Hugely ironic thing to say on Manchester United forum after what Rashford has been up to lately
As Rugby refuses to take the knee, is it time the Premier League stopped too?
- Thread starter Zexstream
- Start date
- Status
Hasn't so far? Why do you think it will suddenly change? There is no proof.
It's not to spread awareness either as everybody knows that racism is wrong.
I think something needs to be done but taking a knee is not the solution and it's created an environment where I think players are scared to not take the knee almost as if they will be labelled racist? That's toxic in itself for me.
Players walking off a pitch, speaking about not condoning it, heavy fines/ bans, these are proven deterrents, "Taking a knee" is a social media show.
"I'm not racist at all lads, I just racially abused that guy to unsettle him. Stand up guy, me."
Literally don’t know where to start with this.
You can't measure it per se, but you can use a degree of judgement about when something isn't getting people talking any more.
Yes. That's how social action campaigns work, you keep coming up with new ideas so that the issue is fresh in people's minds.
I think it comes back to the age old debate of "Intent" and it's been widely accepted that intent is irrelevant in this world, it's how it's received..
Nobody said it will, nor will it stop racism. But it helps build awareness.
Possibly for people who are not sure if racism is still a problem. Please read @Bubz27 's post on how it raises awareness.
It is very easy to look at BLM and America and tell ourselves that as bad asd things may be here, at least it is not as bad as in America. The same line of thought took place in the 19th century, when millions of copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin were sold here. The book took aim at slavery in America, and the British public told themselves that as the UK had abolished slavery, we were morally superior to the US and could happily ignore our own tortured history with the inhabitants of Africa, the Caribbean and Asia and convince ourselves that Black Britons had it just fine here, when that was not the case.
Also I should add that Africans lived in Britain before the English did.
Also I should add that Africans lived in Britain before the English did.
You're missing the point. Who in the hell thinks that is what it's mean to do? "If we all take a knee it will make racists not be racists". If you actually think that is why it's done, mate you need to be educated a little more.
It's a small gesture that the world will see. That is saying "It's not OK". There's plenty of developing minds out there that can easily be swayed by thinking it's OK.
Jesus Christ...speechless.
Out of curiosity, what is your idea of a death in custody? What’s your understanding of it and how it’s investigated ?
Unless you're worried about the knee tendons of footballers then there is literally no issue with them kneeling. It keeps it in the public eye and it encourages people to talk about it.
you forgot the Americas.The same way you wouldnt have stopped hitler with a social media campaign, you wont stop racists with taking the knee and social media. Pretty laughable that people think taking the knee, stopping the use of uncle bens and coco pops will make hardcore racists pack up and go home. Do you generally think that hardcore racists watch the premier league players take a knee and sit looking at the screen and go ‘i’m going to completely change now?’. Everyone needs to come off it. Lifetime bans for racists etc. Harsher punishments for racist hate crimes etc. But to me taking the knee is like cello taping your trampoline down with a typhoon on the way. Theres also much debate about BLM. I support equality for people of all races religions and genders but cant sympathise with a movement that i believe hides anarchy and retribution behind a social and democratic point. Thats why the millwall fans booed - they had already written an open letter about why they were going to do it, its worth reading. It wasnt because they are racist as sky painted - they disagreed with BLM’s actions against war memorials etc. the kick it out campaign has been around for years and never had any issues down at the den.
Its also cringe to me that footballers sponsored by nike who use 3rd world child labour to build their stock as we speak, are tweeting about statues of slavers from 1800’s being pulled down. They need to have a look in the mirror and at their own morals
Its also cringe to me that footballers sponsored by nike who use 3rd world child labour to build their stock as we speak, are tweeting about statues of slavers from 1800’s being pulled down. They need to have a look in the mirror and at their own morals
Care to explain why? Pretend it's a forum where people discuss things rather than give smug replies?
These are official statistics from the police forces in the country, so they relate to anyone who dies whilst in police custody, be that from a heart attack, drug overdose, or, as has happened, from being restrained by the police.
https://www.inquest.org.uk/iopc-stats-2020
EDIT - sorry, you asked about investigations too - here's the CPS explainer: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/deaths-custody
What is a 'death in custody'?
A 'death in custody' is a generic term which refers to deaths of those in the custody of the State. A non-fatal shooting or severe and extensive injury is not sufficient; there must be a death. However, a death in a road traffic incident, even if the person who dies is under arrest and heading towards a police station in a police car, is not a death in custody.
