Who's talking about 'non-violent protest'? I'm talking about feral scum rioting and looting. The non-violent protest ship sailed some time ago.Originally Posted by WES
Oh, and what 'legitimate concerns' do young British people have about the behaviour of the Minneapolis Police Department, exactly? And how exactly does attacking members of the Met help address them?
As you said that most of our institutions were cheering them on, I assumed you were talking about non-violent protesters.
Which of our institutions are cheering on the rioters and looters, exactly? Can you show us some examples?
You can do the googling yourself, but there are the pictures of policemen kneeling before the same people who attacked them minutes later. There are endless media and political figures applauding exactly the same people who then - inevitably - went on to riot.
You can't separate the 'good' protest from the 'bad' riot because it's exactly the same people and it was always going to end the same way. If you encouraged this nonsense in any form, you encouraged its outcome. You don't get to cheer it all the way until the first brick is inevitably thrown and then wash your hands of it. You are culpable. You can't just abdicate moral responsibility for your actions like that.
So no institutions then. Good as that would have been very surprising and disappointing to find that our institutions were cheering lawlessness.
Individuals I’m not so bothered about, not everyone can be sane. Donald Trump, as an example.
No institutions other than the media, the police and the political establishment, no.
Here's the Mayor of London at lunchtime yesterday:
"The death of George Floyd has rightly ignited fury and anguish not just in the USA but around the world. No country, city, police force or institution can be complacent about racism and the impact this has."
A few hours later and guess what? The pack of feral hoodrats he has encouraged to come into the heart of his city with their righteously ignited 'fury' interpret this as a free opportunity to have a go at the police because racism.
Only then does he say it's unacceptable to attack the police.
He set the police up as targets, encouraged the mob to have a go at them and then walked away.
You can't incite that sort of shít and then tut tut at its outcomes. It's like w@nking someone off and then complaining that your hand's covered in spunk.
"The death of George Floyd has rightly ignited fury and anguish not just in the USA but around the world. No country, city, police force or institution can be complacent about racism and the impact this has."
Sounds like an incredibly reasonable statement. I doubt anybody at yesterday's gatherings even heard Khan's words, let alone acted on them.
Hopefully the scum attacking the police will be dealt with properly. He's made the right statement in that respect, hopefully action will follow.
On the day he'd allowed the gathering of thousands (during a pandemic and against social distancing measures, but hey-ho), he talks about igniting fury? When he could at least have demanded a peaceful response? You don't see that as in any way inflammatory, no?
Not only is that statement encouraging a gathering that is completely unacceptable in the current situation, it's also validating not just anger but 'fury'. And, not only does it not bother to make the point that the Met has absolutely no culpability, but in fact it goes out of its way to tar them with the same brush!
'Incredibly reasonable'? Bóllocks. Inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric from a man who is actually charged with the welfare of the city in which he's just helped to foment rioting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote