# Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park



## The Black Hand (Aug 3, 2008)

Here the evidence is clear, a mob of police violently attack playful youths having a water fight in Hyde Park;

https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404984.html

Police wankers.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 3, 2008)

Is this the one where the guy bashed the girl up?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 3, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is this the one where the guy bashed the girl up?



No. This is where London police brutally cleared a large number of youths from Hyde Park for the hideous crime of having a water fight in the hot sun.


----------



## pdxm (Aug 3, 2008)

IS everything so straightforward in your world? Of course randomly inviting 300 young people to a public place to soak each other could in no way lead to trouble in your Utopian view of the world.


----------



## pdxm (Aug 3, 2008)

And of course a woman wasn't photographed being brutally knocked to the ground during said water fight. All the people who phoned the police to call them to the area were of course delusional about what was going on. And of course Frederick Moody-Boateng is still alive.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2008)

Attica said:


> No. This is where London police brutally cleared a large number of youths from Hyde Park for the hideous crime of having a water fight in the hot sun.


And the guy who decked a girl? That looked pretty damn brutal to my eyes.


----------



## cesare (Aug 3, 2008)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7850700#post7850700


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

I'd be quite happy for the "central london mob" to attack people in Hyde Park if this was what they were doing to me








not forgetting the poor kids who were thrown off their horses and could have ended up with much worse injuries.  Oh and not forgetting that someone decided to set their pitbull on the police


----------



## pdxm (Aug 4, 2008)

very "playful" ,as the OP would have it in the land of the fairies


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Article in today's Guardian:



> Once it was an innocent trickle from a small plastic water pistol or a water-filled balloon. Then came the water-fight arms race with its Super Soaker pump-action shotguns, 12m firing ranges and nine-litre backpacks. And it all went really nuclear when social networks were deployed to create "splash mobs".
> 
> The water fight's graduation from summery fun to riot was sealed last week when 250 people gathered for a splash mob at Kensington Gardens in London. The Facebook-organised jape got out of hand when one man attacked a woman who dowsed him in coloured liquid, passersby were "accidentally" splashed and horse-riding children were injured after being thrown from their mounts.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Here *the evidence is clear*, a mob of police violently attack playful youths having a water fight in Hyde Park;
> 
> https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404984.html
> 
> Police wankers.



What evidence is that then, exactly?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> And the guy who decked a girl? That looked pretty damn brutal to my eyes.



Do you go to watch football?                                                       

No worse than what you see there... (unless you are being sexist).


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

pdxm said:


> very "playful" ,as the OP would have it in the land of the fairies



You don't go to football either then.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> You don't go to football either then.



what are you on about?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

So women are battered attending football matches?


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Do you go to watch football?


Yes, fairly often. And I've never seen a women being decked by a bloke -  and I support what is supposed to be a 'rough' team. 

What was the last game you went to, and when did you see a woman being punched out by  man? What game was that?


----------



## Skimix (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> No. This is where London police brutally cleared a large number of youths from Hyde Park for the hideous crime of having a water fight in the hot sun.



Get a fucking grip.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes, fairly often. And I've never seen a women being decked by a bloke -  and I support what is supposed to be a 'rough' team.
> 
> What was the last game you went to, and when did you see a woman being punched out by  man? What game was that?



Did you not notice this part of what i wrote?

"(unless you are being sexist)." Making the point that gender is irrelevant.

The point was people get punched all the time, the girl getting laid out is no reason for the plod to carry on as if a riot has started.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> So women are battered attending football matches?



see post 18.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Skimix said:


> I must Get a fucking grip.


----------



## rutabowa (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Did you not notice this part of what i wrote?
> 
> "(unless you are being sexist)." Making the point that gender is irrelevant.
> 
> The point was people get punched all the time, the girl getting laid out is no reason for the plod to carry on as if a riot has started.



actually yeah, at football matches police do just let fights kick off all the time without doing anything.


----------



## Skimix (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


>



You are just a troll right?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Did you not notice this part of what i wrote?
> 
> "(unless you are being sexist)." Making the point that gender is irrelevant.
> 
> The point was people get punched all the time, the girl getting laid out is no reason for the plod to carry on as if a riot has started.



The gender is irrelevant.

The fact that "people get punched all the time" doesn't make it OK. What do you want the police to do? Stand by and cheer? And what is your "evidence" that the police acted inappropriately? (Second time asking).


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 4, 2008)

why was the Spring Water red?

no attica, the police weren't 'wankers' here...


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> why was the Spring Water red?


Reports say the woman had sprayed him with this coloured water during the water fight. 
The fact it stained his shirt was said to be the reason he ran after her and assaulted her.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> why was the Spring Water red?
> 
> no attica, the police weren't 'wankers' here...



we disagree then. The problem is hyper sensitive liberals encouraging an aggressive and arrogant police farce to go OTT. 

You lot are funny and so easy to forgive the filth for arrogant attitudes... 'FIrst they came for the water fighters'....


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> The point was people get punched all the time, the girl getting laid out is no reason for the plod to carry on as if a riot has started.


What was the last game you went to? And can you give me some examples of women being hit at football games recently?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> What was the last game you went to? And can you give me some examples of women being hit at football games recently?



Gender is irrelevant.


----------



## hipipol (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Did you not notice this part of what i wrote?
> 
> "(unless you are being sexist)." Making the point that gender is irrelevant.
> 
> The point was people get punched all the time, the girl getting laid out is no reason for the plod to carry on as if a riot has started.



People get punched all the time

Sadly you are not amongst them
If its no cause for cop intervention and no cause for alarm, perhaps you'll let me punch you should we ever meet. I ask now as I suspect there may  be rather a long queue


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> why was the Spring Water red?
> 
> no attica, the police weren't 'wankers' here...


 

Maybe it's that nasty flavoured spring water?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Melinda said:


> Reports say the woman had sprayed him with this coloured water during the water fight.
> The fact it stained his shirt was said to be the reason he ran after her and assaulted her.


 

Right, so I doubt it occurred to him to just pour some water on it to get it out?  

I'm sure if it was done immediately it would have worked.

Same type of mentality as the tuts you get when you accidentally step on someone's brand new trainers


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica,

(third time asking)

what is your "evidence" that the police acted inappropriately on this occasion?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

hipipol said:


> People get punched all the time
> 
> Sadly you are not amongst them
> If its no cause for cop intervention and no cause for alarm, perhaps you'll let me punch you should we ever meet. I ask now as I suspect there may  be rather a long queue



Hahahahahahhaahahahhaaha  You'd be funny if you weren't so tragic.

Come on down little boy


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Attica,
> 
> (third time asking)
> 
> what is your "evidence" that the police acted inappropriately on this occasion?



Send me a pm if you care that much


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Send me a pm if you care that much



Why not post it here. You started the thread


----------



## ethel (Aug 4, 2008)

indeed. some evidence would be great.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

sarahluv said:


> indeed. some evidence would be great.



Can you read? Have you read this thread? Look at the link in the Op, it's all there, including testimony from a participant.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Gender is irrelevant.


OK, let's try again. What was the last football game you were at where people were punching each other please?

You brought up football in relation to this woman being hit, but I'm still trying to find out your point.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Right, so I doubt it occurred to him to just pour some water on it to get it out?
> 
> I'm sure if it was done immediately it would have worked.
> 
> Same type of mentality as the tuts you get when you accidentally step on someone's brand new trainers


It werent about dat doh. She disrespected him, blud.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Send me a pm if you care that much



I've sent Attica a PM.

Obviously the FAQ rules will prevent me from posting up what he tells me, but I will at least be able to offer my review of the reliability his evidence.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> OK, let's try again. What was the last football game you were at where people were punching each other please?
> 
> You brought up football in relation to this woman being hit, but I'm still trying to find out your point.



The point is gender is irrelevant.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Can you read? Have you read this thread? Look at the link in the Op, it's all there, including testimony from a participant.



Oh. Attica tells me this is what the "clear evidence" consists of.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

This is enough for me  testimony from a participant to start a discussion


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is this the one where the guy bashed the girl up?





Attica said:


> No. This is where London police brutally cleared a large number of youths from Hyde Park for the hideous crime of having a water fight in the hot sun.



"Playful youth."


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Melinda said:


> It werent about dat doh. She disrespected him, blud.


 
ah, that's ok then


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Do you go to watch football?
> 
> No worse than what you see there... (unless you are being sexist).



I go to football. You might have wet dreams about being involved in violent incidents but you would cry like a baby if you were caught up in one.

If you reckon the old bill stand by and do nothing when punches are thrown, then you are even more clueless than I thought - if that's possible!


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> ah, that's ok then



Hand wringing Liberal. It looks like a playground incident to me, certainly not worth thousands of £££££££££ being spent by the police over reaction.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Maybe it's that nasty flavoured spring water?



i dunno...i guess, i would have hit her if she chucked period water onto me too.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

STFC said:


> A) I go to football. You might have wet dreams about being involved in violent incidents but you would cry like a baby if you were caught up in one.
> 
> B) If you reckon the old bill stand by and do nothing when punches are thrown, then you are even more clueless than I thought - if that's possible!



A) Hahahahahhahahahahahahahaahahaha wanker.

B) Yes they do sometimes, you would have to be naive and/or stupid to say that. So to sum up - you ARE CLUELESS.


----------



## ethel (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Hand wringing Liberal. It looks like a playground incident to me, certainly not worth thousands of £££££££££ being spent by the police over reaction.



but surely that wasn't the only incident that day? it's just the one that the media have focussed on.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> The point is gender is irrelevant.



when was the last time you saw a punching crowd at a football?
one that attended?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> i dunno...i guess, i would have hit her if she chucked period water onto me too.



Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> This is enough for me  testimony from a participant to start a discussion



Testimony from a participant is by its nature biased. And there is testimony from others in your link which gives a different view of events.
By no means is there any "clear evidence" on either side.
I think there may be some good points to be made about fearfulness of the "general public" around teenagers and the fact that this can lead to an over-reaction to relatively innocent happenings. And there may be an interesting discussion to be had there. But you don't help matters by starting the "discussion" off with what you wrote in your OP. You are as bad as the people who tar all "youth" with the same brush in the way you instantly blame the police for everything without any attempt to look for some sort of balanced view of what actually happened.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Hand wringing Liberal.* It looks like a playground incident to me,* certainly not worth thousands of £££££££££ being spent by the police over reaction.


Playground Incident.  





What kind of school did you go to? Borstal?


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



QFT.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



Christ only knows what your stance on DV is then.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Testimony from a participant is by its nature biased.



Suck eggs. The testimony from that girl is clear. It is worth a discussion. The history of the police from the start WAS NEVER NEUTRAL - they have ALWAYS been against the people in confluict situations. 

You have to be naive and/or stupid and/or biased to want a 'balanced' outlook on the police from the outset, or over any issue...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Christ only knows what your stance on DV is then.



Punching men ok is it?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.


 


Now I'm really thinking this is a troll


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Punching men ok is it?



Punching anyone over a designer top isn't OK.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Now I'm really thinking this is a troll



He just wants more posts on this thread, than the original one that he missed.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



I really hope I meet you one day.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Punching anyone over a designer top isn't OK.



Shit happens.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Christ only knows what your stance on DV is then.



Funnily enough here is a post of mine on another thread from a few minutes ago;

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7858128&postcount=140


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

STFC said:


> I really hope I meet you one day.



Anytime slugboy. (and yes it is a reference to yr sm didly).


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Do you go to watch football?





Attica said:


> You don't go to football either then.





editor said:


> OK, let's try again. What was the last football game you were at where people were punching each other please?
> 
> You brought up football in relation to this woman being hit, but I'm still trying to find out your point.


Hi

What was the last football game you were at where people were punching each other please?


----------



## Skimix (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Now I'm really thinking this is a troll



No doubt about it.  Blatant attention seeking.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Funnily enough here is a post of mine on another thread from a few minutes ago;
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7858128&postcount=140



That post illustrates your attitude to the police, not DV. If you think that ruining a designer top is 'worth a punch' I wouldn't want to be your wife if she fucked up the laundry.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Anytime slugboy. (and yes it is a reference to yr sm didly).



Keep it coming.

Let's see if you can do the unthinkable and make yourself look even more of an imbecile. It really would be a remarkable achievement.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> That post illustrates your attitude to the police, not DV. If you think that ruining a designer top is 'worth a punch' I wouldn't want to be your wife if she fucked up the laundry.


If I was Attica's wife, I wouldn't be doing his laundry for him!


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> That post illustrates your attitude to the police, not DV.
> 
> If you think that ruining a designer top is 'worth a punch' I wouldn't want to be your wife if she fucked up the laundry.



The post was about Dv.

A stranger ruining a top has provoked worse than a punch before, certainly in the playground it is common i would think. There is no DV in our household. I know a copper who works in a dv unit too


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> That post illustrates your attitude to the police, not DV. If you think that ruining a designer top is 'worth a punch' I wouldn't want to be your wife if she fucked up the laundry.



Wife?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Suck eggs. The testimony from that girl is clear.



No it's not. She was there, saw the police arrive, describes their attitude (in her subjective opinion) as "threatening", did not see them hurt anyone, and then quickly left the park and didn't see what happened after that.

You interpret this as:



> a mob of police violently attack playful youths


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

STFC said:


> Wife?



True.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> The post was about Dv.
> 
> A stranger ruining a top has provoked worse than a punch before,



from complete cunts who should be locked up.

if your response to a piece of clothing being ruined is to punch someone, you are  disproportionate in your response and should be met with the sanctions of society.  in this case, arrest.

just because 'it happens' doesn't make it ok.  and fwiw, if 'it appened' in the playground of my school with such clear evidence, the aggressor would be excluded and may face criminal charges.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Shit happens.


 

so if shit happens, then why was he so upset about a bit of spilt drink on his top?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> from complete cunts who should be locked up.
> 
> if your response to a piece of clothing being ruined is to punch someone, you are  disproportionate in your response and should be met with the sanctions of society.  in this case, arrest.
> 
> just because 'it happens' doesn't make it ok.  and fwiw, if 'it appened' in the playground of my school with such clear evidence, the aggressor would be excluded and may face criminal charges.



How do you know that she didn't slip? Stepping back, after he feathered her/pulled the punch? You don't. A punch from Tyson is different to a punch from a flapping geek, they are different things.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> so if shit happens, then why was he so upset about a bit of spilt drink on his top?



££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.



If I was your wife reading this, I'd accidentally on purpose leave a red sock in the washing machine.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.



qnd the first one?  what diid you do to him/her?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.


 

So how do you know it was designer gear?  I really don't understand people that waste their money on that shite.  Like I said earlier, cursing someone because they accidentally trod on your trainers is a bit fucking sad.  

He was in a water fight.  Why didn't he just take his shirt off and wash it?

Alternatively, don't waste your money on buying shit to wear if you're too scared to get it dirty


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> How do you know that she didn't slip? Stepping back, after he feathered her/pulled the punch? You don't. A punch from Tyson is different to a punch from a flapping geek, they are different things.



so hitting someone gently is, in your opinion, a reasonable response?  what if he'd had misjudged that pulled punch?

hitting someone at all is not proportionate for getting your top spoiled.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> If I was your wife reading this, I'd accidentally on purpose leave a red sock in the washing machine.



In your fantasies


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

Oh bugger, it's the episode where Attica turns about to be a bit dim. Fucking repeats, I hate them.


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> How do you know that she didn't slip? Stepping back, after he feathered her/pulled the punch? You don't. A punch from Tyson is different to a punch from a flapping geek, they are different things.



from the photographs - before and after - it does look her a push or a possibly a slip.

his body is too close to hers to throw a decent punch...

i think the press decided to tell a different story...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> so hitting someone gently is, in your opinion, a reasonable response?  what if he'd had misjudged that pulled punch?
> 
> hitting someone at all is not proportionate for getting your top spoiled.



When the adrenalines pumping people do things... 

Description - not support...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> from the photographs - before and after - it does look her a push or a possibly a slip.
> 
> his body is too close to hers to throw a decent punch...
> 
> i think the press decided to tell a different story...



Good point.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> Oh bugger, it's the episode where Attica turns about to be brilliant. Fucking repeats, I hate them.


.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.



I wouldn't have had you down as being a wearer of designer clothes. The wanker in the photos (is it you?) seems to be wearing a plain white T-shirt. Hardly high fashion.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> In your fantasies



Well I can now imagine you giving her a bit of a slap if that happened, then posting a thread about the attitude of the OB if the neighbours reported it


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica;7858389]In your fantasies:)[/quote]Talking of which said:


> from the photographs - before and after - it does look her a push or a possibly a slip.
> 
> his body is too close to hers to throw a decent punch...
> 
> i think the press decided to tell a different story...


So it's OK to violently slap women to the ground then?


----------



## hipipol (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Hahahahahahhaahahahhaaha  You'd be funny if you weren't so tragic.
> 
> Come on down little boy



You even type your hysterical laughter???? Not a great deal of hope for you
Dont feel that tragic myself, but if thats the way you see things who am I to disappoint

So where would youlike me to come down too?
Do we need seconds?
Do I get the choice of weapons or are we restircted to the fists?

Dawn is the usual time I believe for such contests, so please give us a day or so warning as I dont normally rise in the dark so I will probably need a little nit of practice


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Oh, the clown is now up to its old trick of amending other people's quotes. Childish in the extreme.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> .



So you quoted me but changed the text. That's your brilliance? Don't you get tired of being laughed at?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Talking of which, what was that violent football game you were at please?So it's OK to slap women to the ground then?


 



I'm only keeping an eye on this thread to see if you get an answer


----------



## CharlieAddict (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> So it's OK to violently slap women to the ground then?



no - but you know with pictures - they don't always show the whole story.
he could have grabbed the bottle off her and she slipped...


----------



## pdxm (Aug 4, 2008)

Incidentally, see the black guys in the background? They would appear to be wearing matching bandanas around their necks, which is indicative of being a member of a gang and not some gross fashion coincidence.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> no - but you know with pictures - they don't always show the whole story.
> he could have grabbed the bottle off her and she slipped...



The voice of reason.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.





spanglechick said:


> qnd the first one?  what diid you do to him/her?



i think you missed this.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Talking of which, what was that violent football game you were at please?So it's OK to violently slap women to the ground then?



The gender is irrelevant.

Shit happens. 

Its description.

Not Support.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

pdxm said:


> Incidentally, see the black guys in the background? They would appear to be wearing matching bandanas around their necks, which is indicative of being a member of a gang and not some gross fashion coincidence.



Gangbangers with water pistols.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

*Pulp Fiction*



spanglechick said:


> i think you missed this.



No - why should I. Firstly I handcuffed him to the pipes on the walls so he was like this - X. then I got the blowtorch and went to work


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> The gender is irrelevant.
> 
> Shit happens.
> 
> ...





Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



Nice try.

Do you beat up women Attica?


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> The gender is irrelevant.
> 
> Shit happens.
> 
> ...



You said that ruining a designer top was worth a punch. Sounds like support to me.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> No - why should I. Firstly I handcuffed him to the pipes on the walls so he was like this - X. then I got the blowtorch and went to work



and in reality.  you didn't 'let him off' from ruining your clothing.  you are happy to stand by your actions and it's extrememly pertinant to the discussion - so why joke about it?  what did you do?


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> so why joke about it?  what did you do?



When Attica's threads go the way he doesn't like, he makes light of it and jokes about it and becomes all juvenile. Pretty normal for him really.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> You said that ruining a designer top was worth a punch. Sounds like support to me.


 I can understand those who would do it, it doesn't mean that I would do it myself.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I can understand those who would do it, it doesn't mean that I would do it myself.



You said it was 'worth a punch'. You may not do it yourself, but that's a clear indication that you would support those that do ... hence my observation about DV.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I can understand those who would do it, it doesn't mean that I would do it myself.



Like I said earlier: you have wet dreams about violence but I doubt you've thrown a punch in your life. Not at a bloke, anyway.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> You said it was 'worth a punch'. You may not do it yourself, but that's a clear indication that you would support those that do ... hence my observation about DV.



No no no... Saying I can understand does not indicate support. Its called empathy.

Here i am trying to treat both sides equally. You want equality don't you?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2008)

I've read some crap on Indymedia, but that takes the fucking hobnob.




			
				Indymedia said:
			
		

> Line of police 400 metres long with dogs and vans cleared 200 black teens, a few with water pistols, from hyde park at 6:30. At one point a cop used a taser on one of the teens. Several others were manhandled andthere seemedeto be over 10 arrests.
> 
> 
> It appears that a group of "black community" were having a water fight in the park. A complaint was made to the police who sent 3 TSG units and over a dozen dogs to clear them from the park. Members of the TSG were seen to shove several black female teens who were demanding an explanation. This drew a large crowd which the police tried to move away. Once at the edge of the park there were several scuffles that briefly blocked part of park lane. Some teens attempted to reenter the park through the subway but police charged them. Officer U5016 drew his taser and used it on a 17/18 year old and six officers manhandled him into a van and were stilling pinning him to the floor when it left15 mins later.
> ...



A more biased, factless piece of poo has never been written.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2008)

The wrongness of hitting a girl who has thrown water at you doesn't justify a heavy-handed indiscriminate attack by the pigs.

It's possible that neither party is entirely in the right.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

STFC said:


> Like I said earlier: you have wet dreams about violence but I doubt you've thrown a punch in your life. Not at a bloke, anyway.



WANKER ALERT WANKER ALERT 

Get a grip/life/brain/something to do and fek orfff and get yr own thread. You're wasting bandwidth.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> The wrongness of hitting a girl who has thrown water at you doesn't justify a heavy-handed indiscriminate attack by the pigs.
> 
> It's possible that neither party is entirely in the right.



The voice of reason.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> No no no... Saying I can understand does not indicate support. Its called empathy.
> 
> Here i am trying to treat both sides equally. You want equality don't you?



'Worth a punch' goes beyond _understanding_ and _empathising_ with the person punching. 

And you now say you wouldn't do it yourself.

On the side-lines then. So what would you be shouting? "Go for it mate, that's worth a punch, she was asking for it!" Or "Leave it mate, not worth it"

?


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> WANKER ALERT WANKER ALERT
> 
> Get a grip/life/brain/something to do and fek orfff and get yr own thread. You're wasting bandwidth.



i·ro·ny
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.  
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.  
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> The wrongness of hitting a girl who has thrown water at you doesn't justify a heavy-handed indiscriminate attack by the pigs.
> 
> It's possible that neither party is entirely in the right.



It wasn't just this incident. 

Kids were running around brandishing knives, (shortly after a teenager was stabbed to death at a similar waterfight). 

Young children on horseback had water sprayed at them, causing some to fall 
off and be injured. 

Passing members of the public were attacked with water - no big deal, but still not on.

When the police showed up, they were attacked. Most of the arrests were for attacking the police.

I'm no fan of the filth, but this incident was clearly one where they were right to attend in large numbers and with TSG. Anyone who thinks this was playground stuff is a prick. Like Attica.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2008)

Well, I suppose the police always go off on one when attacked directly.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It wasn't just this incident.
> 
> Kids were running around brandishing knives, (shortly after a teenager was stabbed to death at a similar waterfight). DELETED FOR NO EVIDENCE.
> 
> ...



Well the cop sucker is cok sucking cops. FFS. THe POLICE started the trouble by being there at all and wading in. You're the prick.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Well the cop sucker is cok sucking cops. FFS. THe POLICE started the trouble by being there at all and wading in. You're the prick.



That's not true though. Wouldn't you rather find out facts and form an opinion, rather than forming an opinion and telling lies to support it? Is is not a little empty for you, spending your days writing rubbish on the internet and being laughed at? 

The amount of effort you waste that could be doing some good is tragic.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 4, 2008)

this fred is EPIC FAIL


----------



## dogmatique (Aug 4, 2008)




----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> That's not true though. Wouldn't you rather find out facts and form an opinion, rather than forming an opinion and telling lies to support it? Is is not a little empty for you, spending your days writing rubbish on the internet and being laughed at?
> 
> The amount of effort you waste that could be doing some good is tragic.



He is doing some good. Every time he posts, he reminds us all what a complete idiot he is.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Well the cop sucker is cok sucking cops. FFS. THe POLICE started the trouble by being there at all and wading in. You're the prick.


 

So you'd be perfectly happy if a little 10-year-old child fell off a horse and broke their neck?


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

STFC said:


> He is doing some good. Every time he posts, he reminds us all what a complete idiot he is.




I guess, if he stands for the opposite of everything he posts it's a very clever ploy.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> That's not true though. Wouldn't you rather find out facts and form an opinion, rather than forming an opinion and telling lies to support it? Is is not a little empty for you, spending your days writing rubbish on the internet and being laughed at?
> 
> The amount of effort you waste that could be doing some good is tragic.



I haven't lied about anything, i have interpreted what evidence there is differently. 

You children don't worry me


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Well the cop sucker is cok sucking cops. FFS. THe POLICE started the trouble by being there at all and wading in..


Anyway, about this football game yuo were at where people were being punched.

Where and when did this happen, please?

You brought it up in this thread and I've asked at least five times now. Why can't you answer this simple question?


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Well the cop sucker is cok sucking cops. FFS. THe POLICE started the trouble by being there at all and wading in. You're the prick.



sorry - small children falling from horses is potentially hugely fucking dangerous, particularly if the horses are freaked out by - oh, i dunno - something like water being thrown at them.  it's a bit more than fucking 'boo hoo' - if i was that kid's parent i'd have been terrified.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I haven't lied about anything, i have interpreted what evidence there is differently.
> 
> You children don't worry me




And you don't worry anyone. You are pointless.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

*Apologies in advance.*



editor said:


> Anyway, about this football game yuo were at where people were being punched.
> 
> Where and when did this happen, please?
> 
> You brought it up in this thread and I've asked at least five times now. Why can't you answer this simple question?



I like to keep idiots in suspense


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> And you don't worry anyone. You are pointless.



You spend an awful lot of time telling me that which betrays your lies.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I like to keep idiots in suspense


Stop acting like an immature, infantile prick and answer the question please.

Or just admit that you made it all up because you haven't the slightest fucking clue about football (but support the hitting of women in defence of designer clothes getting dirty).


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> sorry - small children falling from horses is potentially hugely fucking dangerous, particularly if the horses are freaked out by - oh, i dunno - something like water being thrown at them.  it's a bit more than fucking 'boo hoo' - if i was that kid's parent i'd have been terrified.



It's only a small step from 'worth a punch' to not giving a fuck if kids get hurt.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> sorry - small children falling from horses is potentially hugely fucking dangerous, particularly if the horses are freaked out by - oh, i dunno - something like water being thrown at them.  it's a bit more than fucking 'boo hoo' - if i was that kid's parent i'd have been terrified.



Sorry - but toffs with horses in Hyde park get no sympathy from me.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's only a small step from 'worth a punch' to not giving a fuck if kids get hurt.



Orly?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Stop acting like an immature, infantile prick and answer the question please.
> 
> Or just admit that you made it all up because you haven't the slightest fucking clue about football (but support the hitting of women in defence of designer clothes getting dirty).



Sorry bud - i play ball for no one.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Sorry - but toffs with horses in Hyde park get no sympathy from me.



what about the few charities that run horse riding lessons for kids there??


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Sorry - but toffs with horses in Hyde park get no sympathy from me.



They are horse rides. Normal people with small children pay for their kid to have a horse ride. Like donkey rides on the beach.

Toffs - you what?


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> You spend an awful lot of time telling me that which betrays your lies.



I only visit this site now and again and unfortunately every time I do, somewhere near the top of the 'new posts' search, you're making a complete tool of yourself again. I waste very little time on you but it doesn't surprise me that your perception is, as ever, a country mile away from reality.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> They are horse rides. Normal people with small children pay for their kid to have a horse ride. Like donkey rides on the beach.
> 
> Toffs - you what?



Orly?

Ok then, perhaps I should have been more forthcoming with my altruism - you've got a lot of it which flows all the time. You know Lombroso warned people about anarchists like you


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> I only visit this site now and again and unfortunately every time I do, somewhere near the top of the 'new posts' search, you're making a complete tool of yourself again. I waste very little time on you but it doesn't surprise me that your perception is, as ever, a country mile away from reality.



you waste everybodies time.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Orly?
> 
> Ok then, perhaps I should have been more forthcoming with my altruism - you've got a lot of it which flows all the time. You know Lombroso warned people about anarchists like you



I don't know who Lombroso is, and I'm not an anarchist.


----------



## STFC (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica

You're losing it, big style.

Maybe you should take a break. Seriously. A bit of fresh air might do you some good.

It's not nice to see someone unravelling so badly. Even you.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Sorry bud - i play ball for no one.


Well done! You've done a truly grand job of making yourself look an _absolute arse_ with your laughable attempts to lie about going to football.

To be fair, it has to be said that you've made yourself look an absolute arse on just about _everything_ on this thread. Worse of all,   it appears that you might even be too stupid - or too self delusional - to even realise it.





Quite remarkable.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

I aim to please.  I think the cops overreacted as usual to next to nothing...

Byeeee


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ok, I lost this thread so will bail out now
> 
> Byeeee



Fixed.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I think the cops overreacted as usual to next to nothing...


I think you lied about going to football. 

Oh, and your attitude to hitting women stinks.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> I like to keep idiots in suspense


You could try hanging yourself then ...


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> You could try hanging yourself then ...


----------



## smokedout (Aug 4, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> from the photographs - before and after - it does look her a push or a possibly a slip.
> 
> his body is too close to hers to throw a decent punch...
> 
> i think the press decided to tell a different story...



this

girl throws water over boy, boy pushes her over

if thats not a playground incident then i dont know what is, teachers deal with similiar shit everyday without having to resort to body armour and batons

that said, give it a rest attica


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> this
> 
> girl throws water over boy, boy pushes her over


Looks like it might have been quite a remarkably hefty 'push.'


----------



## Deareg (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.



what would you have done to her if she hadn't been difficult/ill?


----------



## Melinda (Aug 4, 2008)

Deareg said:


> what would you have done to her if she hadn't been difficult/ill?


Taught her a damn good lesson. That designer shit is expensive. 
Especially on an anarchist's wage.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



Left wadical cares about designer top? 

You should seriously consider changing that tagline of yours, I would suggest – Prize turkey. 

What a classic thread - and these two posts win IMHO:



detective-boy;7858963][QUOTE=Attica said:


> I like to keep idiots in suspense


You could try hanging yourself then ...[/QUOTE]



Yelkcub said:


> Oh bugger, it's the episode where Attica turns about to be a bit dim. Fucking repeats, I hate them.



- both made me seriously laugh out loud.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> I could try hanging myself then ...



hurry up pls.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

Melinda said:


> Taught her a damn good lesson. That designer shit is expensive.
> Especially on an anarchist's wage.



My tagline is like Judge Dred - I AM THE LAW


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> I don't know who Lombroso is, and I'm not an anarchist.



Use google and wikipedia...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Left wadical cares about designer top?
> 
> You should seriously consider changing that tagline of yours, I would suggest – Prize turkey.
> 
> ...



Small things impress small minds.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Small things impress small minds.



Yes, I've noticed you changing the content of quotes from other posters and thinking it's big. 

(((Attica))))

BTW - Isn't that your mother calling you? I think your tea is ready.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Talking of which, what was that violent football game you were at please....


 
There's been a few. Not sure Attica went to any?

http://www.couchtripper.com/forum2//viewtopic.php?t=8255

http://www.couchtripper.com/forum2//viewtopic.php?t=7306


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, I've noticed you changing the content of quotes from other posters and thinking it's big.
> 
> (((Attica))))
> 
> BTW - Isn't that your mother calling you? I think your tea is ready.



Just giving people back what they dish... if you can't take it stay out of the bonfire etc...


----------



## dogmatique (Aug 4, 2008)

Yawn.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

dogmatique said:


> Yawn.
> [/IMG]



you should get a hobby/grip/life then.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Just giving people back what they dish... if you can't take it stay out of the bonfire etc...



Gosh you finished your tea quickly, I am impressed. 

How long will mummy let you play before bedtime?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Gosh you finished your tea quickly, I am impressed.
> 
> How long will mummy let you play before bedtime?



Boring. Why do you bother?


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Boring. Why do you bother?


Why do you bother claiming that you've seen fighting at football matches when it's obvious that you've made it all up? 

Bit sad really. You ended up looking a right tit.


----------



## newme (Aug 4, 2008)

lol surely Attica is a troll?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Why do you bother claiming that you've seen fighting at football matches when it's obvious that you've made it all up?
> 
> Bit sad really. You ended up looking a right tit.



Boring  -why do you bother. You are being an ediot again... I claimed nothing of the sort and you misunderstood a simple point I was making about gender equality and violence through a football idiom. The only tit around here is U.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 4, 2008)

newme said:


> lol surely Attica is a troll?



That's u newB.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 4, 2008)

blimey, has Editor still not got an answer?


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> Boring  -why do you bother. You are being an ediot again... I claimed nothing of the sort and you misunderstood a simple point I was making about gender equality and violence through a football idiom.


LOL! 



Attica said:


> Do you go to watch football?





Attica said:


> You don't go to football either then.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 4, 2008)

jesus....  

attica may well be right about the police being overly forcefull... but after the attitude he has shown in this thread i'm bloody greatful he isn't in charge of picking something to replace it


the "oh boo hoo"-ing  of the horse riding kids  was probably the  final decider   that was just straight up cuntyness


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 4, 2008)

Attica said:


> ££££ to replace. It fucks me off big time when somebody does that to your gear. Its happened to me twice, both by hippies. The second one got off cos i knew she was difficult/ill.



You know, going to Facebook-organised water pistol fights isn't really that anarchic in most people's books. But if you enjoy it, don't wear your Pringle sweater next time.


----------



## DG55 (Aug 4, 2008)

"OMG you stained my precious white t-shirt!" what a nob.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

Shippou-Chan said:


> jesus....
> 
> attica may well be right about the police being overly forcefull... but after the attitude he has shown in this thread i'm bloody greatful he isn't in charge of picking something to replace it
> 
> ...



Yeah somehow I went from my police line  = overkill position to fuck's sake, maybe there are loads of people out there thinking that it's worth a punch and haha if a kid gets hurt and egging that element on. 

If I were the OB, I'd be paying him to post this kind of thing.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2008)

Having seen the pics and seen 2 completely different explanations it's quite hard to tell whether he punches he or just pushes her over.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

Well, the lesson to be learnt from all this is fairly straightforward:

Avoid all wanky Facebook events
Attica is a true master at making an arse of himself

Is that a fair appraisal of the thread thus far?


----------



## untethered (Aug 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Well, the lesson to be learnt from all this is fairly straightforward:
> 
> Avoid all w- Facebook events
> Attica is a true master at making an a- of himself
> ...



With a modest side order of smugness from yourself, yes.


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> Having seen the pics and seen 2 completely different explanations it's quite hard to tell whether he punches he or just pushes her over.



"just pushes her over" - fantastic. "I'm not punching you luv (although we all know it's worth a punch lol) I'll just push you over, lay you out. If you want to get up and try it again, go on, get up, let's be having ya"


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2008)

untethered said:


> With a modest side order of smugness from yourself, yes.


In what way, dear antagonistic reader?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> "just pushes her over" - fantastic. "I'm not punching you luv (although we all know it's worth a punch lol) I'll just push you over, lay you out. If you want to get up and try it again, go on, get up, let's be having ya"



Where did I say anything about 'worth a punch'?


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> Where did I say anything about 'worth a punch'?



You didn't, as far as I recall. But Attica said it was worth a punch, so you putting it in context of merely decking her with a push instead of a punch makes it all right?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> You didn't, as far as I recall. But Attica said it was worth a punch, so you putting it in context of merely decking her with a push instead of a punch makes it all right?



Judging by the pic that shows their full bodies it doesn't really look like either a push _or_ a punch, but possibly like he was trying to catch her and they twatted into each other (I'm just guessing from the position of his legs here, but it goes to show how a bit of cropping can completely change the feel of a picture).

I have some sympathy for Attica here, actually, because I think if an equivalent picture was shown and the lad was in a police uniform he would have been given much more benefit of the doubt, and it wouldn't have surprised me if some posters had interpreted it as the girl 'attacking the officer'.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

The picture, though, is really fairly irrelevant to the whole thread, in the end.

I don't think anyone is going to try and say that we can come to any sort of conclusion about what did or didn't happen on that day, just from one series of photographs.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The picture, though, is really fairly irrelevant to the whole thread, in the end.
> 
> I don't think anyone is going to try and say that we can come to any sort of conclusion about what did or didn't happen on that day, just from one series of photographs.



Is a fair point.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

8ball said:


> Judging by the pic that shows their full bodies it doesn't really look like either a push _or_ a punch, but possibly like he was trying to catch her and they twatted into each other (I'm just guessing from the position of his legs here, but it goes to show how a bit of cropping can completely change the feel of a picture).
> 
> I have some sympathy for Attica here, actually, because I think if an equivalent picture was shown and the lad was in a police uniform he would have been given much more benefit of the doubt, and it wouldn't have surprised me if some posters had interpreted it as the girl 'attacking the officer'.



I don't have much confidence in a series of pics tbh. I've no confidence in how that's reported, how the pics get manipulated and/or interpreted etc.  What I reacted to was the 'worth a punch' and 'boo hoo hoo' if a kid gets injured.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 5, 2008)

Well, yes, that bit was less then edifying.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 5, 2008)

8ball said:


> The wrongness of hitting a girl who has thrown water at you doesn't justify a heavy-handed indiscriminate attack by the pigs.
> 
> It's possible that neither party is entirely in the right.



Yup. That picture doesn't make it clear if it's a punch, a push, or sliding into each other, but if it was a punch then he's rightly going to be in a lot of trouble. 

Though, if there were people throwing water at the people on horseback (from the reports I fread, I thought it was more coincidental than that - horse-riders went past and got spooked), then they were utter twats too. Hope the kids involved are OK, whatever their class.

I wonder if the people attacking the police were actually people spraying water at them, or was it people actually hitting them? 

Waterfights are fun. Perhaps there could be a properly sanctioned, organised one in Hyde Park sometime, keeping clear of horseriding routes and so on.


----------



## 8den (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:
			
		

> The history of the police from the start WAS NEVER NEUTRAL -* they have ALWAYS been against the people in confluict situations.*



Yeah cause the police should be "for" people in "conflucit" situations". 

The police arrive theres been an altercation, a woman is claiming she is assaulted. 

Furthermore it's coming off the background of the death of Frederick Moody, killed in London less than two weeks previous to this, _ after a water fight_. 

So to be clear, there were several claims of assault against this woman, several children on the day, and in the background, days beforehand a kid was killed after a water fight turned nasty. 

And _ you're giving the police shit over shutting this down_? For fucks sake the last thing the MPC needed was a potential second kid killed or injured in water fight in the capital within days of each other. 

Attica once again you have come out as a utter fucking tool. Some morons organised a fecking water fight over an anonymous social networking site. In central London. Someone got pissed off, and may or may not have assaulted a woman. There were  further reports of children and other people being injured. This coming days after another murder after a water fight in London. 

And you're giving the cops shit over this one Attica? Why? 

Jesus you are pathetic.


----------



## paolo (Aug 5, 2008)

So far:
- let's take the fight to children horse riders
- defend our designer gear
- all in the name of justice

What. The. Fuck. ?

Oddly, we've now actually transcended a level where DB chips in to try and defend the police, and entered a whole new level of surrealism. Maybe this is going to be nominee in the end of year thread compo. Can't quite decide if it's beating "Anarcho Peace War Rave in a Minefield".


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Left wadical cares about designer top?



The Divvy Wears Prada?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



What sort of retard wears a designer top to a waterfight?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 5, 2008)

Artaxerxes said:


> What sort of retard wears a designer top to a waterfight?


Chavs!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 5, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Chavs!



I meant an actual designer top rather than some knock off crap


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2008)

Artaxerxes said:


> I meant an actual designer top rather than some knock off crap



Nobody did. Attica made that bit up to justify beating up girls.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> So far:
> - let's take the fight to children horse riders
> - defend our designer gear
> - all in the name of justice
> ...





Lmao.

I can see where Attica was going with the thread, but I think he muddied the waters (but no water fight) with his footie analogy. 

I was hoping that was an _Ing-er-land_ shirt the fella was wearing when it got soaked in red juice.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> The Divvy Wears Prada?


LOL!


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I can see where Attica was going with the thread...



You can? Maybe you could explain it to the rest of us then.



Attica said:


> Here the evidence is clear, a mob of police violently attack playful youths having a water fight in Hyde Park;
> 
> https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404984.html
> 
> Police wankers.



The evidence is clear? No it's not. There two photos of coppers who appear to be walking in line, not violently attacking anyone from what I can see. There are a few conflicting accounts of what actually happened, including this:



> was at Hyde Park corner when the police with their dogs and tasers were dispersing the crowd. I was 5 metres away from the guy that got tasered *after he started punching several cops*.



He's full of shit, as per usual.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Lmao.
> 
> I can see where Attica was going with the thread, but I think he muddied the waters (but no water fight) with his footie analogy.


Yeeeeeah that... plus there was the justifying punching women thing, oh and the whole 'only toff kids ride horses' stuff.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nobody did. Attica made that bit up to justify beating up girls.



Not true.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Melinda said:


> Yeeeeeah that... plus there was the justifying punching women thing, oh and the whole 'only toff kids ride horses' stuff.



I did not justify punching a woman, I said I understood it.
Didn't say that. I assumed it, before I was informed that proles are allowed to ride them too if they pay.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Hooray! Attica's back!

Some entertainment for a grey Tuesday afternoon.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> I did not justify punching a woman, I said I understood it.
> Didn't say that. I assumed it, before I was informed that proles are allowed to ride them too if they pay.



Do you justify punching a man, though?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

8ball said:


> Well, yes, that bit was less then edifying.



But FFS just how much emotional fekking support are we meant to display on fekking line? 

*I've got enough trouble in my family* without fekking pretending I care about people I do not know or will never meet online, and given that there are potentially millions of causes/cases/news/issues its stupid to suggest that we do. It's ultra fekking liberal Ok Yah polite shite to display so much empathy to every fekking thing. Fuk that. You lot aren't individuals - you're PC clones.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Do you justify punching a man, though?



You? Yes.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 5, 2008)

You should be a politician Attica, you're certainly eloquent enough...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

OMG Attica Punches PC Clones!!!!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> *I've got enough trouble in my family* without fekking pretending I care about people I do not know or will never meet online,



Then why do you care about the violent police mob beating up all the innocent teenagers in Hyde Park?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Then why do you care about the violent police mob beating up all the innocent teenagers in Hyde Park?



Cos it relates to the structure of society that I and my family live in and experience wherever I go.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Cos it relates to the structure of society that I and my family live in and experience wherever I go.



Of course it does! I bet you can't even go down the shops for a pint of milk without seeing the fascist pigs wading in to a bunch of kids having a water fight.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> Of course it does! I bet you can't even go down the shops for a pint of milk without seeing the fascist pigs wading in to a bunch of kids having a water fight.



You must have been born stupid cos you clearly do not have too work at it.

Policing, police powers and attidues are everywhere.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> You must have been born stupid cos you clearly do not have too work at it.
> 
> Policing, police powers and attidues are everywhere.



And a good job too. Can't have those water fights getting out of hand now can we?

Oops, I've just spilt a bit of drink down my shirt. I'll have to punch myself.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> And a good job too. Can't have those water fights getting out of hand now can we?
> 
> Oops, I've just spilt a bit of drink down my shirt. I'll have to punch myself.



Proper police procedure should clearly be laughing at teenagers kicking a tramp in the face, calling them ragamuffins and rewarding them with a sherbet dip, all while muttering "kids eh? Well I was young once too"


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Didn't say that. I assumed it, before I was informed that proles are allowed to ride them too if they pay.



So if there's a possibility that the riders might not be upper class then causing innocent people to fall off their horses is potentially problematical. However, if you know for sure that they're upper class then they deserve it. Yes?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> I'll have to punch myself.


Good.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> So if there's a possibility that the riders might not be upper class then causing innocent people to fall off their horses is potentially problematical. However, if you know for sure that they're upper class then they deserve it. Yes?



I think this is how it works. But if they are upper class, but wearing a designer T-shirt, which gets damaged when they fall off, then things are a little less clear. I think this means that it's OK that they fell off the horse, but they can punch you if they want. But not if you're a woman. Oh, no, maybe you can because gender is not relevant, although toffness is. Sorry, now I've got in a muddle. Ignore everything I just said.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think this is how it works. But if they are upper class, but wearing a designer T-shirt, which gets damaged when they fall off, then things are a little less clear. I think this means that it's OK that they fell off the horse, but they can punch you if they want. But not if you're a woman. Oh, no, maybe you can because gender is not relevant, although toffness is. Sorry, now I've got in a muddle. Ignore everything I just said.



Upper class always bad, beaten by gender neutral class warriors


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Upper class always bad, beaten by gender neutral class warriors



What constitutes upper class nowadays?


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> What constitutes upper class nowadays?



Anyone with more sense than Attica.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> What constitutes upper class nowadays?



This is not a complete list, but start with these;

Royalty, aristocracy, gentry, toffs, directors/chairs of top 500 companies, the cabinet, chief executives of councils, Lord Lieutenants of counties, privy council, those in management of city brokers, insurance, stock exchange, and banks and other financial institutions, chief constables and deputy chief constables, Armed forces (air/navy/army/ t.a.) officers up to and including general staff...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Anyone with less sense than Attica.











