And yet you are factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....Bertster7 wrote:
It suggests nothing. They were forming a cordon. Means very little.Vilham wrote:
So the fact that the police are forming a line across the street doesn't suggest to you at all that the closure of that road is one of the conditions? I guess the police were doing it for fun.Bertster7 wrote:
Yes they can. I have already said this.
Technically though, those conditions only apply to those participating in the protest. But that's just semantics - what really matters is what the terms of the conditions were, I doubt very much that they included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him. I've been to a number of protests in the past and the organisers typically publish these police directions beforehand and often hand them out on fliers. I have never seen any conditions that would've allowed them to arrest Tomlinson.
If you think there were extra legal conditions imposed that would've applied to this case then find them.
Unless you can find specific evidence that the written conditions the police issued for this event contained terms he was in breach of, then your case holds no water whatsoever - since you are relying on non-standard laws to prove your point, you should find out what they are and not just speculate wildly, that won't further your argument at all.
No. I haven't said that.Vilham wrote:
And yet you are factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....Bertster7 wrote:
It suggests nothing. They were forming a cordon. Means very little.Vilham wrote:
So the fact that the police are forming a line across the street doesn't suggest to you at all that the closure of that road is one of the conditions? I guess the police were doing it for fun.
Unless you can find specific evidence that the written conditions the police issued for this event contained terms he was in breach of, then your case holds no water whatsoever - since you are relying on non-standard laws to prove your point, you should find out what they are and not just speculate wildly, that won't further your argument at all.
I've said there is no legislation under which he could've been arrested, unless specifically brought in for this event. I've also mentioned that I am fairly familiar with these types of police directives for such events, because I've read a few of them in the past for protests I have attended. None of them have included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him.
Potentially there could be something in the police directive that would've allowed them to arrest him, but that would be unusual. Since you believe there would be rules that allowed them to arrest him, the onus is on you to demonstrate that to be the case.
Go and look up what the directions the police issued were.
So your saying if there was a condition that the road was closed to prevent vandalism (as it appears in the videos) and he choose to walk down that road they wouldn't be able to arrest him?Bertster7 wrote:
No. I haven't said that.Vilham wrote:
And yet you are factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....Bertster7 wrote:
It suggests nothing. They were forming a cordon. Means very little.
Unless you can find specific evidence that the written conditions the police issued for this event contained terms he was in breach of, then your case holds no water whatsoever - since you are relying on non-standard laws to prove your point, you should find out what they are and not just speculate wildly, that won't further your argument at all.
I've said there is no legislation under which he could've been arrested, unless specifically brought in for this event. I've also mentioned that I am fairly familiar with these types of police directives for such events, because I've read a few of them in the past for protests I have attended. None of them have included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him.
Potentially there could be something in the police directive that would've allowed them to arrest him, but that would be unusual. Since you believe there would be rules that allowed them to arrest him, the onus is on you to demonstrate that to be the case.
Go and look up what the directions the police issued were.
Because if that is what you are claiming, please explain the point in the conditions at all. If the police are not legally allowed to enforce the condition then the whole of section 11,12,13 and 14 in the public order act are pointless.
Where are you getting these things from? Do you actually read what I post?Vilham wrote:
So your saying if there was a condition that the road was closed to prevent vandalism (as it appears in the videos) and he choose to walk down that road they wouldn't be able to arrest him?Bertster7 wrote:
No. I haven't said that.Vilham wrote:
And yet you are factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....
I've said there is no legislation under which he could've been arrested, unless specifically brought in for this event. I've also mentioned that I am fairly familiar with these types of police directives for such events, because I've read a few of them in the past for protests I have attended. None of them have included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him.
Potentially there could be something in the police directive that would've allowed them to arrest him, but that would be unusual. Since you believe there would be rules that allowed them to arrest him, the onus is on you to demonstrate that to be the case.
Go and look up what the directions the police issued were.
