Dubstepforum.com

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:15 am**

According to Indymedia it's the family of the geezer.

I dunno how accurate this is but it doesn't make any difference to me either way.

DSF meet-up?

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:24 am**

indymedia wrote:An assembly and a procession has been called for this Saturday 11th April assembling at Bethnal Green Police Station at 11:30 am to demand a public enquiry. A procession will move off at midday to arrive at the Bank of England around 1 pm.

Another protest has also been called for Saturday 18th April at 12 noon in Redditch, the Home Secretary's Constituency town.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I'm in. Like I said, I have the handicap of being on call and having to be able to get to my laptop within 1/2hr should my pager go off, but unless we get penned in and beaten up by police I should be fine..!

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:55 am**

BBC wrote:Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said the force fully supported an inquiry into the death.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is carrying out the inquiry, will examine the video footage showing Mr Tomlinson being pushed to the ground.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:02 pm**

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said some physical confrontation was inevitable during a large protest.

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.

"Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.

then why the fuck did you tell everyone to dress like a tramp that day?

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:19 pm**

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said some physical confrontation was inevitable during a large protest.

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.

"Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.

What a poor excuse. Surely the police can tell the difference between someone 'hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can' and a guy slowly walking away with his hands in his pockets.

If this isnt manslaughter then its clearly a case of one set of rules for us and another set of rules for them...disgraceful!!!

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:30 pm**

pk- wrote:
Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said some physical confrontation was inevitable during a large protest.

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.

"Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.
then why the fuck did you tell everyone to dress like a tramp that day?

some hell bent on confrontation....um that would mainly be the police then?

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:21 pm**

It really beggars belief.

A week ago, despite an IPCC investigation (which is routine when someone dies in the vacinity of a police operation) the Metropolitan Police released a statement through official channels saying that Police Medics had tried to help the dying man whilst protesters threw bottles at them.

Now, when footage (shot by a banker... Read more, ironically) emerges that the same man suffered an unprovoked assault by the police minutes before he died, the Police response is that "it would not be appropriate to comment while the IPCC investigation was continuing".

And whilst we're on about police killing people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm

A police officer has been found guilty of causing the death of a 16-year-old schoolgirl by dangerous driving.

Pc John Dougal, 41, had accelerated to 94mph (151km/h) in a 30mph zone before he hit Hayley Adamson in Newcastle in May, the city's crown court heard.

...

Hayley was due to sit the first of her GCSE exams, in English, the day after she was killed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:41 pm**

Not a good day for the UK Police Force is it really?

(talking about that story Firky Posted Up) that guy was driving at 94mph in a 30mph - a residential - area and decided not to put sirens or flashing lights on. What a fucking idiot. But at least the fact that he was found guilty is something.

As for the G20 incident - I think that in a clash of two large crowds, where both sides are riled up, then it may well happen where an innocent party gets pushed or clobbered, and whilst that doesn't justify it, it could help to explain what happened.

I haven't seen the footage, but there's enough stills of the event, and comment about it splashed over the media to say that this guy was stood on his own - not part of a 'mob', not shouting, not making gestures. The dude was walking with his hands in his pockets and seemingly had little interest in anything other than getting home. So, whilst in general, I still believe that the police do a good job, and I have respect for most police, I firmly believe that the fuckers involved in this should recieve the maximum penalty there is going.

It's incidents like this, commited by people who get into the police force for all the wrong reasons, that result in everyone having a blanket hatred for all police officers. It's a great shame.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:47 pm**

kins83 wrote: I haven't seen the footage, but there's enough stills of the event, and comment about it splashed over the media to say that this guy was stood on his own - not part of a 'mob', not shouting, not making gestures. The dude was walking with his hands in his pockets and seemingly had little interest in anything other than getting home. So, whilst in general, I still believe that the police do a good job, and I have respect for most police, I firmly believe that the fuckers involved in this should recieve the maximum penalty there is going.

It's incidents like this, commited by people who get into the police force for all the wrong reasons, that result in everyone having a blanket hatred for all police officers. It's a great shame.

well, the guy was walking in between the police officers and the protesters, which was a bit strange. but from the video he was doing nothing provocative at all.
i agree that it is shit like that which gives police a bad rep. Lets face it, they should be respected etc for upholding the law and making the streets safe and all that but there are reasons why so many people hate them.

Posted: **Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:10 pm**

To steal someone else's line, they're only a paaaawwwwwn... in their game.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:17 am**

Steve Bell, tomorrow's Guardian.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:25 am**

Caeraphym wrote:^^^Gen, I do hope your first paragraph is a joke because there's no fucking way I want any more government, beaurocracy, or taxation, and my teachers certainly taught me wisely enough to never trust any politicians on face value. Ever.

Gen, I like that. Hell ye'.

I am serious. And the you wasn't pointed at anyone here but let me put it like this.

Everyone wants more government

I mean, I don't.

Give government an inch and they be takin' a mile.

