Police in Ilford taking homeless people's food and sleeping bags away. Great job. *slow clap*
cannae do it.
here's what happened
69 year old ran out of his prescription medication and started to go loopy. Stood on his balcony waving a kitchen knife and shouting crazy talk.
Swat team turns up, lobs a stun grenade onto his balcony, busts into his flat and fires 14 or 15 bullets into the guy
Official Police statement declares man was brandishing a machete and threatening officers and that he was taken to hospital in an ambulance around 9pm whereupon he later died of his injuries.
Turns out that there was no ambulance, he was killed directly and then his body was taken in an unmarked car at around to 3am (hours after the Police put out the statement)
After local witnesses provided proof of the Police misinformation the Police, being quizzed by journalists, responded "That detail is regrettable"
5 nights of rioting now
Local councillors reporting that the riot Police are routinely taunting the rioters by calling them apes and n*gg*rs
in that the Police didn't tell the family or relatives anything, and they found out about his death from a news report.
definitely echoes of that
protect & serve
throw to get a grenade on a balcony first go.
Likewise, I've never gone to a GP since the day I condemned Harold Shipman's actions.
What's the fucking point?
The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the Government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army. You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral.
also, by 2040 there won't be Policemen, just G4Smen
arrest and try the thieves
And also the limits of their powers and the concept of policing by consent.
It is quite scary how uniformed and random some police action is.
want to defend the actions of The Police mentioned in this thread then? Try and enlighten us as to why such action was necessary or expedient?
confiscation of food from people who are poor and hungry is not the law, nor is confiscation of sleeping bags
but having worked in a homeless hostel for over a year I saw plenty of great policing and police officers who worked well in supporting our staff and service users. Was more a comment on the general fuck the police attitude from people on dis.
this is a thread for flagging up actions well beyond the reasonable boundary of Police work that everyone has every right to criticise them for
the good work of some Police officers does not negate the bad work of some other Police officers
the problem with looking at it the other way is that often the uniform and the badge are presented in such a way as to absolve bad officers of criminal, negligent or unreasonable behaviour simply because they are members of a force
it's surely better for both the public and the good Police officers to do everything one can to remove the dangerous elements form what is, after all a publicly funded organ to serve the public good
or, dependent on your locale, perhaps a baccalaureate of some kind...
smarmy sixth-form bookworm.
people are also scared of homeless people. When I slept rough in urban areas I remember how many people 'wouldn't see you' or wouldnt look at you, they were frightened to catch your eyes
I doubt if this would just have been a police initiative.
The police do a vital and difficult job, unfortunately they do not police their own actions well enough and sometimes (as a body) they allow themselves to become almost 'heavies' for local or central government politicians......this is a danger that is present for all police forces across the world and is one that needs constant vigilance on......it is a shame when the police do allow this to happen to themselves as then they become politicised and unpopular......if only there were more high profile cases of them arresting their lords and masters (or some of their own) when they have behaved criminally, then there would be more co-operation and trust from the public.
although the statement from Chief Inspector Fish makes it sound like the police were acting on their own initiative.
(or indeed even arrest, for organising mass organised theft)
but what they did here is a bit off isn't it. If there was an individual situation where they repeatedly moved someone on or they constructed some tent jungle then they could remove it, but just nicking food and sleeping bags in a swoop on the area? Madness. You may briefly make the place look a bit neater, but you'd have a lot of pissed off and cold homeless people who still have no place to live and no food to eat!
and doing what they did will ultimately do nothing to solve the issue of rough sleepers. if anything it makes it worse.
somewhat ironically. Of course it is fucking outrageous.
why razorblades are such a rarity in 1984 (the book, not the Van Halen album)
You need to ban yourself mate
Too much of a threat to authority.
Now Seans (napoleon) got his t-shirts (windmill) he doesnt need you (boxer) or wishpig (benjamin) to do his shit anymore. You just wait til he sends you to be a mod of the lipster (glue factory). My a levels are going well thanks
And yet un-fucking believable.
I wonder what else is going to come out of this book
on the basis that its image and public perception is very important for its ability to do its job effectively, this is questionable behaviour.
Francis claims that the purpose of monitoring people visiting the Lawrence family home was in order "to be able to formulate intelligence on who was going into the house with regards to which part of the political spectrum, if any, they were actually in". The former policeman added: "It would determine maybe which way the campaign's likely to go."
So was this a political directive?
From someone in the Major Govt.?
Or was this a directive ordered by an earlier Govt.?
many deep questions
Who were his 'superiors' that blocked him giving info to the Macpherson inquiry?
sounds deeply political - beyond simply a police issue
That old chestnut
what a cunt
The investigating Chief of Derbyshire is quoted in The Guardian today saying as much.