.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> This is not a complete list, but start with these;
> 
> Royalty, aristocracy, gentry, toffs, directors/chairs of top 500 companies, the cabinet, chief executives of councils, Lord Lieutenants of counties, privy council, those in management of city brokers, insurance, stock exchange, and banks and other financial institutions, chief constables and deputy chief constables, Armed forces (air/navy/army/ t.a.) officers up to and including general staff...



Interesting. The latter includes NCOs does it?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Interesting. The latter includes NCOs does it?



No.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> No.



So ... a Flying Officer would be upper class but a Warrant Officer would be, maybe, middle class - yes?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> So ... a Flying Officer would be upper class but a Warrant Officer would be, maybe, middle class - yes?



Probably yes.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Probably yes.



How odd and inconsistent.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Can we push middle class people off horses?


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

And what class are people who think a woman should be punched for ruining your clothes?

I'd suggest that they have no class whatsoever.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

BTW if you spill orange squash on a Police Officer's uniform is he allowed to punch you?


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can we push middle class people off horses?



I think so. It's obviously an aspirational activity.

Today's middle-class rider is tomorrow's toff. Look at "Kate" Middleton, for example.

If everyone pushed the middle classes from their horses, the aristocracy would inbreed itself to extinction within a generation.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> How odd and inconsistent.



Why? 

The line is drawn somewhere, and I am trying to draw it above those who might get a stripe or 2 (working class), but do not have the control capabilities of command and responsibility that a middle class post has. 

Also then there is a line between the middle class administrators in the reproduction of armed forces life, and those who have an effect on policy and practice - who are the lower reaches of the upper class.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think so. It's obviously an aspirational activity.
> 
> Today's middle-class rider is tomorrow's toff. Look at "Kate" Middleton, for example.
> 
> If everyone pushed the middle classes from their horses, the aristocracy would inbreed itself to extinction within a generation.



But didn't you see the list? Not all upper class are toffs. Some skip the whole middle class stage altogether. So you would also have to push any working class off their horses if, for example, you had good reason to suspect they were training to be a bank manager.


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Why?
> 
> The line is drawn somewhere, and I am trying to draw it above those who might get a stripe or 2 (working class), but do not have the control capabilities of command and responsibility that a middle class post has.
> 
> Also then there is a line between the middle class administrators in the reproduction of armed forces life, and those who have an effect on policy and practice - who are the lower reaches of the upper class.



Has it ever occurred to you that nearly every member of the armed forces is fully committed to playing their part in defending the country and its interests, from the lowliest recruit to the chief of the defence staff.

Your distinction is entirely bogus. Some may have more power than others (and more pay) but they are all willingly part of a common enterprise, in all its good and bad manifestations.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> blahblah blah blah blas. Hang on blah blah blah nothingness.



Boring.


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> The line is drawn somewhere, and I am trying to draw it above those who might get a stripe or 2 (working class), but do not have the control capabilities of command and responsibility that a middle class post has..


Are you working class then Attica?

What's your job?

PS Have you ever been to a football game in your life? And if so, when was the last time you went?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 5, 2008)

untethered said:


> Anyone with more sense than Attica.



So, basically the whole world.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Why?
> 
> The line is drawn somewhere, and I am trying to draw it above those who might get a stripe or 2 (working class), but do not have the control capabilities of command and responsibility that a middle class post has.
> 
> Also then there is a line between the middle class administrators in the reproduction of armed forces life, and those who have an effect on policy and practice - who are the lower reaches of the upper class.



Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the rank of Warrant Officer entails?

And someone with a working class background, can even get a commission without a degree. In the case of the RAF, starting at Pilot Officer then on to Flying Officer. Junior ranks.


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

What about the police? All police officers start at the rank of constable, whether they're straight out of school or whether they've just got their BA (Oxon.) Jurisprudence.

Should we distinguish constables on the accelerated promotion scheme from their seemingly-similar colleagues who are likely to spend the best part of their careers in that rank?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> > Originally Posted by *teuchter*
> > _blahblah blah blah blas. Hang on blah blah blah nothingness._
> 
> 
> ...



Is that actually what all posts, except your own, look like to you? That would explain quite a lot.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can we push middle class people off horses?


Only middle-sized horses.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2008)

"I'm upper class and I look down on him."


----------



## audiotech (Aug 5, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> You could try hanging yourself then ...


 
Do you say that to prisoners under custody?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the rank of Warrant Officer entails?
> 
> And someone with a working class background, can even get a commission without a degree. In the case of the RAF, starting at Pilot Officer then on to Flying Officer. Junior ranks.



TBH i have never done a study of the armed forces, this is my take on it from the outside. Of course a serious labour process study would have to done. 

In your case above, i _suspect_ you are talking about a case where a working class person enters the ranks of the middle class through work responsibility and power....


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

editor said:


> A) Are you working class then Attica?
> 
> B) What's your job?
> 
> C) PS Have you ever been to a football game in your life? And if so, when was the last time you went?



A) Yes
B) Annoying you
C) Many, i've even done some reports I've posted in the U75 sports forum. Last one? Last season it will have probably been a Spennymoor game, I do not keep a record.


----------



## untethered (Aug 5, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> "I'm upper class and I look down on him."



That'll be useful for my forthcoming research on the role of headgear in the construction and transmission of socioeconomic difference.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> TBH i have never done a study of the armed forces, this is my take on it from the outside. Of course a serious labour process study would have to done.
> 
> In your case above, i _suspect_ you are talking about a case where a working class person enters the ranks of the middle class through work responsibility and power....



I just think it's useful to have an idea of how and why you categorise people before you write them off as being upper class. For instance, a working class kid can apply to be a pilot and be accepted while they're in the 6th form. But a pilot is officer class. Even if that working class kid never sees active service and leaves to become a commercial pilot, by your measure you'd class them as upper class and their kids (if they have any) worthy of being thrown off horses etc. Perhaps you need to add all pilots to your list of the upper class?

And that's just one example.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Good to see that certain academics can retain their 'working class' credentials whilst concurrently berating other working class people for becoming upper class in the pursuit of their chosen specialist career eh, Attica?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> I just think it's useful to have an idea of how and why you categorise people before you write them off as being upper class. For instance, a working class kid can apply to be a pilot and be accepted while they're in the 6th form. But a pilot is officer class. Even if that working class kid never sees active service and leaves to become a commercial pilot, by your measure you'd class them as upper class and their kids (if they have any) worthy of being thrown off horses etc. Perhaps you need to add all pilots to your list of the upper class?
> 
> And that's just one example.



I said a serious labour process study would have to be done. Calm down! This is chit chat not a developed political position. In the case above its Labour aristocracy then... i am not that bothered... I am more interested in class struggle(s) than pigeonholing people into categories - you asked me do not forget...


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Good to see that certain academics can retain their 'working class' credentials whilst concurrently berating other working class people for becoming upper class in the pursuit of their chosen specialist career eh, Attica?



I'm not an academic and haven't been for years.... calm down (posts picture of a deer just to rile you)


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

I'm quite calm thanks Attica  

But how can you have a class struggle unless you're clear about what constitutes class?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> I'm quite calm thanks Attica
> 
> But how can you have a class struggle unless you're clear about what constitutes class?



Doh! An individual does not have to know every fekking facet of the particularities of the class composition. It's enough that they recognise that they are working class, that they organise with others at work or in the community, against the capitalist class...


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Doh! An individual does not have to know every fekking facet of the particularities of the class composition. It's enough that they recognise that they are working class, that they organise with others at work or in the community, against the capitalist class...



What's the 'capitalist class' ? That's a new one to me. We are all capitalists to some extent living within a capitalist system.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> What's the 'capitalist class' ? That's a new one to me. We are all capitalists to some extent living within a capitalist system.


Oh FFS.

We are not all capitalist class - they are the owners and controllers of the means of production. Use google and wikipedia, then read Capital by Karl Marx, vol. 1. Start at the Primitive accumulation chapters approx 2/3rds of the way through and then go back to the beginning.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Oh FFS.
> 
> We are not all capitalist class - they are the owners and controllers of the means of production. Use google and wikipedia, then read Capital by Karl Marx, vol. 1. Start at the Primitive accumulation chapters approx 2/3rds of the way through and then go back to the beginning.



So ... to summarise the classes as you seem to perceive them:

Underclass
Working class
Petit Bourgeois*
Middle Class*
Upper Class*
Capitalist Class*
Non Capitalist Class e.g. self sufficient hippies living off the land man
Any others?



* All fair game for attacking in the name of the Struuuuuugle (you have to say that with a Russian accent for maximum effect)


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> So ... to summarise the classes as you seem to perceive them:
> 
> There are some peasants left around the world but not many.
> 
> ...



Corrected your view of my view of class above. Carry on.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Corrected your view of my view of class above. Carry on.



Lost me there.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Lost me there.



You displayed a 7 class model, i shortened it down to a 3 class model, except for a minority of peasants, which if you include them is 4.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> You displayed a 7 class model, i shortened it down to a 3 class model, except for a minority of peasants, which if you include them is 4.



Are these 'peasants' the underclass? Like refugees etc?

I disagree that the middle class aren't capitalists from your truncated model btw


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Are these 'peasants' the underclass? Like refugees etc?
> 
> I disagree that the middle class aren't capitalists from your truncated model btw



Small capital is not big capital, small capital does not have control and command capability.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Small capital is not big capital, small capital does not have control and command capability.



The 'peasants'? You forgot to reply.

You don't think the middle classes/petit bourgeois have command and control capability?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> The 'peasants'? You forgot to reply.
> 
> You don't think the middle classes/petit bourgeois have command and control capability?



At the micro level, but not the macro.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> At the micro level, but not the macro.



The 'peasants' (of whom there are many more than you seem to appreciate) or the middle class/pb?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> Are these 'peasants' the underclass? Like refugees etc?



No. They are not proletarianised, and their behaviour is taking from the land, although there is some minor trading sometimes. The wealthier peasants I suppose would be middle class then, especially if they employed people.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> No. They are not proletarianised, and their behaviour is taking from the land, although there is some minor trading sometimes. The wealthier peasants I suppose would be middle class then, especially if they employed people.



What about refugees? How would you classify them?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> What about refugees? How would you classify them?


Between jobs? Proles.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can we push middle class people off horses?



did attica do in christopher reeve?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2008)

Shippou-Chan said:


> did attica do in christopher reeve?



What class was Superman? 


eta. shit just found out his dad was king  

Attica's right, we're wrong


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

cesare said:


> You don't think the middle classes/petit bourgeois have command and control capability?



No.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Jeez. Just because the police can act like cunts doesn't mean they always act like cunts.

I despair at the left, no wonder its ideologically fucked, they spend their whole time firing rubber bullets at trampolines!


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

*By Any Means Necessary*



Melinda said:


> Yeeeeeah that... plus there was the justifying punching women thing, oh and the whole 'only toff kids ride horses' stuff.



I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women. I'm not sure that was his point at all. If he thought beating girls was okay, I'd have had him on ignore long ago.

To be fair, it helps to frame Attica's original post in the context of his wider beliefs and his perception of the class struggle and the role of police in 'society'.

Attica wouldn't be doing his 'job' if he didn't find and exploit instances of police brutality, or heavy-handed policing. 

...and let's face it: it's scientifically proven that 8 out 10 dog owners, I mean coppers, are cunts. You have to be a cunt to want to be a copper: probably cos the army and the Scouts wouldn't have you.

No Pasaran!

that's a tenner please, Attica me old china


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women. I'm not sure that was his point at all. If he thought beating girls was okay, I'd have had him on ignore long ago.
> 
> To be fair, it helps to frame Attica's original post in the context of his wider beliefs and his perception of the class struggle and the role of police in 'society'.
> 
> ...



You talk more arse than he does!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 5, 2008)

I personally don't believe ACAB. Nor do I condone hitting women.

One question though: Why did that girl put food dye in a bottle of water at a water fight. I think that was a nasty touch. Maybe she liked the added kudos of staining those she got wet? Not a nice touch or plan at all.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I personally don't believe ACAB. Nor do I condone hitting women.
> 
> One question though: Why did that girl put food dye in a bottle of water at a water fight. I think that was a nasty touch. Mayne she liked the added kudos of staining those she got wet? Not a nice touch or plan at all.



At a guess - because she is amoral dragged up scum!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> At a guess - because she is amoral dragged up scum!



Steady on! 

Nasty ill thought out idea yes....not sure of the rest.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> At a guess - because she is amoral dragged up scum!



Fek orrrf right wing scum


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> You talk more arse than he does!



What? About Attica, or coppers...or both?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Steady on!
> 
> Nasty ill thought out idea yes....not sure of the rest.



Its more than just a bit unfriendly - it is as they say in the parlance _bang out of order._


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> What? About Attica, or coppers...or both?



About coppers.

And I assure you I am not the coppers friend.

I cant stand Detective Boy for example.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women. I'm not sure that was his point at all. If he thought beating girls was okay, I'd have had him on ignore long ago.





Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



Seems straightfroward enough to me. I fucking hate people who hit women or think it's ok to hit women.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Fek orrrf right wing scum



Sadly it is people like yourself that are fucking things up - with your 2d political analysis!

Whats that lovely Orwellian mantra.....

2 leg coppers bad ...bleat
anything else regardless legs good.....bleat

yawn *100


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> Seems straightfroward enough to me. I fucking hate people who hit women or think it's ok to hit women.



So do I! She was behaving like a silly bitch though!


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> Seems straightfroward enough to me. I fucking hate people who hit women or think it's ok to hit women.



Dimwit. This is correct;

"I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women."

All you are is stupid right wing shite.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> About coppers.
> 
> And I assure you I am not the coppers friend.
> 
> I cant stand Detective Boy for example.



S'funny. I think actually think DB's posts are quite interesting and seem almost reasonable for a policeman.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Sadly it is people like yourself that are fucking things up - with your 2d political analysis!
> 
> Whats that lovely Orwellian mantra.....
> 
> ...




You haven't got a clue dimwit - carry on proving it hahahhahahahahaha.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Dimwit. This is correct;
> 
> "I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women."
> 
> All you are is stupid right wing shite.



Do not agree with attica = right wing.


Welcome to Stalins world.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Do not agree with attica = right wing.



Did you expect anything else?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> You haven't got a clue dimwit - carry on proving it hahahhahahahahaha.



I am genius compared to your simpleton like ramblings.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Do not agree with attica = right wing.
> 
> 
> Welcome to Stalins world.



Some people have right wing history chump. I do not forget.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Did you expect anything else?



Frankly, no.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

*deckchair*

*opens snack and donkey ride concession units*


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> S'funny. I think actually think DB's posts are quite interesting and seem almost reasonable for a policeman.



He's a deferential twit!


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Some people have right wing history chump. I do not forget.



You read the history of Stalin? Is that what you mean? Is he your role model (secretly I mean, i mean we all know its not cool to say so).?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> He's a deferential twit!



I don't go looking for his posts specifically, but what I have read, and where I've interacted with DB on a couple of threads, he seems to be prepared to stand his ground and argue his point, even when all others are ragging on him.

Mind you - once a copper, always a copper, IMHO.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> I am genius compared to your simpleton like ramblings.



Orly?

Here's something I wrote in italics - what do you think?

Anarchism and Marxism debate with Platypus1917, Chicago 

Half-time team talk: Mayday (UK) response on anarchism and Marxism 
April 2008


For issue 2 (February 2008), Chris Cutrone wrote, in "On anarchism and Marxism: a response to Mayday magazine (UK)," on behalf of Platypus, that the principal difference between anarchism and Marxism lies in the way "history" figures in any present estimations of ideology, conscious political program and organization, at the levels both of the historical specificity of struggles for emancipation beyond the modern society of capital, and in the history of capital itself, of which a Marxian approach considers the history of the Left as an essential and not extrinsic part. 

Platypus focuses on redeeming the problematic history of the Marxist Left, "against the grain" (Benjamin) of its more or less contingent or necessary outcomes, in order to discover and provoke conscious recognition of the historically obscured necessities for social-emancipatory political struggle in the present. Political organizations and parties and their programs need to be understood both as forms of action and as forms of memory. 

The Platypus critique of anarchism is in its inability to grasp and act upon the specificities of the present as a moment in the history of capital—and what it would take to move beyond and not continue to repeat this history. 

Addendum: Platypus recognizes anarchism both historically and at present as symptomatic of the failures of Marxism, as the bad conscience of the history of the Marxist Left, to be overcome only by working through and redeeming this history. 

In the following, a further response to Platypus for Mayday. 

_Platypus is a new group in Chicago that is rethinking the Marxist tradition, and they were quoted in Mayday issue 1. Chris Cutrone, for Platypus, has written a response to the Mayday issue 1 "Introduction: Open letter" in their February 2008 newsletter [The Platypus Review issue 2], raising many important questions, some of which will be addressed now. 

Trying to force clear red water between an anarchist and a Marxist approach, Cutrone describes that a "key distinction is the relation of political organisation and historical consciousness." This historical consciousness is primary for Platypus, and we hope Mayday addressed enough concerns with political practice and memory to be useful. For Mayday experience is a crucial factor, with a concentration on struggles. This is planned to result in praxis, which includes dynamic consciousness, which is grounded in the conditions of our time rather than the past, and has lessons for political organisation. In short, Mayday's aims are similar to those of Platypus. 

We entirely agree that revolutionary organisations should be able to justify themselves, but they are overwhelmingly arrogant and uncritical in the UK. There is little serious discussion of politics, no regular forums, and so on. The serious questions about how political action enables transformative action, "how does political organisation enable transformative, emancipatory, and not foreclosing action? How can the Left 'live' and take form not deadly to itself?," are serious ones for us, even if the UK Left and anarchists ignore them. Specifically the danger of Left organising as a cult is a huge problem in the UK. 

A recurring problem is the distinction and the differences between anarchism and the Left; for Mayday, we have dissolved the distinction as an impediment to theoretical and practical endeavours. For us the historical baggage either does not matter or is an impediment to greater unity and better politics; those who insist on hard lines effectively have created a sealed little bubble for themselves. Despite this argument new and interesting articles from both sides continue to appear on 1917 and after. But largely it is a debate for purists and not those looking to develop politics for now and tomorrow. The practices and methodology of Platypus however, are entirely correct for rethinking the Marxist tradition; we wish you well with your project. 

We have some toes in the anarchist pool and some in the Labour movement. We are also conscious that a third pool needs to be built, and that is the area of autonomy, but that is already a few decades underway as the New Left already (in the UK at least) has inspired and contributed to the theory of existing autonomists (e.g. Harry Cleaver, University of Texas). Already autonomist practice and theory is very relevant to these discussions, and it is this hybrid, with others perhaps, which Mayday hopes may result in new liberation politics for our time. 

One starting point for us has been the ultra voluntarism of anarchism, which demands anarchic responses to virtually all issues, but which is unsustainable because of the resulting arrest rates. That is not to say that confrontation and direct action have been relegated to unimportance for us. They have not; struggles are still our focal concern. This is similar to Platypus and their criticism (vis à vis Nicholas Spencer) of the anarchist tradition. 

Platypus's highlighting of the writing of history as being urgent for emancipatory politics is very worthwhile, and there are others before us who have thought this. In the UK the Communist Party Historians Group — Andrew Morton, Donna Torr, Eric Hobsbawm, E. P. Thompson et al already stated this in 1956—the year so many people left the Communist Party because of repression in Hungary; we "must become historians of the present too." These British Marxist Historians are important forerunners of the traditions we would like to emulate, and we wholeheartedly concur with understanding "what changes while remaining the same?" The British Left/Labour movement problem however is at an advanced stage; our Left, the oldest in the world perhaps, has unique characteristics of its advanced fossilization. 

Our practice already is with the best parts of this tradition, though we are not in a position to overcome it, yet. We also draw wisdom from Antonio Negri, that "organisation is spontaneity that reflects upon itself," which is a good description of where we are at. Mayday personnel currently derive from different experiences, gatekeepers of at least three important cycles of struggles, were all participants, and we view the next struggles to be as important as the older ones. We want to have an informed basis for the new struggles to come. They will not be totally new, there will always be some connections with the past, but we do aim, with Lukács, to be "those who can see the furthest." 

Platypus further raises an important issue of "when" was the Left, not only "where" it was or where it is. Indeed, this is an interesting historical note, and theirs is a great point; we cannot better it: "We do not live in some timeless and perpetual present of oppression and struggle against it, but in… 'the time of now' (Jetztzeit), a time of particular and fleeting possibilities and the ambiguously obscure history that brought them—us—into existence." _


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica, seriously, you seem very passionate. Would you not like to focus that in an effective way, instead of ensuring everyone laughs at you? Really, everyone, including those who may point in the same general on the political compass as you will dismiss you as a crank.

Surely you'd like to actually make a difference? Unless it's just about attention?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Mind you - once a copper, always a copper, IMHO.


Yup.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> Attica, seriously, you seem very passionate. Would you not like to focus that in an effective way, instead of ensuring everyone laughs at you? Really, everyone, including those who may point in the same general on the political compass as you will dismiss you as a crank.
> 
> Surely you'd like to actually make a difference? Unless it's just about attention?



Make a difference to what?


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Make a difference to what?



The world, anything whatsover, instead of being a laughing stock. You presumably have goals because you obviously believe something, but you are completely and utterly ineffectual. As you are, you may as well not exist.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

That cut and paste odyssey I found a bit meaningless, any chance of a one paragraph summary?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> The world, anything whatsover, instead of being a laughing stock. You presumably have goals because you obviously believe something, but you are completely and utterly ineffectual. As you are, you may as well not exist.



True - he means well.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> The world, anything whatsover, instead of being a laughing stock. You presumably have goals because you obviously believe something, but you are completely and utterly ineffectual. As you are, you may as well not exist.



This is entertainment on U75, nothing else. I have said many times this is like chatting down the pub, provocative, funny, shouty etc...

Nobody exists here - its virtual.

The serious stuff is on my blog.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> This is entertainment on U75, nothing else. I have said many times this is like chatting down the pub, provocative, funny, shouty etc...
> 
> Nobody exists here - its virtual.
> 
> The serious stuff is on my blog.



You're just taking the piss then. That makes more sense.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Dimwit. This is correct;
> 
> "I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women."
> 
> All you are is stupid right wing shite.



Are you really that fucking thick? You were the one that said it was "worth a punch", nobody else. You can't use somebody else's quote in your defence when your own post stated something completely different, you stupid cunt!


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> This is entertainment on U75, nothing else. I have said many times *this is like chatting down the pub, provocative, funny, shouty etc...
> *



But down the pub you would have been decked by now, to applause from the crowds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women. I'm not sure that was his point at all. If he thought beating girls was okay, I'd have had him on ignore long ago.
> 
> To be fair, it helps to frame Attica's original post in the context of his wider beliefs and his perception of the class struggle and the role of police in 'society'.
> 
> ...



