DonPeffers Posted June 11, 2020 Author Share Posted June 11, 2020 Rehabilitation is possible, even after the 2007 offence, and accounts of Mr Floyd's life since seem to show that had happened. No record of offences after 2007. Your quoting bizarre websites isn't helping....see https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-how-one-particular-coronavirus-myth-went-viral/ regarding greatgame india site and its coronavirus hoax story. Also why quote an Arizona small-time news outlet when in the past you have expressed extreme scepticism over the veracity of journalists? If there are two rabbit holes, one black and one white, it's your choice to feverishly concentrate on just one that disturbs. My point as expressed in the OP was to query the 'protect and serve 'motto and quoted the two cases to avoid any semblance of a racial angle and to avoid it in the responses. That failed. Video of the crime is widely available because the crime was conducted in broad daylight on a street in front of a crowd who were clearly filming and shop CCTV in the area has images as well. I think the police body-cams were not switched on. The Washington Post has compiled a lengthy video from various filming including shop CCTV and personal footage. The paper states it shows Mr Floyd leaving the shop having purchased his goods and sitting in his car awaiting 2 friends, so not making off with his (supposed) illicit USD20 gains. The shopkeeper who had previously accepted the now suspected 20 dollar note exits the shop, walks down the street and approaches Mr F's car and seemingly wants his goods back as is declaring the note counterfeit. This seems a weird progression of events as normally a shopkeeper would check/scan a note before accepting it in payment and how could Mr F be sure the note now presented to him was his? It is then that the shopkeeper phones the police and Mr F stays at the scene in his car. I have been aware for a few days now that Mr Floyd and ex-officer Chauvin knew each other as they worked as doormen at the same nightclub. It does create an awkward angle but that is for the Court case and I intend to leave it there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 11, 2020 Share Posted June 11, 2020 1 hour ago, DonPeffers said: Your quoting bizarre websites isn't helping....see https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-how-one-particular-coronavirus-myth-went-viral/ regarding greatgame india site and its coronavirus hoax story. Also why quote an Arizona small-time news outlet when in the past you have expressed extreme scepticism over the veracity of journalists? Is the Daily Mail a better source? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html I originally read Mr Floyds history on either the New York Times or Washington Post websites. I wish I'd linked them at the time but I wanted to avoid looking like I was biased by showing the information and have it be re-interpreted as some sort of justification for the way Mr Floyd was treated. That worked well... I do agree there is nothing more to be served by further debate which is a shame. This one has been very lively and there is definitely more to learn. And for the absence of doubt, I hold no bad feeling towards anyone who has contributed. Point and counter point has been made. Questions have been asked and some answers we have liked, others not so much. I may not have made myself clear at times and I take responsibility for that of course. I hope to do better next time. Had we had this debate face-to-face I would have had no hesitation in asking the same questions and raising the same issues, and I would have listened just as intently to the points being made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stanton Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Can I just say thank you to Don and Blatman for providing informative and interesting discussion, reading both your posts - any chance you guys can get yourselves new jobs at the BBC/ITV/Sky News etc offices .... you have both been more respectful and detailed in your debate than any of those "news" agencies. It may not be Westfields, but so what - Thank You Don & Blatman. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Mark Stanton said: Can I just say thank you to Don and Blatman for providing informative and interesting discussion, reading both your posts - any chance you guys can get yourselves new jobs at the BBC/ITV/Sky News etc offices .... you have both been more respectful and detailed in your debate than any of those "news" agencies. It may not be Westfields, but so what - Thank You Don & Blatman. Thanks Mark, much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arm Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Yes cheers to all has been a decent read. For sure the court case will have the privilege of seeing a lot more than we can and a lot more than the press are reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan France Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Agree, good to hear different points of view. Still don’t quite understand the link between a brutal murder in the USA and the taking down of Fawlty Towers. We’ve discussed things a little in our extended family as we have two mixed race grand daughters (nice shade of cappuccino.) The general feeling is what a mess, with a real risk that the original issue is being hijacked for other purposes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyonspride Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 On 06/06/2020 at 17:45, DonPeffers said: George Floyd's asphyxiation after 3 police officers knelt on him, including kneeling on his neck for 8 minutes, was truly shocking and marches in many countries show solidarity against such behaviour. Then on Thursday two Buffalo cops shoved a peaceful 75 year old man to the ground where he lay unconscious and bleeding from a head wound, and from his ear, after falling backwards and cracking his head on the pavement. He is in a