Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: ToneMonkey on July 24, 2009, 02:29:09 PM
-
No, hang on, no it doesn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8167000.stm
-
Meh
He hit someone; what do you want, a good old fashioned lynching?
-
Well, I wouldn't mind hitting him myself to see if I got away with it.
-
I'd like to see the jury, sitting there in their red shirts....
I agree that the actual offence was no big deal, but there was obviously enough of a case that all six of Gerrard's mates were persuaded they might as well plead guilty.
And yet Stevie G, the only person who actually hit anybody (apart from the elbow-man), is found not guilty...
Something stinks. And it's not just the Jammy Donut c--ktails.
-
I wouldnt get too het up about it if you dont know the full details of the situation.
I'm rather glad, actually, that an appeal to sense and analysis of the particular circumstances can be made and "But he hit someone" isnt an automatic charge.
I've been there myself, in fact - didnt go to court but the police were intent on understanding the exact details of the situation and taking according action, which in this case was arresting the guy whose nose I broke! Seem odd? Thats because, like here, you dont know the full facts :)
-
Merseyside Police can f*** off.
No Justice. I don't think stevie g should have been charged. i dunno, i've seen way worse stuff happen that what i saw in that cctv. Stevie G smacks a dude in a swank bar in southport and its major news. A guy gets beaten to death in liverpool in absolutely no reason and nobody bats an eyelid. This makes me hate everything.
-
Merseyside Police can f*** off.
No Justice. I don't think stevie g should have been charged. i dunno, i've seen way worse stuff happen that what i saw in that cctv. Stevie G smacks a dude in a swank bar in southport and its major news. A guy gets beaten to death in liverpool in absolutely no reason and nobody bats an eyelid. This makes me hate everything.
Quite.
There are vastly more important things people could give a shite about. Some tosser that kicks a ball around hitting someone is not one of them. Its a complete non-event.
-
As I said, I don't really give a toss about the actual incident. I just think it's bizarre that all his mates are "guilty" and he isn't.
I do have to take issue with this, though:
Merseyside Police can f*** off.
No Justice. I don't think stevie g should have been charged. i dunno, i've seen way worse stuff happen that what i saw in that cctv. Stevie G smacks a dude in a swank bar in southport and its major news. A guy gets beaten to death in liverpool in absolutely no reason and nobody bats an eyelid. This makes me hate everything.
Swank bar? It looks an absolute sh!thole. I've seen nicer motorway services.
-
but im from southport, ive seen the other bars. its all relative. haha
-
Touche. :lol:
-
So, it's self-defence to attack some who you think may attack you? I must remember that next time some ned looks at me the wrong way. It's entirely legal for me and my mates to knock out his teeth :roll:
-
I strongly suspect if the roles were reversed the outcome would be very different.
It's not really a media worthy piece of news IMO. Just another sad indictment of how the media,and a large percentage of the population of our country, has become obsessed with 'celebrity' over the last 10 or so years.
-
I strongly suspect if the roles were reversed the outcome would be very different.
It's not really a media worthy piece of news IMO. Just another sad indictment of how the media,and a large percentage of the population of our country, has become obsessed with 'celebrity' over the last 10 or so years.
$%&#ing tell me about it
Was I the only person who got sick of "tonights top story" being "micheal jackson is still dead"? Was this the most important thing hapenning in the world? Really?
-
From what I have heard of this, he was being a right gobshitee anyway. I have a serious problem with people like that, because they have a name / rep they think they can have it all their way
-
i heard he called the guy 'lad'. i thought that was a given in liverpool and surrounding areas? not a deliberate attempt to be patronising
-
MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy :shock:
-
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy :shock:
x1000!
-
I agree = we should abolish jury trial altogether and let judges decide guilt on their own, at least they were educated at Oxbridge so we would have coherent and sensible decisions being made.
-
I agree = we should abolish jury trial altogether and let judges decide guilt on their own, at least they were educated at Oxbridge so we would have coherent and sensible decisions being made.
I don't know whether to give a serious or jokey answer...
