Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We can do without the bad language please folks, adding ** to a word does not make it alright.

Please remove said words from your posts ASAP.

dæl wrote:I take it you didn't watch the video then.

He was walking through the middle of a protest trying to get home after being told he couldn't leave by those police he was walking alongside, he was dawdling because he had nowhere to go, that's how 'kettling' works. Just because people are near a protest (that was not a riot, we have riots over here, and that certainly doesn't qualify) does not make them protesters (you should know this), have you ever heard of legal observers, and journalists.

I've watched the video several times over the years. And I've never said the officer was in the right, nor Mr Tomlinson in the wrong.

What I've said is that anyone who cannot appreciate the very grey nature of the case has no place criticising use of force by law enforcement officers. Tomlinson was acting in a way that could quite easily justify pushing him away. People who can't appreciate the alarm bells his behaviour should have been setting off have no place commenting on use of force.

Dreadwinter wrote:Fraz is my favorite troll.

Thank you. I'm here all week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:Frazzled your constant trolling has almost convinced me to add you to my ignore list alongside Biccat. have you made a single post in this thread that wasn't deliberately inflammatory?

Maybe this can put you over the top in your decisioning.

Kaldor wrote:
I've watched the video several times over the years. And I've never said the officer was in the right, nor Mr Tomlinson in the wrong.

What I've said is that anyone who cannot appreciate the very grey nature of the case has no place criticising use of force by law enforcement officers. Tomlinson was acting in a way that could quite easily justify pushing him away. People who can't appreciate the alarm bells his behaviour should have been setting off have no place commenting on use of force.

Fair point, you never claimed this officer right.

However, considering he had just spoken to the police and outlined his situation they would have been aware that he was no threat to them. And every citizen has the right to question the actions of the police and allow them to justify their actions, but as can be seen in this situation and others (Mark Duggan for example) they have a history of lying and falsifying evidence to clear themselves of wrongdoing. This particular officer had bounced someone's head off a van then claimed he was assaulted, only the first part of that sentence was true. It took three autopsies to establish the correct cause of death, is this normal? It is widely known the police have sympathetic pathologists they use when they want a specific verdict. The police are not above the law, and if it wasn't for occurrences such as this perhaps people would not feel the need to question their actions. This is why we had riots last year, communities around the country are tired of perpetual victimisation, abuse and violence by the forces of supposed law and order, faith in and respect for the police is at an all time low.

I grant you that in 99% of cases the use of reasonable force and what constitutes reasonable is ambiguous to say the least, but in certain cases such as these the law has been broken and justice must be served. A judge and jury will preside over the case, do they not have a right to because they do not have experience with frontline policing?

I firmly believe that police recruitment should entail rigorous psychological evaluation to root out those with sociopathic tendencies, as this minority are undermining the good work done by the rest of the service, and putting society at risk.

Any word on what the "relationship" between the cops and the bar was? Was this just a bar that the cops liked to hang out at?

Palindrome wrote:Frazzled your constant trolling has almost convinced me to add you to my ignore list alongside Biccat. have you made a single post in this thread that wasn't deliberately inflammatory?

One of us...one of us...one of us...

reds8n wrote: We can do without the bad language please folks, adding ** to a word does not make it alright.

Please remove said words from your posts ASAP.

Still no word on whether calling other posters trolls is acceptable?

I dont' know, if we're tlaking cave troll thats pretty bad. But if we're talking armored killing machine that is a Mordor Troll, hey I'll take the complement.

Now visualize a mordor troll with a giant full auto wiener dog machine gun. MUAAHAHAHAHA!!! Are Your Tasty Treats Are Belong to USSSS!!!!

biccat wrote:Any word on what the "relationship" between the cops and the bar was? Was this just a bar that the cops liked to hang out at?

Judging by the google reviews, it seems unlikely, sounds very "studenty"
Reviews

I'm guessing the police just decided to make his life miserable, hence the checking his SIA license.

Found a vid of him, he does sound like a bit of an idiot, but they'd have picked that up at the interview, and being an idiot shouldn't preclude you from working. Otherwise the welfare sate would collapse.



To be fair after watching that I'm losing sympathy for his plight, certainly if that's his view on what constitutes sexual harassment. Doesn't change the fact the police had no right to get involved with his employment.

Unless of course they've had things brought to their attention regarding his past employment as a security guard.

Kanluwen wrote:Unless of course they've had things brought to their attention regarding his past employment as a security guard.

In which case, if it were criminal the police should be involved, otherwise he should have his license revoked by the SIA. Proper channels, you see, do not reek of corruption, and when proper, and quite exacting, channels exist but are disregarded then the reek of corruption turns up. But you see those proper channels require evidence. There evidently wasn't any evidence of wrongdoing because he wouldn't have his license anymore.

I'll qualify myself, if he lost his job of his own doing then he's an idiot who deserves all he's got. If the police had a 'word in the ear', and then he was fired, that's highly illegal and rather Orwellian, and they should at the very least be fired themselves.

This is a tough one to me. We know what the bar owner/manager said. We know what the aggrieved party said. We don't know what the police said as they are (rightly so imho*) not commenting. What we don't know is what actually happened. If this was some star chamber retaliation against a political activist, it is wrong and should be investigated. If this was the police warning the manager of a potential problem based on anecdotal information about his conduct as a security guard, that is a grey one. Maybe his conduct was enough to warrant an investigation, but not enough to call for sanction. Only the fly on the wall can say for sure




*as to why it is right for the Police not to comment, if they are investigating any wrongdoing internally they don't want to show their hand and have the thin blue line collapse to cover a potential dingbat out of fraternity

dæl wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Unless of course they've had things brought to their attention regarding his past employment as a security guard.

In which case, if it were criminal the police should be involved, otherwise he should have his license revoked by the SIA.

Not necessarily. If an investigation were ongoing regarding him being tied to a series of criminal activities related to a timeframe which can be tied to his employment as a security guard, his license would still be intact until the evidence is presented to the SIA by the police.

Proper channels, you see, do not reek of corruption, and when proper, and quite exacting, channels exist but are disregarded then the reek of corruption turns up.But you see those proper channels require evidence.

Those channels are also mostly public and can compromise the integrity of an investigation which is being done on a sensitive matter.

There evidently wasn't any evidence of wrongdoing because he wouldn't have his license anymore.

Saying "there is no evidence" doesn't mean that there is no evidence. Depending on the seriousness of an investigation, it could be done in a relatively secretive manner if they feel that presenting the evidence in a public forum will affect their investigation's outcome.

I'll qualify myself, if he lost his job of his own doing then he's an idiot who deserves all he's got. If the police had a 'word in the ear', and then he was fired, that's highly illegal and rather Orwellian, and they should at the very least be fired themselves.

I do not believe you quite know what "Orwellian" means.

The SIA can revoke and suspend licenses on allegations, which are then handed to the CPS, it's no different from going through the magistrates courts. It's not a "public" forum, and to suggest so implies a lack of knowledge of the organisations involved. Security personnel have more rights than the average citizen and are very closely regulated to prevent abuse.

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/pages/enforcement-revocation.aspx

Orwellian as in reference to the author Eric Arthur Blair, who wrote a book called 1984, which contained such ideas and Doublespeak and Thoughtcrime. Having the police interfere with your everyday life because of your thoughts and opinions qualifies as the latter.

dæl wrote:The SIA can revoke and suspend licenses on allegations, which are then handed to the CPS, it's no different from going through the magistrates courts. It's not a "public" forum, and to suggest so implies a lack of knowledge of the organisations involved. Security personnel have more rights than the average citizen and are very closely regulated to prevent abuse.

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/pages/enforcement-revocation.aspx

You'd be surprised how "public" information from courts can be. It is not that difficult to find this stuff out, provided you know how to look for it and have an inkling that it might be coming.

Security personnel being very closely regulated does not prevent abuses.

Orwellian as in reference to the author Eric Arthur Blair, who wrote a book called 1984, which contained such ideas and Doublespeak and Thoughtcrime. Having the police interfere with your everyday life because of your thoughts and opinions qualifies as the latter.

I'm quite aware of what Orwellian means.

I'm still not convinced you do, considering you've applied it to an individual who seems to be an attention hound with an axe to grind against the police. Whenever someone compares their police to the "Gestapo", they've lost any reasonable measure of credibility.

He's an idiot I'll grant you (blowing kisses=sexual harassment=no mate go away), and i'm having trouble placing his accent, but he aint no Brit I don't think, so they aren't his police.

If, however, as the original article infers police are interfering with people's everyday lives.... blah blah blah.

Orwellian.

I'm still not convinced you do, considering you've applied it to an individual who seems to be an attention hound with an axe to grind against the police. Whenever someone compares their police to the "Gestapo", they've lost any reasonable measure of credibility.

Unless of course, we're talking The Gestapo...

Kaldor wrote:How many fights have you been in? How many have you had to break up? How many angry and violent crowds have you had to control?

Well, it was in high school, so I don't know if it counts, but... a dozen, a few dozen, and about two.

Does that make me able to make judgements on this?

No. Girls don't break up real fights.

Frazzled wrote:No. Girls don't break up real fights.

I take it you've never been to the North of England.

Simply by his hair, scruffy fething appearance, skull emblazoned neckerchief and use of the word "Gestapo" I instantly think he is a tit and I'm glad he got sacked.

mattyrm wrote: Simply by his hair, scruffy fething appearance, skull emblazoned neckerchief and use of the word "Gestapo" I instantly think he is a tit and I'm glad he got sacked.

dæl wrote:This is why we had riots last year, communities around the country are tired of perpetual victimisation, abuse and violence by the forces of supposed law and order, faith in and respect for the police is at an all time low.

That's a very, very long bow to draw and I think you are quite wide of the mark. I think it has more to do with an inter generational culture of welfare dependance, a large dash of misguided self entitlement, and lack of a perceived 'stake' in society myself.

=dæl wrote:A judge and jury will preside over the case, do they not have a right to because they do not have experience with frontline policing?

Well, at the end of the day... no.

Or rather, they can't be the only people passing judgement. And it's not an issue solely related to front line policing either. Before we are able to judge the actions of many people in many niche industries in the world, we require extensive and specialised experience and knowledge. I wouldn't expect 12 jurors to understand the intricacies of international tax law, nor the pressures of piloting long haul passenger flights or the appropriate use of explosives in mining. What might seem ridiculous to us as outsiders would, with professional knowledge, be entirely routine.

I think a jury of 'peers' needs to include people from a relevant background to be able to effectively judge the case at hand.

Kaldor wrote:

dæl wrote:This is why we had riots last year, communities around the country are tired of perpetual victimisation, abuse and violence by the forces of supposed law and order, faith in and respect for the police is at an all time low.

That's a very, very long bow to draw and I think you are quite wide of the mark. I think it has more to do with an inter generational culture of welfare dependance, a large dash of misguided self entitlement, and lack of a perceived 'stake' in society myself.

Frankly you do not know what you are talking about, when did you last spend time in Hackney? or Tottenham? The police there are not viewed as a force of law and order, but rather as an oppressive, aggressive bunch of racists who harass people who are law abiding while not doing anything about the gangs there. The riots started after the police effectively executed Mark Duggan, who was unarmed, they then falsified evidence to suggest he had a gun and fired at them, this has been proven to be lies. As people protested the police's actions, some officers grabbed a 16 year old girl and threw her, face first, into the gutter. That is when the riots started. But frankly there has been a powder keg in some areas for years waiting to explode, and it will again before long. Once riots had started, then the idiots looters came out with their sense of entitlement, but without the series of events leading up to it, there would have been no riots.

Shall we have a look at the kind of treatment the young, black community get from certain members of the police?
WARNING - NSFW and seriously offensive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/mar/30/police-officer-recording-black-man

Kaldor wrote:

=dæl wrote:A judge and jury will preside over the case, do they not have a right to because they do not have experience with frontline policing?

Well, at the end of the day... no.

Or rather, they can't be the only people passing judgement. And it's not an issue solely related to front line policing either. Before we are able to judge the actions of many people in many niche industries in the world, we require extensive and specialised experience and knowledge. I wouldn't expect 12 jurors to understand the intricacies of international tax law, nor the pressures of piloting long haul passenger flights or the appropriate use of explosives in mining. What might seem ridiculous to us as outsiders would, with professional knowledge, be entirely routine.

I think a jury of 'peers' needs to include people from a relevant background to be able to effectively judge the case at hand.

So effectively what you are asking for is the police, to police, the police. [sarcasm] Because there would be no capacity for corruption there at all. [/sarcasm]

This is why trials last quite a while, so as the jury can be informed to the appropriate degree. This is why witnesses are brought in to outline what their profession entails. Saying "You weren't there, you don't know" is a bit childish really, people have a capacity for empathy, and if things are explained to them, with an eye toward overall context to how things fit it with whats normal it whatever situation, they can be far more understanding than you seem willing to give them credit for.

mattyrm wrote: Simply by his hair, scruffy fething appearance, skull emblazoned neckerchief and use of the word "Gestapo" I instantly think he is a tit and I'm glad he got sacked.

When first they came for the tits, I said nothing, because I was not a tit...



Wow, that poem really loses its effect when you try to work with your damned British slang.

Article on the IPCC about how toothless they are. How can the police be brought to account for misconduct when they have no power to compel officers under investigation to speak.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-watchdog-needs-more-teeth-7786009.html

azazel the cat wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Simply by his hair, scruffy fething appearance, skull emblazoned neckerchief and use of the word "Gestapo" I instantly think he is a tit and I'm glad he got sacked.

When first they came for the tits, I said nothing, because I was not a tit...

Wow, that poem really loses its effect when you try to work with your damned British slang.

Thank you for this.