarmed civilians who have gone to the aid of another unarmed civilian. I don't see how it can be viewed any other way than wrong.
But the problem with these occasions is people can get carried away in the heat of the moment on both sides, yes the police get training but training isn't the real thing, never is. I don't see how incidents such as these can be avoided when you have human beings relying on ages old tribal and war instincts facing off against each other, regardlass of what civilised veneer is put on it thats what it comes down to.

[Orwell]

I don't consider just sex, selling yourself out emotionally is no less a risk route.

"haven't we had enough of your prudery and ideological mindset?"

I wasn't aware I was offering either. Sparking debates is what the BBST is for, isn't it?

Tribal life is based on a dynamic mix of social transactions, providing another person with company and physical comfort is just one of them. I think you put too much emphasis on the actual (alleged) sex-only aspect btw. Also, you make too much of sex itself. It is a mere nothing. Only abuse - real abuse not imagined - should we be concerned about, I reckon. What I see underlying your viewpoint is a moralistic view of consensual sex and how relationships should work. Guilt about sex in other words. To all their own I say. Haven't we all had enough of other people telling us what to do because of their fears of what one's freedom may lead them to? Life is risky. Keep yourself in your secure cloister, Petty. (Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with choosing to live a cloistered timid life - that's Freedom too ).

[Orwell]

Eldo, if police use force beyond what is actually necessary in any given circumstance, then criticism is merited, and penalties might well be imposed on the guilty. As always, I wonder what the whole story is?

[Eldorion]

Eldo, if police use force beyond what is actually necessary in any given circumstance, then criticism is merited, and penalties might well be imposed on the guilty. As always, I wonder what the whole story is?

The reports I read said that there were about 4000 people at Occupy Oakland when the police were ordered to move in, and it appears to me that some of the protesters were throwing objects at the police. With that in mind I take a more understanding view of the situation as a whole. However, what really disturbs me is the officer who threw a flashbang directly into a crowd of people trying to help an obviously wounded man. Yes, I'm sure it was an incredibly tense and stressful night for everyone, but I don't think there's an excuse for attacking people trying to help the wounded, at least not given the video evidence that has emerged so far.

[Anne]

I imagine in that kind of chaos police might not know any wounded people were being helped. If I was a police woman, I think I might have even reacted in fear at the escalating violence. I don't know. I guess none of these things are purely black and white. I guess police are human too, with the same fears and foibles, especially under stress, as anyone else.

[Eldorion]

I've never said otherwise, but Scott Olsen had been lying on the ground for some time and the group who rushed towards him was still at least 10 feet away from the protesters. It wasn't like the officer who threw the flash-bang did it out of instinct, either; he waited for a moment before throwing it. If Mr. Olsen had been closer to the police or the group appeared to be rushing line, and the flashbang was thrown immediately, I might chock it up to a tragic mistake or understandable overreaction under stress. Based on the video that was taken, however, it doesn't appear like that.

(Let me note that as far as I can tell, Mr. Olsen's initial injury was a mistake, perhaps resulting from overzealous police actions, perhaps not. It worries me but it doesn't disturb me in the same way as what happened after.)

And before Orwell accuses me of being anti-police, I'm not. I have a lot of respect for the police who have respectfully but firmly handled the rather unusual situation that these protests have created. From what I've read the Philadelphia police are doing a particularly good job at this, though I know that other departments are as well. I'm not even criticizing the Oakland PD or all the officers present that night (since a lot of them were shipped in from outside Oakland, as many OPD officers were taking leave to avoid being sent to the protests). However, the individual officer who tossed the flashbang at that group certainly appears to be out of line and deserving of a full investigation.

[Orwell]

I don't know what a flashbang is, but I feel that if I had one, the urge to set it off would be impossible to resist. Sounds like fun. And let's faci it, there's never enough fun at violent protests.

[Eldorion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade

[Orwell]

Oooh... I was editing while you were linking...

Mmm... and not quite as much fun as the name implies.