Because if that is what you are claiming, please explain the point in the conditions at all. If the police are not legally allowed to enforce the condition then the whole of section 11,12,13 and 14 in the public order act are pointless.
I haven't said anything even remotely like that.
He was walking AWAY from the police line. There was no point at which he was entering an area that appeared off-limits. He just didn't walk away from the police quickly enough.
Now stop trying to put words in my mouth and go and try to find the relevant police directive issued to the organisers of the protest, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.
The fact that he was walking slower than the police can very easily be construed as attempting to move through the police line or even obstructing them. The police have discression how do you not get that? They can arrest people if they view their actions to be breaking the law, that doesn't mean the person will be charged with anything but people can and are regularly arrested under the discression of officers.Bertster7 wrote:
Where are you getting these things from? Do you actually read what I post?Vilham wrote:
So your saying if there was a condition that the road was closed to prevent vandalism (as it appears in the videos) and he choose to walk down that road they wouldn't be able to arrest him?Bertster7 wrote:
No. I haven't said that.
I've said there is no legislation under which he could've been arrested, unless specifically brought in for this event. I've also mentioned that I am fairly familiar with these types of police directives for such events, because I've read a few of them in the past for protests I have attended. None of them have included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him.
Potentially there could be something in the police directive that would've allowed them to arrest him, but that would be unusual. Since you believe there would be rules that allowed them to arrest him, the onus is on you to demonstrate that to be the case.
Go and look up what the directions the police issued were.
Because if that is what you are claiming, please explain the point in the conditions at all. If the police are not legally allowed to enforce the condition then the whole of section 11,12,13 and 14 in the public order act are pointless.
I haven't said anything even remotely like that.
He was walking AWAY from the police line. There was no point at which he was entering an area that appeared off-limits. He just didn't walk away from the police quickly enough.
Now stop trying to put words in my mouth and go and try to find the relevant police directive issued to the organisers of the protest, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.
If you are right then as I have already stated there would be hundreds of cases against the police every day.
O and the fact that you admit you have't said that he:
Means your contradicting yourself by saying in the very next post I'm wrong. Either you are saying he couldn't have been arrested or not. Make up your mind.factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....
Last edited by Vilham (2009-04-20 11:07:30)
Bollocks it could. That's like saying leaning on a wall could be construed as being about to climb over it. Do you really have such a poor grasp of what your rights are with the police?Vilham wrote:
The fact that he was walking slower than the police can very easily be construed as attempting to move through the police line or even obstructing them. The police have discression how do you not get that? They can arrest people if they view their actions to be breaking the law, that doesn't mean the person will be charged with anything but people can and are regularly arrested under the discression of officers.Bertster7 wrote:
Where are you getting these things from? Do you actually read what I post?Vilham wrote:
So your saying if there was a condition that the road was closed to prevent vandalism (as it appears in the videos) and he choose to walk down that road they wouldn't be able to arrest him?
Because if that is what you are claiming, please explain the point in the conditions at all. If the police are not legally allowed to enforce the condition then the whole of section 11,12,13 and 14 in the public order act are pointless.
I haven't said anything even remotely like that.
He was walking AWAY from the police line. There was no point at which he was entering an area that appeared off-limits. He just didn't walk away from the police quickly enough.
Now stop trying to put words in my mouth and go and try to find the relevant police directive issued to the organisers of the protest, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.
If you are right then as I have already stated there would be hundreds of cases against the police every day.
Also, please spell discretion properly in future.
You've gone over and over this same point. The police can't just arrest people for no good reason.
This is not even particularly relevant. Since even if they arrest you they are not allowed to use disproportional force. The primary issue here, as I have already said, is the issue of proportional use of force. The force used against him was not proportional to the threat he faced to the officers or the public, therefore it was not legal. End of story.
Not at all.Vilham wrote:
O and the fact that you admit you have't said that he:Means your contradicting yourself by saying in the very next post I'm wrong. Either you are saying he couldn't have been arrested or not. Make up your mind.factually stating he couldn't have been arrested without having seen the documentation for the protest either....
