You were suggesting that I couldn't have a negative attitude towards a group of people if I've not had much involvement with them. I was showing that I didn't believe that this was necessary in order to form an opinion.

Seems to me the "ignore" function mainly gets used when people can't win an argument by conventional means. It's rather like the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

what is the point - if you don't understand i will not bother to try and explain it to you, as i said you are entitled to your views and you seem to be leaning towards the side that thinks the police are the trouble makers. That is up to you - just think twice about ringing them if your ever in trouble with somebody being violent with you - make sure you remind them to be polite, gentle and not to be firm. rough or violent ( whatever you like to call it ).

There will always be those who think they ( police officers ) do a good job and there will always be those who think they are a violent bunch, who are no good.

This could go on for days - no point - i shall just sit here and pray that my husband and all the other officers on duly tonight/ tomorrow and for all the other shifts are met with no violence from those they are trying to arrest or even just talk with.

I THINK MOST OFFICERS ARE GOOD, LOVE THE JOB AND ARE GOOD, HONEST PEOPLE - JUST TRYING TO MAKE OUR STREETS SAFE SO OUR KIDS CAN PLAY OUTSIDE, AND OUR HOMES ARE SAFE AND OUR CARS DON'T GET NICKED....

Not sure your comments are likely to encourage a response.

Your posts often use emotive or provocative language, seemingly for no other purpose than to draw people into a needless argument, rather than rational debate. Some get sucked in, others like Steve obviously have better things to spend their time on.

You chose not to respond directly to his responses and questions - perhaps you had no answer to them? It could be reasoned that he 'won' the argument when you failed to tackle the points raised.

I'd say it's 1-0 to Steve

You do realise that it has been proven that prayer is ineffective?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en..._uids=11761499

And I'm still baffled by the racist accusation, but there you go.

Hard to argue with the Leek Eater on this. Haven't you something more controversial to say? Hardly likely to generate exciting debate is it?



Sorry about the racism expressed. You sheep shaggers are OK really

can't be bothered really - we will all have different thoughts on it. Will never all agree, so no point.

Anyhow, got to go and round up the sheep

Well, it's all rather subjective isn't it. I don't think either of us have got any reliable statistics about the overall "goodness" or "honesty" of the average policeman.

I will concede that my first post in this thread was a bit flip, but hey, this was a much less serious thread back in those days.

Which point of Steve_P's would you like me to address more fully?

or maybe it does work....http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1844076.stm

Is there any subject that the internet can't provide an alternative view for? I think you're clutching at straws.

ello, ello, ello....... what is going on here then?

just wanted to say goodnight all - enjoy the debate. Its been a fun evening - look forward to chatting with you all again sometime.

Hmm, the BBC article doesn't actually provide a published reference for this work in a peer-reviewed journal. I'd like to see that before I start believin'.

That said, I don't believe in any sort of gods, let alone interventionist ones, so it's probably not worth your time trying to convert me.

Good post R I C H

Bazz seems to have an attitude problem. To refer to the police as "filth" just because it is supposedly a slang expression seems very provocative to me. There are good and bad in all professions, including the police, but it is not necessary to tar them all with the same brush.

The best response to Bazz would, in actual fact, be no response at all.

TBH, I'm not interested enough in your opinion on this matter to need to hear more from you, just felt that your insinuation that Steve had lost the argument was disingenuous when points raised were being glossed over. The end result is just white noise and I can understand why he got bored with it.

Yes, it is subjective, but if you're going to introduce more controversial views and opinions, at least do it with either humour, some sensitivity or reliable stats to back it up. Being contoversial or agressive just to wind people up becomes tiresome, and your more valid points get lost in the ensuing ruck.

Thank you.

Forums need posters like Bazz on occasion, if only to prevent stale, dull threads about how people should go about wiping thier ass.

Sometimes it just takes some tolerance or selectivity to decide what debates to get involved in.

Once more - which points do you feel I glossed over and would you like me to cover in more detail?

As for backing up my claims, the Macpherson report was famous for it's conclusion that the police force is "institutionally racist". There are many, many documented cases of police brutality. Here's a press release from Amnesty International on the issue:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-325

I think you've got your own fingers stuck in your ears now bazzz.

I said "TBH, I'm not interested enough in your opinion on this matter to need to hear more from you." Thought that was pretty clear enough - I don't need any more detail, thanks.

The subject matter of this thread is pretty irrelevant to me, I got involved to express my opinions about how the subject matter was being argued about.

FWIW, my own experience of the police has generally been positive and I don't find your views representative of police I have as friends and have worked with. There are many documented cases of bad management, sexual harassment, violence etc etc in all walks of life. As public servants, the police are always likely to be under closer scrutiny and suffer bad press as a result. It's hardly new news, is it?