Can the (Met) police ever change?

[newfhouse]

So instead of 74 officers being in some injured at the festival, it turns out the actual number is an agreed 60, that were reported. Blimey, well that is ok then. Of those 60 it seems, from the document 39 of them were in some way assaulted/struck by other people or vehicles.

Is Gemma Abbot seriously saying that going to work and seeing 39 of your colleagues to be injured in the course of that work is less important than getting the paperwork correct?

The vast majority of the sixty were "minor, non-reportable" incidents and not necessarily crime related. One officer appears to have been injured by his own body armour. Oh, the humanity.

Nobody should go to work and nonchalantly accept injury but the actual breakdown paints a significantly different picture to the ones in the press releases, no? Why might that be?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

And that's me as a 'well spoken' middle aged white woman - the 'sort' usually fairly immune to harassment by the police ...

Ah, well you seem to have inadvertently fallen right in to the demographic of the Stop Oil protester!

Hope you stayed well and didn't hassled further.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Nobody should go to work and nonchalantly accept injury

Shouldn't that be no-one should go to work and accept being injured? With the possible exception of soldiers on the front line? Or don't the Police count?

but the actual breakdown paints a significantly different picture to the ones in the press releases, no? Why might that be?

Typical union misinformation?

 

[newfhouse]

Or don't the Police count?

I said ‘nobody’ so that’s an odd question.

Typical union misinformation?

In this case the employer agreed with the union until pressed for details so I suspect something else is going on here.

 

[mudsticks]

Ah, well you seem to have inadvertently fallen right in to the demographic of the Stop Oil protester!

View attachment 2294

Hope you stayed well and didn't hassled further.

And you seem 'inadvertently' to have missed the point of my post, regarding contract of trust, and policing by consent.

It's ok don't bother to reply, I'm perfectly aware of your intentionally diversionary tactic.

 

[Rusty Nails]

And you seem 'inadvertently' to have missed the point of my post, regarding contract of trust, and policing by consent.

It's ok don't bother to reply, I'm perfectly aware of your intentionally diversionary tactic.

So is everyone else. It's so predictable it's got to the stage it's laughable.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

And you seem 'inadvertently' to have missed the point of my post, regarding contract of trust, and policing by consent.

It's ok don't bother to reply, I'm perfectly aware of your intentionally diversionary tactic.

I won't then.

It will save you effort of writing an 83 sentence reply.

 

[mudsticks]

So is everyone else. It's so predictable it's got to the stage it's laughable.

I know, that's why I don't usually bother..

But hey, what about some woman who has direct interest in, and experience of all this, daring to have opinions and expressing them,??

Should really be told to pipe down with all her opinions right??

People go on about the left* / right imbalance on here .

But nobody seems in the slightest bit bothered at the paucity of female input.
Theres what about two and a half of us,
on here who openly identify as women.
Maybe?

Could this in anyway be related to the seriousness or respect with which
their concerns are treated?

*And no surprise really as conservatives (big or small c) are quite happy with a status quo that generally suits them.

Talk of 'change' or 'progress' is anathema to those sorts.

 

[Rusty Nails]

But nobody seems in the slightest bit bothered at the paucity of female input.

Is it any different to the ratio on the mother ship?

Or for any other nerdy forums (other than the fairly obvious Mumsnet)?

It really would take a PhD thesis to work out the actual reasons, but from a quick Google it would seem that this forum is not untypical and the reasons may not be due just to the attitudes on this forum.

 

[mudsticks]

Is it any different to the ratio on the mother ship?

Or for any other nerdy forums (other than the fairly obvious Mumsnet)?

It really would take a PhD thesis to work out the actual reasons, but from a quick Google it would seem that this forum is not untypical and the reasons may not be due just to the attitudes on this forum.

I dunno, as to ratios elsewhere..

Is political discussion 'nerdy'?
Or is politics something that affects all of us, needing engagement by all groups if it's to be done well.

