Shocking Home eviction by corporate police, your views sort please.

Yes, but to illustrate your principal you’ve chosen to criticise individuals at a particular event!

I don’t think anybody disputes the general principal.

Who is splitting hairs? And as for ‘the indefensible’…

…you weren’t there, I wasn’t there…..but I’m prepared to give those that were the benefit of the doubt.

You’re referring to an event. I’m referring to a principle.

Lot of un-necessary splitting of hairs going on here.

So your blatant sh!t-stirring in the last two pages of this thread doesn’t constitute the splitting of hairs? :applause:

At least you haven’t reached your final form yet; “you made a minor grammatical error, so I will ignore your entire argument”. When are we due that?

Lot of un-necessary splitting of hairs going on here…

Who is splitting hairs? And as for ‘the indefensible’…

…you weren’t there, I wasn’t there…..but I’m prepared to give those that were the benefit of the doubt.

On the contrary. You would appear to be on the wrong side of this argument. Or at least you have yet to make a cogent argument in defense of your case.

I do not have to defend myself or, anything that I have stated. My argument is broadly humanitarian and puts the case for restating our unique human, unequivocal moral obligation to help others in distress and at risk to our own life and limb provided, of course, that we are physically capable.Anyone failing to provide even the slightest degree of assistance is, in my opinion, a moral and physical coward.

Let me mention this. If you go to sea for recreational or other purposes, you have a legal as well as a moral duty to attend a vessel in distress. Unless there are compelling circumstances, It is a criminal offence not to attend the scene.

There is no muddying.

You are the one that casts doubt on the truth of the police statement, you must therefore either have inside information, or you are simply making stuff up in current internet-fashion to support your position.

Moggy

First class example of muddying – you do it so well. If you can’t adequately refute the nub of the argument then cast your net a litte wider – you’ll find something.

The police, as you should know from your apparent connections, are adroit, extremely skilled and highly convincing especially to the bulk of the public when they make their public statements justifying their actions. Whether it be shooting and killing an innocent man carrying a repaired wooden chair leg or standing by allegedly conducting a risk assessment, before investigating a shooting incident or stating that they have not had the required training before entering a seaside boating pond to effect a rescue or, shooting a Brazilian national on the Tube.

This is not inside info but, actual instances that made the news and is therefore known to the public. Whether in some cases it was the police or another assistance agency, I know not. Not that that matters a great deal. In all the instances that I recall the victim/s died.

No Moggy old chap, I’m not a creative writer – I understand that you are a media writer/journalist so, perhaps you would know more about that than me. It never occurs to me to scroll the internet. Why ? I have the Daily Mail to nourish my fantasies.

trying to defend the indefensible

On the contrary. You would appear to be on the wrong side of this argument. Or at least you have yet to make a cogent argument in defense of your case.

Lot of un-necessary splitting of hairs going on here. Much as I’d expect, especially when trying to defend the indefensible

As well as plunging into an iced up Potomac river to try to rescue airliner survivors…

Yes, the ones that were clinging to the wreckage on the surface…

…nobody dived into the water to attempt to save the other seventy-four passengers and crew that died.

True, most were probably killed instantly in the crash (as was indicated later) but nobody knew that at the time; they had to be there, underwater, maybe just a few feet from bank, a few inches under the murky water…

…yet nobody dived in to search? Are you not critical of that?

There is no muddying.

You are the one that casts doubt on the truth of the police statement, you must therefore either have inside information, or you are simply making stuff up in current internet-fashion to support your position.

Moggy

It’s so obvious that nobody knows the true facts apart from you John.

I wish I had your sources.

Moggy

Don’t muddy the waters ! My stance is not about a particular incident but about compassionate duty to one’s fellows; as well you know.

OK not now because I am severely disabled but my Army training would have compelled me to try.NI told me one thing you do not leave a comrade in danger even if you put yourself in it.If their was no one willing to help in the situation described and I could see the casualty off with the outer clothes and go. Thermal shock? for gods sake you see people breaking the ice to have a swim in the Serpentine.

As well as plunging into an iced up Potomac river to try to rescue airliner survivors. All the excuses in the world amount to nothing when compared with the compulsion to assist another in distress. I’m quietly flabbergasted that so many on this forum take a perverse view.

Paul, I salute you.

It’s so obvious that nobody knows the true facts apart from you John.

I wish I had your sources.

Moggy

I have added the bold to make it easier for you to follow John.

Moggy

.

That Met police statement is, as a matter of course, not exculpatory in an way. It is not intended to forestall any wholly unjustified criticism . It is not intended to allay unfounded suspicions that the police did not do every thing in their power to bring about a successful conclusion to this unhappy matter.

It is not intended to try to show the police at their most humane, considerate and benevolent best. It is not intended to demonstrate to the public at large the seriousness with which the police attempt to discharge their pastoral care duty to the general public.

You and I have been ‘around’ a long time, but we both, immediately and without condition recognise the truths attached to these statements – don’t we ?

Thank you for considerately adding the ‘bold’. It didn’t make them any easier to swallow. I’m almost certain that that entire statement was lifted from the latest edition of: “Selectascuse”, that very useful handbook of ready made excuses published by PlodPrint and recommended reading by the Commissioner.

Aw… I had some good mates in SO19 and R&DPG

Moggy

Oh dear Moggy, you mentioned those two fatal words, which explains everything. “Metropolitan Police”
Jim.
Lincoln .7

A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said that initially there was no sign of Mr Greenfield in the water. He added: “At no stage were officers made aware of the location of the man in the water, nor could anyone indicate the approximate area where he might be within what is a large expanse of water.”

I have added the bold to make it easier for you to follow John.

Moggy

.

OK not now because I am severely disabled but my Army training would have compelled me to try.NI told me one thing you do not leave a comrade in danger even if you put yourself in it.If their was no one willing to help in the situation described and I could see the casualty off with the outer clothes and go. Thermal shock? for gods sake you see people breaking the ice to have a swim in the Serpentine.

If you’re capable of, and can spare the time for, such contortions, I’ll know you’re not really in trouble.
Instead of kissing it, couldn’t you ride your donkey to safety?

That would be possible only if you were there Edgar. But, thank you for the offer.

OK so it’s a hot day you take a dip in a deep lake and get into trouble, this will almost certainly be because of thermal shock. A young man out in the park with his wife and two and a half kids jumps into save you. He manages to get you close to the bank where you are pulled out, he is exhausted and also suffering from thermal shock and whilst all the efforts are focused on you the young man slips under and drowns.

Please explain how you would feel about that.

I’m a strong and able swimmer who wouldn’t swim unless I knew that particular water very well. I’m familiar with the effects of thermal shock. So, I do not accept your scenario.

However, for the sake of debate, let us say that it happened as you describe. How would I feel? How do you think that I would feel? Full of the joys of spring ? No, pretty damned awful. Insupportable guilt that by my reckless and stupid behaviour I had been responsible for this loss of a life.

What a seriously dopey question.