As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
most.

"An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
killed a mother - amid claims that it was fetching a takeaway with its
siren and blue lights on.

The 61-year-old is reported to have been walking with her husband and
son when she was struck by the marked police car.

Ambulance crews and an emergency helicopter were scrambled but the
woman, named locally as Sandy Simpson, was pronounced dead at the
scene..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048941/Mother-61-killed-police-car-fetching-takeaway-officers.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
> predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
> their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
> the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
> most.
>
Still gloating over other people's tragedies Doug?

On Aug 25, 10:56�am, Doug  wrote:
> As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
> predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
> their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
> the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
> most.
>
> "An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
> killed a mother - amid claims that it was fetching a takeaway with its
> siren and blue lights on.
>
> The 61-year-old is reported to have been walking with her husband and
> son when she was struck by the marked police car.
>
> Ambulance crews and an emergency helicopter were scrambled but the
> woman, named locally as Sandy Simpson, was pronounced dead at the
> scene..."

It is far more likely that the takeaway was for a prisoners meal.
Given the high priority placed on prisoners rights in this day and
age, to deliver a lukewarm meal would be judged a serious breach of
the prisoners human rights and render the police liable to serious
compensation claims.

George

On Aug 25, 10:56 am, Doug  wrote:
> As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
> predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
> their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
> the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
> most.
>
> "An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
> killed a mother"

thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"

Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
investigation had concluded"

How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
the same text?

Unless Doug uses his personal experience of the police to decide on a
likely outcome?  No wait, he would attack others from doing that, he's
a man that demands facts.

Fod

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Fod
 wrote this:-

>thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"

The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may have launched an
investigation or may be "supervising" the police investigating
themselves. Their web site has yet to make a statement on what they
are actually doing.

Either way the outcome is likely to demonstrate once more that they
are no more independent than their predecessors and rather they
occupy themselves ticking boxes for long enough to allow the
whitewash to be mixed up.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen  wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Fod
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
> 
> The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may have launched an
> investigation or may be "supervising" the police investigating
> themselves. Their web site has yet to make a statement on what they
> are actually doing.
> 
> Either way the outcome is likely to demonstrate once more that they
> are no more independent than their predecessors and rather they
> occupy themselves ticking boxes for long enough to allow the
> whitewash to be mixed up.

<fx: wavy lines>

Peer into the future with Mystic Hansen!
Gasp with wonderment as the Prophet and Seer Reveals the mystery that is
to come!

<fx: hollow voice>

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF TOMORROW!



<fx: fade out>

Doug wrote:
> As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
> predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
> their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
> the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
> most.
> 
> "An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
> killed a mother - amid claims that it was fetching a takeaway with its
> siren and blue lights on.
> 
> The 61-year-old is reported to have been walking with her husband and
> son when she was struck by the marked police car.
> 
> Ambulance crews and an emergency helicopter were scrambled but the
> woman, named locally as Sandy Simpson, was pronounced dead at the
> scene..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048941/Mother-61-killed-police-car-fetching-takeaway-officers.html
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

"he had gone out to get a takeaway for his mates,' the source said, 
according to The Sun."

So you are finding them guilty as the Mail is reporting that an unknown 
source said something to the Sun, well that makes it a fact then.
I would rather wait for the inquiry outcome before I make a decision.
Would you please post the report when it is published?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Fod  wrote:

> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"

I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".

> Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> investigation had concluded"
> 
> How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> the same text?

And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Fod
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
> 
> The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may have launched an
> investigation or may be "supervising" the police investigating
> themselves. Their web site has yet to make a statement on what they
> are actually doing.
> 
> Either way the outcome is likely to demonstrate once more that they
> are no more independent than their predecessors and rather they
> occupy themselves ticking boxes for long enough to allow the
> whitewash to be mixed up.
> 
> 
> 
A predictable reply.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Aug 25, 11:54 am, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
> > predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
> > their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
> > the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
> > most.
>
> > "An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
> > killed a mother - amid claims that it was fetching a takeaway with its
> > siren and blue lights on.
>
> > The 61-year-old is reported to have been walking with her husband and
> > son when she was struck by the marked police car.
>
> > Ambulance crews and an emergency helicopter were scrambled but the
> > woman, named locally as Sandy Simpson, was pronounced dead at the
> > scene..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1048941/Mother-61-killed-poli...
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns
> >www.zing.icom43.net
> > One man's democracy is another man's regime.
>
> "he had gone out to get a takeaway for his mates,' the source said,
> according to The Sun."
>
> So you are finding them guilty as the Mail is reporting that an unknown
> source said something to the Sun, well that makes it a fact then.
> I would rather wait for the inquiry outcome before I make a decision.
> Would you please post the report when it is published?
>

is it possible that after going for a takeaway some event happened
that caused the need to put the lights and sirens on?

I guess two people already know the answer to this.

Fod

On Aug 25, 11:36 am, David Hansen 
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Fod
>  wrote this:-
>
> >thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>
> The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission may have launched an
> investigation or may be "supervising" the police investigating
> themselves. Their web site has yet to make a statement on what they
> are actually doing.
>
> Either way the outcome is likely to demonstrate once more that they
> are no more independent than their predecessors and rather they
> occupy themselves ticking boxes for long enough to allow the
> whitewash to be mixed up.
>

Surely its possibility that the police might have had a reason for the
lights and sirens and that the death was a tragic accident?  Mind you
I do agree that the IPCC has been useless on more than one occasion in
the past.

People are human and do err while doing their jobs so its entirely
possible that these circumstances could be something that the police
officer in question is at fault for.  Or it could be something that is
judged to be an unavoidable accident.  Without the facts we'll not as
yet know.

Fod

Fod wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:56 am, Doug  wrote:
>> As killer motorists themselves you can easily see how the police are
>> predisposed in favour of killer motorists and are inclined to blame
>> their vulnerable victims for their own deaths. You can be sure that
>> the killer cop in this case will get off with a slap on the wrist at
>> most.
>>
>> "An investigation has been launched into how a police car hit and
>> killed a mother"
> 
> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"

...whereas I read it as "An investigation has been lunched"...

I'll get me coat.

On 25 Aug, 11:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Fod  wrote:
> > thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>
> I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
> police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".
>
> > Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> > investigation had concluded"
>
> > How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> > the same text?
>
> And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
> conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
> is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
> issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?

The problem is, Filth, if the police stuck to catching perpetrators of
crimes, instead of harassing or killing the innocent, there would be
few reasons for complaint. Unfortunately, with their pre-emptive,
catch-all methods only loosely based on the law, they manage to
alienate themselves from a sizeable section of the general public. The
reason for this is not far to seek. In our fascist style State, which
you seem to favour, the police are used to suppress dissent and non-
conformity, by targeting political protesters and those with a dark
skin colour or unusual mode of dress or religion.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug  wrote:

> On 25 Aug, 11:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Fod  wrote:
> > > thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
> >
> > I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
> > police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".
> >
> > > Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> > > investigation had concluded"
> >
> > > How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> > > the same text?
> >
> > And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
> > conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
> > is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
> > issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?
> 
> The problem is, Filth, if the police stuck to catching perpetrators of
> crimes, instead of harassing or killing the innocent, there would be
> few reasons for complaint. Unfortunately, with their pre-emptive,
> catch-all methods only loosely based on the law, they manage to
> alienate themselves from a sizeable section of the general public. The
> reason for this is not far to seek. In our fascist style State, which
> you seem to favour, the police are used to suppress dissent and non-
> conformity, by targeting political protesters and those with a dark
> skin colour or unusual mode of dress or religion.

And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
the police when they arrest motorists.

I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
given an appopriate sentence.

On Aug 25, 4:39 pm, Doug  wrote:
> On 25 Aug, 11:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fod  wrote:
> > > thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>
> > I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
> > police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".
>
> > > Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> > > investigation had concluded"
>
> > > How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> > > the same text?
>
> > And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
> > conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
> > is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
> > issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?
>
> The problem is, Filth, if the police stuck to catching perpetrators of
> crimes, instead of harassing or killing the innocent, there would be
> few reasons for complaint. Unfortunately, with their pre-emptive,
> catch-all methods only loosely based on the law, they manage to
> alienate themselves from a sizeable section of the general public. The
> reason for this is not far to seek. In our fascist style State, which
> you seem to favour, the police are used to suppress dissent and non-
> conformity, by targeting political protesters and those with a dark
> skin colour or unusual mode of dress or religion.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

That's me fucked then.
I often protest about the BNP,I've got tattoos, a really good sun tan,
like to dress in Lederhosen & I am a Jedi Knight.


