Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
A very good post
|
Thank you Pierre.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And there we have it... it's because they are black/Asian/coloured. Obviously. It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?
|
"Fitted the description"?
"Well, Officer, he was black/ looked like a Muslim/ dressed in funny foreign clothes..."
So because *some* make claims that "it was racist", you narrow-minded types (see, I can sling personal insults around too) are willing to dismiss *all* such claims as nothing more than "people chancing their arm" whereas us open-minded types want to consider the bigger picture and note that there *IS* institutional racism in the Police as has been evinced several times already.
[/QUOTE]
Do you know this to be the case? Or could it be the guy was wearing similar or even identical clothing to a suspect? Maybe his hair was the same? Your flip response shows merely that you are trying to muddy the waters here. Instead of just bleating that someone MUST have been arrested or questioned because he was black/Asian, why not check the facts and find out why it happened? Or is there a fear that there could be some perfectly reasonable justification?
In response to your second point: so "some" police have been guilty of racism you are willing to accept that "all" police forces are riddled with bigots and racists?
Believe me, I have seen incidents time and time again where "racism" is cited when it was clearly not apparent. I have seen blacks accuse Asian officers of racism, whites accuse black officers of racism, etc etc. It's time you got to grips with it: racism is not all against blacks or Asians. If there was a perceived threat that a skinhead group were seriously intent upon torching a mosque or sikh temple, then you might find police attention "targetted" at that particular social group. I doubt you would be up in arms about that?