Police face racism scandal after black man records abuse

[AJS-]

mrmr96][devils advocate said:

It could be the case that the suspect was using the N word repeatedly. Things like "You cops always pick on us N*****s", implying that "N******s" would be a word for people who want to show they are badly treated by the police and who play the 'victim' or 'race card'. The police officer then responds to this 'playing the victim' by using the phrase "You'll always be a N*****" to mean that this person will always want to play the victim. And the officer is only repeating the N word which had already been used multiple times by the suspect. This would explain the gaps in the recording (the baiting/victim playing/suspect himself using the N word) and also the response that the officer then falls back to which is "Don't hide behind your skin colour", another possible reference to playing the victime.[/devils advocate]

We all know that the officers use of the word is unacceptable, but in the above I've tried to explain a potential scenario where it could have come up as a direct response to baiting. I'm not putting this forward as my belief of what happened, or even the most likely version, but simply 'a version' of what 'might' have happened.

I think that's very likely given what we've heard so far, which is why I would much rather any investigation focuses on the meaning of what was said, rather than the one inflammatory word.

Unfortunately the efforts of the political correctness lobby have been so successful that this can not possibly be the case and whatever the circumstances and the build up it is quite simply impossible not to sack the officer in question for using that word.

The sad upshot of this is that it won't tackle the attitudes or the negative perceptions, it will just make racist police officers more careful about how they use certain words in future.

[DonkeyApple]

It's a word that has emotion as well as myriad uses.

However, one thing is clear and that is that is is a bloody stupid word for a person in authority to ever use and one which only the most retarded would condone in such a situation.

There are more than enough excellent words in the English language to throw at a st. In fact there is such a plethora that there is never a need to resort to using any of the 'identifiers'.

[paddyhasneeds]

AJS- said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I don't think those examples are comparable tbh.

I'm not the politically correct sort at all, but you just can't call someone a and then say "Terribly sorry, heat of the moment" and forget about it.

Why not? It's just a word that is negatively descriptive of a certain group of people.

Not pleasant, but not the same as a considered negative perception of a group of people that informs the behaviour and decisions as a policeman. No problem with him holding those opinions in private, but expressing them in the course of his duty as a policeman is not acceptable. An outburst of anger giving rise to them is not acceptable either, but more forgivable.

However much we might debate the cold hard logic that "it's just words" the context that words are used in makes a difference to the meaning behind them - saying that "I know this black guy and he thinks..." is entirely different to saying that "I know this black prick and he thinks..." as it shows there is an underlying attitude and belief IMO.

Let's say you got into an argument with a work colleague who happened to be black. Would you fancy explaining to HR that it was perfectly acceptable to call him a "black " because you were a bit angry, you were just being factual, you didn't mean anything by it, and you think he should forget about it and move on if you apologise to him?

[AJS-]

paddyhasneeds said:

However much we might debate the cold hard logic that "it's just words" the context that words are used in makes a difference to the meaning behind them - saying that "I know this black guy and he thinks..." is entirely different to saying that "I know this black prick and he thinks..." as it shows there is an underlying attitude and belief IMO.

Let's say you got into an argument with a work colleague who happened to be black. Would you fancy explaining to HR that it was perfectly acceptable to call him a "black " because you were a bit angry, you were just being factual, you didn't mean anything by it, and you think he should forget about it and move on if you apologise to him?

In the current climate, no I would not. I think it's sad however that a word becomes so charged and emotive. If you don't refer to the cold hard logic of it, you will forever be chasing blind alleys of offensive behaviour. Without reference to some objective standards then you can not effectively set boundaries in any walk of life. Never mind one as inherently complex and imperfect as law enforcement.

So we're left with an impossible middle ground where a single word becomes the objective standard, and nearly everyone agrees that it's very utterance is grounds for dismissal, yet the underlying attitude of the officer and the complicity of his colleagues are a mere side issue.

This sound clip is a prime example of this awkward halfway house. We are invited to condemn this officer for his use of a single word (over stepping an objective standard) without even putting it in the context of the full conversation, let alone the officers recent experience during the riots, or his accumulated years of dialogue with blackc youths in Newham.

[Mr Whippy]

It's a sad state of affairs when criminals just play the system.

Someone who goes around looting and smashing things up is now seen as the victim because he was called a name


It's such a shame that some police can't just keep their mouths shut, they are just falling straight into these peoples hands... these people who play society for the idiots we all seem to be. Letting them play the racist card and us all suddenly ignore the fact they are dangerous people!


Dave

[AJS-]

Except there isn't any implication that he was rioting.

