This post is here because apparently I'm a bit of a weasel and weak for saying I won't express an opinion on the death of Iain Tomlinson. What's more, if I won't express an opinion then what is the point of this blog. Well, to deal with the latter, the point of my blog is to say what I want, on what I want, when I want, in whatever way I want.Now, the reason I'm not expressing an opinion - that is an opinion of either "Bully Boy Fascist Bastard Police" or "Alcoholic protester who got the kicking he deserved" is because I don't want to for the reason being played out across all the commenting rabble of bloggers and commenters on this blog and elsewhere.
If you take a step back for a moment, and then take the the emotion out of it and just observe it for a few minutes you see what it actually is. Simply lots of hackneyed, irritating, typical argue on "teh Interweb" incendiary grenade throwing of black and white opposing political points.
We have hyperbole over here, then hyperbole over there; fundamental threat to free society and democracy here, just a policeman doing his job there; ordinary geezer walking in the middle of a riot cordon minding his own business here, alleged alcoholic provoking the police there.
Tell me, what's the point in holding an opinion other than to note that the Police officer was, on the face the video at least (as I said in my earlier post) just an ickle bit naughty and should be dealt with, but then also noting that you can guarantee how it will all pan out in the end in terms of the endless commentary and words that will said? The comments in my first post alone are evidence of the point.
Frankly, I can't be arsed with it all. Whenever there is a protest of these sorts someone invariably gets hurt at best and at worst dies, what then happens is lots of comment either about how the Police are just doing their job, and one bad egg doesn't mean the whole lot of them are about to do it; or we get told that its just the thin end of the wedge, free society is going to hell in a handcart, and soon they'll be a coup by the Police.
Then, a couple of days pass, some footballer's wife gets her tits out, the new series of I Was A Celebrity Please Save My Career starts and no one gives a shit about it anymore - not that the vast majority of people did really in the first place.
They won't care again until the Public Inquiry, which then brings all the hyperbole, speculation and general Counsel of Despair type crap up again. We then have to put up with it for a few more days until some other more interesting topic, like a dogging footballer or perverted MP makes us much more animated.
Then the report gets published, we go through it all again, with the inevitable screams of "whitewash" by which time the new series of Big Brother starts and then it becomes one of those little Internet anomalies where some loon on a message board sporadically posts, in capitals, "REMEMBER IAN TOMLINSON. THE NEW WORLD ORDER ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL! WHY IS GEORGE OSBORNE GOING TO THE BILDERBERG GROUP? IT'S THE JEWS!!!!!11"
Don't panic, I will pass comment on it again when the inquiry happens, just to say I told you so. And it's worth noting that that will be an opinion.
22 comments:
"If you take a step back for a moment, and then take the the emotion out of it and just observe it for a few minutes you see what it actually is. Simply lots of hackneyed, irritating, typical argue on "teh Interweb" incendiary grenade throwing."
Like this nonsense?
You are a repugnant little hypocrite.
It's pretty much a foregone conclusion!
Chapeau! Monsieur.
Facts Vs. Opinions is the Court's business and the legal world riches.
Miller, at no point did I say I didn't engage in such things myself now, I simply explained that on this occasion it is why I am not.
Of course, in repsect of the linked post, it was done because I think you're a tit and a classic example of the 'never had a proper job' political class and thought it worthy question to ask based on the photo.
After all Tom, lets remember that you accused me of having a headline in the post that was a 'lie' when in fact it was a question. I see when that was pointed you didn't come back.
So am I a hypocrite on this point? absolutely not because I make no claim to not engage in partisan swiping at little political elitist like yourself. However I do choose when to do it and it's not wrapped up as some sort of impartial comment.
Pretty much the same as when you write on Labourlost or your blog its partisan and should be understood as such. Now bugger off and run along back to your non-real world life of union politics and wonkism.
Well said Dizzy, and Oh so true.
Dizzy, you 'question' (good law) was answered in the post i linked to.
In the comments.
What I've done work wise is really none of your business, but most of it has been spent working in the service sector whythankyou. You don't know what the real world is until you've been a full tim bartender. If you think IT nerdiness is atthe cutting edge of real life, you need to downskill.
"I make no claim to not engage in partisan swiping at little political elitist like yourself."
Dizzy, you're the one who spends his spare time sticking it to the working man. I generally find that the elitist is the one calling for top-rate tax cuts.
As for saying that you don't get involved with it, one of your attempts to dip into the Tomlinson stuff was the (completely comedic) attack you made on me. Now you're saying you refuse to talk about it, because it's a politco-flamewar.
Dizzy, if you admit to engaging in it with me, why is your mouth so well sealed on Tomlinson now that so much has (despite the best efforts of the police PR people) come to light?
Whether they caused his death or not, the evidence is clear; an innocent man was needlessly battered with a weapon by a policeman. 3 Times, according to today's Indy.
What I do for a living is a total distraction, a transparent attempt at trolling: on your own effin blog!
The fact remains that you are both a coward and a hypocrite.