I'm just saying.

Everyone hates the government and everyone wants more, if trhey didn't they wouldn't vote like this, right? I mean, people frown upon liberalism (as in, true liberalism, not the bastardized thing, but the small government/personal freedom/capitalist type) and libertarianism and love the welfare state, I mean, big government = less responsibility! What's not to love.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. Governments have expanded in size over these past 20 years and it's voting behavior.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:22 am**

Slothrop wrote:To steal someone else's line, they're only a paaaawwwwwn... in their game.

Mr Dylan gets it right every time.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:09 am**

Genevieve wrote: Everyone hates the government and everyone wants more, if trhey didn't they wouldn't vote like this, right?

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. Governments have expanded in size over these past 20 years and it's voting behavior.

Sorry but I think this is a bit naive. Our political system is corrupt and it is not the voters fault, we can only go on what we are told and hope that those we put in power live up to our expectations.

Life is to complicated to see cause and effect so clearly linked.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:13 pm**

eLBe wrote:
Genevieve wrote: Everyone hates the government and everyone wants more, if trhey didn't they wouldn't vote like this, right?

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. Governments have expanded in size over these past 20 years and it's voting behavior.
Sorry but I think this is a bit naive. Our political system is corrupt and it is not the voters fault, we can only go on what we are told and hope that those we put in power live up to our expectations.

Life is to complicated to see cause and effect so clearly linked.

Voters tend to agree with every politician that promises to take responsibility out of their hands. Look in the USA, people only wanted Obama or McCain, who were all about expanding government while the candidates that wanted to decrease the size of government got the stinker.

It's typical human hypocrisy. Voters don't care, they just vote for whoever promises more money or more funky services, but boy, do they hate big government. It's everywhere. 9 out of 10 people I talk to hate our government, but all of them think I'm insane for wanting to see a lot of government intrusion and services abolished. I mean, if you want less government, you have to get rid of a lot of the tax payer's funded bullcrap. I mean, that's the reality of things. But no one is willing to give up the fancy welfare state.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:29 pm**

Genevieve wrote:
eLBe wrote:
Genevieve wrote: Everyone hates the government and everyone wants more, if trhey didn't they wouldn't vote like this, right?

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. Governments have expanded in size over these past 20 years and it's voting behavior.
Sorry but I think this is a bit naive. Our political system is corrupt and it is not the voters fault, we can only go on what we are told and hope that those we put in power live up to our expectations.

Life is to complicated to see cause and effect so clearly linked.
Voters tend to agree with every politician that promises to take responsibility out of their hands. Look in the USA, people only wanted Obama or McCain, who were all about expanding government while the candidates that wanted to decrease the size of government got the stinker.

It's typical human hypocrisy. Voters don't care, they just vote for whoever promises more money or more funky services, but boy, do they hate big government. It's everywhere. 9 out of 10 people I talk to hate our government, but all of them think I'm insane for wanting to see a lot of government intrusion and services abolished. I mean, if you want less government, you have to get rid of a lot of the tax payer's funded bullcrap. I mean, that's the reality of things. But no one is willing to give up the fancy welfare state.

You're mixing up current trends with human nature, I think. For example, when Americans voted Reagan in, it was largely a reaction against the 'big government' and interpreted leftism of Jimmy Carter.

People clearly don't think government is too big yet. No doubt they will eventually and then there'll be a similar reactionary vote. Humans like to keep things balanced over time. Peacetime, wartime, boom, bust, big government (Roosevelt), small government (Reagan), one of "us" (Dubya), someone cleverer than "us" (Obama).

It all depends on current circumstance, the challenges each individual country is facing and what has come before. For instance, as soon as WW2 was over, the UK got rid of Winston Churchill, who was a *great* war leader, but an absolute duffer as a domestic politician.

You write the intelligence of your fellow humans off very easily. You also mix up people having differing views for people being "wrong". As we got to in the other thread - that's democracy. If you're in the minority, you're in the minority... it doesn't mean you know more than everyone else, it just means you think differently and have different priorities to most people... it might seem shit when you're in the minority, but it's probably the best way overall.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:45 pm**

Magma wrote:You're mixing up current trends with human nature, I think. For example, when Americans voted Reagan in, it was largely a reaction against the 'big government' and interpreted leftism of Jimmy Carter.

And Reagan meanwhile expanded government and people ate it up. I'm not mixing up trends with human nature at all. Humans don't want to take the bad with the good. 'Oh less government.. ok sounds good, oh wait, ouch.. no, no social services, nope, can't do it.. I STILL HATE BIG GOVERNMENT'.

Magma wrote:People clearly don't think government is too big yet. No doubt they will eventually and then there'll be a similar reactionary vote. Humans like to keep things balanced over time. Peacetime, wartime, boom, bust, big government (Roosevelt), small government (Reagan), one of "us" (Dubya), someone cleverer than "us" (Obama).