....OK, seriously, whenever they talk about abolishing trial by jury (even if only in certain cases) it worries me. But I still suspect juries can be influenced by factors other than the evidence they hear in court. A friend of mine did jury service on an armed robbery case and she said they found the guy guilty because "we just knew he did it".
Going back to this case, it must be well-nigh impossible to find twelve jurors in Liverpool who can go into the courtroom with no pre-conceived notions - one way or the other - about Steven Gerrard.
-
Going back to the this case, it must be well-nigh impossible to find twelve jurors in Liverpool who can go into the courtroom with no pre-conceived notions - one way or the other - about Steven Gerrard
This is problem, a huge local hero is unlikely to be convicted by there peers on a minor charge. If the jury where all from Manchester, he'd be 'riding the lighting' by now (cue 'tallica). Gerrards mates plead guilty because they know the jury won't give them benefit of the doubt. They are just 'nobodies', without the resources to hire the best layers money can buy.
-
MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy :shock:
Has a video and recording of the event been released? Even that wouldnt cover it, actually.
Because that lots far from knowing everything about it. What were they saying, how were they saying it, what was the background of the situation, is there a history to it, does the other guy have a reputation for being violent, did the guy show an overtly aggressive attitude, was gerard being similarly or more belligerent, or less, what instigated his mates involvment, did anyone believe that further violence or escalation or retaliation was inevitable, the list goes on, these are the sorts of things that have to be known to reach a verdict.
Lets just say, both my parents were in the police, and I have a pretty good understanding of how they and the legal system in general works, and if this is the level of detail with which you think about these things I'm glad you arent dealing with situations like this.
-
Has a video and recording of the event been released?
Yes.
The video's been all over the news this week. No audio though.
-
the video isnt that good at all.
ive watched it a million times (the bit that has been released) and i know i cant say anything for certain.
MDV is right.
If someone came up to me in the street and said "give me your money of i'll punch you" and i straight up hit them first, on CCTV that would look like me assaulting someone, when in fact i've been threatened with theft and violence.
i dont think gerrad has a reputation for being violent.
still, i think the justice system is complete s***, i always find it punishes crimes against commerce with MUCH more force than crimes against a single person. dont even get me started on community support officers.
-
MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy :shock:
Has a video and recording of the event been released? Even that wouldnt cover it, actually.
Because that lots far from knowing everything about it. What were they saying, how were they saying it, what was the background of the situation, is there a history to it, does the other guy have a reputation for being violent, did the guy show an overtly aggressive attitude, was gerard being similarly or more belligerent, or less, what instigated his mates involvment, did anyone believe that further violence or escalation or retaliation was inevitable, the list goes on, these are the sorts of things that have to be known to reach a verdict.
Lets just say, both my parents were in the police, and I have a pretty good understanding of how they and the legal system in general works, and if this is the level of detail with which you think about these things I'm glad you arent dealing with situations like this.
MDV, maybe you should actually read/watch something about the trial before you comment.
-
Alright, lets cut to the chase - unless you were in the bar watching what happened (and listening to it) or in the court for the trial you cant possibly cast a judgment on it. That clear enough?
-
In that case we can't make a judgement on anything that happens :roll: OMG MDV, you've made internet discussion forums defunct at a stroke :p
-
???
Theres a word, a latin one no less, for the logical falacy you just pulled....I forget what it is now, but it means trying to disprove something by taking the implications to an extremely unrealisticly extended degree and saying that that is actually the case, when it isnt.
Like "what? youre against the death penalty? so you think that murderers should just be alowed to walk free" or "Youre pro-choice, so you must think that its ok for a woman to kill a fetus because she's a bit upset or you can murder newborn children" or "So verdicts have to be passed in courts with full information? Well then we cant have an opinion on anything!" or...well, you get the idea. Whatever the name for it is, its hysterical unthinking.
