London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th

[ViolentPanda]

It's fucking basic, you moron. Just because something has a defensive purpose doesn't mean it can't be used for an offensive purpose.

Would you claim that a police officer using his (defensive) round shield to strike a protestor across the head with it's edge would be using it in a "defensive" - of course you fucking wouldn't.

You truly don't get it, do you?

Fucking brilliant!

 

[detective-boy]

You'd said in a previous post that you'd seen a pink snooker ball in a photo.

More misrepresentation. I said I had seen something which appeared to be a snooker ball in a photo. It was a photo. I have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or not (and so I would be careful about not doing so ... unlike you lot who seem willing to draw all sorts of unsubstantiable conclusions from a few seconds of video or a still photo ... ).

I have since spoken to a police officer friend of mine who was there and who was hit on the helmet by one. Which is somewhat more convincing than a blurry photo anyway.

 

[butchersapron]

Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...

Link to your snooker balls. Right now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No you didn't. You made no mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (that's criminal law, by the way - I know there's a clue in the title but you can never be sure you've grasped it ...) recently to know the difference anyway.

So you missed the post where another poster corrected me, and I acknowledged it, then?

Would you like the post number? It's #2762.

Now you'll no doubt tell me that what I said doesn't mean what I claim it says.

 

[detective-boy]

This copper says he saw them being thrown, either way he was hit by a pretty heavy missle to knock him out with his helmet on.

There is no way in a million years that a snooker ball would knock you out if you were wearing a NATO helmet. That's the main thing I do not understand about the fuckwits focus on the issue - it really makes no fucking difference at all ...

(unless, of course, they are using it in an attempt to show that the police are lying about something (however inconsequential) so as to distract attention from the blatant violence used by many protesters and shown live on fucking BBC News 24and thus something that even they cannot deny ...)

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I've never reported anyone for "name-calling" you lying tosser.

Time for another good ole fashioned d_b flounce?

 

[audiotech]

Time for another good ole fashioned d_b flounce?

Has he gone orf to storm parliament?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Link to your snooker balls. Right now.

But his friend was hit by one. Nuff said.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

There is no way in a million years that a snooker ball would knock you out if you were wearing a NATO helmet. That's the main thing I do not understand about the fuckwits focus on the issue - it really makes no fucking difference at all ...

(unless, of course, they are using it in an attempt to show that the police are lying about something (however inconsequential) so as to distract attention from the blatant violence used by many protesters and shown live on fucking BBC News 24and thus something that even they cannot deny ...)

lol

 

[detective-boy]

I had a pretty good view, it never happened, ...

Were you in a helicopter? Hovering over the whole demonstration the whole time?

This is where the problem occurs: YOU didn't see it hence it DIDN'T happen. Strangely in mass disorder no one individual sees everything ...

Just because YOU didn't see something doesn't mean it didn't fucking happen ...

 

[detective-boy]

and of course the police, by their actions, can also create a breach of the peace.

Yes. Of course they can.

 

[butchersapron]

But his friend was hit by one, a pink one at that. Nuff said.

6 points for a copper.

 

[detective-boy]

Irrelevant to the claim that you made.

So that's a no then ... you have no evidence to back up your claim.

 

[audiotech]

Did you see it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

He was there. He was hit on the head by a snooker ball. He has no reason to lie, not least because in the big scheme of things it was of no particular concern to him.

But you feel able to say he is lying on the basis of watching a bit of fucking video.

That's right, "a bit of fucking viideo".

Prick.

Smiler, you really should mind your blood pressure. You blow up a la "Scanners" if you're not careful.

I've never reported anyone for "name-calling" you lying tosser.

So all that whining about people abusing you (name-calling to any noobs out there), and how you'd reported them was bull, was it? All that weeping and moaning about persecution that led to Crispy wielding the banhammer, that wasn't about name-calling?

And that's without going into your claims that the phrases "drama queen" and "little miss hissy fit" constitute homophobic abuse if used toward you.

And you call ME a lying tosser!

 

[detective-boy]

Still not bothered to read what you've actually posted.

Corrected for you.

If you had you'd know that I have raised concerns over the length of the containment and the fact that it was on Westminster Bridge. But hey, why actually bother reading what I actually post instead of implying that I will have posted what your prejudices suggest I will have done ..

Next you'll being trying to blame the media for not explaining clearly enough to the public how and when it may be appropriate to haul a disabled man out of his wheelchair and drag him across the road? You're not doing this are you, because if you are, I doubt very much the "vast majority" seeing this has having a "time and place" ever?

You are wrong. The vast majority wouldn't be so patronising as to think that just because someone was in a wheelchair they could never be in a situation in which it was appropriate for force to be used against them.

What is really happening (you chose not to see it) is that this, along with the "containment" issue, is being condemned outright by significant numbers of the general public, who are appalled by what they see.