The deceased must have been 'in custody'. The following list illustrates some circumstances that may apply to this definition:
- whilst under arrest in a police station;
- whilst held as a prisoner in a prison or police station;
- whilst under arrest by a police officer;
- whilst being detained for the purposes of a search;
- whilst in other lawful detention e.g. immigration detention (but not where the victim is compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 except where the person is still in police custody before being transferred to a medical facility);
- whilst a child or young person is in custody for their own protection;
- as a result of being shot by a police officer; or
- following any other 'contact with the police' where there may be a link between the contact and the death.
A suicide can also be a death in custody, as can for example, a death following a fight between prisoners, if there is an indication that a prison or other officer or the prison has negligently failed to prevent the death.
Death following contact with the Police
'Death following contact with the police' is a broad category, covering many possible scenarios. It is not limited to contact in the sense of physical touching or assault but includes all cases where a person dies following some kind of interaction with the police. For example:
- a custody officer releases someone on bail from a police station whilst they are suffering from an undiagnosed illness from which they later die;
- a homeless person is found frozen to death after the police checked on their welfare;
- a person suffers a fatal heart attack running away from a police officer who is trying to arrest them;
- a death that happens whilst in transit from police detention to a medical facility, whether being transported by the police or an ambulance;
- where the police attend a siege situation and the besieged person kills themselves or a hostage.
Prosecutors should refer to the guidance on Corporate Manslaughter for further information; if the case is a death in custody it should be referred to Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division (SCCTD) for handling regardless of other handling arrangements.
In cases where there is any doubt regarding police contact, prosecutors should refer them to the responsible Special Crime Unit Head within SCCTD.
Handling of death in custody cases
All deaths in custody cases are handled and prosecuted by SCCTD in London or York. As a general guide, Special Crime London deals with all cases in the south of England and Special Crime York deals with all cases in the north and Wales. All cases should be immediately referred to the Unit Heads responsible.
Area prosecutors should not give the police any sort of preliminary advice or guidance. If the police contact an Area prosecutor at night or at the weekend as a result of being unable to reach either of the SCCTD Unit Heads, general advice on scene preservation can be given but prosecutors must ensure they do not provide any further advice.
Area prosecutors must not under any circumstances make a charging decision. Although it might be theoretically possible, circumstances where there is a need for an immediate decision under the Threshold test are extremely unlikely to arise.
Who investigates deaths in custody?
If a person has died whilst in the custody of the State it is important that all circumstances of the death are examined. There must be an independent and thorough investigation that is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of any person or company that may have been criminally responsible for the death.
If the death took place in a police station or following contact with the police, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) will usually investigate, or alternatively manage or supervise the investigation by the police. If the death has taken place in a prison or in other non-police settings, the police will investigate.
Information about the IOPC can be found on its website.
Who advises on charge and prosecutes death in custody cases?
All deaths in custody are dealt with exclusively by senior and experienced prosecution lawyers in SCCTD. The prosecutor will have had no previous dealings with anybody who may be a suspect in the case and is independent of the police.
It will be the task of the prosecutor to advise the investigators and in due course, if a charging decision is requested by the investigator, to consider all the evidence and decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute any person or organisation involved in the death and, if so, if it is in the public interest to do so, as outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code). The reviewing lawyer will usually only decide whether charges should be brought when the IOPC has concluded any investigation it may be conducting into the officer who fired the fatal shot, or the force which planned the operation.
There is an extensive quality assurance process for approving charging decisions for these cases. Ultimately, every case where a charging decision is made by a prosecutor is considered personally by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), although the responsibility for the decision always remains with the prosecutor who makes it.
As part of this quality assurance process the DPP personally approves or 'tickets' lawyers who are new to death in custody cases to deal with them.
SCCTD agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (now the IOPC) on working arrangements and joint guidance on the pre-arrest and pre-charge processes. The documents emphasise that investigations should be completed as soon as reasonably practicable and for there to be early involvement by the prosecutor in all appropriate cases.
Self-defence and Reasonable Force
The police, no matter what situation they are faced with, are subject to the same laws of self-defence, and the use of reasonable force, as members of the public.
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides clarification on the operation of the existing common law in relation to self-defence, and the defence provided by s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (use of force in the prevention of crime or making arrest). Prosecutors are referred to the CPS legal guidance on Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime for a more detailed analysis of the law as it relates to self-defence and use of reasonable force.
Where fatal police shootings are concerned, the reviewing lawyer will be asked to consider whether the actions of the officer concerned were reasonably necessary in the circumstances as the officer honestly believed them to be. However, the courts have indicated that officers dealing with these dynamic and fast-evolving situations should be judged with regard to the overall circumstances, without placing undue weight in hindsight upon minute dissections of time, (An Officer of the Metropolitan Police) v Holland (Chairman of the Azelle Rodney Inquiry) [2014] EWHC 454 (Admin)).
