Seriously? Great tactic for any terrorist if your in charge then. Just dress as a Greenpeace activist and walk right up to the Prime minister and stab them...
Another Example of Idiocy
- Thread starter wolfie138
- Start date
Seriously? Great tactic for any terrorist if your in charge then. Just dress as a Greenpeace activist and walk right up to the Prime minister and stab them...
I’m rather neutral on whether she was ‘handled aggressively’ (seems what needed to be done was done) but I do think “she may have had a weapon” is a bit silly really. Her behaviour does not, all things considered, indicate she was dangerous (and, oh look, she wasn’t) and I really do wonder what she would have to gain for her cause by attacking someone.
She MAY have had a weapon but no more so than anyone whom MAY have a weapon. I certainly don’t assume that everyone on the street has a weapon.
Was she guilty of being really annoying and barging in on something? Yup. And she wouldn’t leave. Again, I’m pretty neutral about the level of force used. It’s just that ‘she may have had a weapon’ isn’t a very good justification IMO.
She MAY have had a weapon but no more so than anyone whom MAY have a weapon. I certainly don’t assume that everyone on the street has a weapon.
Was she guilty of being really annoying and barging in on something? Yup. And she wouldn’t leave. Again, I’m pretty neutral about the level of force used. It’s just that ‘she may have had a weapon’ isn’t a very good justification IMO.
That's the point isnt it? She MAY have had a weapon even if unlikely. The people on the street argument doesnt make sense because people on the street are not crashing private events with government ministers in attendance are they?
I don’t think crashing a private event necessarily increases the odds of someone carrying a weapon, particularly in the context of someone protesting about climate change whom has nothing to gain from carrying a weapon.
I don’t manhandle people left might and centre who MAY have a weapon (no matter how absurdly unlikely). Your bus driver MAY have a weapon. Your boss MAY have an uzi. But I can make a confident assumption that they don’t.
Was it wrong to use a degree of force to get her to leave? I don’t think so.
The weapon argument is just an easy excuse to fall back on, I mean there were hundreds of other people in the room and none of them looked overly concerned that she was armed. I think he just let anger and frustration get the better of him which is understandable when you're trying to enjoy a private event and you've got religous zealots constantly interrupting it. I just think there are less aggressive and overpowering ways he could have handled and guided her out of the room rather than grabbing her by the back of the neck. As to the private event argument all that means is she should be done for trespassing, I think statistically you're more likely to be attacked on a public street than at a private event with hundreds of witnesses.
The PM wasn't there.
The singing terrorist...pmsl, many a straw being clutched.
Why? You're not the target. You're not under threat, a threat so socially acceptable that publically encouraging people to throw acid on you is broadcast on mainstream TV and only attracts mild disapproval. If you were, you might consider "usually" to be not enough. You might also consider that not all attackers are foolish enough to telegraph their intentions before they're in range.
Throwing acid attracts mild disapproval? Are you referring to the Jo Brand non issue? That's not even clutching at straws, that's gasping for air.
I pretty much agree with this, the level of force certainly didn't look excessive, just the amount needed to make her leave. Was it necessary? Possibly not. Am I overly concerned about it? No, not at all. She was gate-crashing a private function and got removed with minimal fuss.
The justification that she may have been armed seems to be grasping at straws though.
Not usually, no. But why are you asking that question? You appear to be trying to imply that I said it, but I didn't. My original, unedited post is right above yours, so anyone who cares can read what I wrote. Including the parts you make no attempt to answer.
You think of it that way because you're fervently hostile to the intended targets ("white" men who aren't wholly obedient). It's your own irrational prejudices that cause you to perceive it that way. As always, switching targets is a useful way to illuminate something hidden by fashionable irrational prejudices. Imagine a scenario in which a far-right whitist clearly, repeatedly and unequivocally encouraged people to throw acid on left-wing "black" women. Do you think the BBC would broadcast that? Do you think it would attract only mild disapproval and have no effect on the person's career? Would you call it a "non-issue" that's "not even clutching at straws, that's gasping for air"?
On a bit of a tangent, I recently read Jo Brand's autobiography. It's about a very different person. It seems that her screen persona is a character she plays because pandering to popular prejudice is profitable. The real Jo Brand seems like a decent person and good company. I doubt if she actually meant what she said in her screen persona, but she did say it.
Same here.
I think it isn't, not in the context of a political meeting and with the extremely partisan political environment that has included politically motivated murders. I think it's a valid factor to a degree in his assessment of the situation. Nobody's arguing that it should have been assumed that she was armed, just that at the time it was reasonable to assume that she might have been. Because she might have been. It's part of the justification for removing her with minimal force and fuss. You think that additional justification isn't needed. I agree. An assumption that she was armed would only be relevant if the force used was far greater than it was. Even the possibility of her being armed would only be relevant if the force used was far greater than it was. But some people think (with some reason) that an additional justification is required because of the fashionable sexism that is a common response, i.e. the commonly expressed belief that he was wrong because he's a man and she's a woman.
Yeah the weapon thing seemed rather unlikely/silly. I think that it is quite plausible to say that you're worried about he throwing a milkshake, or egg or similar stunt... like I'd not put it past these protestors to say pull a bottle from a handbag and cover some prominent politician in black ink to represent oil or something along those lines.
There have been plenty of mild "protest" attacks of that nature on politicians recently - Corbyn being egged, Farage getting a milkshake etc..
I've not seen many far right "whitist" comedians,have you? What a silly thing to compare it by, throwing the context to the wind.
Gasping that terminal breath now, blue in the face, eyes bulging, tongue swollen, bladder emptying and voiding your bowels.
Your mirror is not a portal to me. It's yourself you're seeing, not me. If you're serious, that is. I'm not sure that you are. The more of your posts I read, the less I think you mean them.
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 17,154
- Location
- In a house
I dunno. It's more due to the change of PM: Boris stamping out the flames of May's funeral pyre.