This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
hedgehog50  Croydon 30 Jan 17 12.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Probably because he didn't believe it was entirely wrong. He clearly felt the police acted in a way that partially justified it - the actions around Cynthia Jarrett were partly responsible for her death and were appallingly handled. And as a community leader and local council leader, he had a duty to give a voice to that. That doesn't mean he reveled in it. It just means he felt that black youths had a reason to feel so aggrieved they would consider rioting. And given the (now openly acknowledged) institutional racism in the Met at the time, he would have had a point. That's my point - anyone with an ounce of decency would think it is entirely wrong to riot, hack and kick to death a defenceless man and try to cut his head off and put it on a pole.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
 OknotOK Cockfosters, London 30 Jan 17 12.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
That's my point - anyone with an ounce of decency would think it is entirely wrong to riot, hack and kick to death a defenceless man and try to cut his head off and put it on a pole. The riot and the murder are two separate issues. And to suggest he didn't express sorrow to the family of that murder is crap. I think you'll find plenty who don't think those on the estates were entirely wrong to riot at that time. They believed the police were a malignant force that made the lives of people on the estate worse at just about every opportunity. And various inquiries and the court cases of those charged with the murder subsequently would give them even further evidence to justify that sentiment.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 30 Jan 17 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
The riot and the murder are two separate issues. And to suggest he didn't express sorrow to the family of that murder is crap. I think you'll find plenty who don't think those on the estates were entirely wrong to riot at that time. They believed the police were a malignant force that made the lives of people on the estate worse at just about every opportunity. And various inquiries and the court cases of those charged with the murder subsequently would give them even further evidence to justify that sentiment. No they are not, they are inextricably linked. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the population think they were entirely wrong to riot. Grant did not express sorrow to the Blakelock family, he merely apologised if his comments had caused offence - he did not explicitly condemn the murder or the riot. So you think the police are a 'malignant force' - and you say I talk 'crap'. How wonderful do you think life would be without a police force?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 30 Jan 17 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Careful. You are chucking socialism back in their faces! And I never did get a response.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jan 17 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
That's my point - anyone with an ounce of decency would think it is entirely wrong to riot, hack and kick to death a defenceless man and try to cut his head off and put it on a pole. Riots don't tend to be very organised, well reasoned affairs. Whilst obviously they're wrong, the key incidents are those that proceed the riot. They're typically born out of rising social tension, failures of the state and local authorities to respond to criticism and local issues, ignited by a single incident that spirals out of control. Usually riots start as reasonably peaceful protests and events, where that 'spark' ignites.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 30 Jan 17 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Riots don't tend to be very organised, well reasoned affairs. Whilst obviously they're wrong, the key incidents are those that proceed the riot. They're typically born out of rising social tension, failures of the state and local authorities to respond to criticism and local issues, ignited by a single incident that spirals out of control. Usually riots start as reasonably peaceful protests and events, where that 'spark' ignites. Oh yeah, which of your dubious 'reasons to riot' caused the 2011 riots?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 30 Jan 17 2.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
No they are not, they are inextricably linked. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the population think they were entirely wrong to riot. Grant did not express sorrow to the Blakelock family, he merely apologised if his comments had caused offence - he did not explicitly condemn the murder or the riot. So you think the police are a 'malignant force' - and you say I talk 'crap'. How wonderful do you think life would be without a police force? I didn't say they were malignant - I said people on the estate felt they were. But you either can't or are choosing not read properly. Grant never said he approved of the violence, either the rioting or the murder. And you have no idea whether he condemned the murder or not - either publicly or privately. You didn't think he even apologised for the offence of his words in the first place. The press took a single comment when he was trying to explain the mentality of black youths who were rioting and they misreported it. And the two happened together but saying he didn't condemn the riots doesn't mean he approved of the murder. And given he never said he approved of the riots anyway..... I think this is a bit tiresome now. You believe Grant was an anti-police murder-supporter. In my opinion you are completely wrong but we're getting nowhere.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 30 Jan 17 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
I didn't say they were malignant - I said people on the estate felt they were. But you either can't or are choosing not read properly. Grant never said he approved of the violence, either the rioting or the murder. And you have no idea whether he condemned the murder or not - either publicly or privately. You didn't think he even apologised for the offence of his words in the first place. The press took a single comment when he was trying to explain the mentality of black youths who were rioting and they misreported it. And the two happened together but saying he didn't condemn the riots doesn't mean he approved of the murder. And given he never said he approved of the riots anyway..... I think this is a bit tiresome now. You believe Grant was an anti-police murder-supporter. In my opinion you are completely wrong but we're getting nowhere. I'm pleased if you don't think the police are malignant. I certainly do have an idea whether he condemned the murder or not publicly - he didn't. I said he apologised "if his comments caused offence" (note the 'if' Edited by hedgehog50 (31 Jan 2017 8.06am)
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
. The press simply reported what he said - they did not misreport him at all. I certainly do think Grant was anti-police. He was a past member of the Workers Revolutionary Party, a good indication of his outlook. Kermit8  Hevon 01 Feb 17 7.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Guardian article says that they've seen an internal EU report stating that "a badly designed final deal would damage both the UK and the other 27 EU member states" Will certainly be very welcome news for David Davis, but the possibility that we can have at least some of our cake and eat it should reassure everyone. Unless, of course, the final deal is badly designed/rushed. Two years is not nearly enough to do what needs to be done.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Feb 17 8.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Tonight is momentous. We are leaving the EU. A Tory split has been avoided. This is remarkable. No real Tory rebellion other than Osbourne trying to look relevant. I would love the lefties to claim he has a point given their vitriol towards him. Jeremy Corbyn has been exposed as a tool of the establishment and now leads a party that may well be fatally wounded. This has serious reprecussions for democracy in the U.K. Tim Farron is trying to stay relevant. Run, Forest, run... Nicola Sturgeon has been forced into 'indyref2'. All the polls point to no desire for a second referendum or, if it happened, a resounding defeat. The EU, despite its threats, has admitted that a poor deal will hurt it. It needs a swift end to this in order to stop the further disintegration. These are inspirational times to live in. Edited by matt_himself (01 Feb 2017 8.33pm) Never in doubt. Stand by for Remainer bleating.
|
|
| the.universal 01 Feb 17 8.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I propose a deal, remainers stop bleating and leavers accept their win with humility. Not seeing much of that from either side at the minute.
Vive le Roy! |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 01 Feb 17 9.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the.universal
I propose a deal, remainers stop bleating and leavers accept their win with humility. Not seeing much of that from either side at the minute. After all the vitriol directed at them by the remainers? Not gonna happen I'm afraid. All the abusive language and indignation and family splits caused by the remainers with their foot-stamping, hand-wringing, indignation at losing a democratic vote, prepare for an upsurge of noise from them, and a mocking from the Brexiteers. It's the way of the world now. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (01 Feb 2017 9.20pm)
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Feb 17 9.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the.universal
I propose a deal, remainers stop bleating and leavers accept their win with humility. Not seeing much of that from either side at the minute. We have spent weeks being told how Remainers will derail the process.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 01 Feb 17 9.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Diane Abbott misses the vote because she is 'ill'. We all pray it is not serious. Lovely,honest politician.
|
|
| davenotamonkey 01 Feb 17 9.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Diane Abbott misses the vote because she is 'ill'. We all pray it is not serious. Cough "ill"
|
|
| davenotamonkey 01 Feb 17 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Tonight is momentous. We are leaving the EU. A Tory split has been avoided. This is remarkable. No real Tory rebellion other than Osbourne trying to look relevant. I would love the lefties to claim he has a point given their vitriol towards him. Jeremy Corbyn has been exposed as a tool of the establishment and now leads a party that may well be fatally wounded. This has serious reprecussions for democracy in the U.K. Tim Farron is trying to stay relevant. Run, Forest, run... Nicola Sturgeon has been forced into 'indyref2'. All the polls point to no desire for a second referendum or, if it happened, a resounding defeat. The EU, despite its threats, has admitted that a poor deal will hurt it. It needs a swift end to this in order to stop the further disintegration. These are inspirational times to live in. Edited by matt_himself (01 Feb 2017 8.33pm) Not so fast. Still committee stage, amendments, third reading and the Lords to go...
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.