Via Mr E and the Landed Underclass, I note that James Graham is concerned by the lack of interest in what he calls the libertarian right in the Ian Tomlinson story.
I’m not for a second suggesting that if you don’t blog about this you don’t care, but taken as a whole this is quite striking. These blogs obsessively complain about every possible infringement of the liberties of the affluent and articulate middle classes, yet when a blameless man in a dirty t-shirt dies not a single one of them has asked a question. Four hours since the Guardian released that video, not a single one has mentioned it.
Mr E covers all of the bases pretty much, so I won’t repeat what he has to say. That said, as time goes on, some of the accused have, indeed, commented.
Okay, for myself, I’ll make a few simple points so that when we are again accused of not taking interest in a story, I won’t have to repeat myself.
Firstly; I do not consider myself a “right wing blogger”.
Secondly; this is not my job, I don’t get paid, therefore, I write what I choose to write and when I want to write, when I get the time to write. As Mr E points out:
Contrary to popular belief, not all bloggers sit up overnight in their pyjamas typing furious screeds about CCTV cameras; it’s just as likely that they were playing with their kids, having dinner with their partners, or watching the Man United game.
None of those things as it turns out, but the point stands. And, if you want me to cover a particular story, then I will do so – for a commercial fee. Otherwise, any attempts to draw conclusion because I have not covered a particular story are nothing more than the actions of a charlatan with an over active imagination. To suggest that we are class-obsessed is absurd. Liberty does not make such distinctions and neither do I.
Thirdly; I am inclined to take a cautious view, à la Letters From A Tory, given that there is always more than one angle to a story. Given more information from which to make a reasoned assessment, I might, indeed, make a comment. Until then, I’ll reserve both judgement and comment. If, indeed, this turns out to be what it appears at face value to be, then I will have something to say about it. I didn’t make much comment about Jean Charles de Menezes at the time, preferring to wait until more facts came to light. I was critical of the police on that one and have been critical of the police on other occasions. I may well be critical this time around (at face value, it looks bad for them and there may well be grounds for a manslaughter prosecution, but let’s wait and see, eh?).
Finally; In response to Alix in James’ comments who has this to say:
This piece ought to be emailed to every right wing blogger in the land. Or possibly, as my original version read, nailed.
That, old bean, is the quickest way imaginable to get yourself on my SPAM list. Get this straight, ’cos I’m only going to say it the once; I choose what I write about and when. You do not draw any conclusions from omissions as there are none to draw – except in your fevered imagination, over which I have no control and want none.
All clear? Jolly good.
I agree that there’s always more than one angle to a story and it sometimes makes us seem wishy-washy but that’s the price of truth.
“I’m not for a second suggesting that if you don’t blog about this you don’t care…”
He says, suggesting that very thing…
“..any attempts to draw conclusion because I have not covered a particular story are nothing more than the actions of a charlatan with an over active imagination…”
There’s a lot of those out and about today.
Quite right, Mr Longrider, fancy all these idiots inviting you to comment on video evidence, as though the camera never lies. Tut tut.
I’m with you on your use of the Gordon Brown defence. Let’s have an enquiry, or preferably two, and heaven forbid anyone should be crass enough to venture an opinion until they have reported. And of course when they do report, we can say everything has been dealt with in the enquiry, and avoid commenting again.
Can I recommend to you Gordon’s book on Courage? I think you might enjoy it.
Also, Guido on one of these threads made a valid point – if there is nothing new to be added, then he says nothing. I tend to do likewise.
The camera can and does lie. Anyone with the slightest understanding of photography understands this. “The camera never lies” is the canard of fools.
Is stupidity something you practice on a regular basis, or is this a special occasion? Where precisely have I stated that people shouldn’t venture an opinion? Oh, that’s right I didn’t. What part of reserving judgement is so difficult for you to understand? All of it, it would seem.
Oh, do grow the fuck up.
Indeed – we have one here, it seems… 😐
Agreed, it is your ‘blog after all! When they showed the video on telly yesterday I thought, oh everybody else will do that to death, so I didn’t bother.
I did get as far as a snappy title though: “Killing me softly with his truncheon” but that was hardly worthy of a post.
Blog in haste, repent at leisure.
“Given more information from which to make a reasoned assessment, I might, indeed, make a comment. Until then, I’ll reserve both judgement and comment. If, indeed, this turns out to be what it appears at face value to be, then I will have something to say about it.”
This isn’t a court of law, it’s a blog, what purpose does it serve if not to venture an opinion? Your implication that those who comment on this video are not “reasoned”, that you have some greater degree of wisdom, and that you might, in the fullness of time, condescend to comment, is precious and self-important beyond belief.