I've always maintained there is potential for there to be something in the police directive that could allow his arrest in this circumstance. In the next post you gave an example of something that could be in there:
You gave an example. I said he wasn't walking down the road, so under that condition they wouldn't be able to arrest him.Vilham wrote:
So your saying if there was a condition that the road was closed to prevent vandalism (as it appears in the videos) and he choose to walk down that road they wouldn't be able to arrest him?
It's quite simple.
Sigh... I believe it is you who has the poor grasp. But never mind, next time riot police tell you to move back, you keep walking at 1 mile an hour, your right, you won't get arrested....Bertster7 wrote:
Bollocks it could. That's like saying leaning on a wall could be construed as being about to climb over it. Do you really have such a poor grasp of what your rights are with the police?Vilham wrote:
The fact that he was walking slower than the police can very easily be construed as attempting to move through the police line or even obstructing them. The police have discression how do you not get that? They can arrest people if they view their actions to be breaking the law, that doesn't mean the person will be charged with anything but people can and are regularly arrested under the discression of officers.Bertster7 wrote:
Where are you getting these things from? Do you actually read what I post?
I haven't said anything even remotely like that.
He was walking AWAY from the police line. There was no point at which he was entering an area that appeared off-limits. He just didn't walk away from the police quickly enough.
Now stop trying to put words in my mouth and go and try to find the relevant police directive issued to the organisers of the protest, otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on.
If you are right then as I have already stated there would be hundreds of cases against the police every day.
Also, please spell discretion properly in future.
You've gone over and over this same point. The police can't just arrest people for no good reason.
This is not even particularly relevant. Since even if they arrest you they are not allowed to use disproportional force. The primary issue here, as I have already said, is the issue of proportional use of force. The force used against him was not proportional to the threat he faced to the officers or the public, therefore it was not legal. End of story.
Yawn, someone losing an argument so they need to start pointing out a minor spelling mistake?
As I have already pointed out there could be good reason.
You have even said yourself higher up
is an arrestable offense. Or are you going to claim the police couldn't construe that walking really slowly in front of a police officer after been warned isn't obstruction, that the whole hands in the pockets, ignoring the officers stance reeks of purposely trying to disrespect the officers.obstructing a police officer
Where in the last 2 pages have I said their force was nessecary? "as I have already said" in a direct reply to your post "im not saying the pushing was nessecary".
Im bored of arguing this point back and forth. You keep pretending section 12 doesn't exist and that you can break conditions set under that section without being arrested. And yawn at you saying he wasn't breaking the conditions again. Im pretty sure not making an effort to remove yourself from the road is enough evidence a officer needs to arrest you.
Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Linky?Bertster7 wrote:
They currently do actually (under review now).
Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.
...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettling
the guardian wrote:
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty except in five well-defined exceptions and is an absolute right. The exceptions concern detention to effect a lawful arrest or compliance with a court order, detention of a child who is unsupervised or of a person in breach of immigration rules, or "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants".
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Linky?
...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettlingthe guardian wrote:
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty except in five well-defined exceptions and is an absolute right. The exceptions concern detention to effect a lawful arrest or compliance with a court order, detention of a child who is unsupervised or of a person in breach of immigration rules, or "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants".
Has been ruled to be lawful. As I said.Containment tactics were first used over a long period of time on 1 May 2001 when an anti-capitalist protest at Oxford Circus was corralled by the police for seven hours in bad weather and with no access to toilet facilities. Lois Austin, a demonstrator, and Geoffrey Saxby, a passerby caught up in the demo, challenged their false imprisonment in the courts and on 28 January this year, after Saxby dropped out of the action, the House of Lords ruled that the police had behaved lawfully and Austin had no right to compensation.
I agree entirely that it shouldn't be lawful and I vehemently disagree with the ruling.
