Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

More like "come and have a go if ya think ya hard enough!"

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

So there is going to be another riot and attacks on public property tomorrow by a bunch of hooligans. Hope its dealt with quickly and with the necessary force if it gets ugly again. Lets face it we already know how it will turn out.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Now thats an oxymoron if I ever heard one, it's one or the other I'm afraid.
I'm kidding, any violence and I'll be headed in the other direction.

I'll be bringing this along should a comedy opportunity present itself:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y15...3/P9070001.jpg

Looks like the real thing, but as its inflatable it weighs only a few ounces.

If I chuck this off a rooftop, do you reckon I'll get 32 months?
Only one way to find out. :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

If it gets out of hand as it no doubt will lets hope the Police go in hard and fast and remove the instigators quickly.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

They should be able to use these to stop the hooligans if it gets out of hand and public property is being damaged

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I've got a banner which reads "Masque made me do it." Lets hope the media are out in force this time as they were before. ;)

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

You'll think I'm kidding, but I've got 3 bottles of shampoo I'm bringing just in case the watercannon comes out.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

They should also use these, picture taken from HERE so more than possible.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:tu: :LOL:

---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:41 ----------

Used an older version of one of them in anger ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Take some Bubble bath for the great unwashed.:D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I'll be bringing enough to go 'round. :D
Technically its showergel, should be good for a bubble or two..

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

I'm hoping it all goes peacefully tomorrow, as of yet I've no idea of the numbers that'll be turning out. There's a parallel demo in Manchester as well, which may affect the London turn out, we'll see. There seems to be some animosity between the anticuts organisers (who've organised this demo) and the NUS. Its just the beginning of a long list of demos planned for this year.

Anyway, I'll try and get some pictures and post them here.

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------

Do they accept paypal?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

And now it's all kicked off in Manchester where the NUS protest got violent after the forces of state oppression stopped Student Gwant from going off the agreed route according to Sky News.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Break out the rubber bullets :)

According to the news there is a splinter group of hooligans trying to get into the city centre, You can expect that group to try smashing up building and looting shops in the city centre just like they did in London.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Live on Sky News now. According to the reporter it's mostly students and only now does the Police seem to be getting the numbers into the area to stop the protestors.

Of course now they'll be moaning and bitching about kettling...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

Hmmm, once they got their finger out the cordons that went on were very effective. Of course that's just one group, there are seemingly others still roaming the city centre.

I imagine some high ranking Police officers are desperately looking for scapegoats for why it got so out of hand so easily.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Let's hope that any stray EDL supporters aren't about when you display that, in case they misread/misunderstand "Masque"........:D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

More up to date info on the hooligans in Manchester City Centre

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven..._student_rally

There even turning on there own

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-leader.html

Sorry about it being from a paper on some users unapproved list, But the main news sites are more interested in the goings on in egypt, As soon as the other news providers show any info on it i will post a link.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I'm just back in the door. Will post pics later.
London went smooth without a hitch, very peaceful throughout.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Glad to hear it, So all the hooligans attended the Manchester one then.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes the violence was limited to the Manchester demo.

Todays demo in London was a nice day out and I'm very glad I went.
Must have walked several miles in all, rather sore on the feet.
Here's a few videos I took on my blackberry...

Some people were certainly having a good time:
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/01/11.jpg

A rather carnival atmosphere:
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/01/12.jpg

At one point later in the demo, some flares were lit, but no violence. The crowd stopped for a minute or two, then continued walking the agreed route.
I notice the BBC used the image of this event for their story caption...tut tut.
No other flares or fireworks were lit that I saw.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/01/13.jpg

On a side note, it was nice to get talking with the police on several occasions, very good spirited chaps. :tu:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Glad it all went well.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yea, me too Hugh :)

I was quite surprised at the support from the public, people were leaning out of windows and waving and cheering everybody on.
Firetrucks, trucks, buses and cars were almost constantly sounding their horns in support. Members of the public were giving us the thumbs up, cars were going past reaching out their hands giving "past 5's" to everyone within reach.
The taxi drivers mind you were having none of it, a couple that I saw were quite rude and nearly ran over a couple protesters.
I can understand their inconvenience mind you. Overall we seemed to get a heros welcome from most people watching the demonstration, a rather pleasant surprise.

