All cops are bastards defined, the coronet 5 not guilty in the slightest

[pk]

I do apologise PK - here's me thinking that this was a discussion about Britain - not all the other countries of the world

You made a blanket statement about anarchists, and according to you they've killed nobody.

I was just pointing out a bit of historical fact.

Also, in 1881, anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II ... and 21 bystanders...

 

[detective-boy]

I did understand it.

You continue to demonstrate that you didn't. I suspect you cannot see round your prejudices, so large are they. So it is clearly a waste of time trying to debate anything with you.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

You made a blanket statement about anarchists, and according to you they've killed nobody.

I was just pointing out a bit of historical fact.

Also, in 1881, anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II ... and 21 bystanders...

anarchist assassinations have killed loads of people:
http://libcom.org/tags/propaganda-by-deed

not any point, just saying.

 

[The Black Hand]

You made a blanket statement about anarchists, and according to you they've killed nobody.

I was just pointing out a bit of historical fact.

Also, in 1881, anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II ... and 21 bystanders...

Again, not Britain. Look, the amount of people anarchists have killed relative to ALL other political ideas is the least. Fact.

 

[The Black Hand]

You continue to demonstrate that you didn't. I suspect you cannot see round your prejudices, so large are they. So it is clearly a waste of time trying to debate anything with you.

I see your position, I understand it. I disagree. The police lie deliberately in their evidence - I've had too much personal involvement not to know this. Eg. When police have copied other notes and presented them as their own - complete with the spelling mistakes from the original!! That is deliberately lying in court. You are the liberal who is blinkered, not me....

 

[detective-boy]

I see your position, I understand it. I disagree. The police lie deliberately in their evidence - I've had too much personal involvement not to know this. Eg. When police have copied other notes and presented them as their own - complete with the spelling mistakes from the original!! That is deliberately lying in court. You are the liberal who is blinkered, not me....

My point is that every time you do not agree with what you say is NOT necessarily them deliberately lying.

I haven't said they never lie deliberately - I have acknowledged that there are lots of examples of it. My point is that there may be other explanations for your recollection and their recollection differing which are NOT them deliberately lying.

And the example you give has been used by me repeatedly on other threads as an example of the pathetic regime in which ANY minor discrepancy between police officers accounts was seized on as demonstrating they were wrong in their evidence that it became absolutely standard practice for officers to pool their recollections and make identical notes. EVERYONE knew that was fucking ridiculous ... but that was what was required. Some (older in service) officers still do it automatically.

 

[The Black Hand]

My point is that every time you do not agree with what you say is NOT necessarily them deliberately lying.

I haven't said they never lie deliberately - I have acknowledged that there are lots of examples of it. My point is that there may be other explanations for your recollection and their recollection differing which are NOT them deliberately lying.

And the example you give has been used by me repeatedly on other threads as an example of the pathetic regime in which ANY minor discrepancy between police officers accounts was seized on as demonstrating they were wrong in their evidence that it became absolutely standard practice for officers to pool their recollections and make identical notes. EVERYONE knew that was fucking ridiculous ... but that was what was required. Some (older in service) officers still do it automatically.

Actually that eg predates my experience of you - funnily enough I haven't been reading you except where we have argued. The point still remains they are deliberately LYING, they are inventing evidence so it is 'consistent' in the terms you said. Also, if their evidence in court is flawed so be it, there should be a not guilty.

You said this;

"My point is that there may be other explanations for your recollection and their recollection differing which are NOT them deliberately lying." I agree this is possible but I would have to see the particular evidence before I cast judgement in every case, does that improve our frosty relationship?

 

[detective-boy]

"My point is that there may be other explanations for your recollection and their recollection differing which are NOT them deliberately lying." I agree this is possible but I would have to see the particular evidence before I cast judgement in every case, does that improve our frosty relationship?

Unlike many on here, I don't have "relationships". I simply post either what I know to be true (factual stuff), what I believe to be a logical conclusion (i.e. no actual knowledge but following a line of reasoning) or what my opinion is (rarely - don't have time to get involved in long debates usually). It doesn't matter to me who I am agreeing with or disagreeing with. I usually don't even remember who I've argued with before and it takes a very long line of posts before the identity of a poster becomes associated with any particular position.

But, as for the point I was making, it sounds like you have acknowledged my point. And as I had already acknowledged that sometimes coppers lie deliberately, there is no outstanding issue, so fine!

 

[pk]

Again, not Britain. Look, the amount of people anarchists have killed relative to ALL other political ideas is the least. Fact.

Depends on your definition of "political ideas" and whether they include religions, such as the Hare Krishna, bhuddism....

Besides - anarchism, as a minority idea, has never been remotely close to a position of power in Britain, so why would people have been killed over it?

Surely you're not trying to rebrand anarchism as a peaceful movement?

 

[The Black Hand]

Depends on your definition of "political ideas" and whether they include religions, such as the Hare Krishna, bhuddism....

Besides - anarchism, as a minority idea, has never been remotely close to a position of power in Britain, so why would people have been killed over it?

Surely you're not trying to rebrand anarchism as a peaceful movement?

]

Just a sense of British proportion...