He understands why one would lay out a woman for the cime of gettingv a £3 primark t-shirt wet


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He understands why one would lay out a woman for the cime of gettingv a £3 primark t-shirt wet



But don't you think this is taking one comment out of context from a whole thread's worth?

I'm not a pacifist, but I abhor violence against women and the vulnerable.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 5, 2008)

Can I just say that the lad that hit this girl looks like a teenager himself. Not a defence I know but he deserves the same 'he's young and stupid' leniency that is seemingly being given to her.

He should not have hit her IMO but what the hell was she thinking really?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Originally Posted by STFC  
Seems straightfroward enough to me. I fucking hate people who hit women or think it's ok to hit women.



Attica said:


> Dimwit. This is correct;
> 
> "I think it is disingenious to suggest that Attica advocates violence against women, or indeed, that he excuses physical assaults against women."
> 
> All you are is stupid right wing shite.










.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



You are lying Attica. You said it was worth a punch and you knew the recipient of said punch was a woman.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

So the answer is: yes you are that fucking thick. Thought so.

Thank you and goodnight.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 5, 2008)

Across the three threads that Attica is currently entertaining me on, I am going to let everyone know, for entertainment value, that he has sent me a PM with a single word in it – wanker.   / 

Wow – what a man, not.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> You are lying Attica. You said it was worth a punch and you knew the recipient of said punch was a woman.



As a matter of interest does it make a difference to you whether it's a woman or a man? Everyone keeps going on about "hitting a woman". This implies it wouldn't be so bad if it were a man.


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> As a matter of interest does it make a difference to you whether it's a woman or a man? Everyone keeps going on about "hitting a woman". This implies it wouldn't be so bad if it were a man.



It's a product of my childhood that it's even worse of it's a woman who gets hit, but unacceptable even if it's a man.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> You are lying Attica. You said it was worth a punch and you knew the recipient of said punch was a woman.



There is a difference between arguing about the respective worth of damage in terms of punishment generally, and to a specific individual. I do think that if somebody deliberately ruins an expensive shirt on a night out, then a punch is probably enough punishment. Others would, can and do give a kicking.

But I also do not want to fall into the sexist trap of treating people differently _because of_ their gender. Equality means taking responsibility and in this case she wasn't very responsible, she was reckless in fact with other peoples stuff. I understand that bloke if he pushed her over, that seems at least equal and fair to what a bloke should expect for the same 'offence' i would have thought. That sort of anti social behaviour I have no time for.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Across the three threads that Attica is currently entertaining me on, I am going to let everyone know, for entertainment value, that he has sent me a PM with a single word in it – wanker.
> 
> Wow – what a man, not.



Gotcha


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> But I also do not want to fall into the sexist trap of treating people differently _because of_ their gender. .



I can understand this. But it was wrong to be violent because someone wet/stained your tee-shirt surely?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Gotcha



How?


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

I was brought up to believe that it's never ok to hit a female under any circumstances, horrible right winger that I am.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> How?



Don't you find it at all funny that you got a pm entitled "Hi" with one word in it?

And that word was Wanker?

I think its funny anyway I'm sure others do.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> I think its funny anyway I'm sure others do.



Erm...that would be about as funny as putting red dye in a bottle of water and throwing it over a lad in a white shirt.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> I can understand this. But it was wrong to be violent because someone wet/stained your tee-shirt surely?



Not if it cost a load of cash. In the wider world of central Doncaster/sheffield/Boro/Newcastle etc ruining a shirt deliberately is an invite to a fight on fri and sat nights... not just a punch.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> I was brought up to believe that it's never ok to hit a female under any circumstances, horrible right winger that I am.



Sexist too!


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Not if it cost a load of cash. In the wider world of central Doncaster/sheffield/Boro/Newcastle etc ruining a shirt deliberately is an invite to a fight on fri and sat nights...



And that makes it right?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> I was brought up to believe that it's never ok to hit a female under any circumstances, horrible right winger that I am.



 (but not the right wing bit). And if that makes me sexist, so be it. 

But Attica isn't advocating or excusing DV etc etc IMO....


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> (but not the right wing bit). And if that makes me sexist, so be it.
> 
> But Attica isn't advocating or excusing DV etc etc IMO....



true.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> And that makes it right?



I didn't realise you wanted an ethical and moral judgement as well.

I wish we did, but we do not live in the perfect world. We need to be with people before we can attempt to influence them.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2008)

exosculate said:


> I cant stand Detective Boy for example.


Feel free to ignore me.  It'd be no fucking loss.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> S'funny. I think actually think DB's posts are quite interesting and seem almost reasonable for a policeman.


That's because you _read_ them ... as opposed to just having an anaphalactic shock type reaction when you see my name ...


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> That's because you _read_ them ... as opposed to just having an anaphalactic shock type reaction when you see my name ...



I only go into shock when you show me your nightstick, dearie.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> That's because you _read_ them ... as opposed to just having an anaphalactic shock type reaction when you see my name ...



You are good at the dibble line, i'll give you that. it's not my line though sweetie


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> (but not the right wing bit). And if that makes me sexist, so be it.
> 
> But Attica isn't advocating or excusing DV etc etc IMO....



But we weren't discussing domestic violence, we were discussing a specific incident in which the girl appeared to have been punched for throwing red liquid over the bloke's shirt. That was deemed by Attica to be "worth a punch". It's there for all to see.

If I'm sexist for thinking it's wrong to hit a girl then I'm very happy to be a sexist.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> But we weren't discussing domestic violence, we were discussing a specific incident in which the girl appeared to have been punched for throwing red liquid over the bloke's shirt. That was deemed by Attica to be "worth a punch". It's there for all to see.
> 
> If I'm sexist for thinking it's wrong to hit a girl then I'm very happy to be a sexist.



U go on and on and on with your holier than thou right wing shite despite what has been written. ffs. give it a rest then read what's been written again.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> If I'm sexist for thinking it's wrong to hit a girl then I'm very happy to be a sexist.



Even today I would lump Maggie Thatcher, and the Queen if I could. I want my day in court to defend myself


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 5, 2008)

*gets spare deckchair*


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Yelkcub said:


> It's a product of my childhood that it's even worse of it's a woman who gets hit, but unacceptable even if it's a man.



I don't understand why there should be any distinction at all.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> U go on and on and on with your holier than thou right wing shite despite what has been written. ffs. give it a rest then read what's been written again.



No, I go on about it *because* of what was written, by you. I'm not holier than thou, but I have a very strong dislike of men who hit women. It comes from experience. It's got fuck all to do with political leanings.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 5, 2008)

STFC said:


> No, I go on about it *because* of what was written, by you. I'm not holier than thou, but I have a very strong dislike of men who hit women. It comes from experience. It's got fuck all to do with political leanings.



Did yuo miss this then;

There is a difference between arguing about the respective worth of damage in terms of punishment generally, and to a specific individual. I do think that if somebody deliberately ruins an expensive shirt on a night out, then a punch is probably enough punishment. Others would, can and do give a kicking.

But I also do not want to fall into the sexist trap of treating people differently because of their gender. Equality means taking responsibility and in this case she wasn't very responsible, she was reckless in fact with other peoples stuff. I understand that bloke if he pushed her over, that seems at least equal and fair to what a bloke should expect for the same 'offence' i would have thought. That sort of anti social behaviour I have no time for.


----------



## STFC (Aug 5, 2008)

You are now attempting to qualify your comments, well bollocks to that. The incident under discussion was in Hyde Park, not a night out.

The appropriate response to that girl's actions would have been to chuck a bit of the liquid over her. Yes, she was wrong, and I would have been angry if I was the bloke, but I would never have inflicted violence on her under any circumstances, let alone over something so trivial. To hit a woman is the mark of a cunt, in my ever so humble opinion. It's tantamount to bullying.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> I do think that if somebody deliberately ruins an expensive shirt on a night out, then a punch is probably enough punishment. Others would, can and do give a kicking.



All this on the thread starting off with outrage at police "mob violence". Hmmm.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 5, 2008)

teuchter said:


> All this on the thread starting off with outrage at police "mob violence". Hmmm.



attica ... ban the police and bring back caning?


----------



## exosculate (Aug 5, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Feel free to ignore me.  It'd be no fucking loss.



That is remarkably insightful of you!


----------



## newme (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Im a complete fucking moron, during this post I will drone on continually about anything other than the numerous points made against me, then add in some drivvle about class just to make sure theres no doubt about the level my idiocy. Im also quite the hypocrit, I think its fine to give a woman a smack if she throws coloured liquid at me, but if the police try to stop me from finishing the job then thats waaaaaay out of order, for someone who blathers on about class so much Ive also got quite the penchant for designer labels and the right to violently defend them.


.


----------



## 8den (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> Equality means taking responsibility and in this case she wasn't very responsible, she was reckless in fact with other peoples stuff. I understand that bloke if he pushed her over, that seems at least equal and fair to what a bloke should expect for the same 'offence' i would have thought. That sort of anti social behaviour I have no time for.



Hang on




			
				Attica's first post said:
			
		

> a mob of police violently attack playful youths having a water fight in Hyde Park



So you've gone from "playful youths" to "anti social behaviour" in 14 pages.

Attica you are the only person I know who, without hypocrisy or double standards, would be bereft of either a personal or political philosophy.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 5, 2008)

Attica said:


> You are good at the dibble line, i'll give you that. it's not my line though sweetie



As opposed to the big, fat, white line of coke that you seem to have had?



lights.out.london said:


> *gets spare deckchair*



*takes a seat beside LoL* 


Thread of the year!  Next time someone starts a thread asking about class I shall direct them here for the definitive explanation.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 5, 2008)

8den said:


> Attica you are the only person I know who, without hypocrisy or double standards, would be bereft of either a personal or political philosophy.



That is so laser-guidedly accurate, succint, perfect and bang on, I want to hug you


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Can I just say that the lad that hit this girl looks like a teenager himself. Not a defence I know but he deserves the same 'he's young and stupid' leniency that is seemingly being given to her.
> 
> He should not have hit her IMO but what the hell was she thinking really?



In the newspaper today it said that she's not pressing charges, which surprises me, and it surprises me that it should be her choice, given the photos, witnesses and hoo-ha. Maybe it wasn't actually a 'punch hard enough to knock her over,' after all. More a 'WTF do you think you're doing, get away from me' push, on wet ground. 

He's still in the wrong far, far more than her, though - it was just a t-shirt.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Maybe it wasn't actually a 'punch hard enough to knock her over,' after all.


What's surprising' about that? Maybe she's already totally fed up with the publicity and seeing her face in all the papers and would prefer not to have her actual name plastered all over the papers next? 

Oh, and the unrepentant twat admits that he hit her:


> "She just came out of nowhere and threw juice straight in my face. And the way she was laughing and trying to mock me. I admit I'm in the wrong. I mean fair enough, I hit a girl. But I had to take off my top and put it in the bin."
> 
> McInerney, of Ealing, West London, floored the girl at the Summer Splash water fight in Hyde Park. Hundreds of other teenagers were at the event.
> 
> ...











> This is the teenage thug who punched a girl off her feet after she soaked him during a fun water fight last week.
> 
> Daniel McInerney admitted he was in the wrong but refuses to apologise to his 15-year-old victim - unless she says sorry first for chucking pink liquid over his T-shirt.


Fucking moronic prick.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> What's surprising' about that? Maybe she's already totally fed up with the publicity and seeing her face in all the papers and would prefer not to have her actual name plastered all over the papers next?
> 
> Oh, and the unrepentant twat admits that he hit her:
> 
> ...



Then I agree with you, that he is a moron, and he should be prosecuted. There's even a confession! He's got to understand that throwing coloured water over someone - at a water fight - is not on the same level of badness as hitting someone.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Then I agree with you, that he is a moron, and he should be prosecuted. There's even a confession! He's got to understand that throwing coloured water over someone - at a water fight - is not on the same level of badness as hitting someone.


That prick thinks it's OK to hit a woman. Over a bit of spilt liquid.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> That prick thinks it's OK to hit a woman. Over a bit of spilt liquid.



I know. He needs to learn that it's not OK. Perhaps a prosecution would teach him that.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I know. He needs to learn that it's not OK. Perhaps a prosecution would teach him that.


Where the fuck are his parents? He's still a child. Why are they letting him tell the press that he doesn't feel he has to apologise for smacking a young woman in the face?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Where the fuck are his parents? He's still a child. Why are they letting him tell the press that he doesn't feel he has to apologise for smacking a young woman in the face?



I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think his parents should be prosecuted instead?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I
> 
> He's still in the wrong far, far more than her, though - it was just a t-shirt.



What would your opinion be if he had hit another male for the same thing?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Where the fuck are his parents? *He's still a child.* Why are they letting him tell the press that he doesn't feel he has to apologise for smacking a young woman in the face?



I'm glad someone else is finally recognising this. One child has hit another. 

Would your reaction be different if it had been between two girls or two boys?

I agree with you though about the apology though. That would have been something at least. Not because he is a boy though, but because lamping people isn't cool.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 6, 2008)

Dear Mr. McInerney,

I understand that you feel that you hit this young girl, however the Urban75 Forensic Pugalist Society has already concluded that in fact, due to your distance from victim and your stance, you merely pushed the girl and she slipped over.

However should you wish to continue in your delusion that you punched her, you have a friend in Attica cos your t-shirt did get wet. And friendship with Attica is a far harsher penalty than any court in this land is able to lay down.

Yours,
Me.


----------



## ymu (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand why there should be any distinction at all.


Women tend to be smaller and less muscley than men so we usually have very little chance of defending ourselves against a physical attack by a man. This is why people tend to get particularly upset when a man hits a woman. It's not because they think that hitting a man is OK - they just think it's especiallly vile when the victim has little chance of defending themselves. Pick on someone your own size etc etc.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Dear Mr. McInerney,
> 
> I understand that you feel that you hit this young girl, however the Urban75 Forensic Pugalist Society has already concluded that in fact, due to your distance from victim and your stance, you merely pushed the girl and she slipped over.
> 
> ...


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 6, 2008)

This is all a storm in a tea cup though isn't it.

Hyde Park was the setting for massive riots and punch-ups throughout Victorian times. Even a tea party for poor children paid for by Queen Victoria ended up with marquees being set alight and crowds fighting fist and boot with the police. Supersoaker High Noon and some kids falling off their ponies are not exactly in the same league.

That said young Master McInerney Esq is deserving of an educational slap from the girl's mates/dad.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Where the fuck are his parents? He's still a child. Why are they letting him tell the press that he doesn't feel he has to apologise for smacking a young woman in the face?



should the police apologise to the children they peppersprayed?


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> Women tend to be smaller and less muscley than men so we usually have very little chance of defending ourselves against a physical attack by a man. This is why people tend to get particularly upset when a man hits a woman. It's not because they think that hitting a man is OK - they just think it's especiallly vile when the victim has little chance of defending themselves. Pick on someone your own size etc etc.



I feel quite strongly that the "don't hit a woman" thing is both anachronistic and demeaning to women - it is divisive, perpetuates stereotypes and helps maintain the "battle of the sexes".

There is, as far as I can see, nothing intrinsically worse about a man hitting a woman than there is a woman hitting a man, a man hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman..

Hitting _anyone_ is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.


Woof


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

smokedout said:


> should the police apologise to the children they peppersprayed?



Where did you get that information from? I don't think I've heard anything about that happening.

I've read an eyewitness report of one person being tasered, after he started punching coppers.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Hitting _anyone_ is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.



Generally, women are physically smaller, weaker, and therefore more vulnerable than men.

I don't get the "demeaning to women" argument. Surely it's a good thing that there are still men around who think it's wrong to hit a woman?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think his parents should be prosecuted instead?


No, I mean _where are they? _He's a child - and therefore their legal responsibility - yet they're letting this violent prick chat to the press and give the idea that it's just dandy to go around lamping women in the face over extremely trivial things.



Jessiedog said:


> Hitting _anyone_ is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.


 I grew up with a very strong sense that it's always wrong to hit a woman, and I still stick by it. I've never met a woman who found that stance "anachronistic and demeaning"  but if you think it's more _modern_ to slap a woman around, you go right ahead. I won't be joining in. Ever.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2008)

I have never hit someone in anger (well, not since primary school), but if I ever do, I don't think the gender of the other person is going to matter. If I'm hitting someone, I'd have a really really good reason for it.


----------



## ymu (Aug 6, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> I feel quite strongly that the "don't hit a woman" thing is both anachronistic and demeaning to women - it is divisive, perpetuates stereotypes and helps maintain the "battle of the sexes".
> 
> There is, as far as I can see, nothing intrinsically worse about a man hitting a woman than there is a woman hitting a man, a man hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman..
> 
> ...


I agree, more or less (it's maybe "old-fashioned" but not so anachronistic - husbands had a right to beat (and rape) their wives until not so long ago).

I just think it's strange that anyone would genuinely need to ask why many people think it's worse when a man hits a woman. It's very obviously because (most of the time), the victim is physically weaker. Having said that, I have known men who could get incredibly physically intimidating and remain entirely oblivious to it - even incredulous when I showed fear, or accusing me of acting - so maybe they just don't know quite how big the difference in strength is, even if the size difference appears small.

Women who hit men safe in the knowledge that they won't get hit back are also "worse" than some other types of hitter, IMO; a different kind of power imbalance, but an abuse of that power all the same.

This just reminded me of trying to calm down an incident at a party where some guy was going nuts because a bloke had hit a woman. Lots of  macho posturing, then he tried to hit the bloke and then hit me for trying to stop him.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> Women tend to be smaller and less muscley than men so we usually have very little chance of defending ourselves against a physical attack by a man. This is why people tend to get particularly upset when a man hits a woman. It's not because they think that hitting a man is OK - they just think it's especiallly vile when the victim has little chance of defending themselves. Pick on someone your own size etc etc.



If this is the reasoning, then people should say "I would never hit someone weaker than myself" instead of "I would never hit a woman".

The whole "I would never hit a woman thing" irritates me because by implication it means that sometimes it's OK to hit a man. Well, if there are situations where it is OK to hit a man, then there must be situations where it is OK to hit a woman.

Firstly, not all men are stronger/bigger than all women. They tend to be, but that doesn't mean there is never a situation where a woman is physically stronger than a man.

Secondly this whole attitude seems to suggest that relative strength or size are the only factors in someone being able to defend themselves. Well, they aren't. So making a judgement on whether someone can defend themselves based entirely on their size is flawed in the first place.

Thirdly: why should someone's ability to defend themselves be all that relevant anyway? This all assumes that they will fight back in the first place, and not everyone will. Even if I was large, strong and adept at fisticuffs I wouldn't want someone using that as a reason to excuse injuring me. Besides, if you are going to stick to the logic of "never hitting anyone weaker than you", then anyone bigger than you is prevented by these rules from hitting you back, therefore giving you an unfair advantage.

Fourthly there are lots of other factors which affect a judgement of whether or not hitting someone is OK, including for example provocation. If we are to stick to a strict "never hit women" (or even "never hit people smaller than you") rule we end up with nonsense situations. What is "worse": a small woman injuring a large man entirely without provocation, or a large man injuring a small woman having been deliberately and heavily provoked? I would say that the latter is "worse" but the silly "never hit a woman" rule would not allow this conclusion.

Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

Do some people really think that it's OK to punch a woman in the face if she's roughly the same size as you?

The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.

Back on topic, that publicity-courting unrepentant prick in Hyde Park is sending out a hideous message to his peers.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Do some people really think that it's OK to punch a woman in the face if she's roughly the same size as you?



I would say the same as you, I think:



editor said:


> The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.



Which seems to contradict what you said earlier:



editor said:


> I grew up with a very strong sense that it's *always* wrong to hit a woman, and I still stick by it. I've never met a woman who found that stance "anachronistic and demeaning"  but if you think it's more _modern_ to slap a woman around, you go right ahead. I won't be joining in. *Ever*.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.



But surely this is the only way you'd ever show any kind of violence towards a man too?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> But surely this is the only way you'd ever show any kind of violence towards a man too?



Exactly. If not, then there is a major inconsistency somewhere.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 6, 2008)

> "She just came out of nowhere and threw juice straight in my face. And the way she was laughing and trying to mock me. I admit I'm in the wrong. I mean fair enough, I hit a girl. *But I had to take off my top and put it in the bin.*"



Why throw the t-shirt away, does he do that with all his cloths when they get dirty, hasn’t he heard you can wash cloths?

What a brainless prick.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I would say the same as you, I think:
> 
> 
> 
> Which seems to contradict what you said earlier:


The 'violence' I was describing is trying to physically restrain a woman from hitting me, *not* going on the offensive and smacking them in the face.

To repeat: I would never hit a woman.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter: you have put logical arguments forward, but the reluctance or disgust of many men at the prospect of hitting a woman amounts to a taboo, hence doesn't necessarily have an obvious rational foundation to grapple with.

There is a similar taboo about killing in warfare: it is generally thought OK to kill the other side's soldiers, but not their civilians. It is not obvious to me at least how young men are in any sense more expendable than old people or babies.

But when such taboos are done away with in wartime, i.e. when there is an acceptance of the principles of 'total warfare', then the result is likely to be an increase in the numbers of people killed. That's what seems to happen in practice.

By the same token, dissolving the 'don't hit women' taboo would in practice probably mean more violence. It wouldn't come about through people calmly accepting the logic of equal opportunities, but through a general decrease in self-control and a greater readiness to use violence from the start to get one's own way.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> The 'violence' I was describing is trying to physically restrain a woman from hitting me, *not* going on the offensive and smacking them in the face.
> 
> To repeat: I would never hit a woman.



Would you ever hit a man, though?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> ..the reluctance or disgust of many men at the prospect of hitting a woman amounts to a taboo, hence doesn't necessarily have an obvious rational foundation to grapple with.



I think the 'logic' lies in evolution. Men are more expendable than women, OR, your cheap sperm is more expendable than our precious eggs.  

 




Though following that logic, come the menopause, it's a free for all...


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Would you ever hit a man, though?


Yes, if I absolutely had to. But I wouldn't hit a woman. Is there a point to this?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> By the same token, dissolving the 'don't hit women' taboo would in practice probably mean more violence. It wouldn't come about through people calmly accepting the logic of equal opportunities, but through a general decrease in self-control and a greater readiness to use violence from the start to get one's own way.



Well, exactly.

But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes, if I absolutely had to. But I wouldn't hit a woman. Is there a point to this?



What are your "absolutely had to" criteria?

The point is, that if there are a set of circumstances that would make you decide it was OK to hit a man, then I don't see why, if there were an identical set of circumstances, but involving a woman, you should act any differently.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

Attica said:


> The point is gender is irrelevant.



what the fuck you talking about mate?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

Attica said:


> Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.



You don't think or believe that for one moment, so what was the point in saying it?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> what the fuck you talking about mate?





chico enrico said:


> You don't think or believe that for one moment, so what was the point in saying it?



