On one of the other sites i post on we are discussing the Killing of the Brazilian by British Armed police the week after the London bombing.
Alot of people are vilifying the police for thier actions because it turned out that he wasn't a terrorist.
They are basing thier judgement of Newspaper reports for the most part that are judging the situation with information that has come to light long after the event.
they are also using this hindsight to attack the desicion making process of the officers on the day.
It seems to me that it has become fashionable throughout the media to base attacks on public figures be they Police or politions on Information that the people would not have had availible at the time of the desicion making process.
Be it Bush on Iraq (although many of us here where Anti-iraq long before the media began it's crusade) or the Policemen trying to protect the public.
It seems very hard for people to reflect on what information was availible at the time and use that to aid them in a lesson learning process without attacking the people who have to make tough and sometime lose/lose choices.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The problem with hindsight
The problem with hindsightFollow
Most of the criticism (press and victim's family) is utterly flawed.
Public eye-witnesses (not the Police) stated he leapt a barrier and was wearing a bulky jacket.
Sir Ian Blair (quite rightly) refused to comment (confirm or deny) on those reports until he had formal reports from the officers, and as soon as he heard there was doubt that the chap was a suicide bomber, he handed it over to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. By the book. 100%.
Now if (if, mind) it's true that the surveillance officer at the apartment was away having a Tom Tiddle with no VT running when the 'suspect' left the building, they fu[/i]cked up big stylee.
Any break in a CS renders the whoe operation void. Looks like some junior 007 wannabe dropped a gooly. If that's true, then fine, nail the fu[i]ck-up's to a tree.
To me, this is 100% Tabloid Press trying to sell extra papers and the family trying to raise the compensation.
And I agree with you tarv, factors are always easier to see when you're looking at them through a retrospectoscope.
Public eye-witnesses (not the Police) stated he leapt a barrier and was wearing a bulky jacket.
Sir Ian Blair (quite rightly) refused to comment (confirm or deny) on those reports until he had formal reports from the officers, and as soon as he heard there was doubt that the chap was a suicide bomber, he handed it over to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. By the book. 100%.
Now if (if, mind) it's true that the surveillance officer at the apartment was away having a Tom Tiddle with no VT running when the 'suspect' left the building, they fu[/i]cked up big stylee.
Any break in a CS renders the whoe operation void. Looks like some junior 007 wannabe dropped a gooly. If that's true, then fine, nail the fu[i]ck-up's to a tree.
To me, this is 100% Tabloid Press trying to sell extra papers and the family trying to raise the compensation.
And I agree with you tarv, factors are always easier to see when you're looking at them through a retrospectoscope.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
I think when dealing with a situation like this it's always best to assume the worst. Same applies in politics. Is it necessarily "right"? No. Is it fair on the people involved? Probably not. Is it the best way of ensuring that if there has been misconduct is it exposed and dealt with? I think so. We shouldn't have to give anyone in government the benefit of the doubt. Even if it's unfair, even if we're occasionally asking the impossible of them, expecting them to infallible; it's conducive to a healthy democracy, it keeps them on their toes and it ensures that they perform to the best of their ability.
More often than not they are meerly trying to inflame the situation for monetary motivation.
The IPCC has a long and creditable history of investigations of this type and the Media's leaks and speculation is a huge hinderance to thier job.
Expecting people to be sacked for every high profile mistake is insane, how can you learn if you never have the opportunity to put the mistakes right? especially when it's not you makeing the error.
We seem to be getting into a scapegoat situation again and it p*sses me off, investigate, compensate, put lessons learnt into practice and move on.
I agree, actually. Anyone who runs for political office opens their life to the scrutiny of the electorate.
We just need to distinguish clearly between those who are elected and those who are hired. Anyone hired for a position deserves the same privacy as your average John Thomas on the street.
Should we be deisrous of poking and prodding about the lives of persons working a position, it needs to be elected to clearly set forth the standard of privacy that comes along with it.
We just need to distinguish clearly between those who are elected and those who are hired. Anyone hired for a position deserves the same privacy as your average John Thomas on the street.
Should we be deisrous of poking and prodding about the lives of persons working a position, it needs to be elected to clearly set forth the standard of privacy that comes along with it.
Quote:
I think when dealing with a situation like this it's always best to assume the worst. Same applies in politics. Is it necessarily "right"? No. Is it fair on the people involved? Probably not. Is it the best way of ensuring that if there has been misconduct is it exposed and dealt with? I think so. We shouldn't have to give anyone in government the benefit of the doubt. Even if it's unfair, even if we're occasionally asking the impossible of them, expecting them to infallible; it's conducive to a healthy democracy, it keeps them on their toes and it ensures that they perform to the best of their ability.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise on some level that mistakes will be made and be willing to forgive when they happen. It's simply a matter of playing devil's advocate to encourage rigorous debate. Again, actively keeping our democracy alive.
However, it often seems to me that our perception of government conduct, the media's perception of government conduct, and what the government would have us believe about its conduct have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation, so the above is a largely theoretical justification of tabloid bloodlust and public scepticism.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise on some level that mistakes will be made and be willing to forgive when they happen. It's simply a matter of playing devil's advocate to encourage rigorous debate. Again, actively keeping our democracy alive.
However, it often seems to me that our perception of government conduct, the media's perception of government conduct, and what the government would have us believe about its conduct have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation, so the above is a largely theoretical justification of tabloid bloodlust and public scepticism.
YSU & TStephens
I absolutely agree with your comments about Government / Politicians / Elected Officials etc., but you're off the mark here.
Sir Ian Blair is a serving Police Officer, promoted to that position through the ranks. He's no way a part of Government.
Here in the UK we don't have elected police officials.
Politicians are accountable to us, the public, and importantly, they are responsible for defining the rules.
Appointed officers merely implement the rules. If the rules are cack, kick out the politicians. If the cops break the rules, sack 'em.
All the indications are that some junior surveillance officer slept on the job, and (maybe) someone got trigger happy.
Ian Blair appears to have played this 100% bu the book.
I absolutely agree with your comments about Government / Politicians / Elected Officials etc., but you're off the mark here.
Sir Ian Blair is a serving Police Officer, promoted to that position through the ranks. He's no way a part of Government.
Here in the UK we don't have elected police officials.
Politicians are accountable to us, the public, and importantly, they are responsible for defining the rules.
Appointed officers merely implement the rules. If the rules are cack, kick out the politicians. If the cops break the rules, sack 'em.
All the indications are that some junior surveillance officer slept on the job, and (maybe) someone got trigger happy.
Ian Blair appears to have played this 100% bu the book.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
My Ire is not with the actions of the individuals in the police but with the lack of judgement of the media in printing / screening these stories.
It doesn't seem to me to be about "the truth" which they liberally make up at the drop of a hat anyway. But more to stir up a hornets nest and get people out of jobs.
It started with the sports press (as certain Mr Beckham can tell you) and seems to have spread into the mainstream press, the actions of editors under the banner of "the public have the right to know" has got totally out of hand.
Yes report the truth, but if an offical equiry is taking place let them do thier job and stop leaking information (selectively chosen to maximise headlines) to undermine the actions of the people who are trying to do a job and then try and get them sacked for doing it as best they can.
It doesn't seem to me to be about "the truth" which they liberally make up at the drop of a hat anyway. But more to stir up a hornets nest and get people out of jobs.
It started with the sports press (as certain Mr Beckham can tell you) and seems to have spread into the mainstream press, the actions of editors under the banner of "the public have the right to know" has got totally out of hand.
Yes report the truth, but if an offical equiry is taking place let them do thier job and stop leaking information (selectively chosen to maximise headlines) to undermine the actions of the people who are trying to do a job and then try and get them sacked for doing it as best they can.
Quote:
"in a perfect world.." or "I would like a policy to be made affecting this..". It's the latter I have a problem with.
The readers of the tabloid press (well Sun/Star/Mirror) are pretty stupid generally but the editors are intellegant individuals, they should be able to make better desicions over what is and is not good to print.
