By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 18:35
Once again, you’re derailing a discussion by personalising matters for no good reason.
Please stop doing it.
Noted and logged, just trying to make a point G.A. re memories.
Lincoln .7 😉
By: Grey Area - 29th March 2011 at 18:10
….and YOUR memories not all that good,so please don’t pick holes in mine….
Once again, you’re derailing a discussion by personalising matters for no good reason.
Please stop doing it.
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 17:54
Please don’t personalise things so often, mate. There’s no need for it.
A simple “yes, “no” or”don’t know” would have sufficed.
No-one’s going to call you a liar on my watch.
Whilst I do appreciate your comments that YOU would have accepted a simple YES or NO, there are others who would have wanted all the details of a ducks A***. I would sooner have a thief than a liar, and see no point in posting anything that would be construed as a pack of lies.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 17:46
G.A. As an afterthought, the Miners strike would be a good example, of trouble makers, and many protests, in fact hardly a day went by without a demo. And you could always depend on those at the back egging others on, and YOUR memories not all that good,so please don’t pick holes in mine, as you will have read on a previous post that even the Police spotters, who saw them, lost them when trouble broke out, they just vanished into thin air, as all the trouble makers do.
Lincoln .7
By: Grey Area - 29th March 2011 at 17:41
Sorry, but no I can’t, if we were allowed to keep all our Pocket Books when we retired, then I would easily be able to, however they have to be handed in.
There are however incidents which do stick in ones mind.I am sure if I asked you or anyone else “What were you doing” on such and such a date, as clever as one may think one is, I doubt very much you would be able, unless you kept a diary, be able to tell me.
And as I am not a Trout, please don’t expect me to rise to your very dry fly:p
Lincoln .7
Please don’t personalise things so often, mate. There’s no need for it.
A simple “yes, “no” or”don’t know” would have sufficed.
No-one’s going to call you a liar on my watch.
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 17:38
Surely you can tell us which protest and in what year, Lincoln 7?
Sorry, but no I can’t, if we were allowed to keep all our Pocket Books when we retired, then I would easily be able to, however they have to be handed in.
There are however incidents which do stick in ones mind.
I am sure if I asked you or anyone else “What were you doing” on such and such a date, as clever as one may think one is, I doubt very much you would be able, unless you kept a diary, be able to tell me.
And as I am not a Trout, please don’t expect me to rise to your very dry fly:p
Lincoln .7
By: Grey Area - 29th March 2011 at 17:01
Surely you can tell us which protest and in what year, Lincoln 7?
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 15:51
Just a few points…..
1. “the usual bunch of trouble makers….” Well, if they were the usual bunch that implies they were known to the Police. If that is the case, why weren’t they prevented from participating in the demonstration by Police Intelligence? Or is Police Intelligence just an oxymoron?
2. If you had evidence that the student you interviewed had been paid £20 by the organiser of the march to cause trouble, what action was taken against him by the Police?
3. You suggest that we can take your anecdotes “to the bank” implying that they are true, is that correct? If so, why wouldn’t you provide evidence for your previous little story that you saw food manufacturers repackaging out of date foods with a new sell by date? You, as an ex serving Officer, may be able to enlighten me about the Code of Conduct under which Police Officers operate. Is there anything in such codes of conduct which obligate the Officer to report/stop/investigate any activity which they believe breaches the law?
Regards,
kev35
1) Where did I imply that they were known, it was a term used, there are, and always will be the “Usual” trouble makers, ie those willing to cause trouble or stir things up.
2) Any action regarding that would have been taken by the Chief Constable whoe’s decision I would not be privvy to, being at the bottom of the food chain!.
3). When I say you can take it to the Bank you can be sure it’s true.
Regards the food, I did if you read it through,I did tell my Sgt. and he told me it was nothing to do with us, being a Civil matter not a Police matter.If it breached the law which I and others were employed to do was broken, then action would have been taken.
Lincoln .7
By: kev35 - 29th March 2011 at 14:24
G.A. and Pagen 01, I was on duty at a Demo once, many years ago now, and as usual we had the usual bunch of trouble makers smashing up anything and everything. I got hold of one of the Sh********s who had just put a brick through a shoe shop window. As I had arrested him, I had to take him in the van to Grantham P/Stn to interview him, during the interview, it came out, that he was a student, and he had been, together with a lot of his mates paid, £20.00 to cause the trouble and damage he had done. This believe it or not was dished out by the organiser of the so called peaceful march.
And you can take that to the bank:eek:
Lincoln.7.
Just a few points…..
1. “the usual bunch of trouble makers….” Well, if they were the usual bunch that implies they were known to the Police. If that is the case, why weren’t they prevented from participating in the demonstration by Police Intelligence? Or is Police Intelligence just an oxymoron?
2. If you had evidence that the student you interviewed had been paid £20 by the organiser of the march to cause trouble, what action was taken against him by the Police?
3. You suggest that we can take your anecdotes “to the bank” implying that they are true, is that correct? If so, why wouldn’t you provide evidence for your previous little story that you saw food manufacturers repackaging out of date foods with a new sell by date? You, as an ex serving Officer, may be able to enlighten me about the Code of Conduct under which Police Officers operate. Is there anything in such codes of conduct which obligate the Officer to report/stop/investigate any activity which they believe breaches the law?
Regards,
kev35
By: Sky High - 29th March 2011 at 13:50
And on that note……….the mods can lock it!!:diablo:
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 13:48
Basically it all stinks, Linc.:mad:
OF AMMONIA ?. :D:D
Lincoln .7
:diablo:
By: Sky High - 29th March 2011 at 13:00
Basically it all stinks, Linc.:mad:
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 12:57
The ONLY reason it’s done is to make sure the demo gets the attention it wouldn’t have had, if it were not for the paid trouble makers.OH! and dare I bring up the Lobbyists who are paying M.P.s, to bring up questions in the house?. Not a lot of difference in my mind, except the M.P.s are doing their dastardly deeds Legaly.
Lincoln.. 7
By: Sky High - 29th March 2011 at 12:31
I heard a similar story from a copper I knew a few years ago and there was an “expose” along similar lines on television a while back. I cease to be surprised or appalled at the connivance between parties involved and on occasion with the media as well. 🙁
By: Lincoln 7 - 29th March 2011 at 12:06
G.A. and Pagen 01, I was on duty at a Demo once, many years ago now, and as usual we had the usual bunch of trouble makers smashing up anything and everything. I got hold of one of the Sh********s who had just put a brick through a shoe shop window. As I had arrested him, I had to take him in the van to Grantham P/Stn to interview him, during the interview, it came out, that he was a student, and he had been, together with a lot of his mates paid, £20.00 to cause the trouble and damage he had done. This believe it or not was dished out by the organiser of the so called peaceful march.
And you can take that to the bank:eek:
Lincoln.7.
By: Grey Area - 29th March 2011 at 06:14
That’s a random and desperate attempt to find fault with my argument, we are talking about people deliberately organising marchs and knowing full well what the result will be even before the plans are finalised.
It was neither random nor desperate. Chucking epithets around does little to strengthen one’s own argument, you know.
You’re just presenting a determinedly distorted view of an event and an organisation that you personally dislike.
I refer to the mainstream march organised by the TUC, of course.
The anarchist thugs have neither affinity nor respect for any cause bar their own, and are no more than common criminals.
So you know absolutely that none of these thugs is a TUC sympathiser? I can’t be that sure.
You do know what an anarchist is, don’t you?
On a final note, I can’t help but point out that the membership of trades unions encompasses a very wide spectrum of political opinion.
In fact, I personally know of three lifelong Conservative voters who took part in Saturday’s march.
But you probably don’t want to hear that, either.
By: pagen01 - 28th March 2011 at 23:10
Car manufacturers know perfectly well that some of their products will be driven by drunks, sometimes resulting in the death or injury of some innocent party.
Others still will be used to facilitate other crimes, such as bank robbery and kidnapping.
