[imc-sheffield] who done it?

[culture destroyer]

I dont want to argue this any more, somthing was all over the sheffield star 
and then an article was published we are shocked.  The article is even in 
favour of the south yorkshire public protection unit (it states their veiw), 
which makes me even more suprised from the reaction.

cuthbert


>From: "chip" <chiapas at riseup.net>
>Reply-To: chiapas at riseup.net
>To: imc-sheffield at lists.indymedia.org
>CC: "culture destroyer" <destroyerofculture at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [imc-sheffield] who done it?
>Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:21:15 +0100 (BST)
>
>hi
>
>why is this email titled "who done it?" - you know who hid it.
>
>culture destroyer said:
>
> > Dan told me that there has been an article that has been put up on
> > indymedia and it has almost made him quit indymedia, which would be a
> > crying shame.
>
>frankly, i don't believe you.  dan enjoys a good debate and knows he's a
>valued member of the collective.
>
> > The article is reproduced below:
>
>please don't repeat this offensive crap wholesale.
>
> > Firstly the figres are true, they are from the south yorkshire public
> > protection unit.
>
>why are they true - is this a press release or something?  i've googled
>for a press release and not found one.  i have indeed emailed the PPU to
>ask for their opinion.
>
>the PPU would never release information like this without context. for
>example:
>
>- what is a "sex or violent ofender"?  how many in each category?
>- what does 'very high risk' mean?  there's no such legal definition.
>- what rules govern offenders behaviour on the outside?  i imagine not
>making a probation visit could be grounds for being returned to jail.
>- this idea of 'further offences' is very vague - a traffic conviction
>could be a further offence.
>- a 1 in 90 instance of recidivism is indeed a very good success rate.
>
> > Secondly, the article does not ask for anyone to be killed, beaten or
> > anything like that.
>
>the article states that there is 'danger on our streets'. it criticises
>the PPU for not doing enough.  it therefore implies that readers should do
>something about it.
>
> > Thirdly, CRIME is a serious issue among the general public.  Crime is an
> > issue too serious to leave to the BNP.
>
>i strongly suspected that this was a BNP post - but see below...
>
> > I appreciate that some people might feel uncomfortable in the way this
> > article has dealt with the issue, i say fair enough, but i also say:
> >
> > "How do we deal with violent crime?"
>
>obviously in a non-sensationalist, measured and educated way...
>
> > Odviously in a non-sensationalist measured and educated way.  Unless the
> > public protection unit is lying then these figres are true.
>
>you have spelled the word 'figures' incorrectly twice now and in the same
>way that the word was mis-spelled in the original article - if you posted
>this article originally then i suggest that you have a think about your
>involvement with indymedia.
>
>i don't believe that the PPU would release figures like this.  it is not
>news that '90 sex or violent ofenders' live in south yorkshire - and the
>article refers to this as being 'last year'.  the article then goes on to
>say "that the number of people on the sex offenders register in south
>yorkshire has risen to 682" - so what's it to be?  90 or 682?  or has
>there been a 750% increase since last year?
>
>what nonsense!
>
> > Other than that what else is there to the article?  A response from the
> > public protection unit and the sentence "The figres speak for 
>themselves".
> > Ok the title is a bad one, it implies that the article is going to 
>incite
> > lynching but magicly the article does not incite lynching!
>
>so you agree that the title - which is part of the article - is an
>incitement to violence.
>
> > Lastly, by condeming vigilantism you are saying that people who break
> > the law should be supported, i totally object to this, if we want to 
>stop
> > people violently attacking other people then maybe we need people to 
>abide
> > by the law and stop violently attacking other people.
>
>condemning vigilantism means upholding the law - i don't know what you
>mean here.  are you saying that you don't believe in the rehabilitation of
>offenders?
>
> > If you want to take down the article fair enough, but if you do could
> > you please explain to people like myself that are concerned about 
>violent
> > and anti-social behavoir (of the likes that was committed against heely
> > city farm recently) how can we publish news about it?
>
>i don't know what happened at heeley city farm - is that relevant?
>
>the hidden article patently is not news about violent crime.
>
> > The ball is in your court.
>
>i've explained myself adequately.
>
> > from
> > cuthbert mathew baines - concerned about the BNP monopolising the debate
> > around crime and anti-social behavoir.
>
>the hidden article has nothing to do with the reduction of crime and
>anti-social behaviour and everything to do with the kind of sensationalist
>nonsense that we have to suffer from the gutter press.
>
> > P.S.an email rubbishing the "liberal" idea of keeping up an article to
> > rubbish it will follow...
>
>please don't misuse the word 'liberal' - there's too much of it about.
>
>chip
>--
>http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk
>

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger