A sign of our times...
Keith
and my wife, over a splendid Chinese meal (his treat, tee hee) this
evening.
I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
from a police officer.
I then saw him thrust up to a police car and, whilst being handcuffed, I
saw him *kicked* from behind by the same police officer.
A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
that -
1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
I asked a question of my companions. None would respond, so I'll ask the
same question in dl -
Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
who'd suffered this abuse...
--
Keith
Keith
<g...@localhost.at-dot.org> writes
>On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:20:55 +0100, Keith <Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>> receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>> from a police officer.
>>
>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>
>injuries which resulted would clearly have been self-inflicted and the
>unfortunate officer involved would have had to retire early owing to
>the trauma caused by the incident. Poor thing.
>
It so traumatised me I didn't sleep a wink from 4.00am this morning... a
time which coincidentally happened to be the precise moment when my
neighbours, with their raucously vocal anklebiters, decided to pack
their car for a holiday abroad..
...they heard me screaming epithets at all and sundry... d'ya think
they'd back my damages claim against the Home Secretary?
>The question which one needs to answer is whether this is a proper way
>for members of the police force to behave, on or off camera.
>
Of course, if you run the video backwards you'll see the victim
deliberately throw his head at the copper's fist...
--
Keith
Mark Horsman
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
>
> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
I doubt it.
>
> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
> who'd suffered this abuse...
They suffer this sort of abuse all the time.
You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
--
Do unto others....
mark horsman
Andrew Wilkes
>
>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>
>
Nope they couldn't give a fuck why he felt the need to join the
flouncing set again.
And the issue of the guy's colour is of *much* less importance than the
issue of the action. Try criticizing that instead - or is that beyond
you? Presumably - on past form - the guy was probably a suspected
burglar or wore a mullet in public - so deserved his swift justice.
--
regards andyw
La Puce
anm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
>> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
>> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
>
>I doubt it.
Unless he looked unstable on his legs, stank of alcocol, chanted racist
slogans and was aggressive to passers by. I've never seen someone other
than a racist white thug doing this.
>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>
>They suffer this sort of abuse all the time.
Like Shahid Malik, chair of the Urban Forum, where last week he held a
national conference attended by leading government officials. He's to
sue Lancashire Police for assault after he was hit by riot officers
during violent clashes in Burnley last week. He was struck in the face
with a riot shield and beaten by police while he lay on the ground. He
lost consciousness.
The riots were between white and asian youths in the Daneshouse district
were Shahid lives. What he had to say for himself was: "What happened
this week starkly illustrates the amount of work that still needs to be
done".
>You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Tsk tsk. What I find interesting now is the debate on who control what
is being shown - more to the point who decide which videos are being
shown, the rights for broadcasters to put them out and for what purpose.
To some people, filming the atrocities done to them has proved to us
that it has really happened and consequently the aggressors can be
prosecuted. For some activists it would be a real turning point if they
had the freedom to release some film footage on say the G8 event and
following riots. There is now some organisation (like Undercurrents)
working with activists to provide them with video equipment and training
to precisely record what we have never seen and what the police, the
government and main broadcasting corporations controls for years.
La puce
La Puce
<Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>It so traumatised me I didn't sleep a wink
Every day, almost, I see something that traumatise me, I do. I just tell
as many people as I can, which reduces the worry and I subconsciously
get just that little more cautious. I do sleep at night but I might end
up with a very thick rhino skin. C'est la vie :)
La puce
Andrew Wilkes
writes
>I do sleep at night but I might end
>up with a very thick rhino skin.
I believe rhino skin can be uncomfortable to sleep on. Even worse if
you get the horn[NO CARRIER]
Mike Fleming
<Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
Who knows? Any member of the BNP will tell you that the authorities
would bend over backwards for a non-white, any member of the Anti-Nazi
League will tell you that they'll be totally ignored.
> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
> who'd suffered this abuse...
I suggest that, had it occurred to any member of a closely-associated,
self-identifying group, then there would be an outburst of violence,
regardless of skin colour. See the anti-capitalism things, the more
violent parts of football crowds, the more extreme parts of either
faction in Northern Ireland, oh, and the BNP, while we're at it.
But then again, they're not nig-nogs, so it wouldn't suit your biases
to start drawing attention to them, would it?
--
Mike Fleming Coitum non dono
If life just seems like a struggle and you feel you're contending in vain
Then the light at the end of the tunnel is the front of an oncoming train
Andy Botterill
>I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>from a police officer.
What happened before the person was punched? Did he provoke , insult ,
abuse the PC? Was he resisting arrest?
>
>I then saw him thrust up to a police car and, whilst being handcuffed, I
>saw him *kicked* from behind by the same police officer.
>
With today's compensation culture if there was anything the least bit
wrong he can get compensation.
If there were no extenuating circumstances such as abuse , insulting
behaviour etc then the policeman should be arrested and/or fired.
>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>that -
>
>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
What even in the case of a prima facie crime being committed.
>
>I asked a question of my companions. None would respond, so I'll ask the
>same question in dl -
--
Andy Botterill
Ben Newsam
"KEITH":
>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>that -
>
>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
>
>I asked a question of my companions. None would respond, so I'll ask
>the same question in dl -
>
>Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response
>be the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford
>being assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
A police spokesperson pointed out recently that, since the other police
officer concerned had not made a complaint, and neither had the victim,
the first they knew about it was when the video appeared on TV. Come to
that, does anyone know if a formal complaint has been made at all yet?
--
Ben
Keith
<d*@plymouth2.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <QPb2yTHH...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>>receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>>from a police officer.
>
>What happened before the person was punched? Did he provoke , insult ,
>abuse the PC? Was he resisting arrest?
>>
class of professional society (and this person is ostensibly the
*upholder* of law and order) who would physically assault a defenceless
person? And *yes*, he was defenceless when he was kicked.. they were
handcuffing him.
>>I then saw him thrust up to a police car and, whilst being handcuffed, I
>>saw him *kicked* from behind by the same police officer.
>>
>With today's compensation culture if there was anything the least bit
>wrong he can get compensation.
>
Did you see the video, Andy? If you did then you'll aver to the accuracy
and factual content of my post.
If you didn't.... bog off with your stupid comments about compensation.
Were it not for a happenstance video this matter would be unheard..
>If there were no extenuating circumstances such as abuse , insulting
>behaviour etc then the policeman should be arrested and/or fired.
>
I disagree. There are *no* extenuating circumstances which warrant the
behaviour he exercised. And was filmed performing. None whatsoever.
>>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>>that -
>>
>>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
>> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
>
>What even in the case of a prima facie crime being committed.
>>
I merely repeat the content of the interview.
What's the bet the Home Office issue a D Notice over this affair, until
it reaches court...
--
Keith
Keith
writes
>In article <9jmb4e$l40$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark Horsman <mark@horsm
>anm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
>>> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
>>> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
>>
>>I doubt it.
>
>Unless he looked unstable on his legs, stank of alcocol, chanted racist
>slogans and was aggressive to passers by. I've never seen someone other
>than a racist white thug doing this.
>
Ah. You haven't visited East Ham in Newham or Bethnal Green in Tower
Hamlets lately.. certain parts of East London are more dangerous than
Harlem for a white pedestrian...
.. and didn't I read not so long ago about a <white> pensioner who was
mugged by a gang of Asians..?
I am also reminded of Sir Paul Condon's publicised figure that over 70%
of 'personal' crimes in London (muggings, assaults etc.) were carried
out by coloured people.. he got slated for saying it but no-one
disproved his figures..
>>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>>
>>They suffer this sort of abuse all the time.
>
>Like Shahid Malik, chair of the Urban Forum, where last week he held a
>national conference attended by leading government officials. He's to
>sue Lancashire Police for assault after he was hit by riot officers
>during violent clashes in Burnley last week. He was struck in the face
>with a riot shield and beaten by police while he lay on the ground. He
>lost consciousness.
>
Now you're being ridiculous. How can you compare 'riots' with the
apprehension of one person, in a side street, by two Traffic cops?
>The riots were between white and asian youths in the Daneshouse district
>were Shahid lives. What he had to say for himself was: "What happened
>this week starkly illustrates the amount of work that still needs to be
>done".
>
He missed the appropriate bit - "...in ensuring that immigrants, found
guilty of any form of criminal behaviour within the land which has
adopted them, will immediately be repatriated to their country of
origin."
>>You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
>
No, Mark, I live in the real world. Not one clouded by rose-coloured
lenses..
>Tsk tsk. What I find interesting now is the debate on who control what
>is being shown - more to the point who decide which videos are being
>shown, the rights for broadcasters to put them out and for what purpose.
>To some people, filming the atrocities done to them has proved to us
>that it has really happened and consequently the aggressors can be
>prosecuted. For some activists it would be a real turning point if they
>had the freedom to release some film footage on say the G8 event and
>following riots. There is now some organisation (like Undercurrents)
>working with activists to provide them with video equipment and training
>to precisely record what we have never seen and what the police, the
>government and main broadcasting corporations controls for years.
>
It is proof. But where a government - like Italy - condones thuggery
within its own peace-keeping force it becomes no better than its
adversaries.
--
Keith
Keith
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> writes
>In article <QPb2yTHH...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
>> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
>> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
>
>Who knows? Any member of the BNP will tell you that the authorities
>would bend over backwards for a non-white, any member of the Anti-Nazi
>League will tell you that they'll be totally ignored.
>
>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>
>I suggest that, had it occurred to any member of a closely-associated,
>self-identifying group, then there would be an outburst of violence,
>regardless of skin colour. See the anti-capitalism things, the more
>violent parts of football crowds, the more extreme parts of either
>faction in Northern Ireland, oh, and the BNP, while we're at it.
>
Mike, your talking like Helene. This was *not* a riot. This was *not* an
organised gathering. Or a protest march. Or any other form of pack
behaviour. This was *one white guy*, having the sh*t bashed out of him
by this country's finest...
>But then again, they're not nig-nogs, so it wouldn't suit your biases
>to start drawing attention to them, would it?
>
I'm not sure you intended to address that to me. So I'll ignore it..
--
Keith
Keith
<b...@microser.demon.co.uk> writes
>Keith wrote the following, despite his/her Organization header saying
>"KEITH":
>>
>>be the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford
>>being assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
>
>A police spokesperson pointed out recently that, since the other police
>officer concerned had not made a complaint, and neither had the victim,
>the first they knew about it was when the video appeared on TV. Come to
>that, does anyone know if a formal complaint has been made at all yet?
No complaint was made by the victim as - prior to public release of the
video - he had no evidence to back up his assertions.
And yes - his solicitor was interviewed. The victim has made a formal
complaint and is suing the police authority for wrongful arrest and
assault.
Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
--
Keith
Mark Horsman
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >>You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
> >
> No, Mark, I live in the real world. Not one clouded by rose-coloured
> lenses..
It's not me with the rose coloured spectacles, it's you. You seem to
think this is an unusual event. It isn't. Get real.
>
> It is proof. But where a government - like Italy - condones thuggery
> within its own peace-keeping force it becomes no better than its
> adversaries.
>
I'm not sure whether it's a case of condoning the thuggery or just not
knowing that it's going on. Although the case of police thuggery in
Northern Ireland is well understood.
Mike Fleming
<Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <fc7ult0vbcj83q47h...@4ax.com>, Mike Fleming
> <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> writes
> >
> >I suggest that, had it occurred to any member of a closely-associated,
> >self-identifying group, then there would be an outburst of violence,
> >regardless of skin colour. See the anti-capitalism things, the more
> >violent parts of football crowds, the more extreme parts of either
> >faction in Northern Ireland, oh, and the BNP, while we're at it.
> >
> Mike, your talking like Helene. This was *not* a riot. This was *not* an
> organised gathering. Or a protest march. Or any other form of pack
> behaviour. This was *one white guy*, having the sh*t bashed out of him
> by this country's finest...
It was you who speculated on the pack behaviour that would follow. I
was pointing out that there are white packs, just as much as
non-white, and if a member gets picked on by the police, it may give
rise to 'civil war' (your hyperbole). The rest of the pack doesn't
have to be there at the time, it can act later.
If the coppers had been non-white, wouldn't the BNP have been out in
the streets five minutes later?
James Follett
<Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>It is proof. But where a government - like Italy - condones thuggery
>within its own peace-keeping force it becomes no better than its
>adversaries.
I presume you're referring to the prompt action by an Italian police
officer in shooting a street rat, who was about to hurl a fire
extinguisher. The officer shot him smack between the eyes thus killing
him instantly.
Consider what that police officer had to weigh up:
(1) Is that fire extinguisher empty or full?
(2) If full, is it a pressurized type?
(3) If pressurized, has it been regularly inspected?
(4) If not, is it likely to explode, injuring or killing me and my
colleagues?
The street rat didn't have to take part in a street riot knowing that
armed police would be present; he didn't have to pick up a fire
extinguisher; he didn't have to threaten armed police officers with it.
He chose to do these things. All along it was the rioter who made the
decisions. The one decision that wasn't made was the Italian policeman
not opting to say: "Ooo! You big, bad naughty, boy, you! Now you just
put that nasty thing down because it might make a great big noisy,
horribly messy bang!"
--
James Follett Novelist (Callsign G1LXP) http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
James Follett
>>The question which one needs to answer is whether this is a proper way
>>for members of the police force to behave, on or off camera.
>>
>Of course, if you run the video backwards you'll see the victim
>deliberately throw his head at the copper's fist...
Sussex Police have got a nifty CCTV-friendly weapon. It's a little
longer than the old police truncheon and has a short pistol grip type
handle near one end. The whole thing is highly-polished so that the
longer end slides easily up a tunic sleeve, and it's jet black so it
doesn't show up at night or against police uniforms. The pistol grip is
held in the hand with the business end just protruding below the
knuckles. A seemingly innocuous jab to the ribs while a protesting
street rat is being manhandled into a police vehicle is enough to bust a
few ribs and make him lose interest in being a pest. The neat thing
about this weapon is that, unlike the old truncheon, which had to be
somewhat obviously raised to be used, this new weapon can be applied
most effectively without even by-standers noticing its application.
I've seen it used at close hand on several occasions and have been
impressed. Rather, I haven't seen it used, but I've seen the results.
Faster acting than CS gas, no danger of getting an unwanted whiff, no
reports to be filled out on its usage, and nothing conclusive showing on
CCTV tape even when analysed frame by frame.
Keith
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> writes
>In article <un15Y0J$E0X7...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> >
>> Mike, your talking like Helene. This was *not* a riot. This was *not* an
>> organised gathering. Or a protest march. Or any other form of pack
>> behaviour. This was *one white guy*, having the sh*t bashed out of him
>> by this country's finest...
>
>the streets five minutes later?
>
incident. I wonder why...
--
Keith
Keith
<ma...@horsmanm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>In article <+D79xvHF...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>,
>Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>> >>You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
>> >
>> No, Mark, I live in the real world. Not one clouded by rose-coloured
>> lenses..
>
>It's not me with the rose coloured spectacles, it's you. You seem to
>think this is an unusual event. It isn't. Get real.
>>
the incumbent Home Secretary views it, his powe...... ah.
--
Keith
Joe Hutcheon
>
>And people honestly wonder why JK left the UK ?
No, we don't need to - he's told us often enough. Are you going to join him
then?
Joe
La Puce
<Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>Were it not for a happenstance video this matter would be unheard..
You're right there, that's why I had mentioned videos and riots. For the
first time some people have seen a white man being aggressed by the
Police for no obvious reasons. But we don't know what happened before.
You say if the victim had been black, we'd had now a civil war on our
hands, that *is* ridiculous.
I don't see what black folks have to do with this either. I know of many
black people who have been aggressed this way. You've heard for the last
20 years cases of young black men dying whilst being held in Police
station. Strange that there is no white men being hurt in this way ...
but now we're shocked.
Those black emigrants you're referring to have been arrested in the
streets for no reason for years because a) they're black regardless of
who they are and where they come from, b) the Police need to make their
quota numbers on their papers at the end of the day and it's so easy to
arrest a black man than a white man. The Police have said it themselves.
You added "...in ensuring that immigrants, found guilty of any form of
criminal behaviour within the land which has adopted them, will
immediately be repatriated to their country of origin." Do you really
think that immigrants, being Tcheck or Somalian, French or Peruvian are
responsible for the vast majority of crimes? What about Gypsies while
you're at it, they steal chickens don't they? <g>
So if you want to fight, fight for the rights of that white guy who has
been beaten up by two white police men and fight the corruption and
racist core of our supposedly 'Heart Beat' police force. Mentioning
black folks is the same tactic used by our Police and Politicians to get
away with it.
La puce - spitting
Donald R. Oddy
g...@at-dot.org "Giles Todd" writes:
>If it had happened to someone and had not been on video then any
>injuries which resulted would clearly have been self-inflicted and the
>unfortunate officer involved would have had to retire early owing to
>the trauma caused by the incident. Poor thing.
Instead the investigation will be dragged out for six to twelve months
allowing the officer to retire on medical grounds because he is too
stressed to face the disciplinary hearing.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>I watched a news item tonight. And discussed it with my son, his partner
>and my wife, over a splendid Chinese meal (his treat, tee hee) this
>evening.
>
>I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>from a police officer.
>
>I then saw him thrust up to a police car and, whilst being handcuffed, I
>saw him *kicked* from behind by the same police officer.
Stills printed in one of the newspapers show the assault started with
the officer kicking the victim in the balls - presumably not thought
suitable for television viewing.
>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>that -
>
>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
>
>I asked a question of my companions. None would respond, so I'll ask the
>same question in dl -
>
>Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
>the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
>assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
Yes, this in the normal practice where policemen are accused of crime.
I do not know of any case where anything different has occurred. Of
course in the absence of the video evidence it is quite possible no
action at all would be taken.
>I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>who'd suffered this abuse...
Oh yes! lets speculate on possible actions by unidentified groups of
people who aren't involved and may or may not have experienced similar
incidents. Far better than asking questions like -
1. Why an identified criminal hasn't been arrested, interrogated
overnight and hauled before the magistrates the following morning
which would be the normal way of dealing with a charge of assault
and battery?
2. Why policemen who witnessed the crime neither acted to prevent
it nor arrest the perpetrator?
3. Why those officers aren't being investigated for deriliction
of duty?
4. Why there is such a lack of confidence in the system of dealing
with police crime that evidence is reported to the media rather than
the authorities?
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Richard
>Every day, almost, I see something that traumatise me, I do. I just tell
>as many people as I can, which reduces the worry
...for you - but just depresses everyone else. 'A trouble shared
depresses two people.'
>and I subconsciously
>get just that little more cautious. I do sleep at night but I might end
>up with a very thick rhino skin.
Anyone want to buy a cold shivering naked rhino?
--
Richard
Richard
>In article <QPb2yTHH...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>>receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>>from a police officer.
>
>What happened before the person was punched? Did he provoke , insult ,
>abuse the PC? Was he resisting arrest?
>>
house, about some local vandalism. Presumably they didn't have a warrant
as the assault victim - who wasn't involved - wouldn't let them in (as
is his right). He came outside and closed the door behind him. He admits
that there were words exchanged but he was not abusive or threatening.
The video showed him with his hands down by his side.
Presumable the cop let his frustration get the better of him.
--
Richard
Richard
[...]
>
>The street rat didn't have to take part in a street riot knowing that
>armed police would be present; he didn't have to pick up a fire
>extinguisher; he didn't have to threaten armed police officers with it.
>He chose to do these things. All along it was the rioter who made the
>decisions. The one decision that wasn't made was the Italian policeman
>not opting to say: "Ooo! You big, bad naughty, boy, you! Now you just
>put that nasty thing down because it might make a great big noisy,
>horribly messy bang!"
>
see enough to consider whether there was a case for 'shoot to disable'
rather than a shot between the eyes - which does take a degree of
concentration and planned action.
I would like to see a change of the law. If someone chooses to take part
in a crime, they immediately forego all of their legal rights and
privileges whilst undertaking that crime.
You look at rioters, burglars, joy riders and whatever over recent years
who sued someone for the trauma they received due to a cracked finger
nail when they were throwing the missile or breaking the window or
whatever. All of that would stop immediately.
F*ck. I've got writer's cramp. Can I sue Thus? Or should it be Dell? Sod
it, I'll do both...
--
Richard
La Puce
>organised gathering. Or a protest march. Or any other form of pack
>behaviour. This was *one white guy*, having the sh*t bashed out of him
>by this country's finest...
I think I understand what you mean ... now. Your trauma is understood
but shouldn't be mixed up with racial issues.
>>But then again, they're not nig-nogs, so it wouldn't suit your biases
>>to start drawing attention to them, would it?
>I'm not sure you intended to address that to me. So I'll ignore it..
But that's what is being felt I'm afraid. Recently I was talking to a
mate about the Police approaching kids in the streets, black kids. They
don't realise that these kids *are* kids, they're big and tall all right
but still they're kids, 10 to 14 yrs old. The attitude of the police
towards them is definitely out of order - mimicking cultural cliché
language, talking about crimes in and around the area. If the police
was to approach my kids whilst playing footy in the street and ask to
empty their pockets for drugs ... you'll hear about me!
I've got a number of examples to give you but what's the use. No one can
do nothing about it. Thought now, that white chap got hurt, it hurt us
too. Maybe we need to see more of this so that we start understanding
what's happening to *all* of us.
So lets keep this incident to what's it about. It's about video, it's
about Police violence, it's about our freedom and rights.
La puce
La Puce
ingonchaos.co.uk> writes
>>Every day, almost, I see something that traumatise me, I do. I just tell
>>as many people as I can, which reduces the worry
>
>...for you - but just depresses everyone else. 'A trouble shared
>depresses two people.'
I'm a wimmin ... I gossip.
>>and I subconsciously
>>get just that little more cautious. I do sleep at night but I might end
>>up with a very thick rhino skin.
>
>Anyone want to buy a cold shivering naked rhino?
Talking of which ... went to Knowsley Safari Park. Kids loved it, but a
cheeky monkey found a stone (?) stuck under the bonnet of our car and
after displaying some obvious joy at finding it proceeded to scratch my
car with it! Couldn't open the window, couldn't drive fast to stop him
coz there was monkeys everywhere on our roof, hanging on our rhino bars
until he moved and made himself comfy on the side mirror and peed on my
window, giggling.
You should have seen my cats when I returned. They sniffed that car all
evening and seemed to be *very* jumpy :)
La puce
Richard
--
Richard
Alec Cawley
>What's the bet the Home Office issue a D Notice over this affair, until
>it reaches court...
D standing for "Defence", I though such notices are only to be issued to
protect national security. Even though the armed forces may interpret
that more widely than many of us would, I thing they would have
difficulty attaching it to an allegedly brutal traffic cop.
--
Alec
Alec Cawley
demon.local, saying
>James Follett wrote
>[...]
>>
>>The street rat didn't have to take part in a street riot knowing that
>>armed police would be present; he didn't have to pick up a fire
>>extinguisher; he didn't have to threaten armed police officers with it.
>>He chose to do these things. All along it was the rioter who made the
>>decisions. The one decision that wasn't made was the Italian policeman
>>not opting to say: "Ooo! You big, bad naughty, boy, you! Now you just
>>put that nasty thing down because it might make a great big noisy,
>>horribly messy bang!"
>>
>Quite. I don't disagree with the officer using his weapon but I didn't
>see enough to consider whether there was a case for 'shoot to disable'
>rather than a shot between the eyes - which does take a degree of
>concentration and planned action.
All firearms experts pooh-pooh the very concept of "shooting to
disable". The human body being what it is, it doesn't tend to stop all
at once. Any "disabling" shot will leave the target able to launch an
attack for several seconds - particularly such as simple act as firing a
gun. Any shot which can disable in seconds is likely to be lethal in
minutes Therefore, most police forces have the rule that they shouldn't
shoot unless prepared to kill, and if the do shoot they should shoot as
if to kill, because that is the only way to disable fast.
Also, the "disabling" targets such as arms and legs are much smaller
than the body. If the target is dangerous, and believes that he is being
shot at, he is very likely to attack after a missed shot even if he
wouldn't have attacked before.
>I would like to see a change of the law. If someone chooses to take part
>in a crime, they immediately forego all of their legal rights and
>privileges whilst undertaking that crime.
Remembering that the speeding and shoplifting are crimes, you are giving
"shoot to kill" rights to traffic cops and store detectives.
>You look at rioters, burglars, joy riders and whatever over recent years
>who sued someone for the trauma they received due to a cracked finger
>nail when they were throwing the missile or breaking the window or
>whatever. All of that would stop immediately.
No it wouldn't - it hasn't in the US.
>F*ck. I've got writer's cramp. Can I sue Thus? Or should it be Dell? Sod
>it, I'll do both...
Now you're talking.
--
Alec
Andy Botterill
ingonchaos.co.uk> writes
Was the video taken from inside the house or did someone just happen to
be walking the area with a video camera. This could be a setup or
deliberate provocation.
>
>Presumable the cop let his frustration get the better of him.
>
:-((
--
Andy Botterill
Andy Botterill
><d*@plymouth2.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <QPb2yTHH...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
>><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>I watched a home video, on national television, of a young white man
>>>receiving (without retaliation) three overarm left hooks, to the face,
>>>from a police officer.
>>
>>What happened before the person was punched? Did he provoke , insult ,
>>abuse the PC? Was he resisting arrest?
>>>
>Does that condone the officer's behaviour? Can you think of any other
>class of professional society (and this person is ostensibly the
>*upholder* of law and order) who would physically assault a defenceless
>person? And *yes*, he was defenceless when he was kicked.. they were
>handcuffing him.
I do not have a television so I did not see the video. I was trying to
get the background to what happened.
>
>>>I then saw him thrust up to a police car and, whilst being handcuffed, I
>>>saw him *kicked* from behind by the same police officer.
>>>
>>With today's compensation culture if there was anything the least bit
>>wrong he can get compensation.
>>
>Did you see the video, Andy? If you did then you'll aver to the accuracy
>and factual content of my post.
See previous comment. Since a policeman insulting someone can get them
fired/disciplined I would expect actual violence to be treated more
firmly.
>
>If you didn't.... bog off with your stupid comments about compensation.
>Were it not for a happenstance video this matter would be unheard..
I am checking the circumstances of what you said not doubting your
honesty.
>
>
>>If there were no extenuating circumstances such as abuse , insulting
>>behaviour etc then the policeman should be arrested and/or fired.
>>
>I disagree. There are *no* extenuating circumstances which warrant the
>behaviour he exercised. And was filmed performing. None whatsoever.
>
>>>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>>>that -
>>>
>>>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>>>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>>>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
>>> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
>>
>>What even in the case of a prima facie crime being committed.
>>>
>I merely repeat the content of the interview.
>
>What's the bet the Home Office issue a D Notice over this affair, until
>it reaches court...
--
Andy Botterill
Mark Horsman
>
> And people honestly wonder why JK left the UK ?
From today's Guardian:
The south-eastern Spanish city of Murcia is counting the cost of the
world's biggest outbreak of Legionnaire's disease, which has killed three
people and struck at least 334 more.
Laboratory tests yesterday confirmed three more cases of infection by the
legionella bacterium. A further 21 people were in hospital.
Tests are still being carried out on some of the 480 suspected cases,
since the hospitals have been deluged in the past fortnight by an
epidemic of chronic pneumonia in the elderly and infirm.
Doctors said one person had definitely been killed by legionella and two
others were presumed to have died from it, although conclusive tests had
yet to be done.
The building housing the headquarters of the regional health service was
one of the six in the northern part of the city found to be harbouring
the bacterium in water pipes and air conditioning units.
The outbreak, which the local authorities insist is no longer in its
infectious stage, confirms Spain's place as the country with the highest
density of Legionnaire's disease in the developed world.
Doctors have blamed ineffectual public health laws and the booming
economy, which has brought air conditioning units and refrigeration
towers to buildings all over Spain.
These are a main sources of storage and propagation of the bacterium,
which is spread through minuscule water droplets.
New regulations requiring rigourous checks on refrigeration towers were
reported to be going to the cabinet today.
The British Association of Medical Microbiologists has reported that
Spain is the primary source of legionella infection in returning
tourists.
A Liverpool coach driver who returned from Tossa del Mar, eastern Spain,
in May was the latest British tourist to die of the disease.
Yep!
Mark Horsman
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
>
> I asked a question of my companions. None would respond, so I'll ask the
> same question in dl -
>
Force. Maybe I'll ask him...
Maybe I'll just enjoy our holiday...
Mark Horsman
ric...@thrivingonchaos.co.uk says...
>
> Quite. I don't disagree with the officer using his weapon but I didn't
> see enough to consider whether there was a case for 'shoot to disable'
> rather than a shot between the eyes - which does take a degree of
> concentration and planned action.
>
officer was probably aiming at his chest, that it hit the guy between the
eyes is indicative of the accuracy to be expected under the
circumstances. I would imagine the officer was in a state of blind panic.
Mark Horsman
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <9jngt8$3he$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark Horsman
> <ma...@horsmanm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >think this is an unusual event. It isn't. Get real.
> >>
> It is an unusual event *to video it*. And there is no doubt that, when
> the incumbent Home Secretary views it, his powe...... ah.
>
Richard
>Was the video taken from inside the house or did someone just happen to
>be walking the area with a video camera. This could be a setup or
>deliberate provocation.
>>
Neighbour opposite saw plod arrive and thought it might prove
interesting so started filming from across the street.
--
Richard
Donald R. Oddy
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>In article <btgfPoAI...@urbed.co.uk>, La Puce <bl...@urbed.co.uk>
>writes
>>The riots were between white and asian youths in the Daneshouse district
>>were Shahid lives. What he had to say for himself was: "What happened
>>this week starkly illustrates the amount of work that still needs to be
>>done".
>>
>He missed the appropriate bit - "...in ensuring that immigrants, found
>guilty of any form of criminal behaviour within the land which has
>adopted them, will immediately be repatriated to their country of
>origin."
Which is what generally happens, however the recent clashes have been
between different racial groups of people born in Britain. They cannot
be deported under international law because their country of origin
is Britain.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
>complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
No it isn't, it is made by the police complaints authority using
officers from another force. They will then decide whether it is
a criminal or disciplinary matter. In the case of the former they
will refer it to the DPP while in the latter they will recommend
what disciplinary action the police force should take against
its employee.
The problem with this approach is not that the PCA isn't independant,
it is, but that by using police officers to investigate they are
predisposed to accept another police officer's word while at the
same time have difficulty obtaining evidence from the victims who
naturally identify the investigating officer with those who are
being complained about.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
>But that's what is being felt I'm afraid. Recently I was talking to a
>mate about the Police approaching kids in the streets, black kids. They
>don't realise that these kids *are* kids, they're big and tall all right
>but still they're kids, 10 to 14 yrs old. The attitude of the police
>towards them is definitely out of order - mimicking cultural cliché
>language, talking about crimes in and around the area. If the police
>was to approach my kids whilst playing footy in the street and ask to
>empty their pockets for drugs ... you'll hear about me!
>
>I've got a number of examples to give you but what's the use. No one can
>do nothing about it. Thought now, that white chap got hurt, it hurt us
>too. Maybe we need to see more of this so that we start understanding
>what's happening to *all* of us.
>
>So lets keep this incident to what's it about. It's about video, it's
>about Police violence, it's about our freedom and rights.
I'm convinced that a fair proportion of incidents are a combination
of inexperience and stupidity by individual officers compounded by
an instinctive denial at senior level that their officers could be
wrong.
Some years ago a friend's teenage daughter was waiting at a bus stop
on her way to school when a car with two men inside stopped and they
started asking who she was and where she was going. Not liking the
answers one of the men tried to drag her into the car. Not surprisingly
she started to scream and fortunatly she was near enough to home for
her father to hear. He went to find out what was wrong whereupon the
men produced their warrent cards - they were plain clothed police
officers who thought they recognised the girl as a truant. My friend
had contacts with the local press who printed the story together with
the grovelling apology from a senior police officer. Now that happened
because the newspaper had approached the police to get their side of
the story before printing and whoever was contacted did a quick
informal investigation and acted to minimise the damage. If the parents
had approached the police themselves they would have be told to make
a formal complaint and the whole thing would have taken months to
resolve. No doubt the finding would have been that no offence or
breech of regulations occured so no action would be taken.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
ric...@thrivingonchaos.co.uk "Richard" writes:
>La Puce wrote
>
>>Every day, almost, I see something that traumatise me, I do. I just tell
>>as many people as I can, which reduces the worry
>
>...for you - but just depresses everyone else. 'A trouble shared
>depresses two people.'
Only if you don't share it properly - it's much better to depress
dozens.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Tony Kelly
Oddy") wrote:
>Some years ago a friend's teenage daughter was waiting at a bus stop
>on her way to school when a car with two men inside stopped and they
>started asking who she was and where she was going.
I'll see that story and raise you this one:
As a daft thirteen year old, I and two friends were walking along the
road when we spotted a police car passing. One of our number (blush)
shouted out, "pig!" as it passed by. Unfortunately for me, the copper
must have had his window rolled down and the car screeched to a
standstill. Rather than taking the sensible option of legging it we
were rooted to the spot as this enormous, to us, pi...oliceman strode
purposely toward us. Being the tallest, presumably, he walked up to me
and, just before being punched hard in the kidneys, I noticed that
protruding about an inch from his clenched fist was his car keys.
I retold the story at home and my mother went ballistic, dragging me
to the nearest bobby shop and demanded to see the man who had stabbed
her son. After filing a complaint we left never to hear another word
on the matter.
When considering this in later years, I was struck by the biblical
allegory in this youthful reminiscence. The three figures, the tallest
cental character being pierced in the side by a law figure. Spooky. Am
I getting a Jesus Complex from the experience? Should I sue for
trauma? :O)
Andy Bodkin
writes
>In article <AwZCdnIO...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>, Keith
><Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Were it not for a happenstance video this matter would be unheard..
>
>You're right there, that's why I had mentioned videos and riots. For the
>first time some people have seen a white man being aggressed by the
>Police for no obvious reasons. But we don't know what happened before.
Happens all the time, as you say just the first time it's been seen.
>You say if the victim had been black, we'd had now a civil war on our
>hands, that *is* ridiculous.
Possibly, though I do think the home secretary would've been forced to
act in a stronger manner and there might well have been trouble. It
would've been the proof of what the communities know goes on all the
time, and they'd have wanted to act.
>I don't see what black folks have to do with this either. I know of many
>black people who have been aggressed this way.
Absolutely, always going on.
>Strange that there is no white men being hurt in this way ...
>but now we're shocked.
I'm not sure that's fair - though there have been a lot fewer suspicious
deaths among whites than blacks. As I'm sure you're aware there are also
a disproportionate number of blacks held and this may contribute to it.
Certainly, from the ex police officers I know, there was an
'understanding' between them and the criminal classes that if, after the
Friday night bar fight they happened to get a little more bruised in the
van back to the station it was always because they'd fallen over...
No amount of hand-wringing or courses people are sent on is going to
change the attitude of either group, they don't exist in the same world
as the majority of people. The only way is if more 'sensitive, liberal'
types joined the force but they won't because they might believe it
necessary but they despise it. Is it any wonder that when you're hated
and assumed to be racist it encourages a 'them and us' attitude where
your colleagues become more important than the law?
>Those black emigrants you're referring to have been arrested in the
>streets for no reason for years because a) they're black regardless of
>who they are and where they come from,
True, sadly.
> b) the Police need to make their
>quota numbers on their papers at the end of the day and it's so easy to
>arrest a black man than a white man. The Police have said it themselves.
They say a lot of things - the rank and file would, I'm sure, sneer at
pronouncements of senior officers. It is a symptom of the service that
there is no respect or belief in senior management or its initiatives.
They feel betrayed by recent pronouncements on 'institutional racism'
and the like which are considered a sop to the public as a whole whilst
support for themselves is felt to be non-existent.
>You added "...in ensuring that immigrants, found guilty of any form of
>criminal behaviour within the land which has adopted them, will
>immediately be repatriated to their country of origin." Do you really
>think that immigrants, being Tcheck or Somalian, French or Peruvian are
>responsible for the vast majority of crimes?
Obviously this is a ridiculous suggestion, the numbers of crimes
committed ensures that the majority must be committed by Brits. However,
there seem to be more criminals as a percentage of total numbers amongst
immigrant groups. There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, which
came first, the crime or the extra police attention to immigrants so
more crimes were detected? Is the higher apparent crime rate because
they harass and arrest more, thus detecting more crime, thus justifying
in their view increased harassment and arrests thus detecting more
etc...
Also, the second and I think important point is that crime is very much
a function of poverty. Immigrant communities are often poorer, so is the
crime rate really that out of whack from a 'white' estate in a similar
money band?
However, neither of these points, whether true or not should lead people
to brush aside the fact in a fit of political-correct angst that crime
amongst blacks, particularly black on black crime is a worry. See
newspapers on Operation Trident.
>So if you want to fight, fight for the rights of that white guy who has
>been beaten up by two white police men and fight the corruption and
>racist core of our supposedly 'Heart Beat' police force.
Why don't you encourage all decent, right-thinking and sensible people
you know to join and change it from within? As to become a policeman now
means you must be a racist, corrupt, fascist in your view, they're
beyond hope, aren't they?
--
Andy Bodkin
Ben Newsam
saying "Doss Soc":
>However, neither of these points, whether true or not should lead people
>to brush aside the fact in a fit of political-correct angst that crime
>amongst blacks, particularly black on black crime is a worry. See
>newspapers on Operation Trident.
Crime is crime. I see no need to categorise and stigmatise perpetrators
and victims in this way.
--
Ben
Andy Bodkin
<b...@microser.demon.co.uk> writes
Given limited resources, there is a need to prioritise where to put
effort in prevention/detection. Recently there has been a large increase
in the amount of gun crime committed due to drug wars in various areas
of the country. That this is, unfortunately, tending to be committed by
young blacks against others is a fact so efforts must be focussed here.
Hence, things like Trident as a whole and the poster of the murder
victim posted recently in Harlesden. You can not separate crime from its
causes, which include cultural influences.
In an ideal world, solving every crime would be as important as every
other, but this isn't an ideal world and as we are moving to the States,
where a huge number of blacks never live to see their thirtieth birthday
I believe it's important to try and do something before we reach that.
--
Andy Bodkin
Mike Fleming
<ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Consider what that police officer had to weigh up:
>
> (1) Is that fire extinguisher empty or full?
(2) Tell you what, in the exitement I just plain forgot whether I let
it off, so I don't know myself.
(3) Do you feel lucky, punk?
--
Mike Fleming Coitum non dono
If life just seems like a struggle and you feel you're contending in vain
Then the light at the end of the tunnel is the front of an oncoming train
Mike Fleming
<al...@wibbling.org> writes:
> Also, the "disabling" targets such as arms and legs are much smaller
> than the body.
Straight between the eyes is smaller still, though.
Andy Botterill
ingonchaos.co.uk> writes
--
Andy Botterill
Alec Cawley
saying
>>As I read it, the police wanted to speak to someone who lived at that
>>house, about some local vandalism. Presumably they didn't have a warrant
>>as the assault victim - who wasn't involved - wouldn't let them in (as
>>is his right). He came outside and closed the door behind him. He admits
>>that there were words exchanged but he was not abusive or threatening.
>>The video showed him with his hands down by his side.
>
>Was the video taken from inside the house or did someone just happen to
>be walking the area with a video camera. This could be a setup or
>deliberate provocation.
Occupant of house on other side of road saw fracas from bedroom,
happened to have video in bedroom.
--
Alec
Alec Cawley
demon.local, saying
>In article <a4mETqCH...@cawley.demon.co.uk>, Alec Cawley
><al...@wibbling.org> writes:
>
>> Also, the "disabling" targets such as arms and legs are much smaller
>> than the body.
>
>Straight between the eyes is smaller still, though.
True. I don't intend to whitewash the copper in Genoa - what he did must
be inquired into, as should all police killings, however justified they
may appear. I was trying to make two points. Firstly, that the policeman
had - justifiably - been trained to shoot to kill, not to disable.
Secondly, that any talk of shooting to disable is, in the current state
of things, ridiculous.
--
Alec
Sherilyn
Donald R. Oddy <don...@grove.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <+D79xvHF...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>>He missed the appropriate bit - "...in ensuring that immigrants, found
>>guilty of any form of criminal behaviour within the land which has
>>adopted them, will immediately be repatriated to their country of
>>origin."
>
>Which is what generally happens, however the recent clashes have been
>between different racial groups of people born in Britain. They cannot
>be deported under international law because their country of origin
>is Britain.
They may not pass the cricket test, but it seems that the
football test is another matter.
--
Sherilyn
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not
send me unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Mark Horsman
says...
> In article <cXU1EMK4...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>
> >Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
> >complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
>
> No it isn't, it is made by the police complaints authority using
> officers from another force. They will then decide whether it is
> a criminal or disciplinary matter. In the case of the former they
> will refer it to the DPP while in the latter they will recommend
> what disciplinary action the police force should take against
> its employee.
I think you will find it's the local force that decides whether it needs
to call in the PCA.
>
> The problem with this approach is not that the PCA isn't independant,
> it is, but that by using police officers to investigate they are
> predisposed to accept another police officer's word while at the
> same time have difficulty obtaining evidence from the victims who
> naturally identify the investigating officer with those who are
> being complained about.
>
Until we have an independent PCA, it will continue to be a farce :(
Richard
>In article <pM1J2XAa...@james-follett.com>, James Follett
><ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Consider what that police officer had to weigh up:
>>
>> (1) Is that fire extinguisher empty or full?
>
>(2) Tell you what, in the exitement I just plain forgot whether I let
>it off, so I don't know myself.
>
me?
--
Richard
Richard
>On Thu, 26 Jul 01 22:29:59 GMT, don...@grove.demon.co.uk ("Donald R.
>Oddy") wrote:
>
>
>>Some years ago a friend's teenage daughter was waiting at a bus stop
>>on her way to school when a car with two men inside stopped and they
>>started asking who she was and where she was going.
>
>I'll see that story and raise you this one:
>
When living in a small village in Kent, wife had been to a 'social' on
the other side of the village and drove back home. She ran indoors quite
hysterical, having been followed home very closely by a lone man driving
a plain dark car, driving just on sidelights. When she drove in our
driveway, he stopped outside and sat watching.
I hot-footed it outside, in the dark, and got to the driver's door just
as he got out. Fortunately, I am 6'2" and he was about 5'5". I had him
pinned back against the car door frame, forearm under his throat, whilst
politely enquiring whether his intentions towards her had been
honourable. He croaked that he was a police officer and I then
recognised him as what passed as the local bobby (ie. one good-will
visit to the village every 2-3 months).
He explained that he had been driving home and saw my wife come out of
the village hall, get in her car and drive off, turning her lights on
only as she was pulling away (in the car park, not on the road, and
under floodlights). He thought her 'lapse' might have been a suggestion
of drinking so followed her, on sidelights so as not to attract her
attention, but watching closely for any other signs. He then said he
would like to breathalyser her.
I pointed out that he was off-duty, was in plain clothes and driving his
own unmarked car tailing a lone female in unlight lanes on sidelights -
and had he considered what fear this might have put into her? I said I
would be reporting him to the Chief Constable, etc., but meanwhile he
knew where he could find a temporary storage facility for his
breathalyser. He mumbled a sort of apology and slithered back into the
car and drove off.
I wrote to the CC and didn't even get an acknowledgement, let alone a
reply. But I did give the cop a copy of the letter and told him that his
card had been marked. Funny, I always found him very subservient after
that.
--
Richard
Alex Buell
> I wrote to the CC and didn't even get an acknowledgement, let alone a
> reply. But I did give the cop a copy of the letter and told him that
> his card had been marked. Funny, I always found him very subservient
> after that.
The obverse, there are some /good/ cops out there. A mate was telling me
about the time his friend was at her boyfriend's place when the police had
a reason to come around. Unfortunately she had a hole in her jeans, and
consequently, a small brown lump of hash fell onto the floor in front of
the police.
The cop then said that he wished he'd not seen that because he had no
choice but to issue a caution for the hash, but said she could come down
to the police station the next day and receive her caution and that would
be it.
Down the police station the next day, he explained that if it was
possible, he certainly wouldn't bother doing anything about the hash at
all, what with kids out there dying from smack.
That brought home to me how immensely wasteful the War on Drugs is.
--
Hey, they *are* out to get you, but it's nothing personal.
Mark Horsman
100...@tahallah.demon.co.uk>, alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk says...
>
> Down the police station the next day, he explained that if it was
> possible, he certainly wouldn't bother doing anything about the hash at
> all, what with kids out there dying from smack.
>
> That brought home to me how immensely wasteful the War on Drugs is.
>
trade in pot. In 4 years she's nicked no-one, but turned all the kids
against her and the Law :(
Keith
<don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <cXU1EMK4...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>
>>Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
>>complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
>
>No it isn't, it is made by the police complaints authority using
>officers from another force.
Then the police spokesman interviewed on tv spoke with forked tongue...
--
Keith
Keith
<don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
international law.
--
Keith
Alex Buell
> Our local bobby, a Copperette, is on a 'Mission' to wipe out the local
> trade in pot. In 4 years she's nicked no-one, but turned all the kids
> against her and the Law :(
Quite so, but it keeps her in a job, unfortunately. And that's what it's
reallly all about. Less crime, less cops.
Donald R. Oddy
and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
>Given limited resources, there is a need to prioritise where to put
>effort in prevention/detection. Recently there has been a large increase
>in the amount of gun crime committed due to drug wars in various areas
>of the country. That this is, unfortunately, tending to be committed by
>young blacks against others is a fact so efforts must be focussed here.
>Hence, things like Trident as a whole and the poster of the murder
>victim posted recently in Harlesden. You can not separate crime from its
>causes, which include cultural influences.
Serious crime is far to rare to be related to any social group. A few
individuals are responsible for most of it and to regard the actions
of those few people as representative of a community of thousands is
absurd. To focus on particular areas or social groups labels the
innocent majority and allows those criminals who don't match the
sterotype a free rein. For example the typical drugs baron isn't a
black living in an inner city area but a white who lives in an outer
suburb or upmarket village. Now it may be more difficult to link the
drugs baron with the murder but you'll have more effect on crime by
locking up the boss than the hitman. This was shown recently by the
arrest and conviction of six people in Manchester a recently. All
known to police they were picked up in a raid on a flat together
with weapons and drugs. Since their arrest there has been a significant
drop in serious crime - 25% IIRC.
>In an ideal world, solving every crime would be as important as every
>other, but this isn't an ideal world and as we are moving to the States,
>where a huge number of blacks never live to see their thirtieth birthday
>I believe it's important to try and do something before we reach that.
If the objective is to target serious crime, we need to reduce the
resources currently spent on trivial crime. Yet as soon as someone
suggests tolerance zones for prostitution or not charging canabis
users there's an outcry and the politicans refuse to risk offending
those people.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
d*@plymouth2.demon.co.uk "Andy Botterill" writes:
>See previous comment. Since a policeman insulting someone can get them
>fired/disciplined I would expect actual violence to be treated more
>firmly.
In theory this is true, however for *any* action to be taken the
individual officer has to be identified beyond reasonable doubt.
All it takes is for the officer and their collegues to refuse to
identify the guilty one and the case collapses. Compare that with
an assault by a member of a group of civilians where all will be
charged with the assault.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
thomas...@ntlworld.com "Tony Kelly" writes:
>When considering this in later years, I was struck by the biblical
>allegory in this youthful reminiscence. The three figures, the tallest
>cental character being pierced in the side by a law figure. Spooky. Am
>I getting a Jesus Complex from the experience? Should I sue for
>trauma? :O)
When you get stigmata, you should consult a priest.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
ma...@horsmanm.freeserve.co.uk "Mark Horsman" writes:
>It is not possible to shoot to disable with a normal hand gun. The
>officer was probably aiming at his chest, that it hit the guy between the
>eyes is indicative of the accuracy to be expected under the
>circumstances.
From the video footage I saw on TV it is very unlikely the gun was
aimed at the chest, more likely it wasn't aimed at all. It was fired
from inside a moving van through the rear window at someone who was
holding a fire extinguisher in both hands.
>I would imagine the officer was in a state of blind panic.
Very likely, a terrible excuse for discharging a firearm.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
>In article <rvjz$cAFx$X7I...@urbed.co.uk>, La Puce <bl...@urbed.co.uk>
>writes
>>You say if the victim had been black, we'd had now a civil war on our
>>hands, that *is* ridiculous.
>
>Possibly, though I do think the home secretary would've been forced to
>act in a stronger manner and there might well have been trouble. It
>would've been the proof of what the communities know goes on all the
>time, and they'd have wanted to act.
Conversely the recognition by government and the media that the issue
existed and needed addressing could reduce the risk of trouble. A
lot of problems occur when a community feels (rightly or wrongly) that
their concerns are being ignored or their claims are treated with
scepticism.
>I'm not sure that's fair - though there have been a lot fewer suspicious
>deaths among whites than blacks. As I'm sure you're aware there are also
>a disproportionate number of blacks held and this may contribute to it.
>Certainly, from the ex police officers I know, there was an
>'understanding' between them and the criminal classes that if, after the
>Friday night bar fight they happened to get a little more bruised in the
>van back to the station it was always because they'd fallen over...
What's this nonsense about "criminal classes"? Criminals exist in
every social class although the types of crime do tend to vary by
social class.
>No amount of hand-wringing or courses people are sent on is going to
>change the attitude of either group, they don't exist in the same world
>as the majority of people. The only way is if more 'sensitive, liberal'
>types joined the force but they won't because they might believe it
>necessary but they despise it. Is it any wonder that when you're hated
>and assumed to be racist it encourages a 'them and us' attitude where
>your colleagues become more important than the law?
The attitude of colleagues being more important than the law is a
consequence of the military style organisation and culture of the
police force. It deliberately creates the 'them and us' attitude
which is useful on a battlefield or in a riot but hampers relating
to outsiders on a normal basis. It also makes them overly respectful
of those with higher social status (who are equated with senior
officers) while tending to patronise or insult those who are of
lower social status. I suspect a lot of the "institutionalised
racism" relates to this - most foreigners are seen as lower status.
>They say a lot of things - the rank and file would, I'm sure, sneer at
>pronouncements of senior officers. It is a symptom of the service that
>there is no respect or belief in senior management or its initiatives.
>They feel betrayed by recent pronouncements on 'institutional racism'
>and the like which are considered a sop to the public as a whole whilst
>support for themselves is felt to be non-existent.
The problem goes much deeper than that, like most large organisations
the police have two career paths with social class tending to determine
which an individual takes. The first is the average working class or
lower middle class recruit who will gradually work up to a middle
ranking position, possibly in a speciality, over his career. The second
is well connected middle class entrant, nowadays usually with a degree,
who is promoted as rapidly as possible reaching middle ranks by their
early thirties which is young enough to be considered for senior ranks.
Naturally an officer who has worked for ten years in an area will have
little respect for the opinions of someone who spent a year on the
beat a decade ago in some other area. The senior officer will undoubtably
have a wider knowledge but not necessarily better and the limited flow
of information upward in a rigid organisation means that the belief
that management are out of touch is at least partially true.
>Obviously this is a ridiculous suggestion, the numbers of crimes
>committed ensures that the majority must be committed by Brits. However,
>there seem to be more criminals as a percentage of total numbers amongst
>immigrant groups. There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, which
>came first, the crime or the extra police attention to immigrants so
>more crimes were detected? Is the higher apparent crime rate because
>they harass and arrest more, thus detecting more crime, thus justifying
>in their view increased harassment and arrests thus detecting more
>etc...
>
>Also, the second and I think important point is that crime is very much
>a function of poverty. Immigrant communities are often poorer, so is the
>crime rate really that out of whack from a 'white' estate in a similar
>money band?
Certainly the poor English communities produce a high level of crime,
particularly violent crime. Without statistics it is difficult to
tell but I would rate them on a par with the Afro-caribean and worse
than just about every other group. Certainly Jewish and Chinese
communities have way lower crime levels, more in line with a middle
class English community. The issue is also complicated by the fact
that immigrant communities are not entirely, or even always largely,
composed of immigrants. Most of the main communities - Afro-caribean,
Irish, Chinese, Indian, Jew and Pakistani - have been here long enough
for the majority of their members to have been born here.
>However, neither of these points, whether true or not should lead people
>to brush aside the fact in a fit of political-correct angst that crime
>amongst blacks, particularly black on black crime is a worry. See
>newspapers on Operation Trident.
Everything is a worry if you let it be. There is more than a bit of
the "big black thug" about the reporting of black crime and the fact
that most of the victims are also black is added to make it look as
if they publication is concerned about blacks rather than their
mostly white readers. From the pictures published I've noticed a
fair proportion of 'black' offenders are in fact mixed race. I wonder
from which side their criminal behaviour originates.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
James Follett
<don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I would imagine the officer was in a state of blind panic.
>
>Very likely, a terrible excuse for discharging a firearm.
What? Self defense? Damn good excuse. Why do we decide to arm our police
and soldiers? So that they can kill the enemy. That's what guns are for:
to go bang and to kill people. The message of these anti-
somethingorother loonies is HATE! HATE! HATE! KILL! KILL! KILL! So one
gets wasted chucking a bomb (a nifty idea -- disguising a fire
extinguisher as a bomb -- car bombs are getting so passe now)? So what?
Taking him out wasn't an indiscriminate act. What was indiscriminate was
the pelting of the crowds below with potted plants by disgrunted Genoese
residents in surrounding flats. Their actions put a lot of people in
hospital.
--
James Follett Novelist (Callsign G1LXP) http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
Andy Bodkin
<don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>Serious crime is far to rare to be related to any social group. A few
>individuals are responsible for most of it and to regard the actions
>of those few people as representative of a community of thousands is
>absurd.
Of course this is correct.
> To focus on particular areas or social groups labels the
>innocent majority and allows those criminals who don't match the
>sterotype a free rein.
This is the rubbish that follows on from the above - the whole community
isn't involved so we mustn't focus on them in case we upset the innocent
majority. A lot of the initiatives come from the community in the first
place, who don't want their areas becoming like some suburbs in
Kingston.
It doesn't focus on the group - it looks at the statistics, that gun
crime is on the increase. That the majority of it is murders of blacks
by blacks and then looks at possible reasons for this. To simply say
this doesn't exist ignores the statistics and is a burial of the head in
the sand.
> For example the typical drugs baron isn't a
>black living in an inner city area but a white who lives in an outer
>suburb or upmarket village.
Where did you get that 'fact' from? Actually, you may well be correct,
but there is nothing to show these people are the final beneficiaries of
a murder which has taken place at a club in Harlesden, for example. What
if this was a 'disrespect' murder (I hate the fake street slang usage
too but can't think of everything else). A murder over some insult or
alleged insult. How can that not be considered part of a 'gun culture'
in that area?
> Now it may be more difficult to link the
>drugs baron with the murder but you'll have more effect on crime by
>locking up the boss than the hitman.
This is true.
>If the objective is to target serious crime, we need to reduce the
>resources currently spent on trivial crime. Yet as soon as someone
>suggests tolerance zones for prostitution or not charging canabis
>users there's an outcry and the politicans refuse to risk offending
>those people.
I totally agree with you here.
--
Andy Bodkin
Richard
[...]
>What was indiscriminate was
>the pelting of the crowds below with potted plants by disgrunted Genoese
>residents in surrounding flats. Their actions put a lot of people in
>hospital.
>
--
Richard
Andy Bodkin
<don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <tritLAAO...@b0dders.demon.co.uk>
> and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
>>Certainly, from the ex police officers I know, there was an
>>'understanding' between them and the criminal classes that if, after the
>>Friday night bar fight they happened to get a little more bruised in the
>>van back to the station it was always because they'd fallen over...
>
>What's this nonsense about "criminal classes"? Criminals exist in
>every social class although the types of crime do tend to vary by
>social class.
Known serial offenders with no interest in any other job than a criminal
one.
>he attitude of colleagues being more important than the law is a
>consequence of the military style organisation and culture of the
>police force.
This is undoubtedly out of date - not being able to sit when called into
a senior officer, never being praised for good work only punished for
something wrong. Having been in a similar organisation which originally
was a place for ex-servicemen and seen the same thing as well as a lot
of changes for the better over the last five years a change in this
military attitude would certainly help.
>The problem goes much deeper than that, like most large organisations
>the police have two career paths with social class tending to determine
>which an individual takes. The first is the average working class or
>lower middle class recruit who will gradually work up to a middle
>ranking position, possibly in a speciality, over his career. The second
>is well connected middle class entrant, nowadays usually with a degree,
>who is promoted as rapidly as possible reaching middle ranks by their
>early thirties which is young enough to be considered for senior ranks.
>Naturally an officer who has worked for ten years in an area will have
>little respect for the opinions of someone who spent a year on the
>beat a decade ago in some other area. The senior officer will undoubtably
>have a wider knowledge but not necessarily better and the limited flow
>of information upward in a rigid organisation means that the belief
>that management are out of touch is at least partially true.
A very good summation.
>>However, neither of these points, whether true or not should lead people
>>to brush aside the fact in a fit of political-correct angst that crime
>>amongst blacks, particularly black on black crime is a worry. See
>>newspapers on Operation Trident.
>
>Everything is a worry if you let it be. There is more than a bit of
>the "big black thug" about the reporting of black crime and the fact
>that most of the victims are also black is added to make it look as
>if they publication is concerned about blacks rather than their
>mostly white readers.
I don't think that's necessarily fair, though the most recent article I
saw was in the mail so you may be right. However, the statistics are
showing this sort of crime increasing at a high rate and that doesn't
involve newspapers or decision-making or anything other than it's simply
there.
> From the pictures published I've noticed a
>fair proportion of 'black' offenders are in fact mixed race. I wonder
>from which side their criminal behaviour originates.
Neither, obviously, anyone claiming a certain race is more likely to
commit crime is crazy. It's not the actual race but the upbringing and
cultural influences, which are often dependant on race, that I'm talking
about. Mixed race or not this leads to a disenchanted, disenfranchised
youth seeing drugs and the money to be made as a fast route to
prosperity and respect. To maintain this requires a lackadaisical
approach to life in general.
Of course, the 'radical right' would say it's because they've been
brought up in broken homes without the influence of a father and there
may be a small element of truth in that. I certainly wouldn't blame the
evils of the world on single mothers, though.
--
Andy Bodkin
Richard
>A mate was telling me
>about the time his friend was at her boyfriend's place when the police had
>a reason to come around. Unfortunately she had a hole in her jeans, and
>consequently, a small brown lump of hash fell onto the floor in front of
>the police.
Sure it was hash? If I'd been raided by the fuzz...
>
>The cop then said that he wished he'd not seen that because he had no
>choice but to issue a caution for the hash, but said she could come down
>to the police station the next day and receive her caution and that would
>be it.
>
>Down the police station the next day, he explained that if it was
>possible, he certainly wouldn't bother doing anything about the hash at
>all, what with kids out there dying from smack.
Priority allocation of resources
>
>That brought home to me how immensely wasteful the War on Drugs is.
>
My Rotary Club is running a project in Moss Side and Hulme on Drug
Awareness within schools. Run by professional counsellors, but even they
admit the kids (7-8 YOs) know more that they do.
Reminds me when I sat my (then) pubescent son down and said I wanted to
talk to him about the Facts of Life. 'Okay Dad, what do you want to
know?'
--
Richard
Alex Buell
> From the video footage I saw on TV it is very unlikely the gun was
> aimed at the chest, more likely it wasn't aimed at all. It was fired
> from inside a moving van through the rear window at someone who was
> holding a fire extinguisher in both hands.
In that case, it *is* murder. I would hope Italy holds a thorough
investigation but somehow I don't think much will come of that.
Alex Buell
> Serious crime is far to rare to be related to any social group. A few
> individuals are responsible for most of it and to regard the actions
> of those few people as representative of a community of thousands is
> absurd. To focus on particular areas or social groups labels the
> innocent majority and allows those criminals who don't match the
> sterotype a free rein. For example the typical drugs baron isn't a
> black living in an inner city area but a white who lives in an outer
> suburb or upmarket village. Now it may be more difficult to link the
> drugs baron with the murder but you'll have more effect on crime by
> locking up the boss than the hitman. This was shown recently by the
> arrest and conviction of six people in Manchester a recently. All
> known to police they were picked up in a raid on a flat together with
> weapons and drugs. Since their arrest there has been a significant
> drop in serious crime - 25% IIRC.
Unfortunately, illegal drugs are *so* profitable despite all the risks
(and these includes turf battles with rivals) that someone will come along
and set up a new supply chain, and the whole thing starts all over again.
> If the objective is to target serious crime, we need to reduce the
> resources currently spent on trivial crime. Yet as soon as someone
> suggests tolerance zones for prostitution or not charging canabis
> users there's an outcry and the politicans refuse to risk offending
> those people.
Agreed. These people really have no clue at all, trying to impose their
puritan values on other people is a receipe for disaster. IIRC, they have
actually proposed legalising prostitution but that was quietly dropped.
Alex Buell
> Sure it was hash? If I'd been raided by the fuzz...
What's really unfair is the way the the police in different areas treats
people caught with cannabis. Some areas go down hard on people, some areas
(like Lambeth in London which covers Brixton) just confiscates and gives
them a warning. This inequality will breed contempt for the law in the
areas where it's treated harshly. Either extend it nationwide or not do it
at all.
> Priority allocation of resources
Indeed, but it's much easier and better for their detection rates if they
target soft drug users, so that they can say to the Govt, look, crime's
going up, we need more pigs on the street. Well, if they'd stop targeting
soft drug users, and focused more on criminals with hard drug habits to
feed, then crime will drop. I'm sure the insurance companies would agree.
They pay out billions more than what the world spends on this unreasonable
War on Drugs. Hardly cost effective.
> Reminds me when I sat my (then) pubescent son down and said I wanted
> to talk to him about the Facts of Life. 'Okay Dad, what do you want to
> know?'
Hehe. What'd you tell him?
DonKaye
<ne...@benevolent.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <35260...@nemesis.nu>, Neil Barker <Ne...@nemesis.nu> writes
>>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>>And people honestly wonder why JK left the UK ?
>Nope they couldn't give a fuck why he felt the need to join the
>flouncing set again.
Piss off fluffy cunt.
--
Don Kaye.
DonKaye
anm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>In article <QPb2yTHH...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>,
>Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk says...
>> Would the police/ local authority/ residents/ Home Secretary response be
>> the same *if* this had been a video of a black youth in Bradford being
>> assaulted by a Traffic Officer?
>I doubt it.
>> I suggest there would now be *civil war* if it was a *coloured* person
>> who'd suffered this abuse...
>They suffer this sort of abuse all the time.
>You obviously live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
No. He lives in that shit-bucket called the UK.
It's going down the pan. Hadn't you noticed?
--
Don Kaye.
DonKaye
writes
>But that's what is being felt I'm afraid. Recently I was talking to a
>mate about the Police approaching kids in the streets, black kids. They
>don't realise that these kids *are* kids, they're big and tall all right
>but still they're kids, 10 to 14 yrs old. The attitude of the police
>towards them is definitely out of order - mimicking cultural cliché
>language, talking about crimes in and around the area.
Hell no.
Why should the police talk to an age group who are responsible
for the bulk of petty crime, about crime?
I mean, seeing as how when 'stop and search' was abandoned to
soothe the ethnics the bleedin' crime figures soared, there'd
be no reason to would there?
La Puce......head up arse as usual.
--
Don Kaye.
DonKaye
nm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>In article <35260...@nemesis.nu>, Ne...@nemesis.nu says...
>>
>> And people honestly wonder why JK left the UK ?
>
>
>The south-eastern Spanish city of Murcia is counting the cost of the
>world's biggest outbreak of Legionnaire's disease, which has killed three
>people and struck at least 334 more.
>Laboratory tests yesterday confirmed three more cases of infection by the
>legionella bacterium. A further 21 people were in hospital.
You docile twat.
At least they haven't had to cull half the domestic livestock
over here.
--
Don Kaye.
DonKaye
<and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk> writes
>Neither, obviously, anyone claiming a certain race is more likely to
>commit crime is crazy. It's not the actual race but the upbringing and
>cultural influences, which are often dependant on race, that I'm talking
>about. Mixed race or not this leads to a disenchanted, disenfranchised
>youth seeing drugs and the money to be made as a fast route to
>prosperity and respect. To maintain this requires a lackadaisical
>approach to life in general.
Crime and the general decline of the UK isn't about just race.
A small densely packed island reminiscent of rats in a cage.
Put too many in the cage and they start gnawing at each other.
Like animals, humans need their own space.
--
Don Kaye.
Richard
--
Richard
Mark Horsman
says...
> In article <9jq0rl$q5t$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> ma...@horsmanm.freeserve.co.uk "Mark Horsman" writes:
>
> >It is not possible to shoot to disable with a normal hand gun. The
> >officer was probably aiming at his chest, that it hit the guy between the
> >eyes is indicative of the accuracy to be expected under the
> >circumstances.
>
> From the video footage I saw on TV it is very unlikely the gun was
> aimed at the chest, more likely it wasn't aimed at all. It was fired
> from inside a moving van through the rear window at someone who was
> holding a fire extinguisher in both hands.
>
> >I would imagine the officer was in a state of blind panic.
>
> Very likely, a terrible excuse for discharging a firearm.
>
I've only seen stills of this, but one preceding the shooting showed
another guy shoving a lump of 6x2 through a side window. I could well
imagine the officers inside were in fear of their lives.
Mark Horsman
> In article <9jpvut$q5t$8...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark Horsman <mark@horsma
> nm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >In article <35260...@nemesis.nu>, Ne...@nemesis.nu says...
> >>
> >> And people honestly wonder why JK left the UK ?
> >
> >From today's Guardian:
> >
> >The south-eastern Spanish city of Murcia is counting the cost of the
> >world's biggest outbreak of Legionnaire's disease, which has killed three
> >people and struck at least 334 more.
> >Laboratory tests yesterday confirmed three more cases of infection by the
> >legionella bacterium. A further 21 people were in hospital.
>
> You docile twat.
>
> At least they haven't had to cull half the domestic livestock
> over here.
Nor here. You are being hysterical in your desperation to justify your
actions.
Mark Horsman
> In article <9jmb4e$l40$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark Horsman <mark@horsm
> anm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>
> No. He lives in that shit-bucket called the UK.
>
> It's going down the pan. Hadn't you noticed?
>
their brand of greed, sleaze and incompetence for some time. It will take
years to repair the damage caused by the Thatcher and Major Governments,
but a start has been made.
DonKaye
anm.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> No. He lives in that shit-bucket called the UK.
>>
>> It's going down the pan. Hadn't you noticed?
>With the Conservative Party committing Hari-Kari we won't be faced with
>their brand of greed, sleaze and incompetence for some time. It will take
>years to repair the damage caused by the Thatcher and Major Governments,
>but a start has been made.
Laborg are at the top of the economic cycle.
What happens when a recession occurs or even a medium dip?
That nice Mr Brown has already committed himself to spending
loot based on the present 'tax take'. Where will the committed
spending come from when that tax level falls due to increasing
unemployment etc? What will happen to the already crumbling
infrastructure, and where do you think the extra tax to bridge
the shortfall will come from?
As economics doesn't appear to be one of your strong points,
I'll tell you. Mr Brown will either tax *you* to death or borrow.
Now I know you're old enough to have been around when the last
Laborg lot made exactly the same mistake, so you'll know what
I mean. Remember the huge debts and the intervention of the IMF?
Laborg were so inefficient at doing the public housekeeping
that the IMF had to do it for them.
Of course, being a blinkered Laborg supporter, you'll have
developed that syndrome known as 'selective memory'.
Don't worry though, the Inland Revenue have marvellous ways
of bringing back those halcyon days.
--
Don Kaye.
Roger Hunt
ingonchaos.co.uk> writes
That's when they discovered the lethal dose of pot - a weight dropped on
some head's head.
--
Roger Hunt
Ben Newsam
saying "Home for Geriatric Collies":
>If they'd only listened to the sensible advice and gone for inoculation -
>as the Dutch did - it would all be over now.
The Dutch didn't. They thought about it, and then realised what a silly
policy that would be.
--
Ben
Piers C. Structures
wrote:
>In article <csbWMGBp...@terra.es>, DonKaye wrote:
>
>>At least they haven't had to cull half the domestic livestock
>>over here.
>
>Half! Half! It's getting totally out of control.
>
>If they'd only listened to the sensible advice and gone for inoculation -
>as the Dutch did - it would all be over now.
I was under the impression that there were rather more items of
livestock than available doses. I'm sure they could have ramped up
production by now, but that wouldn't have stopped the atta^H^H^H^H
outbreak's initial spread.
--
Suck The Goat
Donald R. Oddy
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>In article <996175...@grove.demon.co.uk>, Donald R. Oddy
><don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <+D79xvHF...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
>> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>>>He missed the appropriate bit - "...in ensuring that immigrants, found
>>>guilty of any form of criminal behaviour within the land which has
>>>adopted them, will immediately be repatriated to their country of
>>>origin."
>>
>>Which is what generally happens, however the recent clashes have been
>>between different racial groups of people born in Britain. They cannot
>>be deported under international law because their country of origin
>>is Britain.
>>
>I thought deportation was a domestic matter, not one subject to
>international law.
Basically true, but one of the UN conventions makes it illegal to
deport people from their own country. That is defined, with a very
few exceptions, as the country of their birth. The purpose is to
prevent governments making people stateless with no right of abode
anywhere. It still happens occassionally but only with really some
dodgy regimes.
In many ways it doesn't go far enough because it is legal to deport
the children of immigrants with their parents even when those
children have no right to live in their parents country of birth.
Not usually a problem because most countries give residence rights
to the children of people born there but there are exceptions.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
ma...@horsmanm.freeserve.co.uk "Mark Horsman" writes:
>In article <996176...@grove.demon.co.uk>, don...@grove.demon.co.uk
>says...
>> In article <cXU1EMK4...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
>> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>>
>> >Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
>> >complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
>>
>> No it isn't, it is made by the police complaints authority using
>> officers from another force. They will then decide whether it is
>> a criminal or disciplinary matter. In the case of the former they
>> will refer it to the DPP while in the latter they will recommend
>> what disciplinary action the police force should take against
>> its employee.
>
>I think you will find it's the local force that decides whether it needs
>to call in the PCA.
No, *all* formal complaints must the referred to the PCA. The force
may refer incidents to the PCA before receiving a formal complaint
and often do in high profile incidents.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>In article <996176...@grove.demon.co.uk>, Donald R. Oddy
><don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <cXU1EMK4...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk>
>> Ke...@ilf0rd.demon.co.uk "Keith" writes:
>>
>>>Not that it matters. As I said previously, the investigation into
>>>complaints is made, internally, by the police authority itself.
>>
>>No it isn't, it is made by the police complaints authority using
>>officers from another force.
>
>Then the police spokesman interviewed on tv spoke with forked tongue...
From your report he was accurate although possibly misleading -
>A spokesperson for the Police Federation was interviewed and confirmed
>that -
>
>1. the officer concerned was still on full pay
>2. the officer concerned had been moved out of a 'public' role
>3. disciplinary proceedings were at the discretion of the local Police
> Authority, who were the sole arbiters in regards to suspension.
What he didn't say was that -
1. The investigation was supervised by the PCA using officers from
another force.
2. That the PCA refers crimes to the DPP for prosection and recomends
disciplinary action to the local police force (I thought it was
the Chief Constable rather than the Police Authority but I could
be wrong).
3. That suspension or transferring to other duties is separate from
disciplinary action - a holding action while the complaint is
investigated. Given the length of time most of these investigations
take transferring to other duties (usually paperwork) makes a lot
of sense because they are on full pay.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
ja...@james-follett.com "James Follett" writes:
>In article <996266...@grove.demon.co.uk>, Donald R. Oddy
><don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>>I would imagine the officer was in a state of blind panic.
>>
>>Very likely, a terrible excuse for discharging a firearm.
>
>What? Self defense? Damn good excuse.
Except the evidence points to blind panic rather than self defence.
>Why do we decide to arm our police
>and soldiers? So that they can kill the enemy. That's what guns are for:
>to go bang and to kill people. The message of these anti-
>somethingorother loonies is HATE! HATE! HATE! KILL! KILL! KILL! So one
>gets wasted chucking a bomb (a nifty idea -- disguising a fire
>extinguisher as a bomb -- car bombs are getting so passe now)?
I know it was Italy, but I don't think even the Italian police have
started equiping their vans with bombs disguised as fire extinguishers.
Bad enough using vans with equipment mounted externally in a riot
situation.
>So what?
>Taking him out wasn't an indiscriminate act. What was indiscriminate was
>the pelting of the crowds below with potted plants by disgrunted Genoese
>residents in surrounding flats. Their actions put a lot of people in
>hospital.
Pity they didn't hit those responsible for shutting down a major city
so that a bunch of gasbags could pretend to solve the world's problems,
or even hitting the gasbags themselves. But then again those are the
people all that time and money was spent protecting.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk "Alex Buell" writes:
>Unfortunately, illegal drugs are *so* profitable despite all the risks
>(and these includes turf battles with rivals) that someone will come along
>and set up a new supply chain, and the whole thing starts all over again.
True, it's a neverending task but six major criminals locked up for
years is a lot cheaper than the steady stream of minor offenders
who are the usual haul of the war on drugs which has no dicernable
effect on crime levels.
>> If the objective is to target serious crime, we need to reduce the
>> resources currently spent on trivial crime. Yet as soon as someone
>> suggests tolerance zones for prostitution or not charging canabis
>> users there's an outcry and the politicans refuse to risk offending
>> those people.
>
>Agreed. These people really have no clue at all, trying to impose their
>puritan values on other people is a receipe for disaster. IIRC, they have
>actually proposed legalising prostitution but that was quietly dropped.
I think it was more the idea was floated to see what the response
would be and the moralists made it clear they would cause as much
fuss as possible. Mind you it's nearly impossible for a lap dancing
bar to get a licence in Manchester so how a brothel would manage
I don't know. There are plenty of health clubs though.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
>In article <996280...@grove.demon.co.uk>, Donald R. Oddy
><don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>>What's this nonsense about "criminal classes"? Criminals exist in
>>every social class although the types of crime do tend to vary by
>>social class.
