Do you trust the police?

[jucyberry]

Justice should NEVER be rough. That is nothing but an oxymoron.

[IDM]

If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.

Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.

Two points:  first of all, and I repeat myself, BST's initial comments were about the police lying in court NOT about either the police or miners being to blame. 

Secondly, why not trust folks on the forum?  I fail to see how you can pre-judge someone just because you disagree about something online?  If they have something worthy of argument, that can be verified, you can verify it!  When you read/quote Wiki do you check all the source references at the bottom of the page?  For example the Wiki entry for "total football" used to refer to DRFC as an exponent of this, but no longer does.  Therefore the information on Wiki changes, so is it trustworthy?  Not without verifying the info it isn't!  Even more so when some of the information is opinions or different perspectives.

[RedJ]

Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...

[IC1967]

Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...

Not true.

You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…

…you can only add to it, not change it. Wikipedia is a database with a memory designed to last as long as they can make it last. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, they keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows them to compare different versions or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, your permanent link will only work for administrators.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia

Many studies have shown that what's on Wikipedia is 'largely accurate'. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.

Wikipedia is clear. The miners charged the police lines in an effort to break through. Some miners threw missiles that injured the police (on numerous occasions). Is it any wonder the police had enough and battered a few miners to get them to disperse and stop throwing bricks at them?

It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides. I'd have a lot more time for anyone arguing for the police to be brought to book over the incident if they also said that the miners that threw missiles should also be brought to book.

But guess what happens. All you lefties turn round and blame it all on the police without ever mentioning the wrongdoing of the miners. You only want the police to be prosecuted. You're quite happy for the missile throwing miners to get away with it.

You need to start living in the real world that I inhabit. Stop looking through those hard left spectacles and get a bit of perspective.

[RedJ]

It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides.

Nobody is saying there wasn't though... the subject was the police lying in court about what happened...

But then you always do move the goalposts don't you.

[IC1967]

You're the one moving the goalposts. The subject is not as you say. It is 'Do you trust the police'. You've already got it wrong on Wikipedia and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot in the next statement you make.

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you keep getting it so badly wrong.

Look it's very simple. Billy is trying to justify his lack of trust for the police by dragging up an event from 30 years ago. He is using this to justify his opinion. I trust the police and feel it is necessary to expose the far left slant he is putting on things because I know he has a lot of gullible followers on this forum (such as yourself).

I realise that people like you worship at the altar of all his ramblings but there is a silent majority out there that are grateful that I am able to think for myself and put a balanced point of view across that examines both sides of an issue.

You and your leftie friends would do well to engage brain every now and then to see how ridiculous many of his points of view are. The penny should have dropped by now because I have already demolished his arguments so many times it is untrue.

[RedJ]

You're the one moving the goalposts. The subject is not as you say. It is 'Do you trust the police'.

And in with that comes whether or not they have lied in court.

But we'll ignore that and indulge you shall we.

[IDM]

 

RedJ that is precisely the point.  The thread is about trusting the police, not about who was to blame for picket line violence.

IC1967.  I would recommend that if you want to use Wiki as a source of info for presenting your arguments, that you use Wiki as a stepping stone to deeper investigation.  Use what folks present there as a guide, but check out the supporting references, then see if you agree with what is on Wiki.  Some things there will always be factually correct, and easily verifiable, such as football records, others such as viewpoints on historical events written from one perspective or another will be less reliable.

[IC1967]

RedJ, what is your point? I don't disagree that some of what was presented in court was lies. That is only a very small part of the big picture.

Billy seems to have convinced you that because some of what was said in court over one incident 30 years ago was untrue that this warrants a lack of trust in the police today.

Just stop and think about my previous paragraph for just a minute and you will see what he is saying is completely bonkers. Like I say it pays to engage brain whenever you read any of his ramblings. Stop being a sheep and learn to think for yourself.

[IDM]

He is using this to justify his opinion. I trust the police and feel it is necessary to expose the far left slant he is putting on things because I know he has a lot of gullible followers on this forum (such as yourself).

Why shouldn't he use examples of something that can be verified to justify his opinion?  Where's your justification, Wiki?

I'm all for disagreements and opinions, but it irks me when folks post their viewpoints without justification.  Then you go calling folks "lefties" etc - where's the evidence for that?  I (and others) are simply pointing out that BST has a valid opinion based on evidence, whilst you are twisting things and still abusing other posters.

I do not "follow" BST nor am I gullible or a leftie.  I don't care a flying f**k what other posters politcal viewpoints are, and I definitely don't start labelling and abusing folks because I don't agree with them and can't justify my own views.

I certainly don't claim to be representative of the rest of the forum either, I speak only for myself!  I suggest you do the same, otherwise you come across very badly and are less likely to be believed or agreed with. 

See - I disagreed with you without abusing you or accusing you of anything like being a "lefite" etc.  Easy, isn't it?

[bobjimwilly]

Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...

Not true.

You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…

…you can only add to it, not change it. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.

Any who do you think confirms if something is valid?

Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources. And if the sources are wrong/biased, so will Wikipedia be wrong/biased.

Oh, and anyone CAN change Wikipedia. It may take time before people/the bots pick up those changes, but nonetheless those changes will stand for a period of time.

Now, when are you going to do one Mick?

[Iberian Red]

Our police force are saints compared to the Dutch. All you police slaggers need to cop yourself on.

I see what you did there!

However, a word of warning,calling our finest boys in blue slags could result in your back door being banged through in the early hours of the morning, followed by a heavy truncheoning.

If you are really unlucky you might get a beating too.

[Iberian Red]

Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...

Not true.