If they do not think it's too big, they shouldn't say it. Most discussions on politics I hear revolve around how people think there's just too much of it.

Magma wrote:It all depends on current circumstance, the challenges each individual country is facing and what has come before. For instance, as soon as WW2 was over, the UK got rid of Winston Churchill, who was a *great* war leader, but an absolute duffer as a domestic politician.

You write the intelligence of your fellow humans off very easily. You also mix up people having differing views for people being "wrong". As we got to in the other thread - that's democracy. If you're in the minority, you're in the minority... it doesn't mean you know more than everyone else, it just means you think differently and have different priorities to most people... it might seem shit when you're in the minority, but it's probably the best way overall.

I'm not writing off anyone's intelligence or saying they're wrong. I'm saying that these people's votes contradict their stance. Look at neo-cons, they whine about 'big government', but all they do is expand it. People hate big government, but when 'big government' is expanded in size in something they believe in, which coerces the rest of society into paying taxes for those same causes, they celebrate it.

It's typical human behavior of being unwilling to accept the bad with the good and trying to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone does it, some people are just more self-aware of it. And I see it all the time, back in sociology class, everyone complained about big government and everyone frowned upon reducing it too, because reducing it would mean having to give up something you stand for and not coercing the rest of society into it anymore. The USA hasn't had small government in decades and it keeps increasing, meanwhile every Republican argues for small government, even though they're largely responsible for expanding it in the first place.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:54 pm**

Genevieve wrote:
Magma wrote:You're mixing up current trends with human nature, I think. For example, when Americans voted Reagan in, it was largely a reaction against the 'big government' and interpreted leftism of Jimmy Carter.
And Reagan meanwhile expanded government and people ate it up. I'm not mixing up trends with human nature at all. Humans don't want to take the bad with the good. 'Oh less government.. ok sounds good, oh wait, ouch.. no, no social services, nope, can't do it.. I STILL HATE BIG GOVERNMENT'.

Magma wrote:People clearly don't think government is too big yet. No doubt they will eventually and then there'll be a similar reactionary vote. Humans like to keep things balanced over time. Peacetime, wartime, boom, bust, big government (Roosevelt), small government (Reagan), one of "us" (Dubya), someone cleverer than "us" (Obama).
If they do not think it's too big, they shouldn't say it. Most discussions on politics I hear revolve around how people think there's just too much of it.

Magma wrote:It all depends on current circumstance, the challenges each individual country is facing and what has come before. For instance, as soon as WW2 was over, the UK got rid of Winston Churchill, who was a *great* war leader, but an absolute duffer as a domestic politician.

You write the intelligence of your fellow humans off very easily. You also mix up people having differing views for people being "wrong". As we got to in the other thread - that's democracy. If you're in the minority, you're in the minority... it doesn't mean you know more than everyone else, it just means you think differently and have different priorities to most people... it might seem shit when you're in the minority, but it's probably the best way overall.
I'm not writing off anyone's intelligence or saying they're wrong. I'm saying that these people's votes contradict their stance. Look at neo-cons, they whine about 'big government', but all they do is expand it. People hate big government, but when 'big government' is expanded in size in something they believe in, which coerces the rest of society into paying taxes for those same causes, they celebrate it.

It's typical human behavior of being unwilling to accept the bad with the good and trying to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone does it, some people are just more self-aware of it. And I see it all the time, back in sociology class, everyone complained about big government and everyone frowned upon reducing it too, because reducing it would mean having to give up something you stand for and not coercing the rest of society into it anymore. The USA hasn't had small government in decades and it keeps increasing, meanwhile every Republican argues for small government, even though they're largely responsible for expanding it in the first place.

Yeah, all valid points. I'd suggest there's a split between the types of "big government" that people want, though. Largely, conservatives seem to want government to step out of economics/business in favour of "libertarianism".... but they generally support moves that strip the individual person's freedoms like anti-drug laws, bans on gay marriage etc etc. 'Lefties' tend to think that government should stay out of our private lives, but have a big influence on our business practises (which, personally, I'd largely agree with)

I'm not sure that people's views contradict each other necessarily... people's views are just too complex to sum up in one statement...

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:51 pm**

Magma wrote:people's views are just too complex to sum up in one statement...

yet democracy is based on people summing up their views is one statement, known as the elections/referendum result
there's more examples than that, but this one is basic

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:47 pm**

alien pimp wrote:
Magma wrote:people's views are just too complex to sum up in one statement...
yet democracy is based on people summing up their views is one statement, known as the elections/referendum result
there's more examples than that, but this one is basic

Yeah, totally. Common problem of logistics really... we're not as good as someone like Switzerland, but even they can't give the people all the choices directly. The best we can do is educate our answers to the one statement we get to make sure it best represents our own views by reading leaflets, manifestos, the news and the like... you'll never see an MP that perfectly represents your views without running to be an MP yourself, though!

Dubstepforum.com

Man who died at G20 protests - new footage.