CPS contact with families
Prosecutors will contact the bereaved to explain their role in the case and offer an initial meeting, where appropriate. This will usually take place at a CPS office.
The prosecutor will explain the respective roles of the investigator and the prosecutor, the offences that are under consideration (for example murder or gross negligence manslaughter) and what has to be proved for each offence. The prosecutor will also explain that they might not be able to discuss the details of the evidence as it is so far known because this may affect any future trial. Whether or not they can discuss the evidence will depend on the circumstances of the case. The prosecutor will also give the bereaved copies of leaflets that explain how decisions are reached under the Code and the process for dealing with deaths in custody.
Because of their importance, complexity and reliance on expert evidence these investigations can be very lengthy. As a result, there may be quite a long time (months rather than weeks) between the meeting with a bereaved family and the decision whether or not to prosecute an individual or organisation.
Once the investigation is complete, the prosecutor will usually offer a second meeting for the bereaved to raise any issues that particularly concern them and which may not have been known about at the time of the first meeting. Often, a second meeting may not be necessary if all issues have already been discussed. However, the bereaved are always welcome to raise anything that they want with the prosecutor, whose contact details they will be given.
If matters are taking longer than expected, the prosecutor may also write to the bereaved to keep them updated. They may also offer a further interim meeting, depending on the circumstances of the case.
When the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution has been made, the prosecutor will write to tell the family the decision. If the decision is to prosecute the letter will confirm who is to be charged for what offence. Only basic information is usually given at this stage, as providing further details about why the decision was made might affect the trial. If the decision is not to prosecute, the letter will provide more details, explaining how and why the prosecutor came to the decision.
The prosecutor will again offer a meeting to give further explanations, either of what will happen next in the prosecution or about why there is to be no prosecution. A decision not to prosecute will not be changed as a result of this meeting. A meeting will also be offered if, after a decision to prosecute, the prosecutor decides to stop the prosecution, withdraw one or more charges or make a substantial alteration to the charges.
Bereaved families may bring their lawyer or a friend to the meeting, which is perfectly acceptable.
There is no obligation on the bereaved to attend any meeting if they do not want to.
Prosecutors may also find it useful to consider the Guidance on CPS Service to Bereaved Families.
The Coroner
A coroner is a doctor or lawyer specifically appointed to conduct inquests following the reporting of a death. The coroner will have a death reported to them if it has been violent or unnatural, sudden deaths where the cause is unknown and those deaths occurring in 'custody' as defined in this guidance.
The Inquest
Where criminal proceedings are being considered in relation to a death in custody (under murder or manslaughter), the coroner will open an inquest and then adjourn it until the outcome of the proceedings is known.
If the prosecutor has decided not to charge the suspect, he/she should notify the coroner, providing an explanation on why this decision has been reached; the coroner will then arrange the inquest date.
If a decision is taken to charge the suspect with murder or manslaughter, the coroner will adjourn the inquest until the outcome of the criminal proceedings is finalised. However, if the suspect is charged with an offence other than that of murder or manslaughter, the coroner may hold the inquest before or in parallel to the criminal proceedings at his/her discretion.
The prosecutor does not have a formal role at an inquest, but may be present at the hearing to determine whether any new or relevant evidence is aired during the proceedings. Once the inquest is finished, the prosecutor may re-consider all the evidence then available, including that heard during the inquest.
You know why we're debating you here? It's not that we're hoping to change your mind about this. It's quite clear we're not going to.
However, others, who might not have given this matter much thought, can read these debates. I hope some of them will be swayed to support our position. That they will read all these arguments and say 'I never really thought of it that way'.
It's the same with symbolic gestures like taking the knee. It's not aimed at hardcore racists. Obviously a member of the Ku Klux Klan is not going to change their mind because footballers take the knee. The idea is to make those who don't give the matter much or any thought to take notice. It might, as @Bubz27 said, help others realise that racism is still much more prevalent than it should be and hopefully they'll ask themselves what they can do about that. That kids might ask what that's all about and it might stay with them. That sort of thing. It's to make sure people don't believe that racism is now gone and we're living in a utopia.
Nobody says taking the knee will end racism but it isn't hurting anyone and can only do good.
I honestly don't understand how people take this mentality. It's nonsensical.
No no no they aren't actually racists. Didn't you listen to the Ultras? It's faux racism. They are just acting racist to cause upset all the while not even being a little racist. Oh no, they coudn't be racist, they even have black friends.