If you have a mind, speak it.
Just try and make it more reasonable than last time, eh?
I am with you up to a point. Yes, it's your blog, so of course you can say what you like on it, including refusing to offer an opinion. Yes, a story like this generates some fairly predictable and tedious knee-jerk reactions from both ends of the political spectrum. But here we part company. What I think you did with this post, and what I objected to, was insinuate through your tone that police violence isn't a big deal, that you don't care about it and that anyone who does is a tedious politico bore. That was disgraceful and the rather sly way you did it makes you look like a, well, bit of a weasel.
"then it becomes one of those little Internet anomalies where some loon on a message board sporadically posts, in capitals, "REMEMBER IAN TOMLINSON. THE NEW WORLD ORDER ARE GOING TO KILL US ALL! WHY IS GEORGE OSBORNE GOING TO THE BILDERBERG GROUP? IT'S THE JEWS!!!!!11""
The whole post was good, but this comment was the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks.
*grabs popcorn*
Tom Miller is a poof and fights like a girl
Atta boy Dizzy!
Well I think you're right to resist these tyranical demands for comment. The whole point is that commenting is a matter of personal choice, and it's everyone's right to not have an opinion.
"A Met Police Officer has just been suspended in connection with Tomlinson's death."
Try that sentence out with other job titles
A plumber has just been suspended in connection with a womans death.
A PE Teacher has just been suspended in connection with a pupils death.
A Vicar has just been suspended in connection with a parishioners death. He snuck up behind him at even song, thrashed him accross the back with a candlestick then pushed him headfirst over the altar rail. He is now at home on full C of E pay and his Anglican Union rep.
While I am very amused, I do want to suggest that as Blogging is the modern vogue of public forum and a response to the ADHD media attention span, it may be counter-productive to have a defeatist approach.
A sociology undergrad may have the attitude that a revoltionary movement is as unlikely as the existence of God, but to deliberately misquote Conan Doyle; improbability occassionally occurs! Hope tends to get on the internet in the morning, if nothing else.
Bit weedy (and not in a good way - exhale).
Probably be better to say you feel conflicted; sorry for the bloke and sorry for the copper.
Or sorry for the bloke and still supportive of physical policing when the rights of an orderly society are threatened by The Mob.
Or sorry it wasn't Ian Bone because you hate black+pinko protestors because they scare your sense of self and the WASP values that bolster it.
whatever, so weedy it's veh veh revealing....
Not sure if that was worthy of a blog, now I've read it, but appreciate the effort nonetheless.
My point, at the risk of being accused of being tedious, was related to the automatic response mechanism built into the Met (or any other police force, but the Met fucks up most often) whereby no matter what the facts may be, deny, no matter the evidence, obfuscate, no matter the circumstances, smear. Of course there will always be riots, of course there will always be fascists cracking heads and crustys getting their heads cracked and of course they will always be chip paper eventually, but do you not think that there might be more to it?
Why does the Met feel the need to deny it tried to mislead the public with its initial briefings on the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death? Why did the IPCC feel the need to declare there was "no cover up" on Channel 4 News tonight?
Eh, maybe becuase there was. And that, frankly, is what someone with any brains, and the reach that you have through your blog, should be blogging about.
(That was a compliment by the way)
Dizzy, you 'question' (good law) was answered in the post i linked to.
Errr I didn't say it wasn't answered so why are you telling me that? I was merely referring to the fact that you came into the thread guns blazing accusing me of having a headline that was a lie when it fact it wasn't because it wasn't a statement.
You don't know what the real world is until you've been a full tim bartender. If you think IT nerdiness is atthe cutting edge of real life, you need to downskill.
Errr but I have worked in a bar full time. Admittedly it wasn't for long because I went back to working as a shelf stacker in a supermarket as it paid me more and supplemented my student loans and grants.
Dizzy, you're the one who spends his spare time sticking it to the working man.
Jesus wept. Get off you high sanctimonious horse. YOu're talking to someone who went to state school - admittedly I got expelled from three of them, then went off to FE College whilst working in a supermarket to supplement his ability to live. Then finally went to University, with jsut under a full grant and student loans up to the eyeballs. I am a fucking "working man" and have been all my adult life.
I hate to have burst your little perception bubble but I'm an ordinary bloke, who got married, had a kid, got a divorce, and works his bollocks off to pay a mortgage. You're the one with the problem because you seem to think that anyone who believes in individual self-reliance and not state hand-outs muyst be some sort of toffee-nosed black tie wearing tit.
I generally find that the elitist is the one calling for top-rate tax cuts.
Sorry, but what exactly is elitist about saying that the poorest in society should not have to pay tax? What is eilitist about saying that the system of tax credits that exists today charges those on the lowest income a nominal 70% tax rate oif they earn more and thus keeps them servile and dependent on the state?