serious condition. The article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394573/Two-Buffalo-cops-shoved-peace-activist-75-expected-CHARGED.html shows photos and video of the truly shocking incident. I hope the elderly gentleman can make a full recovery. To protect and serve.......what the devil. I just want to point out that video has been cut somewhat unfairly, the gentleman was being obstructive in the way he approached the officers, I don't think what they did was correct or appropriate at all, but they're doing a difficult job and the media are just trying to spin this thing into a frenzy. It's the same with our own Police force...... What the BBC used in a report versus the full photograph. All they're doing is creating outrage, bringing more protesters, more violence and now we have our war veterans heading to London to protect our national monuments (which is a really bad idea), it's going to be a blood bath and the media are going to do what they always do and selectively report on it to create yet more outrage, shaming our veterans as "far right racist thugs", and using photo's of football hooligans and/or editing photos as shown above. In America it's all about votes in the upcoming presidential elections, but here it seems to serve no real purpose, aside from some nasty child grooming stuff which is passing under the radar. I'm really sorry, i'm just angry about how people on both sides are being played off each other by the media outlets. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan France Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 After John Cleese has given them a damn good thrashing the BBC has agreed to restore Fawlty Towers with an offensive content label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Colonial Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Lyonspride said: What the BBC used in a report versus the full photograph. All they're doing is creating outrage, bringing more protesters, more violence and now we have our war veterans heading to London to protect our national monuments (which is a really bad idea), it's going to be a blood bath and the media are going to do what they always do and selectively report on it to create yet more outrage, shaming our veterans as "far right racist thugs", and using photo's of football hooligans and/or editing photos as shown above. ...and the problem with this example is several fold - one, where is the BBC report that uses that photo?: two, does it use that description, ie. peaceful protesters vs aggressive police or not?: and three, at what stage of the protest was this photo taken? Was it when police attacked protesters or vice versa? Which side started it, if either? Pictures may well be worth a thousand words, but if you can’t trust the pictures, you can’t trust the words, either. It’s a snapshot of an instant. Newspapers in this country are so different in general from those in the States. Most of the papers in the States (apart from rags like the NY Post or National Enquirer) tend to work hard to stick to the facts and as a result are so dull they’d cure insomnia. Papers in this country are generally slightly or appallingly biased one way or the other and pander towards people’s political persuasions, frequently at the expense of truth, just to get circulation numbers up. The problems occur when people cease questioning whether or not what they read, see and hear is true. Newspapers always have an agenda, and that agenda is profit at all costs, including truth and never admitting when they’re wrong. If you really want to see the lengths and depths to which they’ll stoop and how hypocritical they are, pick up a copy of Private Eye and go to the Street of Shame section. You’ll be horrified. I have no problem with people buying whatever paper they like. The problem I have is when they believe it unconditionally and it clouds their judgement. I have a couple of good friends who buy a particular squalid tabloid on a daily basis. They’re the type who complain about companies or famous people not paying their taxes, yet are happy to give their money to a biased, bigoted newspaper owned by a non-dom tax exile and can’t see the irony. When I go to their home, they scuttle and scurry and hide the newspaper away so I can’t see it, as if it were Readers Wives (which is probably more truthful). One time they told me they only bought it for the crossword. I replied that it was a coincidence because when I was very young, free, single, horny and stupid, I only went to strip clubs for the music. My point is this - it’s perfectly okay to be outraged about something bad as long as it’s true. Don’t be outraged because some media organisation who shares your beliefs simply to get your cash tells you to be outraged. If the truth means that much to you, it’s your duty to question the sources used, no matter how much you trust them, and get the whole truth. Don’t give your money to organisations to reinforce your viewpoint. To quote Yes, Prime Minster: Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun? Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyonspride Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 22 hours ago, Captain Colonial said: ...and the problem with this example is several fold - one, where is the BBC report that uses that photo?: two, does it use that description, ie. peaceful protesters vs aggressive police or not?: and three, at what stage of the protest was this photo taken? Was it when police attacked protesters or vice versa? Which side started it, if either? Pictures may well be worth a thousand words, but if you can’t trust the pictures, you can’t trust the words, either. It’s a snapshot of an instant. The media, particularly the Guardian and the BBC, twist the truth for some unknown agenda, rarely do they directly show bias, but it's in what they omit and how they present things. For example, BBC article yesterday covering the London protests.... "Large groups of right-wing protesters then