National Anthems

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

National Anthems

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 35 of 46 < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Sep 17 3.33pm
[Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 29 Sep 17 3.33pm

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 29 Sep 17 3.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It ain't the protest, it is who is doing it and when. There is nothing new about sportsmen protesting but, aside all else, you have to ask yourself if it helped anything or just served as a bigger wedge between minority and majority. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Sep 2017 3.32pm) Just as you have to ask yourself the same thing about a president magnifying the issue massively for no good reason, and with inflammatory language in his Alabama speech. If we only ever judge the creation of a wedge as how minorities act, or how they respond to attacks, then that does not much help matters either. It is hard to imagine a different response based on the presidents input. Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 3.40pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

29 Sep 17 3.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It ain't the protest, it is who is doing it and when.
There is nothing new about sportsmen protesting but, aside all else, you have to ask yourself if it helped anything or just served as a bigger wedge between minority and majority.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Sep 2017 3.32pm)

Just as you have to ask yourself the same thing about a president magnifying the issue massively for no good reason, and with inflammatory language in his Alabama speech.

If we only ever judge the creation of a wedge as how minorities act, or how they respond to attacks, then that does not much help matters either. It is hard to imagine a different response based on the presidents input.

Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 3.40pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 3.38pm
Originally posted by nickgusset [Link] Yeah some great comments by lovely people below the video. And you wonder why the police are nervous. I'd say he thought the guy might have had a gun in the car. Easy to say he was a knob when you weren't there. He probably saw an in house video anout how to get yourself killed in the line of duty and this sort of scinario was in it. Just guessing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Sep 17 3.38pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by nickgusset

[Link]

Yeah some great comments by lovely people below the video.
And you wonder why the police are nervous.

I'd say he thought the guy might have had a gun in the car. Easy to say he was a knob when you weren't there.

He probably saw an in house video anout how to get yourself killed in the line of duty and this sort of scinario was in it. Just guessing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 3.40pm
Originally posted by wordup Just as you have to ask yourself the same thing about a president magnifying the issue massively for no good reason, and with inflammatory language in his Alabama speech. If we only ever judge the creation of a wedge as how minorities act or respond, then that does not much help matters either. We need to balance the two. But he is the President. He can say what he likes. He also had the audacity to win the election which put half the populaion on his case from day one like no other president before. He is speaking to his potential support just like every other politician does.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Sep 17 3.40pm

Originally posted by wordup

Just as you have to ask yourself the same thing about a president magnifying the issue massively for no good reason, and with inflammatory language in his Alabama speech.

If we only ever judge the creation of a wedge as how minorities act or respond, then that does not much help matters either. We need to balance the two.

But he is the President. He can say what he likes. He also had the audacity to win the election which put half the populaion on his case from day one like no other president before.
He is speaking to his potential support just like every other politician does.

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 29 Sep 17 3.54pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger But he is the President. He can say what he likes. He also had the audacity to win the election which put half the populaion on his case from day one like no other president before. He is speaking to his potential support just like every other politician does. For someone who's spent the thread attacking NFL players protesting, it's not an especially thoughtful response to say 'he can do what he likes'. Yes, so can they, so can you, so can I. Point being? If you're the president, and you go to a somewhat.. racially unenlightened shall we say.. state like Alabama to start ranting about nfl sons of bitches, you are not out to unite. You are out to racially inflame and the response was likely what he expected and hoped for. Your argument seems to be 'who cares, he wons, he's appealing to his populist base', but that others outside of that need to explain their behaviour at every step or are wrong to act or react. To believe that NFL players have a responsibility to others but the president doesn't, goes to show what an unsustainable place we've found ourselves in. Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.25pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

29 Sep 17 3.54pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But he is the President. He can say what he likes. He also had the audacity to win the election which put half the populaion on his case from day one like no other president before.
He is speaking to his potential support just like every other politician does.

For someone who's spent the thread attacking NFL players protesting, it's not an especially thoughtful response to say 'he can do what he likes'. Yes, so can they, so can you, so can I. Point being?

If you're the president, and you go to a somewhat.. racially unenlightened shall we say.. state like Alabama to start ranting about nfl sons of bitches, you are not out to unite. You are out to racially inflame and the response was likely what he expected and hoped for.