Tony

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> 
>> On 25 Aug, 11:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>> Fod  wrote:
>>>> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>>> I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
>>> police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".
>>>
>>>> Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
>>>> investigation had concluded"
>>>> How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
>>>> the same text?
>>> And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
>>> conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
>>> is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
>>> issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?
>> The problem is, Filth, if the police stuck to catching perpetrators of
>> crimes, instead of harassing or killing the innocent, there would be
>> few reasons for complaint. Unfortunately, with their pre-emptive,
>> catch-all methods only loosely based on the law, they manage to
>> alienate themselves from a sizeable section of the general public. The
>> reason for this is not far to seek. In our fascist style State, which
>> you seem to favour, the police are used to suppress dissent and non-
>> conformity, by targeting political protesters and those with a dark
>> skin colour or unusual mode of dress or religion.
> 
> And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
> the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
> the police when they arrest motorists.
> 
> I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
> police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
> I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
> should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
> given an appopriate sentence.

Two sorts of Ozone
Two sorts of CO2
Now two sorts of police (motorist police=good,protester police=bad)

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 25 Aug, 16:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 25 Aug, 11:55, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Fod  wrote:
> > > > thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>
> > > I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
> > > police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".
>
> > > > Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> > > > investigation had concluded"
>
> > > > How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> > > > the same text?
>
> > > And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
> > > conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
> > > is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
> > > issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?
>
> > The problem is, Filth, if the police stuck to catching perpetrators of
> > crimes, instead of harassing or killing the innocent, there would be
> > few reasons for complaint. Unfortunately, with their pre-emptive,
> > catch-all methods only loosely based on the law, they manage to
> > alienate themselves from a sizeable section of the general public. The
> > reason for this is not far to seek. In our fascist style State, which
> > you seem to favour, the police are used to suppress dissent and non-
> > conformity, by targeting political protesters and those with a dark
> > skin colour or unusual mode of dress or religion.
>
> And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
> the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
> the police when they arrest motorists.
>
Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.
>
> I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
> police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
>
Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
> should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
> given an appopriate sentence.
>
What about the non-violent ones who are also harassed by the police?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug  wrote:

> 
> > And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
> > the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
> > the police when they arrest motorists.
> >
> Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
> are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.

If you're trying to say, in your distorted way, that you have a criminal
record longer than both your arms and that I don't then yes, I agree
with you.

> > I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
> > police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
> >
> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> allowed to kill with impunity.

That's a lie, as ever.

> > I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
> > should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
> > given an appopriate sentence.
> >
> What about the non-violent ones who are also harassed by the police?

The figments of your imagination? Who knows? That's not a place that I
would like to go.

"Fod"  wrote in message 
news:0a0620c1-3dee-44bf-9d2d-5b7ebf6f4027@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"
>
> Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
> investigation had concluded"
>
>How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
> the same text?
>
It is usual for the police to escape scot free in such circumstances.  But 
that's not just related to motoring offences.  How many filth boys were 
charged over perverting the course of justice over the Birmingham Six, the 
Guildford Four, the Stephan Kiszko or Colin Stagg?  The answer is none.  In 
this case his scepticism is well warranted.

In fact, at this moment there is probably a filth boy scouring the PNC 
looking for dirt on this poor woman or members of her family which can be 
leaked to the press.  Fanciful idea?  Then how come Harry Stanley's ancient 
conviction for robbery was leaked to the press or the (completely unfounded) 
accusation of rape against Jean Charles de Menezes appeared in the papers 
after his killing by the Met.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> >
>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>> allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> That's a lie, as ever.
>
Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or 
Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you.  But they can't as they are 
dead.

On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> >> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> >> allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> > That's a lie, as ever.
>
> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you.  But they can't as they are
> dead.

And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.

"The very mention of custody deaths brings to mind nasty foreign
repressive regimes. But these deaths happen in Britain, too - on
average, one a week in police custody alone. Then there are the deaths
in immigration detention centres and in prisons, including children.
Many of these deaths occur under dubious circumstances. Moreover,
those in custody may not not have been convicted of any crime and are
supposed to be presumed innocent.

There is a lack of transparency in investigations into deaths in
custody and very long delays before inquests (up to five years in some
cases) as well as lack of accountability after juries return 'unlawful
killing' verdicts. Of those verdicts since 1990, which the group
Inquest is aware of, 18 police officers were prosecuted but all were
acquitted. As far as is known, no police officer has ever been brought
to justice for such killings..."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>>
>>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are
>>>> obviously allowed to kill with impunity.
>>
>>> That's a lie, as ever.
>>
>> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry
>> Stanley or Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you.  But
>> they can't as they are dead.
>
> And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
>
To quote your own phrase, "shit happens".

