Do you trust the police?

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Filo]

The rainforest started it!

Rubbish BST!


It was the Big Bang, and you know it!

[RedJ]

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.

[IC1967]

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!!!

[RedJ]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?)

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[IDM]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[IC1967]

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

[IC1967]

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.

[redwine]

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.

[IC1967]

Thank you for pointing out my misuse of  'just'. It's nice to see someone upholding the standards of grammar around here.

[Malc Morling]

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

[Viking Don]

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.

[IC1967]

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).

[BillyStubbsTears]

This must have just been an honest mistake then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26621322

[IC1967]

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.

[RedJ]

So because he's got evidence of them doing untrustworthy things you're just going to ignore it, wow.

[IC1967]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[RedJ]

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?

[IDM]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[IDM]

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.