No power soon? Police hold 114 in power protest

1984ReturnsForReal_2

"I'm sure there have been people in the past both charged then convicted of this offence"

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Thanks you have summed up several of my argument winning statements in one handy post!

I don't think you can possibly save face in this forum ever again, think its time to change your username, theres no coming back from how daft you've made yourself look here.

Please list as you consider yourself to be an authority.

(bet you cant )

1984ReturnsForReal_2

"but to conspire to tresspass and once there disrupt lawful activity completes the offence."

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Thanks you have summed up several of my argument winning statements in one handy post!

I don't think you can possibly save face in this forum ever again, think its time to change your username, theres no coming back from how daft you've made yourself look here.

Ah, so its the good old charge of conspiring to trespass and once conspiring conspired to aggrevated trespass.

Like I said you dont arrested someone for conspiracy to murder when all they have done is suggest to some drunk bloke to give someone a whack.

Conspiracy to Commit Aggrevated Trespass is quantifiable.

mrstinchcombe

Why post once when four posts will do?

What you fail to understand is this whole discussion is related to my job, I'm good at my job, its what I do and I'm an expert. There are plenty of topics I am clueless about but this isn't one of them.

You aren't even debating something that is subjective, you are debating facts and points of law. Everyone whos posted on this topic knows you are incorrect except you, give it up mate!

By the way I have edited posts (as I have done this one) so I can ADD to the post. It saves posting four times in a row and making yourself look a little silly.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

Why post once when four posts will do?

What you fail to understand is this whole discussion is related to my job, I'm good at my job, its what I do and I'm an expert. There are plenty of topics I am clueless about but this isn't one of them.

You aren't even debating something that is subjective, you are debating facts and points of law. Everyone whos posted on this topic knows you are incorrect except you, give it up mate!

By the way I have edited posts (as I have done this one) so I can ADD to the post. It saves posting four times in a row and making yourself look a little silly.

Carry on with insults & ignore your expert statements.

Gorgeous_George

Guy_Montag wrote: »

I see it quite differently - 3:43 the officer seems to be remonstrating with someone else, the young lady approaches suggesting that he desist from his current activities. He backhandedly slaps her then, when she continues to remonstrate, he hits her legs with a baton. To me all the violence in the incident seems to be carried out by the police.

As I've said on other boards, my opinion of the police has fallen through the floor. Before these incidents I had fairly high opinion of them, now I view them as little more than thugs.

I'm the exact opposite.

I had a low opinion of the motorist persecuting, early retiring parasites before I saw them deal with protestors in a wholly sensible and understandable way. Much better to slap them than to arrest them (taking Police away from the protests), process the prosecution only for the Courts to dismiss the case on a technicality.

She looked like she deserved it. Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack - possibly brought on by the protestors.

It is time to licence protests and for the Police to be funded by the organisers.

GG

mrstinchcombe

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I had a low opinion of the motorist persecuting, early retiring parasites
GG

I would question how effective 65 yr old Police Officers would be tho, imagine them at the G20!

Gorgeous_George

I have no problem with them finishing working for the Police when they are no longer capable of doing so but they can get another job until they reach retirement age. Retirement age is when they should receive their pension.

And I know 65 year olds who are fitter than 25 year old coppers.

GG

mrstinchcombe

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I have no problem with them finishing working for the Police when they are no longer capable of doing so but they can get another job until they reach retirement age. Retirement age is when they should receive their pension.

And I know 65 year olds who are fitter than 25 year old coppers.

GG

I think essentially what it boils down to is if you want people to do a dangerous job on relatively poor money then you pay out their pension when you retire them off, not 10 years later!

Generali

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

I think essentially what it boils down to is if you want people to do a dangerous job on relatively poor money then you pay out their pension when you retire them off, not 10 years later!

You need to offer a carrot to people who do jobs like being a copper. You can't just expect people to do what can be a pretty nasty job at times (dealing with horrid people, unsociable hours) for no money and a rubbish pension.