Your argument seems to be 'who cares, he wons, he's appealing to his populist base', but that others outside of that need to explain their behaviour at every step or are wrong to act or react. To believe that NFL players have a responsibility to others but the president doesn't, goes to show what an unsustainable place we've found ourselves in.

Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.25pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 29 Sep 17 3.55pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In some situations yes, that's reasonable. But the problem here isn't that 'some situations', its in situations where the threat is low (or over, and in some non-existent) and the response is lethal force. However, if your response to feeling in danger is to just shoot someone, in no way should you be a police officer. We wouldn't expect the police in the UK, when reacting to a call, to just steam straight in and start battering people who might be a threat with a truncheon - unless its all kicked off (and even then if you watch footage of how British police deal with armed suspects, you'll see that they tend to control the situation, and de-escalate it, rather than shoot someone). Sure the UK sees much less gun crime. But the UK firearms SO18 teams rarely have ever shot an unarmed person, and even then they've tended to be people that it was very reasonable to believe they possessed a firearm. F**k me, unarmed police officers in the UK are still the first usually on the scene when there is reports of a gun or shots fired, and still the number of police officers shot or killed in the line of duty is remarkably low. In no society should it be acceptable for police officers to be shooting unarmed people, without independent adjudication of their actions. Especially true when affecting or responding to very low level threat incidents. Cops who's instinct is to shoot first and then worry about it, shouldn't be working as police officers. The police has to be a highly trained, professional. Its not really about black or white, or culture - its about the standards and quality of the policing. I think I'd agree with all of that other than this point that you keep making....You make it for understandable reasons but I just don't how it's realistic for the US environment. 'The police has to be a highly trained, professional' Oh that money? For that number of required people? Doing that job? Well, for a normal job you can train someone to be a professional.....But when you bring in regular life and death situations due to guns, like as happens in the US......You can't really train that for that easily.....The ability to act calmly under high stress is to a certain extent genetic.....You need too many people in Policing for that level of expectation.....You want the top level to be the base line....Not possible. You have to be realistic. Where are the middle classes in the Police forces? They aren't sending their kids in are they? I wonder why. It's left to the working class kids to sign up for the vast majority of the positions and I'm sorry but you aren't going to get hundreds of thousands of Platos. Now.....When they aren't facing a criminal that's likely to have a gun....The jobs easier because escalation starts at much lower levels of threat..So in the UK, fists and knifes can be countered to an extent via manpower and light wear armour....though Police die every year in this country as well. In the US with that number of guns about. I think you have to be realistic in what you expect once guns are being carried by everyone. Body cams will hopefully show where Police have....well literally murdered people and where they have cause....I'm just saddened that the tool they use is a gun....but that's because of the 2nd amendment as we know. People don't takes chances on whether they can go home to their kids and families.....There are plenty of videos on Youtube of cops being shot by criminals. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2017 4.07pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

29 Sep 17 3.55pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

In some situations yes, that's reasonable. But the problem here isn't that 'some situations', its in situations where the threat is low (or over, and in some non-existent) and the response is lethal force.

However, if your response to feeling in danger is to just shoot someone, in no way should you be a police officer. We wouldn't expect the police in the UK, when reacting to a call, to just steam straight in and start battering people who might be a threat with a truncheon - unless its all kicked off (and even then if you watch footage of how British police deal with armed suspects, you'll see that they tend to control the situation, and de-escalate it, rather than shoot someone).

Sure the UK sees much less gun crime. But the UK firearms SO18 teams rarely have ever shot an unarmed person, and even then they've tended to be people that it was very reasonable to believe they possessed a firearm.

F**k me, unarmed police officers in the UK are still the first usually on the scene when there is reports of a gun or shots fired, and still the number of police officers shot or killed in the line of duty is remarkably low.

In no society should it be acceptable for police officers to be shooting unarmed people, without independent adjudication of their actions.

Especially true when affecting or responding to very low level threat incidents.

Cops who's instinct is to shoot first and then worry about it, shouldn't be working as police officers. The police has to be a highly trained, professional.

Its not really about black or white, or culture - its about the standards and quality of the policing.

I think I'd agree with all of that other than this point that you keep making....You make it for understandable reasons but I just don't how it's realistic for the US environment.

'The police has to be a highly trained, professional'

Oh that money? For that number of required people? Doing that job?