Following your logic, every time the driver could not be immediately identified liability would immediately pass to the manufacturer of the vehicle – or perhaps the dealer who sold the vehicle.
A ridiculous notion, and one that falls apart under even the most cursory scrutiny.
Be honest – you don’t approve of the reason behind Saturday’s peaceful demonstration by over 250,000 people and you don’t approve of the body that organised it. Do you?
The anarchist groups responsible for the violence and damage we saw on Saturday have nothing whatsoever to do with the TUC – as I’m sure you’re already perfectly well aware.
That’s a random and desperate attempt to find fault with my argument, we are talking about people deliberately organising marchs and knowing full well what the result will be even before the plans are finalised. Even one of the TUC leaders being interviewed yesterday on TV didn’t show an ounce of concern about the trouble makers and the damage they caused.
I well remember from my college days all the **** stirring within various union dos and demos to get a trouble element to join in.
Building cars and how some drivers abuse them is no where near the same thing. However I do think that drivers that cause death and damage through their own fault should pay up, or if they were killed in the process, their families should.
Other points, no I don’t honestly approve of the demonstations, because I know the consequences.
So you know absolutely that none of these thugs is a TUC sympathiser? I can’t be that sure.
By: Grey Area - 28th March 2011 at 22:25
You clearly haven’t got the point of my post, the people organising the demos in the first place know very well what they will have tagging on to them and what the end result will be, there’s nothing arbitrary about it.
Car manufacturers know perfectly well that some of their products will be driven by drunks, sometimes resulting in the death or injury of some innocent party.
Others still will be used to facilitate other crimes, such as bank robbery and kidnapping.
Following your logic, every time the driver could not be immediately identified liability would immediately pass to the manufacturer of the vehicle – or perhaps the dealer who sold the vehicle.
A ridiculous notion, and one that falls apart under even the most cursory scrutiny.
And yes they should all shoulder the blame for the criminal damage and costs incurred, give them something to think about when they get back to their comfy offices overlooked by posters of knowing and excercising their rights and Scargill glaring out across the room.
Give me a break these middle class, over paid, trouble makers really need to realise what they are doing.
Be honest – you don’t approve of the reason behind Saturday’s peaceful demonstration by over 250,000 people and you don’t approve of the body that organised it. Do you?
The anarchist groups responsible for the violence and damage we saw on Saturday have nothing whatsoever to do with the TUC – as I’m sure you’re already perfectly well aware.
By: pagen01 - 28th March 2011 at 21:49
So your answer is to arbitrarily deem someone else to be guilty of these crimes, and punish them instead.
Which makes no sense, and makes a mockery of the rule of law and due process.
The only reasonable course of action is to identify the guilty individuals, and bring them to justice – which is exactly what the authorities are doing.
You clearly haven’t got the point of my post, the people organising the demos in the first place know very well what they will have tagging on to them and what the end result will be, there’s nothing arbitrary about it.
If they want the ‘freedom’ to march, and generally mess up everyone elses day then they should pay for the policing up front (after all we pay for airshows, football matches that we attend and the security/policing involved)
What I hate is when these organisers come on the telly expecting us to believe that they didn’t realise that there would be thugs coming along, and violence and damage to property – what a load of rubbish.
These people know full well what they are involved with before they invite their members to join, and should therefore shoulder the burden and costs.
And yes they should all shoulder the blame for the criminal damage and costs incurred, give them something to think about when they get back to their comfy offices overlooked by posters of knowing and excercising their rights and Scargill glaring out across the room.
Give me a break these middle class, over paid, trouble makers really need to realise what they are doing.
By: Sky High - 28th March 2011 at 19:55
Cloud 9 – yes they were, but only a part of it, of course. Banks can only lend to those who agree to borrow. So anyone who borrowed without the means to pay back the loan share the responsibility. As do governments who turned a blind eye and allowed the rampant explosion of lending But all this is another debate and far removed from the subject of this thread.
Sign In
March 26, 2011 at 6:09 pm