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

Ah Moggy beat me to it. I say if it sounds like foreign muck it is foreign muck mainly made from foreign ingredients. What’s wrong with the good old bangers and mash like my momma used to make, with gravy made with beef dripping.

Anyway isn’t M & S a bit up market, M & S is for investing not shopping in, and very well it is doing too, I have to shop at Tescos. Next three pages will be about which is the cheapest supermarket and which is most ethical, and that will be drift!!

Foreign muck ! Foreign muck ! You don’t know what you’re missing. Get yourself off to the food counter at your local Marks. It’s all microwavable so, well within your culinary ability. If, after filling your little tum, you still think it is ‘foreign muck’, I’ll pay for it. This offer is limited and all telephone calls will be monitored for safety and staff training purposes.

I will send you my Paypal details later.

Yes, I’ve heard the same. Here’s to undiscriminating palates !

It may sound like foreign muck, but it is completely British muck. A recipe unknown on the sub-continent, invented here in the curry houses of the West Midlands or Glasgow for undiscriminating UK palates.

Moggy

That sounds like foreign muck to me. Are you feeling alright? Was your absence due to a blow to the head, perhaps? 😀

Foreign muck ! Foreign muck ! You don’t know what you’re missing. Get yourself off to the food counter at your local Marks. It’s all microwavable so, well within your culinary ability. If, after filling your little tum, you still think it is ‘foreign muck’, I’ll pay for it. This offer is limited and all telephone calls will be monitored for safety and staff training purposes.

I did, in an earlier comment on this subject, list three or four occasions when innocent lives were lost due to the dereliction of duty of the police acting in their official capacity and in their capacity as citizens.

I’m struck by how often people distort the argument to suit their agenda or, with the benefit of the doubt, as a consequence of misunderstanding a point.

Arguing at length about the role of the police is a sheer waste of time. Nothing that any of us say or write will have the slightest influence on changing the way they interact with the general population. They represent the society from which they are drawn.

My central point was moral responsibility and obligation to help, and how that impacted on the police, as well as others.

I have already written that I am not trying to convince others or to win an argument. Each to his own.

Having to-day collected our Marks & Sparks special; a truly scrumptious chicken tikka masala and pilau rice…

That sounds like foreign muck to me. Are you feeling alright? Was your absence due to a blow to the head, perhaps? 😀

uncritical supporter of our ‘boys in blue’.

There you go again jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. There are corrupt policemen just as there are corrupt people in any group of people in any walk of life. Why do you always think you know how other people think and then tell them how you think they ought to think. The Tomlinson case was a travesty from start to finish by everybody involved and made me sick. My approach is exactly Edgar’s approach innocent until proven guilty and research before coming to any conclusions. The point of the OP is to find out, as a matter of interest to me, how many people believed what they saw and were being told. I took the trouble of finding out before I posted to find out what the actual situation was and it was very, very far from what was being portrayed. I will explain exactly what was going on in a later post but I doubt if you will bother to read it because you want to believe that it was the nasty police breaking the law. You could have looked into it yourself but again if it knocks the police it must be true why bother checking it.

I am interested in the opinion of forumites provided it is well thought out and factual. People who resort to derogatory comments of other people’s arguments and are derogatory to others personally are usually on the back foot and feel they are not winning their argument and lack the common courtesy in which the manner of a good debate should be conducted. It is strange that you were be-wowing the loss of ethical behaviour yet in this debate and others I have seen you lack it yourself in this regard.

Whilst I am sure you don’t give a t@ss what I think, and will probably say so, I was interested in and respected your point but that has somewhat been tarnished by your attitude to other people’s opinions.

I think it is now time to agree to disagree and move on after you have had the last word.

I would seriously like your view though when I have explained what actually was going on in the OP video because if you do not change your view on it, this particular occasion not the police in general, all this would have been for nothing.

You are a truly wonderful person with a very well balanced attitude which does you great credit. The following is specially for you in your self appointed role as uncritical supporter of our ‘boys in blue’.

Ah, the time-dishonoured twisting of something to suit your own twisted agenda. I am defending the inaction of seven non-members of the police force, that’s all, but that, of course, cuts no ice with you.

my eye was drawn to a headline in the Independent newspaper on sale by the exit:
“Thousands of police under investigation for allegations of brutality against members of the ethnic community”
I expect you’ll find some ludicrous excuse.

Actually, I shall do something which you find utterly impossible, and wait for the evidence; then (and only then) will I decide what action I feel should be taken.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is still, thankfully, the rule, in this country, however much you hate the idea.

You are a truly wonderful person with a very well balanced attitude which does you great credit. The following is specially for you in your self appointed role as uncritical supporter of our ‘boys in blue’.

Having to-day collected our Marks & Sparks special; a truly scrumptious chicken tikka masala and pilau rice which, I recommend to all, we were leaving the store when my eye was drawn to a headline in the Independent newspaper on sale by the exit:

“Thousands of police under investigation for allegations of brutality against members of the ethnic community”

I expect you’ll find some ludicrous excuse.

What is “asinine” is expecting somebody, who doesn’t have the faintest idea what they’re doing, to dive (literally) headlong into a situation, and thrash about causing double the trouble for anyone else.
During my time as a first-aider, while I was away on holiday, a man fell, at work, and hurt his leg, so, without consulting another aider, he was shoved into a car, and taken to hospital. It transpired that he had a broken leg, with a fracture that could have become complicated (and extremely dangerous) with the open break breaking through the skin, due to mishandling; a first-aider would have immobilised it.
When a man went into an epileptic fit, we had onlookers trying to grab him and restrain his flailing movements, completely unaware that his muscle movements could be so severe that, if restrained, he could break his own bones.
When some workers had to get into restricted spaces, they were in the habit of gripping a thermometer in their teeth; one day a man slipped, and the thermometer broke, so I arranged for him to go to hospital as a precaution. The under works manager told him to go back to work, as “He’ll be alright.” I told him to put it in writing in case of having to give evidence at an inquest. He went to hospital, and was given the all-clear, but we got a message back, from the hospital, that we’d done the right thing, because ingested mercury can be fatal.
In my time, I have saved lives, and serious injury, which is why I refuse to accept lectures from an ill-informed amateur on the way to behave in the workplace.

I thought I did. See 136, perhaps that provides an acceptable answer.

Let me remind my opponents. I’m not trying to convert anyone to my views on this matter. I do note that another comment specifies ‘obeying the rules at your place of work’ and ‘undergoing rigorous training’. That will be a huge consolation to the person struggling for dear life and expecting help from any source no matter how unqualified. How asinine !

Paul 1867

Yes, you are right. ‘Thread’ would have made slightly more sense. I know that the RNLI are all volunteers but, like the fire service, they do have, as you comment, a nucleus of retained, paid staff.

I don’t think that any of us could accurately forecast our actions when faced with the situation you describe in your last paragraph. The phrase ‘pointless gesture’ isn’t really relevant because none of us know or can predict when the ‘pointless gesture’ thru’ luck or determination becomes a helpful and meaningful contribution towards saving a life.

To answer your question,

But you didn’t.

But you have yet to explain how diving into a random area of a large pond is ‘an effort to help’ rather than a pointless gesture

Moggy

It is my opinion that altho’ few, there are some obligations from which it is impossible to escape.

And one of those is obeying the rules at your place of work

Trying to help someone in distress is one of them. For example, the RNLI know all about that. Some would comment that they are paid professionals. That is by the by. They venture out in extreme conditions putting their own lives in grave danger and stop at nothing to effect a rescue.

And for that they undergo rigorous training in how to effect a rescue, something you seem determined to forget (or ignore.)
For several years, I was a first-aider at work, and, as well as the normal cuts and bruises, we had to learn how to immobilise a fracture, treat someone undergoing an epileptic fit, and how to get a patient, with a probable broken neck, onto a stretcher without making them a quadriplegic. One of the greatest pains was the enthusiastic (but ill-educated) volunteer, who would want to lift a head, to insert a cushion, or give someone a drink, often alcohol, while we just wanted them left alone, in our care.

To answer your question, if, in attempting to help someone in extremis, I then require assistance, I hope that I would get it but, that is a matter for my would be rescuer.

So you are happy for your would-be rescuer to exercise his/her judgement in effecting (or not) a rescue, but not the staff at Hampstead Heath; if that isn’t double standards, I don’t know what is.

Judged by the comments on this forum it is plain to me that the ethical behaviour and sense of obligation that I and most of my contemporaries grew up with is no more.

Yet the RNLI (and presumably, even though you refuse to not mention their immobility, in this incident) and ambulance service still have that “obligation.” Funny that.

For me personally, it is a question of a moral imperative. Your quote of my words exactly summarise my attitude.

You’ll forgive us if your “moral imperative” comes across as a convenient stick with which to beat the police.
I had hoped that this had been left to wither, but obviously you can’t let it go, so perhaps there are a few things you need to know. The impression is that you’ve never been on Hampstead Heath, so let me put you straight on a few items.
1/.The Hampstead Heath ponds are, literally, that; they are not swimming pools; my late aunt lived 15 minutes walk from the Heath, and she always hammered home to me how dangerous the ponds were, since we always passed one during our walks. Reeds and weeds grow in ponds, and can be lethal; had the pond in question been cleared, or haven’t you bothered to ask?
2/. The pond appears to be “The Men’s Pond,” into which nobody under 8 is allowed to enter, neither is anybody under 16 without the company of an adult, and it needs lifeguards on duty during the time it is open.
3/. Somebody complained about the (possible) lack of lifebuoys, but, if you can’t see somebody, where do you throw it (and have you tried to throw one of them over 10 feet?) There’s also the possibility that, with the lifeguards off duty (and the pond, presumably closed,) any rings are locked away to stop the great British public helping themselves.
4/. The police, for whom you have such contempt, are the Hampstead Heath Constabulary, which is NOT (REPEAT – NOT) part of the Metropolitan Police Force, which makes your comments about the Commissioner and his excuses book even more fatuous. They are employed to keep the Heath free of crime, and administer its bye-laws, but, in the event of a major problem they are supposed to pass it on to the Met. As employees of the Heath, they will have been made fully aware of the dangers of the ponds, and, if they were told to stay out of them, that is what they would have been expected to do, or find themselves unemployed in very short order.
Now, I’m sure this won’t stop you wittering on about “moral responsibilities,” but I can only hope that those whose minds are not completely closed will understand.

