|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 10, 2024 11:47:21 GMT
...so pretty much all the evidence points to a two-tier policing approach and yet you insult the people who are pointing that out? When Romas riot in Harehills (protesting a perfectly legal social services intervention), the police step back whilst a bus and one of their own vehicles is torched. When the offenders plea guilty (and let's remember people were on the bus when it was attacked) they get three years for arson...but if you yell at the police (after children have been killed in Southport) you get a fast-track conviction to serve 2 years/8 months for violent disorder. A very different offence, a very similar sentence. Would you like to support Palestinians? Good news, you can march with others supporting Palestine (as well as those supporting Hamas) in London every weekend. The Met will close roads and allow you to shout "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" and call for "Muslim armies" to invade Israel...be careful not to hold up a sign calling Hamas "terrorists" or rent a billboard showing images of the people Hamas took hostage though - that's not allowed despite the claims being factually accurate and you will be arrested and/or your billboard removed... Don't get me wrong. Frontline policing is difficult and I couldn't do it. But these and many other issues are caused by leaders in both the police and the government making poor decisions, exposing those on the frontline to valid criticism when the decisions are enforced. Absolute bollox đ The specific claims or the overall idea? There are plenty more examples...back in August a group gathered in Birmingham to 'protect a mosque'. Who/what from was never made clear and the mosque was not attacked. The group themselves though damaged vehicles, threatened and attempted to assault journalists whilst locals at a pub were beaten leaving one with a lacerated liver. Police were called various times and didn't attend, the force telling journalists the next day they had met with 'community leaders' and agreed to allow the gathering to 'police itself'...which went well if you were a journalist or a karaoke fan in the area that night...I can't think of any other time when the police would let armed gangs on the streets of the UK's second largest city 'police themselves', can you? It's not just the police either, the fast-track prosecutions clearly went to the Judge's heads. There are more and more examples being published of judges handing down custodial sentences of two-to-three years for rioters vs very lenient suspended sentences for other serious offences. Brandon Kirkwood got two and a half years for pushing a wheelie bin at police. The same judge just weeks before told a man convicted of child pornography offences to "...get out more away from your computer..." and gave him a non-custodial 30-day rehabilitation order. 157 category A images.... Different judge, same problem. Twelve weeks for being racist on Facebook *or* 15 days rehabilitation work for five separate offences over indecent images of children. Different judge, same problem. Incitement to violence on Facebook, 20 months in prison. *Or* just six months if you only have 8000 indecent images of children... |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 10, 2024 23:47:04 GMT
Surely youâre not thick enough to promulgate the two tier policing theory are you France like the nut jobs whoâve liked your post ? đđ ...so pretty much all the evidence points to a two-tier policing approach and yet you insult the people who are pointing that out? When Romas riot in Harehills (protesting a perfectly legal social services intervention), the police step back whilst a bus and one of their own vehicles is torched. When the offenders plea guilty (and let's remember people were on the bus when it was attacked) they get three years for arson...but if you yell at the police (after children have been killed in Southport) you get a fast-track conviction to serve 2 years/8 months for violent disorder. A very different offence, a very similar sentence. Would you like to support Palestinians? Good news, you can march with others supporting Palestine (as well as those supporting Hamas) in London every weekend. The Met will close roads and allow you to shout "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" and call for "Muslim armies" to invade Israel...be careful not to hold up a sign calling Hamas "terrorists" or rent a billboard showing images of the people Hamas took hostage though - that's not allowed despite the claims being factually accurate and you will be arrested and/or your billboard removed... Don't get me wrong. Frontline policing is difficult and I couldn't do it. But these and many other issues are caused by leaders in both the police and the government making poor decisions, exposing those on the frontline to valid criticism when the decisions are enforced. Sorry a bit late but thought I'd reply. That's a very well argued post which doesn't get derailed with hatred for Muslims or immigrants in general. It's hard to discuss this stuff without tempers getting frayed (see the other forum) so well done for that. As to the content, I find it hard to discuss the so-called two tier policing system because I don't have access to the decisions taken by the police about who to arrest and charge. Some of it seems inconsistent but I don't have the facts to make assertions. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 11, 2024 12:08:55 GMT
