Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: neil grainger on March 07, 2014, 09:45:55 pm
-
In the light of the continued revelations over the Lawrence murder, the Hillsborough enquiry etc.......can we trust the police?
A very sweeping question I know, but I for one have serious reservations about the integrity of the police and I'm sad to say that my instinct is not to trust them.
They seem more intent on covering their backs than getting to the truth.
Discuss.
-
Truthfully?
No.
-
In the light of the continued revelations over the Lawrence murder, the Hillsborough enquiry etc.......can we trust the police?
A very sweeping question I know, but I for one have serious reservations about the integrity of the police and I'm sad to say that my instinct is not to trust them.
They seem more intent on covering their backs than getting to the truth.
Discuss.
No
Add the miners strike to that (Orgreave in particular)
-
Orgreave will come out eventually.
When a Tory whip was f**ked over by the police, it took 12 months to get to the truth.
For the Lawrences, it's taken two decades.
For Liverpudlians, 25 years.
For South Yorks miners, it's been 30 years and counting. But it'll come. It'll come.
-
The reputation of the British Police has taken a tremendous battering.
There are all the example you've sited and other smaller ones, like the alcoholic newspaper vendor, a policeman killed and they tried to cover up. That whole thing left them open to grave criticism about how they deal with large scale protest and demonstrations.
While new technology has given them many new methods of surveillance it has also opened them up to scrutiny like they've never known before.
Do I trust them? No, they have been shown to be only too human and fallible.
Now the onus is on them to demonstrate they can adapt and regain the public trust.
-
RD
"Human" and "fallible" are not suitable adjectives for what happened at Orgreave.
"Politically directed" and "corrupt" might just be.
It'll all be dealt with. Eventually.
-
BST
I wasn't really referring to Orgreve it was thirty years ago. But it is human failing that leads to the corruption we see.
Just as the myth that British politicians are a superior incorruptible species has long gone too.
The point is the public more easily see it now, the myth of the friendly, honest as the day is long Bobby has been put to bed.
-
RD
"Human" and "fallible" are not suitable adjectives for what happened at Orgreave.
"Politically directed" and "corrupt" might just be.
It'll all be dealt with. Eventually.
Rubbish, complete rubbish
-
RD
"Human" and "fallible" are not suitable adjectives for what happened at Orgreave.
"Politically directed" and "corrupt" might just be.
It'll all be dealt with. Eventually.
Rubbish, complete rubbish
What a fantastically well-put argument. That's obviously won hands down.
-
Go on Boomstick. Enlighten me on what you know that I don't.
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
-
So in short, Dipstick, you don't know anything ?
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
In a nutshell you've absolutely no argument and you're trying to dig your way out.
-
Boomstick
Much as expected. You demonstrate your inability to separate ranting opinion from established fact.
Here are the established facts about what the police did at Orgreave.
Several miners were prosecuted for affray and riot. The case collapsed and was thrown out by the judge when it became clear that the police had lied in their sworn evidence. Several police had made statements saying that they had witnessed certain events at Orgreave. But the police duty log showed that, at the time they claimed to have been witnesses, they were actually in Sheffield city centre waiting to be bussed to Orgreave.
Other police statements were shown to have been forged, with false signatures.
They lied. On oath. That is recorded, established fact, not opinion. They did it knowingly in cases that could have led to 10 year jail sentences for men against whom there was not a scrap of evidence. That is called "perverting justice". But no prosecutions have ever been brought against any of the police involved.
It gets worse. Not only did they lie. They used EXACTLY the same words. A Look North documentary in 2012 got hold of 100 police statements from Orgreave. 31 of them said "the police line came under a sustained fusillade of missiles from the miners" and that this led to the violence that day.
How odd that everyone should use the same convoluted phrase and just conveniently describe a scene that, in an orchestrated way, points the finger of blame at the miners.
Sounds like a conspiracy doesn't it?
Well several police officers from Orgreave have said that their statements were dictated to them by plain clothed officers who they had never seen before.
Someone high up in the police wanted to establish a version of the facts and there is very strong evidence that they were prepared to break the law to do it. The consequence was very nearly innocent men going to prison for 10 years.
That should just concern someone on one side of politics. It should terrify anyone.
And it is police corruption and attitude that links directly to Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Ian Tomlinson and Plebgate.
Sections of the police have been and still are out if control and perverting the law. They are scum who should be rooted out and sent down if we are to have a safe and honorable society.
Now Boomstick. I'll take your semi-literate disagreement as read so you can save yourself the bother of posting your opinion. If you have any issues with the FACTS, feel free to inform us.
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
As opposed to you, who favours constant ad hominems instead of any kind of coherent argument? Are you actually 11 years old?
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
Ignorence is bliss eh?
Do you still believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the moon is made of cheese?
-
Isn't it? :(
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
Ignorence is bliss eh?
Do you still believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the moon is made of cheese?
You're wrong Filo, I've seen video evidence on Wallace and Gromit that proves otherwise.
-
Do Wallace and Gromit reside in Downing Street by any chance?
-
I'll re-iterate what I said before, this forum is awash and spoilt by views of far left socialists. There is simply no point in debating politics here, just very stubborn and bitter old men who's arguments ALWAYS harp back to the thatcher years. Despite all the GOOD she did. luckily for the country in another 20 years most will have joined the afterlife (where they probably will be picketing the pearly gates about how disappointed they are with eternal paradise) and we might be able to have a reasoned debate. I'm looking forward to it
-
So bullshit billy, are you saying the police didnt come under attack?
Where's the justice in not prosecuting the rioters who assaulted police officers?
-
Boomstick
Read what I wrote. Then think if you can come up with a sensible question on the prosecutions instead if your usual drivel.
Regarding whether the police came under attack, that really is the whole point. The story we've had fed to us is that the miners attacked the police and the police responded.
If that was the case, you'd think that dozens of police officers would have been able to write their own statements on what had happened. But they didn't. They had statements dictated to them by senior officers who wanted to have a particular version of events to become the official story. The statements were shown to be full of lies and in some cases, to have fabricated signatures.
Why do that if the evidence of miners' rioting was so overwhelming?
Anyroad. I thought you claimed to be a Libertarian? Do Libertarians agree with the police having carte blanche to lie and fabricate evidence? As long as it's against someone you don't like?
-
Your a hardcore socialist with a political agenda, your argument is seriously warped by your politics. I have neither the time or the patience to enter into this argument with you.
The sad fact is many people actually believe the diatribe you write they can't see the wood from the trees.
So bore off with your crypto Communist views
That sounds like exactly the same crap that was being said to the Hillborough familes, and others who have uncovered corrupt police practices that have led to other miscarriages of justice, before we discovered out the real truth. It was BS when it was said to them too.
-
I trust the police. 99% of them anyway. Just look at the police forces in other countries and just be very grateful with what we've got.
Boomstick is right. This forum is 95% populated by hardcore lefties who won't consider for one second a different perspective on life. Anyone that is considered to be right wing is instantly vilified no matter how sensible the point of view they put forward.
For example, I don't know all the rights and wrongs about what went off with the miners. I agree that the police have been found wanting in this incident but what makes my piss boil is that not one word of criticism is leveled at the miners. Anyone that dares to criticise the miners is treated with contempt.
To my mind and to any objective person it seems obvious that the miners were not whiter than white in this incident. But all you get from BST is the hard left view that it was all the police's fault.
What you hardcore lefties need to consider is how your constant complaining and moaning is affecting police morale. No doubt most of you don't care because all you are bothered about is political posturing.
-
Mick
What I worry about is police acting in an illegal way to frame people against whom they have no evidence.
You turn a blind eye to a police force that invents evidence and allows a senior, un-named officer to dictate lies as facts, and you are half way towards letting democracy slip through your fingers.
We saw it at Orgreave. We saw it at Hillsborough. We saw it in the Stephen Lawrence case. We saw it probably most shockingly in the Andrew Mitchell case with a concerted effort to bring down a senior elected official through a pack of lies (stick that f**ker in your "left-wing" argument).
The point is that a police force is supposed to buttress democracy. But a police that thinks it can get away with the tricks it pulled in these cases is deeply corrosive to democracy.
If you are happy with the police acting like that, it fits in with your generally illogical outlook on most things.
-
The police aren't perfect. I've already said as much. However it is a very small minority. Our police force is a reflection of our society.
What I do take issue with is you hard core lefties constantly having a go at them as though they are all corrupt and not caring what damage you do to their morale.
I gave a very good example in my last post. If we were to believe you, then all the problems listed in your diatribe are 100% the fault of the police. You never give a balanced argument and admit that just maybe some of the fault lies with the people that are being policed.
-
Yes Mick
Another thread gets diverted from established facts into the quagmire of your opinions.
Hang on. Was that Andie McDowell walking past again.
-
Unlike you I know a few police men and women. They are all thoroughly decent people and a credit to society. The vast bulk of the police force are made up of such people. You wouldn't think it would you reading the one sided leftie drivel that you post.
-
How the f**k do you know who I know you stupid, opinionated bell end.
-
In romanian police no, many of them are very stupid and arrogant
-
How the f*** do you know who I know you stupid, opinionated bell end.
If you did know any police men or women you wouldn't post the one sided leftie anti police propaganda that you do.
-
In romanian police no, many of them are very stupid and arrogant
I'd be grateful Devil if you could comment on our police once you have been in our country a while. I'm sure your comments would be very positive. Don't listen to Billy. Our police are the best in the world.
-
In romanian police no, many of them are very stupid and arrogant
I'd be grateful Devil if you could comment on our police once you have been in our country a while. I'm sure your comments would be very positive. Don't listen to Billy. Our police are the best in the world.
I'm sure that police from England is very different that romanian. Here, The majority of police man are fat and stupid and this is a Sad thing
-
Mick
Let's analyse what's gone on today in this thread.
I gave factual evidence of police criminality in a specific case, which has never been brought to a court of law.
You and Boomstick wittered on about my political viewpoint (which you both know f*** all about, but no matter). You raise that issue as though the validity of FACTS are affected by a political viewpoint. You don't discuss the factual evidence. You don't look for contradictory or explanatory facts. You just ignore them.
You then go on to extrapolate from inside your own head, the utterly incorrect assumption that I am virulently anti-police in general, because, apparently, I'm a raving lefty. There is nothing in this thread or in any other one I have ever contributed to on this site to remotely justify such a cretinous generalisation. But you insist on it anyway.
It's the same as it ever is when your drag us into the cess-pit of your opinions. You come wading into the discussion chucking out unfounded generalisations like f***ing confetti. And I suspect that you actually DO think you've contributed something worthwhile.
You then dribble out some pointless comment about knowing what you are talking about because you know a copper or two. You make a stupid, fatuous assertion about me that is as factually incorrect as it is arrogantly f***ing stupid.
As I said earlier, we start with the hard currency of facts, and we end in the quagmire of your pointless, fatuous, puerile opinions which are utterly, utterly worthless. Because we weren't talking about opinions. We were talking about facts. Until you came along.
But, to indulge your clown like cogitations, take this one.
The barrister who destroyed the police evidence at the Orgreave trial, later became a police commissioner. Presumably SHE has met the odd copper now and again. Her opinion is that the failure to prosecute any police over the perversion of justice at the Orgreave trial is the single biggest outstanding miscarriage of justice in the British system.
What she realises, what I realise and what you and Boomstick are clearly ignorant of is that we don't have a generally fine police force because they are morally incorruptible. We have a generally fine police force, because we have a society that roots out the evil, lying, dangerous corrupt coppers and we f*** them over through the courts. Because to leave them in place means that the innocent lose. Like they did at Hillsborough. Like Stephen Lawrence's family did. Like Ian Tomlinson did. Like Andrew Mitchell did. Like the ones who were acquitted at the Orgreave trial almost did.
The whole point of this discussion was this. It is factually incontrovertible that police perverted the course of justice in trying to frame those put on trial after Orgreave. They tried to get ten year sentences put on men against whom they had no evidence. That was a huge criminal conspiracy. And no-one has ever been prosecuted for it. Every word of this paragraph is fact. If you want to add anything worthwhile, put your opinions on the shelf and address those facts.
-
Unlike you I know a few police men and women. They are all thoroughly decent people and a credit to society.
Presumably, they are the exceptions that prove the rule Mick?
-
My main reason for starting this thread was my anger over the incredible revelations which continue to come out regarding the police behaviour surrounding the Stephen Lawrence murder.
In this thread, BST has pointed out some other disgraceful and outrageous examples of police corruption and malpractice.
No police force can be perfect, because it is inhabited by human beings and we know we are all fallible.
However, what concerns me greatly is the fact that the higher echelons of the police force have repeatedly been shown to be utterly untrustworthy, and quite willing to go to great lengths to cover up the corrupt practices of their rank and file.
My own answer to my original question is, I'm afraid, a resounding 'no'.
-
I've never said the police are perfect. Some of them are bad. I do believe that the vast majority of them are perfectly decent people trying to do the best they can in very difficult circumstances.
You and your leftie friends on the other hand are trying to paint all police men and women as corrupt. You are talking b*llocks as usual. I bet if you get burgled you'll be straight on the phone asking for their help. You are so two faced it is untrue.
-
So billy backwards, I'll ask again. Are YOU claiming the police didn't come under attack? also where's the justice in not prosecuting the rioters who assaulted the police?
-
Mick
Pointless. Utterly pointless.
Boomstick. I know that was your question. I guessed you'd ask it again. Stop and have a think about it. Miners WERE prosecuted. But to bring the prosecutions, the police had to rely on evidence that was forged or shot through with lies (not my opinion by the way - established fact).
But hang on. We were told that hundreds of miners took the initiative in instigating a brutal attack on the police. And yet the police could not bring a single honest, believable piece of evidence against anyone. They brought prosecutions, but the judge threw them out because the police had engaged in a concerted, orchestrated frame up.
How odd.
There are only two conclusions.
Either hundreds of police were utterly inept and incompetent in failing to gather a single shred of evidence. Or the attack that the police were supposed to have come under never happened.
Take your pick. There's no alternative reading of the situation.
-
BST
There is probably a more believable third option. Like most things in life, there are grey areas. Good cops, few bad cops. Good miners, a few rogue miners.
In reality, there were probably isolated incidents of wrongdoing on both sides which the honest people on both sides of the fence would probably acknowledge.
For me however, it was a massive political football that Maggie and her cronies saw as an ideal reason to gain support of the unknowing British populace in that we had to sort out those 'big bad miners'.
To achieve this, politicians put pressure on heads of police forces who passed on the pressure to police rank and file. Knowing full well that having a moral opinion against your superiors doesn't go down very well for your job and career prospects. In truth, like you say, a massive cover up from the top downwards.
-
I hope you've read Redrover's post Billy. He talks a lot of sense. Like most of the rest of us he sees there are two sides to the argument. You only ever see one side and woe betide anyone who disagrees with you.
You make yourself look foolish time after time with your narrow hard left view. In Billy world everything that is hard left is how things are and any deviance from that perspective cannot be tolerated.
It's time you grew up and started to indulge in healthy debate and realised that your world view is not the only one out there. I have been magnanimous to state that there are some bad police men an women out there.
You on the other will not admit that the vast majority are thoroughly decent folk that are not led very well from time to time. Painting them all as corrupt and all the miners as saints makes you look unbelievably daft.
-
This is the top of Hatfield pit lane the day after August bank holiday Monday 1984, the day the first scab went back, you'll notice that there are a few lads still sat down on the road, this was a peaceful sit down protest that turned ugly when the police moved in swinging their truncheons at any thing that moved
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article378420.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Image_1_for_Miners_strike_gallery_539782701-378420.jpg)
Do I trust the Police?
Since that day onwards, no!
-
Talk us through it Mick
When you read me writing "We have a generally fine police force", what are the process that go on in your skull that lead you to write than I am actually "painting them all as corrupt".
I'm genuinely fascinated in how information goes into your brain and comes back out bearing no relation to its former existence.
-
Ask Alistair Morgan if he trusts the police.
There are good cops out there, decent beat bobbies.. Seems to me though , in too many cases take them out of the uniform, put them into a suit and far too many of them turn into something else entirely .
This has nothing what so ever to do with being either left or right, this has everything to do with being in the situation of questioning those who should be upholding the law. they took that pledge, most work their whole lives in keeping that pledge. the ones who don't should be dealt with.
No cover ups, no secrecy, just transparency.
Too many lives are being ruined by dirty coppers.
They disgust me.
-
When you read me writing "We have a generally fine police force", what are the process that go on in your skull that lead you to write than I am actually "painting them all as corrupt".
I'm genuinely fascinated in how information goes into your brain and comes back out bearing no relation to its former existence.
I do apologise I missed that one sentence where you tried to cover your tracks after my criticism of your views. I formed my opinion after reading other statements of yours such as:
"Politically directed" and "corrupt"
'police had lied in their sworn evidence'
'Other police statements were shown to have been forged, with false signatures'
'They lied. On oath'
'no prosecutions have ever been brought against any of the police'
'And it is police corruption and attitude that links directly to Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, Ian Tomlinson and Plebgate'
'police have been and still are out of control and perverting the law. They are scum who should be rooted out and sent down if we are to have a safe and honorable society'
'the police had to rely on evidence that was forged or shot through with lies'
'the police could not bring a single honest, believable piece of evidence against anyone'
'the police had engaged in a concerted, orchestrated frame up'
'hundreds of police were utterly inept and incompetent in failing to gather a single shred of evidence'
'the attack that the police were supposed to have come under never happened'
'police perverted the course of justice'
'What I worry about is police acting in an illegal way to frame people against whom they have no evidence'
'Do Libertarians agree with the police having carte blanche to lie and fabricate evidence?'
The overwhelming tenor of your argument is that the police are corrupt. You could have said that it was just some of the senior officers but you didn't. You totally gave the impression that it was the whole police force at fault. You extrapolate that events many years ago are still the norm today. This is blatantly untrue, but doesn't suit your hard left view of life.
-
I do apologise I missed that one sentence where you tried to cover your tracks after my criticism of your views.
Well, well, well. Twice in just over a week Mick.
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=245244.msg424570#msg424570
-
The overwhelming tenor of your argument is that the police are corrupt. You could have said that it was just some of the senior officers but you didn't. You totally gave the impression that it was the whole police force at fault. You extrapolate that events many years ago are still the norm today. This is blatantly untrue, but doesn't suit your hard left view of life.
Plebgate wasn't years ago, Mick. Whose version do you believe about that, Mitchell or the police?
-
Without a doubt most coppers are decent people catching scum only for the powers that be to let them out again
In relation to the strike it went much deeper than the police - there were many "policemen" on the picket line without numbers on, now I wonder how they miraculously appeared there
The job of the local Bobby changed dramatically following the influx of Met coppers et al, I'm sure everyone may recall "coppers" running around Armthorpe attacking women in their own gardens
-
Mick
Over and over and over again. The vast majority of those quotes you highlight are simple matters of fact. The police WHO BROUGHT THE EVIDENCE TO THE ORGREAVE TRIALS were demonstrated to have lied, invented evidence and forged signatures. Facts. Demonstrated in court. Nothing to do with opinions. Nothing to do with every policeman in the country. To do with the ones who set out the evidence in the a Orgreave trials.
Similar things happened at Hillsborougb. Similar things happened with the Lawrence's. Similar things happened with Plebgate.
Again, none of those are my opinion. They are established facts. And again (attention Mick) this does not imply that EVERY copper is bent.
Simple enough for you? Are you capable for once in your bafflingly obtuse existence on here, of actually reading what is placed in front of you instead of inventing concepts inside your own skull? Just once?
-
Just because the case against the miners was thrown out doesn't mean the police didn't come under attack from the miners throwing stones. You equate the case being thrown out with stone throwing not happening. The case was thrown out because the police bosses organised the fabrication of evidence not because stone throwing didn't occur. It did occur and on several occasions.
The miners also started the whole series of events by charging at the police to break their lines. They weren't bothered if any police got injured as a consequence. I would hardly describe this action as peaceful picketing.
So as you can see there was wrong on both sides, not just on the police side as you would have us all believe. If you were prepared to show both sides of the argument your views would command more respect. Unfortunately because of your hard left leanings you always try and skew the argument to suit this political outlook. We can all see through it. You would do well to take note.
Here is the real version of events for those of you that don't want to just swallow what happens in Billy land.
Initially the strike played out like most others, and the strikers played football for a while. But as more numbers arrived on both sides, tensions began to rise. The commander of the police presence, Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Clement, deployed a protective cordon of long-shielded police in front of his standard officers- a fairly standard practice in such encounters.
At much the same time, the lorries arrived to fetch the coal. This was the cue for the "push," in which the miners charged towards the police in an attempt to break the lines. Shortly afterwards, Clements ordered the mounted police forwards. This tactic successfully delivered a retreat by the striking miners, and the horses stopped about 30 yards (or metres) ahead of the police line before withdrawing. This allowed a space for the lorries to pass on their business, and escalated the tension on the field.
A second push was followed by a second mounted response, but this time the whole police line advanced the 30 yards. Increased stone throwing heightened the tension[citation needed] and the miners were warned that if they did not retreat 100 yards, short shield squads would be deployed.
Short shield squads (police in riot gear, with batons and short shields) were a new development and would represent an offensive rather than defensive approach to riot control. This would be new to the UK if employed.
When the miners did not move back, a third mounted advance was initiated, with the short shield squads in pursuit. The result of this third advance was general panic amongst the strikers, and an increasing amount of hand to hand fighting between the two sides[citation needed].
Having repelled the picket line, the police withdrew again to their original positions. The miners moved forwards again, this time with more stone-throwing[citation needed].
At 9:25, the fully laden lorries began to leave the plant. This was the cue for another push by the strikers. This push was less friendly than the previous one, and again, the miners were pushed back.
Following a show of defiance by NUM leader Arthur Scargill, who walked in front of the police lines for a few moments, there was a lull in the proceedings, and most of the picketers headed to Orgreave village for refreshments. Those that were left sunbathed. The police on the other hand were hot in their uniforms, and a breakdown in logistics had left many without a drink for several hours. However, many police (including the long shields) were stood down during the lull.
What happened next is the subject of some debate. The police claim that a lorry tyre was rolled to within 20 yards of their line, and that stones started to be thrown again. Another account blamed an argument between miners and police. Given that the confrontation was not dying down, the police chose to make further charges.
This advance was more substantial than before, and left the now outnumbered pickets with no option but to cross the railway line. While most made it to the bridge, others had to scramble down the embankment and across the rails.
Some miners tried to fight police officers but were arrested, and fighting escalated to the point where miners were being beaten with batons. The police soon reached the bridge, taking and holding the field side. Here they were bombarded by missiles, with the miners utilising a nearby scrap-yard. A car was dragged from the yard, put across the road and set alight.
The option now for the police was either to withdraw into the field and risk another push by the miners, or to advance into the village and chase off the hostile strikers. After three short-range charges (during which Arthur Scargill was one of the injured), an advance was ordered. The miners were forced into the village with a new police line forming.
But stone-throwing continued, and so about 20 mounted police were ordered to advance. This finally resulted in the dispersal of the crowds, although several police officers ran in pursuit and reportedly[who?] attacked some of the fleeing miners.
More stoning resulted in a further charge down Rotherham Lane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave
-
Mick - do you understand the strengths and weaknesses of wikipedia? Acting as a factual source for a divisive event from history is certainly not one of its strengths.
-
Can't believe you are relying on Wiki for the facts
The jostling on the picket lines was on both sides good natured it was only when other police forces etc became involved that things turned violent - that is a first hand account of proceedings
-
Mick
You could have saved yourself an enormous amount if copying and pasting if, just for once you did me the honour of reading what I write instead of inventing in your head what you think I wrote.
Go back and look at your opening paragraph. Then find ANYTHING in my posts that justifies what you wrote.
You are a compulsive inventer of opinions. You think you know what people think and you put up straw men based on opinions that you have invented.
It's really not hard to be an adult in discussions Mick. What you do is actually listen to the other person and make your conclusions based on that. Not on what you want them to be saying.
Now. Toddle off and have a think about whether your first paragraph was spectacularly thick, even by your standards.
-
Here's a snippet of your views which prompted my opening paragraph.
They brought prosecutions, but the judge threw them out because the police had engaged in a concerted, orchestrated frame up.
the attack that the police were supposed to have come under never happened.
Now, in the spirit of reasoned debate, I promise I will immediately accept your abject apology for your rantings that have once again been proved to be totally unfounded.
-
Once again if the message doesn't fit then the source is denigrated. There is far more chance that what is on Wikipedia is accurate than many other sources of information. Thank goodness Billy doesn't write what's on Wikipedia. However if he did it would be counteracted by someone else with the true version of events.
The site has developed quality control tools and algorithms, but there is no guarantee that at any given time, a user will access a completely accurate page. Studies have shown, however, that the information is largely accurate.
bhttp://curiosity.discovery.com/question/how-does-wikipedia-work
-
Mick. Grow up. Post the entire quote in context you unmitigated idiot. What you are doing is the preserve of the imbecile who cannot read context, or the lying, devious mendacious bas**rd who twists words to try to score a point. If it's the former, I'm genuinely sorry for you. If it is the latter, you are beneath contempt.
The text you mis-quoted, in its context was this.
I'd said that despite there being a widespread acceptance that the miners rioted without provocation, not a shred of evidence was presented at the trial that the judge accepted. Several police lied about seeing miners rioting when it was proven that those police were five miles away. I mused on why the case relied on lies and fabrication. I said:
"There are only two possibilities.
Either hundreds of police were utterly inept and incompetent in failing to gather a single shred of evidence. Or the attack that the police were supposed to have come under never happened."
Now. I have no idea what happened at Orgreave. Neither do you. I will NOT accept the received wisdom that you parrot out. Because that is entirely based on reports from the police. And it is a matter of fact (not opinion) that the only evidence offered by the police to the courts on this issue was a tissue of lies.
What I have done is to set out what the logical conclusions must be, as based on the established facts.
I accept that you are incapable of processing facts and coming to logical conclusions. You have demonstrated that weekly for 2 years. But do not twist what I say.
-
Well, well, well. Twice in just over a week.
Lol. You've got me there.
-
BST
I wasn't really referring to Orgreve it was thirty years ago. But it is human failing that leads to the corruption we see.
Just as the myth that British politicians are a superior incorruptible species has long gone too.
The point is the public more easily see it now, the myth of the friendly, honest as the day is long Bobby has been put to bed.
No from me too the above post encapsulates my opinions too entirely. Orgreave will come out as will many other 'norty' dealings over the years.
I trust Pres.Putin more....................
-
Look, it's very simple. The miners charged the police to break their lines on numerous occasions. They threw missiles at the police on numerous occasions. The police finally had enough and dispersed the miners before any more of their colleagues got hurt. In the process some miners were injured (some of them unjustifiably).
However in the heat of battle (and that is what the miners engineered) human emotions took over. The police were very annoyed that the miners kept charging them and throwing missiles. Some of the police took out this anger on some innocent miners by beating them. Some miners took out their anger by launching missiles and fighting with the police.
All in all I would say it was a fair result that no miners or police were found guilty of any crimes. You however now want the police to be brought to book for this incident. That is a fair enough viewpoint but what makes my piss boil is that you don't want any miners to be brought to book for their violent behaviour.
Then again you are viewing the world through your hard left spectacles. Just occasionally it would be nice for you to post a well balanced view that looks at the situation from both sides like what I always do.
-
Mick
I thought it would be very simple when you applied your brain to it.
Just one thing though. Who mentioned police beating miners? Who mentioned police being prosecuted for beating miners? Are you having another invisible friend moment.
I was talking about police systematically and orchestratedly fabricating evidence to fit up men for a ten year stretch.
Why would they do that when it was so simple and obvious that the miners were guilty?
-
Look, it's very simple. The police were violent towards the miners. The miners were violent towards the police. I doubt very much that the police would have been violent towards the miners if they hadn't repeatedly tried to break the police lines and hurled missiles on numerous occasions. It could be argued that the miners started it and the police reacted in such a way as to stop any more of their colleagues getting hurt or even killed.
Here's what a police man had to say of events on that day;
'former police officer John Vipond said the hot day led to cans of drink being given to officers.
"Just as you heard the click of the cans, the miners kicked off," he said.
"They started to throw things at us and we had to put these cans down and stand shoulder to shoulder.
"It became rather nasty after that, with surges back and forward."
He said there were "bricks flying and people going down".
"One or two bricks were thrown back from the police into their end."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24941194
I tend to believe what this officer says. The clue is in his last sentence. He admits that the police threw bricks back at the miners. If he was lying do you think he would have admitted this? Come on Billy use your logic for once
In the real world where I live I can see fault on both sides. You appear to only see fault on the side of the police. On balance it is probably a form of rough justice that no one got convicted for what happened that day. Don't forget that the miners that were prosecuted received very generous compensation payments. The injured police men did not.