I can't help thinking that all that will happen is that the officers involved (who were probably doing exactly what they were being told to do) will bear the brunt of it all.
I'm very disappointed in you guys
The police turn up, demanding he "move along, sir" to which he replies "I used to be in The Police!"
Police: "Oh a joker I see! What is your current occupation sir?"
Sting: "I fleece my worldwide legion of fans with half hearted ill advised musical ventures"
Police: "Right sonny! You're nicked! Hand over the loot or we'll kosh ya!"
Sting hands over... his lute... the police go a bit Rodney King on him...
I wasn't even aware of the Sweden thing, crikey. Looks fairly likely for something to kick off in London, though I thought that was what the Woolwich thing was meant to do. I'm going to hide in the attic with a bag of rice and Dead Flag Blues on repeat for the summer.
Hatred and mistrust for our brave serving police force. Yeah that form of blanked discrimination never harmed anyone
Fuck the Po-lice!
Also worth reading this as well: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-metropolitan-police-cops-out-of-control
that case above sounds pretty shocking, but judge the person and his/her actions, not the profession, imho. really isn't at all helpful.
and how they don't really have a good track record of self-regulation
Or is it just that no one is surprised?
the guy was quite pleasant and helpful.
Jeeeez!!!! I can not believe the officers involved have kept their jobs.
The guy that goes all out with the baseball bat on the front windshield is just insane.
The officers involved were found guilty of misconduct in 2011 and punished accordingly.
The article only refers to the guy in the car as a 'suspect', I assume he wasn't actually guilty of stealing a car? And even if he was what a fucking mental way to arrest him.
... as opposed to?
the polis standing behind the person doing the bag search saw my Yes badge and said "Oooh, friendly games, you might want to think about taking that badge off." To which I replied, "I'll definitely give it some thought" before sauntering off like a Che Guevara reincarnate (with a hitherto undeclared enthusiasm for badminton).
* Police arriving with riot gear and dogs at a peaceful vigil
* Tear gassing civilians and shooting them with rubber bullets and wooden "baton" pellets
* Penning people into small areas and then attacking them for being in those areas and not "going home", calling them "animals"
* Drawing beads on civilians with sniper rifles
* Arresting and assaulting journalists simply for being there
* Tear gassing camera operators and then dismantling the camera gear after they flee
and would deter me from protesting if I were there.
How is this type of police force *so* militarised and so free from accountability. I bet it's because of capitalism.
i mean, it is, but if the london met or the berliner polizei or whoever was this heavily tooled up, it wouldn't be so different. police are there to protect money, not people
i suppose the shockingly tooled-up local police simply weren't violent enough
American police seem to have a very loose definition of a "life-or-death encounter".
- the police could deal in misinformation without any counter-information from social media etc
- the police could get away with much more violence without video evidence etc being so easily captured
Given those two factors it's not so easy anymore to crush people's anger at injustices, but those in power don't yet know another way to deal with this.
which has surely got to be murder in anyones books
The police have been fucking brilliant the past couple of weeks since our attempted burglary.
Police Federation have a big cry about it:
Seriously fuck those guys. Breath-taking hypocrisy considering the lies, obfuscation and complete unwillingness to accept responsibility in the cases of Ian Tompkinson, de Menezes, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Theresa May is basically the only Home Secretary to have stood up to the police since, erm... ever?
She's going to get way more shit for this though.
"Ian Pointon of Kent police branded the speech vitriolic..."This morning she left as a bully.""
Whoever wrote the Police Federation wiki page is barely literate:
Also, there really is nothing that says professional, modern and progressive like deciding your leader by a coin toss: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/23/police-federation-steve-white-chair-coin-toss
Even Sepp Blatter would take one look at the Police Federation and mumble "fucking hell".
It probably won't be as exciting once he's out, you know.
and then de-arrested her when they realised who she was.
Either one of those actions would earn a 'Fuck the Police'.
The statement at the bottom is sickening :(
and negates the consent she gave to their sexual relationship. impersonating someone, or adopting a completely false identity, and then having sex with someone who would not have consented had she known your true identity, should be rape. i know it's not currently the law but it should be. obviously it's like where do you draw the line (people lie all the time about themselves etc etc ) but i think it's pretty obvious that a left wing animal rights activist probably wouldnt shag undercover cop let alone have kids with him.
so fucking harrowing
If people need an example of what a Police State is or what Rape Culture is ...well here they have a 2-in-1
reading that statement having been at 3 births (and losing one child) I don't know whether to cry or to punch something
That they'd do this thing to investigate the threat posed to the state by environmental and animal rights groups is truly incredible.
as the fringes of those movements have been involved in violent stuff (and, horror of horrors, property damage). And in terms of embedding undercover officers I can see the argument, but I think the issue is that it's pretty much impossible to go undercover and just be an observer. There's all sorts of issues about entrapment and disruption of legitimate activities, using the police as a political instrument (unless they infiltrate the Young Conservatives and the Countryside Alliance as well idk) that I think make the whole thing impossible to do ethically. And that's without the clear disregard and prejudice that the establishment had for these people and the horrible abuses that are being uncovered.
I'm sure when this whole relationships shitstorm came out a couple of years back, I read a great story of some ultra-aggressive anti-climate change protest which was called off at the last minute when someone senior clocked it was just six undercover policemen all trying to entrap eachother into smashing up a power plant.
How do you convince a bunch of nutters that you're a nutter too without out-nuttering them? If you're just the bloke who organises the annual ping pong tournament no-ones going to tell you about the really good stuff.
BBC 5 Live. On the Daily Interview podcast.
Wish I hadn't read that. Made me so angry/depressed.
Here are some friendly tips on helping your kid not get executed while playing with a toy gun: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/4/1417709807067/6974055e-d503-4323-b775-2e309eb38223-436x480.png
Fingers crossed your kids are the lucky ones/white!
your child was murdered?
no, it was his own fault for not playing with his cap gun properly
I like the bullshit excuse for it too. As if it's appropriate to play loud music from a police car in support of your favourite sports team.
Two police officers testified against him and he still wasn't convicted?
Might as well just make it officially impossible to get convicted of any crime if you're a police officer, save us all some money.
Instead, he told the court, he struck the mother repeatedly on her left bicep and then decided to try a different approach which he described as a “distraction strike” on the left side of the mother’s face, using his booted foot.
Luke told the court: “I did kick out at the left side of her face as trained to do. My footwear was a boot but it’s light.”
all i can think of that would make a jury acquit..
Really struggling, especially given this:
"Security staff at the hospital who witnessed the incident told the court they were appalled by it. Two police constables who also attended the incident gave evidence for the prosecution. Laura Riley, one of the officers, wept as she described the scene, and the officer Mary Clark described the incident as “just horrific”."
"then decided to try a different approach which he described as a “distraction strike” on the left side of the mother’s face, using his booted foot."
but now two WOMEN police officers complained about him.
Its obvious where the problem lies.
Women picking on men.....PC correctness gone wrong etc, when women feel they have the right to try to bring a man to court....ffs
Luckily the judge was probably a man so he can see through all this feminazi propaganda
A man was trying to do his job and these bloody women try to stop him and then when they fail, they try to report him......because thats all these pathetic women can do.....snitch on men....behind their backs.....no wonder the policeman had to resort to exerting his superior physicality to overcome this harriden of falseness (she had a wig on)
having originally investigated themselves and found that everything was actually fine:
Can't see anything going wrong with this.
that info relating to police involvement in three deaths has gone missing?
Apparently no 'malicious intent' (hmmm) but isn't it convenient that the stuff that goes missing is the really important stuff never the team away day photos?
given that they're shitting themselves that it might include the details of the police shooters who were granted anonymity in the court cases.
The 'no malicious intent' is meant to be reassurance the bad guys didn't do it - which the police clearly have no way of knowing for sure.
of the murdered man, rather than supply history of previous history of the murderer.....or is that a pre-reuisit of him having a fair trial....he doesnt really need that benefit as he is a US police officer, so that already gives him a considerable advantage in terms of judgement and sentencing (it would seem, based on other incidents)
If this guy had been Jack the Ripper or something then shooting him eight times in the back might have just been a little more understandable.
Executed in public because there's a warrant out for your arrest based on unpaid child support? Fucking hell.
what i was really reacting to was that there is never an assessment of us police officers previous initially....it has to be dug out.
Yes, in this case it is relevant that the victims only criminal history was 'mild'.
who shot the homeless man camping in the wild in the back, claimed he had previously assualted the police (he was well known, and he had bloodied a policemans nose in a previous struggle when they were trying to arrest him) it was used then almost like a reason, when it obviously wasnt.
But yeah, here, knowing his history makes the case more against the policeman.
as California police opt to not kill suspect, and settle for just brutally beating him. Progress.
Black guy: kill
Them's the rules!
Another says 'Fuck your breath' when the man complains he is dying.
more on that one - not even an actual Police officer - just paying to be one
John Crawford III
this is in Ohio, where is an 'open carry' state.....you are allowed to carry and show you are carrying firearms (with or without license)
the gun he is holding is a bb gun from the shelf in the walmart, he does not point it at anyone.