who? the tout? AKA or db?
... and besides Wayne Rooney plays for England and his name is also Irish (as is his granny)
Tout exposed Mark 'Stone/Kennedy' exposed as undercover police officer
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
who? the tout? AKA or db?
... and besides Wayne Rooney plays for England and his name is also Irish (as is his granny)
rioted
redundant
How many on the wrong side?
I think they asked me to let go before hitting me to give them credit. I think pepper spraying anti war protestors for sitting in the road is overkill - http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news380.htm
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
He could play for Ireland, in theory.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Problem with the police is the problem with any bureaucracy - who's interests do they serve? Who are they accountable to? Same with armed forces.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
The people?
Proper Tidy
Arsed
He could have played for Ireland, in theory
Indeed. His brother Paul(? plays for Shrewesbury?) did choose to declare for Ireland. Unfortunately Wayne seems to have all the talent.
But back to the fray... I have a sneaking suspicion db is actually Irish.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
What if the police were disbanded and people policed themselves, maybe each postcode could have their own militia...
Proper Tidy
Arsed
John Rooney was on trial at Wrexham recently, don't think we'll offer him anything though. Wayne's younger bro, played for Ireland at u21 level I think. Was at Stockport and had a few unsuccessful trials with MLS clubs too, iirc.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
played 40 odd games for macclesfield. not sure what he's up to as he got released and didn't find a club.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
They'd have to be democratic and accountable, otherwise what point the revolution? And to ensure the post revolution society stayed on course, wouldn't some of the new rev-cops have to infiltrate dissenters?
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Was only last week he was with us, so not much it would appear
Proper Tidy
Arsed
It would need to be in the interests of (and answerable to) the people, not property or capital or the ruling bureaucracy/class, yes. And, yes, some sort of force might need to infiltrate any genuine counter-revolutionary forces. Having said that, this particular case involved people who were clearly no threat to the state nor to people, but rather were (at worst) a threat to property, or more likely imo to vested political interests. If in a post-revolutionary society, some people wished to sell copies of Capitalist Boss on street corners, or hold a demo to complain about all this ruddy fairness, or to form a human chain around some wasteland to prevent tree-planting and demand more exploitation of natural resources, then I'd see no reason why they should be infiltrated, or indeed prevented or impeded.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Proper Tidy
Arsed
It'll happen, one day.
Yes. I could. In fact I have before. There is no point in me doing so again because you will still not acknowledge it as a justification. If anyone else, who I have not discussed it with previously wishes to ask then I will explain.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
He went and gathered information as directed. That is a perfectly lawful order and has nothing to do with whether he had anything personal against the or not. As I have regularly done before, I would suggest that it would be totally wrong for an individual officer to refuse to carry out a particular policing task because he happens to like the people he is told to carry it out on. The officer would be perfectly entitled to ask to see the grounds for suspecting criminal activity. They would be entitled to confirm that the necessary authorisations had been given. They would not be entitled to pick and choose what they did.
And "stitched up" usually means framed using false evidence. Please provide your evidence for the allegation that this officer provided false evidence resulting in unsafe convictions.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He stitched them up by lying to them. It's fine for a copper to impersonate another person, then, when talking to people he has no reason at all to suspect of any serious offence? He lied to them, he spied on them, he no doubt broke some minor laws with them. He ingratiated himself into their circle and then betrayed their trust. He trampled on everything that is good about people.
You're either naive or dissembling. This stuff is justified as action against terrorism, as you should well know. But it is not. It is action against those who do not accept the political status quo and choose to organise themselves against it. As such, it is profoundly anti-democratic. The enemy within is not those he was spying on. It is him and those who sent him.
You're either naive or dissembling. This stuff is justified as action against terrorism, as you should well know. But it is not. It is action against those who do not accept the political status quo and choose to organise themselves against it. As such, it is profoundly anti-democratic. The enemy within is not those he was spying on. It is him and those who sent him.
Yes. Really. As you know perfectly well the use of force in this particular case has been judged to be unlawful. The reason that there has not been a conviction is because of evidential difficulties in relation to manslaughter and as a result of procedural fuck-up in relation to common assault, NOT because of the police being above the law. If that had been the case there wouldn't have been an investigation and there wouldn't have been a report characterising the use of force as unlawful.
Your habit (and the habit of many others) in pulling out Ian Tomlinson / Jean Charles de Menezes / Harry Stanley as if they somehow prove anything is pathetic (and extremely annoying). Each case had it's own particular circumstances and they "prove" absolutely nothing in terms of general principles.
Oh right. Sorry. I didn't realise that you could only see things from one direction.How many on the wrong side?
(It would, however, explain why you claim that the police never do anything lawfully ever...
I would tend to agree in general. (And there in general the use of pepper spray / CS spray in a public order situation is NOT recommended for purely practical reasons!!)
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
they prove that the police do not tell the truth: as in addition does the case of diarmuid o'neill.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They prove one thing, again and again. Just as the people of Northern Ireland knew that no soldier who killed innocent people while on duty would ever be held to account, we know that no police officer who kills innocent people while on duty will ever be held to account.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Oh right. Sorry. I didn't realise that you could only see things from one direction.
(It would, however, explain why you claim that the police never do anything lawfully ever...
they must do. after all, if you put a load of monkeys at typewriters sooner or later you'll get a coherent sentence. the same thing with the police and the law.
Similar threads
