|
U-Know! Forum » Guess what verdict the cop got |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 02, 2010, 16:51
|
||
|
pooley wrote: I hate Police that assault protesters, and also hate protesters that assault police... I hate police who would assault protesters just because they were ordered to, even when the protesters are peaceful. Sounds reasonable enough, yet it means I hate well over 99% of the police on those grounds alone.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
Apr 02, 2010, 17:20
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Daminxa wrote: I really don't see how he got away with it. I suppose it might be something with the fact the lady refussed to testify or whatever so they gave him the benefit of the doubt. Nope, it's that he was a copper. Imagine if the footage showed anyone else doing that, and the victim didn't testify. Imagine if the roles were reversed and a member of the public twatted a copper like that, but the copper didn't testify. Another day in the life of Merrick and his World of Conspiracy Theories. Yawn. Of course, the fact that she refused to testify would be a major reason for this verdict, particularly as witnesses said they felt the coverage gave "an unfair and inaccurate portrayal", and one described Ms Fisher as behaving like a "lunatic". Funny that she was prepared to appear on Sky News, but not in court. To suggest that coppers never get convicted of offences is ridiculous. One can only assume your reading of the newspapers is somewhat selective. Of course, you're very good at making your opinion look like hard cold facts aren't you? As for..."Imagine if the roles were reversed and a member of the public twatted a copper like that, but the copper didn't testify"...well that's a ridiculous statement. Giving evidence in court is part of their job!
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Apr 02, 2010, 20:13
|
||
I knew the new Police Academy inspired scheme of recruiting felons into the force as an alternative to jail time was a bad idea, but would anyone listen to me?!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Apr 02, 2010, 23:37
Apr 02, 2010, 23:33
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Another day in the life of Merrick and his World of Conspiracy Theories. Yawn. Keith, nobody's insulted anyone on this thread. Please don't start. I you take issue with something I, or anyone else, says then deal with it on its own terms, take it apart with intelligence, logic and fact. Starting your post with an unprovoked insult doesn't make you appear reasonable, and so it discourages people from listening to whatever sound points you may be about to make. keith a wrote: the fact that she refused to testify would be a major reason for this verdict It certainly didn't help her case any, agreed. But that footage speaks for itself. I ask again, if the same film existed but of her attacking the copper, and the copper didn't testify, what verdict would you think the court would reach? keith a wrote: To suggest that coppers never get convicted of offences is ridiculous. Indeed it is. Which is why, when someone did suggest such a thing on this thread, I gave specific examples of when it happened. Can you say 'straw man'? keith a wrote: As for..."Imagine if the roles were reversed and a member of the public twatted a copper like that, but the copper didn't testify"...well that's a ridiculous statement. Giving evidence in court is part of their job! Yes, they give evidence as part of the job. This is not the same as saying they always give evidence when their actions are in question. Ask Duckenfield, the copper in charge of the Hillsborough disaster, about that one. And this is before we get to any interesting embellishments they want to make. Have a look at the video. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8597217.stm Do you really think he felt she was 'deliberately coming at him from a blind spot' and her juice carton was a possible weapon? If not, what do you think he was doing? And do you think that if you'd done the same thing to me in that situation you'd have got an acquittal?
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
Edited Apr 03, 2010, 09:03
Apr 03, 2010, 09:02
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Keith, nobody's insulted anyone on this thread. Please don't start. I you take issue with something I, or anyone else, says then deal with it on its own terms, take it apart with intelligence, logic and fact. Starting your post with an unprovoked insult doesn't make you appear reasonable, and so it discourages people from listening to whatever sound points you may be about to make. Don't play the victim, Merrick. I find your postings continually insulting (and patronising) to anyone who dares to disagree with you and I know I'm not alone here. One of the reasons that I've seldom posted on these pages is because, in my opinion, you try and belittle people who don't share your views. And it's a bit rich telling other people to deal with facts. I've asked previously for you to justify comments that I knew were either opinions dressed as facts, or just plain misleading. On neither occasion did you have the decency to reply when I know what you were saying was wrong. I also find your comments such as "I hate well over 99% of the police" to be insulting towards police officers I know and like, as well as being rather closed-minded and ignorant. When you have met 99% of them then I'll take your opinion seriously. And I fail to see what Hillsborough has got nothing to do with what you were talking about. You were talking about a police officer getting twatted and not giving evidence. Not someone's who's actions are 'under question'. That's a totally different matter and is irrelevant to what was being discussed.
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Apr 03, 2010, 12:27
Apr 03, 2010, 10:26
|
||
|
Just for reasons of clarification, my post was not intended to be taken that literally re. every single instance, I hoped that it was fairly obvious that I was letting off steam. I was referring to what I believe to be blatant State self interest which is becoming increasingly commom i.e. increased State violence at legitimate protests i.e. the student arrested under the new ant-terrorist legislation for reciting the numbers of war dead, the pensioner man handled at the labour party conference, the Blair era Chinese premier visit and the 'protective screens and ensuing police violence, the peaceful protesesters rounded up on mass at a church hall before they even started etc versus: John Prescott getting away with ABH, the expenses scandal, the recent 3 mps corruption scandal, and the travesty that is Tony Blair and the Iraq War enquiry. It goes on and on. For the record, through my work I sometimes have to liase with the police and have no automatic dislike of them and get on fine with individual cconstables and community officers who of course are necessary i.e. a recent example being a well known local dealer taking a knife to a vulnerable person with mental health problems and assaulting them in order to empty their post office account. The two officers did a fantastic job and were completely professional. I see alot of this, sadly. I'm referring to SPGs/Riot Police who have a different agenda and task masters. Back during the poll tax riots a female student friend of mine returned with two black eyes,a broken nose and a fractured wrist. She was 5"1'. I know that rallies can be infiltrated for reasons of inciting conflict, by both fringe groups and MI5. It is never clear cut, but to return to my original point, I believe that civil liberties are being seriously and dangeruosly eroded in this country. For example, the Uk has the highest level of CCTV surveilance in the world, fact. DNA sampling, Stop and search etc etc. The list goes on. An American friend of mine who visted recently was horrified, and our neighbours in the EU are aghast. Too many centuries of doffing the cap. The general population needs to act, fast, but I believe it's bread and circuses and apathy re. the majority, sadly. We need to take action, on mass, and fast. On a lighter note.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR3KwODDzeY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgqeL0AvZfo&feature=related
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Apr 03, 2010, 11:10
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Don't play the victim, Merrick. I find your postings continually insulting (and patronising) to anyone who dares to disagree with you This is a political board, here to lock horns and dissect moral and political issues. I only express an opinion when I have reason to hold it; thus I will defend it. Often, counter opinions are robust and we pick over our different reasoning. Sometimes, an opinion is vacuous or based on nonsense. I have little respect for the latter. That's not the same as 'insulting anyone who dares disagree with me'. keith a wrote: I also find your comments such as "I hate well over 99% of the police" to be insulting towards police officers I know and like, as well as being rather closed-minded and ignorant. When you have met 99% of them then I'll take your opinion seriously. What I said was 'I hate police who would assault protesters just because they were ordered to, even when the protesters are peaceful'. I think that's reasonable enough. Yet experience indicates that this would include the overwhelming majority of police. I don't need to meet them all to verify that, and more than I need to meet the members of any other organisation with a remit of political violence to judge their actions. keith a wrote: I fail to see what Hillsborough has got nothing to do with what you were talking about. It was a flip comment and a poor example. The point I was ineptly trying to make was that police do not always give evidence, let alone unbiased and honest evidence.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Apr 04, 2010, 13:59
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Funny that she was prepared to appear on Sky News, but not in court. Yes, 'vindication by media' surely is as (in)valid as 'trial by media'. Or is it? x
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Apr 06, 2010, 17:46
|
||
|
Hate to tell you this but you did write "....I hate well over 99% of the police ...." its still up there in black and white I'm with Keith I'm afraid as I know a couple of decent police officers who (I believe) genuinely try to carry out their jobs in a fair-minded way. Given your statement that if "...an opinion is vacuous or based on nonsense. I have little respect for [it]...." would you care to elaborate on your statement?
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Apr 06, 2010, 17:52
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Hate to tell you this but you did write "....I hate well over 99% of the police ...." its still up there in black and white I'm with Keith I'm afraid as I know a couple of decent police officers who (I believe) genuinely try to carry out their jobs in a fair-minded way. Given your statement that if "...an opinion is vacuous or based on nonsense. I have little respect for [it]...." would you care to elaborate on your statement? I know a few coppers, Lovely people all. I do have to agree that saying you hate 99% of all coppers is just as stupid as a copper saying he hated 99% of all protesters. Merrick, I feel you are too close to this to have an unbiased opinion. I'm not slagging you off - hope you believe that - but this kind of anti police posturing really puts me off. And dilutes your message.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