Welcome back John, we have missed you. Couple of points. The RNLI guys who actually go out on the boats as far as I know are all volunteers. I think the land based mechanic and admin are paid. This is why it is a charity that I am very happy to donate to. They also venture out these days with the best equipment money can buy and quite rightly so. They are also, but not always, seamen and are highly trained in this sort of rescue.

Can I assume that you meant this thread rather than forum?

I would certainly agree that ethical behaviour and sense of obligation plus good manners and thinking of more than just yourself appear to be no more in general but I do not think that applies to the reasoned arguments put forward on this thread. Nobody has said “S@d you mate I am not going to lift a finger to help you under any circumstances”. Can I point out to you that a women died last year in the approved section of the same pool surrounded by other bathers and with a lifeguard present. She just disappeared, the alarm was raised and despite attempts by the lifeguard and others she could not be found. Many hours later the Police diving team dragged the area and found her. She had had a heart attach brought on by cold shock. The important point is despite all their efforts in a known location they could not find her.

There are two other interesting cases which apply to our debate.

The first is a case at a quarry with plenty of signs up saying it is dangerous to bath. Despite this an adult male went in and got into trouble. Another man jumped in to help him and they both drowned.

The second was a 12 year old girl accidentally fell into the Thames and a man jumped in to help her. He was never seen again, she was saved.

I think what some of us are saying is that the situation has to be assessed at the time and if help is possible render what help you are best able to supply. Pointless gestures may look good but there are many other factors to consider when putting your life at risk.

Personally if the person cannot be seen in all reality I doubt I would go in unless for some reason I thought I could actually achieve something. With the child if I had seen her go in I would like to think I would have the guts to go in after her even though I cannot swim, her life is more precious than mine.

Mea culpa.

I seem to recall that somebody had previously mentioned the pond incident, but checking (on my phone, only) now, I can’t see where. Apologies.

Wholly laudable, and not in any way removed from my own feelings. But you have yet to explain how diving into a random area of a large pond is ‘an effort to help’ rather than a pointless gesture which might entail others putting themselves at risk to ‘help’ you?

Moggy

I’m sorry I haven’t sooner replied, I’ve been away for a week. It is my opinion that altho’ few, there are some obligations from which it is impossible to escape. Trying to help someone in distress is one of them. For example, the RNLI know all about that. Some would comment that they are paid professionals. That is by the by. They venture out in extreme conditions putting their own lives in grave danger and stop at nothing to effect a rescue. That, is their moral obligation.

To answer your question, if, in attempting to help someone in extremis, I then require assistance, I hope that I would get it but, that is a matter for my would be rescuer. Judged by the comments on this forum it is plain to me that the ethical behaviour and sense of obligation that I and most of my contemporaries grew up with is no more.

For me personally, it is a question of a moral imperative. Your quote of my words exactly summarise my attitude.

Rather perversely last week was DROWNING PREVENTION and WATER SAFETY WEEK run by the Chief Fire Officers Association.

http://www.cfoa.org.uk/19402

This poster was produced to warn of, er, cold water shock

_82358435_picture by p_meddemmen, on Flickr

In August 2013 a woman died in the approved Ladies section of Hampstead Pond surrounded by other swimmers and a life guard on duty. She disappeared and could not be found by other swimmers or life guard. Her body was later found by police divers.

She had a bad heart and had a heart attack brought on by, er, cold water shock.

OTHER SWIMMERS AND THE LIFE GUARD COULD NOT FIND HER IN THE APPROVED SWIMMING AREA!!!!

I wonder what was in the minds of the rescue services last week?

Apologies.

Moggy

Totally not necessary I made a statement of fact not a criticism! Just thought you were raising another case regarding criticism of the police but got involved in the criteria.

Have no fear, despite Charlie’s theory of why threads drift, I have every intention of returning to the subject of the original post:D

Wholly laudable, and not in any way removed from my own feelings. But you have yet to explain how diving into a random area of a large pond is ‘an effort to help’ rather than a pointless gesture which might entail others putting themselves at risk to ‘help’ you?

Moggy

…………putting themselves and others at risk to ‘help’ you?

Nope! It was a comment on how easy it is for any of us not present to come to conclusions about what should or should not have been done with both the benefit of hindsight and disadvantages of not being present at the time. We are all guilty!!

Thanks for the explanation Chas.
Lincoln .7