This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1 @mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
not remian.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
journey.
7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
Pava to control the situation.
Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in their police car. This was refused.
All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and beligerence.
Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
apology.
In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non- cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
Nine O'Clock News.
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:43:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't care
that he was.
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't >> care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
her, which was a disgraceful threat.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her to
leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go anywhere.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them imminently.
6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
journey.
7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
Pava to control the situation.
Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained by officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been white
and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more courtesy.
Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
their police car. This was refused.
As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.
All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
beligerence.
Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate
the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of black
community leaders and didn't care that he was.
In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
Nine O'Clock News.
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the >>> police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't >>> care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
On 11/02/2024 18:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:43:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see >>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably >>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.
The documentary is origninal in that the makers were invited by the
police to be present while complaints about officers were investigated,
so that the public would be able to see how efficient the investigations
were and whether the end result was fair. If the expectation was that
the public would be reassured that the police can discipline their own,
then that probably hasn't worked.
Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police >officer would anyone have found that story credible?
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
could not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was
one of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue
its journey.
7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to
use Pava to control the situation.
Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained
by officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been
white and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more courtesy.
Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the
passenger's cause of disress in needing to collect another by
offering her a lift in their police car. This was refused.
As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.
All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making
and beligerence.
Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to
investigate the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of
black community leaders and didn't care that he was.
In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and
claim for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his
non-violent non- cooperation with the officer who had accosted and
searched him with negative results in the past was suspicious and
gave reasonable suspicion for the drug search. It felt like Constable
Savage sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News.
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had
sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who
complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and
seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as to their treatment, whether justified or not.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to pay.
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence?
As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.
Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
negative association.
If however the subject had a negative history with both the school and
the police then I can understand why they might wish to avoid further negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the 'victim's' own negative former behaviour.
On 12/02/2024 10:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is
that the
police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the
incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and
didn't
care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is,
that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not
just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it.
Possibly some black people would agree.
But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it
would seem odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as to their treatment, whether justified or not.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
could not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as to their treatment, whether justified or not.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
could not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?
On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:36:48 GMT, "Peter Walker" <not@for.mail> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on >>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to >>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience. >>
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have >> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as >> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to expel her.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
could not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to >> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
My understanding is that she had money, but not the payment type the driver wanted. And this is not the Wild West. The bus company is heavily subsidised by the council as a service to people without cars. It is not a private hire operation taking who they want to when they want to. Was the driver's attitude
reasonable when she had a small child to pick up and could presumably pay cash
or promise to pay?
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?
It depends how credible the threat, I suppose.
On 12/02/2024 21:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:36:48 GMT, "Peter Walker" <not@for.mail> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - >>>>> seereasonably
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or >>>>>> bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on >>>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to >>>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang >>>>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage >>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we >>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience. >>>
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have >>> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes >>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as >>> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and >>> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly
they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to >> expel her.
I would hope so, if someone sat in the passenger seat of my car I would
hope the police would remove them. Same if you had an unwanted guest in
your house.
--snip
On 12/02/2024 16:50, kat wrote:
On 12/02/2024 10:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the >>>>> police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this >>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it. Possibly
some black people would agree.
But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it would seem
odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.
I think the bus was empty of passengers other than the woman, her small child and a number of police officers.
The black people who protested were witnessing events from outside and maybe didn't have all the facts. But the black people assessing events were watching
the video footage from the police officers
Whether you can remove an unwanted guest depends on the terms on which they became a guest. And in many cases bailiffs, with the support of the police only if resisted, is the only safe answer.
Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
her, which was a disgraceful threat.
On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience. >>
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have >> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negatthing ive position >> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as >> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
or something that only applies to this specific passenger?
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
That doesn't sound remotely conciliatory.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to >> pay.
You keep saying this, but Todal has said she did have the means to pay.
So which is it? Did you and he watch different programmes?
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence?
What threats are you talking about? You haven't identified any so far.
As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.
Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the >> car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her >> out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
negative association.
This is pie in the sky stuff.
If however the subject had a negative history with both the school and
the police then I can understand why they might wish to avoid further
negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the 'victim's' own
negative former behaviour.
You appear to be making multiple completely-unsupported assumptions.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket ...
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of events but she wanted to pay in cash...
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the >>> police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't >>> care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.
On 12/02/2024 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex >>>> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to
me had I
done something similar.
Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
On 12/02/2024 18:36, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, orreasonably
bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on >>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to >>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
they acted
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
Did you watch the episode, which is available on Channel 4 Catchup? I
hoped everyone would watch it before commenting.
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have >> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as >> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
Officer (to driver) Hello mate, you alright?
Driver Yeah
Officer Was she being abusive?
Driver She got rude to me and I said there's no need to be rude
Officer What do you want to happen? Do you want her off, or...
Driver I've been told to have her removed
Woman I got on the bus up there, and he said he doesn't have change. So
then I tried to pay by card. The card declined. I said okay can I get a change ticket then instead? He then looked me up and down and said not
when you speak to me like that. So I was like, sorry if you feel like I
was rude to you. Again I apologise.But I need to get my child from
school. How are you going to get me to my child's school?
Officer We've got a car
Woman I'm not getting in a fed car cause I didn't do nothing wrong,
that's just ridiculous.
Officer I know. Let's put a referral into social services. That you're screaming and shouting in front of your young daughter.
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
I disagree.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
could not remian.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to >> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
On 2024-02-11 17:48:06, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
events but she wanted to pay in cash...
Cash hasn't been accepted on TfL buses since the 6th July 2014.
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex >>>> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not for poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
On 12/02/2024 14:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage >>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we >>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience. >>>
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have >>> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negatthing ive position >>> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes >>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as >>> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
or something that only applies to this specific passenger?
Do you have justifiable expectations of being carried if you fail to
pay the fare?
Does the same sort of thing apply in supermarkets and other retail outlets?
Does willingness and ability to pay now mean nothing?
I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and >>> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
That doesn't sound remotely conciliatory.
Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
anywhere.
What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to >>> pay.
You keep saying this, but Todal has said she did have the means to pay.
So which is it? Did you and he watch different programmes?
She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
imminently.
So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action >>> in their defence?
What threats are you talking about? You haven't identified any so far.
As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.
Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the >>> car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her >>> out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
negative association.
This is pie in the sky stuff.
If however the subject had a negative history with both the school and
the police then I can understand why they might wish to avoid further
negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the 'victim's' own
negative former behaviour.
You appear to be making multiple completely-unsupported assumptions.
On 12/02/2024 21:36, The Todal wrote:
Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
I don't understand.
Surely, police officers are allowed to fuck members of the public when
off duty, and are not allowed to fuck anyone when on duty.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the >>>> police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
Colour / race is irrelevant. Behaviour is.
Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of paying.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care about that,
and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her off the bus.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a police
officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.
Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
paying.
She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her
off the bus.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.
Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
At the point when she said leave me alone, I'm leaving the bus, the
officers were determined to hold her down to impose their authority on
her. And then to use pepper spray when she, quite reasonably, struggled
and kicked.
The driver apparently did not have change. And it was not supermarket, it was a heavily subsidised public service provided by a contractor.
On 13/02/2024 11:08, Pancho wrote:
On 12/02/2024 21:36, The Todal wrote:
Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
I don't understand.
Surely, police officers are allowed to fuck members of the public when
off duty, and are not allowed to fuck anyone when on duty.
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police officer would anyone have found that story credible?
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken
woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken >>> woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a disciplinary hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective, then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
On 2024-02-14, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a disciplinary >> hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective,
then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Generally speaking I would tend to agree with you, but if it is true
that his claim is that he, an on-duty policeman in possession of his
police equipment, was physically overpowered and sexually assaulted
by a drunken woman who was supposed to be in his care and control then
I will need to go fetch a step-ladder in order to retrieve my eyebrows
from the ceiling.
On 14/02/2024 00:13, The Todal wrote:
She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted
her off the bus.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to
a police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the
public.
On the other hand being rude and abusive to a bus driver is a very good reason for being kicked off the bus even if she did have the money to pay.
I take it there was no footage of the argument with the driver? They
can be helpful when there is a problem, but they have to know about it.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 19:52:48 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, >>>>> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to >>>>> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex >>>>> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained >>>>> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not for
poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government benefits does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients, AFAIK. And, as you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does not stop an employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on a balance of probablility basis.
I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women was bigger than him or armed with a weapon.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 19:58:34 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 14:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version >>>>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage >>>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we >>>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might >>>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negatthing ive position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes >>>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
to their treatment, whether justified or not.
This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
or something that only applies to this specific passenger?
Do you have justifiable expectations of being carried if you fail to
pay the fare?
Does the same sort of thing apply in supermarkets and other retail outlets? >>
Does willingness and ability to pay now mean nothing?
The driver apparently did not have change. And it was not supermarket, it was a heavily subsidised public service provided by a contractor.
On 13/02/2024 18:38, Brian wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the >>>>> police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this >>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
Colour / race is irrelevant. Behaviour is.
Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
paying.
She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her
off the bus.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.
Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
At the point when she said leave me alone, I'm leaving the bus, the
officers were determined to hold her down to impose their authority on
her. And then to use pepper spray when she, quite reasonably, struggled
and kicked.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken >>> woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a disciplinary hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective, then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Mark
On 2024-02-14, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken >>>> woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a disciplinary >> hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective,
then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Generally speaking I would tend to agree with you, but if it is true
that his claim is that he, an on-duty policeman in possession of his
police equipment, was physically overpowered and sexually assaulted
by a drunken woman who was supposed to be in his care and control then
I will need to go fetch a step-ladder in order to retrieve my eyebrows
from the ceiling.
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating.
On 14/02/2024 14:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the
drunken
woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a
disciplinary
hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective,
then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Mark
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without
impartially investigating.
On 13/02/2024 16:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2024 at 19:52:48 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, >>>>>> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to >>>>>> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who
had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained >>>>>> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly >>>>>> wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened
to me had I
done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not for
poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government
benefits
does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients, AFAIK.
And, as
you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does not
stop an
employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on a balance of
probablility basis.
I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women was
bigger than him or armed with a weapon.
That is the problem faced by the court and the disciplinary board.
They had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.
You have heard/read a fraction of it and are able to see the case much
more clearly as a result. T'was ever thus.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police
officer would anyone have found that story credible?
Yes, in the sense that it could have happened. Erections are not necessarily voluntary actions.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 18:38, Brian wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
apology.
Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
police
closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
care
that he was.
I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know. >>>>>
That qualification shouldn't be needed.
You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this >>>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
Colour / race is irrelevant. Behaviour is.
Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
paying.
She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her
off the bus.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a
police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.
Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
At the point when she said leave me alone, I'm leaving the bus, the
officers were determined to hold her down to impose their authority on
her. And then to use pepper spray when she, quite reasonably, struggled
and kicked.
By that time the police may have been satisfied things had gone too far. Those who get themselves into these situations must accept they can’t simply say ‘I want to go home now’ if they have broken the law.
On 15/02/2024 10:17, Jeff wrote:
On 14/02/2024 14:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the
drunken
woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he >>>>> said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust >>>> of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of >>>> the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a
disciplinary
hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective, >>> then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary >>> panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary >>> panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Mark
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without
impartially investigating.
That's not true.
In fact, it was usually the female chief constable who (to camera)
criticised and condemned the behaviour of the officers. The
programme-makers were impartial.
There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee.
She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating >> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating. >>
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:17:54 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2024 10:17, Jeff wrote:
On 14/02/2024 14:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:19:16 +0000, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved >>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
On 14/02/2024 00:14, The Todal wrote:
He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the
drunken
woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he >>>>>> said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.
..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust >>>>> of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of >>>>> the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was >>>>> also cleared at the disciplinary.
If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a
disciplinary
hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective, >>>> then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary >>>> panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.
It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary >>>> panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.
Mark
investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without
impartially investigating.
That's not true.
In fact, it was usually the female chief constable who (to camera)
criticised and condemned the behaviour of the officers. The
programme-makers were impartial.
There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated
unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were
present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee.
She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the
equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and
dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was
vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.
I can see how that might seem a bit harsh to some older people (not including myself), but if that is how he feels entitled to behave in public just imagine
how he behaves when alone in a room with subordinates.
On 14/02/2024 16:43, JNugent wrote:
On 13/02/2024 16:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled, >>>>>>> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to >>>>>>> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who
had sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who >>>>>>> complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and >>>>>>> seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened
to me had I done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not for >>>> poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government
benefits does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients,
AFAIK.
And, as you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does
not stop an employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on
a balance of probablility basis.
I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women
was bigger than him or armed with a weapon.
That is the problem faced by the court and the disciplinary board.
They had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.
You have heard/read a fraction of it and are able to see the case much
more clearly as a result. T'was ever thus.
In a criminal court, the jury get to make the decision and they might
very easily have thought that with a drunken complainant the case
against the officer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
It's a bit more difficult to see why he wasn't punished under the disciplinary system.
Maybe those conducting the hearing felt that the
burden of proof had not been discharged.
Some would say that drunken
women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.
I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
an erection and push your penis into her vagina.
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me... >>>>
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved >>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating >>> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating. >>>
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it was about 50%
On 16/02/2024 06:24, The Todal wrote:
On 14/02/2024 16:43, JNugent wrote:
On 13/02/2024 16:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was
manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and
subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who >>>>>>>> had sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who >>>>>>>> complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and >>>>>>>> seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected? >>>>>>> I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened >>>>>> to me had I done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not
for
poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government
benefits does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients,
AFAIK.
And, as you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does >>>> not stop an employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on >>>> a balance of probablility basis.
I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women
was bigger than him or armed with a weapon.
That is the problem faced by the court and the disciplinary board.
They had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.
You have heard/read a fraction of it and are able to see the case much
more clearly as a result. T'was ever thus.
In a criminal court, the jury get to make the decision and they might
very easily have thought that with a drunken complainant the case
against the officer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That or something very close to it is very obviously true.
It's a bit more difficult to see why he wasn't punished under the
disciplinary system.
Not really.
The disciplinary board had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.
We are not so disadvantaged and as a result, some of us feel able to
judge the case better then they did, n'est-ce-pas?
Maybe those conducting the hearing felt that the
burden of proof had not been discharged.
I don't see how you can realistically use the word "maybe" there.
Some would say that drunken
women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.
Some might say that. Others wouldn't.
I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good
conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
an erection and push your penis into her vagina.
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
Probably because of the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you say?
Or should all such decisions be farmed out to those who haven't heard
the evidence, don't care about it anyway and just want to stick it to
the man, as the kids used to say?
On 16/02/2024 17:13, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 06:24, The Todal wrote:
On 14/02/2024 16:43, JNugent wrote:
On 13/02/2024 16:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 06:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was
manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and
subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who >>>>>>>>> had sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who >>>>>>>>> complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty >>>>>>>>> and
seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected? >>>>>>>> I ask merely for information.
Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened >>>>>>> to me had I done something similar.
Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly
not for
poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.
Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government >>>>> benefits does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients, >>>>> AFAIK.
And, as you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does >>>>> not stop an employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on >>>>> a balance of probablility basis.
I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women >>>>> was bigger than him or armed with a weapon.
That is the problem faced by the court and the disciplinary board.
They had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.
You have heard/read a fraction of it and are able to see the case much >>>> more clearly as a result. T'was ever thus.