[Use Psychology]

Mr Whippy said:

Someone who goes around looting and smashing things up is now seen as the victim because he was called a name

not sure there was any information about the victim looting or not. I only read that he was stopped in connection with a motoring offence (arrested for driving under the influence of drugs) during the riots.

It is also, or course, perfectly possible for criminals to be victims of crime or indeed police abuse - the notion that this cannot happen is nonsense.

personally i don't care who the police are rude to, I think they have a duty to be respectful and polite to everyone they deal with - even criminals, who should get at least the level of politeness and respect they deserve, even if this falls below what a MOP should receive. Nobody should have their race used as an insult, or a topic for discussion, by the police, no matter what the situation. It's completely irrelevant to any action that a person may have made.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Use Psychology said:

not sure there was any information about the victim looting or not. I only read that he was stopped in connection with a motoring offence (arrested for driving under the influence of drugs) during the riots.

It is also, or course, perfectly possible for criminals to be victims of crime or indeed police abuse - the notion that this cannot happen is nonsense.

personally i don't care who the police are rude to, I think they have a duty to be respectful and polite to everyone they deal with - even criminals, who should get at least the level of politeness and respect they deserve, even if this falls below what a MOP should receive. Nobody should have their race used as an insult, or a topic for discussion, by the police, no matter what the situation. It's completely irrelevant to any action that a person may have made.

Mostly agree with your first point. Absolutely your second.

Someone's race has no relation to whether or not they are a criminal a tosser or wker.

The officer failed in his duty by mentioning it.

My only caveat ( because of the whole strange way it's all said) will be what matey boy is saying as what the officer says is so strange. He uses the n word but in a really odd term of reference. Part of me cannot help but feel there may be more context that could change. However he must be thick as you just don't use that n word as a cop.

As rightly pointed out the connotations are emotive and hurtful its probably about the most racist term you could use.

I always start and remain polite as best I can. Treat people how I'd like my mum to be treated. That way I can always escalate. It's very hard to come down. Plus you are above reproach if you behave professionally in the face of adversity ( although as said earlier there have been times when choice language has popped up).

[Halb]

Read the thread, listened to the clip.
Certainly wasn't the clip I was expecting after reading the above.
Thoughts.
The policeman says, 'be proud of your race', 'don't hide behind your colour' and 'you'll always be a .' It sounds to me like the cop isn't racist and is not referencing black people by the pejorative term but a certain kind of people. I will make a complete leap of guesswork and think 'people who play up to that gansta trope.' (some are not even black). I might be wrong but it seems logical. In the same way that Starkey did a few months ago.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

My only caveat ( because of the whole strange way it's all said) will be what matey boy is saying as what the officer says is so strange. He uses the n word but in a really odd term of reference. Part of me cannot help but feel there may be more context that could change. However he must be thick as you just don't use that n word as a cop.

It is strange. And not confrontational as the report or above posts make it sound. In comparison the person being detained sounds like a tt.
I would love to hear the complete dialogue. Probably not going to happen.


As I type this it's on C4 news!
'I felt humiliated and it was the worst experience of my life to be honest'....hmmm, I am finding I don't really believe him....

[Murph7355]

Just heard this played on the Channel4 news...absolutely and 100% there is major context being lost in what was being played back.

With hindsight the officer probably regrets the use of the word, but I'd bet large sums that if the full exchange were replayed it would be thoroughly understandable why he said what he did and that the only racist angle comes from the guy recording the conversation.

As for the "victim's" angelic stance during the interview...sounded very different to the kick off attitude being demonstrated on the phone recording. I wonder if he'd have spent more than 30sec being talked to by the police had he been so demure at the time. It sounds to me very much like he's angling after a pay off - let's see how long it takes for a compensation claim to be lodged.

[hairykrishna]

Halb said:

Read the thread, listened to the clip.
Certainly wasn't the clip I was expecting after reading the above.
Thoughts.
The policeman says, 'be proud of your race', 'don't hide behind your colour' and 'you'll always be a .' It sounds to me like the cop isn't racist and is not referencing black people by the pejorative term but a certain kind of people. I will make a complete leap of guesswork and think 'people who play up to that gansta trope.' (some are not even black). I might be wrong but it seems logical. In the same way that Starkey did a few months ago.

I agree. I wasn't being entirely facetious when I suggested the Chris Rock routine earlier. His whole bit is about 'black people vs s' and from the tone of the coppers voice I wouldn't be surprised if he was saying something similar. Stupid thing to say while in uniform though regardless of what he actually meant or his views on race.

[mrmr96]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

you just don't use that n word as a cop.

You could see why it might be used if the suspect had been repeatedly using the N word repeatedly with reference to himself, with the officer finally agreeing.

