Author: The Sophister

There are claims that George Floyd’s death was the result of a racial bias by the Police against black suspects. Black Activists complain that black suspects are 3 times more likely to be killed by the US Police as white suspects. This is regularly quoted but based on the false argument that between 2013 and 2019 42 black Americans were killed for every million of their population, whereas only 14 white Americans were killed for every million of their population.

There are three things wrong with this argument.

1. It is only suspected criminals who are at risk of being killed by the police, and then only if they resist arrest. The remainder of the law abiding population are not relevant here.

2. Armed suspects resisting arrest are naturally all shot by the Police regardless of race or colour so they are not relevant to any consideration of bias.

3. We should therefore only be concerned with the number of unarmed suspects resisting arrest who are killed in each category.

In 2019 the Police killed twice as many unarmed white suspects as black suspects – 19 white compared with 9 black and 6 others. In order to determine the relative probabilities we ideally need to examine the number of arrests of unarmed suspects, distinguishing those who were resisting arrest and needed to be restrained and subdued, analysed between white, black and other.

Such analysis is also best done on a state by state basis as the policies and training of the Police Departments does vary considerably between states. As things stand the information required to make a reasoned and reliable analysis of any bias is not available, and so the different groups draw their own conclusions.

For the sake if argument let us assume that there does appear to be a bias against unarmed black suspects as claimed by some, then we need to examine whether that could be the result of racial bias or something entirely different.

Around 150 police officers are killed each year in the line of duty. Of those 41% are killed by black suspects. In other words black suspects are significantly more likely to be a threat to the life of a Police Officer than white suspects.

52.5% of all homicides in the USA are committed by black people ( 13.4% of the population ) and 45.3% by white people ( 76.5% of the population ). In other words black people are 6 times more likely to kill someone than white people relative to their population.

How is this relevant?

All Police Officers are trained in the Police Academies in each of the 50 US states. Things are complicated by the fact that each state is different. However, taking a general view, most Academies teach that the first objective in policing is the survival of the Police Officers. When you go to work in the morning your primary objective is to come home safely in the evening.

The UK’s own Health and Safety Regulations would make this a requirement for all employers.

As a consequence of having the primary objective, then avoiding the death of suspects must necessarily be a secondary objective.

In order to achieve the primary objective the Academies teach threat detection and response. The Police are trained to regard every encounter with a suspect as a potential threat to life. They spend a lot of time learning how to identify potential threats and how to respond effectively in order to protect themselves and their fellow Officers with only a fraction of a second to make their decisions. The Academies then test the Officer’s threat perception ability and response to ensure that it is effective before they allow them to graduate.

Subsequent threat perception tests with experienced Officers show that both black and white Officers regard black suspects as a greater potential threat to life than a white suspect, and they respond accordingly, sometimes with lethal force. That is a consequence of both the statistical data and their personal experience and that of their fellow Officers that black suspects are more likely to be a threat to Officers’ lives. It is nothing to do with racial discrimination. It is simply a matter of recognising the greater threat to life based on real evidence.

None of he above excuses Police brutality and there should clearly be safeguards including compulsory body cameras and reporting, and an independent review body with teeth. The problem in the USA is the strength of the unions who seem to be against such controls.

What about other forms of discrimination being alleged? Why do black people believe that there is prejudice against them? The feeling of discrimination is mainly a matter of perception. Everyone tends to think that they are being discriminated against if things don’t go their way. Statistics can show correlation, and are often used to try and identify discrimination, but correlation is not causation. There are often other causes unrelated to racial discrimination.

 

 

 

 

In spite of the global reaction to George Floyd’s death there is as yet no evidence that his death was anything to do with racism or racial discrimination.

The Police were called when George tried to use a forged $20 bill to buy cigarettes. Police Officers arriving at the scene found George in a car outside the shop premises with two accomplices.

They arrested George and put him in handcuffs. They then walked him to their car where they were joined by Derek Chauvin and another Officer to help with the arrest.

It is reported that George did “actively resist arrest” as defined in level 2 of the Escalation Pyramid, and the well publicised videos show Derek Chauvin using the prescribed method to restrain and subdue George as described in the MPD guide. The other Officer(s) kneeling on George’s chest/back will have to justify their own actions in a similar way.

The Minneapolis Police Department Guide

5-311 of the MPD Guide states:

Definitions

Choke Hold – Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway ( front of the neck ) blocking or obstructing the airway

Neck Restraint – Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)

Conscious Neck Restraint – The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure.

Unconscious Neck Restraint – The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure.

Procedures

A.  The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting.

B.  The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances:

1.   On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;

2.  For life saving purposes, or;

3.  On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject and if lesser attempts at control have been or would be likely to be ineffective.

C.  Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy,

The Escalation / De-escalation Pyramid

The three lowest levels of the Escalation Pyramid are :

Level 1 – does not allow any force. It applies where the suspect is “Obedient, compliant and non-aggressive”

Level 2 – allows moderate or limited force, such as physical control holds or OC spray. This applies where the suspect is “Resisting and non-compliant”

Level 3 of the Pyramid applies when the suspect is being physically aggressive and allows electronic weapons, ASP and baton – these are not relevant with regard to George Floyd’s death.

The Autopsy Report:

The Autopsy report on George is public record and reveals a number of issues which could have caused or contributed to George’s death:

He had serious heart disease and narrowed arteries with several 75% blocked and one 90% blocked. His heart was 48% larger than it should have been as a result of pumping against such resistance. These factors alone could have caused George’s death.

He was a smoker, which would have contributed to his heart disease and affected his lungs.

He had various drugs in his blood stream – the opioid fentanyl at concentrations sufficient to kill a normal person, methamphetamine and THC – the component of marijuana producing the high.

Regular users of fentanyl develop a resistance to the drug over time and so can tolerate higher concentrations in the blood than normal people.

There were no physical signs of traumatic asphyxia found such as bruising to the neck.

Cause of Death and Culpability

None of these factors is conclusive in determining the cause of death or the culpability of Derek Chauvin and the other Officers.

Derek Chauvin knew George and would have been aware that he had long criminal record  and had a known association with gang members. His most serious offence was the aggravated robbery of a lone pregnant woman in her home with 5 other accomplices. George used a gun and the woman was pistol whipped. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison for that offence.

George was also clearly high on drugs at the time of his arrest and potentially unpredictable. These circumstances would have been taken into account in deciding on the appropriate action to take in order to arrest George as safely as possible.

At around the time that Derek Chauvin arrived on the scene George became panicked and said that he suffered from claustrophobia. It is reported that he said he could not breathe while still standing by the squad car. He also collapsed to the ground as if fainting.

One of the Officers was concerned about the possibility of “Excited Delirium” which is when suspects become aggressive and incoherent, and gain superhuman strength after taking cocaine or methamphetamine. This may have been why Chauvin felt it best to keep him on the ground.

Although Goerge’s death has been seized upon by Black Activists for their own ends it is wrong to jump to conclusions. As independent thinkers we need to wait for the Court case to see all of the evidence presented and cross examined, and a verdict reached. That and only that will determine whether George’s death was lawful or unlawful and we can then draw our own conclusions.

 

It is said that religion is the irrational belief in man made fantasies about the origins, nature, and purpose of life, usually but not always involving a deity. The key aspect is that these fantasies can never be proved or disproved.

Why then do people dream up these fantasies?

One reason can be to maintain the position of leaders and the establishment. If they can justify their privileged position on the basis that it was ordained by some deity, then ordinary people would be less likely to challenge them. The same benefits also accrue to the priesthood of that religion, so they co-operate in creating a larger and more powerful establishment.

Many of the earliest religions are believed to fall into this category. If you don’t comply with the religious directives and obey your leaders then something terrible will happen – a nearby volcano will erupt or the sun will no longer rise or you will be struck by disease and pestilence.

An important aspect of many religions was the holy or sacred place – whether it was a man made place of worship or a natural feature. This provided a symbolic focus for believers. Stonehenge, dating back 5,000 years, is a perfect example of how important such places were considered,

As religions evolved the concept of life after death was devised and became recognised as one of the most reliable and powerful ways to control believers and ensure compliance with the rules of the religion. This often involved the ritual burial of the deceased and tombs have been found dating back over 100,000 years.

Another more altruistic reason behind some of the present day religions is to try and improve the society in which people live. For example Christianity was primarily created by Peter and Paul to improve upon the religion of Judaism, which was popular at the time. Judaism was an exclusive religion, distinguishing between believers and non-believers. Peter and Paul wanted to create a new religion which treated all people equally and embraced anyone into their church, regardless of their origins. They chose to use the existing religion of Judaism as a useful basis and adapt it to their vision. Peter and Paul were good friends with Jesus, who had achieved a degree of celebrity during his life, and it was natural for them to used their friend as the figurehead and focus of the new religion. Do you think that they were successful in their venture?

The modern science of memes helps to explain why certain ideas can take hold in the human psyche and be spread far and wide within any community and be believed with religious fervour.

It is not necessary for any culture to have a religion, and indeed Japan managed without one for thousands of years until forced to recognise the concept under threat from the USA’s warships in 1853.

There is no doubt that religion does serve to unite groups of people and galvanise them into working together towards some common goal. It still achieves this purpose in spite of the advances of modern science. The underlying human psyche has hardly changed at all since early man and it is important to remember this when trying to understand the ways in which humans interact.

A meme is an idea or behaviour that spreads from one person to another within a culture. It acts as a way to spread and preserve ideas or practices.  They can be transmitted from one person to another through the written or spoken word, mimicry of physical actions like dance movements, and activities such as traditions or rituals.

The word meme was originally coined by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene about biological evolution. Memes are the cultural equivalent of the genes of biology. They self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. They evolve by a form of natural selection similar to biological evolution. However, unlike biological evolution, memes that are detrimental to their host may still spread effectively.

The well known internet phenomena of posts or videos etc going “viral” is a perfect example of how memes can operate in the human psyche, and how regardless of merit they can become almost too successful and crowd out other alternatives.

When seeking to apply logical reasoning it is important to avoid using terms such as right and wrong or good and bad.

These are all subjective judgements based entirely on one’s own point of view. They have no place in independent thinking.

The referendum was quite clear. Leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market ( which includes the Customs Union ) . The two are synonymous.

The whole point of leaving the EU is to:

1. Have complete control over our borders
2. Remove the jurisdiction of the European Court over the UK
3. Avoid making any payments to the EU unless we receive something of equal value in return – and that includes the £50 billion which has been mentioned
4. Have the freedom to negotiate our own trade and other agreements with all the countries of the world.

It is important that these requirements are made clear at the outset.

If we do not leave the Single Market then we will not be free to negotiate trade and other agreements with countries around the world.

The terms of trade between the UK and the EU will be decided by the EU. We will not have any say in the matter, so we may as well accept the fact. There is no point arguing. It has been said  that you cannot reason with a monkey and trying to do so is a sure sign of madness, although whether that applies here or not is a matter fro conjecture.

We should make it clear to the EU that we believe in free trade as far as possible, but that we are happy to pay the same level of duty to the EU as they choose to pay to us. As long as trade remains in balance, then the British government will receive the same amount in duty on imports that exporters have to pay on exports. The government can then agree to pay the duty on behalf of UK exporters to the EU out of these funds, insofar and for as long as it believes that it is beneficial to the UK to do so. It may even be possible to agree a set off arrangement so that no money actually changes hands until an overall account is periodically drawn up – say every quarter.

The most important aspect then will be the documentation requirements. Ideally an online  self certification system with spot checks and penalties where false information is given. This will ensure that the UK does not become a back door to the EU.

The question of the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and those of British citizens living in the EU must not be dealt with on a global basis, but on a case by case basis. Otherwise we are just perpetuating the problem that we cannot deport foreign murderers, rapists and other undesirables.

Clearly, there is no reason why EU citizens who contribute to the UK’s economy and help provide essential services should not be welcome to remain in the UK. It is for the EU countries to decide the fate of British nationals. They have chosen not to live in the UK and so they are of no concern to the UK government as long as their human rights are not breached. Existing EU law should guarantee that without any intervention from the UK.

The most important aspect of the negotiations is that we do not agree anything finally until everything is agreed in principle. One agreement drafted as we go along but only signed at the end.

On the above basis any negotiations should be quick and well natured.

What do you think? Are the EU likely to agree to anything that we want without unacceptable conditions attached, and will they try to trick us into agreeing what they want before even considering what we want? In these circumstances what can we do to get the best for Britain?

 

Hillsborough is the perfect example of the way in which the media and establishment will lie in order to deceive the public. That is why it is so important for everyone to examine the actual evidence critically for themselves and think independently rather than blindly accepting the statements of the media and establishment, and the opinions of the so called experts paid by them.

In the case of Hillsborough the media lied about the behaviour of the fans. The police concealed and lied about the evidence which was available to reveal the truth about what happened.

The police told Margaret Aspinall that there was no cctv of her son, James, when in fact there was. It showed that he was not put into the recovery position and that a policeman put a jacket over his face when he was possibly still alive

Margaret is quoted as saying:

• “The minute I heard the news about drunken, ticketless fans, I thought, “Lies. This is absolute lies.” I knew then who was at fault. Somebody wasn’t doing their job and that’s how I knew there was going to be a coverup.

When the West Midlands Police came to our house, the first question to my husband was, “Did you have a drink?” We knew they were trying to build a picture. Jimmy knew it right away. James didn’t have any drink in him. My husband doesn’t hardly drink at all, but he still got questioned as if he was a drunkard. That’s how all the families were treated and they made those families feel guilty if their loved one had a drink before they went to the game.

They kept asking me if I had James’ ticket stub. Right away, my brain kicked into gear. I said, “What do you want the stub of James’ ticket for?” “We just want to see it to look at something, to see maybe what time he actually got there.” “You don’t need the stub of his ticket for that,” I said. “I’m not giving it to you.”

They were going to try to say James was ticketless. They were going to take it and we wouldn’t have got it back.

We knew from the very beginning that they were going to try to blame the fans and they did. They did a good job of it, actually. But they didn’t count on the families and the fans and the survivors fighting for so long to get to the real truth.

The truth has always meant a great deal to me. My mother always used to say to me, “Give me a thief before a liar.” I used to think, “Is my mum nuts? You’d rather have a thief before a liar?

When Hillsborough happened, I understood what she meant. That’s why you can get an honest thief. You know they’re a thief. You don’t know a liar when they enter your door. I believe that lie and the death of my son — my mother’s grandson — helped to kill her.

Nothing much surprises me about Hillsborough anymore, but what shocked me the most was learning that they took the blood alcohol levels of all the deceased and searched the criminal records to see if there were any matches. That’s how low they were sinking — to take the criminal record of the victims when they were lying on a concrete floor. I thought, “How far does this coverup go? How far and how deep?” Because I don’t think there’s a hole deep enough that will get to the very bottom.”

It took the unshakeable determination and belief of the relatives of the deceased, with the support of their fellow citizens and a jury of ordinary people from Warrington, to establish the truth – that the Liverpool fans were not to blame for the deaths at Hillsborough, but rather that it was the criminal negligence of the police.

One thing that helped the truth finally come out was that those with vested interests in preserving the lies are no longer in positions of authority within the establishment. We know that it is tempting for politicians to lie – that is all part of politics. But when public servants and the establishment lie then that should be totally unacceptable. Unfortunately it appears not to be.

Do you think that committed whistle blowers such as Wikileaks’ Julian Assange should be encouraged by the people so that such cover ups are exposed much sooner?

It is important to recognise the distinction between “global warming” – the natural phenomenon – and “Global Warming” with capital G and W – the belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are having a damaging effect on global climate which is going to be “bad” for the planet.

Global warming – the natural phenomenon – has been occurring interspersed with periods of global cooling ever since life developed on Earth 2 billion years ago. The global climate has never been constant but is always changing – it has to be either warming or cooling. That is unavoidable and there is no conceivable way in which man can stop these processes. Given the choice between warming and cooling, warming is definitely better. We do not want a premature ice age.

Man is a part of nature and if it were not for the effect that early bacteria had on the Earth’s atmosphere life as we know it would not exist today. Any effect that man has on the planet is equally a part of nature and results in the same processes influencing life on the planet.

Life has evolved on Earth through periods which were alternately much hotter and much cooler than now. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has also been increasing and decreasing over time. It is a natural component of the atmosphere and is essential for plants and algae to survive and grow.

The amount of carbon on the planet is constant –  it is the same now as it was billions of years ago and it will remain the same for the foreseeable future. It is constantly being recycled by the planet. It is absorbed by trees and plants and some of it is stored within the Earth’s crust. This is then released when that part of the Earth’s crust is re-absorbed by the magma as the edge of a tectonic plate is pushed down towards the core. This carbon then reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide which is released through the volcano’s vents and eruptions.

There is so far no scientific evidence that man made emissions of carbon dioxide have any measurable effect on global climate. There are attempts to link carbon dioxide emissions with changes in the perceived climate, but remember that correlation is not causation, as any true scientist will tell you.

It is not possible to measure actual climate directly. We can only measure the weather and then use the data to arrive at a perceived climate. As we all know the weather depends on the direction of the wind amongst other things, so this process can only be a matter of opinion.

Quasi-religion

Global Warming is akin to a religion – an irrational belief in a man made fantasy which cannot be proved or disproved. The Global Warming religion is at present entirely based on the opinions of people who are not independent, but rely for their livelihood on perpetuating these beliefs, in precisely the same way that vicars and rabbis do with their religions.

There are many other emitters of carbon dioxide apart from man, including volcanoes, soil and other life forms. Collectively these emit more carbon dioxide than man, but the Global Warming exponents never publish comparative data.

There are also many absorbers of carbon dioxide – primarily plants and algae – so that the carbon cycle remains largely in balance. However, the destruction of a tree has a more profound effect on the carbon cycle than actual carbon dioxide emissions. An emission occurs once, and the resulting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is then absorbed, provided that it is at or near sea level. Whereas when a tree is destroyed, the carbon dioxide that it would have absorbed fails to be absorbed year after year after year. The cumulative effect is far greater. Yet there is nowhere near as much focus on stopping the destruction of trees and planted areas than there is on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Good business

Why is this? The reason is money. There is a whole industry making millions out of perpetuating the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have an affect on global climate and finding ways to reduce them. The beneficiaries include so called climate scientists, some of whom are known to manipulate and falsify data and do not act in a transparent and open way and release their information as any true scientist would. They are akin to scientific journalists who have to create a story in order to get paid.

For example, if you ask people what were the most significant events in the twentieth century very few, if any. will say the rise in sea level. Yet so called climate scientists are citing the very similar rise in sea level which they predict as being a disaster for the planet.

There are also many companies which make money out of advising and supplying products to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Due to the nature of modern politics these powerful lobbyists are able to direct governments to make decisions in accordance with their interests, and not the interests of ordinary people.

It is notable that there are not many people making money out of not cutting down trees, so even though this is probably a more important factor it appears well down the agenda list.

The worst possible emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases come from airliners. These emit in the upper atmosphere where there are no plants to absorb the carbon dioxide. They also emit nitrogen oxides, which have a greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. In addition they reduce the light falling on the planet and hence reduce the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the plants. Then why are we considering the building of new runways and expanding aviation? It is a simple matter of the same power of money and the lobbyists. It could also be a matter of the self interests of politicians who frequently use air travel and receive very preferential treatment by the airports when they do so.

Even if it could be established that man made emissions of carbon dioxide are creating a warmer climate, the next question is would global warming be good for the planet as a whole or not? In fact, an amount of global warming would definitely benefit the planet by releasing large areas of Russia and North America to agriculture, in theory increasing the food supply.

Like most things, global warming is good for some and not so good for others. We know from historical records that some global warming would be good for the UK. The wine industry is already benefitting and producing wines which can be superior to those currently produced in France.

Better safe than sorry?

Some say surely there can be no harm in trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary. As far as we know no-one has died as a result of any global warming . However, we have evidence that people are dying as a result of the quasi-religious obsession in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. For example the unfortunate people who died in the Grenfell Tower fire ( q.v. ), and the people who are still dying as a result of the pollution cause by diesel engines, which were encouraged by the labour government because they produced less carbon dioxide, even though it was known that they also produce very harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates. Imagine all of the people who could have been helped by the money sunk into trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

There is an old saying that the cure can be worse than the disease. This seems to be the case here. One can only hope that Donald Trump’s stance on the Paris Agreement will encourage others to look more closely at the facts and insist on full disclosure instead of relying on the opinions of so called climate scientists with a vested interest in perpetuating their beliefs. Perhaps you could do the same.

After withdrawing from the Paris Agreement Donald Trump has been accused of putting the interests of the USA first. Isn’t it about time that the UK government puts the interests of Britain first instead of killing its citizens.

What do you think? Is it okay to rely on our emotions and irrational beliefs in order to create a unified community reinforced by memes, as many religions do, and that killing a few people as a result is an acceptable cost?

The Future

What if it turns out that there is a problem caused by man made emsission of carbon dioxide after all? Then that would only be a symptom and not the problem itself. The problem is simply that there are too many people on the planet. No amount of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will change that. Nature has its own way of correcting such imbalances and this will occur eventually regardless of anything we do. It may take some time, but it will happen. For example, when the next ice age comes, as we know it will, then many millions of people, if not billions, will die. Ironically, if man can indeed have a measurable effect on global climate, then  the warmer we can get the planet before the next ice age the fewer people that will die. Any attempt to reduce global warming is therefore potentially condemning millions of people to death.

When the human population has been reduced by natural events or otherwise the planet will recover. It may take many hundreds if not thousands of years, but in Earth’s geological timescales this is a mere blink of an eye. The destruction of a coral reef by changing conditions is cited as a disaster, but this is all part of the natural cycle. When conditions are right again it will only take 200 years or so to form a new coral reef. That process has been happening over and over again for millions of years and has contributed to the diversity which we see today.