Read the thread.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Read the thread.



I have read the thread.

i also recently discovered who Attica actually is and he is someone i have met numerous times. 

Most certainly NOT some 'thug' and i'd have thought more likely to attend a conference on 'Post feminism and Sexual Politics' than entertain thoughts of committing or even justifying violence against women.

Which is why i find his comments on this thread utterly bewildering and as out of character as if i had suddenly decided to adopt some crusty peace convoy or sloane ranger type personna. 

Sometimes winding people up can achieve a purpose - in exposing nasty reactionary attitudes (in particular regarding race/gender/class) that ostensibly liberal 'right-on' types, including many on here, often harbour, but this instance does not fall into that category, and in another media context (added as a comment on youtube for example?) would only serve to validate and legitimise the attitudes held by the sort of worthless shit-bag who would assault a woman. For whatever reason.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The point is, that if there are a set of circumstances that would make you decide it was OK to hit a man, then I don't see why, if there were an identical set of circumstances, but involving a woman, you should act any differently.


*Because it's a woman.*

I don't hit women.  I don't treat them the same as men. Understand? 

Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> *Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?*


*

well, as folk who hit women or hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags* i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.


*or plain psychotic*


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> *Because it's a woman.*
> 
> I don't hit women.  I don't treat them the same as men. Understand?



Fair enough. I'm glad you don't hit women. But you avoid the question about in what circumstances you would hit a man. 

And your explanation doesn't explain why you make the distinction, beyond "just because".

If someone were explain why they didn't employ a woman, by saying:

"*Because it's a woman.*

I don't employ women.  I don't treat them the same as men. Understand?"

Then that wouldn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me.





editor said:


> Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?



Well, that is a good question. I would like to think that all things being equal (i.e. in both cases the attack was an equally unprovoked one, and in both cases the person being attacked seemed equally unable to defend themselves) then my response would be exactly the same. 

In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct. That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> well, as folk who hit women or *hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags** i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.
> 
> 
> *or plain psychotic



That's all very nice but maybe you could explain why you think this, exactly?

And the same question to you: would you ever hit a man, and if so, in what circumstances?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> well, as folk who hit women or hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags* i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.
> 
> 
> *or plain psychotic



Perhaps you should invite him outside, tell him to put his dukes up?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct.


So you only _might_ consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.

*shakes head


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> So you only _might_ consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.



haahaha...i think he's some pseudo ultra looney tunes politico type who thinks (or rather thinks it's a cool pose to espouse the belief that) it is in some way 'sexist' or 'unegalitarian' to differentiate between people because of their gender/sex. as such can't be bothered to respond to his foolishness.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> So you only _might_ consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.
> 
> *shakes head



You're completely evading my point by focussing on the question of whether or not I personally would intervene in a specific situation, which is an entirely different matter. 

And misrepresenting what I said. If I did help, it would be a mixture of moral duty and instinct (if the two can be separated), just as it would be if it were a man I was trying to help.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> haahaha...i think he's some pseudo ultra looney tunes politico type who thinks (or rather thinks it's a cool pose to espouse the belief that) it is in some way 'sexist' or 'unegalitarian' to differentiate between people because of their gender/sex. as such can't be bothered to respond to his foolishness.



I think it's appropriate to differentiate between people on the basis of their gender, if their gender is relevant in that particular situation.

I don't happen to believe that gender is relevant in the situation of someone getting beaten up in the street.

If you "can't be bothered" to back up what you say, then why say it in the first place? Have you been taking lessons from Attica?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> You're completely evading my point by focussing on the question of whether or not I personally would intervene in a specific situation, which is an entirely different matter.


Why's it a 'different' matter? Surely it's a valid, real world example of the philosophy you appear to be spouting? Your statement seems pretty clear:

_"there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct."_


teuchter said:


> I don't happen to believe that gender is relevant in the situation of someone getting beaten up in the street.


So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant" in a street fight?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

I'd hit a woman if it was justified.

Like if she was hysterical on a boat.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

8ball said:


> I'd hit a woman if it was justified.
> 
> Like if she was hysterical on a boat.


Or going berserk on a movie set.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.



Oh lordy...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Why's it a 'different' matter? Surely it's a valid, real world example of the philosophy you appear to be spouting? Your statement seems pretty clear:
> 
> _"there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct."_



That's not my "philosophy", it's just me admitting that whatever I might believe in principle, other things might kick in in the heat of the moment. Is it more palatable expressed like this:

_"there is a chance I might be less inclined to help the situation where the man was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of reduced evolutionary instinct."_[/QUOTE]

and which would be my failing. 



editor said:


> So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant" in a street fight?



Of course not. Where have I said that? You are intelligent enough to understand that that is not what I'm saying. It's unfair to try and twist what I'm saying in this way.

I don't think it's OK for anyone to kick the shit out of anyone of any gender or any physical size.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct. That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.



I can see where you're coming from, tbh.

What's the protocol where a bunch of women are beating up a man?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

8ball said:


> I can see where you're coming from, tbh.
> 
> What's the protocol where a bunch of women are beating up a man?



The protocol is very simple. Try to stop *people* beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The protocol is very simple. Try to stop *people* beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).



I knew what your take on it would be, your position seems pretty consistent to me.  Was wondering about some of the others.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

8ball said:


> I knew what your take on it would be, your position seems pretty consistent to me.  Was wondering about some of the others.




Me too.  I looks like people are reading 'it is not all right to hit a man either' and interpreting that as 'it is all right to hit a woman'.  And I don't understand from reading this how that came about as what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> Me too.  I looks like people are reading 'it is not all right to hit a man either' and interpreting that as 'it is all right to hit a woman'.  And I don't understand from reading this how that came about as what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.



Although, it has to be said, you only wrote this because I threatened to beat you up.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Although, it has to be said, you only wrote this because I threatened to beat you up.



And don't worry.  I won't report that PM.  I've learnt my lesson from the last beating you gave me.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

8ball said:


> *What's the protocol* where a bunch of women are beating up a man?



and what's the likelihood?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.



alas, i lack the requisite degree in metaphysics.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> alas, i lack the requisite degree in metaphysics.



Evidently so.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.


----------



## Front101 (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> and what's the likelihood?



have you ever been to Southend??


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.


If you haven't realised that different people have different trigger points where they feel violence is an acceptable solution to their conflict/problem, I suspect you'll be waiting a long, looooooong time for a snappy, all-in answer to your question.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.



Self-defence

More dubiously/more a matter of personal opinion, and all in response to actions by another man: being spat at, extreme verbal provocation involving threats to family/loved ones, a few others.

E2A: Some notion in mind of a punch being a way of equalising with other men who are prepared to do certain things you're not and who are perhaps betting that you'll find it difficult to respond in kind - hence the examples of spitting, threats to family and so on.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> If you haven't realised that different people have different trigger points where they feel violence is an acceptable solution to their conflict/problem, I suspect you'll be waiting a long, looooooong time for a snappy, all-in answer to your question.



Obviously.

I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man. Their personal criteria, not the criteria for every person on the planet, which would certainly be difficult to sum up snappily.

And if it's difficult to give a set of criteria, then an example of _a_ situation when it would be justified.

Why the reticence to answer the question?

My criteria would be something like this:

A situation where I believed that my hitting someone would prevent significantly worse harm coming to someone else, and where I considered the risk to myself not to be disproportionate to the seriousness of whatever I was trying to prevent. 

I would apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man or a woman and can think of absolutely no reason why I shouldn't.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Self-defence
> 
> More dubiously/more a matter of personal opinion, and all in response to actions by another man: being spat at, extreme verbal provocation involving threats to family/loved ones, a few others.
> 
> E2A: Some notion in mind of a punch being a way of equalising with other men who are prepared to do certain things you're not and who are perhaps betting that you'll find it difficult to respond in kind - hence the examples of spitting, threats to family and so on.



And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?



just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man? 

may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the _real-life _situation was? 

personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Obviously.
> 
> I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man. Their personal criteria, not the criteria for every person on the planet, which would certainly be difficult to sum up snappily.
> 
> ...



Would you apply the same criteria to hitting a child?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man.


Why? What does it matter? 

I don't hit women, and I'd be happy if I go through this life never hitting a bloke again.

I grew up with a very strong sense that it's never OK to smack a woman in the face. And that's how it stays, short of some wildly improbable situation which you'll probably throw back at me to 'prove' your highly laboured point.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man?
> 
> may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the _real-life _situation was?
> 
> personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.



I've never aggressively hit anyone. (Except when I was a child).


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> Would you apply the same criteria to hitting a child?



Yes.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> A situation where I believed that my hitting someone would prevent significantly worse harm coming to someone else, and where I considered the risk to myself not to be disproportionate to the seriousness of whatever I was trying to prevent.


Seeing as you're a bloke and quite probably considerably stronger than the woman (or child) involved, you'd have the option of _restraining_ the woman instead of smacking her in the mush. 

With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.

See the difference yet?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such *would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others*.



See, I would say the same about hitting a bloke, though.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I've read some crap on Indymedia, but that takes the fucking hobnob.
> 
> 
> 
> A more biased, factless piece of poo has never been written.



sadly, as i would consider myself a fairly libertarian chap, i'd probably believe what i read in The Sun before anything I read in Indiemedia.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Seeing as you're a bloke and quite probably considerably stronger than the woman (or child) involved, you'd have the option of _restraining_ the woman instead of smacking her in the mush.
> 
> With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.
> 
> See the difference yet?



The difference you are talking about is the strength of the person I'm trying to restrain. That is related to, but not one and the same as their gender.

If I have the option of restraining them, I'd do that, male or female.

If I decided as a last resort that violence were necessary, then that decision would be based on the physical capabilities of the person involved, not their gender.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

Physical capabilities are linked to gender.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> Physical capabilities are linked to gender.



You don't say.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.
> 
> See the difference yet?



And what if the bloke that has rendered that option impractical is not a bloke but a woman? 

See the similarity yet?


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?



Not easily, no. Partly because such feelings of aversion to hitting women probably have their roots in childhood, hence do not lend themselves readily to conscious examination.

Also, partly because such an aversion is likely bound up with notions of how status between men should be maintained, and how one's reputation in the eyes of women should be cultivated, and the ways in which the two are different.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Also, partly because such an aversion is likely bound up with notions of how status between men should be maintained, and how one's reputation in the eyes of women should be cultivated, and the ways in which the two are different.



Notions which I consider horribly old-fashioned and sooner gotten rid of, the better, I'm afraid.

Status between men (or between anyone) being judged by physical strength may have been appropriate or useful in primitive societies, but I don't think it is in any way a useful way to determine status in a civilised one.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Notions which I consider horribly old-fashioned and sooner gotten rid of, the better, I'm afraid.
> 
> Status between men (or between anyone) being judged by physical strength may have been appropriate or useful in primitive societies, but I don't think it is in any way a useful way to determine status in a civilised one.



Not sure it is a matter of physical strength so much as a psychological willingness to take a risk.

There is another factor, namely that many men simply feel more kindly disposed to women in general and hence find the thought of a man punching a woman more repellent than a man punching another man. This discrepancy pops up in all sorts of situations - one reason armies are generally reluctant to field women in the frontline is that male soldiers find it extremely difficult to ignore the cries of a wounded woman (or so I read somewhere).


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

I'm all for equality between the sexes, but it doesn't extend to giving women a right-hander.


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> I'm all for equality between the sexes, but it doesn't extend to giving women a right-hander.



Equality doesn't mean treating everyone the same.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

@Rutita: I'd feel the same way.



editor said:


> No, I mean _where are they? _He's a child - and therefore their legal responsibility - yet they're letting this violent prick chat to the press and give the idea that it's just dandy to go around lamping women in the face over extremely trivial things.



Oh, I see. Well, I'm not sure if he is actually legally their responsibility any more, at 16 - he could move out and get married if he wanted to.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @Rutita: I'd feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Well, I'm not sure if he is actually legally their responsibility any more, at 16 - he could move out and get married if he wanted to.



Not unless the law has changed without me noticing, he can't!


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Not unless the law has changed without me noticing, he can't!




He can go to Gretna Green!  


If anyone would have him...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> I'm all for equality between the sexes, but it doesn't extend to giving women a right-hander.



Interesting interpretation of "all".

I wonder how far it does extend, then?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> As opposed to the big, fat, white line of coke that you seem to have had?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




(((Big fat line of cocaine)))

*offers quimcunx candyfloss*

Blimey. Where do some of you get the stamina?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Oh, I see. Well, I'm not sure if he is actually legally their responsibility any more, at 16 - he could move out and get married if he wanted to.


Ah, sorry, I thought he was the same age as the woman he smacked in the face.





quimcunx said:


> And what if the bloke that has rendered that option impractical is not a bloke but a woman?


I see one of those highly improbable, point-scoring scenarios I was referring to earlier has just been cooked up!

_"But what if it's six headed aggressive alien destroying the planet - and it happens to be female?"_


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> I see one of those highly improbable, point-scoring scenarios I was referring to earlier has just been cooked up!



No it's not.

Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?

It's a very simple point - if the aggressor is a woman, and is stronger than you, and you are not able to restrain her, then why should you apply a different approach to that which you said you'd apply to exactly the same scenario but involving a male aggressor?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?
> 
> It's a very simple point - if the aggressor is a woman, and is stronger than you, and you are not able to restrain her, then why should you apply a different approach to that which you said you'd apply to exactly the same scenario but involving a male aggressor?



Kindly do not avoid my earlier question for any more pages of this thread.

Please answer _yes_ or _no_, have you hit a woman and in which case what was the situation? 

(and no metaphysical hypothesis please)


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

He's a witch!!

Burn him!!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I've never aggressively hit anyone. (Except when I was a child).



Most interesting thing about this is the odd determination to misunderstand teuchter tbh.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

If he floats like a duck he's made of wood!!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> Kindly do not avoid my earlier question for any more pages of this thread.
> 
> Please answer _yes_ or _no_, have you hit a woman and in which case what was the situation?
> 
> (and no metaphysical hypothesis please)



If you can get your head around the metaphysics of refering to my post no. 414 you will find you already have your answer.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Most interesting thing about this is the odd determination to misunderstand teuchter tbh.



Isn't it?  


I'm off for a spot of multi-quoting.


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Most interesting thing about this is the odd determination to misunderstand teuchter tbh.



Specially as it wasn't him that originally raised the point of disagreement.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

Where's chico enrico gone? He seemed so impatient for my reply but now he's disappeared. I wanted to know what he was going to say next.


----------



## ymu (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Where's chico enrico gone? He seemed so impatient for my reply but now he's disappeared. I wanted to know what he was going to say next.


He was going to accuse you of beating up women for fun because, obviously, anyone who thinks it's no worse than hitting a man must be into hitting women. Equally obviously, anyone who thinks it's particularly unacceptable to hit a woman must think it's fine to go around beating up men...


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Do you really find it highly improbable that there might be a situation where a man is not able to restrain a woman?


Seeing as you were so mustard keen to discover people's personal experiences earlier on, could you tell me how many times you've personally faced this situation and had to give a woman a slap in the mush?

As for me, the answer = 0.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Seeing as you were so mustard keen to discover people's personal experiences earlier on, could you tell me how many times you've personally faced this situation and had to give a woman a slap in the mush?
> 
> As for me, the answer = 0.



Zero as previously stated. Are we determining probability by means of anecdotal evidence?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

I've just realised my multi-quote post is about 3 pages long with commentary.  I must be annoyed.  

So I have decided to just condense teuchter's posts, not anyone elses, for anyone reading this who may now be under the impression he advocates kicking the shit out of women as a hobby. And those who lack the requisite degree in metaphysics. Though I notice those new to this part of the thread don't seem to have read it any other way than presented here, so I probably don't need to. 



> Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.





teuchter said:


> Well, exactly.
> But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.







teuchter said:


> I don't think it's OK for anyone to kick the shit out of anyone of any gender or any physical size.





teuchter said:


> The protocol is very simple. Try to stop *people* beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).






teuchter said:


> I've never aggressively hit anyone. (Except when I was a child).





teuchter said:


> The difference you are talking about is the strength of the person I'm trying to restrain. That is related to, but not one and the same as their gender.
> 
> If I have the option of restraining them, I'd do that, male or female.
> 
> If I decided as a last resort that violence were necessary, then that decision would be based on the physical capabilities of the person involved, not their gender.



I don't understand how saying I would no more hit a man than I would a woman is translated as I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man?
> 
> may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the _real-life _situation was?
> 
> personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.




Why do you take it that he has hit a man?  Are you under the assumption that all men have hit a man? Why? Do you believe that all normal, balanced men have?  Have you?  Was he bigger or smaller than you? Stronger? Weaker?  Did hitting a man make you feel more manly?  I’m assuming you think hitting a woman would make you feel less manly?  Does not having hit a man make you less manly?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

Erm, I'd also apply the same criteria to hitting men or women. I'd go for restraint first rather than hitting, but restraint wouldn't always be possible, This is theoretical, though - haven't had a fistfight since I was about 11. 

And there are quite a few individual women who are stronger than quite a few individual men. If my GF got into a fight with my best male friend, he'd have no hope - she's way, way stronger than him. (It's kinda funny to consider those two pacifists fighting, though ). Just because men are stronger on average doesn't mean that no situation will ever arise where a man can't restrain a woman. If we get to talking about multiple women beating up a man - which I have seen - then the women's individual strength isn't really all that important. 

It's kinda dangerous to continue saying that men are always the stronger sex and a man should never hit a woman. That makes life harder for men who in violent relationships where it's the woman who's violent. 



Guineveretoo said:


> Not unless the law has changed without me noticing, he can't!



He can with his parents' permission, or in Scotland (for marriage) and he can move out, whether they like it or not. Actually, I'm sure that the need for parents' permission was withdrawn recently, but the government site that would have official info on it is down, and all the other sites are older.


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

I haven't been reading teuchter's posts as "I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward" for whatever that's worth, quimcunx. 

The basic premise (for me) is that you don't want to be hitting people at all if it can be avoided, and especially over something as daft as a tshirt. But people don't always act rationally, especially in the heat of the moment. And it's the action, reaction, reaction, escalation that results in things getting out of control and people getting hurt/OB called in etc. Some people have the ability to defuse these incidents with some humour/sense, even as basic as 'leave it mate, it's not worth it'. 

But, there are some people that thrive on the adrenaline rush ... fight/flight and all its aspects, not just manifesting in physical punches. 

As a lass, if I hit someone I'd expect to be hit back with equal force. If my target was male (or female tbh) and didn't hit me back, I wouldn't feel demeaned ... although I'd probably feel even more ashamed of myself when the adrenaline thing receded. But that's just me innit. I avoid it


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

cesare said:


> I haven't been reading teuchter's posts as "I gladly hit women, as gladly as I would hit men, if I wasn't such a coward" for whatever that's worth, quimcunx.



I was counting you as new to this part of the thread! 

I've had a boyfriend who was a foot taller than me and a good 3 or 4 stone heavier who failed to pick me up.  I managed to pick him up.  In fact when I was tiny in width as well as height, 4'11'',  and men would physically pick me up for their own amusement I would retaliate by picking them up.  I even picked up a 17 stone bouncer once.  I've spun a 15 stoner round and round and round.  

I reckon I could take teuchter in a fight.


----------



## STFC (Aug 6, 2008)

cesare said:


> As a lass, if I hit someone I'd expect to be hit back with equal force. If my target was male (or female tbh) and didn't hit me back, I wouldn't feel demeaned ...



If she wants to act like a bloke, she'll get slapped like a bloke...I've heard people say things like that before. I don't agree myself, but there you go. I'm a sexist pig.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> I was counting you as new to this part of the thread!
> 
> I've had a boyfriend who was a foot taller than me and a good 3 or 4 stone heavier who failed to pick me up.  I managed to pick him up.  In fact when I was tiny in width as well as height, 4'11'',  and men would physically pick me up for their own amusement I would retaliate by picking them up.  I even picked up a 17 stone bouncer once.  I've spun a 15 stoner round and round and round.
> 
> I reckon I could take teuchter in a fight.



I pick you for my side in any fight.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> I reckon I could take teuchter in a fight.



I reckon you could too. But, I reckon could probably beat you at Scrabble. Then who'd be looking like the wuss, huh?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I reckon you could too.



You're lucky I'm on your side then. 



> But, I reckon could probably beat you at Scrabble. Then who'd be looking like the wuss, huh?



Perhaps we should have a 2-part duel.  Fight first, so I can bash you around the head then straight to scrabble.


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> I was counting you as new to this part of the thread!
> 
> I've had a boyfriend who was a foot taller than me and a good 3 or 4 stone heavier who failed to pick me up.  I managed to pick him up.  In fact when I was tiny in width as well as height, 4'11'',  and men would physically pick me up for their own amusement I would retaliate by picking them up.  I even picked up a 17 stone bouncer once.  I've spun a 15 stoner round and round and round.
> 
> I reckon I could take teuchter in a fight.



I've been keeping up in a spare min, but not really posting, I s'pose up there *taps head* I still felt involved since tangling with Attica on it 

I'm fairly strong myself and have had a few amusing moments testing that (controlled conditions, no rage  ) with the b/f, I've always eventually lost but it's been funny to see that 'wtf ' expression before kicking into overdrive  *waits*


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> If she wants to act like a bloke, she'll get slapped like a bloke...I've heard people say things like that before. I don't agree myself, but there you go. I'm a sexist pig.



I don't think giving it large about 'sexist pig' is entirely helpful tbh. Personally I don't have a problem (or feel 'demeaned') by men that don't hit women on principle. As I said earlier, 'equality' (for me) doesn't mean treating everyone the same. That way lies madness! Oh I've fucked up on the mental health front now but but but. Well I know what I meant


----------



## ymu (Aug 6, 2008)

cesare said:


> I don't think giving it large about 'sexist pig' is entirely helpful tbh. Personally I don't have a problem (or feel 'demeaned') by men that don't hit women on principle. As I said earlier, 'equality' (for me) doesn't mean treating everyone the same. That way lies madness! Oh I've fucked up on the mental health front now but but but. Well I know what I meant




I do agree that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to be hit back. I can't stand women who take advantage of the taboo.

Although I do take advantage of it myself if I'm considering breaking up a fight - it's not safe for a bloke to step in, but if I there are men around I'll be protected if I get hit back.


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> I do agree that if a woman hits a man, she should expect to be hit back. I can't stand women who take advantage of the taboo.
> 
> Although I do take advantage of it myself if I'm considering breaking up a fight - it's not safe for a bloke to step in, but if I there are men around I'll be protected if I get hit back.



Yeah, I wouldn't want to be decked if I was acting as a peace keeping force that's for sure. And I'm fucked if I'm going to keep a UN blue beret about my person just in case.