moved to Trafalgar Square, where fireworks were thrown across the crowds" So this statement is misleading, they're not saying these "right wing protesters" threw fireworks (it's actually an Antifa trademark), but they construct the sentence to make you think that's what happened. These "right wing protesters" btw, were actually our British armed forces veterans, there were admittedly some football hooligan types who tried tag along. I've been looking at the footage used in some of the media reports and an awful lot of that footage seems to be from the Tommy Robinson protests which occurred 2 years ago, when a bunch of drunken hooligans decided to kick off. There's a chap on Facebook called "Sapper Ken", who was at the protests yesterday, you can see his videos and you can see how our veterans behaved. Also, i've seen a video of an armed forces veteran being attacked from behind and having his throat cut by either a BLM or Antifa activist OR more likely a gang member using the protest for their own purpose, this video was very quickly removed from all social media platforms, there only remain some still images, but the UK press hasn't reported on it, instead concentrating on some bloke who needed the toilet whilst being kettled in by the Police. My stance on the whole thing, is that the media are playing games, winding people up and stirring up racial hatred on all sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Colonial Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 43 minutes ago, Lyonspride said: The media, particularly the Guardian and the BBC, twist the truth for some unknown agenda, rarely do they directly show bias, but it's in what they omit and how they present things. For example, BBC article yesterday covering the London protests.... "Large groups of right-wing protesters then moved to Trafalgar Square, where fireworks were thrown across the crowds" So this statement is misleading, they're not saying these "right wing protesters" threw fireworks (it's actually an Antifa trademark), but they construct the sentence to make you think that's what happened. These "right wing protesters" btw, were actually our British armed forces veterans, there were admittedly some football hooligan types who tried tag along. I've been looking at the footage used in some of the media reports and an awful lot of that footage seems to be from the Tommy Robinson protests which occurred 2 years ago, when a bunch of drunken hooligans decided to kick off. There's a chap on Facebook called "Sapper Ken", who was at the protests yesterday, you can see his videos and you can see how our veterans behaved. Also, i've seen a video of an armed forces veteran being attacked from behind and having his throat cut by either a BLM or Antifa activist OR more likely a gang member using the protest for their own purpose, this video was very quickly removed from all social media platforms, there only remain some still images, but the UK press hasn't reported on it, instead concentrating on some bloke who needed the toilet whilst being kettled in by the Police. My stance on the whole thing, is that the media are playing games, winding people up and stirring up racial hatred on all sides. As often as I disagree with @Blatman at times, I will give him credit for putting up links to the source material, whereas the information you provide has none. I’d like the links to what you’re referring to please, not because I don’t believe you, but to help me make a balanced judgement. Neither one of us were there and being able to get all sides would give us a better picture of the truth, even if it’s not what either of us would care to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyonspride Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 23 minutes ago, Captain Colonial said: As often as I disagree with @Blatman at times, I will give him credit for putting up links to the source material, whereas the information you provide has none. I’d like the links to what you’re referring to please, not because I don’t believe you, but to help me make a balanced judgement. Neither one of us were there and being able to get all sides would give us a better picture of the truth, even if it’s not what either of us would care to believe. Yes I know there's a lack of information, it gets taken down as quickly as it's put up. I can't find the BBC article at the moment and the video I mention has been wiped from social media (i'm it'll turn up on the "darknet" soon). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53031072 Found in my internet history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Colonial Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 That’s much better, thank you. Having read and absorbed the whole article rather than focusing on one sentence, I don’t personally find it at all biased or misleading, but I will read other reports from different reliable sources for balance and testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyonspride Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Captain Colonial said: That’s much better, thank you. Having read and absorbed the whole article rather than focusing on one sentence, I don’t personally find it at all biased or misleading, but I will read other reports from different reliable sources for balance and testing. Really? at no point do they mention "far left" or even "left", or Antifa, yet they label our veterans as "far right". Nobody can say that's not biased reporting. My mother is in her late 60's and she's just cancelled her TV licence over all this. Anyway.............. I don't want to talk about all this sociopolitical nonsense here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 8 hours ago, Captain Colonial said: As often as I disagree with @Blatman at times Nothing wrong with honest disagreements. I always appreciate and respect your input. I also appreciate that it may not come across that way in the heat of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.