The arrogance also bothers me. I read the articles and no where does it say the board consulted family and friends of the victims. The board also assumes the public and family and friends would be triggered and assume they know best how to handle the situation.
Which of the articles you’ve read use the word “triggered”, because none that I’ve read say that. Isn’t it also an assumption to say the families weren’t consulted? None of us know that, but it should be kept in mind that at the time the request for police not to march in uniform, the victims’ bodies had not yet been found which you’d imagine would have amplified the hurt for the families and in the wider community.
I have no skin in this game, the only reason I replied to OP was because I happened to be reading this article about it.
From reading that article, “Pride in Protest” don’t want any police there at all, in uniform or plain clothes. That position at the very least is consistent. But it seems the board are sort of half in and half out by letting them attend in plain clothes, but then the cops are also presumably turning up in uniform to maintain law and order.
You can’t have your cake and eat it is my view. If you want to ban police outright no matter their dress, well ok I think that’s shitty and very hard to police pardon the pun, but as I say it’s consistent. But it seems silly to me to say, we don’t like you and don’t want you to march, but also we are happy take from you something that suits us, and it smacks of hypocrisy.
It feels … punitive. We are going to punish police for what happened. Feels very misguided to me since the alleged killer was acting alone. Some people are upset obviously, but punishing the police force is not going to bring back dead people. And of course it raises the question as to what is the criteria to let police back into the march? Who sets the criteria ?
On whose authority? And is the criteria realistic?
Yes I thought the same tbh. If their mere presence repulses them why have them show up at all in their uniform? At face value this seems inconsistent.
The arrogance also bothers me. I read the articles and no where does it say the board consulted family and friends of the victims. The board also assumes the public and family and friends would be triggered and assume they know best how to handle the situation.
Which of the articles you’ve read use the word “triggered”, because none that I’ve read say that. Isn’t it also an assumption to say the families weren’t consulted? None of us know that, but it should be kept in mind that at the time the request for police not to march in uniform, the victims’ bodies had not yet been found which you’d imagine would have amplified the hurt for the families and in the wider community.
I have no skin in this game, the only reason I replied to OP was because I happened to be reading this article about it.
From reading that article, “Pride in Protest” don’t want any police there at all, in uniform or plain clothes. That position at the very least is consistent. But it seems the board are sort of half in and half out by letting them attend in plain clothes, but then the cops are also presumably turning up in uniform to maintain law and order.
You can’t have your cake and eat it is my view. If you want to ban police outright no matter their dress, well ok I think that’s shitty and very hard to police pardon the pun, but as I say it’s consistent. But it seems silly to me to say, we don’t like you and don’t want you to march, but also we are happy take from you something that suits us, and it smacks of hypocrisy.
It feels … punitive. We are going to punish police for what happened. Feels very misguided to me since the alleged killer was acting alone. Some people are upset obviously, but punishing the police force is not going to bring back dead people. And of course it raises the question as to what is the criteria to let police back into the march? Who sets the criteria ? On whose authority? And is the criteria realistic?