Shocking Home eviction by corporate police, your views sort please.

John

Firstly I can only make the inference I do because of your expression of your view. If you disagree with that interpretation we have no more ground to cover.

Secondly I do not think that that is what many of the contributors are arguing at all. But they hardly need me to speak on their behalf.

Please indicate a single post where anybody on this forum suggests that only paid-professionals should uphold this ‘moral responsibility’…

…all anybody has said is that they wouldn’t commit to act on it under any circumstances!

In the drowning case in question it is unfair to criticise anybody for not committing, here on the forum, to have acted in the way that you would, or perhaps would not, have done in the circumstances had you been there…

…as we all know, words are cheap, and, so far, nobody has acted to prove otherwise!

John – thank you for your unequivocal response above.

Earlier posts left room for doubt hence my direct question. However I utterly reject your assumption of moral superiority in taking that point of view. By accepting your obligations to your family as secondary, by implication, I consider you stand guilty of denial of your primary moral obligations.

Charlie, each to his/her own interpretation. You are, yet again, quite wrong to imput to me an assumption of moral ascendency. I make no claim. I do not know whether in every case I would respond in the only way I think is correct. I can’t with certainty forecast my own reactions let alone anyone else.

Because I believe that it is the right thing to do, I hope that I would act correctly. The central point I make is this: I’m astounded that by and large the majority on this forum seem to regard this act of moral responsibility as something only paid professionals should do, It isn’t – all of us should.

If no one already there at the pond appeared to want to uphold their moral obligation, it was probably because they were all members of this forum…

Nice. :rolleyes:

John – thank you for your unequivocal response above.

Earlier posts left room for doubt hence my direct question. However I utterly reject your assumption of moral superiority in taking that point of view. By accepting your obligations to your family as secondary, by implication, I consider you stand guilty of denial of your primary moral obligations.

Maybe…..but you’ve been doing a bit of ‘verbal manoeuvring’ yourself these last few posts!;)

But you’ve still chosen only to criticise the Police in the drowning incident; for all intents and purposes making it sound as if they just stood by while the unfortunate victim drowned in front of their eyes…

…so, I say again, what of those that did see the boy ‘in difficulties’ only twenty feet from the shore?

You seem, like the tabloid press, to reserve your criticism only for the Police in an unwritten law that prevents any criticism of other bystanders or the victim himself.

How many minutes away were the Police when called? Five? Ten? One of the common criticisms is response-times so it can hardly be less (and probably a lot more)! In that time nobody else obeyed their ‘moral obligation’? You haven’t even asked why not, let alone criticised them for not doing so!

At twenty feet from the shore (and the boy in difficulties on the surface) I’d have gone in, no doubt about it, but I wouldn’t have gone in clothed or with my boots on, under any circumstances, and not before I’d quickly looked about for something to throw first: football, life-ring, empty plastic coke bottle…..anything.

It seems nobody present, before the Police arrived, did any of this…

…so will you at least criticise their ‘moral failure’ too?

In my view, in this case, the Police have nothing to cover-up…..but that’s not a good story for the tabloids is it?

I can’t go on repeating myself. You ask the question. If no one already there at the pond appeared to want to uphold their moral obligation, it was probably because they were all members of this forum – with one or two honourable exceptions.

Oddly enough, John, I think you will find with some judicious analysis that we are not as far apart, morally, as you would have us. You appear to have contradicted yourself in different posts. But let me try to clarify positions with, hopefully, a simple question to which the answer ought to be yes or no.

Faced with a situation in which an individual was in peril of their life would you, without thought for your own safety and without consideration of the risks to your own safety, attempt to save that individual?

The point I put to you way back remains unanswered. That concerns the moral obligations we all have to try to help others and the obligation we have to our own family. There are mutually irreconcilable conflicts here.

My stance by now must surely be plain ? I could not, despite my own fears, stand by without making an effort to help someone in a life threatening situation. In my reckoning, this is the only action open to me, personally.

As for my obligations to my family well, that is difficult. But, that which is in front of me, for the moment, comes first

I am mortified that it appears that so many of you could duck your moral obligation to render assistance, within your physical limits.

The Police are to “Protect and Serve”. I make no bones about the fact that I do not like the police, I consider a lot of them as self seeking morons. Having got that off my chest there have been many occasions when Police Officers have dived into Bristol docks late at night to rescue drunken idiots. These Officers are worthy of praise but they are few in number.

I mention these particular events to support my assertion that the police and for all I know other agencies are adept at verbal manoeuvering the more especially when they’re trying to cover something up.

Maybe…..but you’ve been doing a bit of ‘verbal manoeuvring’ yourself these last few posts!;)

But you’ve still chosen only to criticise the Police in the drowning incident; for all intents and purposes making it sound as if they just stood by while the unfortunate victim drowned in front of their eyes…

…so, I say again, what of those that did see the boy ‘in difficulties’ only twenty feet from the shore?

You seem, like the tabloid press, to reserve your criticism only for the Police in an unwritten law that prevents any criticism of other bystanders or the victim himself.

How many minutes away were the Police when called? Five? Ten? One of the common criticisms is response-times so it can hardly be less (and probably a lot more)! In that time nobody else obeyed their ‘moral obligation’? You haven’t even asked why not, let alone criticised them for not doing so!

At twenty feet from the shore (and the boy in difficulties on the surface) I’d have gone in, no doubt about it, but I wouldn’t have gone in clothed or with my boots on, under any circumstances, and not before I’d quickly looked about for something to throw first: football, life-ring, empty plastic coke bottle…..anything.

