It's an odd thing, this attribution or assumption of responsibility to an entire country or sub-group, for current or past attitudes and events.
Current British people are regarded as collectively guilty of all the past evils of slavery, empire, Amritsar, etc.
But derive no credit from abolishing slavery, enforcing its trading ban around the world, railways or democracy in India.
Islam is still allowed credit for once having lead the world in medicine, chemistry, mathematics and philosophy, but takes no blame for present day terrorism and massacre.
It's a very nationalistic and racist view of mankind. Why can't people be judged according to their own behaviour and worth in the world, not on that of their fellows or their ancestors?
|
>> It's a very nationalistic and racist view of mankind. Why can't people be judged according
>> to their own behaviour and worth in the world, not on that of their fellows
>> or their ancestors?
Because sometimes to be well thought of you have to admit and atone for the sins and wrongdoing of your forebears. There has to be a time limit on that tho!
Is there any difference however between the demand from the islamic side for better understanding, or from the jewish lobby who recently demanded special protection measures? (despite the fact that perceived terrorist threat is against the whole of the uk)
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31792238
>>
The story here is about a retired Muslim police officer who thinks the government's 'Prevent' strategy is failing. Reason is mainly a failure of officers, of whom only a tiny minority are Muslim, to understand the issues. Whether that's a lack of training or a canteen culture that sees such training as 'PC' would be interesting to explore.
|
|
Probably what happened was it was seen as the latest thing to get involved in, so people were thrown into it to fulfil some political timescale without any time to make sense of it. It would have meant little time for training or to get the right officers.
|
"Whether that's a lack of training or a canteen culture that sees such training as 'PC' would be interesting to explore."
I would have thought that the UK police have more pressing matters than learning the ins and outs of internal muslim religious discriminations (let's say phobias). Would the Saudi police be expected to know the difference between Catholics and Protestants, for example?
|
>> I would have thought that the UK police have more pressing matters than learning the
>> ins and outs of internal muslim religious discriminations (let's say phobias). Would the Saudi police
>> be expected to know the difference between Catholics and Protestants, for example?
We're talking about officers responsible for delivering 'Prevent', the government's anti radicalisation project. How on earth are they supposed to do that without the right training?
Whether you portray that training in terms of phobias is a different issue.
The Saudi police were operating in a liberal democracy, never mind one perceived to be at risk from internally radicalised Christians. Were they in such a scenario they'd need to understand a lot more than Catholics v Protestants!!
|
"The Saudi police were operating in a liberal democracy,"
I didn't know that!
|
>> "The Saudi police were operating in a liberal democracy,"
>>
>> I didn't know that!
Not sure I would describe The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in those terms either!
|
"Not sure I would describe The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in those terms either!"
The last time Brompto made any sense at all was when he waxed lyrical about Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres. Presumably, down at the local CAB, he fields all the questions about suitability of bike tyres ;-)
|
>> The last time Brompto made any sense at all was when he waxed lyrical about
>> Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres. Presumably, down at the local CAB, he fields all the questions
>> about suitability of bike tyres ;-)
So you'll go 'ad hominem' for the carp edit rather than reality of what officers engaged in 'prevent' need to know?
|
"....... reality of what officers engaged in 'prevent' need to know?"
Sorry, Brompt, but you were probably still asleep when the item was first reported on BBC1 at 6 am; it has subsequently changed during the course of the morning.
At first, Mr Babu had said that an officer had asked him what the difference was between Sunnis and Shias - the implication he made, was that the officer was ignorant. [personally, being an optimistic sort of chap, I interpreted the fact that an officer had asked him as a positive expression of genuine interest].
In the next incarnation of that article, there was no mention of the officer's question - just a statement from Mr Babu that the police didn't e.g. know the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
In the latest report, there is no reference at all to knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias.
No wonder we hear about declining police morale.
|
>> "....... reality of what officers engaged in 'prevent' need to know?"
>>
>> Sorry, Brompt, but you were probably still asleep when the item was first reported on
>> BBC1 at 6 am; it has subsequently changed during the course of the morning.
Why the need for a dig about when I was asleep? I've never watched morning TV but I heard this story on Radio 5 from around 05:00 this morning. I wasn't commenting on that though, rather the link that MD posted, without comment.
It seems to me that if a respected former senior police officer says the 'Prevent' campaign isn't working and has become a toxic brand then he deserves to be listened to. the reasons wil be complex and not necessarily susceptible to the sound bites that keep breakfast TV on the go.
For all the impression given by coverage in west, the conflict in Levant is mainly between sects of Islam, or rather people for whom sect of Islam is a marker for clan - nationality if you like. On that basis then maybe, just maybe people charged with dealing with the conflict's consequences on ground in UK should understand at least some of the intricacies.
|
More food for thought - Crankcase
