NanLaew

2 hours ago, Negita43 said:

MAN is also my home airport - the only downside looks to be UK arrival time.

It is a tad early, but I get a rental so transportation isn't an issue...but I would still get to my destination before daylight. Might have to tap into the duty free before the pub opens.

17 minutes ago, novacova said:

Well that would include removing about half of the profiles on AN as well.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

1 hour ago, Magictoad said:

In such a small place as KPA it's difficult to believe that the BIB weren't already on to him.

The fraud was carried out online and on Australian victims. Why would the RTP have any primary interest? Just another retiree, pitching his tent on their turf. As long as his immigration status was sound, there wasno need to suspect him of anything. Four vehicles totaling a little over 2 million so no red-plated 7 series Beemer or Lambo. Just some Toyotas.

1 hour ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

 

<<Several individuals believed to be part of Mr Hamburger's network were summoned for questioning. They are suspected of assisting in the establishment of four nominee companies: Chesapeake Ross Co, Montana Realty Co, Laguna Cliff Co, and Gollum Co.>>

 

Not sure but it sounds like a American.

Aha! It worked. Give things an American name and nobody thinks it may be a German mastermind.

13 hours ago, RAZZELL said:

Edit- 24th Dec.

Very, very tempting but for me up her in Bahn Nawk, a 09:05 departure would require an overnight in Phuket.

Do they have nice hotels near the airport?

In an interview published in the Khmer Times, Hun Sen hinted to revealing something that Thaksin has previously said that could seriously imperil his current status.

Was this assessment written before Thaksin cancelled his friendship with Hun Sen?

23 hours ago, angryguy said:

23 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Mongkolkit, an advisor within the Democrat Party,

Yup there ya go

Precisely.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

1 hour ago, RAZZELL said:

Cheap fares do still exist to Bkk...if you don't mind stopovers.

 

But generally more available to other destinations in the region.

 

In March my mate came to visit. He paid £480 LHR economy return to Singapore on BA.

 

Flights before Easter were cheap.

Wonder what BA are charging for a LHR-SIN r/t now that it's summer holiday time?

Try £2500... and that's Coach, but it's 500 quid cheaper next month.

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

And was it ? I have no doubt the howls would have been centred around " It must have been a Police Officer "

 

 

I  think you need to rethink that statement.

 

The days of Policing without " Fear or Favour " disappeared around the time Tony Blair took Office in No10 in 1997.

 

 

Don't presume to tell me what to think.

So the UK is a police state now?

I'm done.

Thanks for playing.

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

It makes no sense, to anyone with a brain to go chasing the person that leaked it.

It does if someone involved in law enforcement did. Apart from the law, which is for everyone, police have a code of conduct. It's possible, yes my supposition again, that a police officer may have broken that. And that's serious. The police are beleaguered and (in some cases rightly) disrespected enough without their own going rogue, just because his emotions go the better of him.

8 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Unless of course, there really is an establishment effort to keep all things Muslim related to wrongdoing out of the Media and the public eye.

While some on here have elevated the fact that it was a female police officer's nose that was broken, as if her gender makes the assault worse.

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Nigel Farage's wet dream.

I can't believe that any grown man can believe what you say or worship a proven grifter so sycophantically and unquestionably. It really makes anything you write immediately dismissible. It is quite amusing though. Now bringing BLM and George Floyd in to things, wow.

Jeez.

Have you also noticed that they are quick to admonish those that they disagree with by making comments like, "I never mentioned race, so why have you brought it up?"

But when they do...

Of course, they are also first to crow long and loud, "I'm not racist" and "Some of my best friends are [insert race. ethnicity and/or colour here]"

9 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And why would the Police get antsy about a video debunking another video that tried to paint the Police in a bad light.

As I suggested earlier, if that favourable second video that undeniably gives a fuller picture of how it played out was already 'sealed' in the evidence chain for use in court, it's airing on open media may render it worthless.

It won't get the thugs off the hook, and I don't want them to get off the hook one little bit, but we have seen before, once charges have been laid, how someone acting in what they believe to be in the public's interest, can work against what they claim to be doing.

9 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

I could give you the answer, you probably will not like it.

Try me, what have you got to lose?

16 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

No, it is not logical to assume

 

It could have been an airport worker that released it to the media, who had seen the whole incident and was peed off about the  narrative / agenda of 1st video.

That's fundamentally what I said, either an airport security worker or any airport worker with access to airport cctv. Maybe even a friend of the disaffected policeman and/or the angry airport staff? The variations are endless, so any thorough investigation witch hunt would take time.

The end result is the same, the supposition that a policeman didn't like the media narrative after the first clip, or someone not involved with law enforcement didn't like the media narrative after the first clip.

As you pointed out earlier, the GMP are investigating the leak which, if it was going to be used as evidence in the prosecution, could be considered to be inadmissible by any defence lawyer, but that's for the judge to decide.

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I watched the video and they used reasonable force at all times, adapting to the situation as necessary, as stated in court by the police, their conduct was professional.

They only had about 3 or 4 seconds of "reasonable force" where they correctly body-slammed the "guy in blue" but they didn't realize his brother was going to start punching and kicking. They weren't prepared. It was a botched arrest from the get go.

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You are just making things up now

It's my opinion that you are "making things up" by claiming that anyone here was "apprehended safely".

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

As for those pair of hoodlums, of course they need locking up without any need to blame the police.

Agreed on the fate of these thugs but please, try and tell me where I have blamed the police for causing the actions of these thugs

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course he was apprehended safely. The police cannot go in hard every time they arrest someone. This was an extreme incident and they reacted appropriately, enough of your excuses and victim blaming the police. 

WATCH the video.

They DID go in hard.

They totally failed to SAFELY apprehend ANYONE.

I have no experience as a police officer, but coming from two generations of UK law enforcement, I am certainly not about "victim blaming the police."

Those pair of hoodlums need locking up, and the sooner, the better.

12 minutes ago, petermik said:

I was out last night with friends from Rochdale and apparently both brothers are members of a Boxing Club in the area....their solemn and smartly dressed appearance is a long way from what is their norm....

My regret is that this didn`t happen in the US as the brothers might not be here to tell their side of the story....

Thugs pure and simple and for guys on here to try and defend their actions is disgraceful....

I thought as much when I saw how quickly the "guy in blue" danced around, decking three police officers in about 8 seconds.

Who on here is defending their actions?

32 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

 

Absolute nonsense. He was apprehended safely, the police didn't realize he would go crazy and break a police women's nose before the put him down hard.

 

We've already seen that video many times.

If he was "apprehended safely" how come three police officers required hospitalisation? How come a taser was needed?

The fact, as you state it, that the police "didn't realise" he would kick off is proof that their initial attempt to arrest was performed very poorly and allowed things to kick off. He could have pulled a knife, or even a gun. The arresting officers had no clue as to what they were getting into but behaved like they did.

Do you honestly think that everyone just puts their hands up and goes peaceably whenever a policeman lays hands on them? These police apparently thought so... or maybe they momentarily forgot their basic training and ignored the safety of the general public. Maybe that's because they're trained as "airport anti-terrorist" police and not the "Saturday night after the pubs are out" police?

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The 1st video came from a mobile phone.

 

The 2nd video, was probably released by a Police Officer to counter the narrative being portrayed in the 1st video.

 

 

 

And as a surprise to absolutely no-one

 

 

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-09-06/police-watchdog-to-investigate-release-of-manchester-airport-incident-footage

 

Not a single word about the 1st video ( I wonder why 😀😀 ) and not happy with the 2nd video, as it completely destroyed the narrative portrayed in the 1st video.

Thanks.

The 2nd video, of the arrest attempt, appears to be from airport cctv? It is logical to assume a fellow police officer, without authorization, and angered by the narrative being created solely on the 1st video, released it. Since that footage would probably have already be part of the GMP evidence chain, there's maybe contempt of court here? It also could have been an airport security worker acting in "the public's best interest" that maybe released it?

