Congresswoman Leading the Fight Against Swatting is, You Guessed It, Swatted

@Alan:
I’m going to say this once, and I’m going to say it as clearly as I can, and then I’m not going to say it again because I don’t want it to come between us (because I do like you and enjoy your company.)

You could not be more establishment if you tried. You’re a lawyer working with the MoD, with ties to the security system and (if I recall correctly) an Army and Respectable School background. That’s not in and of itself a bad thing, but it means that when the great Venn diagram is drawn, then you’re in the group with the horsehair wigs and nice offices, and not the group begging for change on the margins. You will never be one of them. You cannot be. The fact that you may at times dissent is irrelevant: any dissent you raise is internal, and will be handled by them as internal dissent rather than a genuine threat to the system, which means that they play nice with you too. You may raise a pen but you will never raise a Molotov cocktail; and in return they may ignore you but will never ship you to Jordan to be tortured. You’re one of the club and always will be.

This is not inherently a bad thing; privilege does not make a person immoral. (Take it from me, I’m as privileged as they come.) However, it means that your view is blinkered. Let’s take two examples:

a) Police violence. Your initial viewpoint was “police need to protect citizens, and also themselves; and for this they need to use violence sometimes.” This is not wrong, but it’s also not the viewpoint of a person who’s ever seriously considered that they might be one of the people whom police violence is used against.

b) Torture. You’ve come out in favour of torture of prisoners of war and of civilians suspected of being terrorists. You reached this position by arguing that such prisoners may reveal things which save military lives (which is true) and that terrorists look and behave exactly like civilians (which is also true). However, it’s also the viewpoint of a person who cannot conceive of himself as either a prisoner of war or as a civilian who’s suspected of terrorism.

In both cases, the position you’ve taken is consistent with a “them” and “us” worldview in which violence and the use of power is acceptable if it saves “us” from “them.” The possibility that “they” need to be protected from “us” appears to not be real to you. Power is always on your side and never needs to be distrusted, and from what I’ve seen you’re not only comfortable with this but see it as the natural state of affairs.

Again, privilege doesn’t make you a bad person. However, unchecked privilege does make you an asshole. More importantly, it also creates an association which means that unbeknownst to you, you’re inadvertently saying some very ugly things.

Remember that you are very, very establishment. This means that while any good things you do reflect well on the establishment (and you say many things which are smart and funny), any bad things the establishment do implicitly come with a big “ALAN ROBERTSHAW APPROVES THIS” sticker on them. In this case, the establishment includes the British legal system, the British police and the British Army, and (tacitly) other such groups in other countries, because that’s how association works in people’s minds.

You can overcome or aggravate this by your explicit conduct, because that overrides the implicit approval. For example, in this thread you’ve brushed aside the killing of Mark Duggan and the subsequent outrage while saying nothing at all that could lead anyone to believe that you view him and his family as human, as opposed to a band of orcs which need to be kept under control. This has made you look much worse, and has made the implicit approval explicit; and by extension has increased the extent to which all other police killings come with your implicit approval.

By contrast, had you said something like “Mark Duggan’s death was a tragedy which must lead to a review of our firearms policies, and my sympathies are with his family rather than with the police” then it would have erased the implicit approval. Had you gone further and called for the murder or criminal trial of said officer, and approved of the rioting that followed, then that would have reversed it and helped to undercut the implicit approval of similar cases.

I appreciate that it is professionally important to you not to piss off either the legal profession or the Army, and in this capacity you are restrained to either saying things in support of the establishment or of keeping your mouth shut. I have sympathy for this: you do what you have to in order to get through the day, just as we all do. However, I will point out that it’s a good example of my initial thesis: you’ve entered into an arrangement with powerful structures in which they treat you with forbearance in exchange for you treating them with deference. By entering into this arrangement, you make the power structures stronger and they make your life comfortable. There’s a term for this, and that word is coopted by the establishment.

I’ve never heard a single woman complain about a man opening a door for them, probably due to the fact that’s just common courtesy.

