|
Post by gawa on Nov 16, 2023 14:18:03 GMT
I'm sure if it was up to Mr Golding and Britain First (BNP). The police should be rounding up and arresting any Muslim. It's also ridiculous he talks about desecration of Remembrance when he famously attended the cenotaph when he was in the NF with underwear on his head. Despite several requests over many years not to use the British Legion red poppy symbol in his branding he completely ignores their requests, using it to generate donations to BF by unwitting members of the public. I don't think the police need lessons on law and order from a bloke with his criminal record. Why you repeately decide to re-post his tweets knowing all this must be because you support his views. Not just a criminal record but also arrested for terrorist offences after visiting Russia. Didn't have crouchpotato1 down as a terrorist and Russia supporter given the amount he's spoken about terrorists the last fee weeks. But here we are where white terrorists know best.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 24, 2023 14:33:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 24, 2023 23:25:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 24, 2023 23:27:33 GMT
ridiculous that it even got to that stage......
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 24, 2023 23:29:23 GMT
ridiculous that it even got to that stage...... It is. The guys trying to save people’s lives.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 25, 2023 0:35:44 GMT
ridiculous that it even got to that stage...... It is. The guys trying to save people’s lives. I'm confused, I know little of this case, but as is standard practice after involvement of a Police Officer if a member of the Public is injured it is referred to IOPC who passed their investigative file to CPS who decided to prosecute. A jury heard the case and aquited Are we saying the system of Law and Order is flawed or are their special circumstances where Police Officers are above the Law?
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 25, 2023 0:40:51 GMT
It is. The guys trying to save people’s lives. I'm confused, I know little of this case, but as is standard practice after involvement of a Police Officer if a member of the Public is injured it is referred to IOPC who passed their investigative file to CPS who decided to prosecute. A jury heard the case and aquited Are we saying the system of Law and Order is flawed or are their special circumstances where Police Officers are above the Law? I’d say that it’s a waste of money trying to prosecute a police officer responding to a terrorist incident unless something very serious happened to a member of the public on the way. In this case, an officer should have put on the blues, he didn’t. It was an obvious error but no one was seriously hurt. It should have been a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 25, 2023 6:59:35 GMT
I'm confused, I know little of this case, but as is standard practice after involvement of a Police Officer if a member of the Public is injured it is referred to IOPC who passed their investigative file to CPS who decided to prosecute. A jury heard the case and aquited Are we saying the system of Law and Order is flawed or are their special circumstances where Police Officers are above the Law? I’d say that it’s a waste of money trying to prosecute a police officer responding to a terrorist incident unless something very serious happened to a member of the public on the way. In this case, an officer should have put on the blues, he didn’t. It was an obvious error but no one was seriously hurt. It should have been a slap on the wrist. I agree and it’s clear that the circs were exceptional and the officer was doing his utmost to prevent what he believed and was confirmed to be a terrorist attack, where a terrorist was attacking and had already stabbed 2 innocent members of the public. In this case even Sir mark Rowley believed the actions of the IOPC to be “appaling.” The poor officer has put his hands up and said that he had made a driving error but is that really a reason to put him through 2 years of hell worrying to see what happens to him in crown court and now he faces a gross misconduct hearing. Ultimately the IOPC had a choice and didn’t have to send him to court and could have dealt with the issue by words of advice by management. Instead someone who’s had the balls to drive towards someone who was trying to kill multiple people and who he believed could have been wearing a suicide vest. Hindsight is a great thing but I’m sure the same poster backing the IOPCs decision would have been the first person to criticise and hammer the officer and his colleagues if they’d pootled towards the incident at 20 mph or what ever the speed limit is and innocent people had lost there lives because the officers hadn’t driven to the max to save lives. If that’s the way the wheels of justice turn then the laws an ass.
|
|
|
Post by UsAndThem on Nov 25, 2023 9:20:00 GMT
It is. The guys trying to save people’s lives. I'm confused, I know little of this case, but as is standard practice after involvement of a Police Officer if a member of the Public is injured it is referred to IOPC who passed their investigative file to CPS who decided to prosecute. A jury heard the case and aquited Are we saying the system of Law and Order is flawed or are their special circumstances where Police Officers are above the Law? Well actually, yes. The police are above the law in certain circumstances. They have lawful exemptions under the road traffic act when responding to emergencies and that’s up for the officer to justify. I’d say the justification in this case was probably merited.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 25, 2023 11:12:41 GMT
I’d say that it’s a waste of money trying to prosecute a police officer responding to a terrorist incident unless something very serious happened to a member of the public on the way. In this case, an officer should have put on the blues, he didn’t. It was an obvious error but no one was seriously hurt. It should have been a slap on the wrist. I agree and it’s clear that the circs were exceptional and the officer was doing his utmost to prevent what he believed and was confirmed to be a terrorist attack, where a terrorist was attacking and had already stabbed 2 innocent members of the public. In this case even Sir mark Rowley believed the actions of the IOPC to be “appaling.” The poor officer has put his hands up and said that he had made a driving error but is that really a reason to put him through 2 years of hell worrying to see what happens to him in crown court and now he faces a gross misconduct hearing. Ultimately the IOPC had a choice and didn’t have to send him to court and could have dealt with the issue by words of advice by management. Instead someone who’s had the balls to drive towards someone who was trying to kill multiple people and who he believed could have been wearing a suicide vest. Hindsight is a great thing but I’m sure the same poster backing the IOPCs decision would have been the first person to criticise and hammer the officer and his colleagues if they’d pootled towards the incident at 20 mph or what ever the speed limit is and innocent people had lost there lives because the officers hadn’t driven to the max to save lives. If that’s the way the wheels of justice turn then the laws an ass. So your contention is the IOPC got it wrong. I thought it was the CPS who made all decisions whether to charge or not and don't do so unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Shows you how much I know. My point is/was if we don't have faith in Police, IOPC, CPS and Courts to do their job and cherry-pick the decisions we don't like then how could the Public at large have any faith in the system What I do find ridiculous is that it has taken almost 4 years to get to Court. This is a common occurrence for everyone I'm afraid as the Government has imposed funding restrictions and it's not fair that victims or those charged should have to wait so long for justice to take it's course A few months back 2 teenagers tragically lost their lives while being followed by Police when their E-bike crashed You justified the pursuit by Police on the grounds that the teenagers were endangering the public at speeds I think which can reach up to 30mph. Presumably if they had not died they would have been prosecuted, otherwise there would have been no reason for the Police to follow them Surely a Police officer driving a car at speeds of 80mph in a built up area is equally worthy of investigation. Thankfully only 2 members of the Public suffered injuries from what the IOPC described as "Gross Incompetence" In fact subsequent to the trial the IOPC wish to proceed with a "Gross Incompetence meeting" with the Officer and the Met Police agree. A police officer who was cleared of dangerous driving after crashing while racing to the scene of a terrorism attack may still face the sack, the Guardian has learned. PC Paul Fisher was acquitted by a jury at Southwark crown court on Friday, leading the Metropolitan police commissioner to describe his ordeal as “appalling”. Fisher’s vehicle crashed, injuring two people, as the February 2020 terrorist attack in Streatham, south London, unfolded. But he may still face a hearing for gross incompetence, the maximum penalty for which is dismissal, a spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said. An IOPC spokesperson said: “Following our investigation, we agreed with the Metropolitan police that PC Fisher should face a gross incompetence meeting. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/met-boss-prosecution-pc-crash-way-terror-attack-appalling in
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 25, 2023 12:15:06 GMT
I agree and it’s clear that the circs were exceptional and the officer was doing his utmost to prevent what he believed and was confirmed to be a terrorist attack, where a terrorist was attacking and had already stabbed 2 innocent members of the public. In this case even Sir mark Rowley believed the actions of the IOPC to be “appaling.” The poor officer has put his hands up and said that he had made a driving error but is that really a reason to put him through 2 years of hell worrying to see what happens to him in crown court and now he faces a gross misconduct hearing. Ultimately the IOPC had a choice and didn’t have to send him to court and could have dealt with the issue by words of advice by management. Instead someone who’s had the balls to drive towards someone who was trying to kill multiple people and who he believed could have been wearing a suicide vest. Hindsight is a great thing but I’m sure the same poster backing the IOPCs decision would have been the first person to criticise and hammer the officer and his colleagues if they’d pootled towards the incident at 20 mph or