Black Lives Matter

[Globalgunner]

Training is just what they have to do to get a badge and carry a gun. it doesnt change who they are. It doesnt make them a better, more balanced person. i have seen it first hand, leaving the UK with my family who were all under 14 at the time. My son who was still in primary school kicked a sniffer dog who came up behind him. It degenerated to 3 cops pointing their guns at me after one of the cops threatened to beat him up. I of course was having none of that. They just go mad and think everyone is subject to their commands. A better breed of person needs to join the cops not these barely literate lowlifes who would otherwise be packing shelves at Walmart or Sainsburys.

I must say on that day the Beagle was the best trained representative of the Met force

[IBK]

Well that's what I said too, but not because of a historical injustice (or at least that's far from being the main reason). But because of ongoing policies deliberately engineered by a political party. Traditional black communities were very family oriented, despite slavery. Did that change because of slavery?

The historical injustice helped create an underclass. And in turn informed prevaling societal attitudes. But I repeat myself...

[Letters]

The historical injustice helped create an underclass. And in turn informed prevaling societal attitudes. But I repeat myself...

Right. This is how I see it.
I don’t think there is anything stopping black people getting ahead in the US.
But it’s much easier to get ahead in life if you grow up in an affluent, stable family.
And historic racist laws mean that black families tend to be poorer and that gives them an inherent disadvantage. And we aren’t talking about slavery or generations ago.
Segregation and zoning laws are in living memory.

[Xhaka Can’t]

[Letters]

If I wanted this when I was a kid I had to fart in the tub!

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56989757

[Ollie the Optimist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56989757

The article mentions a Juror attended a protest in august and then when asked by the defence team if they ever attended a protest etc said no.

I’m assuming at hte time, no one knew that he did otherwise I suspect it would have been raised in court.

While not being an expert at all on US Jury law, if you lie in the court about something like that i suspect it could lead to a retrial etc (& possible contempt of court for the juror) but otherwise its hard to see how the defence team can succeed in any appeal.


I dont think in this country we allow jurors to go and be interviewed about hte case afterwards but i dont like the idea of jurors doing that as mentioned in the article. It means they might start seeing high profile cases as their platform to get media attention etc and that is a bad idea

[Letters]

I don't know how he could really get a fair trial.
Everyone has seen "the video". Everyone has seen the protests and the general hoo-har.
To weigh the evidence impartially against that backdrop - and knowing the consequences of acquitting him, it's hard to think any jury could be unaffected by all that.

[Ollie the Optimist]

That’s a good point but you would hope that many would be able to listen to the evidence and try to be impartial. With a story like this, its hard to have not heard of it. It’ll be similar here if the police officer charged with Sarah Everard murder goes on trial. Most will have heard about it.

I think though if you have attended protests and appear on TV straight after, its very fair to question just how impartial you are.

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57242348

A strong sense?!

What the hell does that mean?