>
>Known serial offenders with no interest in any other job than a criminal
>one.
Serial offenders exist in every social class, while at the bottom end
of the job market there isn't a sharp dividing line between the
legitimate and the criminal. Once you get below the level of McDonalds
jobs there's a big cash in hand job market, the jobs are legal but
the way they're paid is not. Then there are the jobs which are in
themselves legal but involve criminal behaviour by others such as
helping unload that transit van of smuggled cigarettes or packing
pirate CDs. Then you get the jobs selling smuggled cigarettes before
finally getting to what most people would regard as crime - the
thieves, muggers etc. Individuals move among these different jobs
as the combination of opportunity, money and their moral values demand.
>>Everything is a worry if you let it be. There is more than a bit of
>>the "big black thug" about the reporting of black crime and the fact
>>that most of the victims are also black is added to make it look as
>>if they publication is concerned about blacks rather than their
>>mostly white readers.
>
>I don't think that's necessarily fair, though the most recent article I
>saw was in the mail so you may be right. However, the statistics are
>showing this sort of crime increasing at a high rate and that doesn't
>involve newspapers or decision-making or anything other than it's simply
>there.
There is selective publishing of crime statistics, every year the
headlines are those crimes where the numbers have increased while
the ones that have dropped are ignored. I suppose if there is ever
a year when every type of crime falls the media will have to report
on how cattle rustling in East Anglia has only fallen by 0.1%
>Neither, obviously, anyone claiming a certain race is more likely to
>commit crime is crazy. It's not the actual race but the upbringing and
>cultural influences, which are often dependant on race, that I'm talking
>about. Mixed race or not this leads to a disenchanted, disenfranchised
>youth seeing drugs and the money to be made as a fast route to
>prosperity and respect. To maintain this requires a lackadaisical
>approach to life in general.
Well the values we see every day in advertising and the media are
make money, spend money to improve your status. It strikes me that
the kids who get into the illegal drugs trade for money and respect
irrespective of the consequences to anyone else are the same as
traders in the financial markets.
>Of course, the 'radical right' would say it's because they've been
>brought up in broken homes without the influence of a father and there
>may be a small element of truth in that. I certainly wouldn't blame the
>evils of the world on single mothers, though.
I do know of one child who would be a right tearaway without his
father's influence. That's all a matter of how the mother, father
and son relate to each other though.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
>In article <TimtsJAu...@urbed.co.uk>, La Puce <bl...@urbed.co.uk>
>writes
>
>>But that's what is being felt I'm afraid. Recently I was talking to a
>>mate about the Police approaching kids in the streets, black kids. They
>>don't realise that these kids *are* kids, they're big and tall all right
>>but still they're kids, 10 to 14 yrs old. The attitude of the police
>>towards them is definitely out of order - mimicking cultural cliché
>>language, talking about crimes in and around the area.
>
>Hell no.
>
>Why should the police talk to an age group who are responsible
>for the bulk of petty crime, about crime?
If the best the police can do at catching crooks is to quiz random
teenagers about individual crimes it's no wonder detection rates
are bloody aweful. Even in areas like Moss Side the chances are
against picking out an individual who has committed any crime at all.
>I mean, seeing as how when 'stop and search' was abandoned to
>soothe the ethnics the bleedin' crime figures soared, there'd
>be no reason to would there?
It was abandoned because it was not effective in identifying
criminals and the power was being abused by certain officers.
Crime figures soared because a certain mad woman decided to
force down wages by creating unemployment.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk "Alex Buell" writes:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Donald R. Oddy wrote:
>
>> From the video footage I saw on TV it is very unlikely the gun was
>> aimed at the chest, more likely it wasn't aimed at all. It was fired
>> from inside a moving van through the rear window at someone who was
>> holding a fire extinguisher in both hands.
>
>In that case, it *is* murder. I would hope Italy holds a thorough
>investigation but somehow I don't think much will come of that.
Nope, manslaughter maybe. You'll never prove the policeman intended
to kill, he may even claim the gun was discharged accidentally.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk "Alex Buell" writes:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Richard wrote:
>
>> I wrote to the CC and didn't even get an acknowledgement, let alone a
>> reply. But I did give the cop a copy of the letter and told him that
>> his card had been marked. Funny, I always found him very subservient
>> after that.
>
>The obverse, there are some /good/ cops out there.
My point, and I think Richard's, is that it is not a matter of good
and bad cops. It is the fact that the police are human and at times
humans act stupidly and thoughtlessly. When that happens the police
force needs to respond quickly and acknowledge the error. Formal
disciplinary action is only needed if the officer repeatedly acts
stupidly. A lot of friction is created by ignoring anyone who doesn't
complain on an offical form and for those few subjecting the officer
to a lengthy inquiry and formal disciplinary action.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
and...@b0dders.demon.co.uk "Andy Bodkin" writes:
>In article <996273...@grove.demon.co.uk>, Donald R. Oddy
><don...@grove.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Serious crime is far to rare to be related to any social group. A few
>>individuals are responsible for most of it and to regard the actions
>>of those few people as representative of a community of thousands is
>>absurd.
>
>Of course this is correct.
>
>> To focus on particular areas or social groups labels the
>>innocent majority and allows those criminals who don't match the
>>sterotype a free rein.
>
>This is the rubbish that follows on from the above - the whole community
>isn't involved so we mustn't focus on them in case we upset the innocent
>majority. A lot of the initiatives come from the community in the first
>place, who don't want their areas becoming like some suburbs in
>Kingston.
Some of the initiatives come from the community and where the police
respond to and communicate with the community it is very effective.
Unfortunatly the majority of initiatives come from the police without
reference to the communities affected or are filtered through the
priorities of local authorities and police authorities. By which time
they have been distorted out of all recognition. Part of the problem
is that the police are not organised on a community basis -
administratively convient groups of local authorities are given a
single police authority which is then split up into divisons and
areas within those divisions. Only when a community has a strong
identity and bloodyminded leaders are the police even aware it
exists. Round here, for example, the police consultative meetings
are poorly attended and the nearest thing to a local leader is a
prat of a middle-aged LD councillor. Some of her demands make a
lot of sense while others are pure NIMBY and she managed to insult
the police very badly during the election campaign. Most importantly
though she doesn't really represent the various groups who live in
the area. Naturally enough there is little contact between residents
and the police so criminals find it easy to hide.
>It doesn't focus on the group - it looks at the statistics, that gun
>crime is on the increase. That the majority of it is murders of blacks
>by blacks and then looks at possible reasons for this. To simply say
>this doesn't exist ignores the statistics and is a burial of the head in
>the sand.
It is an example of the misuse of statistics - the sample size (murders
involving guns) is far to small to be a reliable indicator of anything.
Statistically the level of perjury crime among the peerage is far higher
than gun crime among blacks but I don't recall any demands for a
crackdown.
Furthermore once the police have made the decision to concentrate
on a particular community what happens? A large number of officers
are drafted into the area, most of who have never been there before
with instructions to identify and arrest the large number of
criminals who are alleged to be there. All the real criminals have
seen them coming so the people the police meet are the ordinary
members of the community. Without knowledge of the community all
they can do is pick people at random and eventually they'll pick
up a kid who has a joint he's going to share with his mates. So
they've got an arrest - possession with intent to supply - and
the crime figures for the area have just risen again.
>> For example the typical drugs baron isn't a
>>black living in an inner city area but a white who lives in an outer
>>suburb or upmarket village.
>
>Where did you get that 'fact' from?
Newspaper reports of convictions for drug smuggling and similar crimes
where it is clear the police and C&E have caught the big operators,
not just local dealers or lorry drivers.
>Actually, you may well be correct,
>but there is nothing to show these people are the final beneficiaries of
>a murder which has taken place at a club in Harlesden, for example. What
>if this was a 'disrespect' murder (I hate the fake street slang usage
>too but can't think of everything else). A murder over some insult or
>alleged insult. How can that not be considered part of a 'gun culture'
>in that area?
Few killings are done without the authority of those organising the
gangs. The benefit to them is local monopolies and the authority
which goes with "cross me and you're dead".
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk "Alex Buell" writes:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Richard wrote:
>
>> Sure it was hash? If I'd been raided by the fuzz...
>
>What's really unfair is the way the the police in different areas treats
>people caught with cannabis. Some areas go down hard on people, some areas
>(like Lambeth in London which covers Brixton) just confiscates and gives
>them a warning. This inequality will breed contempt for the law in the
>areas where it's treated harshly. Either extend it nationwide or not do it
>at all.
It's already happened, variations in priorities and approaches have
always existed and probably always will. What's changed is that today
those differences are known about and comparisons made which shows
the law and its enforcers in a bad light.
>> Priority allocation of resources
>
>Indeed, but it's much easier and better for their detection rates if they
>target soft drug users, so that they can say to the Govt, look, crime's
>going up, we need more pigs on the street. Well, if they'd stop targeting
>soft drug users, and focused more on criminals with hard drug habits to
>feed, then crime will drop. I'm sure the insurance companies would agree.
>They pay out billions more than what the world spends on this unreasonable
>War on Drugs. Hardly cost effective.
Most drug offences have the advantage of nearly 100% clearup rates
(because the only ones reported are those where the offender has
been identified). So the more drug offences the better the overall
figures look.
I'm not altogether convinced that the insurance companies want a
significant reduction in crime. The more they pay out, the higher
premiums they charge which increases profit and generates better
cash flow.
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Donald R. Oddy
ric...@thrivingonchaos.co.uk "Richard" writes:
>Reminds me when I sat my (then) pubescent son down and said I wanted to
>talk to him about the Facts of Life. 'Okay Dad, what do you want to
>know?'
To which the answer should be "Which myths have you learnt in the
school playground?"
--
Donald
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Mark Horsman
ne...@skipper.org.uk says...
> >over here.
>
Don't be so ridiculously hysterical. 6% is not out of control.
If you look at the figures for the last outbreak they were at least the
double of this one, and that outbreak was confined to a small area.
What we are seeing now is the long, predictable, tail off of the disease,
as has occurred previously. This is being exacerbated by some deliberate
infection in order to claim compensation.
>
> If they'd only listened to the sensible advice and gone for inoculation -
> as the Dutch did - it would all be over now. We are now seeing the
> destruction of flocks of hefted sheep (those that have learned their
> territory over many generation) which will take tens of years to replace.
> The government have completely mishandled this and I hope the public
> remember.
>
As has been explained to you before, the vaccines available are not
nearly 100% effective. They are only of use in small outbreaks. Hence the
Dutch Authorities declining to use them even though they had the
requisite permissions.
This outbreak nearly got out of hand due to it's widespread nature. Due
to the actions taken by the authorities, it was reduced to manageable
levels far quicker than previous outbreaks.