Again i would refer back to the treatment of Mr Beckham (Mainly because it's not political and as such doesn't have the real impact on people that the shooting does)
The treatment of him by the british sports press was nothing short of obscene, that young man was subject to the most crass treatment any sportsman has ever been subjected to.
Or should i say had ever been subject too, now it seem commonplace to build them up and throw them down. It scares me that it has started to cross more and more into mainstream journalism.
He does now, he didn't have much choise but to learn how to manipulate them after the way they treated him.
Remember he was only something like 21 at the time, and it was before he met Posh.
Seriously the way he was delt with could almost be described as Evil. They had people hanging dummy's of him for christ sake, all of it whipped up into a frenzy by the football writers irresponcibility.
Like i say thats just an example of what seems to be creaping into mainstream journalism.
Remember he was only something like 21 at the time, and it was before he met Posh.
Seriously the way he was delt with could almost be described as Evil. They had people hanging dummy's of him for christ sake, all of it whipped up into a frenzy by the football writers irresponcibility.
Like i say thats just an example of what seems to be creaping into mainstream journalism.
well the incedent he was hounded for was a sending of during a football match against Argentina.
we lost on penalties in a close game that we might have won if he had not got sent off.
the sending of itself was pretty bad in that Beckham tapped the block on the back of the leg whilst he was lying on the ground (Beckham that is) after yet another tackle from behind.
The Agrentinian went down like he'd been shot by a sniper and basiclly play acted beckham off.
for the next two years the football press insigated a hate campaign against Beckham, with his every mistake highlghted out of proportion even when giving a Man of the match performance.
His homelife was pulled through the gutter and his name was mud on all the tabloid back pages, it was pretty gruesome at times.
It was not untill he single handedly dragged England from the brink of defeat against Greece that he became a hero again.
Excerpt from a football website at the time:
we lost on penalties in a close game that we might have won if he had not got sent off.
the sending of itself was pretty bad in that Beckham tapped the block on the back of the leg whilst he was lying on the ground (Beckham that is) after yet another tackle from behind.
The Agrentinian went down like he'd been shot by a sniper and basiclly play acted beckham off.
for the next two years the football press insigated a hate campaign against Beckham, with his every mistake highlghted out of proportion even when giving a Man of the match performance.
His homelife was pulled through the gutter and his name was mud on all the tabloid back pages, it was pretty gruesome at times.
It was not untill he single handedly dragged England from the brink of defeat against Greece that he became a hero again.
Excerpt from a football website at the time:
Quote:
Beckham jeered as United's woes worsen
by Frank Malley
THE clear glass bottle came hurtling out of the sky and crashed against the window of the Manchester United coach.
It shattered into a hundred pieces. It is much too early in the Premiership season to speculate that the same will happen to United's title challenge.
But the signs that all is not well in the United camp were for all to see in the goalless draw against West Ham.
The bottle-throwing incident was the most violent and disturbing of what are becoming depressingly familiar protests against David Beckham.
Beckham was predictably jeered, booed and taunted throughout the match and had to endure relentless jibes about girlfriend Victoria Adams, aka Posh Spice, who had announced she is three months pregnant just 24 hours earlier.
Surely it's time the morons who insist on chanting ''You let your country down'' ceased the persecution of the 23-year-old England star who has suffered enough for his impetuous sending-off against Argentina in France '98.
Not even murderers provoke the sort of treatment Beckham has to endure before and during football matches these days. Worryingly from United's point of view, the vitriol aimed at him seems to be having an inhibiting effect on the rest of the United side, who peered with a mixture of bemusement and apprehension as their vehicle snaked its way slowly through the 500-strong welcoming hate mob and attendant mounted police and dog handlers.
by Frank Malley
THE clear glass bottle came hurtling out of the sky and crashed against the window of the Manchester United coach.
It shattered into a hundred pieces. It is much too early in the Premiership season to speculate that the same will happen to United's title challenge.
But the signs that all is not well in the United camp were for all to see in the goalless draw against West Ham.
The bottle-throwing incident was the most violent and disturbing of what are becoming depressingly familiar protests against David Beckham.