Thinking on that, I'm wondering if the best course of action in that scenario would be to usher people to one side, start a book on the outcome of the testosterone deathmatch, and be on hand swooping in with the elastoplast/999 when it all goes horribly wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2008)

The fact is, that there remains a culture amongst many men (and women for that matter) that respects physical strength and fighting ability as desirable qualities in a man, and tied up in this whole way of thinking is, for example, an expectation that as a man, if someone hits you (or even insults you) it's a matter of pride to hit them back. In this kind of culture, men (or at least the stronger ones) are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to fight, in order to maintain their status. I do think that the "never hit a woman" taboo stems from this kind of culture.

In a culture where physical strength/fighting ability is not particularly respected, and violence is only tolerated as a last resort, there is no need for such a taboo.

I think the "never hit a woman" attitude is in most cases very much a learnt thing, and you'll mainly find it amongst people who have grown up in situations where vestiges of that "fighting culture" remain, either explicitly or under the surface, or simply where the taboo has been inherited without most of the rest of the culture. I think that's what annoys me about it - it's because it represents that kind of culture, one which I have very little time for.

(The reasons I have little time for it being, briefly, that determining hierarchy on the basis of strength seems like a foolish way to organise a society where physical strength isn't actually needed to do most of the really useful things, and also that the principle of retaliation just leads to a vicious cycle of lots of people getting hurt to no useful end. But I would assume those are fairly obvious reasons.)

I think that if you are indoctrinated into that kind of thinking when you're a young boy, I guess as a result of listening to older men, who you are easily impressed by, then the "never hit a woman" mantra is going to remain with you quite strongly even if you move away from that culture and even if you're the type of bloke who would normally do everything possible to avoid violence. And I think this explains why many perfectly intelligent and non-violent men find it hard to give a rational reason why hitting a woman is intrinsically worse than hitting a man beyond saying "it just is, OK?".

At the same time, sometimes the "fighting culture" attitude stays, often alongside an even more extreme insistence on the "never hit a woman" line. Normally only to be revealed on a High street somewhere on a Friday night. These are men who enjoy fighting but more importantly, do believe that their status in their own eyes as well as others' is determined by their ability to inflict injuries on another man. Even if they don't feel fully comfortable about this. And I bet there are some of these guys reading what I have written on this thread, and thinking to themselves that for wont of better words I'm just a wuss, and being mightily unimpressed by my suggestion that, say, if someone hits me, or spits on my sister, or whatever, then punching them isn't an appropriate response. 

I will be the first to admit that I am lucky (on the whole) not to have grown up in a situation where I had to prove myself through physical fights, and where most of the men I was around as a kid had the same sort of view as I do now. Had I grown up in a slightly different situation then maybe I'd be here defending the "never hit women" line as staunchly as any.

So that is my bit of amateur cod-sociology for the evening. I don't know if it helps explain why I feel rather strongly about this whole thing, and my suspicion of those who are super-insistent about never hitting a woman. I hope it also explains that I understand that someone who takes this line can also be perfectly civilised (in terms of what I believe to be civilised) and not wandering about the place looking for a fight. Whether or not my analysis of why they have such an attitude is correct.


----------



## ymu (Aug 6, 2008)

cesare said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be decked if I was acting as a peace keeping force that's for sure. And I'm fucked if I'm going to keep a UN blue beret about my person just in case.
> 
> Thinking on that, I'm wondering if the best course of action in that scenario would be to usher people to one side, start a book on the outcome of the testosterone deathmatch, and be on hand swooping in with the elastoplast/999 when it all goes horribly wrong.


I'd never consider breaking up a testosterone death match - those kinds of twats can beat each other to death for all I care. I did it once when a tramp was getting beaten up by a drunken arsehole, and a couple of times when a barman was being threatened.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think the "never hit a woman" attitude is in most cases very much a learnt thing, and you'll mainly find it amongst people who have grown up in situations where vestiges of that "fighting culture" remain, either explicitly or under the surface, or simply where the taboo has been inherited without most of the rest of the culture. I think that's what annoys me about it - it's because it represents that kind of culture, one which I have very little time for.


You mean "working class culture," yes?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> You mean "working class culture," yes?



Pacifism=classism!!!

Burn the witch!!!


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2008)

8ball said:


> Pacifism=classism!!!
> 
> Burn the witch!!!


Only asking a question...


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2008)

It's certainly food for thought and there's so much that I agree with in that post teuchter, most of it. But I guess I did grow up in a fighting culture if that's the right term, with all of the 'rules' that went with that, so yes, the  'don't hit women' taboo doesn't send me off on one. That scrote with the tshirt though, he wants it all ways. Fighting response & hitting women. Where do you go from there - reason with him?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Only asking a question...



I think all classes have had their history of finding ways to channel male aggression in a way that minimises harm - it's just that the working class expressions have perhaps retained more of their original character, or been less 'veiled' in their manifestation, perhaps.

The upper classes used to regularly kill each other in duels in certain times in certain places - they may have dressed it up in the language of manners and civility but the brutality was still there.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> The upper classes used to regularly kill each other in duels in certain times in certain places - they may have dressed it up in the language of manners and civility but the brutality was still there.


I'm pretty sure you'll find that duels to the death amongst the aristocracy were far from everyday occurrences and a comparatively tiny amount of the 'upper classes' took part.

I'm really not following the relationship between duels of honour and the oik slapping a 15yr old girl at a water fight, to be honest.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm really not following the relationship between duels of honour and the oik slapping a 15yr old girl at a water fight, to be honest.



It was just another kind of duel of honour.
Assuming it even happened.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Only asking a question...



Really?  Sounds more like the standard last resort of a resoundingly philisophically beaten urbanite:  Accuse them of attacking the working classes.  


I was brought up in a working class family. Fighting was never part of its culture and I resent you making the association.  I did not read teuchter's post as suggesting such, just you, couched in the form of a question. 

Frankly, you've behaved like an arse on this thread imo.  Something I don't expect from you.  You've taken the posts of someone that have suggested nothing more than he is more violence-averse than you are yourself, and tried to imply he is anything but averse to violence towards women.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> You mean "working class culture," yes?



If that correlates with your view of what working class culture is, then yes*. I don't know. I suspect what I describe is more prevalent in "working class" society than others, for all sorts of reasons, but I doubt exclusively so, and I also doubt every "working class" person subscribes to such a culture.

Personally, I find that turning this kind of discussion into a class thing misses the point and is a bit tedious.

Just because something is "working class" doesn't make it intrinsically good or bad, any more than something being common amongst any other "class" you choose to define.

Is your question a leading one, by any chance?


*E2A: to clarify, having read exactly what you quoted from me, the precise answer is "no", it is not "working class culture" that I have very little time for, it is the "fighting culture" I describe. That may or may not be a feature of "working class culture".


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> Really?  Sounds more like the standard last resort of a resoundingly philisophically beaten urbanite:  Accuse them of attacking the working classes.


I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm asking a question.

If you don't think street fighting and having an aversion to hitting women is rooted in working class culture, please give your reasons rather than having a pop at me. Thanks.


> In the early 19th century pub and street fighting were seen as deeply rooted in working-class culture and a fist fight that resulted in death might be treated indulgently by the law if it was deemed a "fair fight." .....Nonetheless, it remained true that as long as weapons were not used, the curtailment of male-on-male violence throughout the Victorian period could be selective.
> http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/58/br_23.html


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Just because something is "working class" doesn't make it intrinsically good or bad, any more than something being common amongst any other "class" you choose to define.


Have I claimed that or even mentioned that? I simply asked a question to clarify your point.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Have I claimed that or even mentioned that? I simply asked a question to clarify your point.



No, you didn't. 

But I'm not quite sure why you asked the question. I'm not sure what bearing it has on the points I'm making.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> But I'm not quite sure why you asked the question. I'm not sure what bearing it has on the points I'm making.


You started banging on about 'cultures.' I tried to identify which culture you were talking about.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's certainly food for thought and there's so much that I agree with in that post teuchter, most of it. But I guess I did grow up in a fighting culture if that's the right term, with all of the 'rules' that went with that, so yes, the  'don't hit women' taboo doesn't send me off on one. That scrote with the tshirt though, he wants it all ways. Fighting response & hitting women. Where do you go from there - reason with him?



It would be interesting to know how he genuinely feels about the whole thing now, having seen it plastered across the media, maybe or maybe not misrepresented, and discussed by lots of people whose opinions he may or may not usually be exposed to. And how his mates are treating him - whether he has gained respect or is being shunned, or what.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm asking a question.
> 
> If you don't think street fighting and having an aversion to hitting women is rooted in working class culture, please give your reasons rather than having a pop at me. Thanks.



My point was not that street fighting didn't come from the working classes but that working class does not automatically mean street fighting culture.  Your question, much like others toward tuechter on this thread seemed to me to be loaded, in this case with the suggestion that he was implying that working class = violent.  

Your grin, I think, supports this. 

My pop at you was about your other posts on this thread, where you implied that he advocates violence towards women with post such as this:



editor said:


> So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant*" in a street fight?



..when he had already made it more than plain that he didn't advocate any such thing.  I'd also note that you continuously ignored the word strength, concentrating on size. 

*I'm assuming you intended to type ''irrelevant'' here.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> It was just another kind of duel of honour.
> Assuming it even happened.



There is truth in this.  I think there would be an element of humiliation needing retribution in his act.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> Your grin, I think, supports this.


I'm getting fed up with you trying to put words and thoughts in my mouth, but feel free to analyse this:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> You started banging on about 'cultures.' I tried to identify which culture you were talking about.



I was banging on about the culture that I was banging on about, the one that I decided to refer to as "fighting culture" and tried to elaborate on in a fairly lengthy post. But hopefully we're all clear about that now.



editor said:


> I'm getting fed up with you trying to put words and thoughts in my mouth, but feel free to analyse this:



The thing is, though, you seem strangely reticent to make clear what you actually think.

Just asking for these "clarifications" and then declining to make further comment.

It seems you have strong opinions on the matter but are unwilling to go into any depth as to why you hold them.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> It seems you have strong opinions on the matter but are unwilling to go into any depth as to why you hold them.


I've made my belief about not hitting women crystal clear, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to go along with any wildly improbable _"ah, yes, but what if...."_ scenarios to entertain whatever point scoring flight of fancy is currently being pursued.

I have strong feelings about not going around stamping on cats* or mugging grannies too. How much 'depth' and detail do you need to understand that?




*But if it was a killer alien cat hellbent on forcing a nuclear meltdown, I just might. Same for a 12 foot woman looking to reduce Brixton to rubble with her evil hairslide


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> And there are quite a few individual women who are stronger than quite a few individual men ..... Just because men are stronger on average doesn't mean that no situation will ever arise where a man can't restrain a woman. If we get to talking about multiple women beating up a man - which I have seen - then the women's individual strength isn't really all that important.
> 
> It's kinda dangerous to continue saying that men are always the stronger sex and a man should never hit a woman. That makes life harder for men who in violent relationships where it's the woman who's violent.



And this is why it's demeaning to women.

The whole "don't hit women" thing supports and perpetuates the idea that _all_ women are "poor little dainty things" whom need, as a sex, to be treated differently than men and to be protected by men.

It's bollocks.

Woof


----------



## STFC (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The fact is, that there remains a culture amongst many men (and women for that matter) that respects physical strength and fighting ability as desirable qualities in a man...



Very good post teuchter.

My old man, who was brought up in pubs and then managed pubs and bars himself for years, taught me some 'rules' as a youngster, such as: you're a bigger man if you walk away; only a coward uses a glass; and, of course, never hit a woman. It wasn't so much that fighting ability was respected, more an acceptance that as a boy/man, the chances are that you'll get in the odd scrape so, if and when it happens, you handle it the right way. Old fashioned it might be, but I don't see much wrong in what he told me.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> Very good post teuchter.
> 
> My old man, who was brought up in pubs and then managed pubs and bars himself for years, taught me some 'rules' as a youngster, such as: you're a bigger man if you walk away; only a coward uses a glass; and, of course, never hit a woman. It wasn't so much that fighting ability was respected, more an acceptance that as a boy/man, the chances are that you'll get in the odd scrape so, if and when it happens, you handle it the right way. Old fashioned it might be, but I don't see much wrong in what he told me.



I don't see anything wrong in what he told you either. I'm sure that managing pubs makes you pretty wise about how to deal with male aggression. All those rules are a pragmatic way of dealing with living in a situation where physical violence is not unusual. The "you're a bigger man if you walk away" is the important one and the one that not everyone in those kinds of situations follows, or is taught, though, unfortunately.


----------



## STFC (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> The "you're a bigger man if you walk away" is the important one and the one that not everyone in those kinds of situations follows, or is taught, though, unfortunately.



True - it can be a tough one to follow but I have put it into practice myself a couple of times fairly recently. I admit to having nagging doubts about whether I should have 'done something', but know that in the grand scheme of things, walking away was the best thing to do.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I've made my belief about not hitting women crystal clear, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to go along with any wildly improbable _"ah, yes, but what if...."_ scenarios to entertain whatever point scoring flight of fancy is currently being pursued.



All you've made crystal clear is the fact that you'd never hit a woman. What you haven't made at all clear is when you/wouldn't hit a man. I'm not asking that in an attempt to suggest you are some sort of violent thug who goes about knocking people about. I'm asking because I suspect that the answer is that it would be only in very rare circumstances and as a last resort. In fact I'd guess your criteria are probably much the same as mine. In which case I'd ask you why you wouldn't apply the same criteria to a (possibly even more rare) circumstance involving a woman. And it seems that your only response to this is to say that it's so unlikely that it's not necessary to think about it, and accuse me of "point-scoring".

Whereas, as several (female) posters have pointed out, in actual fact it's _not_ a flight of fancy that there should arise a situation where a woman might be stronger than a man.

In any case the only reason I'm pursuing this is in defence of my position (ie. that there is no reason why gender in itself should affect the rights and wrongs of hitting someone) which you and others, earlier in the thread, appeared to be attempting to portray as somehow unreasonable. Or to quote chico enrico, people who hold my attitude are 



chico enrico said:


> ...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic



Perhaps you can understand why I might want to defend my position if that is how some people appear to regard it.

The other thing you haven't been crystal clear about is why you were so interested to know whether I was equating what I described as "fighting culture" with "working class culture" although that seems to be a separate discussion, really.

Of course, you are under no more obligation than anyone else to explain the reasoning behind your attitudes and if you don't want to go into it any further then that's fair enough. But it does seem that I've gone to considerably more effort to answer your questions than you have mine.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 7, 2008)

Moronic prick said:
			
		

> And the way she was laughing and trying to mock me.


This says it all about youth violence today ...


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

actually teuchter, i don't really think you're are:

Originally Posted by chico enrico  
...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic

i just think you're being a bit of a dick - suspect you're possibly an anarcho type - and essentially talking about stuff you don't have a clue about as you've never been in that positions. 

n'est ce pas?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> If she wants to act like a bloke, she'll get slapped like a bloke...


Indeed.  Drunken women at chucking out time can be an absolute fucking nightmare - starting catfights, encouraging their men to get involved, trying to rescue prisoners, etc. - and they seem to think it's wrong when they get restrained / struck (like the gobby cow who kept trying to pull me away from a prisoner for a stabbing (the only other officer present was also restraining him with me) and didn't listen to several warnings that things were about to get notched up a bit ... 

"You can't fucking hit me you cunt, I'm a woman ..." 

"Ow..."


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> This says it all about youth violence today ...



yes. wee spunk-bubbles like thaat should be put in the stocks on the high street so they can be laughted at and mocked till everyone get bored. and hopefully someother equally brave chaps will take a good few boots at his head along the way. I know it wouldnt really work as a 'deterrant' as nothing punitive really does , but i don't really care, he deserves a healthy booting.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i just think you're being a bit of a dick - suspect you're possibly an anarcho type - and essentially talking about stuff you don't have a clue about as you've never been in that positions.



Fucking pacifists - they'd just as soon hit a woman as a man . . .


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> All you've made crystal clear is the fact that you'd never hit a woman. What you haven't made at all clear is when you/wouldn't hit a man.


The answer is: where appropriate. 

I don't feel inclined to produce a list of highly improbable scenarios  for your delectation.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed.  Drunken women at chucking out time can be an absolute fucking nightmare - starting catfights, encouraging their men to get involved, trying to rescue prisoners, etc. - and they seem to think it's wrong when they get restrained / struck (like the gobby cow who kept trying to pull me away from a prisoner for a stabbing (the only other officer present was also restraining him with me) and didn't listen to several warnings that things were about to get notched up a bit ...
> 
> "You can't fucking hit me you cunt, I'm a woman ..."
> 
> "Ow..."



mate of mine got stabbed in the head by a woman.

hasn't changed his opinion about it being out of order hitting woman though, and doing the door at loads of clubs for years i'm sure he's had more provocation than most.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> Fucking pacifists - they'd just as soon hit a woman as a man . . .



actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.



You wouldn't know because they beat their girlfriends up in secret, see.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> You wouldn't know because they beat their girlfriends up in secret, see.



The b/f hasn't beaten me up yet, maybe he's secretly sexist.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.


The only guy I've known to make a huuuuuge fuss about a man hitting a woman hit me minutes later when I tried to stop him hitting the guy. 

A smokescreen for a bit of macho posturing.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> The b/f hasn't beaten me up yet, maybe he's secretly sexist.



Or he's cheating on you and beating _her_ up!


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> Or he's cheating on you and beating _her_ up!



And keeping her and me psychologically controlled


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> actually teuchter, i don't really think you're are:
> 
> Originally Posted by chico enrico
> ...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic
> ...



Anarcho type. Yup, that's me. You are quite an insightful fellow, I must say.

What do you mean "never been in that position?" What position exactly? Why should it affect my opinion? Have you considered the possibility that not finding myself very often in situations where violence might flare up might have some relation to my approach to violence/physical confrontation in general?





chico enrico said:


> yes. wee spunk-bubbles like thaat should be put in the stocks on the high street so they can be laughted at and mocked till everyone get bored. and hopefully someother equally brave chaps will take a good few boots at his head along the way. I know it wouldnt really work as a 'deterrant' as nothing punitive really does , but i don't really care, he deserves a healthy booting.



Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Is this part of the answer to the question which you've been evading, namely when it is acceptable to hit a man?



chico enrico said:


> actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.



This is a lot of complete nonsense. 

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your experience with pacifists - and what exactly you mean by "non-sexist men"? Do you exclude yourself from that category? How did you find out about all these wife-beating pacifists, while they managed to hide their evil ways form their "right-on" mates?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> The answer is: where appropriate.
> 
> I don't feel inclined to produce a list of highly improbable scenarios  for your delectation.



Question:

When is it appropriate to hit a man?

Answer:

When it is appropriate.

Um...


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.



don't believe it's possible to be such a thing and everyone i have ever met in my entire life who has claimed to be one has been a total creep and it has invariably transpired to have beaten up or psychologically tormented a partner.

i always think it's one of those freudian transferrence things like folk who go on about how much they hate gays being repressed. 

_those who doth protest too much_ 

there's a great book about the phenomenon by caroline walton called 'i, claudius'. 

as i dont hang about in politico circles any more the last instance i encountered of it was when i was at uni (where i studied post 70s feminism as my sociology degree and also 'the language of sexism' for linguistics). there was some creeping jesus type who was always winding me up with his slimy attempts as portraying himself as some paragon of sexual liberation and non-sexism, but at some disco in the students union grabbed his girlfriend by the hair and started shaking her during an argument. 

that 'i claudius' book is full of examples and anecdotes like that.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> A smokescreen for a bit of macho posturing.



yea,  that is often ture.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> don't believe it's possible to be such a thing and everyone i have ever met in my entire life who has claimed to be one has been a total creep and it has invariably transpired to have beaten up or psychologically tormented a partner.
> 
> i always think it's one of those freudian transferrence things like folk who go on about how much they hate gays being repressed.
> 
> ...



I'm glad my experience has been better than yours then.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

This thread is making me feel angry again. I'm going to go and get a sandwich. I hope I don't end up hitting anyone in the process.


----------



## STFC (Aug 7, 2008)

I used to know a bloke who liked to think of himself as a bit of a right-on type, he was always very very quick to accuse people of racism, sexism or any other -ism you care to mention. But he was an absolute bastard to his wife, not to the extent of slapping her about (that I'm aware of) but he was very controlling, a right bully. Totally at odds with the sort of persona he projected to the outside world.

Not that it proves anything of course, it's just my experience of one person.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Question:
> 
> When is it appropriate to hit a man?
> 
> ...



yes. and what's wrong with that? Lots of folk deserve a smack.

if i was harder and there wasn't the risk of getting nicked i'd probably hit someone every week. usually for being an ignorant prick (ie folk who barge into you and don't apologise) and stuff like that. 

but obviously i'm not some sort of nut job so i don't do stuff like that. generally folk who do are fairly unhinged. 

last time i had a go was at some wanker on the tube who was abusing a beggar. not big or clever and felt well shaky afterwards but sometimes you just lose your temper. doesn't everyone? sometimes it just happens in a split second and obviolusly you wouldnt do it if you had time to reflect.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> I'm glad my experience has been better than yours then.



well , so am i. wouldn't wish it on _anyone_.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> well , so am i. wouldn't wish it on _anyone_.



Maybe you should do a poll to get an idea of how representative your experience of non-sexist men = women beaters is?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Maybe you should do a poll to get an idea of how representative your experience of non-sexist men = women beaters is?



No. that would not make sense. 

and to be fair i'd imagine it is a very, very small percentage of the posters here and even then i'd expect only those who have experience of political groups during the 80s who would ever have come across the bizarre phenomena.

but anyway, my experience of 'women beaters' outwith political circles is (to the best of my knowledge, i hasten to add) absolutely zero. Obviously it would be patently absurd to base an empirical data model on that but in my experience it is true that the only folk i have personally _ever_ found out to beat up their girlfriends have been those amongst anarchist groups who would describe themselves as 'non sexist men' and been most vocal in denouncing others for being 'sexists' or 'macho'.

i don't want to even _have to_ meet people like that now so i'm afraid i can't comment, thus my hypotheis cannot be supported.

still think any man who would describe himself as 'non-sexist' is a definite wrong-un tho.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> still think any man who would describe himself as 'non-sexist' is a definite wrong-un tho.



And these 'non-racist' white people get on my wick and all . . .


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> The only guy I've known to make a huuuuuge fuss about a man hitting a woman hit me minutes later when I tried to stop him hitting the guy.
> 
> A smokescreen for a bit of macho posturing.



Indeed.

It always amazes me how it seems that the most violent of macho men-thugs are also invariably the first to spout the "never hit a woman" bollocks - despite their general attitudes towards women being _far_ from equality-based.

To me, this just reinforces the sexist nature of this anachronistic mantra.




Woof


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> No. that would not make sense.
> 
> and to be fair i'd imagine it is a very, very small percentage of the posters here and even then i'd expect only those who have experience of political groups during the 80s who would ever have come across the bizarre phenomena.
> 
> ...



