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 People are charged all the time and later the charges withdrawn.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...