Do you trust the police?

[IC1967]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[DevilMayCry]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BigColSutherland]

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?

[neil grainger]

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'.
 

[IC1967]

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.

[Boomstick]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[RedRover45]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[Filo]

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




Do I trust the Police?

Since that day onwards, no!

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[jucyberry]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

 

[BigColSutherland]

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

[Glyn_Wigley]

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?

[roversdude]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[IC1967]

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

[BigColSutherland]

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.

[roversdude]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[IC1967]

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. 

[IC1967]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[IC1967]

Well, well, well. Twice in just over a week.

Lol. You've got me there.

[hoolahoop]

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....................

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?