Police Taser their own race relations adviser in Bristol

Angilion · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:08

Dis86 said:
We are using the softly softly approach though and it's just not working. People have free reign over how much they are allowed to drink and it's quite frankly a disaster.

We're not really using any approach at the moment. The problem is mostly being ignored.

I gave two examples of successes a few posts ago. Neither required authoritarianism or much force and neither ran the risk of creating crime through prohibition without authoritarianism and extreme force. What's wrong with trying the same approach with the problems caused by some people using alcohol unwisely?

cheesyboy · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:13

Angilion said:
Cannabis is being engineered to be more harmful, by the way, with the goal of making it more potent. Given free rein, it would become much more harmful than it naturally is. As harmful as alcohol? Maybe.

This is exactly the opposite of what the evidence suggests would happen.

The reason cannabis strains are getting stringer is that it is illicit, which encourages a more bang for your buck market.

USA's prohibition era is a good example - not many were drinking beer, were they. Idiot-strength 'moonshine' spirits were the tipple for the masses. In legal alcohol markets, only problem drinkers reach for large quantities of the hard stuff: everyone else prefers a more mellow drinking experience. You don't get that choice under a prohibition system.

cheesyboy · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:19

Dis86 said:
We are using the softly softly approach though and it's just not working. People have free reign over how much they are allowed to drink and it's quite frankly a disaster.

Compared with about 10 years ago, alcohol consumption per adult is down 20% and violent alcohol related crime is down 40%. Something's working.

asim18 · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:27

Angilion said:
Cannabis is being engineered to be more harmful, by the way, with the goal of making it more potent. Given free rein, it would become much more harmful than it naturally is. As harmful as alcohol? Maybe.

I don't think more potent necessarily equates to more harmful. Personally, higher potency means less harmful.

More potency means you your lungs don't need as much smoke going through them, but you get just as high.

Obviously, if you're abusing it and ALWAYS roll mahoosive fat head joints and have always have strong tolerance but still keep smoking, it's not going to be any good. But for a disciplined user who sticks to their limits for maintaining tolerance, it just means they can roll nice thin joints. In the long run it means less volume of smoke being inhaled.

The problem with cannabis isn't the good stuff like high grade/high THC cannabis. It's the low grade crap that's poorly grown in some kid's bedroom.

As harmful as alcohol? Maybe.

Alcohol has it's own potency scale too and I'd argue that higher % spirits are less harmful. If I wanted to achieve a certain level of inebriation, id rather do it with half a bottle of JD rather than 12 cans of Stella going through my digestive system.

Dis86 · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:41

cheesyboy said:
Compared with about 10 years ago, alcohol consumption per adult is down 20% and violent alcohol related crime is down 40%. Something's working.

Yeah, the way the crime's are recorded has changed. Binge drinking - which is the problem is on the increase.

Angilion · 15 Jul 2017 at 04:32

cheesyboy said:
This is exactly the opposite of what the evidence suggests would happen.

The reason cannabis strains are getting stringer is that it is illicit, which encourages a more bang for your buck market.

USA's prohibition era is a good example - not many were drinking beer, were they. Idiot-strength 'moonshine' spirits were the tipple for the masses. In legal alcohol markets, only problem drinkers reach for large quantities of the hard stuff: everyone else prefers a more mellow drinking experience. You don't get that choice under a prohibition system.

That's a good counter-argument. What is the evidence from places where cannabis has been legalised?

hurfdurf · 15 Jul 2017 at 11:09

Angilion said:
That statement is simply untrue.

Also, if they had gone straight in and arrested him you'd be complaining about that too.

Nope, if they legitimately thought he was the person they were after, its a mistake, but a perfectly understandable one.

Angilion said:
The tenet of policing with consent is part of the reason why the police here usually start by politely asking questions at the scene rather than always going straight in with an arrest (which is unlikely to be consensual) and taking the person to a police station for questioning there.

The video does not start at the start of their interaction, the police officers admitted themselves after the incident that they had established they had no reason to stop him long before the video even started.

Policing with consent means that some times, a member of the public is going to completely mug an officer off, and an officer must accept this like any member of the public would, they are not special. The officers in this instance decided they were above being not treated with the utmost respect, and they have gotten what they deserve for being such power tripping individuals.

Dis86 · 15 Jul 2017 at 11:11

hurfdurf said:
the police officers admitted themselves after the incident that they had established they had no reason to stop him long before the video even started.

Have they?

hurfdurf · 15 Jul 2017 at 11:27

Dis86 said:
Have they?

Yup, its been all over the Bristol Post.

Dis86 · 15 Jul 2017 at 11:38

hurfdurf said:
Yup, its been all over the Bristol Post.

My google-fu is failing me.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/police-officer-charged-assault-over-184272

Is the most recent article but makes no mention of it.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 15 Jul 2017 at 15:01

hurfdurf said:
Lol spotted the blind boot licker!