Racism is 100% still a pervasive issue in the UK and to think it isn’t just because it isn’t as bad is ignorant. I don’t mean ignorant as a pejorative, because people take it as an insult. But it literally comes from a place of little understanding. The whole whole movement has stemmed from allowing marginalised people room to express their dissatisfaction. It is amplified by white voices and occasionally you do see issues raised by those not affected, but on the whole woke points of discussion come from people who are experiencing issues and are looking to combat it.
The fact that wokeness is on the rise is emblematic of racism still existing. And is also educating most on the fact that racism is more insidious and subtle than you’d expect. People saying the n-word on Twitter isn’t the only evidence or racism. It’s also lack of job opportunity, it’s the systematic stop and searches through racist police policies, it’s the continued veneration of a past built on slavery and colonialism.
I cant take anybody seriously when their response to all this is or includes 'All lives matter'
Be
I fully agree,
Yes, there is such a thing as awareness and I have read some things on this thread such as wage discrimination between black and white communities. Something that is so easily addressed by our government.
My point is, however, bending the knee of Millionaire footballers is not actually doing anything to change anything. Rashford has actually gone on the ground got his hands dirty, got stuck into politicians, and actually make a difference.
If we want to make a real difference to the lives of all, then these footballers could do so much more than taking a knee or Presenters wearing a Pin.
Read @Bubz27 post and tell us again it doesn't do any good.
I'd rather read his opinions on things than yours.
Yeah that's fair. The issue is still the first part though. But I see that isn't what you meant in your first post. I think I read it wrong.
Again, nobody is saying this will end racism but it does no harm and people have testified to the fact that it has actually helped open some people's eyes. It's doing some good so the fact that you choose this as something to take issue with is a bit damning.
You literally just said 'Everybody knows racism is wrong'. I mean the simplest/easiest answer, to that silly statement..."No".
But they do, we should be building a more equal society for all. Whilst I accept Black people have problems so do white people. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown even during a pandemic and it is wrong to focus on just the problems of one part of a community as that in itself is racist and will only grow racism.
I doubt you will find much difference between poor families in inner cities regardless of colour.
Sir Kenneth Newman, Metropolitan Police Commissioner between 1982 and 1987 stated that Jamaicans are “a people who are constitutionally disorderly … It’s simply in their make-up”.
Hard to quantity isn’t it, I can’t imagine it’s done any harm though.
It won’t make a racist change his mind purely by seeing somebody kneeling down, but as I said in a previous post, it’s about volume. If a racist sees the consensus changing, it might make them confront some of their views. It’s easy to remain set in your ways if you think everyone is doing it.
You're moving the goalposts now though because this all started with the suggestion that they should stop doing this altogether.
You see how that makes no sense, right? 'They could do so much more - so they should stop even the little they're doing right now!'
It doesn't mean that we should stop highlighting one issue because another exists.
It’s a token gesture that really means nothing without action, and it’s absolutely for good PR & nothing more. However the shitstorm it would cause by stopping it with the woke twitter mob means it’s probably not worth it.
BLM is a political group, so I can understand why certain individuals don’t want to take part. Lyle Taylor at Forest being the most high profile British footballer.
BLM is a political group, so I can understand why certain individuals don’t want to take part. Lyle Taylor at Forest being the most high profile British footballer.
@Frosty
Okay so you have a good grasp of it then. Do you then understand how difficult it would be to charge a police officer after the majority of those situations with manslaughter or even murder. It’s not the thread for it and I don’t want to derail. But I dunno I see people do this a lot, post death in custody figures and then follow it with stuff like “officer not charged”. Without presenting the overall picture so that people can actually fully understand it.
Okay so you have a good grasp of it then. Do you then understand how difficult it would be to charge a police officer after the majority of those situations with manslaughter or even murder. It’s not the thread for it and I don’t want to derail. But I dunno I see people do this a lot, post death in custody figures and then follow it with stuff like “officer not charged”. Without presenting the overall picture so that people can actually fully understand it.
White people have problems too but we have never been oppressed because of our skin colour in this country.
Yes and it should have stopped a long time ago. BLM is a trojan horse.
No shit.
However currently black lives are treated like they do not matter as much as anyone else. Hence BLM. I don't know how you missed this when everyone had to have this explained to them last June.
Not at all,
Is taking the Knee nonsense, in my opinion, it is.
Taking direct action is much better, id rather sees all players directly challenge the government and force change, as Rashford has done.
that said, how many people are sick of footballers anyhow, haircuts, parties all at a time most people are locked down. So the message of taking a knee is perhaps not even getting through to the people they believe it would.
Some of the posts in this thread are clear evidence that racism remains very much a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
- Status