Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For what it's worth, earlier this week in another

> thread I identified someone as a white male. No

> one voiced an issue with it.


I'm trying hard to keep out of this and not let the frothers continue frothing, but you mentioned a white male and gave a very detailed description of him - would you have just said "a white male" without any other description? Would have been a bit pointless, no?

What I find most offensive about this thread is that, taken at face value, a forum member has reported the brutal mugging of a elderly unwell relative who has suffered injury, and despite this fact, it has been clearly taken off topic for trolling purposes by a user with just five previous posts all of which are blatant attempts at trolling, and the regulars on here, who should know better, have fallen for this BS and consequently managed to take a serious topic off into a debate about what is and isn?t a politically correct way of identifying a criminal.


Good work everyone.


Louisa.

I agree that the most important issue is the shocking assault on the OP's mum and like Rendel I don't think any malice or racism was intended. But as the choice of words has come under the spotlight, I think it has to be said that it's not the best choice of phrasing. Skin colour can be used perfectly reasonably as an identifier in all sorts of situations, but the use of it in a negative headline which doesn't appear to be in the context of identifying the perpetrator isn't great.

I hope they catch the one that did this and wish the OP's mum a speedy recovery.

OK Louisa, I withdraw from the thread and shall make every effort to look out for a black boy on a pedal bike.


OP, sorry that the thread's been derailed (not, originally, or even secondarily, by me) and wish your mum a full and speedy recovery.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> would you have just said "a white male"

> without any other description? Would have been a

> bit pointless, no?


I see your point, RH, but think it depends. When I posted that, I was feeling annoyed and frustrated as an observer but not in the shocked state of someone who's been a direct victim of a crime or someone close to them has. When my glasses were stolen practically in front of me a few weeks back I couldn't say much about the perp other than gender, ethnicity and age group.

Can I suggest that many posters are (probably) leaping to conclusions about the OP's ethnicity (and indeed age) in their comments. His posting name (Peckhamguy) suggests he is male, but otherwise we know nothing about him, other than that his elderly mother has been brutally attacked. I wish her well.
What we do know is the OP had only joined the forum less than two days earlier and posted six innocuous messages on different threads between 6.00 and 10.30 that evening. At two in the morning they posted this distressing message as if it had just happened. Whilst it might be technically possible for their mother to have been attacked, suffered a stroke and become a changed person in three and a half hours it surely raises a question as to whether this did actually happen or not. Either way they did not post further information on the thread which might at least have indicated when and where it happened - something had they wished to be helpful to local people would have been useful. Instead they have continued to post on other threads with no indication of any family crisis going on. I am genuinely sorry if this incident did happen but the background has left me with a question about it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...