I see it ... but I am concerned that they are doing so on the basis of no sensible debate about the issues. Given the facts I am sure the vast majority would agree with the use of containment ... though there would be a spectrum of agreement about issues such as how long it shoud be for, providing water, etc. and other collateral issues. By arguing against the use of containment you are risking the police abandoning it because of public criticism and resorting to other, far more aggressive (and far less effective) tactics (such as dispersal as used in the Poll Tax disorder). When it happens, just remember that it is because of YOU and YOUR arguments against containment.

 

[audiotech]

6 points for a copper.

PC147.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...

What does your reply have to do with my post, oh wonky-eyed one?

Besides fuck-all, that is.

 

[butchersapron]

So that's a no then ... you have no evidence to back up your claim.

Where is this pink snooker ball you know was thrown? Where are any snooker balls thrown?

 

[detective-boy]

Depends what you take to constitute "long".

Any list, to be honest.

There is no credible evidence of agent provocateurs being used in the UK to precipitate disorder in ordinary public order situations. Link to the evidence of some if you assert otherwise.

 

[ViolentPanda]

More misrepresentation. I said I had seen something which appeared to be a snooker ball in a photo. It was a photo. I have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or not (and so I would be careful about not doing so ... unlike you lot who seem willing to draw all sorts of unsubstantiable conclusions from a few seconds of video or a still photo ... ).

I have since spoken to a police officer friend of mine who was there and who was hit on the helmet by one. Which is somewhat more convincing than a blurry photo anyway.

Memory is a very tricky thing. You as a former police officer should know how easy it is for someone to accidentally replace reality with a false memory, especially if they're traumatised.

 

[detective-boy]

and true to form, everyone else was wrong.

That is the way our justice system works ... or do you not subscribe to the view that someone is innocent until proven guilty?

 

[detective-boy]

If there are SUBSTANTIVE (as opposed to "substantial") grounds, then yes.

What do you mean by "substantive"?

In other words, good evidence, not rumour wot some guy down the boozer dun told yer.

Are you saying all information from any human source is unreliable?

 

[detective-boy]

So you missed the post where another poster corrected me, and I acknowledged it, then?

No. It;s the one I was referring to.

As usual it says something other than that which you are now claiming ... you really can't stick to your story can you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Any list, to be honest.

There is no credible evidence of agent provocateurs being used in the UK to precipitate disorder in ordinary public order situations. Link to the evidence of some if you assert otherwise.

Half a dozen from the top of my head:

Tony Lundy (former superintendent, I believe.
John Stalker (former ACC or DCC)
Kenneth Newman (former Commissioner of the Met)
Peter Wright (former MI5 field officer)
Kathy Massiter (former MI5 desk officer)
Stella Rimington (former Director, MI5)

Pick up the autobiography of any of these people (and many more like them, and they all have the agent provocateur theme in common.

Now, they're the ones I came up with in three minutes of browsing the less than a third of the bookshelves in my flat, and my book database (to check the book themes), but I'd say they're a representative sample.

 

[detective-boy]

And that's without going into your claims that the phrases "drama queen" and "little miss hissy fit" constitute homophobic abuse if used toward you.

YOU might dismiss homophobically offensive abuse, used deliberately as "name calling". I don't.

And complaints about obsessive stalking and thread-to-thread off topic trolling are not complaints about "name calling" either.

I have NEVER done any of the things I complain of others doing. And you will never find any evidence of me doing otherwise.

 

[detective-boy]

Memory is a very tricky thing. You as a former police officer should know how easy it is for someone to accidentally replace reality with a false memory, especially if they're traumatised.

That's the fucking point: they weren't fucking traumatised. It was an entirely trivial incident. It is no big thing. Why the fuck are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.

As I said pages ago:

It. Makes. No. Fucking. Difference.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you mean by "substantive"?

Based in confirmable fact, not in rumour.

Are you saying all information from any human source is unreliable?

No, why do you believe I am?

 

[butchersapron]

That's the fucking point: they weren't fucking traumatised. It was an entirely trivial incident. It is no big thing. Why the fuck are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.

As I said pages ago:

It. Makes. No. Fucking. Difference.

What snooker balls?

 

[detective-boy]

Tony Lundy (former superintendent, I believe.

No mention in anything I've ever seen attributed to him.

John Stalker (former ACC or DCC)

Likewise. And having read quite a lot he has written I would be extremely surprised if he had mentioned any such thing elsewhere.

Kenneth Newman (former Commissioner of the Met)

Absolutely not.

Peter Wright (former MI5 field officer)

He's a fucking spy. What the fuck would he know about police tactics relating to ordinary public order policing?

Kathy Massiter (former MI5 desk officer)

Ditto.

Stella Rimington (former Director, MI5)

Ditto

[quotePick up the autobiography of any of these people (and many more like them, and they all have the agent provocateur theme in common.[/quote]
Not in the context of ordinary public order policing they don't. And that is what I have been careful to define what we are talking about from the start (though you have probably omitted to notice that ... )