Well, for a normal job you can train someone to be a professional.....But when you bring in regular life and death situations due to guns, like as happens in the US......You can't really train that for that easily.....The ability to act calmly under high stress is to a certain extent genetic.....You need too many people in Policing for that level of expectation.....You want the top level to be the base line....Not possible.

You have to be realistic. Where are the middle classes in the Police forces? They aren't sending their kids in are they? I wonder why. It's left to the working class kids to sign up for the vast majority of the positions and I'm sorry but you aren't going to get hundreds of thousands of Platos.

In the US with that number of guns about. I think you have to be realistic in what you expect once guns are being carried by everyone.

Body cams will hopefully show where Police have....well literally murdered people and where they have cause....I'm just saddened that the tool they use is a gun....but that's because of the 2nd amendment as we know.

People don't takes chances on whether they can go home to their kids and families.....There are plenty of videos on Youtube of cops being shot by criminals.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2017 4.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 17 4.23pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I think I'd agree with all of that other than this point that you keep making....You make it for understandable reasons but I just don't how it's realistic for the US environment. 'The police has to be a highly trained, professional' Oh that money? For that number of required people? Doing that job? Well, for a normal job you can train someone to be a professional.....But when you bring in regular life and death situations due to guns, like as happens in the US......You can't really train that for that easily.....The ability to act calmly under high stress is to a certain extent genetic.....You need too many people in Policing for that level of expectation.....You want the top level to be the base line....Not possible. You have to be realistic. Where are the middle classes in the Police forces? They aren't sending their kids in are they? I wonder why. It's left to the working class kids to sign up for the vast majority of the positions and I'm sorry but you aren't going to get hundreds of thousands of Platos. Now.....When they aren't facing a criminal that's likely to have a gun....The jobs easier because escalation starts at much lower levels of threat..So in the UK, fists and knifes can be countered to an extent via manpower and light wear armour....though Police die every year in this country as well. But on that money Jamie? In the US with that number of guns about. I think you have to be realistic in what you expect once guns are being carried by everyone. People don't takes chances on whether they can go home to their kids and families.....There are plenty of videos on Youtube of cops being shot by criminals. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2017 3.56pm) Not many. One was killed so far this year (Westminister Bridge Terror attack). There was one in 2015 (run over by a police car) but the next homicide of a police officer was 2013 (run over by a suspect) and two were shot and killed in 2012 (another one died off duty, and one collapsed and died in a foot pursuit). But it had been five years since a UK police officer had been murdered in the line of duty (2007 - Stabbed) Its actually quite rare indeed for British Police Officers to be killed by criminals (except indirectly). Money - bingo. And here in lies the problem when you keep cutting taxes to win elections. You get a st police force, who have to take who they can get, and have minimal training. People are taking chances whether they can go home to their wives and kids, everytime the police ask them to pull over.** "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Sep 17 4.23pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think I'd agree with all of that other than this point that you keep making....You make it for understandable reasons but I just don't how it's realistic for the US environment.

'The police has to be a highly trained, professional'

Oh that money? For that number of required people? Doing that job?

Now.....When they aren't facing a criminal that's likely to have a gun....The jobs easier because escalation starts at much lower levels of threat..So in the UK, fists and knifes can be countered to an extent via manpower and light wear armour....though Police die every year in this country as well.

But on that money Jamie?

In the US with that number of guns about. I think you have to be realistic in what you expect once guns are being carried by everyone.

People don't takes chances on whether they can go home to their kids and families.....There are plenty of videos on Youtube of cops being shot by criminals.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2017 3.56pm)

Not many. One was killed so far this year (Westminister Bridge Terror attack). There was one in 2015 (run over by a police car) but the next homicide of a police officer was 2013 (run over by a suspect) and two were shot and killed in 2012 (another one died off duty, and one collapsed and died in a foot pursuit).

But it had been five years since a UK police officer had been murdered in the line of duty (2007 - Stabbed)

Its actually quite rare indeed for British Police Officers to be killed by criminals (except indirectly).

Money - bingo. And here in lies the problem when you keep cutting taxes to win elections. You get a s**t police force, who have to take who they can get, and have minimal training.