You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…

…you can only add to it, not change it. Wikipedia is a database with a memory designed to last as long as they can make it last. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, they keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows them to compare different versions or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, your permanent link will only work for administrators.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia

Many studies have shown that what's on Wikipedia is 'largely accurate'. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.

Wikipedia is clear. The miners charged the police lines in an effort to break through. Some miners threw missiles that injured the police (on numerous occasions). Is it any wonder the police had enough and battered a few miners to get them to disperse and stop throwing bricks at them?

It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides. I'd have a lot more time for anyone arguing for the police to be brought to book over the incident if they also said that the miners that threw missiles should also be brought to book.

But guess what happens. All you lefties turn round and blame it all on the police without ever mentioning the wrongdoing of the miners. You only want the police to be prosecuted. You're quite happy for the missile throwing miners to get away with it.

You need to start living in the real world that I inhabit. Stop looking through those hard left spectacles and get a bit of perspective.

Wikipedia, the site that makes idiots turn into specialist idiots.

[IC1967]

IDM, you seem to be mistaking my pugnacious debating style as being abusive. Now if your post about being abusive was aimed at BST then I could have understood it. You should see some of the things he's said about me (and others).

I on the other hand have been mostly (I'll admit not always) courteous and kind to other posters. I'll agree that I am very direct and don't beat about the bush. If this offends people then they don't need to read or respond to my posts.

It is my experience though that the silent majority enjoy reading my posts and are pleased I'm prepared to stand up to the left wing bias that is prevalent on this forum. I intend to carry on my good work.

[IC1967]

I see what you did there!

I don't think you did. I feel my coruscating wit has once again been wasted. The key word in the excellent witticism that I posted is 'cop'. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

Every single discussion slides down the same plug hole.

We talk about specifics. You get out of your depth on the specific. And as a result, you ramble about unsubstantiated generalities.

If I had a quid for every time you've got yourself utterly out of your depth in a discussion, and re-booted with the line, "Look, it's very simple".

I have a mental image of you after each pounding, scrubbing your brain with wire wool to erase any trace of evidence that contradicts your preconceived opinion. And then you simply revert back to your preconceived opinion.

Like dealing with a born again religious zealot.

But anyway. Just for the record once again, I was NOT trying to claim that Orgreave means no one should have any trust in the police. I WAS claiming that Orgreave is a massive stain on British justice, and that the police involved in one of the biggest and most dangerous criminal conspiracies of all time should be brought to justice.

That was a specific. That was what I was talking about.  I have no interest in how the bizarre wiring of your brain jumps from that to an incorrect generality. But I'm quite sure that won't stop you from regaling us with your general opinions. Unfortunately.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?

[IC1967]

This thread was not about Orgreave. It was about trust in the police. You brought up Orgreave in the context of the thread being about lack of trust in the police.

It seems quite reasonable to me to assume that you have posted 'evidence' that can be used to justify a lack of trust in the police. I have merely pointed out that your 'evidence' has a left wing bias to it. You made yourself look daft (yet again) by only going after the police. You don't seem bothered about any miners being brought to book for missile throwing or fighting with the police.

Once again you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at both sides of an argument. Luckily I am around to expose you.

[Filo]

Mick.

How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?

Probably via a blank page on wikipedia

[IC1967]

How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?

I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?

Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.

There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.

I rest my case.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Jesus man. I thought you were joking previously when you quoted your "views" numbers with pride.

I was wrong. You actually DO get off on those numbers don't you?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I didn't bring up Orgreave.

[Filo]

How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?

I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?

Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.

There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.

I rest my case.

Have you ever considered that those views could be attributed to the comedy value of your posts rather than the actual accuracy of them

[IC1967]

Jesus man. I thought you were joking previously when you quoted your "views" numbers with pride.

I was wrong. You actually DO get off on those numbers don't you?

Lol. Of course I don't get off on the numbers. It is just evidence that answers your question. You of all people seem to like evidence that backs up a point of view.

There are far bigger forums out there if I was a 'numbers' person.

[IC1967]

Have you ever considered that those views could be attributed to the comedy value of your posts rather than the actual accuracy of them

That is part of my charm, but only a very small part of it. 

[IDM]

How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?

I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?

Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.

There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.

I rest my case.

How do you know the folks who have viewed the thread agree with you?

Here again you are drawing a conclusion without logical evidence.  Possibly, the thread readers enjoy seeing your arguments being countered, but then again I am not making any such claims, am I?

[Jenny]

I view the threads normally without contributing to them, but that isn't because I am part of this so called silent majority who you think seems to enjoy them, its more just so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself time and time again.

We aren't 'laughing' with you, we are laughing at you.

[IDM]

How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?

I rest my case.

A moment ago this thread had 886 views, and all your posts on it have attracted the grand total of ONE "like".

Go figure the "silent majority" there?

[IC1967]

How do you know the folks who have viewed the thread agree with you?

Here again you are drawing a conclusion without logical evidence.  Possibly, the thread readers enjoy seeing your arguments being countered, but then again I am not making any such claims, am I?

I don't claim that the folks agree with me. I reckon a lot of them don't. All I do is point out the counter view when required and hope it makes people think. That is all.

I like the fact that my arguments are countered. It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

[IC1967]

I view the threads normally without contributing to them, but that isn't because I am part of this so called silent majority who you think seems to enjoy them, its more just so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself time and time again.

We aren't 'laughing' with you, we are laughing at you.

I think you've contradicted yourself a bit there Jenny. I think if you're laughing at me then you must be deriving some enjoyment from my participation in the debate. I can live with this.

Deep down though I suspect my views have sometimes given you pause for thought. Just be grateful I am around to counter the hard left view of life prevalent on this forum.