In a criminal court, the jury get to make the decision and they might
very easily have thought that with a drunken complainant the case
against the officer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
That or something very close to it is very obviously true.
It's a bit more difficult to see why he wasn't punished under the
disciplinary system.
Not really.
The disciplinary board had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all
the evidence.
We are not so disadvantaged and as a result, some of us feel able to
judge the case better then they did, n'est-ce-pas?
Maybe those conducting the hearing felt that the
burden of proof had not been discharged.
I don't see how you can realistically use the word "maybe" there.
And yet I have.
On the one hand, burden of proof. On the other, maintaining the
confidence of the public. I think it is possible that if the complainant (drunken female) had been a police officer the outcome would have been
rather different.
Some would say that drunken
women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.
Some might say that. Others wouldn't.
I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good
conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
an erection and push your penis into her vagina.
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
Probably because of the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you say?
Or should all such decisions be farmed out to those who haven't heard
the evidence, don't care about it anyway and just want to stick it to
the man, as the kids used to say?
Did you watch the programme?
The purpose was to allow viewers to see how coppers are investigated and
how well the disciplinary process works, in the interests of open
government or something.
It isn't much good if the message given is "he was let off, it might
look odd, but we can't tell you why he was let off, it's secret. Just
trust the system to come to the right conclusion".
Arguably they should only have broadcast incidents where the process was absolutely transparent and easy for viewers to follow.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved >>>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating >>>> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating. >>>>
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:17:54 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated
unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were
present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee.
She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the
equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and
dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was
vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.
I can see how that might seem a bit harsh to some older people (not including myself), but if that is how he feels entitled to behave in public just imagine
how he behaves when alone in a room with subordinates.
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
On 16/02/2024 12:24, The Todal wrote:
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
"Revenge porn" is a modern idea. He thought he was just uploading some
sexy pictures. Who knows that revenge was his motive?
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was alwaysIndeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so
called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without >>>>> impartially investigating.
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there was any
dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of any member
of the public.
police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many
years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six and
Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the numerous
investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating
officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially
investigating.
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely
on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it was
about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved >>>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating >>>> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating. >>>>
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
On 16/02/2024 13:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:17:54 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated
unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were
present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee.
She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the
equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and
dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was
vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.
I can see how that might seem a bit harsh to some older people (not including
myself), but if that is how he feels entitled to behave in public just imagine
how he behaves when alone in a room with subordinates.
Most people who know one another are in some kind of pecking order. Are employees not allowed to socialise sexually?
Will the human race survive and reproduce?
On 17 Feb 2024 at 10:30:30 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2024 13:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Feb 2024 at 12:17:54 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated
unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were
present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee. >>>> She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the >>>> equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and
dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was >>>> vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.
I can see how that might seem a bit harsh to some older people (not including
myself), but if that is how he feels entitled to behave in public just imagine
how he behaves when alone in a room with subordinates.
Most people who know one another are in some kind of pecking order. Are
employees not allowed to socialise sexually?
Will the human race survive and reproduce?
Coercive sexual assault or rape are not "socialising sexually". Most big companies do have rules against sexual relationships with subordinates, as a result of bitter experience, even if vicarious.
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:.
Surely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry were convinced of
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any accepted sense of the word?
My feeling was that in that period, corruption, dishonesty, was so
widespread in the Met that it would have been impossible for an honest
police officer to operate. The corruption was obvious, a police officer ignoring it was a crime in and of itself.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:26:34 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on >>>> police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there was any >>>>> dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of any member >>>>> of the public.Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so
called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without >>>>>> impartially investigating.
years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six and
Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the numerous
investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
Nothing could ever go wrong with that, could it ?
On 16/02/2024 22:26, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating
officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially
investigating.
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely
on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it
was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
They displayed exemplary police behaviour. Not.
(from Wikipedia:
While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:42:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
My feeling was that in that period, corruption, dishonesty, was so
widespread in the Met that it would have been impossible for an honest
police officer to operate. The corruption was obvious, a police officer
ignoring it was a crime in and of itself.
I believe the Operation Countryman detectives were based outside of
London for their own safety.
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:26:34 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on >>>>> police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many >>>>> years ago, it was about 50%
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there was any >>>>>> dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of any member >>>>>> of the public.Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so
called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without >>>>>>> impartially investigating.
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six and >>>> Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the numerous
investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
Nothing could ever go wrong with that, could it ?
On 17/02/2024 06:34, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2024 22:26, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating
officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially
investigating.
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely
on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it
was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
They displayed exemplary police behaviour. Not.
Why would that be an issue? Are guilty suspects let off without a trial
if they are unlawfully abused?
(from Wikipedia:
While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")
As bad as that is, it does not militate against what I said.
Neither does it necessarily point to innocence - does it?
On 17/02/2024 18:15, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 06:34, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2024 22:26, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers >>>>>>>> involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating
officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially
investigating.
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of >>>>>>> any member of the public.
Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely >>>>>> on police testimony
had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it
was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
They displayed exemplary police behaviour. Not.
Why would that be an issue? Are guilty suspects let off without a
trial if they are unlawfully abused?
Tortured into confessing, and then made to sign confessions which were demonstrably false.
(from Wikipedia:
While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day, >>> he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")
As bad as that is, it does not militate against what I said.
Neither does it necessarily point to innocence - does it?
The evidence pointed clearly towards guilt. Guilt on the part of various police officers.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1991/2.html
At the trial the appellants relied on various inconsistencies between
the four written confessions so as to show that the confessions were not genuine, or that the police evidence as to the circumstances surrounding
the confessions was not to be believed. If the confessions had been
shown to be unreliable, then the prosecution case would very probably
have failed. This was the ground on which the Court of Appeal quashed
the convictions in Lattimore (the Confait case) (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 53 .
For our part, we would say that in the light of the fresh scientific evidence, which at least throws grave doubt on Dr. Skuse's evidence, if
it does not destroy it altogether, these convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory. If we put the scientific evidence on one side, the fresh investigation carried out by the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary renders
the police evidence at the trial so unreliable, that again we would say
that the convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory. Adding the two together, our conclusion was inevitable. It was for these reasons that
we allowed the appeals.
On 17/02/2024 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:26:34 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always >>>>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there was any >>>>>>> dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of any member >>>>>>> of the public.Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers >>>>>>>> involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so >>>>>>>> called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions
without
impartially investigating.
purely on
police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many >>>>>> years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six and >>>>> Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the numerous
investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
What else don't you remember? I suppose you didn't pay the case much attention when Chris Mullin wrote his book "Error of Judgment" and the
Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be unsafe because of unreliable scientific evidence and unreliable police evidence.
On 17/02/2024 16:15, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2024 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
What else don't you remember? I suppose you didn't pay the case much
attention when Chris Mullin wrote his book "Error of Judgment" and the
Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be unsafe because of unreliable
scientific evidence and unreliable police evidence.
This is ridiculous. What possible motivation could the police have had
for fitting up innocent men?
Do you think they *wanted* the guilty to escape?
My original stament was a reminder that the police believed that the
suspects were guilty. They thought they had good evidence for that,
including forensics which convinced them and the court (though they were later undermined).
You areuite right. I have never read anything longer than a newspaper afrticle by Chris Mullin.
Wasn't he one of those who argued that he knew who the real guilty men
were, but refused to identify them and that the police and courts should
just take his word for that?
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:uqqhai$3t4en$3@dont-email.me...
[quoted text muted]
Not quite. They used officers from outside forces mainly Hampshire and Dorset. who were eventually based in Godalming Surrey so as to remove
them from temptation in the form of brown envelopes.
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:26:34 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it wasIndeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers
involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so
called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions
without impartially investigating.
always assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there >>>>>> was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.
on police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked,
many years ago, it was about 50%
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six
and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the
numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
Nothing could ever go wrong with that, could it ?