[AJS-]

Murph7355 said:

Just heard this played on the Channel4 news...absolutely and 100% there is major context being lost in what was being played back.

With hindsight the officer probably regrets the use of the word, but I'd bet large sums that if the full exchange were replayed it would be thoroughly understandable why he said what he did and that the only racist angle comes from the guy recording the conversation.

As for the "victim's" angelic stance during the interview...sounded very different to the kick off attitude being demonstrated on the phone recording. I wonder if he'd have spent more than 30sec being talked to by the police had he been so demure at the time. It sounds to me very much like he's angling after a pay off - let's see how long it takes for a compensation claim to be lodged.

Compensation is so last year.
He's angling for celebrity status. Or at least some "helpful" journalist is.

[Mojooo]

mrmr96 said:

You could see why it might be used if the suspect had been repeatedly using the N word repeatedly with reference to himself, with the officer finally agreeing.

A professional wouldn't.

Even if he has, you could clearly tell from his tone it was somewhat sinister.

Policemen should go around 100% of the time assuming they are being filmed when in public.

[AJS-]

Mojooo said:

A professional wouldn't.

Even if he has, you could clearly tell from his tone it was somewhat sinister.

Policemen should go around 100% of the time assuming they are being filmed when in public.

And keep their racist views in private.

Britain is stuck in a 12 year old way of thinking about race.

The words don't matter, the intent does. I can say as often as I like and it doesn't make me racist. I can be as nice as pie to my black colleague, while privately thinking he is a worthless and dealing with him accordingly, and I will be doing genuine damage to the world by my racism.

[Ayahuasca]

Do we know the race of the police officer?

Would it make a difference if it turned out he was black too?

After all, it is not offensive for black people to use the word. Example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

[Mojooo]

Yes we know black people can use that word, get over it.

Any race can use it amongst their friends when its clearly said in jest and is not meant in a specific way.

That is not the issue here so those points are irrelevant.

[Marquis Rex]

Deva Link said:

AJS- said:

The implication that he'll "always be a " and therefore somehow inferior and less deserving of fair treatment is far worse.

..but is that any worse than saying a white person will always be chav, or lowlife scum, or whatever?

Yes very different because being a chav is a lifestyle choice and is defined by behavioural traits, being of African herritage- well you're born with that and shouldnt be prejudged by that. The cops here obviously did- which I find abhorrent

[billzeebub]

Halb said:

Read the thread, listened to the clip.
Certainly wasn't the clip I was expecting after reading the above.
Thoughts.
The policeman says, 'be proud of your race', 'don't hide behind your colour' and 'you'll always be a .' It sounds to me like the cop isn't racist and is not referencing black people by the pejorative term but a certain kind of people. I will make a complete leap of guesswork and think 'people who play up to that gansta trope.' (some are not even black). I might be wrong but it seems logical. In the same way that Starkey did a few months ago.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

My only caveat ( because of the whole strange way it's all said) will be what matey boy is saying as what the officer says is so strange. He uses the n word but in a really odd term of reference. Part of me cannot help but feel there may be more context that could change. However he must be thick as you just don't use that n word as a cop.

It is strange. And not confrontational as the report or above posts make it sound. In comparison the person being detained sounds like a tt.
I would love to hear the complete dialogue. Probably not going to happen.


As I type this it's on C4 news!
'I felt humiliated and it was the worst experience of my life to be honest'....hmmm, I am finding I don't really believe him....

I was very much thinking along these lines. I would be interested to hear this 'humiliatred' chap when he isn't aware he is being recorded for posterity. I rarher suspect that he may be the kind of person that 99.9% of the whole populatuion would find odious and actually that he is the racist one. Whilst I think I understand what the Policeman may have been trying to say, his choice of language to say it was at best highly unfortunate, even if you can speculate on the worst 'unrecorded/edited' provocation from the meek wronged innocent..

[Murph7355]

Marquis Rex said:

Yes very different because being a chav is a lifestyle choice and is defined by behavioural traits, being of African herritage- well you're born with that and shouldnt be prejudged by that. The cops here obviously did- which I find abhorrent

Obvious to who? I certainly didn't read what you are into that clip - it sounded much more to me like the officer was replaying something that the person being questioned had used. My guess would be that the guy being questioned had used it frequently enough in the pre-recording discussion that the officer decided to effectively tell him to quit playing the victim card. Unwise? Probably. Racist? Not from what we've seen/heard to date and the CPS' original decision was right. Waste of taxpayer's money looking at it more if that's all there is (and the clip is already so selective that if there was something "better" I cannot believe it hasn't been trotted out).

As for lifestyle choices, my understanding of the word in question is that it is often used to denote something not dissimilar.