Luckily for all of us, there is no such thing as Billy world (apart from in your own head).
-
YOU tend to believe what the police said. Grand.
Trouble is, it was demonstrated in the trial of the men arrested at Orgreave and prosecuted for riot and affray that the police had lied on an epic scale. As a result, the police's version of events has to be viewed with skepticism.
35 miners brought civil actions against the police for malicious prosecution and South Yorks police paid out £425,000 in damages as a result.
You want my take, on the balance of the evidence that I've seen and heard? I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones. What was never established was who did that, what the scale of it was and whether the men who were prosecuted were involved in that.
The police tried to paint a very particular picture. They did that, apparently, in order to promote a story that there was widescale and very high level violence by the miners, to which the police responded. In setting that story, they were able to push prosecutions for extremely serious offences which might have resulted in men going to prison for ten years or more, even though there was no evidence against them. To set that scene, they invented evidence and produced police statements that were shot through with lies. 34 police statements had identical phrases in them. 22 of them had one entire paragraphs that was identical, including the claim that the miners had charged the police lines and that there had been "a continual barrage of missiles" from the miners. This was done with a purpose: to make sure that the story that there was a riot would stick. But if there WAS a riot, why not rely on genuine police statements? Why concoct statements that were lies?
One police officer has stated in a BBC documentary that he had not seen this happen, but that a plainclothed office had dictated to him what to write. Others had included these comments in their statements when they were not even present at the picket line at the time that the events were alleged to have happened.
Again, if there HAD been a charge and a continual barrage of missiles, why not rely on the officers to write their own version of events? That is how the police are supposed to operate when presenting evidence. Police are supposed to go to court and state under oath what they had actually seen. Not what a senior officer told them that they had seen.
When the lies were exposed in court, the police withdrew their "evidence" and the cases collapsed. It was this that led to the police paying out the miners for malicious prosecution.
We rely on the police to be fair and honest in bringing evidence to court and in relating events as actually happened. That system broke down at Orgreave. It could have resulted in grave miscarriages of justice for men against whom there was not a scrap of real evidence. That is what happens in banana republics, where police and the authorities decide what outcome they want and fit up whoever they want to take the rap.
The questions that have STILL not been addressed after 30 years are:
Who decided to invent and present the demonstrably false evidence?
Why have they not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?
The IPCC has been looking into this since October 2012. Eventually, they will make a decision. Then we might find out what actually happened.
Just like we are starting to find out what happened at Hillsborough. And in the Lawrence case. And in Plebgate.
-
It's no wonder some people have such firm views that the miners were in the wrong, when national media such as the BBC was knowingly churning out misleading coverage:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/miners-strike-30-years-foi-documents-reveal-bbc-misgivings-about-its-coverage
-
I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones.
Phew!!! At last we are getting somewhere. You are starting to see that there are two sides to the argument. There is hope for you.
I can understand the police fabricating evidence. When a mob are throwing bricks at you, you will not be best pleased. Especially if some of your mates are getting hurt. In this situation it is virtually impossible to identify the culprits. The police did the next best thing and rounded up 'colluders' to make an example of them. By doing this they thought the miners would think twice before lobbing bricks at them ever again.
I'm not saying it was right what they did, but I can understand why they did it.
-
I don't doubt that there were SOME people at the picket who threw bricks and stones.
Phew!!! At last we are getting somewhere. You are starting to see that there are two sides to the argument. There is hope for you.
He never said that no miners were attacking the police?...
-
Mick.
1) So we now see that your opinion of what I think is as far from the mark as ever.
2) What the police did was not something that "wasn't right". It was a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is behaviour that undermines the democratic system. If you or I did that, on such a scale and with such serious potential consequences, we'd be looking at a ten year stretch. Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer received 18 month and 4 year sentences for far less serious offences. It is utterly baffling that no police officers have ever faced prosecution for this.
-
It is behaviour that undermines the democratic system.
I think at the time, that is a charge that could quite easily have been leveled at the NUM. Just remind me. Who was it that brought down Ted Heath's government? Who was it that was trying to bring down Margaret Thatcher's government? Who was constantly holding the country to ransom? Was it the police or was it the NUM?
-
Mick
The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.
-
I read this with interest as I was 16 during the miners strike, and got my information realistically from what was broadcast on look north every evening.
I have no doubt that there will have been some miners provoking the police, and some rogue trouble causers too. Similarly from what I saw, the police appeared to act OTT.
Now, in the context of this thread, BST voiced that he didn't trust the police as a result of their actions in the legal process, leading to cases collapsing.
He did not say that the miners, or the police, were at fault for the events at the pits, more that the police made (proven) false statements. Two posters then launched into an attack on BST, accusing him of being a leftie, and then qutoting wikipedia as a source of counter arguments.
I for one don't care a toss for BST's politics (nor anyone elses), and if he says something I disagree with, I will happily say I disagree, but I will also say why I disagree.
It irks me when folks on the forum have a go at others without justifying themselves.
As to the OP question, yes I would trust the Police on a personal level, especially if I needed their help, in the hope that that trust is well founded. At the same time I do accept that the Police as an institution has had its fair share of corruption and wrong doers over the years.
-
Well said IDM.....at last you make sense of the whole thread.
I often read BST's posts. I find them interesting and invariably factual, exactly as on this occasion. How on earth we judge his politics from a statement of FACT is beyond me.... and there is no denying that his posts about the corrupt evidence is correct.
I can also say that I know lots of Police officers, from ordinary beat bobbies, to high ranking officers. Like all professions, some good, some bad.
As for me, in relation to the Police ( and my politics is far from left wing), I wouldn't trust them.
-
You are so two faced it is untrue.
That is the best put down I believe I have ever heard!
Now do yourself a favour and return it to the playground and the poor 13 year old girl before she misses it.
-
The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.
There you go again with your selective memory. Here's what that reputable source Wikipedia reckons:
Arthur Scargill (born 11 January 1938)[1] is a British politician and trade unionist who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) from 1982 to 2002. Joining the NUM at the age of 19 in 1957, he became one of its leading cadres in the late 1960s. In 1973, he was instrumental in organising the miners' strike that toppled Edward Heath's Conservative Government in March 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill
-
Those events may have driven the government of the time to call an election, but it was the voters who made the ultimate decisions.
-
The ballot box brought down Ted Heath.
There you go again with your selective memory. Here's what that reputable source Wikipedia reckons:
Arthur Scargill (born 11 January 1938)[1] is a British politician and trade unionist who was president of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) from 1982 to 2002. Joining the NUM at the age of 19 in 1957, he became one of its leading cadres in the late 1960s. In 1973, he was instrumental in organising the miners' strike that toppled Edward Heath's Conservative Government in March 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill
Edward Heath resigned as prime minister, even though the Conservatives had won the most seats at the election in the first election that year, Harold Wilson led a minority government after his resignation before he called another election later that year and established a majority government. Heath resigned because the Liberals would not support the conservatives in any confidence votes unless the Conservatives agreed to electoral reform
-
We all know it was losing against the miners that really did for him.
-
We all know it was losing against the miners that really did for him.
I should imagine every defeated leader in a general election has some excuse as to why they lost! Ultimately they lost because the electorate decided they wanted change, not some union boss
-
I truly do despair Mick. You are once again forming your conclusions and searching for any scrap of evidence to support them.
Heath hadn't "lost" against the miners in 1974. The industrial action was still ongoing. He had quite possibly overplayed his hand and he certainly dealt with industrial relations in a stupifying idiotic way that set public opinion against him (jailing dockers for going on strike for example).
But none of this was remotely close the bringing down his Government. Heath had a sufficiently large majority in the House of Commons to have continued in power until June 1975 and he would not have come close to losing a vote of confidence in the House. He CHOSE to call an early General Election and he CHOSE to use the slogan "Who Governs Britain" in the Election campaign. He did this partly because he wanted to gain a mandate for strong action against the unions. But equally, he did it because he knew that the economy was going to hell in a handcart because of the disastrous economic policies of Anthony Barber, his Chancellor, who had made the most catastrophic blunders in the 1972 and 1973 Budgets. So he knew that he had a chance of winning in early 74, but would have no chance in mid-75 as the inevitable recession after the Barber Boom crippled the economy and inflation went berserk.
He CHOSE the Election and the terms under which it was fought. He lost the Election. That's called Democracy. The miners didn't bring him down. The most you can say is that the miners handed him a loaded gun and he blew his own brains out.
-
I think I and the vast majority of readers of this forum will stick with Wikipedia's version of events rather than yours if you don't mind.
-
IC1967
You don't speak for me.
I don't take Wiki as gospel, similarly if I wanted to verify/disprove BST's claims then I would do the research myself, if I could be bothered.
-
I think I and the vast majority of readers of this forum will stick with Wikipedia's version of events rather than yours if you don't mind.
So you're using an encyclopedia that anyone can easily edit as your factual basis for forming your opinion?
That tells me all I need to know about you, if I needed any further confirmation.
-
Which Wikipedia is that Mick?
This one?
"In an act of brinkmanship, Heath called the February 1974 general election while the three-day week was underway. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-day_week
This one?
"Heath tried to bolster his government by calling a general election for 28 February 1974, using the election slogan "Who governs Britain?""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Heath#Fall_from_power
Or maybe this one?
"On 10 February the National Union of Mineworkers, as expected, went on strike; however, it was more of a low-key affair than the high-profile clashes of 1972, with no violence and only six men on each picket line. Jim Prior (Tory minister) later (after the 1974 Election) wrote that the miners had been "as quiet and well-behaved as mice""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974#Campaign
Take your pick Mick.
-
I prefer the evidence I have already posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Scargill
-
Woooooosssshhhhh
-
Here's one not to trust:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26536795
-
To give a different slant on the original question – here is the sum total of my dealings, in chronological order, with Dutch police of a period of 35+ years and you can judge whether I should trust them or not:
1: Driving in clear middle of the day conditions on a near empty motorway, not in a rush I was driving at 80 km/hr in a 100km/hr limit area and noticed a stationary car on the hard shoulder some way ahead just starting to drive – so I moved into the outer lane to let him merge in; he reached 80 and was driving in parallel with me for a while and seemed to be a constant speed so I went to 90 to overtake; he went to 90 so I went to 100; he went to 100 so I throttled back and let him go. He immediately zoomed off at I guess about 160-180 km/hr. Five minutes later I saw him on the hard shoulder again – an unmarked police car this time having had more success and booking someone for speeding. I am still furious – goading drivers to exceed limits and creating potentially dangerous situations.
2: Just outside the office I worked there used to be the Police Dog training school and a constant stream of police cars coming in and out. One quiet day with no other cars around I was waiting at the traffic light there and when green came for some lucky reason I was slow to set off. Otherwise I would have been completely taken out by a dog-handler car shooting a red light at ca 100km/hr in a 50 km/hr limit straight at where I would have been.
3: My wife was pick-pocketed very professionally in a fast food restaurant in the centre of The Hague. We only realised by the time we returned home to the suburbs. As well as cash there were ID cards and credit cards in the stolen wallet. We had to get a police statement for the bank and insurance. Our local police station refused to help and sent us back to the centre, it was only the fourth police station that eventually reluctantly took our statement.
4: My wife, the most careful driver on earth, was the very first car at a red traffic light waiting to go. There were major roadworks and electric cables everywhere. She went on green and was flashed. The picture sent clearly showed cables everywhere. Her protest of innocence fell on totally deaf ears and an increased fine.
5: For completeness – breathalysed on multiple occasions, always with zero or negligible alcohol - met with a mixture of sometimes polite and but occasionally clearly frustrated/disappointed officers.
In summary a police force that is willing to goad drivers and create dangerous road situations, drives through red lights at high speeds in non-emergency situations, are not there to take your statements when you need them, and have no inclination to believe an innocent driver who had driven 30 years without any offence. Thank goodness I was never unwittingly involved in anything serious.
-
Our police force are saints compared to the Dutch. All you police slaggers need to cop yourself on.
-
So because our police are less corrupt than others that makes them wonderful? heard it all now.
-
Why not ask the people who were there what happened.No one has mentioned the snatch squads who orchestrated the situation for the convenience of the cameras.No one has spoken to local grass roots police who were rightly pissed because years of community relations were flushed down the pan by outside mercenaries masquerading as police.Do yourself a favour and ask someone who was there if you want a unbiased opinion .
-
If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.
Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.
Let's not waste any more public money dragging the reputation of the police through the mud for something that happened many years ago. It's time to move on and get behind our boys in blue.
-
If you're going to use an online encyclopedia f**k me at least use one with some credibility.
-
Justice should NEVER be rough. That is nothing but an oxymoron.
-
If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.
Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.
Two points: first of all, and I repeat myself, BST's initial comments were about the police lying in court NOT about either the police or miners being to blame.
Secondly, why not trust folks on the forum? I fail to see how you can pre-judge someone just because you disagree about something online? If they have something worthy of argument, that can be verified, you can verify it! When you read/quote Wiki do you check all the source references at the bottom of the page? For example the Wiki entry for "total football" used to refer to DRFC as an exponent of this, but no longer does. Therefore the information on Wiki changes, so is it trustworthy? Not without verifying the info it isn't! Even more so when some of the information is opinions or different perspectives.
-
Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...
-
Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...
Not true.
You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…
…you can only add to it, not change it. Wikipedia is a database with a memory designed to last as long as they can make it last. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, they keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows them to compare different versions or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, your permanent link will only work for administrators.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia
Many studies have shown that what's on Wikipedia is 'largely accurate'. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.
Wikipedia is clear. The miners charged the police lines in an effort to break through. Some miners threw missiles that injured the police (on numerous occasions). Is it any wonder the police had enough and battered a few miners to get them to disperse and stop throwing bricks at them?
It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides. I'd have a lot more time for anyone arguing for the police to be brought to book over the incident if they also said that the miners that threw missiles should also be brought to book.
But guess what happens. All you lefties turn round and blame it all on the police without ever mentioning the wrongdoing of the miners. You only want the police to be prosecuted. You're quite happy for the missile throwing miners to get away with it.
You need to start living in the real world that I inhabit. Stop looking through those hard left spectacles and get a bit of perspective.
-
It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides.
Nobody is saying there wasn't though... the subject was the police lying in court about what happened...
But then you always do move the goalposts don't you.