what ever the speed limit is and innocent people had lost there lives because the officers hadn’t driven to the max to save lives. If that’s the way the wheels of justice turn then the laws an ass. So your contention is the IOPC got it wrong. I thought it was the CPS who made all decisions whether to charge or not and don't do so unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Shows you how much I know. My point is/was if we don't have faith in Police, IOPC, CPS and Courts to do their job and cherry-pick the decisions we don't like then how could the Public at large have any faith in the system What I do find ridiculous is that it has taken almost 4 years to get to Court. This is a common occurrence for everyone I'm afraid as the Government has imposed funding restrictions and it's not fair that victims or those charged should have to wait so long for justice to take it's course A few months back 2 teenagers tragically lost their lives while being followed by Police when their E-bike crashed You justified the pursuit by Police on the grounds that the teenagers were endangering the public at speeds I think which can reach up to 30mph. Presumably if they had not died they would have been prosecuted, otherwise there would have been no reason for the Police to follow them Surely a Police officer driving a car at speeds of 80mph in a built up area is equally worthy of investigation. Thankfully only 2 members of the Public suffered injuries from what the IOPC described as "Gross Incompetence" In fact subsequent to the trial the IOPC wish to proceed with a "Gross Incompetence meeting" with the Officer and the Met Police agree. A police officer who was cleared of dangerous driving after crashing while racing to the scene of a terrorism attack may still face the sack, the Guardian has learned. PC Paul Fisher was acquitted by a jury at Southwark crown court on Friday, leading the Metropolitan police commissioner to describe his ordeal as “appalling”. Fisher’s vehicle crashed, injuring two people, as the February 2020 terrorist attack in Streatham, south London, unfolded. But he may still face a hearing for gross incompetence, the maximum penalty for which is dismissal, a spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said. An IOPC spokesperson said: “Following our investigation, we agreed with the Metropolitan police that PC Fisher should face a gross incompetence meeting. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/met-boss-prosecution-pc-crash-way-terror-attack-appalling in I can’t remember the exact details of the E-bike one. However, it’s not hard to make them go faster than 30mph. You simply add another battery on. A brother of a lady I was dating did that. It’s illegal but not complex. What I would say is, I don’t think that the kids were responding to a terrorist incident. The two incidents are not comparable. Indeed, if the kids were fleeing after seeing a mass stabbing, for example, I would 100% hope that the police wouldn’t have looked to prosecute (or engage in a “chase”) and simply turned a blind eye.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 25, 2023 12:16:23 GMT
I agree and it’s clear that the circs were exceptional and the officer was doing his utmost to prevent what he believed and was confirmed to be a terrorist attack, where a terrorist was attacking and had already stabbed 2 innocent members of the public. In this case even Sir mark Rowley believed the actions of the IOPC to be “appaling.” The poor officer has put his hands up and said that he had made a driving error but is that really a reason to put him through 2 years of hell worrying to see what happens to him in crown court and now he faces a gross misconduct hearing. Ultimately the IOPC had a choice and didn’t have to send him to court and could have dealt with the issue by words of advice by management. Instead someone who’s had the balls to drive towards someone who was trying to kill multiple people and who he believed could have been wearing a suicide vest. Hindsight is a great thing but I’m sure the same poster backing the IOPCs decision would have been the first person to criticise and hammer the officer and his colleagues if they’d pootled towards the incident at 20 mph or what ever the speed limit is and innocent people had lost there lives because the officers hadn’t driven to the max to save lives. If that’s the way the wheels of justice turn then the laws an ass. So your contention is the IOPC got it wrong. I thought it was the CPS who made all decisions whether to charge or not and don't do so unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Shows you how much I know. My point is/was if we don't have faith in Police, IOPC, CPS and Courts to do their job and cherry-pick the decisions we don't like then how could the Public at large have any faith in the system What I do find ridiculous is that it has taken almost 4 years to get to Court. This is a common occurrence for everyone I'm afraid as the Government has imposed funding restrictions and it's not fair that victims or those charged should have to wait so long for justice to take it's course A few months back 2 teenagers tragically lost their lives while being followed by Police when their E-bike crashed You justified the pursuit by Police on the grounds that the teenagers were endangering the public at speeds I think which can reach up to 30mph. Presumably if they had not died they would have been prosecuted, otherwise there would have been no reason for the Police to follow them Surely a Police officer driving a car at speeds of 80mph in a built up area is equally worthy of investigation. Thankfully only 2 members of the Public suffered injuries from what the IOPC described as "Gross Incompetence" In fact subsequent to the trial the IOPC wish to proceed with a "Gross Incompetence meeting" with the Officer and the Met Police agree. A police officer who was cleared of dangerous driving after crashing while racing to the scene of a terrorism attack may still face the sack, the Guardian has learned. PC Paul Fisher was acquitted by a jury at Southwark crown court on Friday, leading the Metropolitan police commissioner to describe his ordeal as “appalling”. Fisher’s vehicle crashed, injuring two people, as the February 2020 terrorist attack in Streatham, south London, unfolded. But he may still face a hearing for gross incompetence, the maximum penalty for which is dismissal, a spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said. An IOPC spokesperson said: “Following our investigation, we agreed with the Metropolitan police that PC Fisher should face a gross incompetence meeting. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/met-boss-prosecution-pc-crash-way-terror-attack-appalling in I guess a lot depends on how desperately an officer wants to save innocent people’s lives. From the slant of you’re previous posts you’d be the first to jump on the police if they’d driven at the national speed limit and taken a long time to reach the incident and innocent lives were lost. Sometimes you have to take your anti Met / anti police glasses off and see that the officer is heading into a situation that many wouldn’t go anywhere near and putting his life on the line to save others. He’s made an error which he’s put his hands up to but clearly he’s trying with all his heart to save lives. When you talk about public confidence I’m pretty sure the majority of people following this case would fully support the officer not going to court or losing his job and if they were being threatened by a terrorist with a knife would rather he tried his damnest to get them as quickly as possible rather than turn up 5 mins to late and they’d lost their life. In relation to the lads on the bikes they weren’t riding to try to stop a terrorist who was attacking innocent members of the public.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 25, 2023 12:54:01 GMT
So your contention is the IOPC got it wrong. I thought it was the CPS who made all decisions whether to charge or not and don't do so unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Shows you how much I know. My point is/was if we don't have faith in Police, IOPC, CPS and Courts to do their job and cherry-pick the decisions we don't like then how could the Public at large have any faith in the system What I do find ridiculous is that it has taken almost 4 years to get to Court. This is a common occurrence for everyone I'm afraid as the Government has imposed funding restrictions and it's not fair that victims or those charged should have to wait so long for justice to take it's course A few months back 2 teenagers tragically lost their lives while being followed by Police when their E-bike crashed You justified the pursuit by Police on the grounds that the teenagers were endangering the public at speeds I think which can reach up to 30mph. Presumably if they had not died they would have been prosecuted, otherwise there would have been no reason for the Police to follow them Surely a Police officer driving a car at speeds of 80mph in a built up area is equally worthy of investigation. Thankfully only 2 members of the Public suffered injuries from what the IOPC described as "Gross Incompetence" In fact subsequent to the trial the IOPC wish to proceed with a "Gross Incompetence meeting" with the Officer and the Met Police agree. A police officer who was cleared of dangerous driving after crashing while racing to the scene of a terrorism attack may still face the sack, the Guardian has learned. PC Paul Fisher was acquitted by a jury at Southwark crown court on Friday, leading the Metropolitan police commissioner to describe his ordeal as “appalling”. Fisher’s vehicle crashed, injuring two people, as the February 2020 terrorist attack in Streatham, south London, unfolded. But he may still face a hearing for gross incompetence, the maximum penalty for which is dismissal, a spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said. An IOPC spokesperson said: “Following our investigation, we agreed with the Metropolitan police that PC Fisher should face a gross incompetence meeting. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/met-boss-prosecution-pc-crash-way-terror-attack-appalling in I guess a lot depends on how desperately an officer wants to save innocent people’s lives. From the slant of you’re previous posts you’d be the first to jump on the police if they’d driven at the national speed limit and taken a long time to reach the incident and innocent lives were lost. Sometimes you have to take your anti Met / anti police glasses off and see that the officer is heading into a situation that many wouldn’t go anywhere near and putting his life on the line to save others. He’s made an error which he’s put his hands up to but clearly he’s trying with all his heart to save lives. When you talk about public confidence I’m pretty sure the majority of people following this case would fully support the officer not going to court or losing his job and if they were being threatened by a terrorist with a knife would rather he tried his damnest to get them as quickly as possible rather than turn up 5 mins to late and they’d lost their life. In relation to the lads on the bikes they weren’t riding to try to stop a terrorist who was attacking innocent members of the public. I'll repeat my point is/was that if the Law is applied equally and fairly then people can trust the levers of Justice to carry out their jobs in a Professional manner. When people seek to second guess how those levers should operate the result is loss of respect for those institutions and potential anarchy. What you're talking about is the Court of Public Opinion which is the exact opposite of what I would like to see and would do no favours to the Police, Prosecution Service or Courts. For the record I'm not anti Met/Police but am critical if they fail to carry out the job they have signed up to do Professionally never mind Criminally With regard to the speed at which the Officer was driving I believe there is a dispensation in certain circumstances for an Officer to break the speed limit provided he can do so safely without endangering the Public. The IOPC investigated and found he acted with Gross Incompetence and the CPS concurred and decided to prosecute. I fail to see how second guessing the IOPC/CPS is standing up for Law and Order as you profess to do. I'm not quite sure what the Officer held his hands up to but he obviously pled not guilty to Dangerous Driving and I assume he will also contest at his Gross Incompetence Meeting which will decide what sanction, if any, up to dismissal he will face.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 25, 2023 13:56:39 GMT
So your contention is the IOPC got it wrong. I thought it was the CPS who made all decisions whether to charge or not and don't do so unless there is a reasonable chance of a conviction. Shows you how much I know. My point is/was if we don't have faith in Police, IOPC, CPS and Courts to do their job and cherry-pick the decisions we don't like then how could the Public at large have any faith in the system What I do find ridiculous is that it has taken almost 4 years to get to Court. This is a common occurrence for everyone I'm afraid as the Government has imposed funding restrictions and it's not fair that victims or those charged should have to wait so long for justice to take it's course A few months back 2 teenagers tragically lost their lives while being followed by Police when their E-bike crashed You justified the pursuit by Police on the grounds that the teenagers were endangering the public at speeds I think which can reach up to 30mph. Presumably if they had not died they would have been prosecuted, otherwise there would have been no reason for the Police to follow them Surely a Police officer driving a car at speeds of 80mph in a built up area is equally worthy of investigation. Thankfully only 2 members of the Public suffered injuries from what the IOPC described as "Gross Incompetence" In fact subsequent to the trial the IOPC wish to proceed with a "Gross Incompetence meeting" with the Officer and the Met Police agree. A police officer who was cleared of dangerous driving after crashing while racing to the scene of a terrorism attack may still face the sack, the Guardian has learned. PC Paul Fisher was acquitted by a jury at Southwark crown court on Friday, leading the Metropolitan police commissioner to describe his ordeal as “appalling”. Fisher’s vehicle crashed, injuring two people, as the February 2020 terrorist attack in Streatham, south London, unfolded. But he may still face a hearing for gross incompetence, the maximum penalty for which is dismissal, a spokesperson for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said. An IOPC spokesperson said: “Following our investigation, we agreed with the Metropolitan police that PC Fisher should face a gross incompetence meeting. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/met-boss-prosecution-pc-crash-way-terror-attack-appalling in I can’t remember the exact details of the E-bike one. However, it’s not hard to make them go faster than 30mph. You simply add another battery on. A brother of a lady I was dating did that. It’s illegal but not complex. What I would say is, I don’t think that the kids were responding to a terrorist incident. The two incidents are not comparable. Indeed, if the kids were fleeing after seeing a mass stabbing, for example, I would 100% hope that the police wouldn’t have looked to prosecute (or engage in a “chase”) and simply turned a blind eye. Great minds think alike
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2023 17:13:28 GMT
What is equally strange but hardly surprising is that The Met Apologist on this MB are strangely silent but that is hardly surprising It wasn't the case when vehement objections were raised to the use of the word "Institutional" to Racism, Mysogny and Homophobia, we can now add Corrupt, to denigrate the findings of the MacPherson Inquiry (sadly deprived of the Secret Met Report on Corruption within the Met, but more egregiously in the prosecution of Stephen Lawrence's Murder) the Dame Angiolini Inquiry and the Dame Casey Inquiry who all concluded the same thing. I assume that was a dig at me (if the cap fits etc). Apologies In order to not dissapoint you I’ve still got the balls and balance to say that you can’t defend the indefenceable so I won’t try to. Was just searching the board to find any praise from you re the great work the Met did over the weekend in policing London. Shame that unlike others on here who surprised me (and fair play to them) were honest enough to post a few complimentary words you couldn’t quite rouse yourself to do so. Balance works both ways you know. It’s a lot easier to attack something or someone than to praise it or them Thoughts Cobs?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 26, 2023 17:37:00 GMT
I assume that was a dig at me (if the cap fits etc). Apologies In order to not dissapoint you I’ve still got the balls and balance to say that you can’t defend the indefenceable so I won’t try to. Was just searching the board to find any praise from you re the great work the Met did over the weekend in policing London. Shame that unlike others on here who surprised me (and fair play to them) were honest enough to post a few complimentary words you couldn’t quite rouse yourself to do so. Balance works both ways you know. It’s a lot easier to attack something or someone than to praise it or them Thoughts Cobs? Hard to say without the context but it looks to me like Robinson’s manipulating the situation for his own agenda (as others have in the past) at the expense of the police. He’s clearly looking to stoke up things by getting maximum exposure on social media by kicking off and being vocal. There’s certainly no over excessive force being used by the officers, they’re just trying to get him out of there as quick as they can without interference from either his mates or someone wanting to make a name for themselves by attacking him. In relation to Fox he’s cut from the same cloth and is someone I have zero time for as he’s way too extreme for me and a bit of a pillock. The sad thing is that to many from the far left weaponise this pair as being right wing / central and represent the majority when there are plenty you could describe as being right/central that talk good sense and make sound points around a lot of the current issues. To an extent it’s been like that in the past on here where some have been way to quick to call people racists that clearly aren’t just for having an alternative view. What’s your thoughts on the video off hand? How do you see it?