As for top rate tax. Up until recently that top rate was 40% on those earning roughly £40K a year. If you look at the avergae income rates across the country which sadly change against living costs as you move North, you will see that the so called "rich" top rate taxpayers on £40K can afford a mortgage, if they're lucky, of £120K. You'd be lucky to get a crappy two bedroom house for that. Yet in your mind that person is rich. Come off it.
Right now, I'm sitting in a three bedroom mid-terrace house on a main road. So don't start telling me I'm somehow a rich elitist. You'rte completely out of touch with reality. The elitists are the people like Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Peter Mandelson et all. They are the class traitors here not me.
As for saying that you don't get involved with it, one of your attempts to dip into the Tomlinson stuff was the (completely comedic) attack you made on me.
That was bugger all to do with the Tomlinson thing which was I posted just a single line sentence about how you were hacing a spat with Tory Bear over it. I posted that picture to piss you off you dickhead.
Now you're saying you refuse to talk about it, because it's a politco-flamewar.
This point is moot because the starting assumption you made that the post with a picture of you in front of a police van was about Tomlinson is flawed. That post was about having a pop at you because I could.
Dizzy, if you admit to engaging in it with me, why is your mouth so well sealed on Tomlinson now that so much has (despite the best efforts of the police PR people) come to light?
Again this is based on the flawed assumption that I enmgaged with you about Tomlinson which I did not. I engaged with you about you being stupid enough to stand in front of a police van withthe word "Pigs" on it and then post a comment under the picture saying "awesome". The whole Tomlinson thing was and remains a complete side issue to that post.
Whether they caused his death or not, the evidence is clear; an innocent man was needlessly battered with a weapon by a policeman. 3 Times, according to today's Indy.
Sorry but I don't see the relevance of this to the rest of your post.
What I do for a living is a total distraction, a transparent attempt at trolling: on your own effin blog!
Actually it's not a total distraction at all. It's kind of key to understanding you and where you are coming from in your analysis of things.
The fact remains that you are both a coward and a hypocrite.
Generally speaking when one cast assertions of fact they should back such things up with some sort evidence which you havn't. There is nothing, by matter of necessity, cowardly about not holding an opinion on something per se.
As for being an hypocrite, its already been established that your starting point for this assertion is flawed. This is because you've assumed, wrongly, that I posted about you because of the remark that caused a spat with yourself and Tory Bear. I didn't.
I couldn't give a shit about your Twitter remark frankly. I posted and asked the question about your judgement and attitude toward the police because it was fair comment to do and, well, I don't like your politics because they're based on pseudo-scientific bedrock assumptions about society. So you deserved to be bitchslapped for putting yourself into such a stupid position.
If you have a mind, speak it.
Oh dear, you seem to have missed the way "I live my life" post. I therefore refer you to video in the previous post to this one. You're not the boss of me and you don't tell me what I should or should not have a mind to speak on, and if you start to order me to do thing then I'm afraid the special magic tatto on my arm that says PUNX start to pulse and glow and I simply turn around and say. Go fuck yourself.
Just try and make it more reasonable than last time, eh?
Ahhh the classic poisoning the well fallacy. No need to comment further really.
Re: Lord Snooty
what I objected to, was insinuate through your tone that police violence isn't a big deal
Assuming that you're referring to the bit where I said "ickle bit naughty" that is actually a failure in your inference based on your assumptions about me.
that you don't care about it
Not passing comment and instead assessing how it will pan out is not the same as indifference. Again that if you inferring something based on your own assumptions of me.
and that anyone who does is a tedious politico bore.
Again we have an inference by you based on your own assumptions about me. The point I actually made was that the argument would be tedious and boring because they will be so painfully predictable. Which they will be. That doesn't mean the people making them are tedious political bores, it just means the whole process will be tedious and boring because, as already said, it will be predictable.
That was disgraceful and the rather sly way you did it makes you look like a, well, bit of a weasel.
As mentioned above, given that each of these thingws you have said I did are merely inferences made by you based on assumptions you have about me, it is only disgraceful in your head because you have chosen to make those inferences.
Were you and I too actually meet and have a discussion in a pub you would go away and then starting reading my blog as you know me face to face and I'm willing to bet money you wouldn't be saying that it was disgraceful at all.
Seems like you were right, Dizzy. This morning, the Left have gone completely silent as new evidence emerges that doesn't fit with their original anti-police agenda. Trying to understand the facts was never part of their plan.
Dear People who attacked Dizzy,
Dizzy sometimes has something of the cynic in him. That's how you can tell he's English.
If you don't like what he writes, sod off. :D
Dizzy, 50 years ago the Tomlinson affair would have shocked the nation, but today it is just another piece of media fodder, as is the the Bob Quick incident. The pious outpourings will be forgotten in a week. However, the creation of a state of fear and the reaction of politicians - did you hear Blunkett say that further restrictions should be placed on press photography? - is worth your relentless scrutiny. Keep it up. And have a rant from time to time. Who cares?
Dizzy, that Miller lite bloke really is up his own arse.
I guess that's what comes from hanging around with ponces in Nu Labour.
Who is Tom Miller?
Post a Comment