It seems nobody present, before the Police arrived, did any of this…

…so will you at least criticise their ‘moral failure’ too?

In my view, in this case, the Police have nothing to cover-up…..but that’s not a good story for the tabloids is it?

No, I would not enter any strange water unless to try to help someone in need. Much like yourself – I don’t think !

And (just as wearily) I repeat, I CANNOT SWIM, so would be completely useless in any water rescue, in fact I would certainly become a complete liability, and need rescuing myself, so I believe it’s my moral responsibility to leave it to others.

jonny has rather tied himself in knots here and his hatred for the Police has been exposed a little more than I think he would have wished.

For me neither the Police or anybody else should have been expected to risk their life in an attempt to save that of an extremely stupid person.

The hole that I’m in is infinitely more comfortable and acceptable than the moral swamp that you and the others elect to inhabit.

Oddly enough, John, I think you will find with some judicious analysis that we are not as far apart, morally, as you would have us. You appear to have contradicted yourself in different posts. But let me try to clarify positions with, hopefully, a simple question to which the answer ought to be yes or no.

Faced with a situation in which an individual was in peril of their life would you, without thought for your own safety and without consideration of the risks to your own safety, attempt to save that individual?

The point I put to you way back remains unanswered. That concerns the moral obligations we all have to try to help others and the obligation we have to our own family. There are mutually irreconcilable conflicts here.

You quote the Daily Mail, but you seem to have missed this bit:-

Funny how you make no mention of the paramedics and firemen, who also were there, but harp on, incessantly, only about the “failures” of the police.
Strange, too, how you said (item 69):-

yet you castigate (only) the police for going by the same criteria.
But of course you don’t have an anti-police agenda; we quite understand.

Yes, (wearily) at some point in this saga I do mention them on more than one occasion. No, I would not enter any strange water unless to try to help someone in need. Much like yourself – I don’t think !

I’d stop digging your hole, John, before it gets too deep to climb out of!:)

Charlie, Here’s an admission; I’m no judge of people. In the more than remote possibility that a life threatening event occured, with my bottom chattering like a pair of Spanish castanets, I might have been persuaded to assist one or more of the morally challenged on this forum – what an escape !

The hole that I’m in is infinitely more comfortable and acceptable than the moral swamp that you and the others elect to inhabit.

I’d stop digging your hole, John, before it gets too deep to climb out of!:)

Yes, but to illustrate your principal you’ve chosen to criticise individuals at a particular event!

I don’t think anybody disputes the general principal.

No I have not. I’m using real time events known to all of us connected to the world at large. See my #83 second paragraph. But, CD, lets not split hairs ! I mention these particular events to support my assertion that the police and for all I know other agencies are adept at verbal manoeuvering the more especially when they’re trying to cover something up.

But, let’s not get sidetracked eh ? Moral obligations can be painful.

And what about the other bystanders?

Was the boy in question there alone or was he with friends? Who was it who warned him not to swim in that area, and after the lifeguard had left? Who was it who saw him ‘about twenty feet from the side’ and apparently ‘experiencing difficulty’?

I’m assuming (note, assuming) it wasn’t the Police but somebody witnessed this tragedy unfold…

…where is your criticism for these people?

Why didn’t his friends, following your universal moral principal, jump in and try to affect a rescue? And if he wasn’t with friends the other witnesses…..assuming they weren’t all physically incapable?

You quote the Daily Mail, but you seem to have missed this bit:-

A spokesman said: ‘The heath constabulary officers are here to enforce bylaws in the park, they are not trained lifeguards and the water is dangerous and very murky, so they are advised they are not to go in until proper assistance arrives.
‘He was swimming away from the designated area and out of hours so there were no lifeguards on duty.
‘There are signs everywhere warning people not to go into the water at these times.
‘Visibility in the water is about six inches, it’s very murky, and you can barely see in front of your face.
‘He had swum out over a ten foot drop and was about 20 feet from the side when he experienced difficulty – you have to be a strong swimmer to be out there.
‘It is a complete tragedy but these are the facts behind it.’

Funny how you make no mention of the paramedics and firemen, who also were there, but harp on, incessantly, only about the “failures” of the police.
Strange, too, how you said (item 69):-

I’m a strong and able swimmer who wouldn’t swim unless I knew that particular water very well.

yet you castigate (only) the police for going by the same criteria.
But of course you don’t have an anti-police agenda; we quite understand.

I do not have to defend myself

It was you who used the phrase “defending the indefensible”.

I was interested to read your paragraph about obligations at sea and the quite understandable rider “Unless there are compelling circumstances…….” And who determines whether they are or not? Why, the people on the spot who have to take all the circumstances into consideration. And that of course exactly the same principle applies to any of the type of incident we are discussing.

First class example of muddying – you do it so well. If you can’t adequately refute the nub of the argument then cast your net a litte wider – you’ll find something.

The police, as you should know from your apparent connections, are adroit, extremely skilled and highly convincing especially to the bulk of the public when they make their public statements justifying their actions. Whether it be shooting and killing an innocent man carrying a repaired wooden chair leg or standing by allegedly conducting a risk assessment, before investigating a shooting incident or stating that they have not had the required training before entering a seaside boating pond to effect a rescue or, shooting a Brazilian national on the Tube…

What were you saying about ‘muddying’ and ‘casting your net wider’?

OK, we get it…..you have an ‘agenda’ with the Police…

…are you sure you’re not connected to the organisation that posted the original video on YouTube? :rolleyes: