Heam44
Well-known member
That was obviously a tragic example of when things went horribly wrong. But I’m sure you’re aware that their will be millions of examples of times when the ‘ear piece’ messages were 100% correct.
If I could educate the public on one point regarding policing.
- Thread starter Heam44
- Start date
That was obviously a tragic example of when things went horribly wrong. But I’m sure you’re aware that their will be millions of examples of times when the ‘ear piece’ messages were 100% correct.
Heam44
Well-known member
How many times have the police had to get ‘heavy handed’ with your Mrs and son Flip side?
If the answer is zero, then they obviously aren’t the type of people I am referring to.
Blindschool
Active member
I would love to see people like you doing a shift for the police on a weekend in Boro. You wouldn't last a night.
But it only needs one time though Heam. I mean, in your world because I haven't been with them every hour of every day they may have dark secrets I'm unaware of.
Don't forget, in this thread, you set the scene.
Heam44
Well-known member
Yeah your right, if they have previously concealed weapons or tried to attack officers etc in the past then they might be treated in a way which may seem unfair to an onlooker the NEXT time they come into contact with the police.
Hence why I said - if the answer is ZERO, then they obviously aren’t the type of people I am referring to.
But in your opening statement, how would I know?
Heam44
Well-known member
Ok then, so let’s assume your Mrs / son comes into contact with the police, and the police ask her / him to stay where they are / move to another area / allow themselves to be handcuffed whilst they are searched etc.
Would they comply?
Or would they ignore the request / try to walk away / resist the handcuffs etc
Because if they would comply, then they aren’t the type of people I’m referring to.
But that's not the scenario you set.
Heam44
Well-known member
In the second post I clarified that was what I meant by the term ‘heavy handed’.
Heam44
Well-known member
Brought what on myself?!?!
I’m just discussing the issues I raised in the OP and clarifying any points to the people who have raised objections / criticisms. That’s what this place is all about isn’t it.
r00fie1
Well-known member
You are not the law.
If you want to be of any use to people I suggest you volunteer your spare time at the local Legal Advice Centre or Citizens Advice.
Perhaps finding a role working with victims of Domestic Violence or in local diversion projects with persistent offenders related to substance and alcohol dependence?
Try putting you experience into benefit local children in inner - city schools.
Maybe you already do?
Thats if you are what you lead us to believe.
After all "impartiality" and a presumption of innocence is important in our country, isnt it?
Its important to admit that there is institutional racism and prejudices in the "Police" force, which leads to disproportionate targeting of differnet members of our population.
The police are also used to spy on legitimate legal citizens and even adopt the names of dead children whilst forming intimate relationships with those they are spying on; Mark Kennedy being a notable example.
The Stephen Laurence Case still has many questions left unanswered.
The power to stop and search on grounds of "reasonable suspicion" is a licence to profile, arrest, harrass and intimidate with impunity.
The use of Military tactics and techniques honed from Northern Ireland and the use of informers on the premis of "anti - terrorism" is well dsocumented. "Kettling" innocent protesters is a technique learned from the military. It has nothing to do with "safety" - it is a tactic to intimidate and contain people - like the School Children who were unlawfully detained by the Met, protesting in Trafalgar Square in 2011.
Some as young as 9 were surrounded by Police Officers for up to 6 hours - having to urinate on the floor, with no food or able to get out of this human military compound.
Bugging, intercepting communications, surveillance and embeding sleepers in organisations is a major part of the police role in Britain today. The implications for democracy, the right to privacy and the right to bring elected and unelected public officials, servants and employees to account - should concern us all.
This is not about individuals - its about the policing-system per se`.
Its not about the Sargant who died yesterday.
Its about being accountable to the public who pay their wages and transparency.
Its about officers and their seniors admitting liability and facing the legal consequences, not closing ranks and kicking serious incidents and systemic failures into the long grass.
If you want to discuss "Policing", lets widen the discussion into the the area of football: Hillsborough and the 96. The current campaign by a group of Boro fans who were allegedly stopped from attending an away match for no legitimate reason.(?).
Justice for Orgreave is also an ongoing issue which is important for those innocent victims of police brutality to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Thats what we`re here for isnt it.
Last edited:
Heam44
Well-known member
Of course it’s not ok!! Where have I said that?
I said it was a tragic case. The police deal with life and death situations all day / every day, of course with the number of incidents that they deal with, statistically they are going to make mistakes due to the sheer number of incidents they deal with and due to the nature of the incidents they deal with, when mistakes are made its possible that they will have tragic circumstances. They acted as they did because they thought he was going to commit a terrorist attack.
I’m not denying the messed up massively on that day, but I’m sure you are aware they will have concluded considerably more incidents such as that correctly before and since then.
They get it right far far more times than they get it wrong. And you know that.
Heam44
Well-known member
I’m not the law?!?!
What are you talking about!!! I’ve never said I was.
I created a post and now I’m discussing it’s content. I genuinely don’t see what the problem is with doing that.
Heam44
Well-known member
But there isn’t a thread on those topics, and if there was I’d probably contribute. I’ve discussed De Menzes on this very thread (on 2 or 3 of my posts).
From memory I believe there was a thread on ‘institutional racism’ a few weeks / months ago, there may have been more than one and I believe I did get involved. If you want to create one, I’d happily get involved.
With regards to my limited knowledge on the Stephen Lawrence case (I was a kid when that happened), as far as I’m aware the police were **** poor. I believe there was a huge investigation after that and huge changes were made, I believe the CPIA 1996 was made because of the Stephen Lawrence case.
I’ve never once said the police are perfect and haven’t made errors / mistakes.
But it would be impossible for an organisation that is as large as the police and that has existed for as long as the police to never have made mistakes / done things wrong etc.
Heam44
Well-known member
Seven rounds in his head and one in the shoulder.
His Mum is still campaigning to find the killers and numb the pain of her innocent sons death.
How many times do I need to address that. I don’t know what more I can say or do about it.
Do you think it’s feasible that the police could have existed for how ever long they have whilst involving themselves in highly dangerous life and death situations and incidents on a daily basis without ever ‘getting it wrong’?
I’m sorry, but if you think that’s possible then I’m not really sure what I can say to you.
Michael_Vronsky
Well-known member
Is this one of Proudfoot's new characters?!
starplayer
Well-known member
Jean Charles de Menzes is an example of what police really are. They do what they are told and no more. They are seen as an entity of a controlling state. They do not make a community better, nor do they give confidence to those that exist under fear. How anyone thinks they make a significant difference to peoples security is beyond me.
I'm not talking about the heavy hand d comment, which you later "clarified".
It's the comment that we should accept that unless we have been with someone every hour of their life then we don't really know them. You then appear to backtrack.
Heam44
Well-known member
Sorry Edis, I must have misunderstood, I was just trying to provide more information / clarity / context to the first post.