The fact is Ian Tomlinson DID NOT break the law here and no matter how many times you try to claim he did it will not change this fact. You say the police wanted him to move? Well, he was moving... end of discussion. Until you present a link showing legislation outlining acceptable retreat speeds your whole argument is moot. The officer in question exceeded his remit by going out of his way to find conflict in a situation where there was none.Vilham wrote:
I know they don't but if you break the law. Ie refusing to move when the police have set a condition on a rally they can arrest you. He was warned to move, he refused to do so at a reasonable speed and could have been arrested. You and Bert seem to think the police have zero discression, it would be lovely if the law included a walking speed limit but it doesn't, that gives the police leeway to decide if someone is purposely breaking the law.Braddock wrote:
What police order did he disobey? To walk away? I think you'll find he was walking away or does Britain have laws regarding the speed at which someone must walk away when ordered by a police officer?Vilham wrote:
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
Should have walked faster.
I have done countless times at the many dozens of protests I've been to. I have yet to be arrested. My friends have been arrested in similar instances for different stuff and I've been a witness in several of their trials. I am very familiar with this side of the law.Vilham wrote:
Sigh... I believe it is you who has the poor grasp. But never mind, next time riot police tell you to move back, you keep walking at 1 mile an hour, your right, you won't get arrested....Bertster7 wrote:
Bollocks it could. That's like saying leaning on a wall could be construed as being about to climb over it. Do you really have such a poor grasp of what your rights are with the police?Vilham wrote:
The fact that he was walking slower than the police can very easily be construed as attempting to move through the police line or even obstructing them. The police have discression how do you not get that? They can arrest people if they view their actions to be breaking the law, that doesn't mean the person will be charged with anything but people can and are regularly arrested under the discression of officers.
If you are right then as I have already stated there would be hundreds of cases against the police every day.
Also, please spell discretion properly in future.
You've gone over and over this same point. The police can't just arrest people for no good reason.
This is not even particularly relevant. Since even if they arrest you they are not allowed to use disproportional force. The primary issue here, as I have already said, is the issue of proportional use of force. The force used against him was not proportional to the threat he faced to the officers or the public, therefore it was not legal. End of story.
I think you'll find you've already lost the argument long ago. It's quite a big spelling mistake and it's the 3rd or 4th time you've made it. It's annoying. If I really cared about pointing out your minor mistakes I could point out all the other ones too.Vilham wrote:
Yawn, someone losing an argument so they need to start pointing out a minor spelling mistake?
Trying to disrespect the officers is not an arrestable offence.Vilham wrote:
As I have already pointed out there could be good reason.
You have even said yourself higher upis an arrestable offense. Or are you going to claim the police couldn't construe that walking really slowly in front of a police officer after been warned isn't obstruction, that the whole hands in the pockets, ignoring the officers stance reeks of purposely trying to disrespect the officers.obstructing a police officer
In any case, what he was doing was in no way obstructing a police officer. No chance, no way.
An hour earlier, he perhaps could've been arrested for obstruction - because he was obstructing a police van, and it was dealt with correctly by the officers shouting at him to get out of the way. But at the time of the incident he wasn't causing any sort of obstruction, a nuisance, possibly, but that's not illegal.
You seem to have it in your head that section 12 is a concrete piece of legislation. It is not. Without the specific terms for this incident you cannot say whether there is something within it that could apply here. Typically there would not be, but I have not seen the police directive for this instance so I can't say for sure - but neither can you, as I have maintained throughout. Without you finding the relevant police directive you have no argument, so either go away and find it, or shut up.Vilham wrote:
Where in the last 2 pages have I said their force was nessecary? "as I have already said" in a direct reply to your post "im not saying the pushing was nessecary".
Im bored of arguing this point back and forth. You keep pretending section 12 doesn't exist and that you can break conditions set under that section without being arrested. And yawn at you saying he wasn't breaking the conditions again. Im pretty sure not making an effort to remove yourself from the road is enough evidence a officer needs to arrest you.