Police taking no chances in front of Parliament
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/01/7.jpg

Flares lit
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/01/8.jpg

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/01/9.jpg

Hoodies
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/01/10.jpg

Now it wouldn't be fair to say everyone was looking for a peaceful day out, I'd say that about one in a hundred had their faces covered, kept in groups and were clearly up for a ruck should the opportunity present itself.
I was quite shocked when a young hoodie, probably around 14, flicked his cigarette onto the windscreen of a top of the range Audi whilst it was sat in traffic. The passenger, looking a bit like a "shocked Camilla", was clearly not impressed. I couldn't find the cig butt or I would've removed it.
In my view, the "trick" is to keep the protest moving, having it strung out over miles. When the crowd bunches up, is when the hard core elements can start to cause trouble. No kettles happened during this demo, but if it had, I dare say they may well have been some trouble.
At Millibank, the protest group split up, some of us stayed with and continued on the agreed route, but the rest went to pay the Egyptian embassy a visit - later ending up at Westminster. We ended up in China town and by that time there were only a few hundred left and shortly after we made our own way back to Malet street.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

From your last link.

The DM needs to improve it's journalistic skills if that's best they can do.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

To improve standards it would have to have some to start with.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Arf! :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12430831

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

But he got off on the theft of the mannequin leg... :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

that charge was withdrawn as the CPS didn't have a leg to stand on :)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com...-they-want-to/

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Does sometimes make you think who the real hooligans are.

I take it additionally no Royal cars were attacked, no lives were put at risk by hooligans with fire extinguishers, And there was no attempted looting of shops ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Chuck a petrol bomb at the Police = slap on the wrist.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ool-uniform.do

In other news Jody McIntyre is busy earning his professional protesting badge (and also showing his wheelchair is an optional extra) by turning up at the anti-Gaddafi protests.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/03/76.jpg

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I'm disgusted ,that is definitely not a authorised protesters wheelchair .Their are no spikes on the wheels ,it has no attachment for carrying petrol bombs and i cannot see any handles for the police to grab hold of and viciously throw it across the street .I do note with approval though the very tempting scarf around his neck

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Muah wah haha :D

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur26/page03.htm

Now would it be beyond the realms of possibility that this is the same Alfred 'Alfie' Meadows who ended up with a lump of concrete shaped bump on the back of his head yet his mother claimed he was an angel and was not involved in any trouble and the big bad Met batoned him causing the injury.

Funny how she soon shut up when it became clear he was a violent wee thug and the injury was an 'own goal' from the protestors and not a Police inflicted injury.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

epic ,absolutely epic :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Excellent :)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Have you noticed how they give out peoples addresses? in that report they give out the addresses of all of those over 18. but not for those under 18.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I have no issue with that, whats your point ?.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

From the bottom of that page:

:spin:

Just like they don't usually identify under 18s in court in all but the most serious offences?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

No point. just that they protect the **** under the age of 18.
if I was the sort of person that would want to go and beat them up, I don't know where they live because they've consciously witheld it.

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 ----------

Annoying.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Like always Derek you read what you want to, and base your "facts" on nothing other than anecdotal evidence and conjecture. Just because he's been charged does that automatically mean he's guilty? Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Its that attitude from the police that really worries me some times. People are charged all the time and later the charges withdrawn.
If you have any respect for our justice system you'll save your "Muah wah hah " for when he's been judged by his peers and convicted.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Aye, because none of the protestors involved in that fracas would do that, would they.

You mean like the police, who absolutely definitely put fake vans in places where they know they'll be just too tempting a target for a little recreational vandalism? I mean, that was absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt before the story was put about, wasn't it.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Nope I'll give up my laughter whenever I feel like it.

The piece of fiction his mother came out with about the Police trying to remove him from hospital has already been shot down and found to be completely false. Having enough evidence to substantiate charges seems to suggest he wasn't the completely non-confrontational protestor as claimed.

I notice the guardian has changed it's language slightly. In the initial reports there was no doubt about how he came to his injuries. In today's report it's all 'allegedly hit by a police baton'

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

He will be convicted soon enough and I hope he gets jail time as well.:D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Aye no surprises there then, I on the other hand will await the facts before deciding a verdict.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

As long as they get jailed for what they did I do not care.;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Just as long as you don't mean "As long as he gets jailed for what they did", then I don't disagree - provided he's convicted of an appropriately serious crime. But without the facts one can only speculate, but I'd rather not. Many a persons good name has been dragged through dirt via the media and internet all in the name of speculation.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------

Is it true the claim that the police didn't want protesters treated at the hospital was shot down Derek? I recall you posting a link some while back, but I read it and it proved nothing.
Do you have a new source for this? Why would a mother of her standing just make up a lie like that? Of course it doesn't prove anything, but I saw her interview and she seemed very sincere.
Also, so what if he was a confrontational protester? As long as he didn't physically attack the police then so what? Some of the police there were pretty darned confrontational, I posted videos of the police beating girls with batons, but I wonder when those brutes will be brought to justice? Not that I'd expect that to bother you...

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

To try to preserve her standing?

You're right, it doesn't prove anything, any more than a rioter wearing his best suit to stand in the dock would prove anything. ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Maybe, but it just doesn't add up to me. The media could've interviewed that ambulance driver within minutes, and if she'd made up the story she'd have been made a fool of in front of the nation. Seems a rather risky ploy to me.
In my view, it seems more likely that if her testimony wasn't put to rest that very same evening (as it involved so many other people), then anything that's come out since has probably more to do with witness intimidation than anything else.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

The investigation stated clearly her claims were 'disproved'. Pretty strong language for an official report.
I'd imagine she lied because:

• Her son was in hospital and she was upset
• She is a left-wing loon ball with a hatred of the police who thinks violence against property and the state is OK
• Her poor, ickle son could never be involved. It must have been the big, bad Police who injured him

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

As I said earlier, you're not above the use of anecdote and conjecture yourself, so it's a bit rich you complaining that the police are doing it.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:tu: Hyprocrisy in action eh?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Either witness intimidation by the big, bad Police or Alfie coughed to being involved in the rioting and she felt silly enough after her 'kettling' of Scotland Yard incident to slip away quietly and not spout more lies and untruths that get exposed as being fiction.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes, they don't mind printing one set of 'allegations' as if they're fact do they? The retractions, if they ever come, are left for the very small print, almost reminscent of the Daily Mail...

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Here's hoping you are consistent in that approach to all sides involved....;)

Oops - obviously not....

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:tu:

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 ----------

What you mean some people who have an axe to grind with the Police don't always tell the whole truth??.... :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yawn, some people never change.
Go back and read my post, I said "In my view".
You know fine well what I meant, and simply because I accuse some of you of stating facts where there are very few, any opinion of mine whatsoever which I choose to share is automatically deemed hypocrisy?

You should learn to read statements as they were written, not how you choose to read them, and learn to separate fact from fiction.

I stand by my original statements.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

Obviously yes, as mentioned in my last post. Another CF member who's so blinded by partiality that he can only read what he wants to.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

If you think the phrase "in my view" renders what followed as something other than "conjecture", you should perhaps learn to read a dictionary.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I don't know the facts, as I said. I was asking you a simple question like an intelligent adult, and in reply you toss your toys out the pram. I don't know why I even bother.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

*yawns*
I wasn't stating facts Chris, I was stating a view - which I'm entitled to have without forfeiting my stance of basing conclusions on facts. I've stated I have no final verfict because I don't have the facts.

Why is this complexity so far beyond you? Its not complex Chris, it really isn't.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Correct, you were stating your view. You are entitled to do so. You are entitled to indulge in conjecture, which is what your view amounts to.

And I am entitled to point out that you have indulged in conjecture less than half an hour after you criticised someone else for doing the same thing.

This, too, is not complex.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

In my view, more likely & probably. Key words there Chris.
It makes all the difference.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

We need to get Laurie Penny on here, she'll set you all straight besmirching her completely peace loving, non-violent protesters fighting for what's right for us all.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

No, it makes no difference. These are the very essence of a conjecture, which may be described:

You acknowledge that what you say is unproven and you acknowledge that you believe it to be true.

QED.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Chris, perhaps I should explain a few things. Firstly, there is nothing wrong with opinons and conjecture. That's what we're here to discuss.
I was criticising basing final conclusions on anectodal evidence and conjecture. As some CF members appeared to be doing. There is a big difference, when I state conjecture (as I do all the time) I do take care to state "in my view" or the equivalent.
As for the meadows case, I have not even looked into it, this was why I was asking Derek for a link, I was just feeling a bit lazy this morning - still haven't had a chance to search for it.
But, from the limited information I do have, I do find it rather suspect that her testimony (assuming it to false) wasn't put to bed that same evening, as the media maintained a heavy presence there at that time.

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ----------

Okay, had a wee peak on the internet to find some more references to this story.

Here is the original account:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...ester-hospital

Another version:
http://studentbroadleft.org.uk/2010/...alfie-meadows/
What I can discern from this is that if the Susan Meadows' account is the work of an overactive imagination, then surely the police are going to charge her for slander.
Right?
But yet so far I've heard nothing of the sorts. This just doesn't add up to me. If the police choose not to press charges then I think there is probably a good reason. Any suggestions?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I have a suggestion. :wavey:

You can't charge someone for slander. It's a civil matter. And as it is not possible in law for a public institution to sue for either slander or libel, don't expect to see the Met taking her to the County court either.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Is slander a criminal offence?

Regardless I'd imagine the police have better things to do than drag everyone who lies to them through the courts.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Not even to set an example for others?
If I made a public, slanderous accusation against the police, don't you think I'd get charged? There is also such a thing as wasting police time, as the IPCC were looking into this case, Susan Meadows will be in serious trouble if it can be shown that she was lying.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

And then there would be the cries from the usual suspects of "police intimidation*" and "restriction of free speech" - lose/lose for the Met....

*where have I heard that phrase in this thread?:erm:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Slander, defamation of character, etc. You sure you can't sue for these things if not charged?
So you are saying that if I go to hospital, and then I tell the media that a police officer tried to prevent me from using that hospital on the grounds that I was a student, protester, gender or ethnicity, etc, and as a result I nearly died. The IPCC then look into this and decided that my claim was entirely fictitious.
Then there is nothing the police could do? I don't believe that to be the case.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

In fairness, whilst the Met cannot sue for libel named police officers could.

Why has it taken the police so long to charge this chap and why now, before any publication of the IPCC report?

Strange timings.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

You can be charged with wasting police time, so stop the nonsense fellas. You can bend over backwards to defend the met all you like, but I think everyone can see there is something not quite right with what we've been told so far.
It may have a perfectly valid explanation that doesn't incriminate the met, but still I believe there is more to this case.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

True, but there has been no suggestion in this thread of any 'named' officers. The statement made was "surely the police are going to charge her for slander". Having been shown to have a basic misunderstanding of how the laws of defamation work, Sparkie's argument has segued thus:

See what he did there?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I believe oops: that the Met have many thousands of hours of footage to wade through and once they have sufficient evidence of a particular person committing an offence the files goes to the CPS for an OK to charge.

With that amount of footage, the protestors tending to cover up faces so necessitating ID from various sources and angles it takes time to come up with the goods.