Alright, I’ll complain about it right now so that the actual argument and not the strawman argument is understood. I hate it when a door is held open for me because I’m a woman. This is very different from a door being held open for me because I’m simply the next person at the door. A few examples: I have a baby-boomer, ex-navy coworker. He rushes in front of me to hold the door open. If I get to the door first and hold it open for him, he refuses to go through and insists, “ladies first.” I hate that. I’ve never yelled at him for it or even said anything, but I’m sure sometimes my annoyance shows on my face. That attitude about doors spreads to other areas of life, too. The door doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and you don’t go through life thinking you should always hold doors for women and that women should never hold doors for you without treating them differently in other ways. He has weird assumptions about my skills, knowledge, and expertise that are usually incorrect. As a result, while my male counterpart gets lots of good tips from him on how to code well, I get lots of tips from him on interpersonal communication and leadership (I’m flattered, but not interested in that career path). He explains a lot of things to everyone, but I feel some of the basic knowledge about our line of work that he explains to me would not be explained to my male counterpart.

Another example is the date. Lots of restaurants have a two door entrance, where you go through two sets of doors to reach the waiting area. On a lot of first dates the guy would reach the outer doors first (obviously rushing to do so) and I would walk through, reach the inner doors, and hold them open. For some guys, this is some kind of embarrassing, emasculating act that cannot be forgiven. From that point on they act different. They refuse to go through the door, then sulk and act sad/angry at you the whole date. Frankly, I’m glad they do because it frees me of having to learn of their sexism later on, but it’s just an unpleasant experience all around.

I object not to doors being held open, but to the implications that are present when a door is held open because I’m a woman. If you wouldn’t act that way towards a guy, just don’t act that way towards a woman. We’re adults and can open doors just fine on our own.

@Alan
You might not have intended to brush off the Duggan thing up thread, but it did come off that way. If I have some time later I’ll go into more detail. I know you’ve said you feel detached and maybe in your view you were being objective, but the arguments you made did not come from an objective place. I’ll warn you now, and this is coming from a place of love because I adore your comments and the discussion that you bring to the table, but you’re starting to sound like Dawkins and other “rationalists” when you make these comments and then claim you’re neutral.

@ kupo

I’ll warn you now, and this is coming from a place of love

Thank you for that, it is appreciated and I do so so much like you and very much listen to what you (and others here) have to say on this, and other times when I may be out of order.

I do need to address something here though. I don’t want this to appear like I’m doubling down so I hope you’ll forgive me if I go into a bit of detail. It’s important to do so so you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

So to start, as part of my civilian criminal defence work I used to do a lot of stuff for a particular organisation in Tottenham. I won’t go into too much detail about that. I doubt if they read this but client confidentiality and all that.

One of my cases was defending someone who was transporting a gun. It was like what Mark Duggan was later accused of.

I appreciate that it’s not unfair to suggest I’m part of the establishment (although I’d dispute that) but there was an irony here in that the armed officers who’d done the hard stop in this case were guys I’d previously lectured to. In this case their evidence wasn’t in dispute (it was accepted the gun was in the car and my guy’s prints were on it) so that didn’t present a conflict.

As it happened I managed to get the guy acquitted.

That lead on to being instructed in a murder case. The organisation didn’t like me, but that was irrelevant, they appreciated what I could do professionally and I didn’t have the stereotypical English public school accent so they tolerated me.

Then murder trial collapsed because we managed to put some holes in a ducal bit of evidence.

So far so good. Another day at work and I put the matters out of my mind.

Cut to some time later. A friend has moved to the Tottenham area. She wants to get fit so we check out a local gym. It’s a great place, they do boxing and mauy thai. I like that sort of thing so we get chatting. It’s a really great set up. Nearly exclusively black people. The people who run it explain how they use the facilities to give the local kids something to do and especially keep them out of the reach of the local gangs (because who do you think the local gangs exploit to courier guns and drugs?)

By this time I’ve spent a bit of time there and people open up to me. Someone mentions a particular legal problem (no biggy, a thing with the local council). My friend points out that I’m a lawyer (it’s not something I usually disclose) and says I may be able to help. As it happens I can but now the cat’s out of the bag so people start asking stuff about the job. It gets out about the cases I mentioned above.