On Aug 27, 9:28�am, Doug  wrote:
> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>
> > "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> > >> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> > >> allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> > > That's a lie, as ever.
>
> > Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> > Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. �But they can't as they are
> > dead.
>
> And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
>
> "The very mention of custody deaths brings to mind nasty foreign
> repressive regimes. But these deaths happen in Britain, too - on
> average, one a week in police custody alone. Then there are the deaths
> in immigration detention centres and in prisons, including children.
> Many of these deaths occur under dubious circumstances. Moreover,
> those in custody may not not have been convicted of any crime and are
> supposed to be presumed innocent.

The vast majority of deaths in custody are drunks choking on their own
vomit. In an ideal world a police officer would sit with each one
"just in case" but would you pay the extra tax to fund such numbers,
oops sorry, you don't pay tax.  Sad as it may be to you, they are not
beaten to death.

> There is a lack of transparency in investigations into deaths in
> custody and very long delays before inquests (up to five years in some
> cases) as well as lack of accountability after juries return 'unlawful
> killing' verdicts. Of those verdicts since 1990, which the group
> Inquest is aware of, 18 police officers were prosecuted but all were
> acquitted. As far as is known, no police officer has ever been brought
> to justice for such killings..."

In other words, each one of those officers, after a fair trial, was
found totally innocent of any offence.  I would have thought that
would have brought a warm glow to your cheeks knowing what a
respectable police service we have.

George

Colonel Colt  wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> >> >
> >> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> >> allowed to kill with impunity.
> >
> > That's a lie, as ever.
> >
> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you.  But they can't as they are
> dead.

And they were hit by speeding police cars were they?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:28:39 +0100, Doug wrote
(in article 
):

> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> 
>> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> 
>>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>>>> allowed to kill with impunity.
>> 
>>> That's a lie, as ever.
>> 
>> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
>> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you.  But they can't as they are
>> dead.
> 
> And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
> 
> "The very mention of custody deaths brings to mind nasty foreign
> repressive regimes. But these deaths happen in Britain, too - on
> average, one a week in police custody alone. Then there are the deaths
> in immigration detention centres and in prisons, including children.
> Many of these deaths occur under dubious circumstances. Moreover,
> those in custody may not not have been convicted of any crime and are
> supposed to be presumed innocent.
> 
> There is a lack of transparency in investigations into deaths in
> custody and very long delays before inquests (up to five years in some
> cases) as well as lack of accountability after juries return 'unlawful
> killing' verdicts. Of those verdicts since 1990, which the group
> Inquest is aware of, 18 police officers were prosecuted but all were
> acquitted. As far as is known, no police officer has ever been brought
> to justice for such killings..."

Ten a week in RTA's and two a week in police custody?  

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

furnessvale wrote:
>
> The vast majority of deaths in custody are drunks choking on their own
> vomit. In an ideal world a police officer would sit with each one
> "just in case" but would you pay the extra tax to fund such numbers,
> oops sorry, you don't pay tax.  Sad as it may be to you, they are not
> beaten to death.

Wouldn't chaining drunks face down over a drain stop that?

On 26 Aug, 10:27, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
>
> > > And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
> > > the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
> > > the police when they arrest motorists.
>
> > Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
> > are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.
>
> If you're trying to say, in your distorted way, that you have a criminal
> record longer than both your arms and that I don't then yes, I agree
> with you.
>
Nope, Filth, what I am saying is because you never go out on a limb to
protest publicly you have no knowledge of typical police behaviour.
>
> > > I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
> > > police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
>
> > Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> > allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> That's a lie, as ever.
>
Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
> > > should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
> > > given an appopriate sentence.
>
> > What about the non-violent ones who are also harassed by the police?
>
> The figments of your imagination? Who knows? That's not a place that I
> would like to go.
>
Stop and searching people en mass is only one such example of police
harassment of the non-violent.

"Kevin Smith said: "Our legal team are going to be exhausting every
possible channel for holding the police accountable for the draconian
use of stop and search measures, for the things they confiscated, and
for their violent incursions on to the camp.

"Every year police use the supposed existence of a hardcore minority
as justification for their heavy-handedness and every year this
hardcore minority fails to materialise."

Why do you love the police, Filth?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On 27 Aug, 09:40, furnessvale  wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:28 am, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt"  wrote:
>
> > > "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> > > >> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> > > >> allowed to kill with impunity.
>
> > > > That's a lie, as ever.
>
> > > Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> > > Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. But they can't as they are
> > > dead.
>
> > And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
>
> > "The very mention of custody deaths brings to mind nasty foreign
> > repressive regimes. But these deaths happen in Britain, too - on
> > average, one a week in police custody alone. Then there are the deaths
> > in immigration detention centres and in prisons, including children.
> > Many of these deaths occur under dubious circumstances. Moreover,
> > those in custody may not not have been convicted of any crime and are
> > supposed to be presumed innocent.
>
> The vast majority of deaths in custody are drunks choking on their own
> vomit. In an ideal world a police officer would sit with each one
> "just in case" but would you pay the extra tax to fund such numbers,
> oops sorry, you don't pay tax.  Sad as it may be to you, they are not
> beaten to death.
>
> > There is a lack of transparency in investigations into deaths in
> > custody and very long delays before inquests (up to five years in some
> > cases) as well as lack of accountability after juries return 'unlawful
> > killing' verdicts. Of those verdicts since 1990, which the group
> > Inquest is aware of, 18 police officers were prosecuted but all were
> > acquitted. As far as is known, no police officer has ever been brought
> > to justice for such killings..."
>
> In other words, each one of those officers, after a fair trial, was
> found totally innocent of any offence.  I would have thought that
> would have brought a warm glow to your cheeks knowing what a
> respectable police service we have.
>
How then do you explain the inquest verdicts of 'unlawful killings'?
If the police are behaving unlawfully why  are they not then punished,
as you or I might be?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 26 Aug, 10:27, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Doug  wrote:
>>
>>>> And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
>>>> the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
>>>> the police when they arrest motorists.
>>> Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
>>> are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.
>> If you're trying to say, in your distorted way, that you have a criminal
>> record longer than both your arms and that I don't then yes, I agree
>> with you.
>>
> Nope, Filth, what I am saying is because you never go out on a limb to
> protest publicly you have no knowledge of typical police behaviour.
>>>> I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
>>>> police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>>> allowed to kill with impunity.
>> That's a lie, as ever.
>>
> Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> killing while on duty? Source?
>>>> I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
>>>> should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
>>>> given an appopriate sentence.
>>> What about the non-violent ones who are also harassed by the police?
>> The figments of your imagination? Who knows? That's not a place that I
>> would like to go.
>>
> Stop and searching people en mass is only one such example of police
> harassment of the non-violent.
> 
> "Kevin Smith said: "Our legal team are going to be exhausting every
> possible channel for holding the police accountable for the draconian
> use of stop and search measures, for the things they confiscated, and
> for their violent incursions on to the camp.
> 
> "Every year police use the supposed existence of a hardcore minority
> as justification for their heavy-handedness and every year this
> hardcore minority fails to materialise."
> 
> Why do you love the police, Filth?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.
> 
> 
> 
> 

He has not said that he likes them, but it is probable that he believes 
they do a good job considering the circumstances that they have to 
operate under, and these circumstances are getting worse with the threat 
of terrorist (both external & home grown)
Unfortunately there will allways be some who do not measure up to the 
standards expected, perhaps we get the police that we deserve.
You yourself have said that you agree with terrorism.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  wrote:

> On 26 Aug, 10:27, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
[snip]

> > If you're trying to say, in your distorted way, that you have a criminal
> > record longer than both your arms and that I don't then yes, I agree
> > with you.
> >
> Nope, Filth, what I am saying is because you never go out on a limb to
> protest publicly you have no knowledge of typical police behaviour.

The policing of rentamob riots is not "typical police behaviour". And I
see you dodge the question of your criminal record, again.

[snip]

> > > Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> > > allowed to kill with impunity.
> >
> > That's a lie, as ever.
> >
> Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> killing while on duty? Source?

Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.

Source, The Times.

Those are the first few I can find, no doubt there are more.

> > > > I'm more pleased when the rotten apples are detected and treated as they
> > > > should be. Just as I'm glad when your violent friends are caught and
> > > > given an appopriate sentence.
> >
> > > What about the non-violent ones who are also harassed by the police?
> >
> > The figments of your imagination? Who knows? That's not a place that I
> > would like to go.
> >
> Stop and searching people en mass is only one such example of police
> harassment of the non-violent.

Only in your distorted imagination are rentamob 'protests' non-violent.

> "Kevin Smith said: "Our legal team are going to be exhausting every
> possible channel for holding the police accountable for the draconian
> use of stop and search measures, for the things they confiscated, and
> for their violent incursions on to the camp.
> 
> "Every year police use the supposed existence of a hardcore minority
> as justification for their heavy-handedness and every year this
> hardcore minority fails to materialise."

Who the fuck is Kevin Smith?
 
> Why do you love the police, Filth?

Who says that I do, Duhng?

On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

> > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.

Yeah, but apart from those ...

BrianW  wrote:

> On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 
> > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > killing while on duty? Source?
> >
> > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
> 
> Yeah, but apart from those ...

I'm looking forward to the next swerve from the Bolltard.

On Aug 28, 12:24 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > Yeah, but apart from those ...
>
> I'm looking forward to the next swerve from the Bolltard.

Bets on claims of cherry picking.

Which is used when someone posts something that demolishes his
unsurported points based, usually, just on his own person experience.*

Fod

* Doug of course immediately discounts anyone who posts something
without evidence that is based just on personal experience.*
** Doug once attacked himself for a post he made that did just this
that he didn't notice that he'd made earlier in the thread.

On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > Yeah, but apart from those ...
>
> I'm looking forward to the next swerve from the Bolltard.

He really sets himself up for these things.  Anyone with a brain would
realise that you are capable of using Google, and would therefore (at
the very least) carry out a quick search themselves before making wild
statements such as "cops never get punished".  Not our Gollum, though.

BrianW wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> BrianW  wrote:
>>> On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
>>>>> killing while on duty? Source?
>>
>>>> Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
>>>> Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
>>>> PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
>>>> PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation
>>>> of duty for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>>
>>> Yeah, but apart from those ...
>>
>> I'm looking forward to the next swerve from the Bolltard.
>
> He really sets himself up for these things.  Anyone with a brain would
> realise that you are capable of using Google, and would therefore (at
> the very least) carry out a quick search themselves before making wild
> statements such as "cops never get punished".  Not our Gollum, though.

One must never let facts and rational discussion get in the way of rabid 
ranting and petty prejudice, so Doug tells us anyway.

On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> BrianW  wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> BrianW  wrote:
>>> On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
>>>>> killing while on duty? Source?
>>
>>>> Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
>>>> Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
>>>> PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
>>>> PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation
>>>> of duty for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>>
> What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
> sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.

What ashame Doug doesn't understand irony, he does it so well.

Doug  wrote:

> On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > BrianW  wrote:
> > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >
> > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
> >
> > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
> >
> What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth?

Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
Duhng?

> And sectarian wars don't count.

<yawn> Sez who?

> Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> vague reference to a newspaper.

That is where I read the reports.

> Either put up your urls or shut up.

You first Duhng.

On 28 Aug, 18:53, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > BrianW  wrote:
> > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth?
>
> Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
> Duhng?
>
'Canada', Filth. Don't you read your own sources, such as they are?
>
> > And sectarian wars don't count.
>
> <yawn> Sez who?
>
> > Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > vague reference to a newspaper.
>
> That is where I read the reports.
>
> > Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> You first Duhng.

Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative. Your claims, put up or
shut up, Filth.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  wrote:

> >
> > Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
> > Duhng?
> >
> 'Canada', Filth. Don't you read your own sources, such as they are?

All those cases occured in Canada did they Duhng?
[snip]

> > > Either put up your urls or shut up.
> >
> > You first Duhng.
> 
> Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative.

I don't expect you to. I expect you to prove each of the wild claims for
which you still have not provided a source.

> Your claims, put up or shut up, Filth.

You first Duhng.

On 28 Aug, 19:02, Doug  wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 18:53, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > Doug  wrote:
> > > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > BrianW  wrote:
> > > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth?
>
> > Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
> > Duhng?
>
> 'Canada', Filth. Don't you read your own sources, such as they are?
>
>
>
> > > And sectarian wars don't count.
>
> > <yawn> Sez who?
>
> > > Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > > vague reference to a newspaper.
>
> > That is where I read the reports.
>
> > > Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> > You first Duhng.
>
> Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative. Your claims, put up or
> shut up, Filth.
>

Its going to be quiet now that you've discounted newspaper links as a
form of evidence.  No daily wails to back you up.

Or will this be the usual doug double standards?

Lets wait and see with baited breath..

Fod

On 28 Aug, 19:33, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
> > > Duhng?
>
> > 'Canada', Filth. Don't you read your own sources, such as they are?
>
> All those cases occured in Canada did they Duhng?
> [snip]
>
No at least one did. However, since the examples you gave are either
invalid or unverifiable they prove nothing.
>
> > > > Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> > > You first Duhng.
>
> > Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative.
>
> I don't expect you to. I expect you to prove each of the wild claims for
> which you still have not provided a source.
>
Such as?
>
> > Your claims, put up or shut up, Filth.
>
> You first Duhng.
>
What is it about, "I can't be expected to prove a negative" you do not
understand, Filth?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On 28 Aug, 23:08, Fod  wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 19:02, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Aug, 18:53, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > Doug  wrote:
> > > > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > > > BrianW  wrote:
> > > > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > > > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth?
>
> > > Nothing, which bit of UK and 'on duty' is it that you don't understand,
> > > Duhng?
>
> > 'Canada', Filth. Don't you read your own sources, such as they are?
>
> > > > And sectarian wars don't count.
>
> > > <yawn> Sez who?
>
> > > > Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > > > vague reference to a newspaper.
>
> > > That is where I read the reports.
>
> > > > Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> > > You first Duhng.
>
> > Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative. Your claims, put up or
> > shut up, Filth.
>
> Its going to be quiet now that you've discounted newspaper links as a
> form of evidence.  No daily wails to back you up.
>
Do you really not understand? Mere mention of the name of a newspaper
is not a link.
>
> Or will this be the usual doug double standards?
>
> Lets wait and see with baited breath..
>
That's right, hold your breath.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On 28 Aug, 18:27, Doug  wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> BrianW  wrote:
> > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
> sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.
>

Goalpost moving aside I do actually agree with you that the deaths in
custody is a real problem the IPCC needs to be reformed and given more
backbone.  Its certainly true that no police officer has got jail time
for a death in custody in the UK.

Also this is an area that is also of concern:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6047218.stm

( darn someone supports you Doug, how unfair is that)

Fod

On 29 Aug, 07:37, Fod  wrote:
> On 28 Aug, 18:27, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> BrianW  wrote:
> > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
> > sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> Goalpost moving aside I do actually agree with you that the deaths in
> custody is a real problem the IPCC needs to be reformed and given more
> backbone.  Its certainly true that no police officer has got jail time
> for a death in custody in the UK.
>
> Also this is an area that is also of concern:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6047218.stm
>
> ( darn someone supports you Doug, how unfair is that)
>
I suspect the reason for not jailing the police is that they wouldn't
last five minutes in an ordinary jail. Perhaps a good reason to have
special jails for them. They certainly should not be allowed to get
off scot free for an unlawful killing.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug  wrote:

> > All those cases occured in Canada did they Duhng?
> > [snip]
> >
> No at least one did. However, since the examples you gave are either
> invalid or unverifiable they prove nothing.

Utter cock, again. You're simply trying to slide away as usual.

> > > > > Either put up your urls or shut up.
> >
> > > > You first Duhng.
> >
> > > Sorry, I can't be expected to prove a negative.
> >
> > I don't expect you to. I expect you to prove each of the wild claims for
> > which you still have not provided a source.
> >
> Such as?

Your claim that "the security guard population exceeds that of the
police themselves."

Your claim that you would provide a report proving that Vince could
eliminate or significantly reduce both his and his wife's journey to
work.

For a start.

There are numerous others and I'm sure other newsgroup users can add
their own list of wild claims and unsupported sources.


> > > Your claims, put up or shut up, Filth.
> >
> > You first Duhng.
> >
> What is it about, "I can't be expected to prove a negative" you do not
> understand, Filth?

What is it about "I don't expect you to prove a negative" that you don't
udnerstand, Duhng?

Now you have numerous unsubstantiated claims to provide sources for and
a report to write. So why don't you get on and do something about it?

Doug  wrote:

> >
> > Or will this be the usual doug double standards?
> >
> > Lets wait and see with baited breath..
> >
> That's right, hold your breath.

That's Dungh "I expect to be able to make unsubstantiated claims but
everyone else must provide chapter and verse" Bollen for you.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Your claim that "the security guard population exceeds that of the
> police themselves."

Of course, in Duhg's government-less anarchist utopia, even one security 
guard would be a population exceeding that of the police.

There would, of course, be a HUGE population of unregulated "security 
guards" in a truly anarchist country, as there would be no other way or 
preventing scrotes from nicking any property you managed to accumulate.

On 29 Aug, 09:12, Adrian  wrote:
> %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > Your claim that "the security guard population exceeds that of the
> > police themselves."
>
> Of course, in Duhg's government-less anarchist utopia, even one security
> guard would be a population exceeding that of the police.
>
> There would, of course, be a HUGE population of unregulated "security
> guards" in a truly anarchist country, as there would be no other way or
> preventing scrotes from nicking any property you managed to accumulate.

