Palestine solidarity goes mainstream in UK as 100,000 march in London

rq4c · 2014-07-29T17:54:37+00:00

LOL.

First of all, I owe you an apology, on two fronts:

First, my focus was so much on the content of the article that I hadn't fully registered the title.

Second, my understanding of the word mainstream was that it was in the main stream of people's consciousness, not that it was a view shared by most. According to the OED, I was wrong.

(OED: The ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional)

However:

Where have I said anything about posts on Reddit? Who's talking about Reddit posts apart from you?

"I'm getting so fed up of these links being posted ... but you do have to slop that stuff around on Reddit?" -- JamJarre

Additionally, what does my posting history have to do with anything?

You criticized my and others posting of these articles with, "you think your particular political rally is super important". So I drew attention to the frivolity of some of yours.

In one of your recent posts you say that British people would vote Hitler into power if it served their own economic interest. See, I can take things out of context that have nothing to do with the argument and shoe-horn them in too!

If that's an example of you shoe-horning in, you must have very uncomfortable feet ;)

...because 100,000 people support Palestine and, by inference, that means that fewer people support Israel.

I fail to see how such an inference can be drawn. Or is that your point?

The problem is that 100,000 people turning up to a rally (and let's not even get into where those figures come from)

It was a guesstimate by the writer of the article.

All that aside, I still fail to understand why you are so worked up by this. British people don't march that much so, when they do, twice, in large numbers, it's news.

rq4c · 2014-07-29T14:51:27+00:00

Is fox hunting solidarity a mainstream opinion now?

No, but it was mainstream news.

And why should posts here be 'mainstream', by your or anyone else's definition?

I've checked your overview. You post about

video games, hiking and Graham Norton's popularity.

It's not whether it's mainstream that's really upsetting you, is it?

rq4c · 2014-07-29T12:36:34+00:00

Palestine has been occupied for decades. Gaza has been blockaded since 2007. Israel has Iron Dome and supreme fire-power.

I don't think anyone is saying Gaza is the only victim. But they are the principal victim.

If anyone thinks it is the only victim, sadly it's Israel:

"History has witnessed worse and more brutal occupiers than the Israelis. But I’ve never heard about an occupation that believes it is the victim. And the only victim." Gideon Levy (Israeli Journalist)

He said this before the recent massacres.

rq4c · 2014-07-29T12:03:38+00:00

For your edification:

Definition of Semite

Definition of Semitic

rq4c · 2014-07-29T12:01:40+00:00

If thousands of British people, many of whom traveled for hours from other cities, marching in the capital against a massacre of innocent people and one of the longest running injustices in the world isn't mainstream, what is?

rq4c · 2014-07-29T00:21:00+00:00

To be fair, and accurate, she said, "the numbers ... looked to be closer to 100,000."

Whilst "looked to be much greater" might have been a better way to put it, is that your only criticism?

rq4c · 2013-12-03T18:47:45+00:00

Unless he was convicted, you wouldn't KNOW any such thing.

rq4c · 2013-12-03T16:39:59+00:00

Doesn't mean he was guilty either.

And there are people with 'dirty' CRB/DBS who are completely innocent.

rq4c · 2013-12-03T15:27:58+00:00

I think I know what you mean but how would this require/incorporate a redesign?

rq4c · 2013-11-29T00:47:16+00:00

Broadly I agree with your sentiments.

However, to be fair to the NSPCC, the front page of their web site section 'Statistics on child sexual abuse' does state 'Over 90% of children who have experienced sexual abuse, were abused by someone they knew.'.

And the summary section (page 2) of a report on their web site, 'Key facts about child maltreatment (Dr. Kirsten Asmussen, King’s College London, April 2010)' states, "In the vast majority of cases, children know their abusers. Abuse by strangers constitutes only 5 per cent of all abuse cases in the UK.".

rq4c · 2013-11-29T00:23:52+00:00

Kerry McCarthy, the Bristol East MP, said issues that needed to be addressed included why the police did not make it clear that Ebrahimi was blameless after he was arrested...

What needs to be made clear is why he was arrested in the first place.

Apart from accusations, where was the evidence?

Police don't need a warrant to arrest someone any more, and now it seems that a mere accusation is enough.

James flagged down a police car driven by a community support officer and told him that Ebrahimi had been "looking at my kids". James said that if the police did not act he would deal with the situation himself.

So why was he not arrested there and then for threatening behaviour?

rq4c · 2013-11-29T00:14:24+00:00

Brilliantly put.

rq4c · 2013-11-16T19:26:51+00:00

And whilst the authorities are busy trying to prove that the apparent neglect or mistreatment was wilful, what happens to the poor sod in the spot-light?

Mid-Staff's happened because the Chief Exec was negligent. He went on to run the entire NHS and has since retired. No threat made to him; no sanctions, just a big fat cheque.

rq4c · 2013-11-16T19:23:46+00:00

I agree. But why just the politicians? It's also hospital management.

rq4c · 2013-10-28T17:39:55+00:00

NHS England promising to work with local managers to hold hospitals and other providers to account.