Now, that provokes quite a reaction. The people there have a delicate relationship with the police (the police appreciate the work the people do for the kids, but still the kids do get hassled when they’re out and about) but they *hate*’ the people I worked for. The adults and parents think I’m a monster. How can I defend people like that? Do I not know the problems those guys cause in the area? It’s ok for me living out of the area, I’m not going to get pressured into doing errands for criminals etc. you can probably get the picture.

I do the same sort of thing I do here. ‘Everyone’s entitled to a defence’, ‘it’s my job’, ‘not for me to judge, that’s what juries are for’ etc. They accept that and I’m still welcome but it’s something that crops up from time to time and I’m encouraged to point out to the kids what happens to such people, why they’re not to be trusted, why the kids should avoid them etc.

Obvious post Duggan this becomes an issue again. Now, whilst the parents and club leaders might have issues with the police, there’s not an iota of sympathy for Duggan. Of course there are people who do, and they make their views known too. But it’s by no means a universal thing. A *lot* of people in the community react the same way a white community might react to hearing about a white gun runner being shot (and why indeed shouldn’t they?). “Good riddance to bad rubbish” is a phrase that crops up a lot.

Now, having come to know all these people, who do not forget live in the area and are the people affected by the gangs, who should I listen to? Them, or rich white people writing for the Guardian?

I’ll be honest, my sympathies are entirely with their view.

My feeling on Duggan isn’t neutral. That’s why I tried to keep detached (which I think is a more accurate description anyway). Again I’ll be honest, I think when white people who don’t live in the area say the black people who do, are wrong not to hold him up as some sort of martyr I think it’s really patronising.

So I hope that explains my feelings on the mater and how I arrived at them. Sorry for going on so long, but you need the details
To know where I’m coming from.

This isn’t a dig at anyone here at all. I appreciate why people are suspicious of the police especially with the death of a black person.

But to suggest that anyone who doesn’t automatically agree that Duggan should be lauded is evil in someway is, I think, a bit out of order. Especially when it’s privileged white people telling black people that.

Like is say, not a dig or a double down, but maybe something to think about?

Tl;dr

My views on that case are informed by my friends who live there

I’m really sorry I incited this discussion. But Alan, you have to understand that nobody was discussing Duggan’s character. That’s not what this is about. You’re the one who says you defended guys whose guilt was much more clear than Duggan’s, and you say – and I agree – that they were entitled to a defense. That’s what EJ meant by having to view Duggan as human instead of an orc.

Duggan was not given the possibility of a defense, and the circumstances of his death are unclear because police obfuscated the investigation. What people – whether “rich white people writing for the Guardian” or black people in the neighbourhood – have to say about his criminal history or character is entirely irrelevant to this basic point: that disproportionately, non-white people are not given the rights they are theoretically granted through the constitution (in most European countries and the US) because of a judicial and police system that is racist as fuck.

This includes far too many individual policemen who make racist jokes (sometimes, as in Bavaria, in their official calendar), who kill refugees and non-white citizens in police custody (and yeah, this includes sometimes drug dealers. So what?) and too many of their colleagues who, even if they aren’t personally racist, put too much emphasis on protecting their colleagues although they know they did something wrong instead of protecting communities which they can only see as enemies.

Nobody is denying the experience of people living in these neighbourhoods, or the real damage drug dealers and gunrunners and gang members do to communities. I do, however, think that there is a political and social reason for the state of these communities instead of a moral one, even if on the ground, people argue morals. This political and social reason is that we live in a racist society that puts gunrunners and so on on the path they take. Individually, we can argue morals. On a social level, moral isn’t enough of an argument to explain why non-white communities are disproportionately poor, suffer criminality and police repression.

It’s really starting to creep me out that every time Alan goes on one of his ‘splainathons, it’s always about racial issues, and he always comes down on the side of the white guy.

(Aside from that bizarre one about Star Wars.)