/Huge facepalm. Without the specific terms for this incident you cannot say whether there is not something within it that could apply here.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to have it in your head that section 12 is a concrete piece of legislation. It is not. Without the specific terms for this incident you cannot say whether there is something within it that could apply here. Typically there would not be, but I have not seen the police directive for this instance so I can't say for sure - but neither can you, as I have maintained throughout. Without you finding the relevant police directive you have no argument, so either go away and find it, or shut up.
I haven't said at any point he 100% could have been arrested. Unlike you claim he couldn't. I have suggested that it was possible.
Either way bert, i don't care. You keep doing what your doing. I prefer not to act like a twat to the police, but it's good to see your proud of purposely antagonising officiers, what a model citizen.
Last edited by Vilham (2009-04-21 10:19:40)
Where have I said that? I have said that he hasn't broken any normal laws. I have consistently acknowledged the potential for there to be other legal requirements in place in this instance under the public order act, but have highlighted that in my, not inconsiderable, experience of these things, there would be nothing they could arrest him for.Vilham wrote:
/Huge facepalm. Without the specific terms for this incident you cannot say whether there is not something within it that could apply here.Bertster7 wrote:
You seem to have it in your head that section 12 is a concrete piece of legislation. It is not. Without the specific terms for this incident you cannot say whether there is something within it that could apply here. Typically there would not be, but I have not seen the police directive for this instance so I can't say for sure - but neither can you, as I have maintained throughout. Without you finding the relevant police directive you have no argument, so either go away and find it, or shut up.
I haven't said at any point he 100% could have been arrested. Unlike you claim he couldn't. I have suggested that it was possible.
You are the one trying to prove something reliant on non-standard legislation, which could potentially contain anything.
I don't act like a twat to police. Which is why, despite routinely being in these situations, I have never been arrested (combined with the fact I really do know my rights properly, as you seem not to). Nor have I ever had a speeding ticket, despite being pulled over numerous times for that. I'd say I can deal with the police fairly successfully.Vilham wrote:
Either way bert, i don't care. You keep doing what your doing. I prefer not to act like a twat to the police, but it's good to see your proud of purposely antagonising officiers, what a model citizen.
I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was suggesting getting pushed is better than being arrested. So wtf are you arguing about. The simple fact that your saying im wrong DOES mean your saying he could have definately not been arrested.
Clearly your definition of what is being respectable and not is slightly distorted if you think:
Clearly your definition of what is being respectable and not is slightly distorted if you think:
Vilham wrote:
next time riot police tell you to move back, you keep walking at 1 mile an hour
Is being respectable. As I said. Model citizen.Bert wrote:
I have done countless times
Last edited by Vilham (2009-04-21 12:37:30)
Repectable
I know im so stupid, even though Bert the guy who is arguing against me has admitted that depending on the conditions he could have possibly been arrested.wah1188 wrote:
Repectable
His arguement is very solid... You know because it has no point to it.
Just like your argument is very solid. Because in undefined legislation there could be a law saying they could arrest him because he's wearing blue, or something equally ridiculous. The point is that if you hang your argument on something that isn't unilaterally defined, then you need to find what it is, not just assume that because exceptional rules can be brought in, they have been. It would be a very long way from the norm for such events though.Vilham wrote:
I know im so stupid, even though Bert the guy who is arguing against me has admitted that depending on the conditions he could have possibly been arrested.wah1188 wrote:
Repectable
His arguement is very solid... You know because it has no point to it.
The point I have been arguing against is that:
Because you can't just get arrested for disobeying a police order, unless you are doing something illegal. You then went on to argue that it happens all the time - which it simply doesn't and shows a lack of understanding of your rights on your part.Vilham wrote:
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.Braddock wrote:
Arrested for walking too slowly?Vilham wrote:
If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
In any case I'd regard getting assaulted by the police as being worse than being arrested.
Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....
