Coincidence?

[jeds]

I have some suspicion with the "evidence" given by the police, when that evidence is not corroborated by independent witnesses, and it was not!.

Which part of the evidence do you doubt, or are you talking generally?

 

[Brigadier]

I would have used words akin to "intimation", or "allusion"

I chose "assertion". It still wasn't an accusation.

I'd also point out that it was I who first raised the concept of "The Police" in the context of singular entity vs group of individuals,

Please enlighten me by providing a link to your differentiation.

Page 10 of this thread.

something you have now taken up as a argument yourself.

Even if you did introduce a commonly known concept, you have no ownership of familair concepts.
Because you introduce a concept into a discussion does not give you the sole right to use that concept.

I don't claim ownership - I just find it amusing that you only chose to use it (with such an air of self-satisfaction) after it had been posted in this thread......


I bear you no personal ill-will. I disagree with some of what you say, and have posted so. You however have gradually descended from "you have some decent points", to attack mode. I'm pretty sure that if I posted that it would get dark tonight, you'd find some way to not concur (probably deride my quoting, syntax, or whatever other childish tactic, to avoid the point).
To pinch one of your fave terms from this thread, it appears that you have cemented your own cognitive biases (certainly with regard to anyone on here who has a differing view to your own).

 

[Brigadier]

BTW, when you say

I'll repeat here the reason why I would not reach a verdict in favour of the police, on this occasion, because it's all circumstantial and hearsay evidence.
I would decide that the police might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past.

You are being prejudiced, exactly what you have been delighting in accusing all the posters on here of. To illustrate this, we can simply modify the subject mentioned in your statement.

"I would decide that the police might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past."

Becomes....

"I would decide that the [black man] might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past."

And there you have it.

"I would decide that the police might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past." - RehangRogue's post.

"I would decide that the [black man] might be lying on this occasion becasue they have been proven to have done so many times in the past." - very clearly, Cajar's illustration of the folly of your tarring all of "the Police" with the same brush.


You did allude / infer that the sentiments of the second quotation were Cajar's. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.[/i]

 

[cajar]

the discussion is not covering much useful ground as you correctly point out, but I would doubt it is on brigadiers part. my comment was substituting one group for another, as prejudice can be against a racial group, a gender, or and organisation. it is the very definition of prejudice, that you disbelieve the individual officers evidence even though you don't know who they are, just because they belong to the police.

The correct assessment of your position is that you ARE prejudicial towards the police but unwilling to see it.

Also nice to see you are learning as you go along because you pick up phrases and clever wordings from brigadier and myself and reuse them a few posts down.

fancy elaborating on which cognitive bias(es) I / we are affected by? would love to examine your insight on the matter.

 

[Brigadier]

You did allude / infer that the sentiments of the second quotation were Cajar's. To pretend otherwise is nonsense.[/i]

Because it certainly wasn't mine. cajar took my quote, twisted it and misrepresented it into something which is nothing like the original. Therefore, who would you attribute it to?

As I said, the posters holding opposing views to mine are reduced to nitpicking (cajar introduced the term first. ) about who said what and what was meant by it.

Cajar didn't attribute it to you - it was clearly stated to be an example.

 

[Brigadier]

Finally, your last couple of sentences, you are incapable of discerning between "the police" as an organisation, and the "Met" in particular, and a single black person who is an individual, not an organisation, not representing an organisation.
In addition, if your assertion is that he must have been lying because he is black and black people have told lies before, really does demonstrate your racial prejudice.
The police may have been white, does it follow that because white people have told lies before the police must be lying?
The mind boggles.

WRT the contentious phrase, you are the only person attributing / or implying racist prejudices.

 

[Brigadier]

But you are the only person attributing / or implying racist prejudices, WRT to that phrase.

 

[Brigadier]

WRT the contentious phrase, you are the only person attributing / or implying racist prejudices.

If you don't think that an assertion that "a black man must be lying because one, two or more people of the same ethnic group have lied"
is not a racially motivated assertion, then, with respect, you wouldn't recognise a racially motivated comment if it jumped up and bit you on the butt.

Cajar didn't assert anything - it was an example to illustrate your folly (of tarring all with the same brush).

 

[cajar]

Rehangrogue,

I have 'showed my working out' with regards to my logic and how I got to my conclusions, as well as producing links to the pages I got my information to support my statements.

You have stated your position, given false information to justify it, been unable to provide links, and have been persistently unable to answer questions. Furthermore you have descended into personal attacks and even resorted to making out I am a racist. That will show anyone reading that your argument has no substance otherwise you would not have to resort to these things. You say you are not convinced, but you don't have to be, all the information is on this thread for anyone to draw their own conclusion, both about the case and the posters.

I did ask you what cognitive bias(es) you think I am affected by and you have not named any. Clearly you do not understand the terms you are parroting.

 

[JBR]

We all know that you hate the police for some reason you think best kept to yourself...

Meanwhile you indicate where your emotions lie by thanking another poster for an outrageously racist post, as demonstrated below:

That'll be the first time a coloured family have willingly attended court then.

Which you then added your thanks.

Here we go again with the 'racism' accusations.

I thanked him for the post because I thought it was funny. Nothing more, although I'm sure you'd like there to be.

Come on, now, Mr Chip-on-the-shoulder, tell us why you hate the police so much.

(He won't!)

 

[Brigadier]

I won't bother responding to Brigadier becasue my response would be similar.

READ

Pause.

BREATHE.

THINK

You might just see that Cajar stated an example, did not accuse you of the racist phrase, did not assert the example phrase to be one he held as his own prejudice...........

But you have painted yourself into a corner on this one - the words are there for all to read. It doesn't matter what any of us believe or think - on a forum, only the written word matters. And you are so very wrong about the ones you protest so vehemently about. Keep kicking, and protesting.

 

[jockscott]

It does matter when some think that they can post offensive comments without retribution.

All depends on who exactly finds a phrase or words offensive.
Comedy, is often found to be "offensive", to certain groups of people (or fair to say, offensive to certain people ).

Bernard Manning was labelled a racist, for telling the sort of jokes he told. Yet in real life, he had many black and Asian friends. People who felt honoured to have known him.

Seems to me, your one of these people who are offended on behalf of others (without first asking the very people you think may be offended's views)

 

[Brigadier]

READ

Pause.

BREATHE.

THINK

Will you tell me when to breathe again?
Please, before I fall over.

I should be so lucky

 

[jockscott]

I'll regurgitate what I like Rehang, For your benefit alone.

Seems to me, your one of these people who are offended on behalf of others (without first asking the very people you think may be offended's views)

Note the part I have highlighted for your benefit... Now read that again and again,, and try to digest it.

 

[jockscott]

Which part of "You find something offensive , on behalf of others, do you fail to understand?? You might well be "offended" by plenty that you see , hear or read. Whereas, the people you feel should be most offended, might actually laugh themselves. Some people do have a sense of humour. (unlike yourself)

Who on earth set you up as our moral guardian?? because you didn't get my bloody vote.

Just because you find something "offensive" doesn't necessarily mean others find it "offensive" It's a quite personal thing, so "chill out dude"

If you are affected by anything on here (and I'm bloody sure your an "affected" individual),,, may I suggest you log off, cancel your account and never visit this site again?