On 17 Feb 2024 at 10:33:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2024 12:24, The Todal wrote:
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
"Revenge porn" is a modern idea. He thought he was just uploading some
sexy pictures. Who knows that revenge was his motive?
I agree, his motive might well have been perfectly friendly humiliation, and self-aggrandisement; not revenge at all. I don't think revenge is an essential
element of the crime though.
On 17/02/2024 11:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2024 at 10:33:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 16/02/2024 12:24, The Todal wrote:
In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
"Revenge porn" is a modern idea. He thought he was just uploading some
sexy pictures. Who knows that revenge was his motive?
I agree, his motive might well have been perfectly friendly humiliation, and >> self-aggrandisement; not revenge at all. I don't think revenge is an essential
element of the crime though.
It's how the offence is promoted, whatever the offence is called.
On 12/02/2024 18:36, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:
This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching
- see if you think the police actions were reasonable and
acceptable, or bullying and callous.
In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child
on a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about
how to pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated
and defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole
gang of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict
pepper spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police
reckon they acted reasonably and the hostility of the public is
unjustified. Quite remarkable.
I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her
version of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her
the driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever
that meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or
encourage her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her
rude language it might be necessary to call social services and have
her child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day
so we both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and
experience.
Did you watch the episode, which is available on Channel 4 Catchup? I
hoped everyone would watch it before commenting.
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
On 2024-02-19, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
Thank god this person is no longer a police officer.
Interesting though that in his telling the woman has now escalated from saying she was going to "have" some police to now saying she's going to "knock out" the police.
His confidence that "they are all out of step but me" is quite impressive.
On 18/02/2024 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 16:15, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2024 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
What else don't you remember? I suppose you didn't pay the case much
attention when Chris Mullin wrote his book "Error of Judgment" and the
Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be unsafe because of unreliable >>> scientific evidence and unreliable police evidence.
This is ridiculous. What possible motivation could the police have had
for fitting up innocent men?
What possible motivation? Being under pressure to find the culprits,
being totally out of their depth and unable to track down the culprits,
and then enjoying the gratitude of a nation and the chance of promotion
when they manage to pin the crimes onto innocent men. You don't find
that plausible, then.
I would cite the words of m'learned friend Sean McGowan, recently deceased.
There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there's four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they're still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place and at the wrong time
In Ireland they'll put you away in the Maze
In England they'll keep you for seven long days
God help you if ever you're caught on these shores
The coppers need someone and they walk through that door
You'll be counting years, first five, then ten
Growing old in a lonely hell
'Round the yard and the stinking cell
From wall to wall, and back again
A curse on the judges, the coppers and screws
Who tortured the innocent, wrongly accused
For the price of promotion and justice to sell
May the judged by their judges when they rot down in hell.
Do you think they *wanted* the guilty to escape?I'm sure that our Special Branch and MI5 were aware of the correct
My original stament was a reminder that the police believed that the
suspects were guilty. They thought they had good evidence for that,
including forensics which convinced them and the court (though they
were later undermined).
You are quite right. I have never read anything longer than a newspaper
afrticle by Chris Mullin.
Wasn't he one of those who argued that he knew who the real guilty men
were, but refused to identify them and that the police and courts
should just take his word for that?
culprits before Chris Mullin was.
But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe impossible.
I realised what his agenda was when he said the woman "refused to pay". One fundamental lie is enough to reveal his whole agenda. And do they actually have the power to remove her from a bus? He thinks it self-evident that they do, because they can, presumably.
On 19/02/2024 20:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
I realised what his agenda was when he said the woman "refused to
pay". One
fundamental lie is enough to reveal his whole agenda. And do they
actually
have the power to remove her from a bus? He thinks it self-evident
that they
do, because they can, presumably.
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/made>
---
7(b)where the vehicle is being operated by the driver without a conductor– (i)save as provided in (ii) below, immediately on boarding the vehicle,
pay the fare for the journey he intends to take to the driver or, where appropriate, by inserting in any fare-collection equipment provided on
the vehicle the money or token required to pay that fare; or
(ii)if otherwise directed by the driver, an inspector or a notice
displayed on the vehicle, shall pay the fare for his journey in
accordance with the direction;
---
---
8-(2) Any passenger on a vehicle who contravenes any provision of these Regulations may be removed from the vehicle by the driver, inspector or conductor of the vehicle or, on the request of the driver, inspector or conductor, by a police constable.
---
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:11:44 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:26:34 -0600, JNugent wrote:
On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in messageSurely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in messageNot by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely >>>>>> on police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, >>>>>> many years ago, it was about 50%
news:uqkoci$38rfh$2@dont-email.me...
In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it wasIndeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers >>>>>>>> involved were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so >>>>>>>> called investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions
without impartially investigating.
always assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there >>>>>>> was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of >>>>>>> any member of the public.
That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham Six
and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and the
numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared with
today.
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?
"We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
That is not how I remember the case.
Nothing could ever go wrong with that, could it ?
Doesn't change the facts though.
I wonder what you remember about the Timothy Evans case. Or the Andrew Malkinson case ?
On 18/02/2024 03:32, The Todal wrote:
But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe
impossible.
It happened with Christie, didn't it?
On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have >>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
And worth quoting verbatim:
The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4
BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a ‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was perfectly understandable.
On 2024-02-19, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
Thank god this person is no longer a police officer.
Interesting though that in his telling the woman has now escalated from saying she was going to "have" some police to now saying she's going to "knock out" the police.
His confidence that "they are all out of step but me" is quite impressive.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster.
I think the police officers should be given remedial classes in
de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and
especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist "officers in danger".
On 19/02/2024 18:03, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2024 03:32, The Todal wrote:
But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe
impossible.
It happened with Christie, didn't it?
You've remembered wrong. It must be because you don't like to use such valuable resources as Wikipedia.
On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't
have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
And worth quoting verbatim:
Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such person.
You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and make
up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
police officer.
The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4
BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat
naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white
people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was
perfectly understandable.
He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
respect for them, even though one is a bishop.
On 19/02/2024 13:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-19, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have >>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
Thank god this person is no longer a police officer.
Interesting though that in his telling the woman has now escalated from
saying she was going to "have" some police to now saying she's going to
"knock out" the police.
His confidence that "they are all out of step but me" is quite
impressive.
That is not what he said. It was more like "The top brass are all loking solely after their careers and are playing politics in order to further
those careers. They (the few) are out of step with the rest of us (the majority)".
That's a paraphrased precis, but it's a better representation of what he said.
On 19/02/2024 18:16, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:03, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2024 03:32, The Todal wrote:
But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe
impossible.
It happened with Christie, didn't it?
You've remembered wrong. It must be because you don't like to use such
valuable resources as Wikipedia.
I don't think so.
Eventually, Evans was pardoned. It was probably the first thing I ever
heard or read about the case (which had all happened before I was born).
The pardon came about because Christie had, by then, been identified as
the killer of those previously thought to be Evans' victims and more
besides.
But this all a bit removed from someone refusing to pay their fare on a
bus, isn't it?
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are required or
permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite easy for two officers to escort her
off the bus, if they had been as polite and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that she was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the police officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably and probably still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the black community who saw the footage and sided with the
woman passenger.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster. I think
the police officers should be given remedial classes in de-escalating arguments
and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many officers join the force mainly
because they enjoy a punch-up and especially enjoy the thrill of being called to
assist "officers in danger".
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are
required or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and
wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite easy
for two officers to escort her off the bus, if they had been as polite
and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers
corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that she
was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the police
officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably and probably
still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the black community
who saw the footage and sided with the woman passenger.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster.
I think the police officers should be given remedial classes in
de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and
especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist "officers in danger".
