what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I saw what happened.

It's not exagerating. I've reported what we can all see, and nothing else. If I'd made up stuff, fair enough, but I haven't, so not sure what your beef is.

and as people have tried to explain to you several times it wasn't the case... but still... you continue...and continue...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

and as people have tried to explain to you several times it wasn't the case... but still... you continue...and continue...

So what was being shown on the TV, wasn't actually happening?

Right.

And second thing, "people" would infer more than one person. It's only you going on.

Nighty x

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So what was being shown on the TV, wasn't actually happening?

Right.

And second thing, "people" would infer more than one person. It's only you going on.

Nighty x

err no - that's not what i said so don't twist it.

as i said it's not a Graham_Devon thread so please don't try and the usual...

jamesd

ninky wrote: »

absolute rubbish. there is no evidence to support the upper classes being genetically superior.

Their preponderence in universities that use merit in tests where performance is supposed to be related in part to intelligence as a key part of their acceptance process certainly looks like such evidence.

There are at least two possible ways to read what I wrote:

1. That those in the upper three classes are more likely to be intelligent just because of that.
2. That those who are more intelligent are more likely to end up in the upper three classes. And that due to inherited and environmental factors that it is also likely that their children will also end up in those classes and go to the universities that have merit-based entrance criteria.

It's the latter that I was suggesting.

If you want there to be any hope of social mobility, you might want to hope I'm right, since an ability to move into those classes based on merit is a key part of social mobility.

ninky wrote: »

i agree traits such as a predisposition to intelligence may well be inherited but the way society has developed there has simply not been time for evolution to keep up with the traits that are socially rewarded. wealth can also leap a generation though chance. win the lottery and pay for your kids to go to the best schools

I agree.

ninky wrote: »

and suddenly they have a good chance of oxbridge attendance.

Only if they can also pass the merit-based entrance criteria. It's an advantage but if you get no A levels you're not very likely to end up at any university.

ninky wrote: »

regarding wealth and genetic superiority look further afield. the saudis are pretty damn wealthy. is this due to genetic superiority?

Which Saudis? It's not even throughout the population. The main determining factor there for wealth for most of the population seems to be fortune of being a citizen of that country, as it is for you and I and our country, but I expect that there's also a significant familial and inheritance factor involved as well within the country.

jamesd

olly300 wrote: »

While these are proven the exact mix cannot be.

I agree.

olly300 wrote: »

Plus the important part of inherited "intelligence" in a society depends on what each society needs.

If we substiture "merit" for "intelligence" I agree. Intelligence should make it easier to meet most criteria for merit, whatever those are in a particular society. Though the Khmer Rouge had a pretty adverse selection process for intelligence.

olly300 wrote: »

The Royals are the top social class in the UK. As a group they did very badly academically considering they had access to the most expensive education money could buy in the UK.

Are you trying to argue that huge amounts of wealth do make a difference or that they don't make a difference? The professions are a fortunately larger group of people than just a royal family, though the one we have seems to be fairly capable of doing its job properly.

olly300 wrote: »

You mean using their money to buy access to the best education faculties in the UK, well yes.

Not really, though I'm sure that's a factor. What I was thinking of was actively encouraging children to learn, being interested in their education achievements and related factors. The sorts of things that encourage you to do well at school.

olly300 wrote: »

However there was a study out recently showing that in other countries (yes Scandinavian countries came out highly in this) there was a much smaller link between parental wealth and academic outcome.

That's quite encouraging for those of us who like the idea of social mobility.

olly300 wrote: »

Do you know what sexism, racism and other -ism are caused by in employment and training? People choosing people like them and setting entrance criteria to ensure that people like them can get in more easily.

Yes, that's certainly something that happens. Going to be pretty hard to be good at abstract mathematics at Cambridge if you can't multiply very well, though. There's some minimal merit standard that has to be there if you're to have any hope of succeeding in the course.

olly300 wrote: »

It's much easier to get into Oxbridge if your teachers are aware of the entrance criteria and train you up to pass that criteria which includes social skills. Much harder if they don't.

I agree. Same for school exams as well. Also for IQ tests.

poppingjay

This thread has really given me the chills... it reads like the Stepford citizens.

vaporate

WhiteHorse wrote: »

A very restrained one.

Try running around Red Square setting fire to things and see how far you get.

Yes but the UK runs around stating how free their country is, like the US does.

Else lose that freedom badge cobblers.

vaporate

Cleaver wrote: »

I think you know you're doomed in a debate when you're trying to discuss and justify the use of water cannons in the situation of violent protest and the person you're debtaing with suggests that because of this you somehow might think the Hillsborough victims 'deserved their fate'.

For this reason I'm not sure it's worth us discussing this any further.

Protesters are justified if police use brutality themselves then...

Stryder

Really2 wrote: »

And had they not rioted and attacked the police what would it be?

Considering the police are outnumbered by over 1,000/1 the injury ratio is a lot higher per head.

WOW
Amazing that you know the ration and therefore the number! Mind you I did not realise that there was less than 40 police at the protests!!!! WOW - I guess that is only newspapers spoke to Really2 then they would be better informed. I mean, The mirror suggested that the ratio was expected to be 1 armoured and armed police officer (some with similarly armoured horses) to ever 20 unarmoured 15-70year olds with placards. (numbers expected 1000 officers to 2000 protesters http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336625/Tuition-fees-protest-1-000-police-ready-20-000-demonstrators-ahead-vote.html)

Really they should have just asked Really2

You know - all the pro police people really have a point

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395
Yes - because you need lots of policeman to tackle a wheelchair bound man otherwise, you know, errr, hmmm , well, he may have been a suicide bomber? I mean, he is lucky that he did not get shot 5 times in the face!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11864361
And well, the odd death is acceptable to prevent windows being broken

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098
And well brain damage is not really an issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8583760.stm
And big burly policeman need protection from shouty women

http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/87605-Police-sergeant-charged-and-suspended-for-assaulting-woman
And when you get them into the cells, they have to still take the fight out of them.... for everyone sake. We would not want people to damage the cells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8564131.stm
And the younger they are, you just need to scare them sometimes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted
Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none
Of course, it is important that the police are given the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policeman-convicted-of-sex-attacks-2142511.html
And you can not deny the police a few perks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444669/Obsessed-PC-ran-75-000-points-using-Tesco-clubcard-scam.html
And you have to love some great money saving experts in the force


For those who spend there time saying what a great job the police do they should remember that they are just as flawed and corrupt as the society, and possibly more... power, as they say, corrupts. Show me a copper who gets a speeding ticket and I will show you a Lib Dem that does not lie! (they do happen, but lets face it, its pretty rare).

Stryder

Really2 wrote: »

Did you think the poll tax demonstrations was a place for a 15 year old girl?
Early 90's high unemployment and a country with football rioting issues?

It was the rioters putting you at risk not the police, it is a shame you can't see that.
The problem here is you are asking the police to spot you when they are being bottled, beaten and petrol bombed.

Anyone going such an event has to take some responsibility for their own safety, keeping out of the front line is one of them.[/constabulary]

You mentioned Hillsborough and how awful it was... can I remind you that nearly 96 people were murdered by the South Yorkshire constabulary... Yes, police involved in a crush situation.

In mainland Britain 13 police officers have sadly died in the last 10 years... Hillsborough took 96 and there have been about 500 deaths in custody between 1997 and 2007.

I do not condone any killings but the idea that the police are angels and protesters are evil, violent thugs, shows a naivety that is frankly humiliating.