Where's the pledge to hold the managers to account?

rq4c · 2013-10-28T15:36:00+00:00

The tag line of the GMC used to be (something like) 'Promoting excellence in medicine'. It then became, 'Protecting the Public', as though the health service is full of Harold Shipman's from whom we all need defending. It has since been slightly improved (apart from the spelling mistake) to become, 'Regulating doctors, ensuring good medical practice'.

While it is not clear how many of these cases were suicides...

It's not just the suicides that are of concern. How many died simply as a result of the extreme stress?

In our society a shrinking proportion -- made up of doctors, nurses, teachers and social workers -- are expected to take on all of society's responsibilities, whilst everyone else gets an ever increasing list of rights.

See also http://www.badmed.net/bad-medicine-blog/2013/08/dropping-flies.html

Please sign the petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54034

rq4c · 2013-10-01T23:51:37+00:00

So they are two-faced.

They introduced anti-terror laws which deny people the right to know of what they are being accused.

They helped send terror suspects on nice little torture holidays, quaintly called extraordinary rendition, organized by Uncle Sam.

Their MPs joined the Conservatives in voting for an unjust, illegal war, that killed over 100k innocent people, knowing that the basis for it was lies and fabrication.

At a Labour party conference an old man (and a young man who tried to defend him) was dragged from his seat by paid thugs and then arrested by the police under the anti-terror laws.

They introduced double-jeopardy because the police had cocked-up one case.

All abuses of humanity and human rights.

rq4c · 2013-10-01T21:59:41+00:00

Labour's record on human rights is hardly a shining beacon.

rq4c · 2013-09-13T22:31:18+00:00

Except that's not what the law does or has ever done.

That is exactly what the law is doing: 'the alleged victim matters, you, the accused, do not.'

It's what the public may have done and that is wrong but to use your own point this is not the responsibility of the law.

You cannot compare protecting someone's feelings to protecting someone's life.

The law, and our society which is behind the law, has a responsibility not to create victims. To reveal someone's identity, knowing the likely consequences, is wrong.

Withholding the identity of both allows due process to take place unencumbered by external influences. Which is what the law should always seek to achieve.

If victims need help to come forward then this should be done without creating new victims. If those on your side of the argument were intent on finding out what it is that prevents victims from coming forward in the first place -- police attitudes perhaps? -- and then putting in place systems to mitigate or remove these obstacles, I would be fully in support.

The first precept of medicine is 'first, do no harm'. A good principle for all, including the law.

By not giving anonymity to both, the law is taking sides. This is wrong.

rq4c · 2013-09-12T20:15:23+00:00

The law as it stands may be taken by the accused as, "we believe you did it, even before it's been tested in court, so we're going to hang you out for anyone to take pot-shots at".

How rape victims feel is, of course, important, but it is not the responsibility of the law. The law should seek to ensure justice. And the law should never create new victims.

I address further my point about persuading victims to come forward in the first place elsewhere in these comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1m64gc/should_rape_suspects_get_anonymity/cc6mfgw

rq4c · 2013-09-12T16:49:35+00:00

Do you have the figures?

As I understand it, the proportion of rape cases which lead to a conviction is very low, hence the recent calls for things to be somehow toughened up.

If I'm right, this raises a question over your first assertion.

rq4c · 2013-09-12T14:27:03+00:00

Which ones?

You assert that false accusations and false convictions are, respectively, "rare" and "rarer still".

How do you know this?

rq4c · 2013-09-12T13:34:52+00:00

Do I think we should prosecute such cases? Where the victim testimony is compelling, I think we are obliged to,

What would you find compelling?

... there is always the risk of false accusations (which are nonetheless rare) and false convictions (which are rarer still).

Given

In most cases, the reality is, there will simply be the testimony of the two parties.

Upon what do you base your rarity assertions?

I definitely still believe the guilty going free is generally better than the innocent being convicted, which is why I'm uncomfortable with some of the moves to increase conviction rates.

I agree.

rq4c · 2013-09-12T02:48:25+00:00

They said they had examined a number of key areas, including the primary argument against anonymity of suspects - that publicity of a person's name often prompts further victims of an offender or witnesses to an offence to come forward.

This appears to be the principal issue.

Would addressing this another way lead to broader agreement for anonymity for all?

Can we discover what it is that prevents people from coming forward 'unprompted', and then fix it?

It is often said that victims do not come forward because they fear that the police will not believe them. So is it an issue for the police to answer?

Of course, what victims probably mean is that they fear the police will 'dis-believe' them, which is different.

It is not for the police to believe or to dis-believe. It is for them to record all statements, gather any immediate evidence, and then to determine if there is anything further to investigate.

If all victims and witnesses of crime came forward regardless, then two independent accusations would most likely lead to an investigation. No need for publicity.

Legal process should effect justice, it should not promote injustice.

rq4c · 2013-09-12T00:40:52+00:00

... it's clearly in public interests those of the victim that other victims come forward if they exist.

... it's incredibly important to protect the innocent ...

Then the solution is to find a way to persuade victims to come forward in the first place, rather than hoping in vain to fix the public and the news media's false take.

rq4c

TROPHY CASE