Given that it is my blog, it’s whatever I say it is, and I will decide if and when I will venture an opinion, thankyou very much – which was the point of the original post. I don’t write to order unless commissioned to do so; in which case, I charge commercial rates. I choose, on this occasion, to keep my powder dry.
I made no implication whatsoever. None. And nothing I said can be used to draw that conclusion. That you have managed to do so is nothing more than your imagination working overtime. I choose to wait for further evidence before drawing any conclusions, nothing more, nothing less. If you draw more from that than I have clearly stated, then it is a product fabricated by you and nothing to do with me.
The only self-importance here is yours in attempting to “interpret” my words to mean something that they clearly do not. Kipling springs to mind here; “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools…”
Kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth.
“This isn’t a court of law, it’s a blog, what purpose does it serve if not to venture an opinion? “
Most people prefer to venture an informed opinion. And then we have the likes of you…
Quite so.
That’s right. And I judge you accordingly. Is there a law against that?
No law whatsoever.
But everyone else will judge you by your judgement, accordingly. OK?
No law – and I’ve not intimated that there is, but it would be very foolish indeed to make a judgement on what has not been said. And should you do so, I’ll have all the evidence I need to judge you – which is rather more than you have to judge me. And, if you really think that I should decide what to write based on what you – or anyone else for that matter – might judge me upon, you have an over inflated opinion of your judgement. You and your judgement just aren’t that important, sorry.
As I’ve said already here; as in all of these stories there is likely to be more to it than meets the eye. I’ll wait for more evidence before drawing any conclusions.
What passes, on this site, for debate would disgrace a primary school playground. The childish and pathetic attempts at insult by you and your resident sycophant, JuliaM, serve only to demean whatever argument you have, and let’s face it, that ain’t much.
“I made no implication whatsoever. None. And nothing I said can be used to draw that conclusion”
No? How about:
“Given more information from which to make a reasoned assessment,I might, indeed, make a comment”
Might you, indeed? Good of you. Clear and undeniable implication – those commenting now are not capable of reason, they are fools, and you, with your nose-in-the-air, cleverer than thou, so-called wisdom know better, that you are in some way superior.
Try taking your head out of your arse, you self-important prat.
*ahem* I’m hardly Longrider’s ‘resident sycophant’, I actually share my favours quite widely… 😉
“Might you, indeed? Good of you…”
It’s his blog. And he’ll write on it when he wants, about whatever subject he desires. As will all those of us with blogs. If you desire to see a certain topic discussed, why not start your own?
Until then, ‘patience, glasshopper….’ 😉
Julia, sweetheart, I couldn’t give a toss what topic he chooses to write about, or not. It’s his arrogance I object to.
When you can walk across the ricepaper…..
Speak for yourself. You came here with your supercilious insinuations and attempts at sarcasm. If you come here and dish out insults based upon your own warped interpretations, don’t be too surprised if I treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve. And your point is? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have one, do you? You are just trolling.
Talking to you is a bit like trying to hold a discussion with a bunch of five year-olds, although the five year-olds generally would make a better fist of it.
My point was a simple one – my decision not to comment on a story cannot be construed to mean anything other than I have not commented. Nothing more, nothing less.
There is always the odd moron who thinks they can draw conclusions by reading between the lines and placing their own interpretation on someone else’s words. The problem with reading between the lines is that there is only blank space.
You arrogant, sanctimonious, self-righteous, pompous arsehole. Just who the fuck do you think you are?
No, it is not implication – it is a simple statement of fact. My caution regarding this particular story is perfectly reasonable – I don’t have enough evidence with which to draw a conclusion. If others feel that they have, that’s up to them. This makes no implication about anyone else and only a complete fuckwit would reach such a conclusion. You have chosen to put your own spin on my words. You have built a massive strawman in the process. I am not going to defend a fabrication that you have created. When it comes to self-importance, I’ve a long way to go before I reach your lofty heights. Now, either you have something of value to add to this discussion or piss off. I’ve already wasted more time than you deserve.
Then don’t read it. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I haven’t read all the comments above but…
I think this story shows that we are at the crossroads of a police state. We have two options: we either bother with due process and give the personnel a fair trial or we whitewash the whole thing and let them – and the system that sanctions that kind of behaviour – off the hook?
People really must think this through properly: do they want accountability and due process or do they want to ‘get tough’ on people they don’t like and wash away any remaining accountability? The public want it both ways. If they favour the authoritarian approach this is probably the last time we’ll see any serious police accountability. We’ll end up with paramilitary-style thugs instead of real police.