Beckham was predictably jeered, booed and taunted throughout the match and had to endure relentless jibes about girlfriend Victoria Adams, aka Posh Spice, who had announced she is three months pregnant just 24 hours earlier.
Surely it's time the morons who insist on chanting ''You let your country down'' ceased the persecution of the 23-year-old England star who has suffered enough for his impetuous sending-off against Argentina in France '98.
Not even murderers provoke the sort of treatment Beckham has to endure before and during football matches these days. Worryingly from United's point of view, the vitriol aimed at him seems to be having an inhibiting effect on the rest of the United side, who peered with a mixture of bemusement and apprehension as their vehicle snaked its way slowly through the 500-strong welcoming hate mob and attendant mounted police and dog handlers.
I must say, this has been the most non-innane thread in a While.
carry-on
carry-on
LIB'RUL MEDIA!
Sorry, someone had to do it. But at least I've pre-empted a few posters' only arguments.
Sorry, someone had to do it. But at least I've pre-empted a few posters' only arguments.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I know you're only joking Deb, but it's not Liberal media it's irresponcible media.
I only raise the point because of the front page of my (soon to be changed if the editor isn't) regular read that Dailt Express, which while not a broadsheet is or at least wasn't a tabloid.
it was emblazoned with
1 in 4 terrorist an assylum seeker
it's a pretty emotive headline that is both trying to stir hatred and ignoring that 3 out of 4 where not assylum seekers making the headline pretty f*cking pointless really.
I question the judgement on ANY editor who runs with a headline like that, surely someone with some authority should be questioning how this could posibly be in the public interest and pure hatemongering like that should be stopped.
all this from what used to be, quite a well writen paper with very few agenda's which is why i read it.
I only raise the point because of the front page of my (soon to be changed if the editor isn't) regular read that Dailt Express, which while not a broadsheet is or at least wasn't a tabloid.
it was emblazoned with
1 in 4 terrorist an assylum seeker
it's a pretty emotive headline that is both trying to stir hatred and ignoring that 3 out of 4 where not assylum seekers making the headline pretty f*cking pointless really.
I question the judgement on ANY editor who runs with a headline like that, surely someone with some authority should be questioning how this could posibly be in the public interest and pure hatemongering like that should be stopped.
all this from what used to be, quite a well writen paper with very few agenda's which is why i read it.
Quote:
I suppose labeling the terrorists as arab muslims would be hatemongering to someone as brainwashed as yourself. Never mind if the statement is true or not, it's not what you want to hear so it must be a lie.
1. At no point have i said that the people where of any ethnic group, as point of fact none of the bombers on 7/7 or 21/7 where arab muslims, they where asian muslims.
2. The hatemongering was aimed at assylum seekers not asian muslims, by drawing a non exsistant link between the two.
3. The statement is 3/4 false so making it more untrue than true. given that 3/4 of the terrorist found where not assylum seekers, so a majority of our terrorist have nothing to do with assylum seeking.
4. i was objecting to the linking of terrorist to assylum seeking not with the dinintion of what part of the world they came from.
i do admire you ability to add 2 and 2 together to get 27 though very impressive.
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
1 in 4 terrorist an assylum seeker
I think, in all honesty, I'd rather have the terrorists here than the FFXIers.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Tarv, ever since you linked those pics of what you and your wife wore when you got married, I get this vision of Adam Ant arguing politics. It's amusing.
Quote:
but i also think that the Media should not be so damned reckless with thier reporting.
But how do you restrict this without impeeding a free press?
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Accountability. You only punish the ones who print falsehoods.
Quote:
But how do you restrict this without impeeding a free press?
i think the law is called "Inciting racial hatred."
Quote:
Tarv, ever since you linked those pics of what you and your wife wore when you got married.
I read that as "Tarv, ever since you linked those pics of you and your wife ***** when you got married". I was thinking, "Steady on, that's a bit harsh".
Carry on.
This thread is hawt. I haven´t had an Assylum thread conjure up such rampant homoerotic group sex fantasies between Nobby, YSU and tarv in quite a while. Rate ups!
Recent Visitors: 189
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (189)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The problem with hindsight
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC