Friday, August 26, 2005

Economist magazine garbage !!!

I have this morning come across complete garbage in the form of an article by the Economist magazine discussing how criticising the police is “dangerous”. What absolute nonsense. I must say that the respect I have for this publication is seriously dwindling based on the recent obvious lack of meaningful content, resulting in page-fillers about issues that we (as a market) already know about or just plain nonsense that can only be the one-sided view of some individual with enough authority to publish their own article.
No criticism means no feedback, which means no improvement. Does the author of the economist article (and its publisher) think that the police force is so perfect, so well refined, run like a fine-tuned machine that it warrants no criticism? See this (PDF) report by Sir David Calvert-Smith, and this article from The Times newspaper.
Without criticism, society is dead! Systems would fail us and see us to an early grave. Without criticism, the world economies would not be as refined as they are now. Without criticism, there would be no economics!!!

I am disgusted!

See this site to find out what real people think about this issue!

The police should be more accountable than Tom, Dick or Harry. With more authority comes more responsibility and more accountability. YOU CANNOT SEPERATE THE THREE! The police have authority and it can be abused. Can I remind The Economist that the police have been found institutionally racist but I suppose the relevance of this finding is an all or nothing shot depending on firstly, which side of the colour line you stand and secondly, your personal ethics and morals.

The economist article states:

“A poll for The Economist in late July found that just 21% thought the police had been wrong to shoot Mr Menezes”

...which means that 79% of those polled thought the police were right to shoot the poor innocent chap!

Who exactly are these people that were polled? What planet do they live in?

After news came out the victim was not running, in fact, he collected a newspaper and walked to the platform like we all do and that he was later pinned to the chair before he got shot (according to the news), what were the 79% who support the shooting thinking? Inconceivable! Is this the real society that we live in? Somehow, I don't think so!

If the news reports are accurate (they haven’t been challenged), it means that you, your brother, cousin, nephew, etc could have been shot on that day! Whilst I emphasise that we don’t want to be terrorised, we expect that, given all the taxes that we pay, we do not face the random chance of being accidentally shot dead by those who work for us (police - public service provided through tax payers money).

And, in the event that we get shot dead, can somebody have the dignity and integrity to handle the case properly! For crying out loud, somebody died. It wasn’t anybody close to you (friends or family) but you may have noticed that it takes more than a handful to make a society/community and in society everybody is equal and is equally important (at least on paper because in reality this is not evident).

The Economist concludes:

“Even when the police make obvious blunders, criticising them is dangerous.”

What utter tripe! This is such a useless article, it's not even worth printing.
Do we live in a democracy or a police state?

I think The Economist magazine should stick to economics, though its recent article on brain drain was extremely one-sided (unlike real economists who look at both sides of an argument).

1 Comments:

Anonymous M said...

I have always wondered who are these people are that think so differently from the mainstream and inexplicably come out as the majority!

Saturday, August 27, 2005 2:43:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home