Students Rioting in London.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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

Annoying.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Derek

Muah wah haha

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.

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 People are charged all the time and later the charges withdrawn.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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Like always Derek you read what you want to, and base your "facts" on nothing other than anecdotal evidence and conjecture.

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

Just because he's been charged does that automatically mean he's guilty? Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

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.

[Derek]

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'

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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

[Sparkle]

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

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Masque

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Why would a mother of her standing just make up a lie like that?

To try to preserve her standing?

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but I saw her interview and she seemed very sincere.

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

To try to preserve her standing?

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Hyprocrisy in action eh?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

then anything that's come out since has probably more to do with witness intimidation than anything else.

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek

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'

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...