Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by blues, Apr 12, 2009.
I read today in on sick pay now
Q: the number on the back of there helmets is that linked to there collar number ?
This was reported during the week
Or more likely, an excuse. I can see 'this officer has suffered enough' excuse being voiced already.
Fuck him and his colleagues.
Is not the same thing as a heart attack. Sounds like the cowardly little turd realised he was probably in the shit and tried to malinger his way out of it.
Fuck you and your colleagues.
Good this stereotyping, isn't it ...
Did tarannau and his colleagues just go on a rampage that left one person dead and hundreds seriously injured then? The rotters..
What stereotyping you dappy idiot? We got to see in glorious technicolour the character of the officer in question - shoving a man with his arms in his pockets to the floor from behind, possibly with a bit of baton action thrown in.
How much more evidence do you need before you conclude the guy was a cunt unsuitable for policing the streets? Why make excuses for the inexcusable?
I repeat: fuck the officers concerned and fuck you for your usual shallow apologist bollocks. You serve no purpose other than snide comments and fatuous insults these days DB.
Why? Did tarranau pull off a cowardly assault on an old man from behind while his colleagues stood around and did nothing?
I understood the phrase 'and his colleagues' to refer to those involved, not all coppers everywhere.
One cop has done something stupid. Does this make all coppers just as bad?
One nigger robs a granny. Kick them all out of the country?
Stereotyping is easy, isn't it?
DB, for a while you were a voice of reason. Now it seems you're just another pig apologist. You lot always stick together when you fuck up. You lot lie, people die.
It does when twenty colleagues, the IPCC, and the coroner collude in trying to keep the assault under wraps, and release a series of lies to the media to try and make it look like a tragic accident, the fault of the protesters, or his own fault.
This is systemic, and you'd have to be an idiot or a pig to think otherwise.
WHICH "shallow apologist bollocks"?
(I have merely (as usual) pointed out that there are some things that we do not know, that there are some explanations which could be given and may be justifiable and that it is only a fool (like you) who rushes in on the basis of an initial impression and comes to a solid conclusion about what happened). I do not know what happened and I am not willing to make a judgment about whether it was justifiable until I do.
FACT 1: You are prejudiced.
FACT 2: You apply that prejudice to every situation which confronts you.
FACT 3: You reach an instant and immovable conclusion based on your prejudices.
FACT 4: You refuse to even consider anything which does not accord with your prejudices.
FACT 5: You are a prick.
Come on, I see the point you think you're making, but is that word really necessary in this context?
Today db loses the last few defenders he had on this board.
So that's a lot of hot air then.
What more evidence do I need to see before it's fair to conclude that a police officer shoved a man entirely unnecessarily from behind - a violent, cowardly action that was always likely to cause a heavy fall or injury.
Where the fuck is my prejudice in this then? I see more evidence that you're far too quick to leap to your ex-colleagues defence if anything.
in big number there bound to be bad apples just to show not all the protester were all innocent on the day. but they did kill someone
is english not your first language?
He's severely dyslexic. Bond = bound.
Is anyone else still waiting for DB to come up with his 'explanations' why cracking a man in the back of the legs with a baton and giving him a snide hevay shove from behind are acceptable and proportionate then?
Once him and all his mates have had fatal heart attacks I might start coming round to that line of reasoning.
Maybe he was disrespecting them.
'it's a tough, stressful job and we can't simply be expected to show restraint or not hit/shove defenceless people from behind to catch them unawares'
I suspect DB's disappeared, coward-like, only to reappear the next time there's a controversy involving the OB.
He's been massively predictable mind. Come in all guns blazing, calling for 'higher' proof, aggressively slandering those who he disagrees with ("prejudice', 'prick' etc ) instead of admitting any culpability and generally closing ranks. He's out of the force, but he's as limited in mind and outlook as ever.
Despite our very effective training.
Separate names with a comma.