Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Childish and a bit silly perhaps but police caution? That's ridiculous:
look at cameron's face! he's pretending to nod and be interested in what the interviewer's saying, but his eyes are seething: "i'll kill that little cunt. make sure the police open up some brutality on him..."
THEY HATE US, WE HATE THEM
i love the look on davids cameron's face.
It was a childish immature joke but just didn't need a police caution. It probably needed a quick telling off from his parents but that's it?
What next? People calling the police when their children pull faces in family protraits? 'Cos that's the same level of seriousness...
y'know, the bicycle hooligan who runs red lights and shit?
I read it on the BBC.
CG: king of pot.kettle.black
you sound like voldemort.
the police should never do this. given that its not really set in stone and morality is entirely subjective.
It was a joke, anti social? perhaps, worthy of a caution? not really.
I bet you love Burke, don't you?
But seriously, you're a proper Burkian conservative, of the old school, right?
Quick, get the holy water!
(Seriously though, Thatcher's a lot more liberal than the impression I have of you - I always took you to be a conservative of the old-style, pre-1900, like Edmund Burke, what with all this "elected leaders should lead by moral example" nonsense).
anti-social orders are definitely not conservative 'old school' for fuck sake.
neither was thatcher
'cos I don't doubt for a second you know full well you're talking bollocks and are playing Tory Caricature rather than actually expressing your honest opinion.
because my mum, nan and old ladies at bus stops arent as massive a bellend as cameron.
I.e. that he's an idiot but it'd be ludicrous to call the police in.
Obviously with my grandmother or another old lady it'd be a bit worse than doing it to David Cameron and I'd probably think it was a childish disrespectful arsehole but I'd regard any police involvement as utterly, utterly, utterly inappropriate.
In my Mother's case even more so. Besides, given her job involves working with teenagers with learning difficulties i'd be amazed if she hadn't had far, far worse done to her.
It's proof he couldn't lead a Scout troupe let alone the UK government.
From a PR perspective this is the single most moronic thing Cameron has ever done and I sincerely hope Labour have the sense to leap on him and tear him to shreds over it. Played correctly, it presents him as utterly and completely unelectable.
He wants to lead the country and he doesn't even have the competence, presence or ability to deal with a slightly mischievous child without hiding behind a policeman? How the hell's he going to cope if he gets in power?
This incident is proof that Cameron is a weak, authority-less leader and it's laughable to think he could ever handle being Prime Minister.
If the Tories have any sense, decency or desire to run the country well they'll call a leadership election tomorrow.
i bet he was laughing as much as the rest of us when prescott got egged.
You said "Fuck you, Mike Diver. Fuck you."
I definitely wouldn't argue that if an act isn't 'social' then it has to be anti-social. Sociability isn't an on/off switches, there are degrees.
Here are some possible guidelines:
The kid walks up and hugs Cameron: Very social
The kid pretends to sneeze and wipe the 'bogey' on Cameron's back. A nation (minus retired army colonels, Hyacinth Buckets and Tory boys) shares a chuckle at the harmless jape: Social, police involvement unnecessary.
The kid actually sneezes, wiping the bogey on Cameron's back: pretty anti-social - deserving of a ticking off by the police.
The kid walks up to Cameron, pulls out a .43 and pops him twice in the back of the head: Very anti-social. Criminal investigation leading to prosecution and custodial sentence advised.
the nail on the head. We can't accept the premises, so it's not a cogent argument.
if he did infact *pretend* to sneeze... then what harm did he do. just bloody funny to be frank.
then may god have mercy on chris_is_cool for his "hilarious" laser pen hi-jinks
most people don't really understand how they work. by accepting it, you're admitting your guilt, it's not just something a police officer can 'give' you.
i sure i remember -gen- got one for talking photos around canary wharf on a sunday morning. ridiculous.
there's too much sneeze in politics.
It's only a police caution. They couldn't really do any less to him if they wanted to. He wasn't charged and he won't face any fines. I reckon that the lad in question would have no complaints and will consider that he got off alright for what was a pretty stupid but rather amusing prank.
or just "look lad, don't be a dick okay?" ticking off?
because it's really such a nothing incident that it barely warrants a response, it's not like he actually smeared snot down dave's face.
all it was was a kid trying to be funny/impress his mates/get on tv, its not like he smacked cameron round the face or anything.
and surely it would be a incredible waste of police time to punish every "oik" commiting "low level crime" such as playing R Kelly on the bus.
i'll get back to the washing up
telling kids off for playing music, shouting on, running about harassing old people, throwing books, taking photos of people they shouldn't be (as in sticking in their faces and clicking), spilling pop all over the place, falling asleep drunk and whatever other mischief they can manage to get up to in the library. They cause a nuisance and stop everyone else from getting on with what they want to be doing. This lad was just being a bit of a dick sure but he wasn't causing any harm or distress.
Would you really be in such a lather if it was Darling or Balls who got mime-snot wiped on him?
than just a quick
"Look lad, I know you think you're being funny and trying to get on telly to impress your mates but don't be a dick okay? Look at me, right son?"
"right then, now move along and don't do it again"
I have no idea if there is much form filling for this sort of thing... but the stern ticking off is all the incident really required
if someone who was openly Tory had a zero-tolerance attitude to petty offences?
particularly applies to stop and search, but could be true here also. who's to review it if it was never recorded as having happened?
A ticking off from a police officer'd make sense but an official caution seems far too much...
could've been fighting proper crime instead of filling out the forms for this.
that you did something you shouldn't be doing.
If this sort of thing happened to you in a town centre you know for a fact that the person responsible wouldn't get a caution; Firstly- Because you wouldn't bother complaining to the nearest Policeman. Secondly- Because there wouldn't be any police nearby to witness it anyway and thirdly, the police probably wouldn't take it seriously because you're not David Cameron and the incident wasn't caught by national television cameras.
In this instance, the police had to be seen to be doing something about it. If they didn't then what next? Before you know it the Deputy Prime Minister will be getting eggs chucked at him.
I'm sure the lad knew what he was doing beforehand and I can't imagine that he'd have any complaints this evening. In fact he's probably out celebrating with his mates on an ill lit street corner somewhere, scaring old ladies and drinking celebratory cans of White Lightning bought by his impressed pals from a dodgy Off Licence, before he goes off to engage in underaged sex under a bush. Before you know it he's the focus of another one of Camerons ill advised campaigns and the new poster boy for all the youths failed by Labour.
I'd want a policeman to stamp on their face.
A caution is the least he could've got, the horrible little prick.
you didn't think of doing it to somebody first?
That was like the Balls Of Steel to my First Couple of Serieses of Trigger Happy TV.
should be arrested for obstructing traffic and causing a public disturbance.
Or he should be judging from some of the arguments used in this thread.
Same for any of the Dennis Pennis pranks and anything Balls of Steel did (although balls of steel can rot in jail because their show was shit).
or made a prank phone call?
but the stimulant behind prank phonecalls is the fact the person on the other end has the option to hang up, but they don't.
Laserpens in faces = pointless. They wouldn't be able to see it. I'd rather flicker it around them and on their body etc. so they get nervous.
Were you one of those children who wasn't allowed to have waterfights and snowball fights?
"Come on in now, Leo, its far too cold! You'll be hurt!"
you make me feel so much about myself when i was seventeen
deserved... perhaps a mild beating would instill a little bit of respect. pikey
Go Hastings! My home town does itself proud again...
The last I heard some crazy Normans had a fight there
and that little ruck was almost a thousand years ago!
'depressing, crime and drug ridden sea-side town' way
but I agree with Cliche. A police caution really isn't all that serious, just like the offence this guy committed. How many of you would just let a stranger wipe themselves on you, or expect them to get away with such behaviour? It isn't like the kid has been lynched.
As a side, I sure as hell don't fucking vote to be told what to do by politicians. I vote for the politicians who best suit what I want.
If he did I'd change my stance entirely.
Thats besides the point really.
It's the difference between rubbing their hand down your back (a childish act but not one that warrants a police caution) and rubbing snot/phlegm down your back (a disgusting act that warrants a police caution).
Surely you're point is a bit like saying it's beside the point whether someone stabs someone with a knife or makes a playful jab at them them with a toy sword...
A more apt comparison would be someone who stabs someone and someone who merely brandishes the weapon. Both are offences.
Touching someone without their permission is pretty much illegal anyway, isn't it? I'm pretty sure it comes under the terms of ABH or something similar.
You can't be convicted of that unless you cause bodily harm.
You could technically class it as affray but you'd be pushing it in most cases. And end up with pretty much every secondary school age child in Britain in prison...
This fact is though that this kid did something he wasn't supposed to in full view of a police officer who has essentially told him off. Another officer may have done just literally that, rather than issuing a warning, it largely comes down to individual discretion.
Very minor offence, very minor punishment. Really not that big a deal in my opinion. Had a SWAT team burst through the kid's bedroom window at night and dragged him away for interrogation, I'd be with you!
The smiley picture on the front of the Metro made me feel a bit ill. The kid wiped phlegm over someone. It doesn't matter who the victim is, the only cunt in this story is the kid, who then gets put on the front page of a national free paper with a smiley face like he's a hero.
If I was the Rt. Hon David Cameron MP, I'd have knocked the little rancid fuck out.
But according to the BBC story he "pretended" to sneeze and wipe it on David Cameron's jacket, which is an entirely different matter.
And far, far more plausible as it's virtually impossible to sneeze on spec.
...claims that he sneaked, got phlegm on his hand by accident, and as Mr Cameron was in the vicinity, was dared by friends to go wipe it on him.
Further more, if you insert a finger into your nose and use your finger nail to agrevate the skin covering the cartlidge in the middle towards the top of your nose, you can sneeze on demand.
But I remainunconvinced as to whether it was.
the kid still looked like a smug bastard on the front of the paper considering the story he was being attributed to.
HELL IN A HAND CART.
I think CG asked the key question last night: what would you expect to happen if this kid did this to your Mum or Nan at a bus stop? Take it from the extreme of someone most of don't care for, to someone we (probably) care for very much.
I, myself, would still think a caution was too much. My Mum would almost certainly think a caution was too much (I can't argue for my Nan because she was a bit mad, and not in an office joker sort of way). Hate to use the phrase, but a 'common sense' assessment of the situation would have been that the officer would have taken the kid's name and address, then attempted to get him to apologise to Cameron. This should have been enough; if the kid gave further abuse, then a caution would have been reasonable.
As it stands, it looks like the key catalyst in the situation wasn't that the kid did something 'anti-social;' it's that he did it to David Cameron.
Its pretty easy to tell from this thread who had minor run-ins with the law as a naughty teenager!
He has something on his record that'll show up in the future. That seems unreasonable for what strikes me as a childish prank.
But there are plenty of people who committ essentially harmless pranks as kids with cautions to their name who never experience any ill from it and are dissuading from more serious offences
a big difference between a verbal caution and an official simple one; any copper with a foot in reality will tell you this. A good officer should be able to sort out a situation like this without having to go putting flags on kids' names in databases and records; as I said, if the kid was being a persistant idiot, then fair enough.
'There are no rigid rules about the particular situations in which cautions should be used – this is at the discretion of senior police officers.'
The officer was acting within the parameters of his job.
throws you out for standing up for a few seconds or uttering a single swearword. You wouldn't argue that they're taking the best course of action though even though they're only acting within the parameters of their job.
or stand up, why would you?
but as you well know, that's not the point being made - it's to do with the action taken when you step outside accepted behaviour and the response being proportional to those actions. I'd argue that a formal caution as one of the options available is a step further than necessary given the facts of the situation.
and I'm sure that many police officers would agree with you. All I'm saying is that this really isn't a massive deal. The officer in question may well have been harsh, but no harsher than is within the limits given to him. I simply resent the 'good officer' jibe. Police are given ridiculous mixed messages these days regarding how hard they should come down on petty offences.
Kid committs petty offence, has a record of committing a petty offence. Harsh? Yes. World's greatest injustice? No.
but what a jobsworth. What's interesting is the specifics of the situation that caused him to choose how he acted within those parameters; this is why I think the situation would have been different if it were my Mum involved.
We'll never know. I'd guess it come down to how much of a jobsworth the officer in question was and what lengths they would have to go to in order to give the caution, as well as many other variables
I don't really have a problem with a caution, but it does seem a bit too formal for the situation. Usually you'd expect an apology and the officer concerned to speak to the youngster's parents about it. You'd only usually expect a formal caution for this if the kid became argumentative about being ticked off.
its rank isn't it? If someone did this to me in full view of a police officer I'd hope they'd administer a bollocking.
But a bollocking is a one-off telling off whereas a caution is something which gets you added to a database as someone who has admitted an (admittedly minor) criminal offence.
I still would've preferred a Cameron administered battering.
version of events is the same as the one in the Metro, minus the dubiously quoted 'snot' gag from Conservative HQ. "It was just a joke, I was showing off. To be honest I just needed to sneeze and I didn't have a hanky". Nice to know that the hankerchief is alive and well with the youth of today.
Still "I vote Green" said the boy. Despite the hilarious pun implications, I have to question how a 15 year old can vote anything.
They are not very hard to get and don't actually affect anything in your life.
Still probably OTT, but thats the police for you. It will help their figures. "Clamping down on crime in Hatings"
But anything that makes Cameron look like even more of a pussy is fine by me.
someone who wasn't David 'Dave' Cameron, say someone from this board, in the street would a nearby policeman have done anything?
if this had happened as part of a (admittedly fairly unfunny) satirical hidden camera tv show would people be making the same arguments they are here?