[Pettytyrant101]

Tomorrow is Armistace Day- Remembering all those who have died in war. But a planned protest by the group Muslims Against Crusades to burn poppies and have a 'Heroes in Hell' day have been stopped by the Home Secretary, who has gone as far as to make the group illegal.
Now I don't like what they stand for, I don't like them trying to hijack Remembrance Day as an anti-Muslim event when many of those being remembered were Muslim. But was it not supposed to be to defend such freedoms that the people who have died and whom we remember went to war in the first place?
Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will die defending your right to say it"?
Does banning a group such as this do any good? Does stopping them having their misguided demonstration do any good? I suspect it would have done little harm as the vast majority would rightly have brushed it off as the acts of a misguided minority, same as they did when it happened last year.

Also from a Scottish persepctive it's interesting this group should be targeted- I wonder if its because they are Muslims, as a small but determined band of the Glasgow Celtic support regularly protests during the minute silence and disrupt it on the basis the British Army is guilty of killing Catholics in Northern Ireland. Yet whilst yearly outrage at it makes the Scottish tabloids the Home Secretary has never stepped in to ban them. Just a thought.

[Orwell]

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will die defending your right to say it"?

Freedom with Responsibility? Anyone disrupting a Rembrance Day service in this manner should be charged for Offensive Behaviour. Disgusting. What an affront to ALL perople in ALL countries who lost family and friends in War, or who wish to quietly reflect on how horrible wars are. Is there no limit to what Free People can do? Nuh. Some things go beyond what's acceptable. Yep, I sound like Odo, but hopefully without the cant. {{{Sorry Odo! }}} Your Irish and your Muslims should show respect to Their fallen, not sully Their own people's memories by such gutter politics.

[Pettytyrant101]

The Wall Street Protests have come to an end as police moved in and made arrests and shut the protest camp down. Is this the end of it then? Or will it only make the protesters more determined? And have they done a blind bit of good anyway or just got in the way of legitimate business in the area being conducted? Thoughts?
(Should entice GB back if he's not got huckled for stealing bandwidth!)

[Eldorion]

A bunch of them moved to a public square, and police have said they'll let protesters back into the park, but not let them camp. The reason they were kicked out is that the owners of the park (it is private property) asked the police to do so, and because the police were concerned that the encampment was a public health and safety hazard. While I have mixed feelings about the decision to evict - and from what I've read I think the eviction could have been handled much better - the conditions in the camp did sound pretty unclean and disgusting.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes but clean or not was it worth it? Has it done anything? It seems a rather feeble protest to me, the sort of thing if it happened in 60's America would barely have made the news compared to the proper wide scale protesting going on then. Its seems only to have lasted this long in part thanks to 24hr rolling news.

[Eldorion]

It's managed to spawn similar protests across the US and even in several other countries, so I'm not sure feeble is the right word, but it is certainly a small protest movement. I think the Tea Party is bigger, and neither of those contemporary movements has anything on the protest movements of the '60s. I'll hold off on judging what OWS has accomplished until the 2012 elections, however, to see if (1) they have staying power of more than a few months, and (2) if they are able to affect a significant number of voters.

[Orwell]

Huh? Was somebody protesting about somerthing?

[Squach]

Maybe your lack of spelling ability.

[Anne]

{{{Go get him, Squach!}}}

[Squach]

I saw an opportunity. But next thing you know he'll have edited it.
Probably doesn't want to seem stupid for Pseudo-Kafria.

[Orwell]

Who is this Pseudo-Kafria? The only Kafria I know is Kafria. You know, that schizophrenic woman with an annoying daughter. You know, the one who hardly ever comes to Forumshire anymore.

(Actually, the one whose story I should have read by now... Tomorrow. I promise! )

How's this, Squach, maybe I deliberately misspelt that word, just to make me fit in better with all you illiterates here. (I mean that kindly). Of course I know there's not two "t's" in protessing! My goodness, you must think I'm really really stupid!

Sometimes, at least in my less tolerant moods, I think people should be protessing about you even being here, just saying.

[Pettytyrant101]

Why is politicians only get brave enough to speak out in the UK once they have been moved on to the House of Lords?

Ex-MI5 chief Baroness Manningham-Buller has called on the government to consider decriminalising cannabis.
In a speech to the all-party parliamentary drugs group, she said the "war on drugs" had been "fruitless" and yet talk of any change was "taboo".
"Given its effects on us all...I find it extraordinary it is not at the forefront of national debate."
She joins a growing list of high profile figures including Dame Judi Dench, Sting, Sir Richard Branson and former senior police officers who have urged the case for legalising some drugs.
Regulating cannabis would mean that society focused on the health aspects of drug use rather than the criminalisation of drug users, she said.
This would also ensure that it did not include the components most dangerous to mental health.
In her speech, she said it was "extraordinary" that while drugs are harmful to society, destroy lives and increase crime, there was "knee jerk opposition" to any change.
"There is a presumption that the current policy is the best we can do," she said.
Policymakers needed to look at "politically uncomfortable" evidence about current approaches and consider alternatives, including whether the UK "should follow Portugal's fascinating example and focus on drug use as a health issue rather than a crime issue?"
"We are urging the prime minister to bring forward an all party commission to examine our drug laws which are simply not working," she said.
"We are one of the highest users of drugs and yet we have some of the toughest laws."


These comments got the usual sensible sorts of reply from the ant-drugs brigade;

'But Chip Somers of the drug treatment group Focus 12 says decriminalising cannabis is the wrong way forward.
"I don't want the person driving the train I'm on to have just had a joint thank you very much," he said. "I am reassured by the fact that it is illegal."

Christian Guy, policy director of the Centre for Social Justice, agreed that the "war on drugs" was failing, but said that was no reason to "surrender".
He added: "What I am concerned about is the idea that we should stop fighting it and wave the white flag to these criminal gangs and say that we walk away and give up.
"We need a clear message from law that says this is wrong and sends the right message to young people."

That Chip guys argument is mad. Alcohol is legal but I don't therefore assume my train driver will be drunk! One would hope, legal or not, the train driver would not be getting high because he is driving a *!@#!*# train!


In the comments section to the above Loony Liberal wrote;

Illegal:
- Gangs thrive (con)
- No tax revenue (con)
- U18's aren't asked for ID (con)
- Extra NHS costs due to shared needles/impure drugs (con)
- Prison costs rise (con)
- Middle England happy (pro?)

Legalised:
- Tax revenue (pro)
- Gangs reduced (pro)
- Not selling to kids (pro)
- NHS costs lowered/covered due to tax (pro)
- Prison demand reduced (pro)
- Less risk to life of impure drugs (pro)

Well put I thought.

[Eldorion]

Reasonable points from the pro-regulation crowd, mindless fear-mongering from the anti-drugs crowd. I'm shocked. Seriously, if there is a reasonable argument for prohibition that isn't based on puritanism, ignorance, or fear; I'd like to see it. Either that, or I'd like to see these people be consistent and apply the same arguments to tobacco and alcohol. I don't get why people think that strict policing alone will stop drug use when decades of evidence suggests it doesn't work. At the very least we should focus more on rehabilitation.

Why is politicians only get brave enough to speak out in the UK once they have been moved on to the House of Lords?

My guess is that they know the drugs issue is a live wire, and they don't want to take the chance of being voted out of office and/or thrown under the bus by their own party by saying something unpopular, even if it's true.

[Orwell]

If I wasn't a cop I'd say legalise happy weed because I think:

Legalised:
- Tax revenue (pro)
- Gangs reduced (pro)
- Not selling to kids (pro)
- NHS costs lowered/covered due to tax (pro)
- Prison demand reduced (pro)
- Less risk to life of impure drugs (pro)

But as I am a cop, I think I should do as the Law demands and continue to charge people where the Law demands it. What can you do?

[Orwell]

Nursing Home fire in Quakers Hill, NSW, Australia, Petty. No sprinklers. I guess it was considered an unnecessary waste of scarce funds. Indeed, I bet the money just could not be found! Ironically, I bet money is found quickly for other homes now. The count is four dead, but the number might very well increase. The media are having a field day. It's an ill wind that blows nobody no good.