Students Rioting in London.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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?

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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?

... 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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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?

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

... 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.

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 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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

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

pe·danti·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

(such as the recent case of the police marksman who replied in court using as many song titles as he could).

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

[Russ]

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by danielf

It clearly says there, that, on the balance of probabilities he didn't insert song titles into his evidence,

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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 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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.