And, no, we here on an internet forum can have no opinion whatsoever on the outcome of a trial. For that you have to the judge or on the jury. Were it otherwise, we wouldnt have courts, we'd all just chat about the rumours or the half-baked information we get from the news and render our verdicts via email. Theres a reason courts exist; you've reminded us of it. So, thanks :)
-
reductio ad absurdum
-
Commonly know as a 'straw man' argument,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
-
Except I wasn't misrepresenting MDV's position, I was pointing out the logical flaw in his argument. He said that without direct first hand experience you cannot make a judgement, which is a flawed position. If MDV didn't say exactly what he meant to say, that's not my fault, and TBF he's been the one playing the "Qualify everything you say or I'm going to pull it apart" game.Indeed, you could argue that MDV is trying to make an implied ad hominem attack. In fact I seem to remember being here with MDV before :( .
-
reductio ad absurdum
thats the one!
thanks
Not the same thing as a strawman, per se, I believe. It is A strawman argument, but its a certain kind. A strawman being any kind of arguing with a point that youve basically fabricated yourself that isnt the real situation.
You arent pointing out a logical flaw, at all. Youre acting with an overgrown sense of entitlement to opinion. Yours is not equally valid all the time. Guitars and giutar tones, yeah, court verdicts, no.
Sifu,
-
He said that without direct first hand experience you cannot make a judgement, which is a flawed position.
I thought he meant that you can't make an accuarate judgement if you don't have all the facts. I don't know what was said in court, and i find the video inconclusive. The court is there to try and get the facts, or place them in front of a jury so they can make an educated decision. I think anyone could dispute the decision, but unless they had all the facts, or had been present in court to witness how those facts where presented or argued against, you don't have the full picture. not only of what was meant to happen in the club, but also what arguments swayed the jury.
-
He said that without direct first hand experience you cannot make a judgement, which is a flawed position.
I thought he meant that you can't make an accuarate judgement if you don't have all the facts. I don't know what was said in court, and i find the video inconclusive. The court is there to try and get the facts, or place them in front of a jury so they can make an educated decision. I think anyone could dispute the decision, but unless they had all the facts, or had been present in court to witness how those facts where presented or argued against, you don't have the full picture. not only of what was meant to happen in the club, but also what arguments swayed the jury.
Exactomudo.
-
I with Philly on this one - facts or no facts - it just looks very odd that his 6 mates plead guilty, whereas Stevie G gets off with it....
Personally I'd have banged him up for 6 months just to give Benitez something else to grizzle about...
:lol:
-
I with Philly on this one - facts or no facts - it just looks very odd that his 6 mates plead guilty, whereas Stevie G gets off with it....
also true, would you get 6 months? or a fine? i doubt you'd get anything really. if you can kill someone for no reason and get 6 years (out in 3) then a punch in the face must only be worth 5mins in the clink. (and yes, i know of people who have been sentenced like that for killing someone i know)
-
Must apologise for my earlier crankiness, just come off nights :( Been for a walk in the sunshine with the wife and feel much better now :)
MDV, if that's what you meant to say, then that's all well and good. It's a reasonable position, however, what we do know leads many of us to feel negatively towards the outcome, and we are entitled to air those feelings and discuss them.
-
You learn so much on this forum.
-
I with Philly on this one - facts or no facts - it just looks very odd that his 6 mates plead guilty, whereas Stevie G gets off with it....
also true, would you get 6 months? or a fine? i doubt you'd get anything really. if you can kill someone for no reason and get 6 years (out in 3) then a punch in the face must only be worth 5mins in the clink. (and yes, i know of people who have been sentenced like that for killing someone i know)
Well, it'll be interesting to see what sentences the Gerro-mates actually get. Apparently it could be up to 3 years, but I'd be very surprised if that happens!
-
You arent pointing out a logical flaw, at all. Youre acting with an overgrown sense of entitlement to opinion. Yours is not equally valid all the time. Guitars and giutar tones, yeah, court verdicts, no.
Sifu,
Wow, way to be condescending and offensive :roll:
-
You arent pointing out a logical flaw, at all. Youre acting with an overgrown sense of entitlement to opinion. Yours is not equally valid all the time. Guitars and giutar tones, yeah, court verdicts, no.
Sifu,
Wow, way to be condescending and offensive :roll:
Perhaps I didnt make myself clear - NONE of our opinions are as valid as the jury members and judge that saw as complete a representation of the events as is possible to give. From what I know of police procedure at the very least that will be FAR more than has been released in the press, and therefore what we know.
If you have difficulty accepting that other peoples viewpoints can be more informed and valid than yours and consider being reminded of that (which is true of all of us) to be condescending and offensive, then I suggest you spend less time in all-opinions-are-equal land (aka the internet) because few parts of reality work like that.
-
MDV - Please could you just leave this now as we've seen it all before and it's getting tedious.
It seems like vanity and doesn't help or improve anything.
-
It would be vanity if I claimed to be in any priveleged position with regard knowledge of the trial. I've stressed my ignorance (and everyone elses) of the details of it, hows that vanity?
But whatever, I have no horse in this race. Our opinion-equality culture pisses me off is all; I wish people would at least ackowledge how much they dont know before they run their mouths.
-
A) maybe you shouldn't be on DISCUSSION forums then
B) Maybe you shouldn't criticise others when you've OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED that you were unfamiliar with the subject being discussed
C) You should carefully read what you write before you post it, because what you appear to think you've said is very often not what you've said
The person who's become offensive when others have challenged their viewpoint in this discussion has been YOU. You make absolute statements and then when people dispute that statement smear them and make out that you said something more reasonable. This is not big, not clever, and not conducive to discussion.
I am perfectly willing to respect other viewpoints (indeed I said that in my last post but one), but if you're not willing to DISCUSS it makes things very difficult.
-
MDV, what on earth can we not know? He was drunk, returned to the situation rather than walked away, without provocation and having CLEARLY seen his friend hit him first pulled his head down and repeatedly struck him in the face, made no attempt to escape the situation and had to be restrained from attacking further.
Exactly how does this constitute reasonable force used in self defence?
This is yet another case of one rule for us and another for them. Celebrity is the new aristocracy :shock:
Its you that came in here with an absolute viewpoint, distiled from news reports and preconceptions and directed at me.
As to the rest, it seems that youre just persistently misunderstanding or misrepresenting my stance (dmoney got it and stated it well; read his post again, perhaps?).
Since you've focussed on me rather than the topic then perhaps you'd like to continue this via PM and stop polluting the board with what is rather distastfully becoming a personal dispute?
As far as my part goes - I've said all I'm going to say on the trial, which is that
A: its trivial.
B: We arent in a position to criticise the verdict.
-
I generally avoid absolutes, I've stated opinions and asked questions. Indeed, there is only one real statement (there are facts, but facts can be disputed) in the post you've quoted is the last line, which is clearly an opinion, not an absolute, and therefore open for discussion.
As opposed to Alright, lets cut to the chase - unless you were in the bar watching what happened (and listening to it) or in the court for the trial you cant possibly cast a judgment on it. That clear enough?
which leaves nothing to discuss except the logic of the statement (and looking at it again, maybe the internal consistency of the statement, but heh). It is also delivered in a highly confrontational style. I'm sorry if it offends you that someone would dare to question you, but again, it is a discussion board, a place to discuss, and one of the things that make discussion forums work is that people respect other people's right to opinions that aren't inherently offensive. If we can't accept that then we may as well all pack up and go home.
And anyway, what is so wrong with questionning a jury's decision? They're fallable humans, and on occasion get things wrong>
-
You are of course entirely correct. I am a totalitarian dictator and the court should reverse its decision in light of your revealing and enlightened insight on the matter.
-
Oh, don't be such a child.
-
I wondered how you'd respond to your own brand of argument. Interesting, thanks.
-
If you think that's my brand of argument (and again, it's a DISCUSSION not an argument, you really need to check your ego) then you seriously need to take a reading comprehension course.
-
Actually, TBF in the context of the sentence argument could be the correct phase.
-
Meh
He hit someone; what do you want, a good old fashioned lynching?
Yes 8)
-
Meh
He hit someone; what do you want, a good old fashioned lynching?
Yes.
:lol:
Not a liverpool suppporter then?
-
I have a box of rotten tomatoes ready :lol:
I'm a bit biased because I've been attacked several times by drunk groups (we live in the middle of town argh) and despite it being under CCTV cameras nothing was done + my wife is a detention officer in the area (hey maybe I pissed her off that day and she had a word lol) :lol:
I think the actual working police are very effective on the street when they're there, but they hardly seem to be nowadays.
-
Also, I strongly believe that unless authority is able to be questioned and challenged it stops becoming for the people and just feeds the elite.
Not that any of what I've said today has anything to do directly with the thread but this thread is clearly in need of some accepted racism to lighten the mood :lol:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7.jpg)
-
I have a box of rotten tomatoes ready :lol:
I'm a bit biased because I've been attacked several times by drunk groups (we live in the middle of town argh) and despite it being under CCTV cameras nothing was done + my wife is a detention officer in the area (hey maybe I pissed her off that day and she had a word lol) :lol:
I think the actual working police are very effective on the street when they're there, but they hardly seem to be nowadays.
in london i see more police helping ticket inspectors collect fines than helping anyone who has been victimised in any way.
CSO's are even worse. idiots in stupid hats.
someone tried to break into my house and it took them a week to come around and see my housemate who witnessed it. she told them to come when she was home from work but they came in the middle of the day at least 3 times, after they'd been told she wouldnt be home at those times.
Did any police go down for killing or beating people in those protests? i didn't hear about any. maybe they did, maybe they didnt. wouldnt surprise me if they didn't. and now its the case (or at least this was proposed) that you cant photograph police at all. so how do you support claims of intimidation where you may have a legitimate cause?
CCTV is actually proven to lead to pretty few convictions. There was a discussion about this on BBC news recently. camera operators aren't trained and footage doesnt contain the whole truth.
the ONLY times i really see police in london is in the 'richer' areas. parts of west london. i never see them on foot in south east where i live. the funniest thing i saw once was late night in camden, i was chilling outside the electric ballroom waiting for a show to finish, and the road was lined with dealers and illegal taxis. a guy on a bike cycled past going "po po" or whatever, and the taxi guys walked over to a takeaway and pretende to order chips, and the dealers walked off... the police go past oblivious, chatting away, and then everyone goes back to buisness...!! haha. 10 mins later the guy on the bike comes past, and same again. Is it a requirement in the MET that you have to be an idiot?
police exist to make and protect money. thats what i think.
-
Its true, more police on the beat would be helpfull.
So would not having an alcohol based recreation culture. About half violent crimes invlove alcohol. But what are you gonna do about that? (Aside from anything else, I think that all drugs should be legal; what you put in your own bloodstream is your business, so its a tricky one).
-
Also, I strongly believe that unless authority is able to be questioned and challenged it stops becoming for the people and just feeds the elite.
Not that any of what I've said today has anything to do directly with the thread but this thread is clearly in need of some accepted racism to lighten the mood :lol:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/352840552_7a9a0a6ec7.jpg)
:lol:
Theres nothing, NOTHING, wrong with ribbing scousers!
-
scouser are a laugh. im part scouse i guess.
get on youtube and search for croxteth gangs or norris green gangs. crocky mongrels and nogga dogz!
insane!
-
I have a box of rotten tomatoes ready :lol:
I'm a bit biased because I've been attacked several times by drunk groups (we live in the middle of town argh) and despite it being under CCTV cameras nothing was done + my wife is a detention officer in the area (hey maybe I pissed her off that day and she had a word lol) :lol:
I think the actual working police are very effective on the street when they're there, but they hardly seem to be nowadays.
in london i see more police helping ticket inspectors collect fines than helping anyone who has been victimised in any way.
CSO's are even worse. idiots in stupid hats.
someone tried to break into my house and it took them a week to come around and see my housemate who witnessed it. she told them to come when she was home from work but they came in the middle of the day at least 3 times, after they'd been told she wouldnt be home at those times.
Did any police go down for killing or beating people in those protests? i didn't hear about any. maybe they did, maybe they didnt. wouldnt surprise me if they didn't. and now its the case (or at least this was proposed) that you cant photograph police at all. so how do you support claims of intimidation where you may have a legitimate cause?