-
You're the one moving the goalposts. The subject is not as you say. It is 'Do you trust the police'. You've already got it wrong on Wikipedia and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot in the next statement you make.
Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you keep getting it so badly wrong.
Look it's very simple. Billy is trying to justify his lack of trust for the police by dragging up an event from 30 years ago. He is using this to justify his opinion. I trust the police and feel it is necessary to expose the far left slant he is putting on things because I know he has a lot of gullible followers on this forum (such as yourself).
I realise that people like you worship at the altar of all his ramblings but there is a silent majority out there that are grateful that I am able to think for myself and put a balanced point of view across that examines both sides of an issue.
You and your leftie friends would do well to engage brain every now and then to see how ridiculous many of his points of view are. The penny should have dropped by now because I have already demolished his arguments so many times it is untrue.
-
You're the one moving the goalposts. The subject is not as you say. It is 'Do you trust the police'.
And in with that comes whether or not they have lied in court.
But we'll ignore that and indulge you shall we.
-
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
RedJ that is precisely the point. The thread is about trusting the police, not about who was to blame for picket line violence.
IC1967. I would recommend that if you want to use Wiki as a source of info for presenting your arguments, that you use Wiki as a stepping stone to deeper investigation. Use what folks present there as a guide, but check out the supporting references, then see if you agree with what is on Wiki. Some things there will always be factually correct, and easily verifiable, such as football records, others such as viewpoints on historical events written from one perspective or another will be less reliable.
-
RedJ, what is your point? I don't disagree that some of what was presented in court was lies. That is only a very small part of the big picture.
Billy seems to have convinced you that because some of what was said in court over one incident 30 years ago was untrue that this warrants a lack of trust in the police today.
Just stop and think about my previous paragraph for just a minute and you will see what he is saying is completely bonkers. Like I say it pays to engage brain whenever you read any of his ramblings. Stop being a sheep and learn to think for yourself.
-
He is using this to justify his opinion. I trust the police and feel it is necessary to expose the far left slant he is putting on things because I know he has a lot of gullible followers on this forum (such as yourself).
Why shouldn't he use examples of something that can be verified to justify his opinion? Where's your justification, Wiki?
I'm all for disagreements and opinions, but it irks me when folks post their viewpoints without justification. Then you go calling folks "lefties" etc - where's the evidence for that? I (and others) are simply pointing out that BST has a valid opinion based on evidence, whilst you are twisting things and still abusing other posters.
I do not "follow" BST nor am I gullible or a leftie. I don't care a flying f**k what other posters politcal viewpoints are, and I definitely don't start labelling and abusing folks because I don't agree with them and can't justify my own views.
I certainly don't claim to be representative of the rest of the forum either, I speak only for myself! I suggest you do the same, otherwise you come across very badly and are less likely to be believed or agreed with.
See - I disagreed with you without abusing you or accusing you of anything like being a "lefite" etc. Easy, isn't it?
-
Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...
Not true.
You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…
…you can only add to it, not change it. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.
Any who do you think confirms if something is valid?
Wikipedia is only as good as it's sources. And if the sources are wrong/biased, so will Wikipedia be wrong/biased.
Oh, and anyone CAN change Wikipedia. It may take time before people/the bots pick up those changes, but nonetheless those changes will stand for a period of time.
Now, when are you going to do one Mick?
-
Our police force are saints compared to the Dutch. All you police slaggers need to cop yourself on.
I see what you did there!
However, a word of warning,calling our finest boys in blue slags could result in your back door being banged through in the early hours of the morning, followed by a heavy truncheoning.
If you are really unlucky you might get a beating too.
-
Especially when the information he's using can easily be edited by just about anyone...
Not true.
You can't actually change anything in Wikipedia…
…you can only add to it, not change it. Wikipedia is a database with a memory designed to last as long as they can make it last. An article you read today is just the current draft; every time it is changed, they keep both the new version and a copy of the old version. This allows them to compare different versions or restore older ones as needed. As a reader, you can even cite the specific copy of an article you are looking at. Just link to the article using the "Permanent link" at the bottom of the left menu, and your link will point to a page whose contents will never change. (However, if an article is deleted, your permanent link will only work for administrators.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia
Many studies have shown that what's on Wikipedia is 'largely accurate'. If what's on Wikipedia was wrong about the Orgreave incident then it could be altered but only if the alteration was valid.
Wikipedia is clear. The miners charged the police lines in an effort to break through. Some miners threw missiles that injured the police (on numerous occasions). Is it any wonder the police had enough and battered a few miners to get them to disperse and stop throwing bricks at them?
It is obvious to any right minded person that there was fault on both sides. I'd have a lot more time for anyone arguing for the police to be brought to book over the incident if they also said that the miners that threw missiles should also be brought to book.
But guess what happens. All you lefties turn round and blame it all on the police without ever mentioning the wrongdoing of the miners. You only want the police to be prosecuted. You're quite happy for the missile throwing miners to get away with it.
You need to start living in the real world that I inhabit. Stop looking through those hard left spectacles and get a bit of perspective.
Wikipedia, the site that makes idiots turn into specialist idiots.
-
IDM, you seem to be mistaking my pugnacious debating style as being abusive. Now if your post about being abusive was aimed at BST then I could have understood it. You should see some of the things he's said about me (and others).
I on the other hand have been mostly (I'll admit not always) courteous and kind to other posters. I'll agree that I am very direct and don't beat about the bush. If this offends people then they don't need to read or respond to my posts.
It is my experience though that the silent majority enjoy reading my posts and are pleased I'm prepared to stand up to the left wing bias that is prevalent on this forum. I intend to carry on my good work.
-
I see what you did there!
I don't think you did. I feel my coruscating wit has once again been wasted. The key word in the excellent witticism that I posted is 'cop'.
-
Mick.
Every single discussion slides down the same plug hole.
We talk about specifics. You get out of your depth on the specific. And as a result, you ramble about unsubstantiated generalities.
If I had a quid for every time you've got yourself utterly out of your depth in a discussion, and re-booted with the line, "Look, it's very simple".
I have a mental image of you after each pounding, scrubbing your brain with wire wool to erase any trace of evidence that contradicts your preconceived opinion. And then you simply revert back to your preconceived opinion.
Like dealing with a born again religious zealot.
But anyway. Just for the record once again, I was NOT trying to claim that Orgreave means no one should have any trust in the police. I WAS claiming that Orgreave is a massive stain on British justice, and that the police involved in one of the biggest and most dangerous criminal conspiracies of all time should be brought to justice.
That was a specific. That was what I was talking about. I have no interest in how the bizarre wiring of your brain jumps from that to an incorrect generality. But I'm quite sure that won't stop you from regaling us with your general opinions. Unfortunately.
-
Mick.
How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?
-
This thread was not about Orgreave. It was about trust in the police. You brought up Orgreave in the context of the thread being about lack of trust in the police.
It seems quite reasonable to me to assume that you have posted 'evidence' that can be used to justify a lack of trust in the police. I have merely pointed out that your 'evidence' has a left wing bias to it. You made yourself look daft (yet again) by only going after the police. You don't seem bothered about any miners being brought to book for missile throwing or fighting with the police.
Once again you have shown yourself to be incapable of looking at both sides of an argument. Luckily I am around to expose you.
-
Mick.
How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?
Probably via a blank page on wikipedia :)
-
How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?
I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?
Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.
There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.
I rest my case.
-
Jesus man. I thought you were joking previously when you quoted your "views" numbers with pride.
I was wrong. You actually DO get off on those numbers don't you?
-
Mick
I didn't bring up Orgreave.
-
How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?
I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?
Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.
There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.
I rest my case.
Have you ever considered that those views could be attributed to the comedy value of your posts rather than the actual accuracy of them
-
Jesus man. I thought you were joking previously when you quoted your "views" numbers with pride.
I was wrong. You actually DO get off on those numbers don't you?
Lol. Of course I don't get off on the numbers. It is just evidence that answers your question. You of all people seem to like evidence that backs up a point of view.
There are far bigger forums out there if I was a 'numbers' person.
-
Have you ever considered that those views could be attributed to the comedy value of your posts rather than the actual accuracy of them
That is part of my charm, but only a very small part of it.
-
How do the silent majority tell you that they enjoy reading your posts?
I'd have thought that was obvious. I'll give you a clue. How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?
Another example. How many views did the 'The Good News Keeps On Coming' thread get before it got locked? Nearly 5000.
There are many other examples but by now hopefully I have answered your question.
I rest my case.
How do you know the folks who have viewed the thread agree with you?
Here again you are drawing a conclusion without logical evidence. Possibly, the thread readers enjoy seeing your arguments being countered, but then again I am not making any such claims, am I?
-
I view the threads normally without contributing to them, but that isn't because I am part of this so called silent majority who you think seems to enjoy them, its more just so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself time and time again.
We aren't 'laughing' with you, we are laughing at you.
-
How many views has this thread had? How many do you think it would have had had I not got involved in the debate?
I rest my case.
A moment ago this thread had 886 views, and all your posts on it have attracted the grand total of ONE "like".
Go figure the "silent majority" there?
-
How do you know the folks who have viewed the thread agree with you?
Here again you are drawing a conclusion without logical evidence. Possibly, the thread readers enjoy seeing your arguments being countered, but then again I am not making any such claims, am I?
I don't claim that the folks agree with me. I reckon a lot of them don't. All I do is point out the counter view when required and hope it makes people think. That is all.
I like the fact that my arguments are countered. It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.
-
I view the threads normally without contributing to them, but that isn't because I am part of this so called silent majority who you think seems to enjoy them, its more just so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself time and time again.
We aren't 'laughing' with you, we are laughing at you.
I think you've contradicted yourself a bit there Jenny. I think if you're laughing at me then you must be deriving some enjoyment from my participation in the debate. I can live with this.
Deep down though I suspect my views have sometimes given you pause for thought. Just be grateful I am around to counter the hard left view of life prevalent on this forum.
-
A moment ago this thread had 886 views, and all your posts on it have attracted the grand total of ONE "like".
Go figure the "silent majority" there?
I don't post to be liked. That is a poor indicator of how the silent majority feel. The numbers of views are a far better indicator of what's happening with the silent majority.
I'm sure many more would like to like my posts but fear they will then be vilified by the hard left members of the forum. Anyone with a whiff of a right wing attitude is totally looked down on on this forum. Luckily I am made of stern stuff and can take it.
-
How do you know the folks who have viewed the thread agree with you?
Here again you are drawing a conclusion without logical evidence. Possibly, the thread readers enjoy seeing your arguments being countered, but then again I am not making any such claims, am I?
I don't claim that the folks agree with me. I reckon a lot of them don't. All I do is point out the counter view when required and hope it makes people think. That is all.
I like the fact that my arguments are countered. It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong. I wouldn't be so presumptuous.
"It is my experience though that the silent majority enjoy reading my posts" - OK there is maybe a difference between "enjoy reading" and "agree" but do you actually read what you put?
"It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong" - either you are unknowingly contradicting yourself, or are exhibiting arrogance of the highest order, or both? Or misquoting someone like Brian Clough?
-
A moment ago this thread had 886 views, and all your posts on it have attracted the grand total of ONE "like".
Go figure the "silent majority" there?
I don't post to be liked. That is a poor indicator of how the silent majority feel. The numbers of views are a far better indicator of what's happening with the silent majority.
I'm sure many more would like to like my posts but fear they will then be vilified by the hard left members of the forum. Anyone with a whiff of a right wing attitude is totally looked down on on this forum. Luckily I am made of stern stuff and can take it.
The number of views signifies how many times the thread has been viewed, nothing more, nothing less. It gives no indication of what the readers think of the posts.
What's all the guff about left wing/right wing? The only poster bring that up, is YOU!
-
There is a world of difference between 'enjoy reading' and 'agree'.
I don't think I've contradicted or displayed arrogance myself. You'll have to show me where this has happened. To my knowledge it has never happened.
-
I view the threads normally without contributing to them, but that isn't because I am part of this so called silent majority who you think seems to enjoy them, its more just so I can watch you make a fool out of yourself time and time again.
We aren't 'laughing' with you, we are laughing at you.
I think you've contradicted yourself a bit there Jenny. I think if you're laughing at me then you must be deriving some enjoyment from my participation in the debate. I can live with this.
Deep down though I suspect my views have sometimes given you pause for thought. Just be grateful I am around to counter the hard left view of life prevalent on this forum.
No enjoyment here, I kind of liken it to watching a car crash through your fingers as you don't want to see...
I think you've gone round in circles so many times now and spout the same shite that there really is nothing more to see from your posts.
-
The number of views signifies how many times the thread has been viewed, nothing more, nothing less. It gives no indication of what the readers thinkof the posts.
Why would people keep reading my posts if they didn't derive some enjoyment from it?
-
There is a world of difference between 'enjoy reading' and 'agree'.
I don't think I've contradicted or displayed arrogance myself. You'll have to show me where this has happened. To my knowledge it has never happened.
How about here:
It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong
If you believe that you realise you were in the right, then how can it be up to others to decide?
Did you really need me to point that out to you, again? I mean, really?
-
The number of views signifies how many times the thread has been viewed, nothing more, nothing less. It gives no indication of what the readers thinkof the posts.
Why would people keep reading my posts if they didn't derive some enjoyment from it?
I wonder!!!!!
Perhaps, just perhaps, they're reading the whole thread out of interest? Do you ever watch the news, lets say about that recent airliner crash? You may be interested in that story, but I doubt you get enjoyment from it....
-
No enjoyment here, I kind of liken it to watching a car crash through your fingers as you don't want to see...
That's what's known as perverse enjoyment but enjoyment all the same. Anyway I'd encourage you to be more of a poster than a reader. We could do with a bit more of a female perspective around here. I promise to not be as pugnacious with you as I am with some of the other posters if that reassures you.
-
We could do with a bit more of a female perspective around here. I promise to not be as pugnacious with you as I am with some of the other posters if that reassures you.
Do you realise how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
-
How about here:
It gives me pause for thought before realising I was right all along. It is for others to decide who is right or wrong
If you believe that you realise you were in the right, then how can it be up to others to decide?
Just because I decide I'm right doesn't mean I expect everyone else to agree I'm right. They can have their own opinion. If others decide I'm wrong I'm still not going to change my mind if I think I was right all along anyway.
-
Do you realise how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
I think it sounds very gentlemanly. If I was a woman I too might be a bit scared about going up against me on a very male forum.
-
Just because I decide I'm right doesn't mean I expect everyone else to agree I'm right. They can have their own opinion. If others decide I'm wrong I'm still not going to change my mind if I think I was right all along anyway.
:facepalm:
I rest my case....
Do you realise how arrogant and condescending that sounds?
I think it sounds very gentlemanly. If I was a woman I too might be a bit scared about going up against me on a very male forum.
Your user name is IC1967, you could have been a woman for all I know - or care, for that matter.
-
Most people will read the threads that pique their interest, most will not comment.. It doesn't mean they agree, it doesn't mean they disagree, it is more likely that they aren't bothered enough to take the time to comment or that they have no thought either way.
Many people also skim read over those they don't find as .....interesting....
As you say it is your right to believe what you want, as is it the right of every other poster to again either agree or disagree..
Going round in circles, dismissing people for being 'lefties' when they disagree, using the written word to shout down anyone who you don't agree with isn't particularly appealing. it can also be taken two ways...
1, you really are a pugnacious little man with an over bearing nature, the male version of Roald Dahl's miss Trunchbull...
2, Or secretly you are a man with an inferiority complex that only feels comfortable vocalising on a forum in complete anonymity.
Of course there is a third, you could be a very nice man who just really enjoys pulling the chains of the fellas on here because you know it irritates them like a burr under the saddle of a seaside donkey......
-
it irritates them like a burr under the saddle of a seaside donkey......
there's a euphamism in there somewhere ;)
-
Another untrustworthy policeman
http://www.southyorks.police.uk/news-syp/south-yorkshire-pc-dismissed-following-misconduct-hearing
Hope it was the one that dished out a £100 seatbelt fine to me!
-
There is part of the problem. If you do anything wrong as a police officer then there are serous ramifications. Joe public would not as a general rule be sacked from their job for this misdemeanor. Sometimes it is the fear of being sacked that makes the police 'cover' up things.
It's time the punishment fitted the crime and sanctions on the police were similar to what the general public experiences.
-
Thank you Jucyberry for your contribution. It's nice to hear from one of our female forum users. Maybe you could try and encourage Jenny to get more involved. You talk a lot of sense and display great intuition.
-
There is part of the problem. If you do anything wrong as a police officer then there are serous ramifications. Joe public would not as a general rule be sacked from their job for this misdemeanor. Sometimes it is the fear of being sacked that makes the police 'cover' up things.
It's time the punishment fitted the crime and sanctions on the police were similar to what the general public experiences.
If a professional driver gets convicted of Drink Driving he loses his job, why should a Traffic Officer be any different? He needs to drive in his job, it's his stupid fault!
-
There is part of the problem. If you do anything wrong as a police officer then there are serous ramifications. Joe public would not as a general rule be sacked from their job for this misdemeanor. Sometimes it is the fear of being sacked that makes the police 'cover' up things.
It's time the punishment fitted the crime and sanctions on the police were similar to what the general public experiences.
If I got a drink driving conviction I would potentially face the sack, even though driving is not my primary job. Anyone who is a driver would almost certainly be sacked, unless they were self employed. And in the case quoted by Filo, this is a traffic policeman - there is a higher expectation therefore for he/she to act within the law particularly related to driving offences. I would contend that the punishment does fit the crime.
And to relate this to the thread theme, how could you "trust" a traffic policeman/woman to do their job properly if they had a non-expired drink driving conviciton?
-
He could have been given a role that didn't require him to drive for the duration of his ban. If I got a drink driving ban then I could always get to work somehow without driving. I would not automatically lose my job.
Do something wrong as a police officer and you lose your job. This is too harsh a punishment in many cases and leads to a culture of cover up.
Also all you that don't trust the police. Who was it that caught him? Yes it was the police! Think about that for a second.
-
He could have been given a role that didn't require him to drive for the duration of his ban. If I got a drink driving ban then I could always get to work somehow without driving. I would not automatically lose my job.
Do something wrong as a police officer and you lose your job. This is too harsh a punishment in many cases and leads to a culture of cover up.
Also all you that don't trust the police. Who was it that caught him? Yes it was the police! Think about that for a second.
He's a traffic cop, should be whiter than white in relation to driving offences. He has trust and authority placed in him to apply those laws to other drivers. He has broken that trust. As for you, you're lucky if you are in a situation where a driving ban is less of a problem.
I am definitely more likely to trust the police as a whole entity, when cases like this are prosecuted. If they are not, then I would be more worried.
-
He could have been given a role that didn't require him to drive for the duration of his ban. If I got a drink driving ban then I could always get to work somehow without driving. I would not automatically lose my job.
Do something wrong as a police officer and you lose your job. This is too harsh a punishment in many cases and leads to a culture of cover up.
Also all you that don't trust the police. Who was it that caught him? Yes it was the police! Think about that for a second.
A traffic cop that can't drive is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard!
-
A traffic cop that can't drive is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard!
A traffic cop who not only can't drive but who has flouted the very laws he is employed to enact, should be removed from a position of authority. As other roles within the police will also carry authority, how can he then be trusted to take those other responsibilities?
-
Wid Rover
I was a wild miner for many a year
And I spent all my picket money on whiskey and beer
the question was asked do you trust the police force
and the answer I gave was with no remorse
and its no,nay never
no nay never no more
I won’t trust a policeman
No never no more
-
I don't understand how anyone could possibly trust a person to uphold the law when that person has broken the law...
-
Using your logic there would be no-one left in the police force.
-
Using your logic there would be no-one left in the police force.
Where has anyone said that every member of the Police force has broken the law?
You question other folk's logic, yet don't post a logical argument yourself?
-
We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.
-
Using your logic there would be no-one left in the police force.
So what you are saying, considering that you stated no one would be left in the Police force, is that every Policeman is dishonest, even though earlier in this thread you stated that not all Policemen are dishonest, make your mind up Mick, do we tar them all with the same brush, or do we not?
-
Best thing to do is what I do. Be a law abiding citizen and you will have no need for Legal Aid.
We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.
Make your mind up Mick.
-
Best thing to do is what I do. Be a law abiding citizen and you will have no need for Legal Aid.
We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.
Make your mind up Mick.
Maybe between March 8th and now he's gone on a law breaking spree
-
Now we wait for the goalposts to be moved again.
-
We have all broken one law or another. It's just that we rarely get caught.
Who's "we"?
And, following your logic, it implies that even more traffic police may have broken traffic laws, but are getting away with it by not getting caught. Even more of an argument then to punish those who do get caught, as a deterrent to others.
-
When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without a blemish.
As a child two of my dad's friends were policemen. True village coppers. Both decent men that knew their community and the people in it.
So called bent coppers spit in the face of men and women like this, they taint the view of the populace. Let's face it as we all know, a bad reputation is easier to gain and far harder to lose than a good one.
Do I believe they should stay in the force? No, their crime is double that of an 'ordinary' criminal..
They have broken their vow as well as the law.
-
Look, we all need to come back into the real world. Show me a motorist that hasn't broken the law and I'll show you a liar. Show me someone who has never broken a law and I'll show you a saint or a liar.
We have all broken the law at some stage in our lives. The police are no different. If you want the force just to be made up of saints then we'd have no police force at all.
I still feel it unfair for us to expect a police officer to have extreme punishment handed out to them for a minor misdemeanor. OK I will accept the argument (there's a first time for everything) that in certain circumstances maybe they should face a harsher sanction than an ordinary member of the public due to the nature of their job.
However I do feel the balance is too far towards the severe end of the scale. This is part of the problem. No wonder there are cover ups when you're going to lose your job and final salary pension scheme etc if you get caught wrong doing.
-
I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor
-
When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without a blemish
.
I think that statement needs modifying slightly. How about:
When it all boils down, it all comes down to the fact that when you join the police force, you swear to uphold the law. Thousands of Police men and women manage to do that, they go through their entire working lives without getting caught.
-
So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????
-
I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor
Neither would I, nor, I guess (note I say "guess", not state as a fact) would most sensible people.
-
I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor
I would in certain circumstances. Say if you were only just over the limit or you got done in the morning after the night before when you hadn't drunk excessively.
-
There is no logic I'm afraid, you cannot reason with some one who's position alters like a wind sock in a hurricane....
And , I don't need modifying, I do believe there are honest law abiding never put a foot wrong coppers.
As a amorphous mass however my original statement stands.
-
So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????
Corrupt is too strong a word. If you drive occasionally at 31 in a 30 zone I'd hardly call that corrupt.
-
I wouldn't label drink driving a minor misdemeanor
I would in certain circumstances. Say if you were only just over the limit or you got done in the morning after the night before when you hadn't drunk excessively.
Over the limit is over the limit, regardless of when you had a drink, your comments are an insult to thousands of families who's life has been ripped apart by drunk drivers
-
So by your logic, all the police are corrupt to some degree, yet you question those posters on here who in answer to the OP, don't trust them????
Corrupt is too strong a word. If you drive occasionally at 31 in a 30 zone I'd hardly call that corrupt.
You didn't read my words "to some degree". And if you're being pedantic about doing 31mph in a 30 zone, well speedos aren't that accurate anyway.
I guess you are being argumentative for the sake of it. Is this natural to you, or do you get up early to practice?
-
I still think using the word corrupt is a bit over the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
-
I still think using the word corrupt is a bit over the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
So what does "they go through their entire working lives without getting caught" mean? Corrupt? Immoral? Hypocritical? Unacceptable? You arguing about choice of words doesn't get away from the original point, does it?
-
I think you are missing the point or reading more into my comments than is actually there. We all break the law and we all nearly always get away with it. That doesn't make us all corrupt.
For example someone riding their bike on the pavement is breaking the law. I find this annoying but I wouldn't describe the person who does it as corrupt.
-
We're talking about the police, abusing their position of authority, by breaking the very laws they are empowered to uphold.
Also, I have already addressed the choice of wording and can replace "corrupt" with other words, in my last post. Why do you need things explaining more than once?
If by being argumentative for the sake of it, you are hoping to get a rise by baiting me (or others) to react by abusing you, calling you names or telling you to f off, then that ain't going to happen, well not with me anyway, you can continue spouting your unsubstantiated opinionated drivel on here for all to read and make their own conclusions, as you seem to think everyone comes here to read your posts.
-
He could have been given a role that didn't require him to drive for the duration of his ban. If I got a drink driving ban then I could always get to work somehow without driving. I would not automatically lose my job.
I thought you had retired at the age of 3.
-
So what does "they go through their entire working lives without getting caught" mean? Corrupt? Immoral? Hypocritical? Unacceptable? You arguing about choice of words doesn't get away from the original point, does it?
It means that in the real world they have all broken one law or another but that doesn't mean they are any of the adjectives you use. You are the one arguing about words and the one getting away from the original point. Don't you realise how daft you are making yourself look by suggesting that if an officer breaks the law they are to some degree corrupt, immoral, hypocritical or unacceptable.
It also doesn't mean they are unsuitable for the job. If you wanted a police force with officers that have never broken any laws you wouldn't have a police force.
You need to get real. It seems to me that you are trying to be argumentative just for the sake of it. It seems to me that if any officer broke the speed limit you'd want them to lose their job. This is way over the top.
-
If by being argumentative for the sake of it, you are hoping to get a rise by baiting me (or others) to react by abusing you, calling you names or telling you to f off, then that ain't going to happen, well not with me anyway, you can continue spouting your unsubstantiated opinionated drivel on here for all to read and make their own conclusions, as you seem to think everyone comes here to read your posts.
I don't think I've ever abused you. I may have been direct and pugnacious but I don't think that counts as abuse. You say you are not going to abuse me and then in the next breath state that I post
unsubstantiated opinionated drivel. That may be interpreted by some as abuse and a bit contradictory.
I don't think everyone comes on here to read my posts. Some do but some do not. I was asked a question by Billy about the silent majority. I gave a logical answer. I did not make the claim you assert. However it is obvious that some of my threads and some of the threads I post in do get a lot of views. I'm only stating fact and nothing more.
-
And , I don't need modifying, I do believe there are honest law abiding never put a foot wrong coppers.
It must be nice living in your world. If only it were the real world. I'm afraid I have to disagree with that statement as would 99.99% of the rest of the population.
-
Please can you advise me on what authority you speak for 99.99% of the population?
And I never said you abused me, I asked if you were hoping to get an abusive reaction from me, ie calling you something nasty etc.
As for choice of words, I suggested other words could be used, I am not going to publish a thesaurus here. Also "unsubstantiated" clearly does apply to you, as you continue to make claims on behalf of others.
If you are going to argue a point, please give facts and evidence, not just opinion.
I am reminded of a Black Adder quote "you twist and turn, like a twisty turny thing".
Anyway, no doubt you'll come up with some clever reposte to whatever I post. If it makes you feel better always to have the final say, so be it, I couldn't care less.
-
You've obviously got your knickers in a twist (and I really don't know why). However I'm going to let you have the last word as I'm a bit confused as to what your point is and where you are coming from. Sorted.
-
If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.
Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.
Let's not waste any more public money dragging the reputation of the police through the mud for something that happened many years ago. It's time to move on and get behind our boys in blue.
Getting behind the boys in blue is your prerogative and whatever turns you on .As for being a leftie , okay it a fair cop (pardon the pun) but take a reality check and a chill pill.The police role is to implement the rule of law as passed through the democratic process we call parliament.In the case of the miners strike the political impartiality of the police was brought into question in curtailing the legal rights of law abiding citizens exercising there democratic rights to move around the country freely to appeal for solidarity and defend there communities.The other issue of course is the dubious practices which individual police certainly breached there professional codes of conduct.A scene in maltby springs to mind when an old lady looked outside her window and saw 4 men kicking a man on the floor.Her automatic response was to call for the police.However, when she realisd the 4 men were police this was no longer a viable option.Ask yourself the question what would happen if a nurse or teacher assaulted there patients or pupils.It is this sense of injustice that needs to be addressed if people are to move on and have confidence in the police not the cover up job that the state is still pursuing .
We need to move on but not forget as history teaches us that the police can be used as political footballs outside there remit.Ask any police how happy they are mopping up the crime left by the thatcher legacy in terms of drugs and crime.There workload has been trebled.At the end of the day police are workers in uniform providing a public service .Many of them are affiliated to Unison in recognition of this fact as as there terms and conditions have been affected Yes we need the police but there job is to protect communities not help smash them
-
If I want an unbiased opinion I would rather get it off Wikipedia. There are too many lefties on this forum for me to trust anything they say.
Look, it's very simple. The miners started it and the police finished it. There was wrongdoing on both sides. On balance the rough justice that has prevailed with no-one on either side being convicted will do for me.
Two points: first of all, and I repeat myself, BST's initial comments were about the police lying in court NOT about either the police or miners being to blame.
Secondly, why not trust folks on the forum? I fail to see how you can pre-judge someone just because you disagree about something online? If they have something worthy of argument, that can be verified, you can verify it! When you read/quote Wiki do you check all the source references at the bottom of the page? For example the Wiki entry for "total football" used to refer to DRFC as an exponent of this, but no longer does. Therefore the information on Wiki changes, so is it trustworthy? Not without verifying the info it isn't! Even more so when some of the information is opinions or different perspectives.
History is written by the victors
-
Donnyproletarian, you talk some sense, but I have to disagree with you on some points. I won't bother going into what I disagree with as people who have read what I've previously posted will be able to work it out from what I've previously said.
However there is one issue that I would take issue with. It is the same one that lefties constantly don't mention. The miners were partly to blame for what went on!!!
I'd have a lot more respect for leftie views if they were a bit more balanced.
-
The only thing the miners were guilty of is getting of there knees to fight back for there communities.The same motivation that sent them to war .Then they were described as the salt of the earth later to be replaced by the enemy within .The paradox my righty friend and the irony of the situation is that the strike was in essence a conservative one to preserve a way of life , not a group of bolshevicks planning a socialist revolution .
-
The miners started it!!!
-
The miners started it!!!
What did the miners start Mick?
-
Where's your evidence Mick?
Remember, you can't use the police' word as they admitted that they'd made up the evidence.
-
Wikipedia clearly states that the miners started it by trying to break the police lines and by lobbing bricks at our boys in blue. The police finished it. Quite understandably.
-
Using a precedence from a previous topic over the use of historical fiction in film to judge history, have you not seen Billy Elliott? The police started it.
-
Was Wikipedia there at Orgreave Mick? Whereabouts was he stood?
-
The miners started it!!!!
-
I suppose the liverpool fans stared hilsbrough as well
-
I suppose the liverpool fans stared hilsbrough as well
No they didn't!!!! You obviously know nothing of what happened at Hillsborough if you think that.
-
The miners started it!!!!
We appear to have reached the "if I scream it loud enough and often enough people will go away" stage.
-
More evidence in the Miners Strike special in the Free Press. Battle of Orgreave: 5000 miners fight riot police. Protestors bombard police with bricks and stones. Game set and match.
-
Nobody's saying that the miners weren't fighting the police though... not once has anybody disputed that.
But then, it isn't exactly unusual for you to move the goalposts really.
-
None of you lefties are saying the miners did anything wrong. When I point it out that they did you all get your knickers in a twist. You only want the police to be held accountable. Typical lefties.
-
But nobody's denying that they did anything wrong...
But then let's skirt around the points that actually were raised because it suits you.
-
So why is it just the police in the firing line?
-
Because they were shown to have fabricated statements? and because the thread is about whether or not we trust the police?...
f**king hell it's not rocket science.
-
Mick
93 miners WERE held accountable. In the courts.
The cases collapsed because the police fabricated evidence.
No-one is asking for the police who went over the top in stoving in miners' heads to be prosecuted. That's byegones. But to ignore a criminal conspiracy by the police on this scale is scandalous. If we want to have confidence in the police, we need to know that criminality on this scale within the upper echelons of the police will not be accepted.
It'll come. I guarantee you that the truth will out sometime in the next 5 years. For one simple reason. The attitude that the SY Police displayed to truth at Orgreave led directly to the the way they dealt with the aftermath at Hillsborough. Lies. Fabricated evidence. Statements amended to fit the narrative that the senior coppers wanted. Intimidation of witnesses. Briefing of friendly politicians and media movers to propagate the lies.
Everything that happened at Hillsborough had already happened at Orgreave. But the cat is out of the bag regarding Hillsborough. SY Police are being slowly and systematically held to account for what they did there. And when the case is concluded, the question will be: why did that police force have the arrogance to behave like they did at Hillsborough? And the answer will be: because they'd already done it and at Orgreave.
-
It is common knowledge that the management of the South Yorkshire police force has been very poor for many years. Other police forces have a low opinion of them. I have a low opinion of them. However this does not mean I have a low opinion of the police officers that make up the force. It is the management that is at fault.
The mistake you lefties make is that you tar all police officers in the country with the same brush. This is patently absurd.
In conclusion I'll say it one more time regarding Orgreave. The miners started it!!! If I'd been a bobby that day I'd have battered a few miners to stop them throwing bricks and stones at my mates.
-
Mick, who do think manages(ed) South Yorkshire Police? I shall tell you, its senior police officers. So in essence from your paragraph above it has taken you seven pages, more rubbish than you will find in town on a Saturday night and enough tangenets for an advanced maths lesson to agree with the OP.
At certain times and in certain instances some members higher eschelons of several police forces have been found to be corrupt.
-
I most certainly do not agree with the OP. I do trust the police. Just because senior management in some forces have occasionally been found wanting does not mean the whole police force is corrupt as yoy lefties would want people to believe.
Throughout this thread I have always said that some of the police were at fault at Orgreave. I have been objective and apportioned blame to both sides as appropriate. However even though the miners started it, all you lefties can do is bang on about how corrupt the police force was and give the impression that this corruption is endemic in the whole force to this day and that no progress has been made.
Once again. The miners started it!!!
-
The Miners started what?
-
Filo
I assume he means the criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. That was what I've been talking about all through this thread anyroad.
Mind, I fully accept that I'm on dodgy ground applying simple logic to the job of figuring out what the flying f**k Mick is wittering on about.
-
I do despair. The miners started it is a very easy concept to understand. Just for clarity I'm talking about Orgreave (as if you couldn't have worked that out for yourselves). The miners decided to picket. They brought thousands ( a bit over the top if you don't mind me saying) which was a clear sign of provocation.
However my main reason for stating that they started everything that subsequently happened after that day (including the police cover up) is that the miners tried repeatedly to break the police lines. They repeatedly threw missiles at the police.
If they hadn't done this, the police would not have felt the need for a cover up. So once again I repeat. The miners started it!!!
-
Personally, I blame the Triassic rain forests.
-
Personally, I blame the Triassic rain forests.
Game set and match to me I think. You really must try and do better.
-
I most certainly do not agree with the OP. I do trust the police.
But not enough that you would rather take vigilante action in a REAL circumstance of alleged emotional abuse to a child, than let the police do their job?
f**king hypocrite.
-
Game set and match to me I think.
I think not, clown.
-
Just following your train on logic Mick
The most famous British historian of the 20th century used a similar argument to belittle idiots who try to obscure wrongdoing in the same way that you have done. He said: "Every road accident is caused, in the last resort, by the invention of the internal combustion engine. But our courts don't accept that argument. They look for the immediate cause. Driver error. Drunkeness. Mechanical fault."
He had the measure of dissembling fools. You don't excuse a crime by stating that something else came first. A crime is a crime and someone that commits a crime should be judged by the immediate and particular, not the general.
Otherwise, if we follow your logic, where does the chain of blame stop? For me, it goes right back to the Triassic rain forests. Without them, there would have been no coal, no mines, no miners, no coking plant, no Scargill, no MacGregor, no strike, no picket, no arrests and no police conspiracy.
Easy argument isn't it?
-
I do despair. The miners started it is a very easy concept to understand. Just for clarity I'm talking about Orgreave (as if you couldn't have worked that out for yourselves). The miners decided to picket. They brought thousands ( a bit over the top if you don't mind me saying) which was a clear sign of provocation.
However my main reason for stating that they started everything that subsequently happened after that day (including the police cover up) is that the miners tried repeatedly to break the police lines. They repeatedly threw missiles at the police.
If they hadn't done this, the police would not have felt the need for a cover up. So once again I repeat. The miners started it!!!
You haven't got a f**king clue!
The large numbers of pickets were picketing peacefully, until the thousands of police, (a bit over the top if you ask me) decided to baton charge and cavalry charge the peaceful picket, beating anyone in their way, the provocation was totally instigated by the Police, the pickets were acting initially in self defence against a totally unwarranted and over the top attack, designed and manipulated by the Police and the media into fooling the gullible like yourself into believing that everything was the pickets fault
-
I'm not obscuring wrongdoing. I've already (repeatedly) said the police were at fault. You blame the police 100%. I don't. The miners started it!!!
-
The rainforest started it!
-
You haven't got a f***ing clue!
The large numbers of pickets were picketing peacefully, until the thousands of police, (a bit over the top if you ask me) decided to baton charge and cavalry charge the peaceful picket, beating anyone in their way, the provocation was totally instigated by the Police, the pickets were acting initially in self defence against a totally unwarranted and over the top attack, designed and manipulated by the Police and the media into fooling the gullible like yourself into believing that everything was the pickets fault
The miners started the violence!!!. I refer you to my previous Wikipedia link.
-
But Mick
I've asked you several times before. Whereabouts was Wikipedia stood when he saw the miners start it? And why didn't he say anything about it at the time?
-
The rainforest started it!
Rubbish BST!
It was the Big Bang, and you know it!
-
I love how he's still diverting the thread away from the thing that was actually being discussed before he waded in and decided what he thought people were talking about.
-
Look, it's very simple. You lefties don't trust the police I do. One of your cohort gave Orgreave as evidence as to why the police are not to be trusted (despite this incident being 30 years ago). With the help of Wikipedia, the BBc and the Free Press, I have conclusively proved that the miners started it!!!
-
Look, it's very simple. You lefties don't trust the police I do. One of your cohort gave Orgreave as evidence as to why the police are not to be trusted (despite this incident being 30 years ago). With the help of Wikipedia, the BBc and the Free Press, I have conclusively proved that the miners started it!!!
But.. for the umpteenth time... that isn't what people were discussing.
-
And I still haven't heard where this Wikipedia fella got his information from.
Simple enough question Mick. Presumably the lines you quote from Wiki have references so we can trace back who the original source is?
(Hey! Groundhog Day again, eh Mick? Remember when you found that definitive proof that the UK debt was £6trillion higher than anyone else in the whole world thinks it is? And when you traced it back, it turned out the company who originally published the data had expunged it from their databanks. Remember?)
-
I've provided the Wikipedia link. What more do you want. If what Wikipedia was saying is untrue then there has been plenty of time for you and your friends to correct it.
Your scientology background has got a lot to answer for. Unless every statement is prefaced by tons of evidence you dismiss it. Unfortunately this way of thinking has left you seriously lacking in the commonsense department.
-
Mick
Go have a look at that Wiki page. Count up how many times it says "citation needed". Then sit down in a dark room for a couple of hours, think hard about it and see if you can get your head around what I and several others on here have been trying to educate you about on this issue. Get it right and you can have a sweetie.
-
There you go again requiring citations as evidence and letting your commonsense go out of the window. This incident happened before Wikipedia was formed.
From day one of it's formation people like you have had more than ample time to change anything that you think is factually incorrect. This hasn't happened.
Now, applying a bit of commonsense, that should tell you that this isbecause what is on Wikipedia is factually correct. No need to go searching for citations.
-
Just because folks haven't gone and changed inaccuracies on Wiki, that doesn't mean that the statements on there are factually correct - only that no one has made the corrections!
Your logic is flawed here. If you read any report of repute, be that scientific, historical, economical etc that draws on evidence to make its conclusions, then the author will quote the references of source information that back up his or her conclusions, that the reader can then verify, if they want to.
-
I also provided citations from the BBC and the Doncaster Free Press. I could find more but thought that would be enough for anyone with an open mind on the matter.
Billy just likes to be awkward just for the sake of it.
-
More conclusive evidence from the leftie Guardian:
Generally, miners accept that some stones were thrown from the back – there are many accounts that senior miners told those throwing stones to stop.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/22/miners-strike-orgreave-bloodiest-battle
-
Just because folks haven't gone and changed inaccuracies on Wiki, that doesn't mean that the statements on there are factually correct - only that no one has made the corrections!
Your logic is flawed here. If you read any report of repute, be that scientific, historical, economical etc that draws on evidence to make its conclusions, then the author will quote the references of source information that back up his or her conclusions, that the reader can then verify, if they want to.
I am not a scientologist like Billy and my threshold for proof is a lot lower than his. I use my commonsense. He does not. How he gets through life is a mystery to me if he's constantly looking for evidence before making any decisions.
The fact that Wikipedia has not been amended on such an important event speaks volume to me.
-
Billy just likes to be awkward just for the sake of it.
Irony is lost on you, isn't pal
:)
ps, you might like to have a look at your last sentence, I'm sure it has a redundant "just" in there.
-
Thank you for pointing out my misuse of 'just'. It's nice to see someone upholding the standards of grammar around here.
-
The police aren't perfect. I've already said as much. However it is a very small minority. Our police force is a reflection of our society.
What I do take issue with is you hard core lefties constantly having a go at them as though they are all corrupt and not caring what damage you do to their morale.
I gave a very good example in my last post. If we were to believe you, then all the problems listed in your diatribe are 100% the fault of the police. You never give a balanced argument and admit that just maybe some of the fault lies with the people that are being policed.
[/quote Also seen it on Donny high Street. Not all of them but still some of them think they are above the law
-
Well I have a criminal record because a copper lied in court and was believed by the copperloving magistrate instead of me, even though he was an obvious lying state tool who probably struggled to even do his own shoe laces up.
So it aint just the rozzers you should doubt, the judges are probably worse cos they take their side every time. cos they're upstanding citizens etc., utter b*llocks, the worst people I ever knew joined the cops and they aint got any better over the years. One exception was a guy I went to college with who joined the force, black guy, says it all really. How ironic for them when the only good cop is a black cop.
-
All you anti police people on this forum should be totally ashamed of yourselves. Especially BST. Dragging up incidents that happened many years ago to condemn all our fine officers today is breathtakingly stupid. 30 years ago there was the opportunity for the police to fit people up. Things have changed dramatically since then. No-one is under more scrutiny whilst doing their job than the police. It is virtually impossible for them to get away with any misdemeanour these days.
It still does occasionally happen but these days these bad apples are very quickly rooted out and dismissed. Any way I'll be providing conclusive proof that what I'm saying is bang on shortly. So any of you anti police brigade out there, please feel free to disagree with me again because when I do post my evidence you will be made to look complete berks (BST no need for you to post anything you are already well and truly in this category).
-
This must have just been an honest mistake then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26621322
-
Like I say you are already in the complete berk camp so no need to keep posting. But once again you drag up a case that happened many years ago to justify your feelings for the police force we have today. What a complete berk.
-
So because he's got evidence of them doing untrustworthy things you're just going to ignore it, wow.
-
Right here is the incontrovertible evidence I promised. Here is a post from a police forum from an officer who was there. It conclusively proves the police did not start the trouble. Is it any wonder the police dispersed the miners?
Oh dear I was there, so may get a call. The miners numbers were swollen by all types of rif raf Socialist Workers Party, NCCL, Hewitt, Harman etc. The foreigners who had infiltrated the Miners numbers started the trouble and then conveniently slipped towrds the back of the Miners. I don't think that there are any pictures of the Police throwing stones, and rocks. Also in the armoury were Potatoes with razor blades set in them and eggs which had been blown out and filled ith ammonia, and you find a lot of those lying about the streets, don't you.
http://www.policeuk.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18947-orgreave-the-ipcc/?hl=orgreave
-
Mick
For the dozenth time, we were not and are not talking about who started what. (Although, interestingly, the text you copied says nothing to support your rantings about the miners starting it.)
Anyway, the rest of us weren't talking about that before you decided what YOU thought we should be talking about. We were talking about whether there are very worrying examples of extremely serious criminal conspiracies within the police. Come and join us whenever you are able to focus your mind on that.
-
The thread is about whether we trust the police. It is not about whether there are extremely worrying examples of extremely serious criminal conspiracies within the police. You were the one that brought Orgreave into the discussion to back up your contention that we can't trust today's police because of what happened 30 years ago.
As usual you try to hijack the debate to push your hard left views. Fortunately I am around to put the balanced point of view and to explain why we should trust the police. It just so happens that I make you look daft whilst doing so.
You want the police to be brought to book for Orgreave. You don't want any miners or their supporters brought to book. Have you any idea how daft this makes you look?
It's a good job I'm around to point out the total bias and lack of logic in what you say.
-
The thread is about whether we trust the police. It is not about whether there are extremely worrying examples of extremely serious criminal conspiracies within the police.
Yeah because that wouldn't sway people's judgement would it..
or are we ignoring that because it doesn't suit you?
-
Actually, it was StocktonRover who brought up Orgreave first in this thread.
And regardless of who started that trouble, the police were found to have been untrustworthy in their legal proceedings -which is what this debate is about - rather than the guilt or innocence of miners and/or police or any other infiltrators, in initiating the violence at Orgreave.
-
Thank you IDM. I did point that out to Mick previously, but once he gets into slavering mode, he's impervious to irrelevant things like facts.
Anyway Mick. The issue is that many, many miners WERE prosecuted for riot and affray. Their cases went through the courts and they were subject to the due processes of law for the offences that they were accused of.
So what precisely are you blathering on about accusing me of not wanting to see miners prosecuted. They WERE prosecuted. I cannot go back in time and change that. It happened. What DIDN'T happen was the holding to account of the police responsible for arguably an even bigger crime.
And I see we're back to your old game of arbitrarily deciding what constitutes ancient history with no lessons to draw and no case to answer. So. What about Hillsborough? Do we turn a blind eye to the police criminality there? What about the Lawrence case? Should we ignore the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice there? Let us know Mick. What is the date at which we wash our hands and say "Ah, f**k it! That's just history."
There you go. Another simple straight question for you to evade.
-
And regardless of who started that trouble, the police were found to have been untrustworthy in their legal proceedings -which is what this debate is about - rather than the guilt or innocence of miners and/or police or any other infiltrators, in initiating the violence at Orgreave.
This is not what this debate is about. This debate is about whether you trust the police TODAY. You lot keep dragging up cases from decades ago trying to use this as evidence as to why we should not trust the police TODAY. Talk about constantly moving the goal posts.
It is my assertion that you lot are making yourselves look daft by trying to assert that what went on many years ago is relevant as to whether you trust our police TODAY.
-
Actually, if you look closely, I myself have made no such statement about mistrusting the police today. Others have, and have cited that example of post Orgreave trials, but that is their prerogative to do so. I only speak for myself.
Maybe my sentence didn't make it clear, the point of the thread is whether we find the police trustworthy, I apologise if the wording implied otherwise. The point I was making is that the thread is not about who was to blame for violence during the miners' strike.
-
So. Go on then Mick. There was a simple question I posed earlier. Where do YOU draw the line and say that one side is irrelevant history and the other is important.
What about the behaviour of the SY Police after Hillsborough? That occurred 25 years ago. Should we ignore that? What about the behaviour of the Met in the Lawrence investigation? That occurred between 10-20 years ago. Should we ignore that? What about Plebgate? That happened a couple of years ago. Should we ignore that?
Or should we be deeply worried at the repeated instances in high profile cases, of the police colluding to frame people and then senior officers closing ranks round them to protect them?
-
So do you trust the police IDM? Don't be scared to lose face with the other posters if you do. It's time to stand up and be counted man.
-
So do you trust the police IDM? Don't be scared to lose face with the other posters if you do. It's time to stand up and be counted man.
Don't be scared to lose face? I refer you to my earlier response on this thread, 8 days ago, there for everyone to see:
As to the OP question, yes I would trust the Police on a personal level, especially if I needed their help, in the hope that that trust is well founded. At the same time I do accept that the Police as an institution has had its fair share of corruption and wrong doers over the years.
-
I refer you to my earlier response on this thread, 8 days ago, there for everyone to see:
That's a fair cop.
-
So. Go on then. There was a simple question I posed earlier. Where do YOU draw the line and say that one side is irrelevant history and the other is important.
What about the behaviour of the SY Police after Hillsborough? That occurred 25 years ago. Should we ignore that? What about the behaviour of the Met in the Lawrence investigation? That occurred between 10-20 years ago. Should we ignore that? What about Plebgate? That happened a couple of years ago. Should we ignore that?
Or should we be deeply worried at the repeated instances in high profile cases, of the police colluding to frame people and then senior officers closing ranks round them to protect them?
Orgreave should be ignored. Hillsborough and Lawrence shouldn't be ignored. Plebgate hasn't been ignored.
However you should not judge the police of the day as though they still carried on like they did many years ago. They patently don't. You pretend they do and drag up ancient cases to try and make your point. Just be honest and admit you have a hidden agenda and will use anything you can to blacken the names of our boys in blue no matter how tenuous the link.
-
Still that one-dimensionality Mick. How do you decorate your house? Black and white paint only?
I would have faith in the police to do a fair and honest job if I'd been burgled, beaten up or defrauded. They might do it well or badly depending on their capability, but I wouldn't expect them to conspire against me.
The cases we have been discussing best no relation to that sort of bread and butter policing. In those cases there were political axes to grind (Orgreave, Plebgate), cover ups of police mistakes (Hillsborough) or protection of the family of gangsters who had coppers in their pay (Lawrence). In cases where the stakes are this high, I wouldn't trust the police to be impartial, fair and free from corruption. They need watching like hawks in such cases, and the one who are corrupt need to be weeded out without mercy.
I'd have thought everything in my post was self-evident. But then we often have to spell out the bleeding obvious for you, Mick.
-
Right. Thanks for clearing that up Mick. History starts after 27 years then, right?
But things like Lawrence and Hillsborough don't happen these days? Were you hibernating in 2012 when a group of coppers engaged in a criminal conspiracy to fit up a Cabinet Minister? And were given unqualified support by the Commissioner of the Met?
See, to me, that one was the worst one of the lot. When the police start trying to bring down senior elected politicians, democracy itself is under attack.
-
If there has been a grave injustice and people are still suffering from the effects then of course it is important.
Wrong doings don't become good deeds just because the passage of time is long.
-
Debs
Amen. Plus of course, there's the culture. Young people coming into any institution will inevitably take something of a lead from the old heads. Old heads who have criminally bent the system and never been brought to book are poisonous to the culture and are likely to pass on their mores and methods. Unless they are rooted out and dealt with.
-
Exactly. it isn't called corruption just for the fun of it after all.
-
What a load of sanctimonious claptrap. The police these days would have absolutely no chance of another Hillsborough or Lawrence. Those of you that think they could are living in the past or of course the other reason you don't trust the police because of events decades ago is because you are hard left and common sense does not apply to you.
-
Mick
So you WERE hibernating during Plebgate then.
-
Plebgate is being sorted. We're not waiting decades for the truth. Surely this tells you something? If you can't work it out let me know and I'll spell it out for you.
-
Plebgate still happened though... Why?
-
Plebgate is being sorted. We're not waiting decades for the truth. Surely this tells you something? If you can't work it out let me know and I'll spell it out for you.
Most likely because it was against a high profile politician.
-
Mick
You said there was no chance of this sort of thing happening these days.
But it DID happen. Members of the police DID frame an innocent man. The furore that ensued (orchestrated by various high ranking police, like the head of the Police Federation) cost him his job.
The frame up happened. The fact that the truth started to come out within 12 months had nothing to do with action by the police to put this right. It was down to journalists like Michael Crick getting hold of CCTV footage. And to the IPCC sifting through the police statements.
But it doesn't change the fact that the frame up happened. There was a culture whereby police officers were prepared to conspire to break the law and whereby senior officers jumped in to defend and support them.
Co-incidentally, the fact that evidence emerged that officers appear to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy regarding Orgreave was also not due to any high- minded investigation by the police themselves. It was defence lawyers and journalists who found the evidence. We're now waiting for the IPCC to do its job and complete the process. Throughout the last 30 years, the top brass at SY police have steadfastly refused to condemn or identify the conspirators. Just like the Met top brass refused to condemn the conspirators in Plebgate. The same rotten approach still holds today. If the police are less likely to get away with it today, it is because of outside agents holding them to account, not because the police have changed.
-
So, for arguments sake... A young cop bent as a nine bob note thirty years ago rises up the ranks until he reaches the heights.
Would you be comfortable knowing that 30 years previous he was corruptible?
You are the one bringing left and right into this when the only thing that should matter is what is right or wrong.
-
Look. I know police officers. I know what the culture is today. It is completely different to what it was in the days of Lawrence and Hillsborough. This is the main point that all you on the hard left refuse to acknowledge.
For no rational reason whatsoever you still think the police still operate in the same way. They don't.
As for Plebgate the culprits have been found out. It has taken months not decades. Plebgate is also nowhere near on the same scale as Lawrence or Hillsborough. I thought you'd have been happy that an arrogant Tory toff had been fitted up.
-
Plebgate is FAR worse than any of the other offences. It is a direct attack on democratically elected representatives and it was done for a political purpose. I don't give a shit if Mitchell was a Tory, a Communist, an Ulster Unionist or a Monster Raving Loony. He was put into Parliament in a democratic election and it is an obscenity that there should be a concerted police conspiracy to bring him down.
If you think that is not a very serious offence, it says a hell of a lot about you Mick.
If the police are prepared to frame a Cabinet Minister, who exactly in the country is safe from being framed? And the fact that their wrong doings came to light not through any action of the police to smoke them out kind of answers the OP's question. In certain situations, with high-stakes issues, the police are absolutely NOT to be trusted. They are to be watched like hawks to keep them to heel.
-
Right Billy, you've asked for it. You keep saying there was a criminal conspiracy re plebgate. This is not true. You've once again made yourself look a complete berk.
Only one rogue officer who pretended to be present wrote an email claiming to have witnessed the events. He quite rightly went to prison. He acted alone. There was absolutely no evidence of conspiracy, just one rogue officer.
The CPS, very publicly, to Andrew Mitchell's huge annoyance, said there was no evidence of a conspiracy and went further saying Mitchell's account had not been consistent. The implication being that he'd been lying.
Mitchell and his friend David Davis were so pissed off with the CPS they went too far in criticising the police officer at the Downing Street gates and he Toby Roland is now suing Mitchell for defamation. No evidence whatsoever of conspiracy.
The Police Federation officials in Mitchell's constituency (Birmingham) let themselves down in their questioning of Mitchell at his office. But again they are not witnesses to plebgate so no conspiracy. Those Federation officials were pissed off with the conservative attack on the police and saw this as an opportunity to put the boot in. They messed up big time.
Bottom line is that Mitchell admits he swore at police but will not confirm everything he said.
No officers actually on duty at plebgate are being prosecuted because there is no evidence against them.
There you have a true representation of what happened, not a load of hard left propaganda that bears no resemblance to the truth.
The very least you could do is apologise for dragging the name of the police through the mud for no good reason. We're all waiting.
-
Mick
We'll see...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100262627/the-real-story-of-plebgate-even-the-police-cant-trust-the-police-any-more/
-
Is that the best defence you can come up with. A blog by someone from the hard left trying to drum up sales for his book about plebgate. Pathetic.
So are you now saying that you stand by what you said and my factual account is incorrect?
-
Mick
Dan Hodges? Hard left?
Do a bit of Googling and see what you come up with you utter bell end.
-
So are you now saying you stand by what you said and my factual account is incorrect?
-
I'm saying that there was a conspiracy and it will come out.
Just like it has done at Orgreave, Hillsborough and in the Lawrence case.
-
So my factual account is incorrect? Where is your evidence? Conjecture in a blog (written today after you made your initial allegations) is not evidence by the way.
-
Mick
For once, you have got your facts correct (in terms of reporting what the CPS etc have actually said). That is a million miles from saying that this is what the actual facts of the case are. It has been clear to anyone who has followed Plebgate that there has been, at the very least, collusion going on. The facts are slowly coming out. As they slowly tend to do in such cases.
Here's a fact that has been available for a good while. Five police officers have been bailed over charges relating to Plebgate. Two have been booted out of the Met for gross misconduct. The story that Keith Wallis was a lone, rogue officer looks as thin a a pair of porn star's knickers. Or did half a dozen honest coppers all suddenly and without talking to each other, decide to invent stories and pass them on to the press to frame a Cabinet Minister?
Just like Orgreave. Just like Hillsborough. Just like Lawrence. The dissembling and obfuscation will clear eventually and we'll see what really happened.
-
So now you are saying there was collusion not a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy it has yet to be proven so your initial assertion that there was one was only your opinion which is not backed up by any hard evidence?
I'm surprised by this from someone who is constantly banging on about how important it is to back up statements with hard evidence.
-
So you are also saying the CPS is involved in a conspiracy as they've reviewed all the 'evidence' and concluded that there is no evidence of a conspiracy?
I don't know about other forum users but I think I'd rather go on what the CPS is saying rather than your conjecture and opinion.
Whatever happened to your belief in innocent until proven guilty?
