This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
National Anthems
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stirlingsays  29 Sep 17 4.44pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
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.
That's in the UK....it's reasonably rare but its a fact of the job. I'm sorry mate, but what you say about money and training and expectations in the US is just not realistic. I'll say it again, you are asking for the top line to be the baseline. Once guns are commonplace and high stress situations regular then normal people will feck up. It's got nothing to do with taxes. It's about the reality of the number of people you need to police and what's affordable. When I see all these 'oh so careful officer' middle class types actually joining the Police force and staying in it....then I might just look seriously at what you're saying. Be cool just to see how they get on. As for your last sentence....Jeepers.
Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Sep 2017 4.49pm)
'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 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
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. I was more teasing, because of the wording you used. I disagree, as we recently have had a television reality star using his mass exposure to run for president and win, and countless other examples where people use their mass exposure to political ends - where it seems perfectly acceptable (Radio and Internet Celebrities endorsing the current president). But sportsmen seems to be the line in the sand.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| wordup 29 Sep 17 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
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. And yet when it's the president's behaviour, in a grossly crass and attacking way, that's a complete irrelevance to you. Like I said if 'he can do what he likes' then so can they within the law. There are 2 or 3 people round here who basically craft their entire argument on the hoof around whether something it offensive to them personally or just largely some arbitrary minority group. Even on the topic of freedom of speech and expression people can't let that drop. Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Sep 17 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
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. If people in the spotlight don't raise these issues, who does? That's why Lily Allen et al get grief. Papers like the mail can't abide it when their narrative of What s going on (smoke and mirrors) is totally blown apart by people with a lot of followers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 17 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I was more teasing, because of the wording you used. I disagree, as we recently have had a television reality star using his mass exposure to run for president and win, and countless other examples where people use their mass exposure to political ends - where it seems perfectly acceptable (Radio and Internet Celebrities endorsing the current president). But sportsmen seems to be the line in the sand. I think the majority of the country were pretty keen for Russell Brand to shut up when he tried to go political. Sporty he isn't. Trump was also famous before TV, he's not a reality star in the terms of complete nobody gets z list famous overnight.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Sep 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's kind of ironic really....it was democrat mismanagement in New York that led to Trump coming in and buying up land so cheaply that he basically changed the sky line. If the democrats had run the city reasonably you would have probably never heard of him.
'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 |
|
| Stuk Top half 29 Sep 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
If people in the spotlight don't raise these issues, who does? That's why Lily Allen et al get grief. Papers like the mail can't abide it when their narrative of What s going on (smoke and mirrors) is totally blown apart by people with a lot of followers. Did she not make hugely false claims about the number of deaths at Grenfell? Some might even call them lies for political gains.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I was more teasing, because of the wording you used. I disagree, as we recently have had a television reality star using his mass exposure to run for president and win, and countless other examples where people use their mass exposure to political ends - where it seems perfectly acceptable (Radio and Internet Celebrities endorsing the current president). But sportsmen seems to be the line in the sand. And if any of those guys want to run for President, that is fine by me. Until then they should just stick to throwing that bean. All the other examples should wind it in as well. I don't want to hear any would be Joey Bartons or someone from a stage play running off at the mouth.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 5.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by wordup
And yet when it's the president's behaviour, in a grossly crass and attacking way, that's a complete irrelevance to you. Like I said if 'he can do what he likes' then so can they within the law. There are 2 or 3 people round here who basically craft their entire argument on the hoof around whether something it offensive to them personally or just largely some arbitrary minority group. Even on the topic of freedom of speech and expression people can't let that drop. Edited by wordup (29 Sep 2017 4.49pm) For f***s sake. He is a politician.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Sep 17 5.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That's in the UK....it's reasonably rare but its a fact of the job. That's the two police officers murdered in 2012. Its actually quite uncommon in the US for police officers to be murdered. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I'm sorry mate, but what you say about money and training and expectations in the US is just not realistic. Well only because America seems to be trying to drive itself into the ground in terms of social cohesion and social functionality. But I think when we get the stage where tax cuts are more important than police training, or educational standards - you have a society that's shooting itself repeatedly in its 'future foot'. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It's got nothing to do with taxes. It's about the reality of the number of people you need to police and what's affordable. Of course it is, kind of. You want a professional police force, it has to be paid for. Same with any service. You pay s**t you get s**t, because all the desirable candidates go elsewhere. What's affordable is entirely about taxes and revenue. Its entirely a problem of the US, the desire to pay as little tax as possible, is driving the country into the ground. Originally posted by Stirlingsays
When I see all these 'oh so careful officer' middle class types actually joining the Police force and staying in it....then I might just look seriously at what you're saying. its not about 'being oh so careful' its about doing your f**king job, properly and not just shooting people who don't need to be shot. Remember that in many of these instances the people shot are the people that the police are supposed to serve and protect. What are people supposed to do, if a police car signals them to pull over, shoot first (well I felt in threat of my life, see, police officers are shooting unarmed people all the time, so I fired before he could point his gun at me). How well does that work as self defence in a court of law. I felt in threat of my life from the police, so I shot them. Ding dong, straight to death row. Well, where the pay for Police officers is competitive, you tend to find more people from different and higher educational backgrounds joining the police. When you consider that the salary for a Police Officer can be 30-35k dollars a year. Its not surprising that the people joining aren't 'the best and brightest'. Policemen, like Nurses, Teachers etc is an area where you want people who have a 'calling'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| wordup 29 Sep 17 5.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's a non issue. Why are we talking about how sportsmen or celebrities should shut up? We can dislike their views, but they have as much right to state them as everyone else. They are citizens too. The contribution of some will be as popular as a lead balloon, others will campaign and lobby for causes that more people get behind, Joanna Lumley comes to mind. That's what freedom of speech means. You don't just approve of 'the best bits'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 29 Sep 17 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
If people in the spotlight don't raise these issues, who does? That's why Lily Allen et al get grief. Papers like the mail can't abide it when their narrative of What s going on (smoke and mirrors) is totally blown apart by people with a lot of followers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.