On 19/02/2024 23:55, The Todal wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are
required or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and
wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite
easy for two officers to escort her off the bus, if they had been as
polite and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers
corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that
she was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the
police officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably and
probably still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the black
community who saw the footage and sided with the woman passenger.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed
gangster. I think the police officers should be given remedial classes
in de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps
many officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and
especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist "officers in
danger".
Yet, quoting from https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
"The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved reasonably"
and
"The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had acted reasonably",
I assume these points are true, but you agree they are as the "community leaders" (whoever they are because I do not know), say, ‘institutionally racist’.
Sadly that is becoming a useful excuse for anything and so, becoame less
and less believeable, even when true.
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
Without going into the specifics, these problems have been going on
since the Millennium, if not before. The earliest I recall is the
concept of a "transphobic incident", which was considered a Bad Thing
and possibly illegal. In common with most people I imagine, I had no
idea what was meant; something about not making fun of people who wear
silly clothes and wigs I think.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a "protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
On 19/02/2024 18:15, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to >>>>>> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't >>>>>> have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I >>>>>> think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
And worth quoting verbatim:
Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on
hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such person.
Oh dear, oh dear... Something has rattled someone.
You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and make
up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
police officer.
I cannot do that from where I am. See whether you can guess why that
might be. There ought to be a clue in the headers.
The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4
BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat >>> naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white
people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was
perfectly understandable.
He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
respect for them, even though one is a bishop.
You surprise me. I wouldn't have had you down as one content to be ruled
(in any sense) by a self-appointed leader, bishop or not.
If, OTOH, he was wrong in his summing up of those "community leaders", perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us as to who or what appointed them.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a >"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
On 19/02/2024 17:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have >>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
Without going into the specifics, these problems have been going on since the Millennium, if not before. The earliest I recall is the concept of a "transphobic incident", which was considered a Bad Thing and possibly illegal.
In common with most people I imagine, I had no idea what was meant; something about not making fun of people who wear silly clothes and wigs I think.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a "protected
category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, serial killers.
On 20/02/2024 10:12, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 23:55, The Todal wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are required >>> or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and wrestle her baby >>> away from her. It actually would have been quite easy for two officers to >>> escort her off the bus, if they had been as polite and respectful to her as >>> she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers corresponded
with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that she was entitled to >>> compensation. It is rather shameful that the police officers probably still >>> believe that they acted reasonably and probably still dismiss as ignorant the
respected members of the black community who saw the footage and sided with >>> the woman passenger.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster. I >>> think the police officers should be given remedial classes in de-escalating >>> arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many officers join the
force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and especially enjoy the thrill of
being called to assist "officers in danger".
Yet, quoting from
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
"The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved reasonably"
and
"The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had acted
reasonably",
I assume these points are true, but you agree they are as the "community
leaders" (whoever they are because I do not know), say, ‘institutionally racist’.
The process is shown very clearly in the Channel 4 programme - the disgruntled
police officer on the website is merely retailing the information that we can all see for ourselves.
The PSD investigator came to the conclusion that the officers had acted reasonably and the IOPC decided that no disciplinary action was required. Much
later, the woman's solicitors obtained a payment of damages from the police. We
can therefore safely conclude that the PSD investigator was wrong to think that
the officers had behaved reasonably and the IOPC are too feckless and lazy to institute disciplinary proceedings except for the most extreme wrongdoing.
I don't think there was any racism on the part of the police, but it's not a good look when 10 officers pile in to hold down a young black woman and her child, presumably in the belief that she is to be regarded as a dangerous thug
or terrorist.
She complained that she could not breathe, which was dismissed as play-acting to
evoke the memory of George Floyd in America. I daresay nobody was stepping on her neck but when 10 police officers hold you down and apply pepper spray I defy
you to say that you find it easy to breathe.
The community leaders are the authentic voice of the black community - perhaps a
better balance could have been achieved if a few white members of the community
had also been asked to view and comment upon the footage.
Sadly that is becoming a useful excuse for anything and so, becoame less and >> less believeable, even when true.
Sadly, the authoritative report produced by Louise Casey demonstrated that the
Metropolitan Police (not the same police force as this one) is riddled with institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia. As ordinary members of the public
we are powerless to put things right. So maybe the best option for us is simply
not to believe it. If you're white, you'll probably find that police officers are polite and respectful. If you're black they will very likely tell you to take your hands out of your pockets and submit to a search because you might be
dealing in drugs.
On 20/02/2024 11:15, Max Demian wrote:
Without going into the specifics, these problems have been going on
since the Millennium, if not before. The earliest I recall is the
concept of a "transphobic incident", which was considered a Bad Thing
and possibly illegal. In common with most people I imagine, I had no
idea what was meant; something about not making fun of people who wear
silly clothes and wigs I think.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Shoplifters and serial killers are obviously bad, things we don't want
to tolerate.
Whereas, wearing silly clothes is at a similar level to religion. We
might not like it, but we should tolerate it.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike kleptomania and psychopathy.
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike
kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't
buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
On 20/02/2024 10:39, The Todal wrote:
snip
Sadly, the authoritative report produced by Louise Casey demonstrated that the
Metropolitan Police (not the same police force as this one) is riddled with >> institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia. As ordinary members of the
public
we are powerless to put things right. So maybe the best option for us is simply
not to believe it. If you're white, you'll probably find that police officers
are polite and respectful. If you're black they will very likely tell you to >> take your hands out of your pockets and submit to a search because you might be
dealing in drugs.
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get stopped and
asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some years ago.
On 20/02/2024 11:15, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2024 17:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have >>>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
Without going into the specifics, these problems have been going on since the
Millennium, if not before. The earliest I recall is the concept of a
"transphobic incident", which was considered a Bad Thing and possibly illegal.
In common with most people I imagine, I had no idea what was meant; something
about not making fun of people who wear silly clothes and wigs I think.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a "protected
category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, serial killers.
I am feeling that one category that could do with being "protected" is being a
natural born female. Of any colour/race/religion.
On 20 Feb 2024 at 13:13:20 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get
stopped and asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some
years ago.
It has happened to me once or twice in my youth. If it happened every other week to me from the age of nine I might feel a lot worse about it, though.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
snip
Sadly, the authoritative report produced by Louise Casey demonstrated that the
Metropolitan Police (not the same police force as this one) is riddled with >>> institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia. As ordinary members of the >>> public
we are powerless to put things right. So maybe the best option for us is simply
not to believe it. If you're white, you'll probably find that police officers
are polite and respectful. If you're black they will very likely tell you to
take your hands out of your pockets and submit to a search because you might be
dealing in drugs.
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get stopped >> and asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some years ago.
It has happened to me once or twice in my youth. If it happened every other week to me from the age of nine I might feel a lot worse about it, though.
On 20 Feb 2024 at 01:16:11 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:15, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:Oh dear, oh dear... Something has rattled someone.
On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to >>>>>>> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't >>>>>>> have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I >>>>>>> think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
And worth quoting verbatim:
Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on
hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such person. >>
You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and make
up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
police officer.
I cannot do that from where I am. See whether you can guess why that
might be. There ought to be a clue in the headers.
The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4
BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat >>>> naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white >>>> people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was >>>> perfectly understandable.
He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
respect for them, even though one is a bishop.
You surprise me. I wouldn't have had you down as one content to be ruled
(in any sense) by a self-appointed leader, bishop or not.
If, OTOH, he was wrong in his summing up of those "community leaders",
perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us as to who or what appointed
them.
In the case of the bishop, presumably God.
On 20 Feb 2024 at 15:41:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike
kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't
buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
I am pretty sure that if you do the latter persistently with the obvious intention of causing offence it would also amount to misconduct.
On 2024-02-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 13:13:20 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get
stopped and asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some
years ago.
It has happened to me once or twice in my youth. If it happened every other >> week to me from the age of nine I might feel a lot worse about it, though.
Indeed. People do like to mock police harrassment and micro-aggressions
on the basis that it happened to them once and they got over it, without apparently taking any time at all to think about how they might find it
a completely different experience if it happened to them several times
a month, week, or day.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike kleptomania and psychopathy.
On 20/02/2024 01:09, JNugent wrote:
The pardon came about because Christie had, by then, been identified as
the killer of those previously thought to be Evans' victims and more
besides.
But this all a bit removed from someone refusing to pay their fare on a
bus, isn't it?
It would not have been possible to try Christie for the same murders.
On 20/02/2024 00:58, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2024 13:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-19, Handsome Jack <Jack@handsome.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't
have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
Thank god this person is no longer a police officer.
Interesting though that in his telling the woman has now escalated from
saying she was going to "have" some police to now saying she's going to
"knock out" the police.
His confidence that "they are all out of step but me" is quite
impressive.
That is not what he said. It was more like "The top brass are all
loking solely after their careers and are playing politics in order to
further those careers. They (the few) are out of step with the rest of
us (the majority)".
That's a paraphrased precis, but it's a better representation of what
he said.
But who are "the rest of us (the majority)"? Serving front line police officers? Or the public at large?
The purpose of his article seems to be
to appeal to the public at large to support the actions of the officers
who overpowerered the young woman and used pepper spray...
It certainly
had that effect, judging by the numerous comments at the foot of the
article which placed the woman in the same category as villains,
scrotes, thieves and liars. If police are no longer to be allowed to
beat up young women on buses we'll all end up being stabbed or shot on
our streets by her kinfolk.
On 20/02/2024 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:16, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:03, JNugent wrote:
On 18/02/2024 03:32, The Todal wrote:
But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe
impossible.
It happened with Christie, didn't it?
You've remembered wrong. It must be because you don't like to use such
valuable resources as Wikipedia.
I don't think so.
Eventually, Evans was pardoned. It was probably the first thing I ever
heard or read about the case (which had all happened before I was born).
The pardon came about because Christie had, by then, been identified
as the killer of those previously thought to be Evans' victims and
more besides.
But this all a bit removed from someone refusing to pay their fare on
a bus, isn't it?
It would not have been possible to try Christie for the same murders.
It's removed from the bus case but we were discussing the Birmingham
Six. Who were fitted up by the police for the Birmingham pub bombings.
And the police were eventually charged with perjury and conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice but it never went to trial.
On 20/02/2024 10:12, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 23:55, The Todal wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are
required or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and
wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite
easy for two officers to escort her off the bus, if they had been as
polite and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers
corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that
she was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the
police officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably and
probably still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the black
community who saw the footage and sided with the woman passenger.
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed
gangster. I think the police officers should be given remedial
classes in de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict.
But perhaps many officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a
punch-up and especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist
"officers in danger".
Yet, quoting from
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
"The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably"
and
"The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had
acted reasonably",
I assume these points are true, but you agree they are as the
"community leaders" (whoever they are because I do not know), say,
‘institutionally racist’.
The process is shown very clearly in the Channel 4 programme - the disgruntled police officer on the website is merely retailing the
information that we can all see for ourselves.
The PSD investigator came to the conclusion that the officers had acted reasonably and the IOPC decided that no disciplinary action was
required. Much later, the woman's solicitors obtained a payment of
damages from the police. We can therefore safely conclude that the PSD investigator was wrong to think that the officers had behaved reasonably
and the IOPC are too feckless and lazy to institute disciplinary
proceedings except for the most extreme wrongdoing.
I don't think there was any racism on the part of the police, but it's
not a good look when 10 officers pile in to hold down a young black
woman and her child, presumably in the belief that she is to be regarded
as a dangerous thug or terrorist.
She complained that she could not breathe, which was dismissed as
play-acting to evoke the memory of George Floyd in America. I daresay
nobody was stepping on her neck but when 10 police officers hold you
down and apply pepper spray I defy you to say that you find it easy to breathe.
The community leaders are the authentic voice of the black community - perhaps a better balance could have been achieved if a few white members
of the community had also been asked to view and comment upon the footage.
On 20/02/2024 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 20/02/2024 10:12, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 23:55, The Todal wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are
required or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and
wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite
easy for two officers to escort her off the bus, if they had been as
polite and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.
Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers
corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that
she was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the
police officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably
and probably still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the
black community who saw the footage and sided with the woman passenger. >>>>
A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed
gangster. I think the police officers should be given remedial
classes in de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict.
But perhaps many officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a
punch-up and especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist
"officers in danger".
Yet, quoting from
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
"The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably"
and
"The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had
acted reasonably",
I assume these points are true, but you agree they are as the
"community leaders" (whoever they are because I do not know), say,
‘institutionally racist’.
The process is shown very clearly in the Channel 4 programme - the
disgruntled police officer on the website is merely retailing the
information that we can all see for ourselves.
But he comes to a different conclusion. No doubt one based on his
personal experiences over the years, which I am sure you will agree are giving him knowledge we don't possess.
The PSD investigator came to the conclusion that the officers had
acted reasonably and the IOPC decided that no disciplinary action was
required. Much later, the woman's solicitors obtained a payment of
damages from the police. We can therefore safely conclude that the PSD
investigator was wrong to think that the officers had behaved
reasonably and the IOPC are too feckless and lazy to institute
disciplinary proceedings except for the most extreme wrongdoing.
Yes, he explains his reasoning as to why that happened.
I don't think there was any racism on the part of the police, but it's
not a good look when 10 officers pile in to hold down a young black
woman and her child, presumably in the belief that she is to be
regarded as a dangerous thug or terrorist.
Many things are not a good look. But previous experiences work more
than one way. And one previous experience might suggest it was
necessary, while another would act differently because it isn't a good
look - and both could be wrong.
She complained that she could not breathe, which was dismissed as
play-acting to evoke the memory of George Floyd in America. I daresay
nobody was stepping on her neck but when 10 police officers hold you
down and apply pepper spray I defy you to say that you find it easy to
breathe.
The community leaders are the authentic voice of the black community -
perhaps a better balance could have been achieved if a few white
members of the community had also been asked to view and comment upon
the footage.
Are they? Really? Who chose them? I bet anyone who disagrees, who
perhaps feels they complain too much, dare not speak!
The white members will also keep quiet, because if they said anything different they would just be dismissed as "racist".
Sadly that is becoming a useful excuse for anything and so, becoame
less and less believeable, even when true.
Sadly, the authoritative report produced by Louise Casey demonstrated
that the Metropolitan Police (not the same police force as this one)
is riddled with institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia. As
ordinary members of the public we are powerless to put things right.
So maybe the best option for us is simply not to believe it. If you're
white, you'll probably find that police officers are polite and
respectful. If you're black they will very likely tell you to take
your hands out of your pockets and submit to a search because you
might be dealing in drugs.
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get
stopped and asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some
years ago.
On 20/02/2024 06:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike
kleptomania and psychopathy.
Neither does being a fan of symphonic music. But I doubt that anyone
would agree with me that ticket-holders for the RLPO or the Hallé should
be a protected species.
On 20/02/2024 11:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 15:41:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a >>>>> "protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, >>>>> serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike >>>> kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't
buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
I am pretty sure that if you do the latter persistently with the obvious
intention of causing offence it would also amount to misconduct.
Calling a Robert a Bob is misconduct?
On 20 Feb 2024 at 12:57:37 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 11:15, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2024 17:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to >>>>>> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have >>>>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I >>>>>> think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
Without going into the specifics, these problems have been going on since the
Millennium, if not before. The earliest I recall is the concept of a
"transphobic incident", which was considered a Bad Thing and possibly illegal.
In common with most people I imagine, I had no idea what was meant; something
about not making fun of people who wear silly clothes and wigs I think.
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a "protected
category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, serial killers. >>>
I am feeling that one category that could do with being "protected" is being a
natural born female. Of any colour/race/religion.
Strangely, you are by no means alone in that feeling. A lot has been written, and taken to court, about it. Have you not noticed?
Perhaps having that feeling might help you to avoid reflexly dismissing any complaint of racism as "playing the race card" and unreasonable. Poeple do have feelings, even if they don't always accord with what you and I regard as reasonable feelings.
On 20 Feb 2024 at 13:13:20 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 10:39, The Todal wrote:
snip
Sadly, the authoritative report produced by Louise Casey demonstrated that the
Metropolitan Police (not the same police force as this one) is riddled with >>> institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia. As ordinary members of the >>> public
we are powerless to put things right. So maybe the best option for us is simply
not to believe it. If you're white, you'll probably find that police officers
are polite and respectful. If you're black they will very likely tell you to
take your hands out of your pockets and submit to a search because you might be
dealing in drugs.
Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get stopped >> and
asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some years ago.
It has happened to me once or twice in my youth. If it happened every other week to me from the age of nine I might feel a lot worse about it, though.
On 20 Feb 2024 at 19:32:04 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 11:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 15:41:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a >>>>>> "protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, >>>>>> serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike >>>>> kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't >>>> buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
I am pretty sure that if you do the latter persistently with the obvious >>> intention of causing offence it would also amount to misconduct.
Calling a Robert a Bob is misconduct?
The clue is "rather than their preferred name".
On 20/02/2024 17:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-02-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 13:13:20 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Or if you are a white teenager and walking home at night you can get
stopped and asked why you are in the area. Happened to my son some
years ago.
It has happened to me once or twice in my youth. If it happened every
other
week to me from the age of nine I might feel a lot worse about it,
though.
Indeed. People do like to mock police harrassment and micro-aggressions
on the basis that it happened to them once and they got over it, without
apparently taking any time at all to think about how they might find it
a completely different experience if it happened to them several times
a month, week, or day.
IME, if one wants to be stopped and questioned regularly by the police,
an effective method is to purchase a high-powered motorcycle as a young person and ride it, perfectly legally, with a few like minded
individuals, especially at night.
When wearing one's helmet and leathers, it is usually difficult to
determine one's ethnicity and sexual preference, and in many cases one's gender, prior to having been stopped so it cannot be institutionalised racism, misogyny or homophobia that is to blame for the increased
likelihood of being stopped.
My record, as a youth, was something like 25 HORT/1 (aka "producers") in
a single week - averaging over three a day - but that was down in Castle Donington during the British Motorcycle Grand Prix so was higher than average, but it was a rare month if I didn't average one or more per week.
I was stopped and given HORT/1s so regularly as a youth that I had an arrangement with the local police station for the best time to call and
have them processed, the vast majority of which were always requesting
that the details be "Recorded" rather than merely "Checked". (Those
familiar with the form will know that the issuing officer has a choice
to have the details "Checked" or "Recorded". Checking was a quick
process and resulted in the relevant section on the HORT/1 being
completed upon presentation of the documents, but recording involved a multi-part NCR form being completed which took some considerable time.)
I used to take the forms en masse so they could all be processed
together and knew to take a flask and a book with me. So frequent a
visitor was I, that I was on first name terms with most of the desk
sergeants at my local police station and we regularly chatted and joked whilst the forms were being completed.
To the best of my knowledge, demonstrating a preference for PTWs is not
a protected characteristic, nor are there plans to make it so.
I was not and am not embittered against the police as a result of my
higher than average stops and the increased number of HORT/1s I received
as a young man. I realised and accepted that my preferred method of recreational transport was in a category where many others of the same demographic did not fully comply with the law so I was at greater risk
of being stopped.
On 20/02/2024 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 20/02/2024 05:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 01:16:11 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:15, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:
On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It was the police officer who escalated the situation and
failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't >>>>>>>>> have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked >>>>>>>>> her. I
think that was evident from the footage.
Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
A rather different view.
And worth quoting verbatim:
Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on >>>>> hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such
person.
Oh dear, oh dear... Something has rattled someone.
You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and
make
up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
police officer.
I cannot do that from where I am. See whether you can guess why that
might be. There ought to be a clue in the headers.
The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4
BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved >>>>>> reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat
naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of >>>>>> it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a >>>>>> ‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white >>>>>> people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was >>>>>> perfectly understandable.
He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
respect for them, even though one is a bishop.
You surprise me. I wouldn't have had you down as one content to be
ruled
(in any sense) by a self-appointed leader, bishop or not.
If, OTOH, he was wrong in his summing up of those "community leaders", >>>> perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us as to who or what
appointed
them.
In the case of the bishop, presumably God.
Only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God.
The others are pretendy-political "bishops".
But you knew that.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as an
example that springs immediately to mind, may disagree with you that
"only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God" and that their
bishops are "pretendy-political 'bishops'" as members of that religion consider their bishops as an office of the Aaronic Priesthood and I
would argue that they have as much right to that belief as does anyone claiming that "Only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God."
On 20/02/2024 14:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 19:32:04 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 11:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2024 at 15:41:37 GMT, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>> wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a >>>>>>> "protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter, >>>>>>> serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike >>>>>> kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't >>>>> buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
I am pretty sure that if you do the latter persistently with the obvious >>>> intention of causing offence it would also amount to misconduct.
Calling a Robert a Bob is misconduct?
The clue is "rather than their preferred name".
Not everyone gets their preferred name.
In message <l3kgbnFj2qjU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@mail.com> writes
On 20/02/2024 14:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
The clue is "rather than their preferred name".
Not everyone gets their preferred name.
I'm a victim of the curse ( possibly a Scottish thing) of using my middle name
instead of my first ( I blame my parents) . On official documents I have to use
my "Sunday name" but every other time it's my preferred name. It causes double
takes at the doctors and dentists when I'm called out. At a polling station I hesitated when asked for my first name,and was queried until I explained
At work all the official records used my first name, except the phone and e-mail
system. The result was that no-one could find me in the time-booking system. I
did try to get this changed informally, but was told I'd have to change it by "deed poll". I suppose it opens a bag of worms for tax ,NI, pensions etc.
All my long service awards etc, have the wrong names.
I'm not sure how this would have worked these days if I'd wanted to identify as
say Jamesina .
In message <l3kgbnFj2qjU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@mail.com> writes
[quoted text muted]
I'm a victim of the curse ( possibly a Scottish thing) of using my
middle name instead of my first ( I blame my parents) . On official
documents I have to use my "Sunday name" but every other time it's my preferred name.
It causes double takes at the doctors and dentists when I'm called out.
At a polling station I hesitated when asked for my first name,and was
queried until I explained
On 20 Feb 2024 at 15:41:37 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2024 12:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:15:34 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why people who want to change sex should be considered a
"protected category" any more than shoplifters, or, for that matter,
serial killers.
Mainly because gender dysphoria poses no threat to other people, unlike
kleptomania and psychopathy.
It's a threat if you are ostracised (or even sacked) because you don't
buy into the requirements to use their new names and pronouns.
There's very little adverse consequence to calling someone Bob or
Charlie rather than their preferred names of Robert or Charles.
I am pretty sure that if you do the latter persistently with the obvious intention of causing offence it would also amount to misconduct.
On 21/02/2024 17:07, JNugent wrote:
On 21/02/2024 07:19, Simon Parker wrote:
On 20/02/2024 19:33, JNugent wrote:
Only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God.
The others are pretendy-political "bishops".
But you knew that.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as an
example that springs immediately to mind, may disagree with you that
"only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God" and that their
bishops are "pretendy-political 'bishops'" as members of that religion
consider their bishops as an office of the Aaronic Priesthood and I
would argue that they have as much right to that belief as does anyone
claiming that "Only the Pope may appoint bishops on behalf of God."
