hypochondriac

TBF I didn't say it was, simply that the level of hostility shown by the group was similar and I expect comes from the same sort of place. I take your point though.

Blimey. Boris should be worried, keir doing exactly the right thing.

Not sure I mentioned race? There's different races involved on both sides although clearly its largely divided along racial lines. I look forward to hearing about the harsh sentences dished out, though given the disparity in the media coverage and on social media, it seems unlikely I'd get to hear about it in quite the same way even if it does happen. With regards to Brixton specifically, there's clearly a level of hostility that's been whipped up, partly due to social media, partly due to the current climate but also because of the media and the way they have behaved during all this. No police officer deserves to get chased out of an area or their vehicles smashed up for doing their job.

We started seven years ago with the goal of helping men and then it evolved into what we do now after seeing where we were needed. The main obstacle was gaining the trust of the social workers who are very reluctant to advise people on the to seek help from other people. It's a lot better now and we routinely get referrals but it's only a small operation but it's good to know you're making a tangible difference when people literally say that the charity saved their life. I disagree that there's not an issue with gender. Public sympathy and thus support is massively weighted towards women. It's very rare to see many advocates for the rights of men at all (in fact we were the only group that many had seen and they had been doing it for decades.) and a lot for women by comparison. I have been disheartened when we've tried to build partnerships with female advocacy groups in the best interests of child welfare how hostile and unfriendly most of them have been. I don't know if that's a Hampshire problem or if it's more widespread but it seems to me that some of these groups have a man hating problem and are suspicious of people advocating for a group that they don't like.

Well at least on that point you can see what I meant by unfairness with regards to parental rights.

Fair enough and that's a good post. I think the legal system is stacked against young, uneducated fathers from poor backgrounds especially. I've seen too many cases where mothers hellbent on a squabble with their former partner have been coached by their representative or legal advisor about what to say and do to get their desired outcome. I'm not talking about more clearcut cases of abuse or times when they have clearly shown themselves to be unfit parents. I'm not directly responsible for securing visitation rights myself but indirectly we have secured better relationships for young fathers in Hampshire with their children, which in turn has saved the local authorities millions, created better long term outcomes for children and prevented a number of suicides in the process which is very satisfying. Imo it's undeniable that some fathers are denied contact with their children or treated harshly by the courts because they are either incapable or unwilling to play the system properly to have a fair outcome. Many of these fathers are unable to express themselves proficiently and some have a questionable history due to their own failed upbringing but without question they love their children and it is in the best interests of the children to have their father in their lives in some form. There seems little understanding in the court system for things such as allowance for mental health issues which may cause problems and often it's very black and white. If any parent misses a court date or an appointment because they've had a panic attack or a breakdown of some kind or they have a poor grasp of finances and little assistance outside of charities in the form of someone who can do a proper family shop for them that's very rarely because they've put their own needs or feelings above their children's. Yet in the eyes of the court these instances often count as a black mark against the father in particular. Judges have their own biases of course and although it's a slightly different thing, child protection conferences and family courts can often come down to which social worker makes the most persuasive case for a particular course of action (though I don't particularly blame social workers as they are hugely overworked as it is.) There have definitely been times that without advocates from charitable organisations, fathers would not have secured the access that they ended up getting and many examples exist of men who have fallen through the cracks who have ended up dead as a consequence. How is that a fair system? This is also by the way why it makes me smile when I get accused by the usual empty vessels on here of not having any empathy.

If I understand it correctly, the argument of those more sympathetic to white lives matter is that there is a double standard and what appears to be a two tier system of treatment. So a white working class lad rattles a fence at the football, joins a demonstration or puts up a poster saying its OK to be white or that white lives matter and they are met with riot police, slung in prison, prosecuted for hate speech, lose their jobs and widely condemned as nazis and far right agitators (some would say quite rightly). Then in the black lives matter movement there appears to be a rather insidious element that daubs offensive racist slogans on walls and statues, picks fights with police, smashes up cars, writes that white lives don't matter on social media etc and they are actively protected by their employer, by the mayor of London, the police tactics are wildly different and almost subservient, actions are either downplayed or largely absent in the media and the repercussions appear to be much less severe for this group which as I said appear to be a smaller subset within the larger movement itself. Now I could have that wrong but that seems to be the argument advanced by these people. It does seem to me to be a bit counterproductive therefore to go apoplectic at the phrase "white lives matter" or that it's OK to be white. As someone else has already said, a far more powerful and effective response would be to either agree with the idea that we want equality for everyone regardless of their skin colour or to ignore provocative actions from people who want to try to provoke a reaction because otherwise it just supports this idea of a double standard of treatment in society based on race and ideas.

Wasn't it really obvious that when it came to it both sides would come together and cobble some sort of deal together?

Be fair. Flying a plane over a stadium with white lives matter on it is definitely more deserving of losing your job and public vilification. Who cares about a couple of police cars?

I'm sorry but there's no point engaging you in that subject if that's your stance. Go and do some research about young fathers in particular and how the family court system works and how genuinely loving fathers who have never done anything wrong have been denied any access to their children. Those who are less well educated especially are helpless in the face of the system without proper representation and some mothers who want to weaponise the children against their father. Many have been driven to suicide. I think you'd probably have a different perspective if you've been at court hearings or provided social workers to some of these desperate individuals or had to talk people out of self harm because they haven't been able to see their children in months. I expect you won't listen to this reply though and will just keep going on about a lack of empathy and how the court system is entirely fair.

Interesting.

Yep. There are very specific issues that cops have to deal with and as someone who lives there pointed out recently, the problems are largely to do with the guns. I wouldn't want to do the job!

That's your definition but I can assure you that the definition varies wildly depending on who you ask. If we are to use your definition though then I don't believe we live in a patriarchal system at all. Men historically have been called up to fight and die if we went into a war, have higher prison sentences for the same crimes, are often harshly treated by the family court system, see chronic underfunding for things like testicular cancer in comparison to breast cancer which predominantly affects women etc etc. I say these things not to moan at the system in particular but to challenge the idea that women are systematically discriminated against by our society. Both sexes have a degree of discrimination and prejudice to overcome.

Without you offering a definition of what you mean by "right wing" your descriptions are meaningless I'm afraid.

I thought fitness wise we looked great last week. Definitely will help us tomorrow I reckon.

There you go again ascribing things to me that I haven't said. I think that white supremacist thinking very obviously has existed and still exists in a small minority of people. I think the idea that Britain is a white supremacist country and that all institutions and the vast majority of white people are systemically racist is complete nonsense. I think the term patriarchy is invented and goes by a different definition depending on who you ask. It's deliberately vague so that it can be twisted to suit the need sof whoever is using it at the time. I can definitely support arguments to make sensible adjustments to our economic system in order to make it fairer and improve things but that isn't the same as destroying the capitalist system which is insane, I think there are issues on both sides of the gender divide which could do with being sorted (see well known left winger jk Rowling and the abuse she has received lately and things like parental rights for fathers which I'm very passionate about and I'm a chair of a charity which seeks to tackle that particular injustice.) and undoubtedly race relations could be improved, just not by dividing everyone down racial lines and judging people because of their skin colour. So the answer is no I don't want to just keep the status quo and I don't believe any of those viewpoints are particularly "right wing".

He may have signed some sort of behaviour or conduct policy which would cover his actions outside of work too.

Think I already mentioned the demands from what I could see were to defund the police and replace it with some sort of community-led initiative. The details unfortunately were not forthcoming in the three articles I read beyond the puzzling description and I didn't have much of a desire to hunt further than that so happy for you to enlighten me.

Because whilst flawed, there's not been a better system invented than capitalism and there's numerous studies which tout the benefits of the traditional family unit for all sorts of outcomes. Seeing as you asked that wasn't the only things in their list that I happen to disagree with, the notions of patriarchy and white supremacy are also nebulous and ridiculous. Whilst we speak, Chaz- the Capital Hill autonomous zone currently not being policed has seen its fourth shooting in just a couple of weeks so its quite plain what removing the police force would lead to.

Like what?

Don't get me wrong, I would rather people weren't sacked for things like this but everyone knows that in the current climate there's going to be social media warriors out for your job.

I don't think he can have many complaints. He must have known the score when he did it.

Please find the post where I've said the bloke flying the plane over was a good idea? I think you'll find I've said the opposite.

I see your post is choc full of that fabled empathy you were banging on about. You're so virtuous.

Could there be other reasons for a higher black prison population do you think beyond simply discrimination and racism?