Just on the off chance you haven't realised just how wrong you are, asim18 agrees with you. Time to re-think your life.

asim18 · 15 Jul 2017 at 19:14

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Just on the off chance you haven't realised just how wrong you are, asim18 agrees with you. Time to re-think your life.

Not sure if you're just trying to be funny or whether you are actually as delusional and ignorant as you say you are???

You ignore the fact that fully subservient and obedient people exist, as well as ignore the various psychological experiments which have been done to evidence the subservience and obedience of weak-minded people....

... Yet your rationale for denying that there are obedient and subservient people in existence, is that asim18 knows that there are obedient and subservient people in existence. That is laughable.

The reality of the situation is that it's time to re-think YOUR life, Because the fact is you're going around being ignorant of things just because certain people you apparently don't like said it.

Angilion · 15 Jul 2017 at 23:45

hurfdurf said:
Nope, if they legitimately thought he was the person they were after, its a mistake, but a perfectly understandable one.

Asking someone a question is terrible tyranny but arresting them, taking to a police station and asking them the same question there is not...I don't think your stated position matches up.

The video does not start at the start of their interaction, the police officers admitted themselves after the incident that they had established they had no reason to stop him long before the video even started.

Since you've said that, I'm going to assume it's not true unless you provide proof of it. As a source of information, you're roughly on a par with the Daily Mail.

dowie · 16 Jul 2017 at 00:41

=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Just on the off chance you haven't realised just how wrong you are, asim18 agrees with you. Time to re-think your life.

LOL

Angilion said:
Asking someone a question is terrible tyranny but arresting them, taking to a police station and asking them the same question there is not...I don't think your stated position matches up.

Since you've said that, I'm going to assume it's not true unless you provide proof of it. As a source of information, you're roughly on a par with the Daily Mail.

Indeed, I really don't see the big issue here - they stopped the guy and asked him some questions, he was belligerent and decided to kick off a bit - the taser was uncalled for but the idea that they can't stop someone and ask questions when they have reason to believe they're the suspect they're looking for (and tbh.. to stop and search someone who decides to get aggro when questioned in that way) is a bit ridiculous. hurfdurf has made a similar claim already but didn't previously provide a source or context - I suspect the actual source might not be exactly what he's trying to claim.

LeMson · 16 Jul 2017 at 01:27

Tasered in the face rofl, unlucky

Tefal · 16 Jul 2017 at 06:47

Angilion said:
That's a good counter-argument. What is the evidence from places where cannabis has been legalised?

there's a broad range and you can pick based on strength if you want something milder.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 16 Jul 2017 at 11:06

asim18 said:
Not sure if you're just trying to be funny or whether you are actually as delusional and ignorant as you say you are???

You ignore the fact that fully subservient and obedient people exist, as well as ignore the various psychological experiments which have been done to evidence the subservience and obedience of weak-minded people....

... Yet your rationale for denying that there are obedient and subservient people in existence, is that asim18 knows that there are obedient and subservient people in existence. That is laughable.

The reality of the situation is that it's time to re-think YOUR life, Because the fact is you're going around being ignorant of things just because certain people you apparently don't like said it.

Oh wow what you just said has nothing to do with what I posted. I mean seriously you literally just made up what I think, typed it out and then argued with it. You are genuinely arguing with yourself! That is GD gold thank you.

My post was suggesting that having someone who believes the BBC have mind control adverts (remember asim18 when you posted that and then edited your post? Good times) may suggest they are not necessarily on the correct track.

Actually I have read the above quote again and the response reads like it's from hurfburf but posted by asim18. He even mentions asim18 in the response? Two accounts? That or a shocking grasp of English

Nasher · 16 Jul 2017 at 12:03

cheesyboy said:
Compared with about 10 years ago, alcohol consumption per adult is down 20% and violent alcohol related crime is down 40%. Something's working.

If you can't improve the statistics, fudge the statistics

It's quite funny that the government actually think people believe what they say.

hurfdurf · 16 Jul 2017 at 17:29

Angilion said:
Asking someone a question is terrible tyranny but arresting them, taking to a police station and asking them the same question there is not...I don't think your stated position matches up.

Asking someone a question you have no right to an answer to based on nothing but wanting to know after you have established you don't have a right to know, vs legitimately suspecting someone to meet the requirements of an arrest, big difference.

dowie · 16 Jul 2017 at 19:17

hurfdurf said:
Asking someone a question you have no right to an answer to based on nothing but wanting to know after you have established you don't have a right to know, vs legitimately suspecting someone to meet the requirements of an arrest, big difference.

but they were looking for a suspect in a crime, he potentially fitted that description, they had every right to stop and question him... the fact he acted belligerently when they did so is only going to make him even more suspicious