People are taking chances whether they can go home to their wives and kids, everytime the police ask them to pull over.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 17 4.32pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger But he is the President. He can say what he likes. He also had the audacity to win the election which put half the populaion on his case from day one like no other president before. He is speaking to his potential support just like every other politician does. Actually, no he can't. The president, cannot, for example, legally call on private companies to sack someone - There is quite a few things a president cannot do, that is protect speech for other people (he cannot endorse particular businesses for example). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Sep 17 4.32pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Actually, no he can't. The president, cannot, for example, legally call on private companies to sack someone - There is quite a few things a president cannot do, that is protect speech for other people (he cannot endorse particular businesses for example).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 4.33pm
Originally posted by wordup For someone who's spent the thread attacking NFL players protesting, it's not an especially thoughtful response to say 'he can do what he likes'. Yes, so can they, so can you, so can I. Point being? If you're the president, and you go to a somewhat.. racially unenlightened shall we say.. state like Alabama to start ranting about nfl sons of bitches, you are not out to unite. You are out to racially inflame and the response was likely what he expected and hoped for. Your argument seems to be 'who cares, he wons, he's appealing to his populist base', but that others outside of that need to explain their behaviour at every step or are wrong to act or react. To believe that NFL players have a responsibility to others but the president doesn't, goes to show what an unsustainable place we've found ourselves in. Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.25pm) I agree that the President has a responsibility to all. He also recognises that a large part of the media is against him and very liberal in makeup. He resists that. Trump is not the most adroit politician to say the least but he puts his message over to his support in his own way. Will it upset people? certainly. Does he have a right to say what he says? Unless the law says otherwise. Above all. You really can't keep comparing what a politician say with what a footballer says. That makes no sense. There is no comparison. One is paid to play football and that is what he should do when at work.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Sep 17 4.33pm

Originally posted by wordup

For someone who's spent the thread attacking NFL players protesting, it's not an especially thoughtful response to say 'he can do what he likes'. Yes, so can they, so can you, so can I. Point being?

Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.25pm)

I agree that the President has a responsibility to all. He also recognises that a large part of the media is against him and very liberal in makeup. He resists that.
Trump is not the most adroit politician to say the least but he puts his message over to his support in his own way. Will it upset people? certainly. Does he have a right to say what he says? Unless the law says otherwise.

Above all. You really can't keep comparing what a politician say with what a footballer says. That makes no sense. There is no comparison.
One is paid to play football and that is what he should do when at work.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 17 4.33pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger It ain't the protest, it is who is doing it and when. There is nothing new about sportsmen protesting but, aside all else, you have to ask yourself if it helped anything or just served as a bigger wedge between minority and majority. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Sep 2017 3.32pm) Black people, during a national anthem. In what way is that offensive. Taking a knee isn't disrespecting the anthem or the flag. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Sep 17 4.33pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It ain't the protest, it is who is doing it and when.
There is nothing new about sportsmen protesting but, aside all else, you have to ask yourself if it helped anything or just served as a bigger wedge between minority and majority.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Sep 2017 3.32pm)

Black people, during a national anthem. In what way is that offensive. Taking a knee isn't disrespecting the anthem or the flag.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 4.36pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Actually, no he can't. The president, cannot, for example, legally call on private companies to sack someone - There is quite a few things a president cannot do, that is protect speech for other people (he cannot endorse particular businesses for example). Accepted. I wasn't being literal. There are rules for everyone and until he breaks one, he can carry on.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Sep 17 4.36pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Actually, no he can't. The president, cannot, for example, legally call on private companies to sack someone - There is quite a few things a president cannot do, that is protect speech for other people (he cannot endorse particular businesses for example).

Accepted. I wasn't being literal. There are rules for everyone and until he breaks one, he can carry on.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 4.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Black people, during a national anthem. In what way is that offensive. Taking a knee isn't disrespecting the anthem or the flag. Really, again? This is about appropriate behaviour for sportsman who just happen to have mass exposure and use it for political ends. That is wrong in my book however many times you claim otherwise.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Sep 17 4.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Black people, during a national anthem. In what way is that offensive. Taking a knee isn't disrespecting the anthem or the flag.

Really, again?

This is about appropriate behaviour for sportsman who just happen to have mass exposure and use it for political ends. That is wrong in my book however many times you claim otherwise.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 35 of 46 < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

National Anthems

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors