paul1867Another video where the fascist storm troopers try to explain several times that they are not working for the bailiffs but executing a court order.
paul1867Another video where the fascist storm troopers try to explain several times that they are not working for the bailiffs but executing a court order.
paul1867A further MUST SEE video where a police officer says that they have carefully checked all the paperwork and it is in order and that the court has issued a warrant to be executed by the police.
The officer states the police are not working for the bailiffs but are carnying out the court’s instructions and upholding the law decided in court.
Almost at the end one of the crowed states to an officer that his (Ken) father and mother paid for the house so it may be that there is no mortgage. If Ken did own the house he could have used the equity to secure a loan, assuming he was not unemployed.
paul1867A further MUST SEE video where a police officer says that they have carefully checked all the paperwork and it is in order and that the court has issued a warrant to be executed by the police.
The officer states the police are not working for the bailiffs but are carnying out the court’s instructions and upholding the law decided in court.
Almost at the end one of the crowed states to an officer that his (Ken) father and mother paid for the house so it may be that there is no mortgage. If Ken did own the house he could have used the equity to secure a loan, assuming he was not unemployed.
paul1867Less edited videos on Youtube with more information from Ken.
paul1867Less edited videos on Youtube with more information from Ken.
paul1867And by ‘comments’ you mean the deranged rantings of a lot of ill-informed delusionals…
Indeed, that is par for the course for Youtube.:D
paul1867And by ‘comments’ you mean the deranged rantings of a lot of ill-informed delusionals…
Indeed, that is par for the course for Youtube.:D
paul1867Firstly I had no previous knowledge of the case and know no more than what is in the video plus what I have subsequently researched together with 65 years of life experience.
On seeing the video I did have one overall reaction but I will keep that for later.
My life experience tells me that things are rarely what they seem and are like an iceberg. What lies underneath is usually much larger than what appears to be on the surface.
On consideration I decided to ignore all the ranting, raving and baying of the crowd and try and work out what the likely situation actually was with the facts and reasonable assumptions available to us but were not conveyed in the video.
Ken, the debtor, admitted the debt was originally £6,080.
The house had been owned by the debtor, Ken.
An assumption that there is likely to be a mortgage.
That Ken had children but it was not stated that children lived at the house.
No mention was made of a partner.
The debt was for business rates arrears.
Assumption that the debtor owned a business.
Assumption that debtor was a sole trader and not a limited company.
Assumption that if it was a limited company then the debtor was a director of that company.
That the debt was originally for £6,000, as stated by Ken in video.
That the debt now stands at £76,000, as stated by Ken in the video.
That the policy were talking through the door before entry.
That it was the police that forced entry.
That there was a number of people, the crowed, at the site many taking videos.
No physical violence or obstruction was offered by the observers.
The police did not attempt to prevent the any video being taken or try to disperse the observers.
The observers were heckling the police with comments aimed at the police force and police officers and their families personally. Including a reference to Nuremburg and Mengele. Various comments related to Nazis.
Most of the comments heard on the video were made by one person.
Very little verbal response was made by the police
The video had been edited and/or selectively taken.
Some comments and statements on the screen were factually incorrect.
The statement made by Mr Spy at the end contained some facts and some incorrect information.
Personal items were removed from the house, Ken was present and appeared to be taking them away.
No children or partner were seen.
No toys or property relating to children were seen.
The publishers of the video clearly had an agenda outside this case.
If you feel I have made a mistake in any of the above please let me know.
paul1867Firstly I had no previous knowledge of the case and know no more than what is in the video plus what I have subsequently researched together with 65 years of life experience.
On seeing the video I did have one overall reaction but I will keep that for later.
My life experience tells me that things are rarely what they seem and are like an iceberg. What lies underneath is usually much larger than what appears to be on the surface.
On consideration I decided to ignore all the ranting, raving and baying of the crowd and try and work out what the likely situation actually was with the facts and reasonable assumptions available to us but were not conveyed in the video.
Ken, the debtor, admitted the debt was originally £6,080.
The house had been owned by the debtor, Ken.
An assumption that there is likely to be a mortgage.
That Ken had children but it was not stated that children lived at the house.
No mention was made of a partner.
The debt was for business rates arrears.
Assumption that the debtor owned a business.
Assumption that debtor was a sole trader and not a limited company.
Assumption that if it was a limited company then the debtor was a director of that company.
That the debt was originally for £6,000, as stated by Ken in video.
That the debt now stands at £76,000, as stated by Ken in the video.
That the policy were talking through the door before entry.
That it was the police that forced entry.
That there was a number of people, the crowed, at the site many taking videos.
No physical violence or obstruction was offered by the observers.
The police did not attempt to prevent the any video being taken or try to disperse the observers.