There may be many intersecting reasons why relatively few women partake.

The prevalence of entrenched sexist attitudes being just one.. I really don't think years of academic study would be necessary to find out the answers.. Many of them are glaringly obvious.
One could even, just ask some real live women.

But yeah, then, having asked one might be forced to listen to the answers.
And even then - yikes and gadzooks - actually take some action to do something to make things more balanced.

Or else admit that really, taking action to do something about gender equality, isn't really that important.

Anyway..
Here comes my bus...

 

[BoldonLad]

I dunno, as to ratios elsewhere..

Is political discussion 'nerdy'?
Or is politics something that affects all of us, needing engagement by all groups if it's to be done well.

There may be many intersecting reasons why relatively few women partake.

The prevalence of entrenched sexist attitudes being just one.. I really don't think years of academic study would be necessary to find out the answers.. Many of them are glaringly obvious.
One could even, just ask some real live women.

But yeah, then, having asked one might be forced to listen to the answers.
And even then - yikes and gadzooks - actually take some action to do something to make things more balanced.

Or else admit that really, taking action to do something about gender equality, isn't really that important.

Anyway..
Here comes my bus...

“Glaringly obvious”? Without a link to evidence, oh dear, oh dear.

 

[mudsticks]

“Glaringly obvious”? Without a link to evidence, oh dear, oh dear.

Glaringly obvious to most women ..

You'll pass it off as 'just everyday banter' even if you notice it at all.
Or supposedly 'earthy humour' in your book right??

Of course it's not just the overtly sexist stuff said, by those 'brave' enough to say it, is it??

Its the endorsement* by others who can't quite bring themselves to say it themselves.. More cowardly in many ways.

*And do spare us the whole 'oh my likes don't really mean what you think they mean' bahoolux - that's getting sooo old 🙄

 

[Rusty Nails]

I dunno, as to ratios elsewhere..

Is political discussion 'nerdy'?
Or is politics something that affects all of us, needing engagement by all groups if it's to be done well.

There may be many intersecting reasons why relatively few women partake.

The prevalence of entrenched sexist attitudes being just one.. I really don't think years of academic study would be necessary to find out the answers.. Many of them are glaringly obvious.
One could even, just ask some real live women.

But yeah, then, having asked one might be forced to listen to the answers.
And even then - yikes and gadzooks - actually take some action to do something to make things more balanced.

Or else admit that really, taking action to do something about gender equality, isn't really that important.

Anyway..
Here comes my bus...

Yes.

Probably are.

Who?

What?

As I said, it would take a PhD thesis.

 

[mudsticks]

Yes.

Probably are.

Who?

What?

As I said, it would take a PhD thesis.

Nay, you're right, it would take years and years of detailed study and analysis to work out how to make political discussions online less sexist, more inclusive ..

It couldn't possibly be done by people just ..
...ooooh, I dunno??

Maybe just thinking a bit more carefully about the implications of what they're saying, and who might be put off by certain sorts of language.??

So let's just not worry about it right, it's wayy too difficult to work out.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Nay, you're right, it would take years and years of detailed study and analysis to work out how to make political discussions online less sexist, more inclusive ..

It couldn't possibly be done by people just ..
...ooooh, I dunno??

Maybe just thinking a bit more carefully about the implications of what they're saying, and who might be put off by certain sorts of language.??

So let's just not worry about it right, it's wayy too difficult to work out.

The particular issue of a very small proportion of women on forums like this is one which different people have different ideas of how to resolve, and also have different ideas of the importance of resolving it. It is clearly something that has proved extremely difficult to resolve so far and will not be fixed by people just....oooh, I dunno.

The world is a worrying place and people are not going to suddenly see the light and make it a fairer place because they are told it is wrong as it is. Wishful thinking never cured anything, especially getting people to think more carefully about the implications of what they are saying, and the impetus to change will only come from an evidence based approach.

It is not too difficult to work out in theory, but clearly too difficult to implement in practice.