...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettlingthe guardian wrote:
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act sets out the right not to be deprived of liberty except in five well-defined exceptions and is an absolute right. The exceptions concern detention to effect a lawful arrest or compliance with a court order, detention of a child who is unsupervised or of a person in breach of immigration rules, or "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants".Has been ruled to be lawful. As I said.Containment tactics were first used over a long period of time on 1 May 2001 when an anti-capitalist protest at Oxford Circus was corralled by the police for seven hours in bad weather and with no access to toilet facilities. Lois Austin, a demonstrator, and Geoffrey Saxby, a passerby caught up in the demo, challenged their false imprisonment in the courts and on 28 January this year, after Saxby dropped out of the action, the House of Lords ruled that the police had behaved lawfully and Austin had no right to compensation.
I agree entirely that it shouldn't be lawful and I vehemently disagree with the ruling.
The Austin and Saxby case foundered because of very prejudicial findings by the judge at the first instance about what actually happened at the 2001 May Day protests.
So the Police officer is not going to face charges of any kind.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274
It turns out also he was bitten by a Police dog, if you look closely at the original vid you can see two Police allowing their dogs to bite him - nice work.
Tomlinson, de Menezes, you could be in a public place and the Police can kill you with impunity.
The inquest should be interesting, but more likely it'll be fixed like it was for de Menezes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274
All they need is one flaky 'expert witness' to say what suits them and thats it.A police officer who was filmed pushing a man to the ground during the G20 protests will not face charges over his death.
Ian Tomlinson, 47, died after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April 2009 in the City of London.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no prospect of conviction because experts could not agree on how Mr Tomlinson died.
Mr Tomlinson's son Paul King described the decision as "outrageous".
The officer who was filmed pushing Mr Tomlinson has been named as Pc Simon Harwood from the Metropolitan Police territorial support group.
Mr Starmer said there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.
The first examination by Dr Freddy Patel - currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations - found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.
AdvertisementIan Tomlinson's family and solicitor give their reaction to the decision
The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test. It was conducted on behalf of the officer.
It turns out also he was bitten by a Police dog, if you look closely at the original vid you can see two Police allowing their dogs to bite him - nice work.
Tomlinson, de Menezes, you could be in a public place and the Police can kill you with impunity.
The inquest should be interesting, but more likely it'll be fixed like it was for de Menezes.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-23 06:17:14)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
All these public inquiries/inquests that the UK government do are so useless. There was that one about the bloody sunday in northern ireland that was released, what did it do? Fuck all. There's an inquest right now into the Iraq War, what will it do? Fuck all. These things are always a complete waste of money.
Everytime I hear about these inquests/inquiries by the government or "independent probes" and the media always attach names and shit to them, I just lose all interest.
Everytime I hear about these inquests/inquiries by the government or "independent probes" and the media always attach names and shit to them, I just lose all interest.
Well well.
Thats the calibre of the Police - as many crims in as out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … rwood.htmlTen allegations had been made against the officer during his career before his encounter with Mr Tomlinson, who later died.
Six of these were deemed "serious" and some were made by his own colleagues.
They include a road rage incident, an accusation of assault and an allegation that he kneed a civilian in the chest as he made an arrest.
One suspect claimed PC Harwood tried to steal his mobile phone and threatened to break his daughter's neck.
The officer admitted using the Police National Computer after being "caught red-handed" attempting to access the database after his wife was involved in a road accident, an incident which he said had sent him into "red mist mode".
...
Mr Ryder said that if appropriate vetting procedures were carried out, PC Harwood should never have been reemployed by the Metropolitan Police and would therefore not have been present on the day of the G20 protests in April 2009.
Thats the calibre of the Police - as many crims in as out.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-20 06:14:59)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Like the military, the police force is drawn from the parts of society that really doesn't have any special skills, education, life opportunities, or knowledge bases. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone when an officer or entire department have cunt attitudes.
Bears, knew it.
http://undergroundmgzn.com/2012/07/19/i … ving-bear/
http://undergroundmgzn.com/2012/07/19/i … ving-bear/
