London and England riots
- Thread starter Alex.
- 1,281 comments
- 75,085 views
Amusing news:
Hazel Blears's ( Minister of Parliament) is trending on Twitter after she - apparently - said on Sky News "What we need to ask is: why are these kids not at school?" For the record, it's currently the summer holidays.
..........
Also regarding the E-petition titled "Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits".
If you are going to start a petition as least spell the title correctly.
................
15 year old Birmingham boy is in custody for stealing 13 packets of fruit gums and 21 Yorkie bars .
Hazel Blears's ( Minister of Parliament) is trending on Twitter after she - apparently - said on Sky News "What we need to ask is: why are these kids not at school?" For the record, it's currently the summer holidays.
..........
Also regarding the E-petition titled "Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits".
If you are going to start a petition as least spell the title correctly.
................
15 year old Birmingham boy is in custody for stealing 13 packets of fruit gums and 21 Yorkie bars .
Last edited:
- 7,183
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Moot, stop hearing "Imagine" by John Lennon, because such a world doesn't exist, never existed and will never exist (note for homeforsummer: including that part about "... and no religion too ..." 
).
Instead, imagine you are a policeman, fully dressed for a "riot" occasion, including the protective helmet, shield, baton.
You are patrolling the roads, trouble is everywhere around you. To your front, back, left and right, thugs are playing hide and seek and destroying/looting what they can whenever you stop running quick enough to remain on their tails. Now, they're using bycicles also.
And suddenly, you and your group do a bit of running to catch a few of those thugs. They try to run, you knock them over. They are several, so are your mates. You need all of this to be put to an IMMEDIATE halt. No time to argue, talk, discuss. You need IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION. What do you do? You use the only language criminals, even when kids, understand. You use physical force. More than that, you use an amount of force that is greater than what is exactly needed in the situation. Because you don't want the guys to even think, for a millisecond, that they have ANY chance of escaping. You need them, not only to experience RESPECT, but to experience FEAR.
I saw the video many times. And I think the police acted the way they should
).Instead, imagine you are a policeman, fully dressed for a "riot" occasion, including the protective helmet, shield, baton.
You are patrolling the roads, trouble is everywhere around you. To your front, back, left and right, thugs are playing hide and seek and destroying/looting what they can whenever you stop running quick enough to remain on their tails. Now, they're using bycicles also.
And suddenly, you and your group do a bit of running to catch a few of those thugs. They try to run, you knock them over. They are several, so are your mates. You need all of this to be put to an IMMEDIATE halt. No time to argue, talk, discuss. You need IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION. What do you do? You use the only language criminals, even when kids, understand. You use physical force. More than that, you use an amount of force that is greater than what is exactly needed in the situation. Because you don't want the guys to even think, for a millisecond, that they have ANY chance of escaping. You need them, not only to experience RESPECT, but to experience FEAR.
I saw the video many times. And I think the police acted the way they should
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
Self defence and subduing a criminal for arrest.
All police have been trained to aim for upper body or upper leg muscles to momentarily, but not permanently, disable an individual. I've watched the video several times and I don't see any blows to the head, so that's all above board to me. Likewise the kicking, which I've seen plenty of times on the police TV shows, and is usually an incentive for the criminal to put their arms and/or legs into a position the police have asked them to. If one hand is carrying a nightstick and the other a riot shield, they aren't always free to grab someone's arm or leg.
Yup, she's an idiot.
Good example of the stupidity of the rioters too. A great many of them will get custodial sentences for stealing dumb stuff like chocolate bars, but it's their own fault.
If that is lawful then I will accept that, It's just I doubted it.Moot, stop hearing "Imagine" by John Lennon, because such a world doesn't exist, never existed and will never exist (note for homeforsummer: including that part about "... and no religion too ..."
Instead, imagine you are a policeman, fully dressed for a "riot" occasion, including the protective helmet, shield, baton.
You are patrolling the roads, trouble is everywhere around you. To your front, back, left and right, thugs are playing hide and seek and destroying/looting what they can whenever you stop running quick enough to remain on their tails. Now, they're using bycicles also.
And suddenly, you and your group do a bit of running to catch a few of those thugs. They try to run, you knock them over. They are several, so are your mates. You need all of this to be put to an IMMEDIATE halt. No time to argue, talk, discuss. You need IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION. What do you do? You use the only language criminals, even when kids, understand. You use physical force. More than that, you use an amount of force that is greater than what is exactly needed in the situation. Because you don't want the guys to even think, for a millisecond, that they have ANY chance of escaping. You need them, not only to experience RESPECT, but to experience FEAR.
I saw the video many times. And I think the police acted the way they should
But you can understand it's reasonable for me to see what officially comes from it rather than a conclusion of "it's fine" from this forum. At the moment it's not fine according to the GMP. It may turn out to be fine, it may not.
We had the debate in the meantime.
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
I know you're saying it, But I still doubt it.
I need official evidence to settle it in my mind.
Are there any other youtube videos that might be similar which have been investigated and the police totally exonerated with a newspaper article I can see, just so I can see the trend.
- 2,700
- ♢ UK ♢
- J-Gunn-74
You won't get 'official evidence'. Youtube vids cannot be used in court, neither will newspaper articles.
A lot of people here know what they are talking about, they have varying degrees of education and careers. Some even have first hand experience of certain situations.
So just take our word for it.
What the police are doing right now is fair and justified.
Famines list:
"This is the approximate process of what happens when a person is injured by a policeman under any circumstances:
* A complaint is made
* The complaint is referred to the IPCC
* The officer is immediately suspended from duty (on full pay)
* The complaint is investigated - this takes roughly 2 months at a minimum
* If the complaint is dismissed:
- The officer returns to duty
- The complainant seeks civil damages - this process takes another 6 months
- Damages are often awarded without going to court
- The officer has a suspension on his permanent record
* If the complain is upheld
- The officer is dismissed
- The complainant seeks civil damages - this process takes another 6 months
- Damages are often awarded without going to court
If the Met waded in with batons twirling, there'd be an unimaginable slew of complaints, officers suspended and removed from the job on full pay while the complaints are investigated, and the courts would be full to bursting with civil damage claims."
So now we know that the policeman in that video are suspended from duty.
So just from one incident that's upto 7 officers no longer patrolling the streets protecting the public. Another reason why batons should not have been used.
A bruise from a baton is an injury. Unless there is a special police instigated injuries of law list and bruises is not on them.
"This is the approximate process of what happens when a person is injured by a policeman under any circumstances:
* A complaint is made
* The complaint is referred to the IPCC
* The officer is immediately suspended from duty (on full pay)
* The complaint is investigated - this takes roughly 2 months at a minimum
* If the complaint is dismissed:
- The officer returns to duty
- The complainant seeks civil damages - this process takes another 6 months
- Damages are often awarded without going to court
- The officer has a suspension on his permanent record
* If the complain is upheld
- The officer is dismissed
- The complainant seeks civil damages - this process takes another 6 months
- Damages are often awarded without going to court
If the Met waded in with batons twirling, there'd be an unimaginable slew of complaints, officers suspended and removed from the job on full pay while the complaints are investigated, and the courts would be full to bursting with civil damage claims."
So now we know that the policeman in that video are suspended from duty.
So just from one incident that's upto 7 officers no longer patrolling the streets protecting the public. Another reason why batons should not have been used.
A bruise from a baton is an injury. Unless there is a special police instigated injuries of law list and bruises is not on them.
- 2,700
- ♢ UK ♢
- J-Gunn-74
Err... NO we don't. That's just you speculating.
Referring to Famines list...
As far as I am aware that would be the 'Normal' procedure.
Under the current circumstances, authorization has been given for use of batons with force. Therefore complaints are likely to be instantly dismissed without suspending the officers, as this authorization supersedes 'Normal' procedures.
Last edited:
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
So just because the UK has retarded protocols for police violence they should give rioters bear hugs and noogies? From what I gathered from that video, they were being tailed for a while and a helicopter was watching them. They saw the riot cops, and tried to run away, and got dummied. I don't see a problem, they hit their legs and arms, not their heads, and from what I saw in the video, I severely doubt there would be any injuries further than cuts, scrapes, and bruises. But god knows it'll be considered police brutality.
- 87,815
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Due to the unique way the police service is run, one arrest takes three officers off the street (one of which is the arresting officer) for four hours. If they wanted to keep boots on the ground, they'd have only arrested where absolutely necessary - that would seem to have been an approximate example of sending them home with a clip round the ear.
Wait, what?
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
You missed the "if a complaint is made" bit. The onus would then be on the criminals to suggest that the police actions were unjust.
I wondered that at first, but the video really isn't clear enough (skips around all over the place) to say for sure that every officer walked away from the first bloke.
- 2,700
- ♢ UK ♢
- J-Gunn-74
I think Moot needs some first hand experience.
Maybe he should show some violence to a police officer in a different country.
They are likely to do more than tap him with a baton.
UK police are like fluffy rabbits compared to police in most other countries,
because our government holds a tight leash so not to offend anyone or breach anyone's civil rights.
Maybe he should show some violence to a police officer in a different country.
They are likely to do more than tap him with a baton.
UK police are like fluffy rabbits compared to police in most other countries,
because our government holds a tight leash so not to offend anyone or breach anyone's civil rights.
- 6,584
- Kent, UK
- GTP_Jondot
My guess is they haven't got the time or space to deal with anyone. Well not petty criminals at any rate - with them it's far more productive to scare now, record on CCTV and fetch later. Anything more serious (where someone's a harm to the public rather than just property, I'd imagine) and you're dealt with more quickly and seriously.
- 3,279
- UK
- GTP_VEXD
I have been of the opinion for many minutes now that the colours Red and Blue have been named incorrectly.
I think it should be the other way around.
I think Red should be called Blue and Blue should be called Red.
So what do you people of this forum think?
Do you think Red should stay Red, or should be read as Blue?
Do you think Blue should stay Blue, or should be read as Red?
Red just always makes me feel Blue, and a lot of stuff that is Blue has me seeing Red.
I don't know, I'm not sure.
I am currently trying to find a youtube video that will prove I have a decent case for the swap over to Red for Blue and Blue for Red.
At least, one that is official and cannot be denied by anyone, let alone someone on a GT forum.
Once I've found that conclusive evidence on the world's first major video sharing website that just about anyone can upload to, I'll post it in a thread here, and we can start my debate!!!
Yay!
What do you all think?
👍
I think it should be the other way around.
I think Red should be called Blue and Blue should be called Red.
So what do you people of this forum think?
Do you think Red should stay Red, or should be read as Blue?
Do you think Blue should stay Blue, or should be read as Red?
Red just always makes me feel Blue, and a lot of stuff that is Blue has me seeing Red.
I don't know, I'm not sure.
I am currently trying to find a youtube video that will prove I have a decent case for the swap over to Red for Blue and Blue for Red.
At least, one that is official and cannot be denied by anyone, let alone someone on a GT forum.
Once I've found that conclusive evidence on the world's first major video sharing website that just about anyone can upload to, I'll post it in a thread here, and we can start my debate!!!
Yay!
What do you all think?
👍
Last edited:
- 687
good lord. is moot still going on about this?
Since I suggested we move on, I've driven home, played with the baby for a couple of hours, fed her, bathed her and put her to bed. I've then made dinner, eaten it, watched an episode of Game of Thrones and drunk best part of a bottle of expensive prosecco. And he's still waffling on about this? Thats some seriously misdirected dedication.
Since I suggested we move on, I've driven home, played with the baby for a couple of hours, fed her, bathed her and put her to bed. I've then made dinner, eaten it, watched an episode of Game of Thrones and drunk best part of a bottle of expensive prosecco. And he's still waffling on about this? Thats some seriously misdirected dedication.
Sphinx
Staff Emeritus
- 6,724
- England
- GTP_Sphinx
- 27,222
- United Kingdom
- 2,700
- ♢ UK ♢
- J-Gunn-74
I think you're behind a dose of medication
Medication?
That could explain the colour yellow for me.
Similar threads
