Jump to content

In London skirmishes, suspected far-right protester is rescued


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I suppose no photo of the crack to his head that put him down

...or what became of him afterwards? As yet detail has not been forthcoming despite numerous claims to the contrary which the claimants are unable to verify.

Edited by evadgib
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Dont be stupid. That is a different discretion. That is a most serious offence. That discretion is when the officer can safely arrest, or maybe wait. Yes that discretion would well be to let the guy go home until a safe arrest can be made.

 

Well yes so they have to arrest him , when they arrest him is irrelevant 

My point was that its not up to individual police officers whether to arrest people for serious offences 

  I do understand what you mean about police choosing not to arrest offenders because it could put them in danger or escalate the situation if they are heavily outnumbered or out gunned

Posted
6 hours ago, Sujo said:

young man. I was a police officer then a prosecutor. The law is not the law. It is also the intent of the law.

 

If a military officer attended uk parliament in his uniform it is illegal, it is unlawful. So say general mattis attended uk parliament in uniform he should be arrested. But he wouldnt be.

 

Police resources are not to be wasted on frivilous matters and judges frequently berate police for charging people with offences that whilst illegal are not in the spirit or intent for which the law was enacted.

 

Police will often caution an offender instead of arrest because to arrest they will use a lot of resources for little gain.

 

The oath police take is subject to directions from above. If an officer is doing surveillance but notices a jaywalker he isnt going to jeapordise his case just to arrest a jaywalker. But according to you he must.

 

Police are not bound to arrest anyone and everyone breaking the law. They have discretion. Move on.

This

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

OK, so if you were on patrol in uniform and you saw one man murder another man , would it be up to your discretion to intervene or just walk on by without taking action ?

 Would it be completely up to your discretion about whether you make an arrest or not , could you just say , "I didnt like the murdered guy either, so, you can go home unarrested"?

   You talk about "frivolous matters " ; 56 Police officers getting injured and property destroyed is hardly a frivolously matter , two different issues .

  Yes, "frivolous " matters are often overlooked , but thats not what we are talking about, is it .

Even when the man has identified himself as an actual expert in what you are Trying desperately to paint differently from reality, you think now is the time to double down with an example that I could even give you the answer to. 

Unless of course you were once a policeman AND a prosecutor as well?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Even when the man has identified himself as an actual expert in what you are Trying desperately to paint differently from reality, you think now is the time to double down with an example that I could even give you the answer to. 

Unless of course you were once a policeman AND a prosecutor as well?

Whilst I accept that at times , the Police can act with discretion , like if a guys in a park and needs to take pee and theres no toilets available, no need to arrest him for public exposure , act with discretion then .

  If that same guy picks up a petrol bomb and fire bombs a house , he needs to get arrested and to face charges 

Posted
6 hours ago, stevenl said:

According to the police there is an increase in right wing activity.

But as it is apparently only in protecting statues, shouldn’t they exercise some of that discretion?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, EricTh said:

What does far-right means in this case? 

There are a number of definitions which describe today's far right movements according to their ideology, take your pick...

 

Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism,[7] today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism,[8] and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist, or reactionary views

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

 

 

Edited by simple1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, torturedsole said:

Pathetic turnout at BLM rally in London today, hence only half a dozen community support officers surrounding Churchill's statue.  That soon died off.  

There was quite a few thousand in the end, there was 3 demos that came together near Trafalgar Square. Hyde Park, Parliament Square and Vauxhall bridge came together, no trouble at all this week.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Slip said:

Words fail me.  You truly are a despicable ****.

I see the double standards are hitting you hard. The George Floyd cop represents all white people, yet this stabber does not represent all black people. Got it.

  • Confused 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I see the double standards are hitting you hard. The George Floyd cop represents all white people, yet this stabber does not represent all black people. Got it.

This was a terror attack nothing to do with BLM or Antifa. I presume your American, keep your guns and politics we don't need the influence in our country.

  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I see the double standards are hitting you hard. The George Floyd cop represents all white people, yet this stabber does not represent all black people. Got it.

It was a suspected terror attack. A Libyan has been arrested. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Violence against the police yesterday at the BLM protest in Glasgow too, socialists workers party, Green Brigade (Celtic football hooligans) etc.

Posted
17 minutes ago, sungod said:

Some more here, he says he was set upon by the BLM protesters for no reason.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/retired-policeman-rescued-protests-says-22222474

Now he says there was 'no reason' for him being attacked...fair enough, if true hopefully those who attacked him for 'no reason' will be found and questioned about the attack.

 

I'd be very interested to know their side of the story...

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, torturedsole said:

Pathetic turnout at BLM rally in London today, hence only half a dozen community support officers surrounding Churchill's statue.  That soon died off.  

There was still thousands and plenty going on around other cities, including 500 in Glasgow. That's a lot more than these far-right and football hooligans could ever muster

  • Like 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, sungod said:

Some more here, he says he was set upon by the BLM protesters for no reason.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/retired-policeman-rescued-protests-says-22222474

They say he says...

 

Matey presumably passed standard vetting in order to be a BTP plod. Whether or not he later lost or did anything to jeopardize his vetting status isn't clear but until the public hear his account in his own words the exact circumstances of what happened last week will remain a mystery. If dozens of cameras and hundreds of people can be caught in the much lauded iconic footage of his alleged rescue why has nothing emerged showing what happened immediately before or afterwards?

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...