I dare say they would. But they're wrong. Only the Catholic Church
traces its history to Apostolic times and only the Pope traces his
offioce back to St. Peter.
I will remind you that this is ULM. The various "alt.religion" groups
are over there ---> whilst the "uk.religion" groups are in the opposite direction.
If you have a piece of legislation in mind that supports the above claim
then I'm all ears, but I believe you are confusing religious dogma
(which, for the avoidance of doubt, has no standing here) with
legislation (which is the lifeblood of the group).
But you knew that.
I know that this is what some claim. But that does not mean that I
accept the claim as valid much less relevant. However, this is not the
place for such discussions. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not
consider that holding an office in a religion that can 'trace its
history back to Apostolic times' and / or in which the church's head can 'trace his office back to Saint Peter' automatically confers the title
of "leader of the community" on said office holder.
The idea that the Mormons, whatever their merits in everyday personal
behaviour (cf. also Jehovah's Witnesses), are leaders of the
community, is... er... risible.
In order of religious leaders most in touch with the local populace I
would rank the Iman at the local mosque and the Rabbis at the local synagogues as orders of magnitude above the 'local' Bishop as they live locally and are seen as members of the community by the community,
regardless of one's own personal belief system, where in contrast the
Bishop is situated around an hour's drive away and has, to the best of
my knowledge, never visited the area, nor does he have any connection to
the local community.
It would therefore seem tenuous in the extreme to claim that the Bishop
is a "leader of the community" here.
(Tangentially, the Bishop of Portsmouth was born here, but I don't
believe he has returned to the area since his ordination in the early eighties and therefore do not consider him a "leader of the community" locally.)
But you knew that too.
I consider that anyone claiming to be a "leader of the community" must
live in and have strong ties to the community. Living an hour's drive
away and never having visited the area does not fulfil my brief. YMMV.
In order of religious leaders most in touch with the local populace I
would rank the Iman at the local mosque and the Rabbis at the local synagogues as orders of magnitude above the 'local' Bishop as they live locally and are seen as members of the community by the community,
regardless of one's own personal belief system, where in contrast the
Bishop is situated around an hour's drive away and has, to the best of
my knowledge, never visited the area, nor does he have any connection to
the local community.
It would therefore seem tenuous in the extreme to claim that the Bishop
is a "leader of the community" here.
(Tangentially, the Bishop of Portsmouth was born here, but I don't
believe he has returned to the area since his ordination in the early eighties and therefore do not consider him a "leader of the community" locally.)
On 22/02/2024 18:21, JNugent wrote:
On 22/02/2024 05:08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 21/02/2024 17:07, JNugent wrote:
I dare say they would. But they're wrong. Only the Catholic Church
traces its history to Apostolic times and only the Pope traces his
offioce back to St. Peter.
I will remind you that this is ULM. The various "alt.religion" groups
are over there ---> whilst the "uk.religion" groups are in the opposite
direction.
SEE?The question of bishops (as claimed "community leaders", apppointed by
God) was not raised by me.
Each religion has its own god or gods and those religions that appoint bishops have their own rules and regulations around the appointment
thereof.
Taking my example of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, they believe that bishops are "called of God". [1]
Adherents of that particular belief system would argue that your
statement that "they are wrong" to believe this is itself evidently
wrong. (Repeat previous caveats regarding where we are, and, equally importantly, where we are not. :-))
If you are suggesting that only Catholic bishops may be viewed as
"community leaders" then I would suggest that you are wrong.
If you have a piece of legislation in mind that supports the above claim >>> then I'm all ears, but I believe you are confusing religious dogma
(which, for the avoidance of doubt, has no standing here) with
legislation (which is the lifeblood of the group).
You cannot create a valid religion by statute.
I would respectfully suggest that the Act of Supremacy 1534 demonstrates
this claim to be incorrect.
(...previous caveats...)READ THIS BIT AGAIN, PLEASE:
That, of course, is a legal point, tied in with a philosophical point..
(...previous caveats...)
But you knew that.
I know that this is what some claim. But that does not mean that I
accept the claim as valid much less relevant. However, this is not the
place for such discussions. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not
consider that holding an office in a religion that can 'trace its
history back to Apostolic times' and / or in which the church's head can >>> 'trace his office back to Saint Peter' automatically confers the title
of "leader of the community" on said office holder.
The idea that the Mormons, whatever their merits in everyday personal
behaviour (cf. also Jehovah's Witnesses), are leaders of the
community, is... er... risible.
In order of religious leaders most in touch with the local populace I
would rank the Iman at the local mosque and the Rabbis at the local
synagogues as orders of magnitude above the 'local' Bishop as they live
locally and are seen as members of the community by the community,
regardless of one's own personal belief system, where in contrast the
Bishop is situated around an hour's drive away and has, to the best of
my knowledge, never visited the area, nor does he have any connection to >>> the local community.
It would therefore seem tenuous in the extreme to claim that the Bishop
is a "leader of the community" here.
SEE?That was my point. Thank you for agreeing with it. [I don't recall
anyone claiming that local imams or rabbis were leaders of the
community in its proper, wider, sense.]
I don't believe that only certain religious leaders have the right to
claim to be "leaders of the community", nor do I believe has anyone else
for that matter.
A community is comprised of various groups rather than being a
homogeneous entity in which everyone is exactly the same as everyone
else. Even within a reasonably tight community, different interests can clash. (For example, there was a recent proposal locally to install an
Eruv in the village. Those that would benefit from it thought it was
the best thing ever and could not understand the opposition from those
that felt that the installation of the hundreds of poles it would
require could be considered detrimental to the village. (In the end,
the proposal was withdrawn so it was never voted on, but the "leaders of
the community" could not agree on the "best" outcome.)
"Leaders (plural) of the community" will therefore need to be drawn from various elements of the community if they are to be representative.
Locally, that would include somebody to represent the interests of the predominant religious groups plus the multitude of various other groups.
IMO, that may include one of the local priests but not the bishop as he
is (a) too remote and (b) likely to be too busy to be of any real use to those whose interests he is supposed to be representing.
(Tangentially, the Bishop of Portsmouth was born here, but I don't
believe he has returned to the area since his ordination in the early
eighties and therefore do not consider him a "leader of the community"
locally.)
But you knew that too.
I consider that anyone claiming to be a "leader of the community" must
live in and have strong ties to the community. Living an hour's drive
away and never having visited the area does not fulfil my brief. YMMV.
I probably wouldn't disgree with that (subject to certain community
areas having longer internal travel times than average). But there
would still have to be some method of selection and ratification. A
formal election would seem appropriate.
I, respectfully, disagree that electing "leaders of the community" is a workable solution.
To give a local example, again, over the last 18
months or so, a thriving and growing number of Hong Kongese have moved
into the area (which has blown up the scores required for admission to
he local grammar schools, but that's a whole different topic). I would suggest that their interests should be represented as they are an
important part of the community but a formal election wouldn't work for numerous reasons. (At what point do the Hong Kongese "officially" gain
their representative "Leader of the Community (Hong Kongese)? Do we add
one to the number of "community leaders" or does another leader have to
be ousted to make way for the Hong Kongese "leader"? Who's left
representing the view of the section of the community whose leader was
just ousted? Etc.)
On 23/02/2024 04:43, Simon Parker wrote:
If you are suggesting that only Catholic bishops may be viewed as
"community leaders" then I would suggest that you are wrong.
I did not suggest that. I merely pointed out that only a deity can
appoint bishops.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:08:21 -0600, JNugent <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2024 04:43, Simon Parker wrote:
If you are suggesting that only Catholic bishops may be viewed as
"community leaders" then I would suggest that you are wrong.
I did not suggest that. I merely pointed out that only a deity can
appoint bishops.
Those churches which believe in the concept of the apostolic succession
would assert that bishops appoint bishops, the authority to do so having
been granted once and for all to the apostles themselves.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:48:13 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,645 |