grufty jim
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 17:03
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/08/police-complaints-commission
It's the first link in Merrick's post to which keith a was responding.
|
keith a
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 17:57
|
|
grufty jim wrote: keith a wrote: "After 20 years working for a housing and social care agency in inner-city Birmingham, I joined the IPCC, as one of 18 new commissioners, with the aim of righting injustices. We claimed to be the most powerful civilian oversight body in the world, and we prepared to change the world. Five years on, I decided to leave. So what had gone wrong?"
I don't know. You were there for five years. You tell us.
Maybe having worked in housing and social care for 20 years meant the man was ill-equipped to do the job?
Or maybe you could read the rest of the article to which that is the opening paragraph. Y'know, kicking off a lengthy piece of writing with a question that you then go on to answer is a fairly standard rhetorical device.
I read the rest of the article but thanks for your useful suggestion, Grufty.
And I'm aware of the device, but again thanks for your your help.
Personally I wasn't satisfied, hence my question.
And I don't think he can have it both ways when he says "these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it serves the decent majority ill."
Either this is because the complaints were unfounded - e.g. one of his own verdicts when he was Commissioner "our investigation demonstrates quite clearly that the police officers involved acted in a completely appropriate manner. Their actions in no way caused the collision involving the stolen Mercedes and officers acted in full accordance with their professional duties."
Or they weren't investigated properly. And if this is the case surely he had the authority to make sure this was done and referred the investigation back?
Interesting that you see fit to reply to one of my posts again though, Grufty, despite your announcements otherwise. I guess the desire to be smug was just too over-powering, wasn't it?
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 18:09
|
|
Thanks, Jim.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 18:10
|
|
Another pot & kettle response.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 18:13
|
|
keith a wrote: Interesting that you see fit to reply to one of my posts again though, Grufty, despite your announcements otherwise. I guess the desire to be smug was just too over-powering, wasn't it?
Oh grow up, keith. I pretty much stopped posting over at The Village Pump to avoid conflict with you, but when you post on the U-Know! board -- where you are well aware that I'm a regular poster -- why on earth should I censor myself?
Yes, in a moment of frustration I said I'd ignore your posts. Now, several months later, on a different forum, I have decided that decision no longer makes much sense. Woo-hoo! Throw a fucking party why don't you? I changed my mind. I'm guessing by your attitude that's something you're unfamiliar with? Well, guess what? It happens. Deal with it and move on. Constantly retreading the same ground is beyond childish, keith.
|
keith a
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 18:27
|
|
Sigh...
|
keith a
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 18:29
|
|
grufty jim wrote: [
Oh grow up, keith.
That's a bit rich coming from someone who said "I'm not talking to you".
So ne-ne-ne-ne-ne!
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 19:47
|
Ha!
Actually, I'm looking at that as breach of HH copyright.
Yours, Law Council.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 20:13
|
Grufty actually said, "I'm not talking to you"? Really?
I'll accept the evidence if it's there, but it's a very un-Grufty phrase. If you're summarising a longer thread down to "I'm not talking to you", that's poor.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: CS Gas at Peaceful Protest
Feb 10, 2011, 21:01
|
|
Vybik Jon wrote: Grufty actually said, "I'm not talking to you"? Really?
I'll accept the evidence if it's there, but it's a very un-Grufty phrase. If you're summarising a longer thread down to "I'm not talking to you", that's poor.
Needless to say, Vybik, that's not actually what I said. But the thread has dropped off the end of the Village Pump (probably a good thing) and I honestly don't recall the exact words that were used.
It was during that long and confrontational discussion about democracy... we eventually got to the point where keith had said that if I didn't participate in democracy that I should "shut the fuck up" about it (again, I won't swear those were the actual words used as I don't really remember, but it was along those lines and that phrase comes to mind when I try). I responded by suggesting that clearly any further discussion wasn't going to get us anywhere and that while keith was free to reply, I would do my best to ignore him.
And as it happens, I actually meant that I would no longer engage with him specifically on that thread/issue rather than a blanket "I'm not talking to you" (though I perhaps didn't make that clear).
|