My experience of anarcho groups is extremely limited (and non existent in the 80s) and I don't know of anyone in that limited range of people that hits women, although some of them seem to be non-sexist although I don't know if they'd describe themselves as such. I'll ask the b/f later, that'll give me a sample size of one 

Unfortunately I have known a number of men that hit their wives/partners but none of them described themselves (to my knowledge) as non-sexist, in fact they were quite avidly sexist/macho. I also knew a woman that used to be very violent towards her husband and she was very much ostensibly into equal rights. I'm not sure there's any correlation tbh.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> yes. and what's wrong with that? Lots of folk deserve a smack.



OK. So your criteria for hitting someone are fairly wide.

It would make everyone's life easier if you could try to get your thoughts in an orderly fashion before letting your fingers loose on the keyboard.

Nonetheless I will attempt to untangle what you are saying.



chico enrico said:


> if i was harder and there wasn't the risk of getting nicked i'd probably hit someone every week. usually for being an ignorant prick (ie folk who barge into you and don't apologise) and stuff like that.
> 
> but obviously i'm not some sort of nut job so i don't do stuff like that. generally folk who do are fairly unhinged.



So... if you could you would hit people every week, for barging into you. But actually you wouldn't because that would make you a nut job. Which apparently you aren't. So in conclusion, you would, but you wouldn't. Or, looking at it the other way around, you wouldn't but you would. But even if you would, you can't, because you're not hard enough and you'd get nicked. Phew.



> last time i had a go was at some wanker on the tube who was abusing a beggar. not big or clever and felt well shaky afterwards but sometimes you just lose your temper. doesn't everyone? sometimes it just happens in a split second and obviolusly you wouldnt do it if you had time to reflect.



Oh, but actually, even though you wouldn't / couldn't, you did.

But it wasn't big or clever and you wouldn't have done it if you hadn't have lost your temper. But, lots of people deserve a smack. But not this one, even though he was abusing a beggar, because in that case it wasn't big or clever. You thought he deserved a smack, but then it turned out he didn't after all. But it was too late by then.

But, the guy who hit the girl in the park, he deserves a smack, in fact he deserves a good kicking (in the head), and you could do this without that making you a nut job / unhinged. So somewhere in between abusing the beggar and hitting the girl in the park, a line has been crossed where the appropriate action changes from nothing to kicking someone's head in.

I'm sorry chico enrico but I'm left a little confused about your criteria. All I want to know is: when is it OK to hit  a man? Is it possible for you to answer that question?


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

You may have meant 'disentangle' there, teuchter


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> My experience of anarcho groups is extremely limited (and non existent in the 80s) and I don't know of anyone in that limited range of people that hits women, although some of them seem to be non-sexist although I don't know if they'd describe themselves as such. I'll ask the b/f later, that'll give me a sample size of one
> 
> Unfortunately I have known a number of men that hit their wives/partners but none of them described themselves (to my knowledge) as non-sexist, in fact they were quite avidly sexist/macho. I also knew a woman that used to be very violent towards her husband and she was very much ostensibly into equal rights. I'm not sure there's any correlation tbh.



well,  my mum worked in raploch community centre which is a very 'deprived' area of central scotland. the same building she worked in housed the stirling womens refuge. she told me lots of tales of the state some women were in when they approached them and also of their fuck-head partners trying every vile tactic from attacking staff to the predictable tearful apologies to get them back out. I doubt any of those scumbags would ever have _heard _the term 'anti sexist man' let alone claim to be one, so, no there is no quantifiable comparison.

i am merely talking from my experience which is that men who proclaim themselves to be 'anti-sexist' may often have more 'issues' in that department than those who don't feel any need to 'wear the badge'. 

self proclaimed 'non sexist men' types usually look a bit like charlie manson n'all and look what _he_ got up to. yup...wrong 'uns.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> You may have meant 'disentangle' there, teuchter



I think you'll find that's what he said (if you give him a minute). 




Or possibly untangle.  Definitely one of the two.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> _those who doth protest too much_


Funny. I nearly used that quote instead of the macho posturing line.

It was referring to you as well as the cunt who hit me, btw.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> I think you'll find that's what he said (if you give him a minute).



He made it 'untangle' ... I think my 'disentangle' wins though


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i am merely talking from my experience which is that men who proclaim themselves to be 'anti-sexist' may often have more 'issues' in that department than those who don't feel any need to 'wear the badge'.
> 
> self proclaimed 'non sexist men' types usually look a bit like charlie manson n'all and look what _he_ got up to. yup...wrong 'uns.



There are loads of men that are pro-feminism/equal rights/anti-sexist - you're not alleging that all of them are covert women beaters are you?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> but then it turned out he didn't after all. But it was too late by then.



no, you're wrong. he did most certainly deserve it. and i would have been more than happy if he had got a fuck of a sight worse. 




teuchter said:


> But, the guy who hit the girl in the park, he deserves a smack, in fact he deserves a good kicking




yea, _*if*_ he hit the girl in the park he deserves a kicking, why not? 

so there ya go, teuchter, not one but _two _examples of when IMO someone would deserve a punch


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> I used to know a bloke who liked to think of himself as a bit of a right-on type, he was always very very quick to accuse people of racism, sexism or any other -ism you care to mention. But he was an absolute bastard to his wife, not to the extent of slapping her about (that I'm aware of) but he was very controlling, a right bully. Totally at odds with the sort of persona he projected to the outside world.
> 
> Not that it proves anything of course, it's just my experience of one person.



No, it doesn't prove anything. Even if you could prove that he "doth protest too much" does apply to certain people, it's a complete red herring in terms of what we are discussing on this thread, thrown in there by chico enrico (he of much indignance about my non-answering of a question which in fact I already had) in an attempt to avoid properly answering the various questions he has been asked over the past couple of pages.

I don't believe I've accused anyone of any -isms on this thread, with the exception of myself.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> There are loads of men that are pro-feminism/equal rights/anti-sexist - you're not alleging that all of them are covert women beaters are you?




no. you know i'm not 

and , sorry, but i never said anything about men who would claim to be "_pro-feminism/equal rights"_ - i would myself and would think you'd be a fucking cro-mag _not to be_.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> no. you know i'm not
> 
> and , sorry, but i never said anything about men who would claim to be "_pro-feminism/equal rights"_ - i would myself and would think you'd be a fucking cro-mag _not to be_.



I'm confused now 

Do you mean just the anti-sexist/non sexist term?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> no, you're wrong. he did most certainly deserve it. and i would have been more than happy if he had got a fuck of a sight worse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, OK then. Not criteria as such but some examples, which will do for now.

Let's take the example of the "wanker" abusing the beggar in the tube. Let's not worry about whether punching him was a useful response for the time being. I think we might disagree about that but the point is, it is what you decided was appropriate.

Let's say the "wanker" was in fact a woman, of about the same apparent size and strength as the man you hit, and she was abusing the beggar in exactly the same way.

Am I right in assuming that you would not have hit her? If so, what would you have done instead?

Now can you please explain why that course of action would not have been an appropriate way to deal with the man?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> no. you know i'm not
> 
> and , sorry, but i never said anything about men who would claim to be "_pro-feminism/equal rights"_ - i would myself and would think you'd be a fucking cro-mag _not to be_.



Chico enrico:

"Fighting for pro-feminism, equal rights, and anti-non-sexism!"

Cool!


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Do you mean just the anti-sexist/non sexist term?



yes.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Chico enrico:
> 
> "Fighting for pro-feminism, equal rights, and anti-non-sexism!"
> 
> Cool!



teuchter:

"fighting for the right to hit women as an emancipatatory act in refutation of 
patriarchially inculated attitudes"

not so cool


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

chico, you are Attica and I claim my £5. 


Also please answer my questions to you in post 447.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> teuchter:
> 
> "fighting for the right to hit women as an emancipatatory act in refutation of
> patriarchially inculated attitudes"
> ...


Back up that statement with a direct quote from Teuchter please.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Am I right in assuming that you would not have hit her? If so, what would you have done instead?
> 
> Now can you please explain why that course of action would not have been an appropriate way to deal with the man?



if it had been a woman i'd probably have just given her a load of abuse.

someone bumps into me on the tube and doesn't apologise i'm going to go "watch where you're going ya fucking prick/cow" and leave it at that.

but this particular incident and the wanker who gave the beggar abuse (he actually let off some sort of alarm thing directly beside his ear which made the beggar drop his cup in shock which he thought was well funny, despite the fact he had half-deafened and pissed off the other folk in the carriage) just got to me so i cracked him on the side of the temple just as i was stepping off. a very out-of-character act i hasten to add, but i got 'the mist'.

really mate, i couldn't care less what you think about that. if you're a pacifist, fair enough and i rspect your ethical conviction but i disagree with your misguided attitude to hitting women. end of.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> Back up that statement with a direct quote from Teuchter please.



go fuck yourself please


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> chico, you are Attica and I claim my £5.
> 
> 
> Also please answer my questions to you in post 447.



yes, i have answered it. perhaps read this thread instead of paraphrasing Graham Greene?


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> go fuck yourself please


More macho posturing? Quelle surprise.

I'll assume your comments re: Teuchter's position are withdrawn, as you are unwilling to back them up.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Question:
> 
> When is it appropriate to hit a man?
> 
> ...


Christ, you can be a patronising arse at times. 

I've already stated _about 200 posts ago_ that I'd only hit a man "if I absolutely had to," and I imagine that's the same response you'd get from most well balanced adults. 

But if you think I'm going to trouble myself to pre-compile a comprehensive list of every possible and improbable circumstance that may perhaps merit a violent response for your titillation, you're very much mistaken.

However, on the highly unlikely occasion of a situation arising where I feel a violent response was the only appropriate one, you'll be the first to know all about it.

And then perhaps you might finally unveil your Massive Big Argument-Crushing Point, whatever it is.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

But would you hit a woman if you absolutely had to?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> But would you hit a woman if you absolutely had to?



i would probably hit my mother if i *absolutely had to* but as it is highly unlikely i would _*absolutely have to*_ may i just say that is an _*absolutely*_ fucking moronic question to ask.

FFS


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> More macho posturing? Quelle surprise.
> 
> I'll assume your comments re: Teuchter's position are withdrawn, as you are unwilling to back them up.



oh just fuck off , reread teuchter's fuckin stupid comments about such attutudes being rooted in a time we should have left behind or whatever fanny-batter he was waffling and you'll see. ive got better things to do than pander to morons like you. and no, i 'withdraw' nothing.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> last time i had a go was at some wanker on the tube who was abusing a beggar. not big or clever and felt well shaky afterwards but sometimes you just lose your temper. doesn't everyone? sometimes it just happens in a split second and obviolusly you wouldnt do it if you had time to reflect.







chico enrico said:


> no, you're wrong. he did most certainly deserve it. and i would have been more than happy if he had got a fuck of a sight worse.






chico enrico said:


> just got to me so i cracked him on the side of the temple just as i was stepping off. a very out-of-character act i hasten to add, but i got 'the mist'.



Make your mind up for gawd's sake.



chico enrico said:


> really mate, i couldn't care less what you think about that. if you're a pacifist, fair enough and i rspect your ethical conviction but i disagree with your misguided attitude to hitting women. end of.



I'm not sure where I actually committed myself to being a "pacifist".

I think we realise you "disagree with with my misguided attitude to hitting women" but it would be kind of interesting if you could manage to gather your head together enough to explain why.




teuchter said:


> Now can you please explain why that course of action would not have been an appropriate way to deal with the man?



You seem to have conveniently forgotten to make any attempt whatsoever to answer this question.


Oh and no, you haven't answered quimcunx's questions in post 447. Must have been an administrative oversight on your part. Maybe you forgot to press the "submit reply" button, or something like that.

Here are the questions in case you've forgotten what they are:



> Why do you take it that he has hit a man? Are you under the assumption that all men have hit a man? Why? Do you believe that all normal, balanced men have? Have you? Was he bigger or smaller than you? Stronger? Weaker? Did hitting a man make you feel more manly? I’m assuming you think hitting a woman would make you feel less manly? Does not having hit a man make you less manly?



I think you've got quite a lot of answering work to do if you want to make yourself look faintly credible.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Make your mind up for gawd's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes. credible to a dickdrip like you? aye fuckin sure mate. 

and my apologies, if you had been a committed pacifist, a quaker or buddhist or something i'd have rspected your convictions.

as it is , seems you're just a _wanker._


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I've already stated _about 200 posts ago_ that I'd only hit a man "if I absolutely had to," and I imagine that's the same response you'd get from most well balanced adults.



So you would only hit a man when there was absolutely no other option. You would only hit a man when it was actually not possible to not hit the man.

If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not hit a woman, would you hit her? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.

Therefore you apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man as to hitting a woman.

So we agree after all.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 7, 2008)

I think I'll just put my arms out like a jesus then run around spinning with my eyes shut and shouting waaaaaaghhhh and hit anyone I happen to hit.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i would probably hit my mother if i *absolutely had to* but as it is highly unlikely i would _*absolutely have to*_ may i just say that is an _*absolutely*_ fucking moronic question to ask.
> 
> FFS


I was responding to editor's post, directly above mine, you egocentric moron.



chico enrico said:


> oh just fuck off , reread teuchter's fuckin stupid comments about such attutudes being rooted in a time we should have left behind or whatever fanny-batter he was waffling and you'll see. ive got better things to do than pander to morons like you. and no, i 'withdraw' nothing.


If you won't back up your statement or back down, I'll just have to assume you're a testosterone-enslaved moron instead.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I think I'll just put my arms out like a jesus then run around spinning with my eyes shut and shouting waaaaaaghhhh and hit anyone I happen to hit.



That sounds suspiciously like my dad's clip round the ear in passing 'oops, sorry sonny'


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> So you would only hit a man when there was absolutely no other option. You would only hit a man when it was actually not possible to not hit the man.


So is this the Big Point you've been ready to unleash all this time? Bit of an anti-climax, I must say.


teuchter said:


> If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not hit a woman, would you hit her? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.
> 
> Therefore you apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man as to hitting a woman.


 Hey! Why not ignore all my previous posts on the matter and just paste in your own words and then claim that it represents my opinion? Way to go!

Quite ridiculous.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

*misses Attica*


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

Melinda said:


> *misses Attica*


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> But would you hit a woman if you absolutely had to?


Are, we're back to the fantastic fantasy scenarios again!

Here. Try this: I can think of *no likely scenario* where I would ever hit a woman. Such a situation has never, ever arisen in all my years on this planet - despite being in quite a few provocative situations - and I can see absolutely no reason why that should change.

However, if a drug-crazed woman wielding an axe on top of the Empire State building was about to cut the cable to which I - and all of my friends - were hanging on for dear life, I would almost certainly consider a violent response if it meant saving the day.

Damn! See what you've done there? You've gone and caught me out now!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> So is this the Big Point you've been ready to unleash all this time? Bit of an anti-climax, I must say.
> Hey! Why not ignore all my previous posts on the matter and just paste in your own words and then claim that it represents my opinion? Way to go!
> 
> Quite ridiculous.



Sorry, but I missed the post where you stated that, in the situation where it was absolutely impossible to not hit a woman, you would nonetheless manage to not hit the woman. Which would be quite clever really.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> I was responding to editor's post, directly above mine, you egocentric moron.



yes. that was clear from the progression of the thread. my point still remains valid. you utter clown.  



ymu said:


> If you won't back up your statement or back down, I'll just have to assume you're a testosterone-enslaved moron instead.



no. if you care to waste, oh...20 or so minutes of your life trying to find my response to your post you'll see i did answer it. i certainly wouldnt waste anything like that time on you, cos i dont give a fuck


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Sorry, but I missed the post where you stated that, in the situation where it was absolutely impossible to not hit a woman, you would nonetheless manage to not hit the woman. Which would be quite clever really.


Maybe it would be easier if I just gave you my log in and took the day off, rather than you having to state my opinion through the medium of your own posts?

I've absolutely no idea what you're on about with that bizarre gibberish above.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:



teuchter said:


> So you would only _*chop your hand off with a pen knife*_ when there was absolutely no other option. You would only _*chop your hand off with a pen knife*_ when it was actually not possible to not _*chop your hand off with a pen knife*_
> 
> If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not _*chop your hand off with a pen knife*_ would you _*chop your hand off with a pen knife*_? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.



apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:
> 
> 
> 
> apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.




Sorry, but you screwed up. Here is what you should have done:




> So you would only *chop your left hand off with a pen knife* when there was absolutely no other option. You would only *chop your left hand off with a pen knife* when it was actually not possible to not *chop your left hand off with a pen knife*.
> 
> If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not *chop your right hand off with a pen knife*, would you *chop your right hand off with a pen knife*? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.
> 
> Therefore you apply precisely the same criteria to *chopping your left hand off with a pen knife* as to *chopping your right hand off with a pen knife*.



That makes sense, doesn't it?

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.

Those criteria are what differentiates between the hitting man/hitting woman scenarios and also what differentiates between the chop off left hand / chop off right hand scenarios. It is the difference in these criteria that I am trying to establish and which no-one seems willing to define, let alone offer a rational explanation for the distinction.

I'm sorry if that's all too metaphysical for you though.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Maybe it would be easier if I just gave you my log in and took the day off,



That sounds like fun. Let's do it!



editor said:


> rather than you having to state my opinion through the medium of your own posts?



I'm only trying to fill the void left by your declining to answer my question.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter. i was a bit charitable earlier on: you're just a dick. now fuck off son.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:
> 
> 
> 
> apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.



What you also fail to recognise is that my incompetently altering my quote, you inadvertently imply that hitting a man is exactly the same as hitting a woman, as you have replaced both with the same "analogy".


----------



## untethered (Aug 7, 2008)

If these young folk want to work off some steam, perhaps they'd be better off debating the finer points of violence towards women on here than irritating innocent park-goers.


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

I love it when a debate progresses to the coloured font stage  Can we start a book on who's going to be the first to deploy comic sans?


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.


You're like those annoying twerps that bother vegetarians with ridiculous nonsense like:

_"Ah, yes, but if you were stuck on a desert island with no hope of rescue and the only food available was roast beef, would you eat it? 
Yes?!! Yes?!!!! Then ha ha! 
I've proved that you're not a real vegetarian! I've won the argument!!! LOLz!"_


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> teuchter. i was a bit charitable earlier on: you're just a dick. now fuck off son.



OMG pk's signed in under chico's log in 


*Faynights*


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> If these young folk want to work off some steam, perhaps they'd be better off debating the finer points of violence towards women on here than irritating innocent park-goers.



Chico already is.

By distracting him on here all afternoon we've probably prevented him from hitting at least three people in the park.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.
> 
> Those criteria are what differentiates between the hitting man/hitting woman scenarios and also what differentiates between the chop off left hand / chop off right hand scenarios. It is the difference in these criteria that I am trying to establish and which no-one seems willing to define, let alone offer a rational explanation for the distinction.
> 
> I'm sorry if that's all too metaphysical for you though.


Which brings me back to where I came in on this thread. Those who do feel a greater taboo against hitting women may not, in practice, have a different standard when it comes to hitting men. But if they observed a man hitting a woman, they'd nevertheless get a whole lot more riled up about it than if he'd been hitting a man.

There are two straw men on this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> You're like those annoying twerps that bother vegetarians with ridiculous nonsense like:
> 
> _"Ah, yes, but if you were stuck on a desert island with no hope of rescue and the only food available was roast beef, would you eat it?
> Yes?!! Yes?!!!! Then ha ha!
> I've proved that you're not a real vegetarian! I've won the argument!!! LOLz!"_



If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.

I don't think it's comparable with our discussion where you are refusing to provide the critical piece of imformation that would make it meaningful.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.



hey, i kinda imagine you to be like a cross between Mr Logic in Viz and that creepy precocious kid with the curly blonde hair and blue velvet suit who was on That's Life in the late 1970s as an 'antiques expert'. 

ever find it strange that rooms seem to empty when you walk in?


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.


LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.

If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.
> 
> If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.



"One more such victory will undo me!" 
© Pyrrhus of Epirus


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Aug 7, 2008)

I can't believe this thread is still going!


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

The Doctor said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going!


And not even a need for Attica's convoluted contortions! Or is that contorted convolutions?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.
> 
> If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.





You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?



_Behave_!! there's websites for that sort of stuff - and _this_ isn't one of them!


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?


This thread gets more surreal by the minute.

Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out, and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?

Hang on, I think I know the answer: "in your head."


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> This thread gets more surreal by the minute.
> 
> Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out, and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?
> 
> Hang on, I think I know the answer: "in your head."


What if Jane Couch got lairy? Trod on your trainers, spilled your pint, looked at your birs AND THEN called you a ponce?


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

I suppose it's just me, and we all know I'm destined for hell anyway, but I've got one of those unspeakable urges to put it to a practical test. 

Along the lines of a female volunteer tormenting both Ed and teuchter and seeing which one of them snaps first.

Cheesy'd possibly be up for it cos it's like, an abstract creative solution to resolve this debate.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> I suppose it's just me, and we all know I'm destined for hell anyway, but I've got one of those unspeakable urges to put it to a practical test.
> 
> Along the lines of a female volunteer tormenting both Ed and teuchter and seeing which one of them snaps first.
> 
> Cheesy'd possibly be up for it cos it's like, an abstract creative solution to resolve this debate.


SHOUTS: STFU you clown!  

Creative conflict resolution! Loving your work Ces!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> This thread gets more surreal by the minute.
> 
> Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out, and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?
> 
> Hang on, I think I know the answer: "in your head."



Can we do a poll to see whether people think it is conceivable that there exist in this world some women who might be stronger than some men, and that some men might not be able to physically restrain?

Would that be construed as some kind of call-out thread?




E2A: Cesare's proposal looks a lot more entertaining, however. Although I am not sure that I want to be one of the test subjects.


----------



## exosculate (Aug 7, 2008)

Would this be the right time to point out that 10% of domestic violence cases are woman on man?


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

Melinda said:


> SHOUTS: STFU you clown!
> 
> Creative conflict resolution! Loving your work Ces!



Abstract thinking creative conflict resolution  It's got a ring to it, I suppose. Although I prefer DEATHMATCH!


----------



## exosculate (Aug 7, 2008)

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil women. 

Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak women through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his sisters keeper and the finder of lost children. 

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers T-shirts. 

And you will know I am the MAN when I lay my vengeance upon you.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can we do a poll to see whether people think it is conceivable that there exist in this world some women who might be stronger than some men, and that some men might not be able to physically restrain?


But it's not about 'some men.' 

The question was specifically aimed at me, in an increasingly desperate attempt to back up your pissweak, crumbling 'argument.'


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Abstract thinking creative conflict resolution  It's got a ring to it, I suppose. Although I prefer DEATHMATCH!


Populist! Dumb downerer!

