Hello, faithful readers!
This post comes from something I read recently about a guy called Liam Stacey. I need to say straight away that I actually know absolutely nothing about this case, which is a little unusual. Normally I do lots of research into whatever I am blogging about, but on this occasion, I thought I should write about this as soon as I heard about it so that I can use my own untarnished opinion, and not be blinded by what someone else might or might not have said.
Anyway, Liam Stacey supposedly wrote racist and offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba (the guy who had the cardiac arrest on a football pitch the other week), and when challenged, went on to write more offensive posts, possibly because he was drunk. Liam has recently been jailed for 56 days by a district judge.
Now, maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, but isn't this a really extreme reaction? Sure, I'm not racist (I hope!) and I generally dislike people who say that kind of thing, but surely the whole point of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Blogger is for people to be able to express their opinions on things like this. If I was talking to someone on Facebook or Twitter and they said something really racist or homophobic, I would tell them that I find it offensive and ask them to stop, but I wouldn't report them for it, because it's just my opinion against theirs. Like it or not, personally offending someone should not be a crime - it is a horrible thing to do, certainly, but sending someone to jail for it is just wrong.
I have not read Liam's tweets and I don't intend to either, I quite frankly have better things to do with my time than read things like that. But I do think that once someone says that they are monitoring what people say on social networks, there is no telling how far it will go. How long will it be before, for example, anything that denounces the Government is illegal? Does that mean I could be jailed for writing this blog? Obviously, I'm being a little facetious, but the principle is the same - however offensive someone's opinion is, it is still their opinion and no one else has the right to tell them not to express it. That's just another form of censorship.
This post is a little shorter than normal, but I've pretty much said all I need to say really. Let me know what you think of this topic, if you like. I'll write more soon.
Sunday 8 April 2012
Monday 2 April 2012
How the police should get respect
Hello!
This blog actually comes from a Facebook conversation I stumbled upon tonight. The conversation is about a YouTube video of police evicting people from a mansion in Bristol (the video is below if anyone wants a look.) We had a conversation about tactics the police use, and whether they are ever justifiable. There are so many videos out there showing police during different scenes, and there are so many points of view - some claim that the police need to be heavy-handed to enforce the law, keep people in control and gain respect, other people insist that the police are bullies who are violent for no reason, and nothing is ever done about it.
Personally I think that if the police are there to enforce the law they need to be shown respect - but you can't respect something that has nothing to be respected for. Being heavy-handed is inevitably going to be necessary sometimes when you are in that kind of job, but it goes over the limit far too much. Some people complain that the amount of physical and verbal aggression towards the police is appalling - and it may well be -, but I'm afraid that that works two ways. I don't recall having ever seen a video of physical and verbal aggression towards the police where the police haven't been physically and verbally aggressive back, and not just in self-defence either. Many times the police are confusing, unclear about the process (or don't know it themselves) and they try to make up for this by trying to intimidate people. The problem is that when they do this, this creates aggression. If you are in that kind of situation, it is psychologically very difficult to avoid losing your cool, and becoming aggressive yourself - and once that happens, the police have grounds to avoid any trouble if you try to complain - they can just claim it was self-defence. I think that people need to be trained in how to stay calm if that situation occurs, so the police have no reason to get violent - and the police need to show people that they are someone to be trusted by being the better person, not getting involved in shouting matches, and being clear what the situation is. You don't get respect by shouting loudly or by wearing a uniform with all your achievements on it, you earn respect by being a good person, and that's how it's done.
It's not just police that I think this about, and it wouldn't be fair just to mention the police. I did actually have a conversation about teachers with some friends a few weeks ago, after I made the controversial statement that it is never acceptable for a teacher to raise their voice at a pupil. We argued about it for a while, and we still don't agree. I know it's controversial, but I think that if a student - of any age - is being uncooperative, difficult, or even just plain wreaking havoc, you can move them, you can have a conversation with them and you can make them realise themselves, but the moment you raise your voice, that immediately lets your personal emotions take over, and I firmly believe that that never improves a situation. It is really unprofessional to let your emotions take over at work, and it stops you from being objective. In my life, I have lost respect for anyone who has ever raised their voice at me, because there are far, far better ways to sort the situation out. I'm not going to be really self-righteous and say I never raise my voice, because we all do occasionally - but on those occasions, I generally apologise to the person afterwards, and make it clear that I shouldn't have talked to them in that way.
So anyway, let me know what your thoughts are on this...
There is one more thing I want to talk about... Does anyone remember Bradley Manning? I've talked about him a few times on here... anyway, in case anyone doesn't know, he's the man who released the Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks, and he was held in solitary confinement for a long time. He still hasn't been tried, but something great has happened... he has won the People's Choice Human Rights Award! Here is the statement released:
'We are proud to announce PFC Bradley Manning as this year’s People’s Choice Honoree. He received over 2900 votes.
It takes great courage to stand for what you know is right. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, joined the Army at age 19. Bradley is accused of leaking a video showing the killing of civilians, including two Reuters journalists, by a U.S. Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He’s also charged with sharing the documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables, with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Journalists have credited the release of these documents with helping to motivate the democratic revolution in Tunisia as well as the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Although Bradley has not yet been tried, he was held in solitary confinement for the first 10 months of his incarceration. If the military continues refusing to acknowledge Bradley as a whistleblower, he may become the first person in U.S. history to be convicted of “Aiding the enemy through indirect means,” a crime punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for telling the public the truth. Learn more about how to support Bradley at www.bradleymanning.org.'
I think that this is fantastic really! He's a world hero, at least in my opinion, and this will hopefully help him achieve the outcome he deserves!
This blog actually comes from a Facebook conversation I stumbled upon tonight. The conversation is about a YouTube video of police evicting people from a mansion in Bristol (the video is below if anyone wants a look.) We had a conversation about tactics the police use, and whether they are ever justifiable. There are so many videos out there showing police during different scenes, and there are so many points of view - some claim that the police need to be heavy-handed to enforce the law, keep people in control and gain respect, other people insist that the police are bullies who are violent for no reason, and nothing is ever done about it.
Personally I think that if the police are there to enforce the law they need to be shown respect - but you can't respect something that has nothing to be respected for. Being heavy-handed is inevitably going to be necessary sometimes when you are in that kind of job, but it goes over the limit far too much. Some people complain that the amount of physical and verbal aggression towards the police is appalling - and it may well be -, but I'm afraid that that works two ways. I don't recall having ever seen a video of physical and verbal aggression towards the police where the police haven't been physically and verbally aggressive back, and not just in self-defence either. Many times the police are confusing, unclear about the process (or don't know it themselves) and they try to make up for this by trying to intimidate people. The problem is that when they do this, this creates aggression. If you are in that kind of situation, it is psychologically very difficult to avoid losing your cool, and becoming aggressive yourself - and once that happens, the police have grounds to avoid any trouble if you try to complain - they can just claim it was self-defence. I think that people need to be trained in how to stay calm if that situation occurs, so the police have no reason to get violent - and the police need to show people that they are someone to be trusted by being the better person, not getting involved in shouting matches, and being clear what the situation is. You don't get respect by shouting loudly or by wearing a uniform with all your achievements on it, you earn respect by being a good person, and that's how it's done.
It's not just police that I think this about, and it wouldn't be fair just to mention the police. I did actually have a conversation about teachers with some friends a few weeks ago, after I made the controversial statement that it is never acceptable for a teacher to raise their voice at a pupil. We argued about it for a while, and we still don't agree. I know it's controversial, but I think that if a student - of any age - is being uncooperative, difficult, or even just plain wreaking havoc, you can move them, you can have a conversation with them and you can make them realise themselves, but the moment you raise your voice, that immediately lets your personal emotions take over, and I firmly believe that that never improves a situation. It is really unprofessional to let your emotions take over at work, and it stops you from being objective. In my life, I have lost respect for anyone who has ever raised their voice at me, because there are far, far better ways to sort the situation out. I'm not going to be really self-righteous and say I never raise my voice, because we all do occasionally - but on those occasions, I generally apologise to the person afterwards, and make it clear that I shouldn't have talked to them in that way.
So anyway, let me know what your thoughts are on this...
There is one more thing I want to talk about... Does anyone remember Bradley Manning? I've talked about him a few times on here... anyway, in case anyone doesn't know, he's the man who released the Collateral Murder video to WikiLeaks, and he was held in solitary confinement for a long time. He still hasn't been tried, but something great has happened... he has won the People's Choice Human Rights Award! Here is the statement released:
'We are proud to announce PFC Bradley Manning as this year’s People’s Choice Honoree. He received over 2900 votes.
It takes great courage to stand for what you know is right. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, joined the Army at age 19. Bradley is accused of leaking a video showing the killing of civilians, including two Reuters journalists, by a U.S. Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He’s also charged with sharing the documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables, with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Journalists have credited the release of these documents with helping to motivate the democratic revolution in Tunisia as well as the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Although Bradley has not yet been tried, he was held in solitary confinement for the first 10 months of his incarceration. If the military continues refusing to acknowledge Bradley as a whistleblower, he may become the first person in U.S. history to be convicted of “Aiding the enemy through indirect means,” a crime punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, for telling the public the truth. Learn more about how to support Bradley at www.bradleymanning.org.'
I think that this is fantastic really! He's a world hero, at least in my opinion, and this will hopefully help him achieve the outcome he deserves!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)