What you fail to understand is that in Gollum's anarchist utopia,
motorists would voluntarily give up their cars, lions would sit down
with antelopes, and thieving scrotes would stop thieving.  He's a
realist, is our Gollum ...

On 29 Aug, 09:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Or will this be the usual doug double standards?
>
> > > Lets wait and see with baited breath..
>
> > That's right, hold your breath.
>
> That's Dungh "I expect to be able to make unsubstantiated claims but
> everyone else must provide chapter and verse" Bollen for you.

What, do you mean to say he's a lying, hypocritical old turd?  Surely
not ...

On 29 Aug, 07:50, Doug  wrote:
> On 29 Aug, 07:37, Fod  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Aug, 18:27, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> BrianW  wrote:
> > > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
> > > sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > > vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> > Goalpost moving aside I do actually agree with you that the deaths in
> > custody is a real problem the IPCC needs to be reformed and given more
> > backbone.  Its certainly true that no police officer has got jail time
> > for a death in custody in the UK.
>
> > Also this is an area that is also of concern:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6047218.stm
>
> > ( darn someone supports you Doug, how unfair is that)
>
> I suspect the reason for not jailing the police is that they wouldn't
> last five minutes in an ordinary jail. Perhaps a good reason to have
> special jails for them. They certainly should not be allowed to get
> off scot free for an unlawful killing.

"PC punched boy, 12

A policeman has been jailed for 12 weeks for punching a boy, 12, in
the face. PC Daniel Gaffney, 30, who had worked for Greater
Manchester
Police for nearly seven years, hit the boy so hard that a custody
sergeant feared that the child’s nose was broken. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4622287.ece

Are you suggesting that if he had killed the boy with his punch he
would have got away scot free?  Also, no mention of a "special jail",
as you put it.

Once again, your record of being 100% wrong 100% of the time is
unblemished.

BrianW  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> > Your claim that "the security guard population exceeds that of the
>> > police themselves."

>> Of course, in Duhg's government-less anarchist utopia, even one
>> security guard would be a population exceeding that of the police.
>>
>> There would, of course, be a HUGE population of unregulated "security
>> guards" in a truly anarchist country, as there would be no other way or
>> preventing scrotes from nicking any property you managed to accumulate.

> What you fail to understand is that in Gollum's anarchist utopia,
> motorists would voluntarily give up their cars, lions would sit down
> with antelopes, and thieving scrotes would stop thieving.  He's a
> realist, is our Gollum ...

He's something, that's for sure.

On Aug 29, 7:50 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 29 Aug, 07:37, Fod  wrote:
>
> > On 28 Aug, 18:27, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Aug, 12:24, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:> BrianW  wrote:
> > > > > On 28 Aug, 11:28, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Where then is an actual record of a UK cop being imprisoned for
> > > > > > > killing while on duty? Source?
>
> > > > > > Billy McCaughey, 16 years for murder.
> > > > > > Pc Michael Cheong, two years for manslaughter.
> > > > > > PC Stephen Smith, convicted of complicity in a murder.
> > > > > > PC Eddie Ross, Orkney, convicted of wilful neglect and violation of duty
> > > > > > for his role in the murder of a Bangladeshi waiter.
>
> > > What is it about 'UK' and 'on duty' you do not understand, Filth? And
> > > sectarian wars don't count. Also, by 'source' I did not mean some
> > > vague reference to a newspaper. Either put up your urls or shut up.
>
> > Goalpost moving aside I do actually agree with you that the deaths in
> > custody is a real problem the IPCC needs to be reformed and given more
> > backbone.  Its certainly true that no police officer has got jail time
> > for a death in custody in the UK.
>
> > Also this is an area that is also of concern:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6047218.stm
>
> > ( darn someone supports you Doug, how unfair is that)
>
> I suspect the reason for not jailing the police is that they wouldn't
> last five minutes in an ordinary jail. Perhaps a good reason to have
> special jails for them. They certainly should not be allowed to get
> off scot free for an unlawful killing.

Probably not.  The police do  often end up in jail, as do ex police
officers.  They just don't tend to get sent down for custody deaths,
RTAs while using lights/sirens and armed response deaths.

Plenty of cops have been done time for non fatal offenses on duty and
some for murder/manslaughter committed while off duty.

If being in the police was a defence they'd get off with everything.
Its more likely that the police don't want themselves to look bad.

Fod