...so pretty much all the evidence points to a two-tier policing approach and yet you insult the people who are pointing that out? When Romas riot in Harehills (protesting a perfectly legal social services intervention), the police step back whilst a bus and one of their own vehicles is torched. When the offenders plea guilty (and let's remember people were on the bus when it was attacked) they get three years for arson...but if you yell at the police (after children have been killed in Southport) you get a fast-track conviction to serve 2 years/8 months for violent disorder. A very different offence, a very similar sentence. Would you like to support Palestinians? Good news, you can march with others supporting Palestine (as well as those supporting Hamas) in London every weekend. The Met will close roads and allow you to shout "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" and call for "Muslim armies" to invade Israel...be careful not to hold up a sign calling Hamas "terrorists" or rent a billboard showing images of the people Hamas took hostage though - that's not allowed despite the claims being factually accurate and you will be arrested and/or your billboard removed... Don't get me wrong. Frontline policing is difficult and I couldn't do it. But these and many other issues are caused by leaders in both the police and the government making poor decisions, exposing those on the frontline to valid criticism when the decisions are enforced. Sorry a bit late but thought I'd reply. That's a very well argued post which doesn't get derailed with hatred for Muslims or immigrants in general. It's hard to discuss this stuff without tempers getting frayed (see the other forum) so well done for that. As to the content, I find it hard to discuss the so-called two tier policing system because I don't have access to the decisions taken by the police about who to arrest and charge. Some of it seems inconsistent but I don't have the facts to make assertions. The decisions behind-the-scenes will never be made public so all we can judge is the end result. As soon as they announced fast-track prosecutions/convictions they risked these kinds of comparison and this list is just the tip of the iceberg. At the *same* time as saying there was no space in the prison system they've put tens, maybe hundreds of people behind bars for multiple years with very little justification... |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 11, 2024 21:44:50 GMT
Very interesting two part documentary on iPlayer called Immigration: How British Politics Failed.
Seems pretty well balanced to me but I suppose that depends how far you tip to one side or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Nov 12, 2024 19:07:00 GMT
...so pretty much all the evidence points to a two-tier policing approach and yet you insult the people who are pointing that out? When Romas riot in Harehills (protesting a perfectly legal social services intervention), the police step back whilst a bus and one of their own vehicles is torched. When the offenders plea guilty (and let's remember people were on the bus when it was attacked) they get three years for arson...but if you yell at the police (after children have been killed in Southport) you get a fast-track conviction to serve 2 years/8 months for violent disorder. A very different offence, a very similar sentence. Would you like to support Palestinians? Good news, you can march with others supporting Palestine (as well as those supporting Hamas) in London every weekend. The Met will close roads and allow you to shout "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" and call for "Muslim armies" to invade Israel...be careful not to hold up a sign calling Hamas "terrorists" or rent a billboard showing images of the people Hamas took hostage though - that's not allowed despite the claims being factually accurate and you will be arrested and/or your billboard removed... Don't get me wrong. Frontline policing is difficult and I couldn't do it. But these and many other issues are caused by leaders in both the police and the government making poor decisions, exposing those on the frontline to valid criticism when the decisions are enforced. Absolute bollox đ Showing your absolute ignorance once again, why do you think this country is all Rainbows and Unicorns? Two interviews here from coppers/ex coppers stating there is two tier policing, but of course they are lying and you are the only one that is right |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 13, 2024 9:00:00 GMT
Showing your absolute ignorance once again, why do you think this country is all Rainbows and Unicorns? Two interviews here from coppers/ex coppers stating there is two tier policing, but of course they are lying and you are the only one that is right For those who can't be bothered to watch, I know a bit about the Rick Prior one. His job is to defend frontline officers and was talking about recent cases where officers were cleared on appeal after initial investigations/judgements by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. As an example one officer was found guilty of common assault by beating and fined £1,500. The 'offence' was a small bruise on the arm of a black lady who was effectively resisting arrest. Both parties at fault but more worrying is the wider reaction to the initial incident... The Met said that the incident "...divided opinions..." and had significant impact on the black community in Croydon and beyond. It clearly didn't, it impacted one woman who got a bruise on one arm. How on earth does it affect the whole black community in Croydon and beyond...?!? When talking about this kind of incident Prior simply called that out. Officers "...no longer call out bad behaviour⌠for fear of upsetting certain elements of the community..." - and it's true. Here's another example. At the Notting Hill Carnival this year, over two days there were 61 incidents where officers were assaulted, eight stabbings and 349 total arrests. How on earth is it still allowed to go ahead with 61 police officers being assaulted? That's more than one per hour...for comparison Glastonbury runs for 5 days and this year there were only 121 incidents, 30 arrests, and (as far as I can see from the reporting) no one was stabbed and no police officers were assaulted. Want to bet which event has a harder time getting it's license renewed next time around...? |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Nov 14, 2024 20:00:45 GMT
Who says there's not two tier policing in the UK. 1. Nicola Wilcox was arrested during the Leeds Harehills riots whilst handing out refreshments to the Police. Her charge sheet has been exposed and states she shouted out to the rioters " Go home you are devaluing our properties" she was arrested for "disturbing a romani vigil". Normally you burn a candle at a vigil not a double decker bus! Videos on social media show dozens lobbing bricks yet out of 27 arrests only 4 jailed for arson. (How many arrested and jailed after Southport). 2. Careworker Cameron Bell has been jailed for 9 months. She was still wearing her uniform so probably on her way home when she live streamed a group of about 20 masked men making racist comments. She could be heard swearing and calling asylum seekers "tramps" . This was after the riot in Staffordshire which she was not involved in. Meanwhile.... TikToker who made jokes about gassing Jewish people is spared jail www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14083877/TikTok-influencer-antisemite-badge-gassing-Jewish-people-spared-jail.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 15, 2024 11:34:34 GMT
This is a scary one. Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson is being investigated by police over a post on Twitter more than twelve months ago. A member of the public complained and it's being investigated as a ânon-crime hate incidentâ.
Two officers called at her home on Sunday. It was to do with something posted on X/Twitter more than a year ago. When she asked what sheâd allegedly said in the post, the officer replied that he was not allowed to disclose it. The accuserâs name was also withheld from her. She is accused of a ânon-crimeâ, cannot be told what she wrote that was 'wrong' nor who is accusing her of the 'crime'.
How can you even start to defend yourself against a charge where they won't tell you what you've done or who is upset by it? If a ânon-crime hate incidentâ is recorded against you it can show up on criminal record checks and prevent you from getting a job or a visa. All for a non-crime you can't defend yourself against. Also don't bother deleting old social media posts, deletion doesn't stop the investigations...
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 15, 2024 11:37:06 GMT
This is a scary one. Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson is being investigated by police over a post on Twitter more than twelve months ago. A member of the public complained and it's being investigated as a ânon-crime hate incidentâ. Two officers called at her home on Sunday. It was to do with something posted on X/Twitter more than a year ago. When she asked what sheâd allegedly said in the post, the officer replied that he was not allowed to disclose it. The accuserâs name was also withheld from her. She is accused of a ânon-crimeâ, cannot be told what she wrote that was 'wrong' nor who is accusing her of the 'crime'. How can you even start to defend yourself against a charge where they won't tell you what you've done or who is upset by it? If a ânon-crime hate incidentâ is recorded against you it can show up on criminal record checks and prevent you from getting a job or a visa. All for a non-crime you can't defend yourself against. Also don't bother deleting old social media posts, deletion doesn't stop the investigations... ...as a side-note, if your house if burgled on a Saturday the chances of two police officers turning up on Sunday is low to zero... |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 15, 2024 12:23:57 GMT
This is a scary one. Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson is being investigated by police over a post on Twitter more than twelve months ago. A member of the public complained and it's being investigated as a ânon-crime hate incidentâ. Two officers called at her home on Sunday. It was to do with something posted on X/Twitter more than a year ago. When she asked what sheâd allegedly said in the post, the officer replied that he was not allowed to disclose it. The accuserâs name was also withheld from her. She is accused of a ânon-crimeâ, cannot be told what she wrote that was 'wrong' nor who is accusing her of the 'crime'. How can you even start to defend yourself against a charge where they won't tell you what you've done or who is upset by it? If a ânon-crime hate incidentâ is recorded against you it can show up on criminal record checks and prevent you from getting a job or a visa. All for a non-crime you can't defend yourself against. Also don't bother deleting old social media posts, deletion doesn't stop the investigations... End of free speech in this Country. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 17, 2024 4:19:40 GMT
This is a scary one. Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson is being investigated by police over a post on Twitter more than twelve months ago. A member of the public complained and it's being investigated as a ânon-crime hate incidentâ. Two officers called at her home on Sunday. It was to do with something posted on X/Twitter more than a year ago. When she asked what sheâd allegedly said in the post, the officer replied that he was not allowed to disclose it. The accuserâs name was also withheld from her. She is accused of a ânon-crimeâ, cannot be told what she wrote that was 'wrong' nor who is accusing her of the 'crime'. How can you even start to defend yourself against a charge where they won't tell you what you've done or who is upset by it? If a ânon-crime hate incidentâ is recorded against you it can show up on criminal record checks and prevent you from getting a job or a visa. All for a non-crime you can't defend yourself against. Also don't bother deleting old social media posts, deletion doesn't stop the investigations... ...as a side-note, if your house if burgled on a Saturday the chances of two police officers turning up on Sunday is low to zero... ...turns out it was reported to the police on the 18th of November last year...so actually 359 days before she got a knock on the door... Still, since Essex police only solved 13% of actual crimes last year this should as least add one to their solved column this year.... |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 17, 2024 23:17:55 GMT
Essex Police say it is being investigated as a potential criminal offence of inciting racial hatred and Pearson was the one who claimed, wrongly, it was being treated as a non-crime hate incident.
The rights and wrongs of the tweet she deleted are confusing to me since it may have all been a misunderstanding. Or maybe not. It's really not clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 18, 2024 9:18:02 GMT
Essex Police say it is being investigated as a potential criminal offence of inciting racial hatred and Pearson was the one who claimed, wrongly, it was being treated as a non-crime hate incident. The rights and wrongs of the tweet she deleted are confusing to me since it may have all been a misunderstanding. Or maybe not. It's really not clear. Having tried to read the "trail" of all this it seems borderline whether the tweet was racist or anything else,it seems one person complained however,it's the elapsed time since the tweet and two PCs rocking up at 9.30 on remembrance Sunday and their complete inability to provide any clarity on why they were there.. Freedom of Speech,the right to offend etc is at the core of this Country and there appears to be a sense that the police are being used to erode that right. I might not like what some folk say but I defend their right to say it and any curtailment of that is a slippery slope to authoristism. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 18, 2024 9:49:41 GMT
I see the latest Farage bombshell has arrived. There is a lot of Internet chatter that Starmer defended the Southport killer's dad back in the day as a Human Rights lawyer.
Farage saying he knows 'stuff' but is being gagged by Parliament, not being allowed to raise whatever this is via Parliamentary Privilege.
Clearly not aware (though I'm sure he is really) of sub judice rules, leaving his followers thinking of conspiracies.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 18, 2024 10:04:07 GMT
Choices, choices...
Choose EU or US said one American politician close to Trump.
After a pragmatic role with China and Xi.
Starmer trying to reset relations with the EU and pressed by BCC to do so.
" "Move as close as possible to EU in Brexit reset, business bosses urge Starmer", the i headlines. The British Chamber of Commerce has told the paper it wants "as much alignment as possible" with Brussels. The paper observes the prime minister faces growing pressure to choose between prioritising the EU and the US under Donald Trump."
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 19, 2024 9:39:12 GMT
I only mention it because there is very little coverage of this and other things. Rayner and her housing confusion got very little coverage. Starmer and his close friend Alli took ages to get a mention. Now we have Reeves who looks to have been promoted well above her claimed levels of experience... ...that's three of the four Offices of State. I skipped Lammy because everyone already knows he's well out of his depth but where we find ourselves is with a PM who mis-declared where he was living for the most important election of his life, a Deputy PM who played a housing system she wants to abolish and made a huge financial gain, a Chancellor who claims she was an economist with both the BoE and HBoS but in reality worked in a small complaints team and a Foreign Secretary who is busy flying around the world annoying allies and cozying up to enemies... In other news the Labour Head of Operations should definitely resign and if not Starmer should fire her... Thereâs very little coverage because they are non stories you prune đđ How are you feeling about that analysis now? For anyone who needs a catchup, many newspapers (and some TV stations) are now covering the Reeves CV story. She quietly changed her CV from 'Economist' at the Bank of Scotland from 2006-09 to 'Retail Banking' at Halifax over the same periods. Now I'm not saying that's grounds for sacking/resignation, but it has raised some interesting questions and brought more information to light... ...firstly, why leave what 'appears' to be a decent but junior job at the Bank of England to work in a retail banking complaints team at Halifax? That's a massive downwards step made years before her move into politics. I could understand taking a less high-profile job to spend time preparing to run as an MP, but this was years before she even talked about running in what was a very safe Labour seat... ...then we have one person who we can verify worked at HBOS at the same time as her, three levels above her. He says she was investigated and nearly sacked over an expenses scandal (...unusual for a wannabe politician lol) but was then asked to resign after the company followed her when she started going to the doctor/dentist a lot and found out she was actually doing Labour Party work...that explains a six month gap in the CV between complaints processing and running in a safe Labour seat... Again, not grounds for resignation/sacking from her current role. But since she made these false claims to win her political seat in 2010 (various campaign websites and press interviews included claims we now know were not true) that is potentially some kind of fraud by misrepresentation (not sure exactly, I'm sure someone is looking into it). Also many of the claims have been repeated since she became a government minister - and that is potentially a breach of the ministerial code and a resignation matter. Number Ten has avoided direct questions about a potential breach which possibly suggests they will dump it in her lap to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 19, 2024 9:48:34 GMT
I see the latest Farage bombshell has arrived. There is a lot of Internet chatter that Starmer defended the Southport killer's dad back in the day as a Human Rights lawyer. Farage saying he knows 'stuff' but is being gagged by Parliament, not being allowed to raise whatever this is via Parliamentary Privilege. Clearly not aware (though I'm sure he is really) of sub judice rules, leaving his followers thinking of conspiracies. i've seen some of the rumours but can't find anything substantial to back any of them up. Even if they are true/partly true, that was Starmer's job at the time and despite not liking it I can't condemn him for it. If the Speaker has stopped Farage asking certain questions/saying certain things in Parliament that is more concerning. I understand the need to protect the integrity of trials, but all the rumours I've read are irrelevant to what the alleged killer may or may not have done on that day, and very relevant to tens of other convictions that have already taken place... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 19, 2024 9:59:42 GMT
I see the latest Farage bombshell has arrived. There is a lot of Internet chatter that Starmer defended the Southport killer's dad back in the day as a Human Rights lawyer. Farage saying he knows 'stuff' but is being gagged by Parliament, not being allowed to raise whatever this is via Parliamentary Privilege. Clearly not aware (though I'm sure he is really) of sub judice rules, leaving his followers thinking of conspiracies. i've seen some of the rumours but can't find anything substantial to back any of them up. Even of they are true or partly true that was Starmer's job at the time and despite not liking it I can't condemn him for it. If the Speaker has stopped Farage asking certain questions/saying certain things in Parliament that is more concerning. I understand the need to protect the integrity of trials, but all the rumours I've read are irrelevant to what the alleged killer may or may not have done on that day, and very relevant to tens of other convictions that have already taken place... The family background into which he grew up would be very relevant to the trial so comes under sub judice. If the Speaker is leaning on Farage for other reasons, that could be different, however given Farage's history already in this case, I have my doubts. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 19, 2024 11:19:50 GMT
i've seen some of the rumours but can't find anything substantial to back any of them up. Even of they are true or partly true that was Starmer's job at the time and despite not liking it I can't condemn him for it. If the Speaker has stopped Farage asking certain questions/saying certain things in Parliament that is more concerning. I understand the need to protect the integrity of trials, but all the rumours I've read are irrelevant to what the alleged killer may or may not have done on that day, and very relevant to tens of other convictions that have already taken place... The rumour is [removed] If the Speaker is leaning on Farage for other reasons, that could be different, however given Farage's history already in this case, I have my doubts. Yeah, I didn't want to spread the rumour since I can't find any evidence for it. Still, there it is... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 19, 2024 11:26:00 GMT
The family background into which he grew up would be very relevant to the trial so comes under sub judice. If the Speaker is leaning on Farage for other reasons, that could be different, however given Farage's history already in this case, I have my doubts. Yeah, I didn't want to spread the rumour since I can't find any evidence for it. Still, there it is... I know, although the half dozen or so of us who use this site are wise enough to take it with a pinch of salt at this stage. If the mods feel it's better off of here then feel free to edit. |
|