Look, just issue an abject apology and admit you've made yourself look a right plonker over this and I'll say no more about it. You can then start to rebuild your tattered reputation.
-
I don't know about other forum users but I think I'd rather go on what the CPS is saying rather than your conjecture and opinion.
Have you binned wikipedia now then?
-
Wikipedia has a lot of in depth information on the incident and backs up what I say. It does not back Billy up and nowhere does it mention the word 'conspiracy' that he is so fond of using. Maybe he should have checked Wikipedia before making himself look so foolish. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate
-
Wikipedia has a lot of in depth information on the incident and backs up what I say. It does not back Billy up and nowhere does it mention the word 'conspiracy' that he is so fond of using. Maybe he should have checked Wikipedia before making himself look so foolish. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate
That doesn't answer what I asked you, have you binned wikipedia?
-
You'll have to explain what you mean in more depth. I am a great advocate of Wikipedia and regularly use it to source accurate information (unlike Billy).
-
It's an easy question Mick, yes or no?
-
I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Please explain what the meaning of your question is. I must be missing something. You asked the question I thought you asked and I used Wikipedia straight away so why are you asking me again? Weird.
-
I haven't got a clue what you are on about.
Does wikipedia not give you a straight answer to my question Mick?
-
Interesting. Michael Portillo has heard arrogant tory toff Mitchell use the term pleb in the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnNFJiprhw
-
Sorry, I'm not reading 10 pages of Mick's drivel, but examples like this are everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBuzUoinGok
I know a few coppers and they are sound fellas, and I would trust them completely, but every profession has a few bad apples that need weeding out.
-
What are you on about. You are behaving in a very weird way. I'm totally baffled as I'm sure are other readers of the forum.
-
A simple question and you're baffled Mick.
You surprise me, I'm sure you've stated in the past that you answer all questions directed at you
-
I do as long as they are not silly. You are being very silly. Explain what you are on about and I'll give you a no nonsense answer (which is more than I can say for Billy whenever he's asked a question).
-
Give him his due. He carries on blathering.
Mick. My position on Plebgate is very simple. The fact that the CPS have no brought conspiracy prosecutions is not proof that no conspiracy occurred. They have not brought conspiracy prosecutions in the Orgreave, Hillsborough or Lawrence cases, despite strong prima facie evidence of large and detailed criminal conspiracies.
Draw your own conclusions.
The fact is that several police officers who had nothing to do with the events in Downing Street took it upon themselves to disseminate lies about what was supposed to have happened, including claiming that they were present when they weren't and saw and heard things that they couldn't have. Several other police lied during questioning. One has been convicted, 2 have been sacked and five others have been bailed.
Now. It might just be a coincidence that several coppers took it upon themselves to lie. It might just be that they didn't conspire between themselves. Just like it might be a coincidence that 31 coppers at Orgreave wrote exactly the same lies in their reports when in some cases they weren't even present.
It'd be some coincidence though wouldn't it.
-
So you are also saying the CPS is involved in a conspiracy as they've reviewed all the 'evidence' and concluded that there is no evidence of a conspiracy?
This is how you answer a question. Yes. At least that's what I think your answer is after trying to make sense of your waffle.
Whatever happened to your belief in innocent until proven guilty?
I don't believe you've even tried to answer this question. From what you've previously said I think it's obvious that you believe in guilty until proven innocent based on conjecture, circumstantial evidence and coincidence. I'm glad you are not a member of the legal profession.
Look, it's very simple. Just apologise and we'll move on. You should realise when you've made a monumental mistake and stop exacerbating the situation.
-
Let's not forget that Mr Mitchell started it!!! The CPS were clear. There is no evidence of conspiracy. Billy is making it up/guessing.
Some officers have been disciplined. The fact remains Mitchell throughout has refused to say what he did actually say. The CPS also said C4 video could not be relied upon because it was edited footage but was presented as the real thing.
The CPS verdict was that either version of events could be true and there was no independent evidence either way.
The arrogant toff wanted the main gates opening so he could get through with his bike more easily. The gates are there for a reason. They are there to keep Downing Street secure from terrorism threats. It is breathtakingly arrogant of him to even ask the officers to break the rules for his convenience and pose a massive security risk.
He then swore at the officers. Most people get locked up for swearing at the police. Not Mitchell. What a prick. And this is the tosser that Billy seeks to defend.
IMHO he should have been prosecuted for abusing the police and for lying to the CPS. Does Billy mention any of the above? Of course not. All he wants to do is slag the police off no matter what the circumstances.
-
Mick
Your powers of logic are as flawed as ever. There is no justification whatsoever in anything I wrote for you assuming that I think the CPS is involved in a conspiracy. None at all. Once again, you decide what you want your conclusion to be before you engage your brain.
The issue in all of the earlier cases is that evidence that the police gave to the CPS was either withheld or fabricated. I have no idea what evidence was presented to the CPS in the Plebgate affair at the time of their decision, but there certainly seems to be string prima facie evidence in the public domain now of a concerted effort by several coppers to propagate lies about the case.
As for your stupid juvenile obsession about who started what, it is as irrelevant as most of what you post.
If you rode your bike on the pavement, would that justify the police claiming that you were toting a gun and threatening to shoot the Queen?
-
So do we finally have an answer to the question? You don't believe the CPS is involved in the 'conspiracy' you allege even though they have all the 'evidence' that your mate Dan Hodges blogs about.
I can only conclude that you think you know more than they and the IPCC do. Is this the case?
-
Whatever happened to your belief in innocent until proven guilty?
I'll try yet again.
-
This officer sums it up quite nicely on the police forum:
The outcome of the investigation clearly isn't what Mitchell wanted to hear and he is now showing his true colours.
Its interesting that the CPS used the terms 'insufficient evidence' when describing the lack of evidence of a conspiracy or that PC Rowland lied in his initial account. I suspected all along that this would be the outcome and if there was any inkling of a conspiracy or that PC Rowland lied he and others would have been thrown to the wolves. Maybe it would have been more appropriate for the CPS to state that there was no evidence of a conspiracy and no evidence that PC Rowland lied.
As for the PC who is to be charged, if the allegations are true, I have absolutely no sympathy for him and his actions have done horrendous damage to the Police in this country. What the hell was he thinking? Unfortunately he has given Mitchell plenty of ammunition as he has now come out and directly called PC Rowland a liar and is also trying to taint every officer with dishonesty with his claim that 'if the police could make false claims against him in Downing Street, they could do it to anyone, anywhere, at any time'.
It would also be nice to hear The Fed come out and lambast Mitchell in view of the his attempt to taint every officer with dishonesty, but I won't hold my breath and I sincerely hope PC Rowland is consulting with his legal rep as Mitchell has now completely overstepped the mark by questioning his integrity.
http://www.policeuk.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18494-pleb-man-plebgate/page-11?hl=plebgate
-
Mick
I didn't bother answering your stupid question because I thought its stupidity was so self evident that even you would realise it. But since I appear to have over estimated you again, here we go.
The point is that in all the cases I've noted, there is strong prima facie evidence that police engaged in concerted attempts to pervert the course of justice and/or frame people. What I'm asking for is precisely that police who appear to be involved in that should be prosecuted so that the courts can decide on their guilt.
Clear enough? Or do you need it spelling out further?
-
So again after reading your waffle I conclude that you do believe in guilty until proven innocent (especially if you are a police officer).
You say they should be prosecuted if they 'appear' to be involved. Really? Regardless of the strength of evidence against them? So conjecture, circumstantial evidence and coincidence are good enough for you to warrant a day in court (as long as you are a police officer)?
Thank goodness there are systems in place to weigh up the evidence before people are taken to court. Like I said earlier it's a good job you are not involved in the legal profession.
-
Billy. You need to watch Line of Duty on ITV tonight. Here you will get the true picture of how the police investigate alleged police 'corruption'.
-
Mick
No. You're jumping to the wrong conclusion yet again (how many times now? I've lost count). What I believe is that when there is strong prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the police should investigate and if the evidence is strong enough, formal legal process should see the alleged miscreants prosecuted. In the case of Orgreave, that prima facie evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years that there was a concerted attempt to pervert the course of justice. But the police never investigated this. And nothing was ever passed to the CPS for consideration. So the formal legal process did not crank into gear. We'll see if it finally does when the IPCC get off their arses and investigate the case. They have been sitting on it now for 18 months, but eventually, they'll get round to it.
So there you go Mick. What I believe is NOT that someone is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that where there is strong evidence of serious wrongdoing, legal action should follow. Not that it should be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about. Because that erodes trust in the integrity of the police, Which is finally back to where we started.
But hey. You'll carry on thinking that you think you know what I think. Nothing I actually write will change your mind, so it's probably pointless me trying to explain to you..
-
What I believe is that when there is strong prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the police should investigate and if the evidence is strong enough, formal legal process should see the alleged miscreants prosecuted.
Oh, so you have changed your mind then. Here's what you wrote earlier today, 'What I'm asking for is precisely that police who appear to be involved in that should be prosecuted so that the courts can decide on their guilt'.
So how have you come to your conclusion that there was a conspiracy when only one officer has been prosecuted and sent to jail? Have you got a crystal ball that looks into the future that has shown you that more officers will be prosecuted and a conspiracy will be proved? Do you know more than the CPS? Are you just expressing an opinion that you can't back up yet?
I'd be grateful if you could highlight each question and then answer each one succinctly. It is incredibly boring reading a load of old waffle that skirts around the issue and then trying to work out if you've answered the question which you invariably don't (unlike myself).
-
Mick
For crying out loud, how many times? Do you actually read anything that I write before you spout off again?
The prima facie evidence in the Plebgate affair is the fact that several officers appear to have been involved in spinning a lie to the press, and others lied whilst being questioned by Met Officers. It is strange to say the least that these should all choose to spin a similar tale individually, and entirely on their own initiative. On the balance of probabilities, it seems much more likely that there was collusion between the officers to spin the story.
Some of this evidence (such as the sacking of two officers for gross misconduct) has come out since the CPS made its original decision.
-
You seem to be back tracking. You seem now to prefer the word collusion rather than conspiracy. Is this the case? Can you please answer my previous questions and this one succinctly and highlighted as I have requested.
-
Mick
As ever, you spiral down into a meaningless w**k over semantics. Whether it is technically "collusion" or "conspiracy" is neither here not there. Both would be criminal offences. But if it makes you happy, then choose whichever word you wish. If it is technically not conspiracy then I prostrate myself in front of you and crave your indulgence.
Does that make you feel good Mick?
Now. About the dozen or so outstanding questions of mine that you have studiously avoided for months?
Actually, f**k it. I've reached exhaustion point in dealing with you again. Chalk it up as a win for mind-numbing attrition if that makes you feel good.
-
Once again you fail to answer my questions. This is not a surprise because you know if you did you would look even dafter than you already do (if that's possible).
So what do you do? You spit your dummy out and throw a tantrum because I've got you bang to rights and you can't wriggle out of the mess you've created for yourself.
I will chalk it it up as another victory (one of the many I've had over you) for commonsense and facts over hard left propaganda.
In future just think very carefully before you spout any further leftie drivel. I will be waiting to pounce.
-
Yes Mick. Good boy. Well done. Nighty night.
-
Are you going to bed early because you've been a naughty boy?
-
He's not a naughty boy, he's the Messiah
-
Seems like all you lefties are in the minority. Two thirds of people do trust the police. You'd never think so reading this thread would you. Just shows how a leftie perspective is totally at odds with what most people think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26730705
-
That also implies that one third don't... Just because some folks don't trust the police doesn't make them "lefties" either.
And, if you're going to link to articles on the BBC website, have a look at this one too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26820020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26820020)
There is also a difference between trusting individual police officers, and having faith (or not) in the police establishment as a whole, regardless of what politics you prefer.
-
You sound like a leftie to me.
-
You sound like a leftie to me.
Where?
Show me, prove it.
-
I offer no proof. You are guilty as charged until you prove your innocence.
-
Hang on. You've made the claim, yet you're not willing to back it up and are in fact demanding he prove otherwise?
Absolute tool.
-
I offer no proof. You are guilty as charged until you prove your innocence.
Oh f**k off! Absolute b*llocks!
You said I sounded like a leftie, so you show me the evidence to justify that accusation..
For what it is worth, as it is none of yours nor anyone else's business, I am quite apolitical actually. These days there is little difference in each party, and I exercise my rights not to vote. If our system demanded that I vote, then I would argue for a "none of the above" selection on the ballot paper.
-
Having reviewed your last post I have now decided that you may not be a leftie. However the jury is still out. I'll be monitoring your posts before I make a final judgement. At this stage (unless you provide more evidence) I feel I can only offer a partial apology.
I too don't vote. There is no point in Doncaster. However this time I'll be voting for UKIP as at last there is a protest vote available. I suggest you do the same and I will never brand you a leftie again.
-
Having reviewed your last post I have now decided that you may not be a leftie. However the jury is still out. I'll be monitoring your posts before I make a final judgement. At this stage (unless you provide more evidence) I feel I can only offer a partial apology.
More flannel.
Where is your justification to back up your original accusation?
This is what really annoys me about this forum - folks making claims or accusations about people they don't know, be they fellow fans, club officials, owners etc - and not giving any evidence to back up their points of view.
So, as John Major once said, put up or shut up!
-
I offer no justification merely opinion. Hopefully that is good enough for you.
-
Why do people respond to this trolling?
He has succumbed to the ignore list for me but unfortunately a few of you quote him in your posts and I then inadvertently read his drivel.
Don't feed him and he will be starved of the attention he craves and hopefully go elsewhere in search of it.
:byebye:
-
I offer no justification merely opinion. Hopefully that is good enough for you.
No it isn't good enough for me. You won't say on what grounds you formulated your opinion (of me), so I won't accept your opinion.
Stockton's right, let's leave it.
However, I responded to your BBC link re trusting the police (back to the point) with another BBC link about the police. You have yet to respond to that.
-
I've read the report and it doesn't change my view or what the general public feel. Two thirds still support the police. So I don't see what point you are trying to make.
-
I've read the report and it doesn't change my view or what the general public feel. Two thirds still support the police. So I don't see what point you are trying to make.
Not making a point at all - you provided a link to a BBC article about the police, and so did I. I made no point about either article, just provided a link.
If 2/3 support the police, 1/3 don't. Here, I am not saying either is right or wrong.
-
When I posted my link i was making the point that most of the general public trust the police whilst nearly all the lefties on this forum don't.