CCTV is actually proven to lead to pretty few convictions. There was a discussion about this on BBC news recently. camera operators aren't trained and footage doesnt contain the whole truth.
the ONLY times i really see police in london is in the 'richer' areas. parts of west london. i never see them on foot in south east where i live. the funniest thing i saw once was late night in camden, i was chilling outside the electric ballroom waiting for a show to finish, and the road was lined with dealers and illegal taxis. a guy on a bike cycled past going "po po" or whatever, and the taxi guys walked over to a takeaway and pretende to order chips, and the dealers walked off... the police go past oblivious, chatting away, and then everyone goes back to buisness...!! haha. 10 mins later the guy on the bike comes past, and same again. Is it a requirement in the MET that you have to be an idiot?
police exist to make and protect money. thats what i think.
Police exist to protect the public and mediate disputes evenhandedly. previously, without Hobbes' Leviathan to deal with people that predate on others (in one way or another) you had to protect yourself, which often meant extreme retributive measures in attempts to show people how big and bad you are. Endless cycle of violence, survival only of the strong, not very civilised.
Most police, and I know quite a few, get into it to protect people. Protecting property is part of that. They dont make much money doing it either!
They do an extremely difficult job, and get very little but stick for it. Not being in thbe right place at the right time, not catching that guy that you couldnt describe more accurately than "about 6 foot, late teens early twenties", etc etc. They need to use evidence to work to not catch the wrong people (which is as important as catching the right ones).
Imagine for a second what would happen if the police dissapeared overnight.
And my parents met in the the MET, so watch it! ;)
-
Imagine for a second what would happen if the police dissapeared overnight.
That's exactly what they do...
-
I think it's really important to make the distinction between the police and the law makers. The police are following a set of policies made by law makers that they themselves may be just as frustrated about as we are.
-
saying they are all crud is a generalisation. i have relatives that are ex merseyside police and i think they are idiots too.
EDIT: loosing some detail
Literally all my experiences with police have invloved CSO's or Police being intimidating or abusing powers for unjustifiable reasons.
so thats why i'm biased. I'm not that bothered if your folks are police and i agree they don't have an easy job. But if you can't handle a job, and you feel you want to bully members of the public that are causing no real problem, then you should get out.
There is a reason why people call them pigs.
-
And there are for more cases of poor policing than that.
But there are vastly more again of good policing. I've never personally seen police acting out of line. I have seen them being decent people, upholding the spirit of the law (as opposed to the letter of it) intelligently and ethically, and I've seen a few that are somewhat standoffish and confrontational, but thats a minority in my experience. Plus, good policing isnt news-worthy, its not gossip-worthy, its not the sort that people go blabbing about to their mates or on forums, and it is the kind that happens the vast majority of the time.
Lew makes an excellent point, as well. The police have to uphold the law; they dont write them. They are often, in fact, frustrated with them because they see how they can be misapplied and do more harm to the innocent (or just everyday people being people, like violence in self defence or too much violence out of fear or panic, for example). But they have to stick to the law; they're as constrained by it, moreso in fact, than we are.
Add to that, they are human, they arent infalliable, they arent perfect, there are good police and poor police officers. Pressure for more police and the unpopularity of the job exacerbates that (cant be too picky, training is sometimes rushed or even given by those not optimally qualified). They fall victim to one side of us and them psychologies (see zimbardo experiment for the sort of thing I mean; not police, but its applicable (insofar as its applicable to anything; its not terribly scientific, but it is ellucidating) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment ), they can get a little power drunk, they're susceptible to stress, fear, overreactions, error, they're flawed like the rest of us because they are us, they're people doing a job, with various degrees of competency. But they do a better job, I think, than you make out, and though flawed I'd much rather have them around, exactly as they are, than not.
-
yeah i agree there is a need for them.
I see police doing nothing, which isnt good, or bad, but i mean im just speaking from personal experience.
maybe i live in the wrong part of london to expect to be treated well by local police or to see other people being treated well also.
I don't think the MET helps itself by trying to dismiss and cover up articles that come into the media.
and court cases like what we are disscussing cant help either. whether the outcome is legit or not.
its such i joke.
i used to live right opposite a police station in hackney, and RIGHT OUTSIDE ITS DOOR, my housemate at the time was punched in the face, and her bag was stolen. Even the CCTV outside the police station was useless. I had to go to hospital to pick her up. the Police didnt even give her a ride to the hospital (a 5min drive)
-
Sounds like youre in a pretty rough area. That doesnt help - the police being human thing again. The us and them mentality strengthens and police in areas with higher crime rates that are up against it every day tend to be more automatically suspicious and harsher with criminals and suspects, because, well, wouldnt you be? You might like to think you wouldnt be, but realistically, for most people its inevitable - you spend all day in a high crime area looking for criminals and you start to see everyone as a potential criminal, and the harder the criminal you expect to find, or are afraid you'll find (or hope to find, in some cops cases) or are used to dealing with, the more harsh you'll be with suspects and in general. Thats not an excuse, no, but its an explanation, and its very hard to get past that when policing high crime areas.
-
In summary: police are people too!
-
i see your point.
i was about to say, you dont see rural police being the same. our local bobby back home used to ride a pushbike and he was about 50 years old. well, that was when i was 16. its changed now cos its got rougher back home.
-
:drink:
Attitudes vary massively, and IMO the best police officers are ones that consider themselves part of and servants/assistants of the local community. Those guys rock.
-
:drink:
Attitudes vary massively, and IMO the best police officers are ones that consider themselves part of and servants/assistants of the local community. Those guys rock.
One of my good friends is in the police. He's not on the beat anymore but one story he told me was that he once 'collared' a youngster who was generally causing trouble and breaking stuff. Rather than take him to the station he got his address and went to his parents house with him. He made him tell his parents what he had been up to and the kid basically broke down in tears and was genuinely sorry for what he had been up to and felt ashamed that he had let his family down. I hope the kid respected how the situation was handled as it could have been heavy handed. Not sure if he ever offended again though!
-
'Sgood policing!
Theres a chap on here thats a copper round gateshead, I think (newcaslte area at least) that was saying a while ago that where the offending kids were on council estates, they werent pressing charges, but were going round to their houses and telling their parents "if you dont sort your kids out then youre getting evicted". Not an empty threat; they had an arrangement with the council. The crime rate plummeted. I strongly approve of this plan, and this policing!
Cant remember who that was....he was too overly keen on talking about his work anyway, so its probably best I dont remember :lol:
Disclaimer - details of this anecdote may be wrong; it was at least a year ago and I only read it once.
-
:drink:
Attitudes vary massively, and IMO the best police officers are ones that consider themselves part of and servants/assistants of the local community. Those guys rock.
One of my good friends is in the police. He's not on the beat anymore but one story he told me was that he once 'collared' a youngster who was generally causing trouble and breaking stuff. Rather than take him to the station he got his address and went to his parents house with him. He made him tell his parents what he had been up to and the kid basically broke down in tears and was genuinely sorry for what he had been up to and felt ashamed that he had let his family down. I hope the kid respected how the situation was handled as it could have been heavy handed. Not sure if he ever offended again though!
If that happened around my old hometown then the parents would tell the police to get lost. haha. which i don't agree with. obviously it makes policing impossible. I remember some kids back home broke into a tip and pulled calor gas cans out of a cage (ones for camping stoves) and decided to play football with them. naturally one blew up and set fire to a kids legs, but his parents where just all like "my kid is as good as gold, how could this happen!". obviously your kid in an idiot who broke into somewhere he should be and then he was dumb enough to almost blow his legs off. good work!
so yeah. parents can suck. especially when they refuse to discipline kids themselves or let others do it (schools etc)
-
But there are vastly more again of good policing. I've never personally seen police acting out of line. I have seen them being decent people, upholding the spirit of the law (as opposed to the letter of it) intelligently and ethically, and I've seen a few that are somewhat standoffish and confrontational, but thats a minority in my experience. Plus, good policing isnt news-worthy, its not gossip-worthy, its not the sort that people go blabbing about to their mates or on forums, and it is the kind that happens the vast majority of the time.
+1
In contrast, however, to 'Parking Attendants' or whatever they're called nowadays (Parking Revenue Creation Officers, maybe). I have yet to see one of those ****s wear a uniform with any pride. They have a laddish swagger (in *all* cases I have ever seen!!), which gives the air of "I don't give a cr@p about anybody, I'm here to stiff you over and make money. I love the POWAH!!"
I am now on a personal crusade against all parking officials. In fact, I absolutely must finish this letter to Camden council against their illegal theft of my hard-earned cash. Then if that fails, it's on to spurious claims that their legal department will have to investigate. I figure a few hours of a lawyer's time will ensure that they waste any money they made from me tenfold. I absolutely will not let them profit from me, and if I can't have it, they are sure as hell not going to have it.
Bitter? Not at all. :/
If they had reasonable signage in place, it would be a different matter; but as it is I would have had to have walked 1.4 miles to find the sign saying when I could/couldn't park. Acceptable? Reasonable? Clearly not. Letter of the law? Possibly... This attitude is what irks me most.
Anyway, the details of my case are inconsequential, I have yet to see a parking officer who looks as though they give one solitary shite about the society in which they live. This is in marked contrast to my experience with the police, who in my experience, have always been polite and genuine people. Sure, there are examples where this doesn't hold true, but MDV's argument that we don't hear about the good things - only the bad - is absolutely true. They have a LOT of cr@p to deal with on a day-to-day basis, and the vast majority of the time, they receive absolutely no thanks for the work they do.
Wow I wasn't expecting such a rant..
Roo
-
If they had reasonable signage in place, it would be a different matter; but as it is I would have had to have walked 1.4 miles to find the sign saying when I could/couldn't park. Acceptable? Reasonable? Clearly not. Roo
You were in a car weren't you. That's reasonable driving distance :P Just because you're too lazy to DRIVE to a sign. :lol:
-
If they had reasonable signage in place, it would be a different matter; but as it is I would have had to have walked 1.4 miles to find the sign saying when I could/couldn't park. Acceptable? Reasonable? Clearly not. Roo
You were in a car weren't you. That's reasonable driving distance :P Just because you're too lazy to DRIVE to a sign. :lol:
You cheeky scamp, you ;)
Roo
-
parking attendants do a great job. they make teh streets safer and they all play telecasters.
-
parking attendants do a great job. they make teh streets safer and they all play telecasters.
one out of 3 ain't bad...
-
Well, I'm from a country where I saw many times people steal US$100 millions from government money and take less than 2 months in jail...
think this fight just normal, in deed you'll only be arrested by beating in Brazil if you kill while beating or you beat a millionare, if you're poor :? basically a half dozen rich guys burnt alive a indian and they got out the jail pretty soon and are working in public jobs....
-
I know a couple of coppers and they are good blokes. I wouldn't want their job though-not just because of the grisly stuff but because of the sheer tedious nature of much of what they have to do rather than doing what they both say they joined for and that was to do some good. They say that they are doing their job almost with both arms behind their backs and view the so- called increasing alienation between the police and the public with dismay. Having said all that, personally I was very seriously let down by the police when my son was attacked on his way home from work and came in with his nose bleeding and his suit ruined. They were hopeless both in terms of response and for the lack of follow up- especially when we had good information on those responsible- who got away with it yet again( they'd been on a bit of a spree).
-
I've been there myself, in fact - didnt go to court but the police were intent on understanding the exact details of the situation and taking according action, which in this case was arresting the guy whose nose I broke! Seem odd? Thats because, like here, you dont know the full facts :)
Big +1.
If you dont know exactly what happened, you cant make a proper judgement.
I was involved in a similar incident with a fight on a night out, and the police (who saw most of the incident) found me completely innocent, and charged another guy (who actually got hit more) as he was an instigator, and we were just defending ourselves.
Not saying Gerrard is totally innocent as ive got no idea what happened really, but just saying its not always black and white.