This lot aren't the first and they won't be the last. :)

Yes you can be charged with wasting Police time for making a false complaint, as the last person who complained about me found out :D, but the main question is whether it is in the public interest to proceed with charges. In this occasion where the mother is obviously upset and made some comments I wouldn't say dragging her through the courts is necessary or proportionate.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Hey, that's not on! The police are heavy handed if they act and covering something if they don't. They are not allowed under any circumstances to act in a proportionate manner. Please now go to room 101 for 're-education'. ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I'll borrow some of Lew's rats to chew my face off for daring to suggest anything other than summary execution for Mrs Meadows. :(

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Will that be £9K per year, or will you throw it in for free like the way your generation had it?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

/awaits clarification

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes Derek, I'm well aware of the processes and challenges involved.

What I'm questioning is the timing in relation to Meadows being charged.

The IPCC investigation is ongoing and indeed the call for witnesses to the incident is still active on their site.

It strikes me that the timings of his being charged are somewhat strange.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Are you suggesting that the Police should sit on any evidence they have just because Alfie has made a complaint against them?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. That said, it wouldn't be a first were they to do so and it's certainly an avenue / option open to them in this scenario.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I think it relates to tuition fees.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes, I was beginning to suspect that. As it simply ignores all the points that are currently 'live' in this thread I'm thinking I'm just going to ignore it in return.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

If they did then we really wouldn't have enough prisons to take them all.:D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Sorry, does a new generation start in September 2012, or are they part of the generation who also paid £1k or £3k?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Captain Pedantic strikes again, was beginiing to wonder where you'd gotten to.
I shall try my very bestest to explain. You see, Chris's generation predates the 1997 introduction of tuition fees. The generation who were protesting in the student protests did not and will not get theirs for free.
Is this clear enough or shall I elucidate further?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

... all of which has precisely nothing to do with the point you were dodging, which, lest we forget, was the issue of whether you are prepared to accept that the police ever behave in a proportionate manner, or whether they are always either over-reacting (in which case it's Police brutality, Police State, name your left-wing mantra of choice) or else failing to act due to an over-riding need to cover up some other misdemeanour.

For reference, this all has to do with your earlier conjecture that the Police's 'failure' to charge Alfie's mum with slander (or 'wasting police time' once it was pointed out to you that the police can't charge someone with slander) was due to some cover up or other, as opposed to Derek's suggestion that not charging someone who was clearly angry and upset and reacting accordingly was the fair and proportionate response.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Midshipman Snarky strikes back at Captain Pedantic, I see - and I haven't been anywhere....;)

You say pedantic, I say accurate - up to next year, no one in the "current generation" will have paid £9k per year, as you stated; if you are now changing the goalposts, please have the courtesy to state so.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Chris, whether you choose to open your eyes to reality or not - police heavy handedness is a fact. This has been shown to be true time and time again. At the last student demo, police provacateurs were seen throwing bottles at police, and later ran to the police lines (after being identified), flashed IDs are were let through the line. The police lie to cover their own tails and even make a mockery of investigations into their activities (such as the recent case of the police marksman who replied in court using as many song titles as he could). Even the case of Mark Kennedy who was spying on environmental campaigners sheds considerable light on this. Environmental campaigners for FS!! The police have lost much of the respect of the public, they often behave like thugs and care not whether their actions are ethical or not. Do they have a conscience or just follow orders no matter how ridiculous they may be? I often wonder.

