A free-for-all thread

[jackcake]

I saw that. Any police force anywhere in the world will always attract dickheads like that. Same applies to the armed forces. They aren't representative of the whole. Daniel's still butthurt about going where he wasn't supposed to and being kettled as a result.

[Azubi]

That didn't take long.

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

I can sense him typing up a reply.

[Danroush]

Can´t load it, I have the Guardian app blocked.

EDIT: ooh, article link still on the blocked page, handy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/3 ... ?fb=native


EDIT2:

Hey look, it's the Met participating in totally acceptable and fair policing...oh wait no they're being pricks as usual, strangling people and telling them they're a nigger and always will be one

So a couple of officers in the Met are wankers and did some nasty shit. But that doesn't mean the entire Met is like this, or that they condone it, or train their officers that they should do this to all black people. Which is what you allude to. Dan, you need to learn not to brandish an entire establishment based on the actions of a couple of individuals that work in it. There are many, many good people who work for the Met that do an outstanding job of what they do. You never hear about those people because you never do hear about people that do a good job - doing 'a good job' is part of their job description. Same goes with national healthcare workers. I dislike the NHS as an organisation but the vast, vast majority of people that work for it are hard-working, good individuals - occasionally there will be a bad apple in there that gets in the news because he/she failed to do some due diligence, or even worse deliberately caused some harm. This does not instantly mean that every worker in the NHS has the same intentions or performs in the same manner as this person. Public sector organisations exist to provide a public service and they will always exist for as long as their intentions are that of the public (and they have funding, different topic). Your opinion of an entire organisation may be hampered by one bad experience but unless you take a moment to think of the scale of your experience compared to the full size of the organisation you will always have a narrow-minded, ignorant and one-sided view and opinion of anything you deal with without the faintest possibility of looking at things from the other side. Yes, this is a wall of text and intentional.

Yet again you claim that's it's an opinion based on "a couple of individuals". I'm sure you realise that whilst of course them doing the job right doesn't get into the news, often when they do things like this it doesn't get into the news either.

Out of interest, how many cases would it take for you to believe that perhaps the Met aren't as good as you're claiming? (I'm not saying they're all assholes, and I know you're not claiming they're all saints, we're both in the same vague greyed area, it's just that I'm closer to one side and you're closer to the other).


Also to Steve, grow up and find something better to do than bait people

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

Told you.

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

Anyway, Dan, you might not be calling the Met arseholes but you sure are calling them all pricks.

[AnnihiSlateR]

I don't get it dan, why do you go so far out of your way to discredit them?

[Azubi]

Lads, will you drop it? He said he doesn't want a discussion about it.

[Danroush]

Anyway, Dan, you might not be calling the Met arseholes but you sure are calling them all pricks.

I'll throw some figures in, don't take these as factual numbers, just a way of illustrating what I mean.

Say for example, I think that roughly 60-70% of them are more unjust than they are just, i.e. that they act more partially and biased than what should be allowed, granting of course that everyone is slightly partial, but this 60-70% are beyond what should, by my opinion of course, be accepted. Due to this being a majority, I refer to "The Met" as I refer to that 60-70%, because I usually assume that people realise that saying something about a group in general is not the same as saying that it applies to every one of them.

For example, if I said "women are weaker than men," generally, in the majority of cases this will be true. Of course there are many, many women who are stronger than men, but to say "women are weaker than men" does not rule out those women, other than perhaps that I could make myself clearer by adding "in general" to it. So perhaps I should add the words "in general" when I speak about the Met and for that lack of clarity I apologise, but for my overall opinion on them I do not

[Jim]

Out of interest, how many cases would it take for you to believe that perhaps the Met aren't as good as you're claiming?

See, this is a general problem with all public services. As I mentioned earlier with the NHS, it's a very poorly run organisation, because it's publicly funded. The public feel (rightly or wrongly) that they should have a say in how it's run. I personally don't think this is a good idea - the public should rightly have a say WHAT services are provided, but leave it up to people who know who to run organisations on HOW to deliver it. The NHS is a complete organisational mess, with each SHA and Trust running things their own way, recording things their own way, and the only thing they do consistently is reporting back to the Department of Health.

A similar analog might be seen in the Met, what they do is vital, but how they do it should not be left up to the public, that should be left to law enforcement experts who know how to proportionally implement what the public wants to be done.

[Noodle]

Lads, will you drop it? He said he doesn't want a discussion about it.

I read that part too, much like I read some things in The Sun.

[Danroush]

A similar analog might be seen in the Met, what they do is vital, but how they do it should not be left up to the public, that should be left to law enforcement experts who know how to proportionally implement what the public wants to be done.

Perhaps, but I'd suggest the public should have a small amount of influence in that "experts" will never be truly flawless, and to have at least some outside insight into how it is run can be greatly beneficial in keeping a balanced view.


(just a note, thanks for always talking to me like an adult unlike some others on this forum )

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

(just a note, thanks for always talking to me like an adult unlike some others on this forum)

Stop posting shite like this and people might start to respect you a bit.

[Jim]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

[Danroush]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

Yeah, if I'm having to defend myself against ad hominem attacks as much as what I'm discussing it sometimes becomes difficult to separate the two, especially when there's multiple replies to me every time I post