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2023 17:45:15 GMT
Hard to say without the context but it looks to me like Robinson’s manipulating the situation for his own agenda (as others have in the past) at the expense of the police. He’s clearly looking to stoke up things by getting maximum exposure on social media by kicking off and being vocal. There’s certainly no over excessive force being used by the officers, they’re just trying to get him out of there as quick as they can without interference from either his mates or someone wanting to make a name for themselves by attacking him. In relation to Fox he’s cut from the same cloth and is someone I have zero time for as he’s way too extreme for me and a bit of a pillock. The sad thing is that to many from the far left weaponise this pair as being right wing / central and represent the majority when there are plenty you could describe as being right/central that talk good sense and make sound points around a lot of the current issues. To an extent it’s been like that in the past on here where some have been way to quick to call people racists that clearly aren’t just for having an alternative view. What’s your thoughts on the video off hand? How do you see it? I think the way the Met have handled all of the protests recently, should be commended, despite severe provocation from Braverman and this one is no exception.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 26, 2023 17:48:56 GMT
Hard to say without the context but it looks to me like Robinson’s manipulating the situation for his own agenda (as others have in the past) at the expense of the police. He’s clearly looking to stoke up things by getting maximum exposure on social media by kicking off and being vocal. There’s certainly no over excessive force being used by the officers, they’re just trying to get him out of there as quick as they can without interference from either his mates or someone wanting to make a name for themselves by attacking him. In relation to Fox he’s cut from the same cloth and is someone I have zero time for as he’s way too extreme for me and a bit of a pillock. The sad thing is that to many from the far left weaponise this pair as being right wing / central and represent the majority when there are plenty you could describe as being right/central that talk good sense and make sound points around a lot of the current issues. To an extent it’s been like that in the past on here where some have been way to quick to call people racists that clearly aren’t just for having an alternative view. What’s your thoughts on the video off hand? How do you see it? I think the way the Met have handled all of the protests recently, should be commended, despite severe provocation from Braverman and this one is no exception. Me too. Though I don’t think Bravermans intervention made that much difference to the way they dealt with it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 26, 2023 18:01:59 GMT
I think the way the Met have handled all of the protests recently, should be commended, despite severe provocation from Braverman and this one is no exception. Me too. Though I don’t think Bravermans intervention made that much difference to the way they dealt with it. No I don't either, precisely because Rowley didnt listen to her and acted with professionalism and total competentcy.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 26, 2023 18:36:09 GMT
Me too. Though I don’t think Bravermans intervention made that much difference to the way they dealt with it. No I don't either, precisely because Rowley didnt listen to her and acted with professionalism and total competentcy. He did. It’s a very hard job and one where you’re never going to please everyone as shows on here. I appreciate this will be controversial but I don’t see the behaviour of he and Patsy Stevenson being that different though the cause clearly is. Her actions and behaviour aren’t that different if you look at some of the footage from the Sarah Everard protest but the Met got hammered for the way they treated her in what was a very emotive evening protesting an awful murder. When you dig a little deeper with her background she clearly had a political past and was looking for maximum exposure. The police really are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 4, 2023 20:57:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 4, 2023 23:42:40 GMT
There’s a few telling comments that tell you something about her character and integrity. “Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.” and “Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.” It does make you question how reliable her evidence was in relation to the incident where she was stopped.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 5, 2023 0:24:01 GMT
There’s a few telling comments that tell you something about her character and integrity. “Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.” and “Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.” It does make you question how reliable her evidence was in relation to the incident where she was stopped.
What on Earth would lead you to that conclusion? On her previous encounter with the Metropolitan Police, which at least in part was captured on video. A Police Tribunal concluded 2 Met Police Officers had lied in their evidence to the Tribunal and were summarily dismissed from the force. It not the first time you have questioned the integrity of Police Disciplinary Procedures, which is worrying to the Public as you seem to have a knowledge of these things The current incident occurred with Bianca Williams 3 years after the first so is therefore totally unconnected Unless of course you are suggesting she was deliberately targeted by the Met after the first incident
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 5, 2023 12:08:42 GMT
There’s a few telling comments that tell you something about her character and integrity. “Williams failed on three occasions to reply to letters from the police between April and June 2023.” and “Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.Having pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to tell police the identity of a driver, Williams told the court she was not driving the Tesla at the time of the alleged offences.” It does make you question how reliable her evidence was in relation to the incident where she was stopped.
What on Earth would lead you to that conclusion? On her previous encounter with the Metropolitan Police, which at least in part was captured on video. A Police Tribunal concluded 2 Met Police Officers had lied in their evidence to the Tribunal and were summarily dismissed from the force. It not the first time you have questioned the integrity of Police Disciplinary Procedures, which is worrying to the Public as you seem to have a knowledge of these things The current incident occurred with Bianca Williams 3 years after the first so is therefore totally unconnected Unless of course you are suggesting she was deliberately targeted by the Met after the first incident I’m not challenging the disciplinary procedures (though by all accounts many are from the 150k raised for the officers sacked). All I’m saying is from this latest bit of news you’d question the honesty and integrity of there evidence if Ms Williams is saying on three occasions she’s not been the driver in the vehicle speeding but won’t name who it was. Could that be an indicator re her character and integrity.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 5, 2023 13:07:31 GMT
What on Earth would lead you to that conclusion? On her previous encounter with the Metropolitan Police, which at least in part was captured on video. A Police Tribunal concluded 2 Met Police Officers had lied in their evidence to the Tribunal and were summarily dismissed from the force. It not the first time you have questioned the integrity of Police Disciplinary Procedures, which is worrying to the Public as you seem to have a knowledge of these things The current incident occurred with Bianca Williams 3 years after the first so is therefore totally unconnected Unless of course you are suggesting she was deliberately targeted by the Met after the first incident I’m not challenging the disciplinary procedures (though by all accounts many are from the 150k raised for the officers sacked is). All I’m saying is from this latest you’d question the honesty and integrity of there evidence if Ms Williams is saying on three occasions she’s not been the driver in the vehicle speeding but won’t name. Could that be an indicator re her character. The 2 Police Officers were disciplined and dismissed based on their own evidence which the panel found to be lies. Nothing to do with Williams evidence. It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say. She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 5, 2023 16:25:58 GMT
I’m not challenging the disciplinary procedures (though by all accounts many are from the 150k raised for the officers sacked is). All I’m saying is from this latest you’d question the honesty and integrity of there evidence if Ms Williams is saying on three occasions she’s not been the driver in the vehicle speeding but won’t name. Could that be an indicator re her character. The 2 Police Officers were disciplined and dismissed based on their own evidence which the panel found to be lies. Nothing to do with Williams evidence. It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say. She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation “It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say.” You talk like that’s OK. Not the actions of someone making a genuine mistake. “She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same” I’ve found that often if you make a genuine mistake (looks like she’s made a fair few with her speed / driving) you’re more likely to have the sympathy of a magistrate. She chose the option to try to be clever and deceptive / deflect and got caught out for it (you can call that a calculated gamble if you like). “However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation.” You’ll be surprised how many driving violations cost lives. www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety#:~:text=Road%20deaths%20and%20serious%20injuries,close%20to%20pre%2Dpandemic%20levels. In relation to 3 times. Rather that than have her take a calculated gamble and say they only tried to contact her once and she had no record of it.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 5, 2023 18:06:01 GMT
The 2 Police Officers were disciplined and dismissed based on their own evidence which the panel found to be lies. Nothing to do with Williams evidence. It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say. She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation “It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say.” You talk like that’s OK. Not the actions of someone making a genuine mistake. “She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same” I’ve found that often if you make a genuine mistake (looks like she’s made a fair few with her speed / driving) you’re more likely to have the sympathy of a magistrate. She chose the option to try to be clever and deceptive / deflect and got caught out for it (you can call that a calculated gamble if you like). “However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation.” You’ll be surprised how many driving violations cost lives. www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety#:~:text=Road%20deaths%20and%20serious%20injuries,close%20to%20pre%2Dpandemic%20levels. In relation to 3 times. Rather that than have her take a calculated gamble and say they only tried to contact her once and she had no record of it. No comment on the 2 Police Officers who lied to the Tribunal? Were their actions a genuine mistake and/or deceptive/deflective? I've already said I don't condone her actions I have no idea what Driving Violations were being prosecuted but I agree they can have serious repercussions. A recent report into the Met for a different matter found 76 Met Police Officer had been convicted of Drink Driving www.bbc.com/news/uk-65165279I'm glad to see the Met being so scrupulous although I doubt they would follow up Traffic Violations so diligently in all cases, maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 5, 2023 18:44:54 GMT
“It's quite obvious Williams owns the car. Whether she or her Partner was driving she's not prepared to say.” You talk like that’s OK. Not the actions of someone making a genuine mistake. “She took a calculated gamble that if she remained schtum and make up a hard Luck story she might get away with it, correctly she didn't. If she had dobbed in herself or her Partner the result would have been the same” I’ve found that often if you make a genuine mistake (looks like she’s made a fair few with her speed / driving) you’re more likely to have the sympathy of a magistrate. She chose the option to try to be clever and deceptive / deflect and got caught out for it (you can call that a calculated gamble if you like). “However it's good to see the Met have the time to follow up 3 times in a month, presumably to her place of residence, in pursuit of a Driving Violation.” You’ll be surprised how many driving violations cost lives. www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety#:~:text=Road%20deaths%20and%20serious%20injuries,close%20to%20pre%2Dpandemic%20levels. In relation to 3 times. Rather that than have her take a calculated gamble and say they only tried to contact her once and she had no record of it. No comment on the 2 Police Officers who lied to the Tribunal? Were their actions a genuine mistake and/or deceptive/deflective? I've already said I don't condone her actions I have no idea what Driving Violations were being prosecuted but I agree they can have serious repercussions. A recent report into the Met for a different matter found 76 Met Police Officer had been convicted of Drink Driving www.bbc.com/news/uk-65165279I'm glad to see the Met being so scrupulous although I doubt they would follow up Traffic Violations so diligently in all cases, maybe I'm wrong. I’m sure they would. Ultimately I don’t think she’s got a leg to stand on because driving offences are very easy to prove and there’s not many grey areas so for me if she’s banned there’s only one person to blame and that’s her and let’s face it you can’t argue with a speed camera. Not sure what you mean by “I'm glad to see the Met being so scrupulous although I doubt they would follow up Traffic Violations so diligently in all cases, maybe I'm wrong.”
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Dec 5, 2023 19:03:00 GMT
No comment on the 2 Police Officers who lied to the Tribunal? Were their actions a genuine mistake and/or deceptive/deflective? I've already said I don't condone her actions I have no idea what Driving Violations were being prosecuted but I agree they can have serious repercussions. A recent report into the Met for a different matter found 76 Met Police Officer had been convicted of Drink Driving www.bbc.com/news/uk-65165279I'm glad to see the Met being so scrupulous although I doubt they would follow up Traffic Violations so diligently in all cases, maybe I'm wrong. I’m sure they would. Ultimately I don’t think she’s got a leg to stand on because driving offences are very easy to prove and there’s not many grey areas so for me if she’s banned there’s only one person to blame and that’s her and let’s face it you can’t argue with a speed camera. Not sure what you mean by “I'm glad to see the Met being so scrupulous although I doubt they would follow up Traffic Violations so diligently in all cases, maybe I'm wrong.” "I'm sure they would" I've no idea what this means I expect the Met Police had a special interest in this case, it's understandable Statistics show it not always the case www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/d/april-2022/traffic-offence-reports-submitted-mps-the-public-june2020-june2021/
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 8, 2023 22:58:57 GMT
|
|