Calling it DEATHMATCH! wont get you EU funding!


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> E2A: Cesare's proposal looks a lot more entertaining, however. Although I am not sure that I want to be one of the test subjects.



Spoilsport!


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

Melinda said:


> Populist! Dumb downerer!
> 
> Calling it DEATHMATCH! wont get you EU funding!



Oh good point. We need a fund raiser.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Along the lines of a female volunteer tormenting both Ed and teuchter and seeing which one of them snaps first..


From years of running these boards, I already know what it's like to  be tormented by annoying women, thanks.  

But you note that you won't even find the slightest hint of a physical threat posted by me in retaliation anywhere here.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> But it's not about 'some men.'
> 
> The question was specifically aimed at me, in an increasingly desperate attempt to back up your pissweak, crumbling 'argument.'



OK then, can we do a poll called:

"Who thinks there is a possibility that some day the Editor could meet a woman strong enough that he would not be able to physically restrain her?"

?


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> From years of running these boards, I already know what it's like to  be tormented by annoying women, thanks.
> 
> But you note that you won't even find the slightest hint of a physical threat posted by me in retaliation anywhere here.


----------



## rich! (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Abstract thinking creative conflict resolution  It's got a ring to it, I suppose. Although I prefer DEATHMATCH!



Roadkill and I came up with the idea of "urbanite steel cage deathmatches" once when very drunk. I can't remember what our proposed first match was - probably Firky and El Jefe in a room full of Captain Beefheart records...


----------



## cesare (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> From years of running these boards, I already know what it's like to  be tormented by annoying women, thanks.
> 
> But you note that you won't even find the slightest hint of a physical threat posted by me in retaliation anywhere here.



Now's the chance to see if your tolerance, restraint and general bonhomie works in a practical situation. 

It could be an off-line special. One of these 'annoying women' all set up to prove both yours and teuchters' points. It's a no lose situation and happen it'll attract quite an audience.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> This thread gets more surreal by the minute.
> 
> Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out, and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?
> 
> Hang on, I think I know the answer: "in your head."



Again, you've edited out strong.  

Me?  Not that I have any intention of getting into a violent contretemps with you or anyone.  I'm shorter than all but two posters on here, strong enough to lift up a 17 stone bouncer (or at least used to be, I haven't tested recently). If you were to happenstance upon me in a sufficiently angry/adrenalin-pumped state and a situation where you/anyone felt it was necessary to restrain me, I honestly believe you would have considerable difficulty in doing so.   If I was a foot taller I seriously doubt you would be able to at all. 

Please bear in mind, I'm not claiming I could beat you in a fight, just that your attempts at restraint could, not preposterously at all, prove insufficient in holding me from my target.


----------



## rich! (Aug 7, 2008)

cesare said:


> Oh good point. We need a fund raiser.



With mud. Lots of mud.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

rich! said:


> With mud. Lots of mud.


All the best tournaments use baby oil now.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 7, 2008)

Melinda said:


> *misses Attica*


* Gets sent to remedial aiming lessons so as not to blow such an opportunity ever again ... *


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out ...


Croydon



> ... and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?


By simply being there ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 7, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Would this be the right time to point out that 10% of domestic violence cases are woman on man?


Probably more - it's recognised as being a very under-reported area.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 7, 2008)

24 pages, wow


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> "Who thinks there is a possibility that some day the Editor could meet a woman strong enough that he would not be able to physically restrain her?"



OK, if it will shut you up here's one of those websites you're fishing for a link to:

_See beautiful giantesses terrorizing little men_

http://www. virtualgiantess2.com/  

Really, there's plenty out there. You don't need to feel ashamed. Nobody's judging you here.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> .... ive got better things to do than pander to morons like you.



Evidently you haven't. It took you quite a long time to find that website though. I think you're a bit too late; it's lost its comedy effect. Timing is everything, you know.


----------



## Melinda (Aug 7, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> * Gets sent to remedial aiming lessons so as not to blow such an opportunity ever again ... *




You funny man!


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> OK then, can we do a poll called:
> 
> "Who thinks there is a possibility that some day the Editor could meet a woman strong enough that he would not be able to physically restrain her?"
> 
> ?


You imagination gets weirder every day. 

Why on earth do you think I'll end up having a row with a large, angry, powerful, nay _strong_, woman who'll become so uncontrollably violent and enraged that she'll attack me and then I'll realise she's too beefy for me to restrain that I'll be forced to punch her?

I can tell you that in over 40 years, the amount of times that the above scenario has come even remotely close to happening = 0 and I can see no earthly reason for that to change.

But seeing as you seem to be insisting that it's only a matter of time, how many times have you had to punch a woman right in the face because she was so crazed with anger you were unable to restrain her?

If the answer is also zero, you'll begin to look_ really, really _foolish.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 7, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> teuchter. i was a bit charitable earlier on: you're just a dick. now fuck off son.



W.O.W.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2008)

editor said:


> You imagination gets weirder every day.
> 
> Why on earth do you think I'll end up having a row with a large, angry, powerful, nay _strong_, woman who'll become so uncontrollably violent and enraged that she'll attack me and then I'll realise she's too beefy for me to restrain that I'll be forced to punch her?
> 
> ...



Since childhood I have never hit a woman and I have never hit a man.

The fact that you don't already know this, which I have already very clearly stated, and repeated several times, supports my suspicion that you aren't really reading this thread properly.

And the fact that you think that this answer will make me look foolish suggests you are somehow misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

This thread having descended into farce over the last few pages, perhaps we should try and start at the beginning again.

Here is the first post I made outlining the reasons why I am sometimes irritated by people saying "I would never hit a woman":



teuchter said:


> If this is the reasoning, then people should say "I would never hit someone weaker than myself" instead of "I would never hit a woman".
> 
> The whole "I would never hit a woman thing" irritates me because by implication it means that sometimes it's OK to hit a man. Well, if there are situations where it is OK to hit a man, then there must be situations where it is OK to hit a woman.
> 
> ...



Please pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

A little bit later, you made this post in which you said:



editor said:


> So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant" in a street fight?



And to anyone who had read my previous post, the answer to that is an obvious "no". But from that point on you gave the impression that you were working on the assumption that this was my attitude (please correct me if I am wrong) which put me on the defensive somewhat.

There followed several pages of to-and-fro which didn't seem to be going anywhere and after a while I made this post in an attempt to explain to you what the point I am trying to make is:



teuchter said:


> All you've made crystal clear is the fact that you'd never hit a woman. What you haven't made at all clear is when you/wouldn't hit a man. I'm not asking that in an attempt to suggest you are some sort of violent thug who goes about knocking people about. I'm asking because I suspect that the answer is that it would be only in very rare circumstances and as a last resort. In fact I'd guess your criteria are probably much the same as mine. In which case I'd ask you why you wouldn't apply the same criteria to a (possibly even more rare) circumstance involving a woman. And it seems that your only response to this is to say that it's so unlikely that it's not necessary to think about it, and accuse me of "point-scoring".
> 
> Whereas, as several (female) posters have pointed out, in actual fact it's _not_ a flight of fancy that there should arise a situation where a woman might be stronger than a man.
> 
> In any case the only reason I'm pursuing this is in defence of my position (ie. that there is no reason why gender in itself should affect the rights and wrongs of hitting someone) which you and others, earlier in the thread, appeared to be attempting to portray as somehow unreasonable.



And I wrote that post for the specific reason that you seemed not to be understanding why I was asking what I was asking, and were accusing me of "point-scoring" or somesuch.

Did you actually read that post? Because it feels to me like you didn't. I genuinely don't understand why you find it so "preposterous" to suggest that a man - it doesn't matter if it's you or me or someone else - might come into some kind of conflict situation with a woman who is physically stronger than him.

You seem to be implying that the reason you'd never hit a woman is that they'd always be weaker than you and therefore it would never be necessary. I am saying that is a false assumption. I am saying that if there is potential for a situation where you need to hit a man then there is potential for a situation where you need to hit a woman. It matters not a jot how unlikely either of them are. If it is possible, then your suggestion that it is never OK to hit a woman because it would never be "necessary" doesn't hold any water at all. It seems like a perfectly logical line of reasoning to me and yet you are acting like it is the most ridiculous argument in the history of the internet.

The fact is that several people contributing to this thread seem to agree with me that this is a reasonable argument to make, and that it is possible for a man to come into conflict with a woman stronger than him. The only people in disagreement, I think are you and chico enrico who has now embarrassed himself by letting his incoherent line of reasoning lapse into personal insult and off-topic nonsense. And yet you still seem to think I am pursuing some lunatic idea. Which is why I suggested the poll, which I am confident would reveal that most people consider a situation where a man comes into conflict with a woman stronger than him to be a perfectly possible one.

Having digested all that do you still maintain that I am a preposterous twerp or whatever it is you called me earlier?


----------



## untethered (Aug 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Why on earth do you think I'll end up having a row with a large, angry, powerful, nay _strong_, woman who'll become so uncontrollably violent and enraged that she'll attack me and then I'll realise she's too beefy for me to restrain that I'll be forced to punch her?



There might be a terrible miscarriage of justice based on mistaken identity which sees you locked up in a really tough women's prison where the inmates are just not reasonable.

Then what?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> There might be a terrible miscarriage of justice based on mistaken identity which sees you locked up in a really tough women's prison where the inmates are just not reasonable.
> 
> Then what?



Or, less implausibly, a woman beating up another smaller and/or weaker woman.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> hey, i kinda imagine you to be like a cross between Mr Logic in Viz .....



(here there was going to be a quote about teuchter being infuriating, but it seems to have disappeared)

Actually, I can understand that you would find teuchter frustrating and infuriating.  I used to go out with a guy who had exceptionally good logical thinking skills. On the couple of occasions where we differed sufficiently passionately in our ideologies for there to ensue a heated exchange of views I found myself immensely frustrated.  I knew what I meant but found myself unable to gain any purchase in the argument and was infuriated by this.  I was confident  I was right, but lost the arguments. But that was my failing, not his.  How could it be his fault that he was better at formulating and ordering his ideas than me?    I shouldn’t blame him for my inabilities any more than I should if he was better than me at tennis, or chess or whatever one might care to mention. 

In my opinion teuchter has conducted himself with dignity (even as the thread has gotten more and more ridiculous). This whilst resolutely holding his ground with reason and consistency, without recourse to slurs, swearing or name-calling.  

He simply asserted his viewpoint clearly and concisely  and followed this with, what seems to me, a reasonable and reasonably simple question to the thread at large( iirc, I might be wrong).   I genuinely think that he has been misused and abused for the sake of I know not what, especially as, broadly speaking there was little actual disagreement that I could ascertain on the matter in hand.

There is nothing I have seen in his posts that I think has deserved the derision he has attracted.  I also fail to see that describing someone as logical can be used as an insult, even in discussion of what is evidently, for some,  a highly emotionally-charged issue. The application of logical thinking to one’s philosophy  can surely only be a good thing.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 8, 2008)

So, basically:

A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.

Anyone disagree with that? Bueller?

B) Some people believe that, when your only option is self-defence, you should 

B1) Defend yourself regardless of the gender of the assailant

B2) Defend yourself, but only if your assailant is male and you are male, or the assailant is of any gender and you are female.

This means that women attacking men should not be hit in self-defence. Men should just bow down before the blows, and hope they live. 

Men are, in general, stronger than women (I've had this demonstrated to me many times), but that's irrelevant, if we're thinking about someone acting in self-defence when no other option is available. 'In general' does not mean 'always.'


The boy who hit someone for spraying him with coloured water is in the wrong because he chose to hit someone where other options were available, like, for instance, laughing it off and making friends with the girl at the waterfight he'd gone to. He's not in the wrong 'because he hit a girl,' he's in the wrong because he hit somebody when violence wasn't necessary.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i would probably hit my mother if i *absolutely had to*



Got there.

Finally!


Wasn't that hard, was it?




Woof


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, basically:
> 
> A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.
> 
> ...



If a woman attacks me, I'll hit back, but only with sufficient force to ward off the blows from her tiny fists.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 8, 2008)

If she brings weaponry, it's a different story, though.


----------



## d.a.s.h (Aug 8, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> There is nothing I have seen in his posts that I think has deserved the derision he has attracted.



One would have thought it hard to misunderstand his position when he has stated it so clearly:




			
				teuchter said:
			
		

> But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.


----------



## STFC (Aug 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, basically:
> 
> A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.
> 
> Anyone disagree with that? Bueller?



I do.

If somebody crosses the line, and the line is obviously different for everyone, then they will get a slap. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but I'm sure most people can imagine a scenario other than self-defence, where they would give someone a smack in the mouth.


----------



## STFC (Aug 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If she brings weaponry, it's a different story, though.



Does that include long nails, pointy shoes and a sharp tongue?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, basically:
> 
> A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.



I would include defending others in this, though this should and would be attempts at restraint initially, I suppose.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Evidently you haven't. It took you quite a long time to find that website though. I think you're a bit too late; it's lost its comedy effect. Timing is everything, you know.



Actually, I was out. Having a drink with friends. You should try it sometime.

_Having a life is everything_, you know.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Since childhood I have never hit a woman and I have never hit a man.
> 
> The fact that you don't already know this, which I have already very clearly stated, and repeated several times, supports my suspicion that you aren't really reading this thread properly.
> 
> ...



what if you just _like_ hitting people? Plenty people do. From the world heavyweights belt at Las Vegas to outside the kebab shop along my road on a friday night. It's like smoking or rubbing one's bell end with a cheese-grater behind closed doors and with other consenting parties. If that's what you like doing who's to pass judgement and tell you you can't? _You?_


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> what if you just _like_ hitting people? Plenty people do. From the world heavyweights belt at Las Vegas to outside the kebab shop along my road on a friday night. It's like smoking or rubbing one's bell end with a cheese-grater behind closed doors and with other consenting parties. If that's what you like doing who's to pass judgement and tell you you can't? _You?_



If you read what I originally said and what I quoted in that post that you just quoted:



teuchter said:


> Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence *or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence*. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.



Silly chico.

*ruffles chico's hair*


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> Actually, I was out. Having a drink with friends. You should try it sometime.
> 
> _Having a life is everything_, you know.



*bursts into tears*


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

*or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence.*

yea, but that's a bit unlikely isn't it?

if you're out for a night with your mates and someone noises you up, or you simply don't like the look of them (a student perhaps) you're hardly going to go "excuse me mate, is it ok if me and my mates batter you?" 

or perhaps aspiring 'amature pugilists' should adopt some form of _visual signifiers _to denote that they are 'game for it' when walking about town on a friday night - red boiler-suite, maybe?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2008)

I say it ain't OK to hit people just because you don't like the look of them.

Fortunately the law agrees, and passes judgement accordingly.

Does that answer your question?


----------



## STFC (Aug 8, 2008)

What about if someone calls your mum a slag?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> What about if someone calls your mum a slag?



Being as I'm not fourteen, I'd laugh.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I say it ain't OK to hit people just because you don't like the look of them.
> 
> Fortunately the law agrees, and passes judgement accordingly.
> 
> Does that answer your question?



No. 

I think it's fair enough. Some people just look like wanks. And if they look like a wank they probably _are_ a wank. So they deserve a slap. 

And you're hardly going to slap someone when there's old bill about so as there's rarely any cops around at kicking out time (all being back at the station drinking tea, watching big brother and getting their balls licked by the specially trained alsatian) the chances of you getting caught are minimal to say the least.

So my question stands. If someone _likes_ hitting people, who are _you_ to say they shouldn't? and what gives _you_ the right to make judgements about how _they_ should behave and deport themselves?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> No.
> 
> I think it's fair enough. Some people just look like wanks. And if they look like a wank they probably _are_ a wank. So they deserve a slap.
> 
> ...



You're as bad at trolling as you are at trying to argue a coherent point.

Zzzzzzzzz.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

teuchter said:


> You're as bad at trolling as you are at trying to argue a coherent point.
> 
> Zzzzzzzzz.



arf arf...hark at _Mr LogicI]

just hope you're not as bad at social interaction as you are trying to argue a wanky, pretentious, metaphysical hypothesis _


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> arf arf...hark at _Mr LogicI]
> 
> just hope you're not as bad at social interaction as you are trying to argue a wanky, pretentious, metaphysical hypothesis _


_

If he is as good at social interaction as he is at putting his point across in a clear and concise manner then he must be very, very good indeed.  

Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope. 

I can only hope *you* are considerably better at social interaction than you are at either trolling or getting a point, any point at all, across.  It would be awful if you had to go through your whole life hideously embarrassing yourself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around you, in real life either._


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> If he is as good at social interaction as he is at putting his point across in a clear and concise manner then he must be very, very good indeed.
> 
> Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope.
> 
> I can only hope *you* are considerably better at social interaction than you are at either trolling or getting a point, any point at all, across.  It would be awful if you had to go through your whole life hideously embarrassing yourself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around you, in real life either.



hohoho. you have cut me to the core. i am a broken shell as the prospect of going through my empty, lonely life hideously embarrassing myself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around me enshrouds my very being like the mustard gas of mundanity, near-tangibly rising from your typed words. 

PS. you just sound boring and teuchter sounds like a dick.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope.



hmmm...a tad _laboured_. You're not exactly Oscar Wilde are you?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> hmmm...a tad _laboured_. You're not exactly Oscar Wilde are you?



Far too boring to be Oscar Wilde.

E2A: so I took my lessons from your posts.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> What about if someone calls your mum a slag?


Physical force is _never_ justified in response to verbal abuse in law.

It can ONLY be justified in self-defence if the words used provide sufficient grounds for you to honestly believe you (or someone else) are in imminent danger of unlawful assault.  You do not have to wait to by physicaly struck first, so long as you can demonstrate an honest belief you were about to be.  

You cannot hit someone simply in retaliation either.  You can only use force in preventing an _imminent, future_ assault taking place.


----------



## chico enrico (Aug 8, 2008)

sound. so you can wallop someone and then say you _thought_ you'd heard them say "i've got a big knife and i'm going to stab you"? cheers for the heads up, i'll remember that


----------



## STFC (Aug 8, 2008)

It's something to think about with the new season just around the corner!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2008)

Were the police heavy handed then or was it just the lad involved?


----------



## Melinda (Aug 8, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Were the police heavy handed then or was it just the lad involved?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2008)

Melinda said:


>



Just doing my bit to keep this thread on topic Mel, you know.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 8, 2008)

Maybe the guy is ill/nut job/social unstable, maybe he is the result of a troubled upbringing who's only response to someone squirting him with coloured (for all he knew staining liquid) is it punch/slap the person.  

Maybe he warned the woman "Don't put any of that red crap on me or I will get angry and you won't like it when I get angry'!  or something similar.

  Or maybe he was having a bad day, he could have been pissed up, on drugs and having a bad trip.  

 Maybe the woman is a total windup merchant who knew she would get a reaction out the guy.

  Who Knows what the truth is


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> what if you just _like_ hitting people? Plenty people do.[/I]



Are these people not generally not known by another name?

Cunts!




Woof


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 9, 2008)

extra dry said:


> Who Knows what the truth is


Attica.  

Please try and keep up ...


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2008)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/2008/08/05/exclusiv
WHAT A MONG


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 9, 2008)

likesfish said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/2008/08/05/exclusiv
> WHAT A MONG


Link not working


----------



## extra dry (Aug 9, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Attica.
> 
> Please try and keep up ...




I m not attica  please try and keep up .

I jumped in at the tail end of the thread..so what actually happened.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2008)

extra dry said:


> I m not attica  please try and keep up .
> 
> I jumped in at the tail end of the thread..so what actually happened.



Attica reckoned he knew the truth about what happened, but basically made a complete tit of himself.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 9, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Attica reckoned he knew the truth about what happened, but basically made a complete tit of himself.


* Waits for Attica to reappear and assert that, actually, he knew the truth all along and everyone else made complete tits of themselves trying to prove otherwise ... *


----------



## extra dry (Aug 10, 2008)

I see


----------



## STFC (Aug 11, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Attica reckoned he knew the truth about what happened, but basically made a complete tit of himself.



You forgot to put 'again' at the end of the sentence.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 11, 2008)

STFC said:


> You forgot to put 'again' at the end of the sentence.



But less so than dribble, you and clapham turd as he's known.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 13, 2008)

STFC said:


> You forgot to put 'again' at the end of the sentence.



Oh, sorry. 

Corrected post:



claphamboy said:


> Attica reckoned he knew the truth about what happened, but basically made a complete tit of himself, *again*.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 13, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Makes a boring tit out of himself again
















.


----------



## pk (Aug 14, 2008)

Attica, you're pretty crap at this messageboard thing, really.

I'm cringeing whenever you try to post.

Why don't you concentrate your remedial efforts on your own real life?


----------



## STFC (Aug 14, 2008)

What would we do for a laugh then, pk?

Keep on keeping on, Attica.


----------



## xes (Jul 20, 2016)

Timely bump


----------



## 8den (Jul 20, 2016)

Remember the time Attica wanted an "international brigade" to go to Palestine but then admitted he couldn't actually go himself due to a bad back?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2016)

8den said:


> Remember the time Attica wanted an "international brigade" to go to Palestine but then admitted he couldn't actually go himself due to a bad back?


no


----------



## ffsear (Jul 20, 2016)

Can of worms


----------



## GarveyLives (Sep 2, 2017)

This is 19 year old *Joshua Clements* of Foxglove Street, Hammersmith and Fulham ...





... yesterday, *he was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and placed on extended license for five years*, when he appeared the Old Bailey.  Clements had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent; one count of carrying an offensive weapon; two counts of handling stolen goods; and one count of possession with intent to supply (class A).

On the evening of Tuesday, 19 July 2016, *while a large peaceful gathering of people were  enjoying the hot weather in Hyde Park*, *Clements* attacked two men with a _hunting knife_ in two separate incidents, causing both victims serious injuries.

One of the attacks took place within the crowd in Hyde Park with the victim sustaining a serious stab wound to the abdomen; the other assault happened in the middle of the road near to Cumberland Gate as the crowd dispersed from the park. In this incident, *Clements* stabbed his victim in the chest and both arms. Both victims sustained serious injuries but have since recovered.

*Clements* had attempted to evade detection by wearing a camouflage patterned face mask when he carried out the offences. However, officers traced his movements via CCTV and were able to see his face when he lifted his mask as he finally made off from the area. This image was circulated amongst police officers and *Clements* was recognised by a police constable attached to a west London gangs unit. He was arrested on 27 July 2016.

A search of *Clements’* home address recovered a significant quantity of drugs, stolen property from two robberies committed in Hyde Park on the evening of the disorder and a large hunting knife. The knife was subsequently forensically linked by blood to both of the serious assaults. Faced with overwhelming evidence *Clements* pleaded guilty to the charges laid.






*This is the mask and hunting knife Clements used in the attacks, after turning up in Hyde Park, London, with knife-wielding friends to rob people.*​


----------