@’ SFHC

I ramble on about all sorts of things but please, tell me how you get coming down on the side of the white guy out of this:

who should I listen to? Them (i.e. The black people who live there) or rich white people writing for the Guardian?

My whole point here was that EJ (who I do like and respect) but is a white guy, said I should feel a particular way about an issue, and I’ve explained why I don’t.

So I’ll put the question straight.

On this issue who should I listen to; a white person who isn’t part of the community we’re talking about or the black people who actually are that community?

This isn’t a dig, please tell me why I’m being so out of order here for siding with the black community. I genuinely can’t understand it!

I guess it’s time for Alan’s regularly scheduled trip to WTFsville?

@ Bernardo

I didn’t dismiss their criticism at all. I fully support it (and in what little way I can I’ve tried to help by assisting the kids where I’m able)

But the very narrow issue I’d been called out on was why I wasn’t treating Mark Duggan as a martyr and I explained that my opinion on that was informed solely by reference to the people who were in the best position to judge; and that’s not white people who don’t live there.

Of course there are wider issues, but I’d been trying to focus on the topic at hand.

I’m more than cool with people calling me out, but this is getting awfully like white people telling black people what they should think.

@alan
Okay. It’s just I read further up in the comments that the police had withheld information? Also anyway the way people hear about verdicts is through the media which of course again will put a spin on things. Like left wing white media woll martyr (like you said) and right wing will go with the typical racist assumptions so we can’t really balance. But I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say at this point and EJ and SFHC can say the same thing better than me anyway. :/Personally I distrust police generally cos of the what the others have been saying about good cops being powerless against the system which supports bad cops. Even without thinking of the big issue of racism in establishments.

@ valentine

Distrusting the cops isn’t a bad default position (and I say that as a member of the establishment 🙂 ). There are good ones, but it only takes one bad one to ruin your day, so it’s safer to wait until you have more information.

There were allegations about the police withholding information. Those allegations were made at the inquest in fact. But the jury was allowed to ask questions, they got to see all the evidence presented and they reached the verdict they did.

They had other options. They could have said it was “unlawful killing” in which case the police would have gone on trial in the criminal courts or, if they thought information had been withheld, they can return an “open” verdict. That means they felt they don’t have enough information to know what happened.

People are of course free to say the jury got it wrong, but I tend to trust juries. It’s a group of normal people randomly selected from the community and I think such people do know what theyre doing.

I don’t think such people are stupid; but of course other people are entitled to think differently. That happens all the time.

@sfhc
Thank you! XDD I was confused cos it sounded to me like being aggressive towards so I thought come down on = to disagree/be against.

My experience of police in Uk is very limited. I got told of in a station in London once for climbing over a barrier. But I have to say from reading about America and UK I still believe the biggest problem is racism. In all countries in fact where white is ‘normal’ racist police veiws are eveywhere. For exmple I’m not native Russian but I am white. When I was in vladivostok I had no problems from police. I walked at night and didn’t get stopped or asked for papers. Four of my friends (all filipinos) went out during the day and got asked for their papers at least 5 or six times. it is just one example but you can find many more. Vladivostok has a lot of Chinese and Koreans living also so it’s not just because they ‘don’t see anyone who’s not white’.

@ freemage

I agree with you about the societal pressures and biases, and how people are influenced by them. But I still trust juries. I especially trust the jury in this case. They were drawn from the local community. I think they better than anyone, and certainly better than anyone here, would have a good knowledge about their interactions with the police and police attitudes within their own community.

I think we have to be careful if we suggest the jury in this case didn’t know what they were doing. That’s saying “There are all sorts of biases in society. I’m clever enough to recognise them, but you’re not”.

As to the relevance of Duggan’s status, that’s what this whole thing was solely about. Of course there are wider issues but I was addressing one very narrow question, why I wasn’t lauding him? As I think I’ve gone over lots of times now, I made my decision on that based on what people in the best position to know thought.

People have now tried to make this thread about lots of things but no-one has put forward any credible reason why I should ignore those people on that one issue.