Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
As far as I see it, there is a women telling it like it is.
|
In other words: "Hey, Muslims, other people who call themselves Muslim are being naughty boys, so we're going to target your entire group to be on the safe side. Deal with it"
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Are these sufficient to answer your question?
|
You don't consider that, although legal, that going through people's rubbish to be an invaison of their privacy? |
If you are worried (as you should be, but for reasons of ID theft, not "national security") that someone was going to go through your rubbish, shred it before you throw it away.
But what would you have us do? If a binman sees something written on a piece of paper that he's just chucked in the back of the wagon and reads it, should he be arrested for breach of privacy???
Quote:
|
I'd consider going through everyone's rubbish in case they are criminals to be much the same as intercepting everyone's phone calls, wether it happens to be legal or not.
|
Where did I say "everyone"? Oops, I didn't.
Quote:
|
Also, successful undercover agents are even fewer and further between than informants.
|
Irrelevant. You asked for an alternative method, I gave one.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Quote:
|
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.
|
Do you know this to be the case?
|
No, but I refer you to the logical fallacy of the Burden of Proof as mentioned earlier in the thread. *You* have made the suggestion "It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?"
Well, yes, it *could* have been the case. But you will have to prove your side before asking me to prove mine.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Burden of Proof...
Quote:
|
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?
|
Again, prove that they are not.
Quote:
|
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?
|
If there are *reasonable grounds* for suspecting a particular skinhead group, no, I would have no objection.
But going from the suggestions in this thread it idea seems to be that *all* skinheads would be targetted and treated as suspects, whether there is any proof or not.
*THAT* I would object to.