LR, as it happens, more video footage was shown on the telly today and unless they were both faked, I don’t think the camera was lying in this instance.
Although (to my great relief) apparently the officer responsible has ‘fessed up. He had to, as he was part of a smallish unit and was clearly left-handed, so that narrowed it down to one of two or three people…
PS, I had a bad attack of glasshopper today as well. Has he shown up at JuliaM’s yet?
Mark, I wasn’t suggesting that the camera did necessarily lie in this instance – merely, that people who take the attitude that it cannot are fools. All it takes is some judicious editing and careful angles to give a misleading picture. It was the idiot glasshopper who used that canard.
I stand by my original position of taking a cautious approach pending further evidence. Indeed, it was clear in my original comment that at face value, this looks bad. If the officer has confessed, that is all well and good.
In response to Paul’s comment – I would adhere to due process. This officer must be subject to the law and that means no trial by media and the presumption of innocence.
Glasshopper is a troll. I see that he was similarly insulting to you. Curious, isn’t it, that he complains about being insulted, yet his opening salvo is a direct insult. He is so precious that he objects to my perceived arrogance yet fails to see the irony of his own arrogance in seeking to reinterpret my words and issue me with instructions about what I should do on my blog. What a pompous jerk.
High Longrider, read the comments and am surprised you bother to argue with someone who has less standing than a mouse’s dick. I read quite a few blogs and put the odd comment where I feel the impulse. I do not try to change others points of view as it is like trying to “teach a pig to sing” if I don’t like a blog I stop visiting. You are so right, your blog, your agenda, your rules. With that freedom comes the diversity that is the way to changing the shape of one,s own ideas and entrenched views and also quality entertainment.
Peter, I give everyone – even cretins like glasshopper – the benefit of the doubt initially. There comes a point where my patience runs out, of course, and you may presume that on this occasion, that point has been reached.
On the matter of changing opinions; mine has been changed on a number of issues as a direct consequence of reading blogs. Exposure to the opinions of others causes me to re-examine my own.
SNIGGER
I saw this comment
‘you and your resident sycophant, JuliaM’ I believe it was posted by Glasshopper.
Well lo and behold, it must be catching
At my place under
http://andtherewasmethinking.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/2nd-update-on-sigh/#comments
Glasshopper left this comment
OH isn’t so small and petty as to take offence just because you disagree with him. If you think he’s talking out of his arse, and can make your argument, go right ahead, he’ll think more of you not less, or I’ll cross him off my Easter card list.
The blogosphere isn’t a mutual appreciation society, and is all the better for it.
Yes, I did just spit my Pino Vino all over my comp
Mummy x
Well, certainly glasshopper was talking out of his arse, but didn’t appreciate it being pointed out to him. The bloke’s a chump and not a good one at that.
A lot of the comment on this affair is entirely relevant as it is pointing out that such incidents of heavy handedess by the police are not at all rare but it is rare to get such clear evidence of wrong doing. Personally I don’t have much problem in condemning the officer responsible. Even if the stories about Mr Tomlinson’s behaviour prior to the attack are true – and since they are being ventilated in the Sun, I think they are more likely smears a la the de Menezes affair – they cannot conceivably justify the attack on a man who was transparently not a threat to the officer when he was struck. Also I think this affair vindicates those who have attacked the new law that criminalises the photographing of the police if of use to a terrorist. This American banker is indeed fortunate that Mr Tomlinson’s attacker did not spot that he was being filmed.
Certainly the timing is significant regarding photographing the police. My initial gut reaction was that there is probably a manslaughter case to answer. However, I stand by my initial caution; judicious editing of footage can give a misleading impression. Hence my desire to wait until forming a final opinion.
In the best of all possible worlds we would wait until after the criminal investigation was complete before commenting. But we don’t live in such a world. Within 24 hours of the video being disseminated, the first smear stories were being leaked about Mr Tomlinson’s alleged behaviour prior to the attack. Given the nature of these allegations, they could only have originated from within the police. When the police are content to break all sub judice constraints in order to get their retaliation in first, I don’t feel the need to show restraint myself in defending their victim. I agree that your position is the principled one we should adopt but we are unfortunately dealing with an utterly unscrupulous agency that has no quallms about libelling a man who is in no position to defend himself.
Stephen – that’s fine. I agree entirely regarding the smear tactics. At the time, I felt that a more reserved approach was in order. I tend to take a cautious approach simply because things are not always as they seem at first glance. With this one, things probably are pretty much as it seemed at first glance.