For your reference, no it hasn't. I was merely criticising the notion of your and others' conjecture being twisted into fact, the conjecture that Alfie Meadows was guilty and should be jailed before there's even been a trial. That is unprofessional and against the founding principles of our legal system, no matter which way you twist it.
You carry on as if you're reserved and logical in your thinking, but by contrast I find your thinking to be about as contained, reserved and logical as that I'd expect from the type of mob I read about here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4040815.stm

---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Accurate/pedantic/tiresome focus on trivial aspects.
The funny thing is Hugh, you're still doing it and don't even know it.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Even though it was later proven in court that he didn't?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Was it proven in court Russ?
http://www.thelondondailynews.com/ma...on-p-5139.html

At the end of the day its his word versus the senior officer he made his "crass remark" to, and everyone else's opinion on whether it was intentional or not.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

It's also based on the extreme (or not) views of the reader. You are very anti-police, not everyone is. It is not as black and white as you seem to want to make it out to be.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I know people who are anti-police and no I'm certainly not anti-police ! I've defended them in the past and I've pointed out good attributes when and where it's due. I am a realist, whereas some people on here just have their head stuck in the sand.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I don't know if he mentioned the song titles and I'm not saying it's right but one thing is for sure, YOU have no idea of the stress and pressure the police and under and which methods they use to relieve it.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

It clearly says there, that, on the balance of probabilities he didn't insert song titles into his evidence, but his remark to the senior officer that suggested he did brought the force into disrepute and meant he had a case to answer for misconduct.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Which means that he couldn't even be held liable for any sort civil misdemeanour, let alone a criminal offence (such as Contempt of Court) where the allegation about song titles would have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

---------- Post added at 15:33 ---------- Previous post was at 15:30 ----------

Even as you try to grasp the moral high ground with lofty sermons about the need to remember 'innocent until proven guilty', you can't help but recite little tidbits of protestor mythology that are so blindly assumed to be true you manage to miss the fact that they are demonstrably not.

If you don't mind, I won't be taking any lessons about the course of justice from you.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Like I did say earlier, his word against everyone elses. Why would he have said such a thing to a senior officer if he hadn't deliberately added in those comments. Instead of allowing the police investigation make your mind up for you, why not look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
Reminds me of an incident in which i witnessed a young lad (about 8 or 9)stealing some items from my driveway. I went to his house just a few doors down and rung the door bell, his mother answers. I explained what had happened, so his mother shouts for her son and comes to the door. She asks him if he took those items from my driveway, he looks his mother in the eye and says "No.".
She says to me "I'm sorry, but he didn't do it - you must be mistaken."

So AZ8, did you do it? "No Sir.".
Case closed.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

"So is there more to this than warrants a simple "yes/no" response?"
"Yes sir"
Case re-opens.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

While we're on the subject of pedantics....

Actually it doesn't clearly say that.

What it says verbatim is "The investigation found however that on the balance of probabilities he, neither acting alone or in conspiracy with other officers, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence."

That certainly does not say that he didn't insert song lyrics into his evidence, quite the opposite in fact.

What it says as it reads is that he, not acting alone or with another police officer but quite possibly with another individual, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Its classified and outside of the public domain as far as the police are concerned, and yes it goes on - there have been too many witnesses to discount. So it hasn't been demonstraby shown to be untrue - as you blindly assume.

You wouldn't know police justice if you were batoned in the face, but admittably that's discounting the possibility that it might actually knock some sense into you.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Erm no. The case and his testimony was investigated, and it was found there was no substantive evidence that he had inserted song titles, which means it was pretty much proven he hadn't (innocent until proven guilty etc). Which just leaves the comment to the senior officer, which for all we know may have been an attempt at humour. Poor judgment, and he's facing misconduct charges over that.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Erm ok, so that one is ambiguous, but doesn't make much sense in your reading. This one isn't though:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes but that statement is immediately followed by "However, he did make a comment to a senior officer to the effect that he had".

Additionally there was substantive evidence that he had, or had in concert with others (not necessarily police officers), inserted song references into his testimony - the reference to "Faith" by George Michael refers.

The devil is in the detail. It's all to do with the wording of the IPCC statement - which I'm sure they could have amended anytime from March 4th up until now had they wanted to avoid any possible ambiguity.;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Why don't you drop them a line? I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Perhaps I already have and that's why I'm familiar with the context.;)