The observers were heckling the police with comments aimed at the police force and police officers and their families personally. Including a reference to Nuremburg and Mengele. Various comments related to Nazis.
Most of the comments heard on the video were made by one person.
Very little verbal response was made by the police
The video had been edited and/or selectively taken.
Some comments and statements on the screen were factually incorrect.
The statement made by Mr Spy at the end contained some facts and some incorrect information.
Personal items were removed from the house, Ken was present and appeared to be taking them away.
No children or partner were seen.
No toys or property relating to children were seen.
The publishers of the video clearly had an agenda outside this case.
If you feel I have made a mistake in any of the above please let me know.
paul1867Gentlemen,
Firstly I would like to thank you for taking the time to watch the video and post. I value all your views whether I agree with them or not.
To date nobody has made any reference to the “comments” made on this video on Youtube. Although I am well aware that, in general, it is not a good idea to waste ones time reading comments on Youtube However, I was surprised that all the posts that I read were vehemently supportive of the message that the video was putting across to the point of what I thought was, in some cases, incitement to violence.
paul1867Gentlemen,
Firstly I would like to thank you for taking the time to watch the video and post. I value all your views whether I agree with them or not.
To date nobody has made any reference to the “comments” made on this video on Youtube. Although I am well aware that, in general, it is not a good idea to waste ones time reading comments on Youtube However, I was surprised that all the posts that I read were vehemently supportive of the message that the video was putting across to the point of what I thought was, in some cases, incitement to violence.
paul1867I have Googled the requirements to join the police and the training and ongoing assessment process as I was not aware of them and the issue was raised both in the video and here.
There are no formal educational requirements for entry to the police service. The profession is open to graduates, those with an HND qualification and non-graduates alike.
Candidates will need to show evidence of the following:
• effective communication skills, including tact and diplomacy;
• community focus;
• a sense of personal responsibility, integrity and resilience;
• problem-solving skills;
• a confident and calm manner;
• good literacy skills in order to accurately record details;
• respect for diversity;
• team working skills and the ability to work independently;
• professionalism, honesty and trustworthiness;
• sound judgement and a proper respect for confidentiality;
• ability to act with resolve, tolerance and restraint.
All probationary police constables in England and Wales undertake an extensive and professional training programme known as the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme (IPLDP), leading to the Level 3 Diploma in Policing (QCF), during their first two years of service.
the IPLDP curriculum is generally divided as follows:
• Phase 1: induction – general introduction to the organisation with training in first aid, health and safety, officer safety, ICT, race and diversity, human rights and community safety strategy.
• Phase 2: community – training in crime and disorder reduction and a community placement.
• Phase 3: supervised patrol – workplace practice supported by class-based learning, dealing with simulated incidents and work-based learning under supervised patrol.
• Phase 4: independent patrol – combines operational duties with independent and distance learning.
Continuing professional development (CPD) and ongoing training are important. Annual performance and development reviews (PDRs) assess and monitor the progress of police officers to ensure that their professional skills are kept up to date and they are abreast of the demands of a constantly changing work environment.
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/police_officer_entry_requirements.htm
paul1867I have Googled the requirements to join the police and the training and ongoing assessment process as I was not aware of them and the issue was raised both in the video and here.
There are no formal educational requirements for entry to the police service. The profession is open to graduates, those with an HND qualification and non-graduates alike.
Candidates will need to show evidence of the following:
• effective communication skills, including tact and diplomacy;
• community focus;
• a sense of personal responsibility, integrity and resilience;
• problem-solving skills;
• a confident and calm manner;
• good literacy skills in order to accurately record details;
• respect for diversity;
• team working skills and the ability to work independently;
• professionalism, honesty and trustworthiness;
• sound judgement and a proper respect for confidentiality;
• ability to act with resolve, tolerance and restraint.
All probationary police constables in England and Wales undertake an extensive and professional training programme known as the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme (IPLDP), leading to the Level 3 Diploma in Policing (QCF), during their first two years of service.
the IPLDP curriculum is generally divided as follows:
• Phase 1: induction – general introduction to the organisation with training in first aid, health and safety, officer safety, ICT, race and diversity, human rights and community safety strategy.
• Phase 2: community – training in crime and disorder reduction and a community placement.
• Phase 3: supervised patrol – workplace practice supported by class-based learning, dealing with simulated incidents and work-based learning under supervised patrol.
• Phase 4: independent patrol – combines operational duties with independent and distance learning.
Continuing professional development (CPD) and ongoing training are important. Annual performance and development reviews (PDRs) assess and monitor the progress of police officers to ensure that their professional skills are kept up to date and they are abreast of the demands of a constantly changing work environment.
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/police_officer_entry_requirements.htm
paul1867The police oath
I, … of … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
http://metpolicewatchlondonboroughs.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/police-oath.html
Sign In