The third "Starbucks" cctv video would normally have made this an open and shut case but the 2nd video, despite revealing the fuller picture of what went wrong and and who did wrong, unfortunately opened this can of worms.

15 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I didn't mention delays to the prosecution. Why do you have the ability to read things that are not written ? 

 

Truly, it is a remarkable talent.

 

For the benefit of any doubt, this is what I said

 

 

 

Again, I never mentioned the media being investigated.

 

I said

 

 

The Police are under no obligation to release any information to the media, they will do so to provide public reassurance or to try and apprehend perpetrators.

 

The main point of that is that, there is no Law that compelled them to release information to the media, but they will do so if they have a reason to do so.

 

Anyway, keep working away at that magnificent talent, of reading things that have not been written.

 

Truly amazing talent, gawd must have gave you it.

You are correct, I apologise. You didn't mention any delays and I misconstrued your opinion on the release of the videos. I confused you with members who hold to the rote conspiracy theories such as two-tier policing, etc..

As far as we know, the media weren't given the smartphone video by the police or the authorities. They may have been given (or bought) the first clip from a private individual. That may have already been edited by said individual, or they may have chosen to edit it themselves. The latter is unlikely as I first saw the "stomp/kick" clip on the Telegraph, not the Guardian and later, the same clip was aired on Sky.

What witch hunt BTW?

11 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

What can I say about this ?
 

There was no need or reason whatsoever to release the Starbucks CCTV to the MSM.

 

There was absolutely no need or reason to release the kick and stomp clip to the MSM. Like every cropped video clip, it was an agenda designed to make the Police look like the perpetrators and the knuckledraggers look like the victims.

 

The question that should be asked. Is who released the cropped version of the video. Why did they do it, and are they being persued for posting inaccurate video.

 

The narrative changed rapidly when the second, fuller video was released.

 

Who ordered the witch-hunt to identify who had leaked the 2nd video ? Why did they order it, and why are they still in a job ?

 

The initial assault in Starbucks, caught on CCTV, backed up by a statement from the Starbucks manager, was more than enough grounds for arresting,

 

1. Headbutt knuckledragger

 

2. The mother on incitement to violence.

 

Instead of saying " Fair cop, Guv " they had to act like the knuckledraggers they are, by resisting arrest and getting all fighty - fighty.

Once again, the delays to the prosecution was to make sure the whole event was correctly and factually reported and for neither party to be blindsided by some else's, previously undisclosed smartphone video.

This ensures a thorough investigation and a prosecution that won't be at risk of being tossed out because someone was being less than honest.

If you think that the media needs to be investigated for manipulating any video, or the person who gave them (probably sold to them for a few hundred quid) the video, needs to be charged, that's a pretty sad indictment on your take on what makes for a safe society.

22 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Why do you say botched arrest? It was clear neither of them were prepared to go quietly. I suppose when they give their evidence we will be told why they resisted arrest so violently. It is ironic that the police go mob handed to arrest somebody who said some hurty words but send two police women and one police man to arrest two extremely violent thugs.

The first consideration of the police is for the safety of the general public and grabbing the guy from behind while in close proximity to family and other members of the public tells me they ignored the public safety aspect. This allowed themselves to be "boxed in" and did not factor in that there's was an accomplice in the first assault at Starbucks.

That's possibly due to the report they received about that first assault focused on a "guy in blue", so they went for the "guy in blue." But they did it wrong by not isolating him first and neutralising any intervention. They rather "waded in" or as you prefer "mob handed" and without due caution. The police did not do themselves any favours here.

This pair of thugs are as guilty as sin, there's absolutely no doubt about it. However, there's probably one policeman who will bear some responsibility for how it ended but that should not detract from the punishment that will be served on the two thugs. I do not see any "mitigating circumstances" at all.

9 hours ago, RAZZELL said:

You'll never get a ticket that cheaply.

 

You can regularly get a single On Oman from Phuket to the UK for about £160.

Indeed, it is a bargain airfare. However, the idea of any sort of stopover in HKT is anathema to me.