Coincidence?

[Brigadier]

Who refused permission to broadcast the post-court comments live? You originally said it was R5L.

So, the Police's chequered past will be taken into consideration during any subsequent happening; in fact, over-riding anything said or seen during the investigation / hearing in question? "Once a liar, always a liar!"?
Exactly contrary to the way in which a defendant is treated.

No, I am not condoning Judge Dredd, or cover-ups. It is easy to be holier than thou though, from behind the safety of one's keyboard.

 

[ellal]

Who refused permission to broadcast the post-court comments live? You originally said it was R5L.

Have I changed that?

On 5live they have said today that 'permission was refused'...

Who in the radio station made that judgement is anyone's guess, but that is how it was reported.

So, the Police's chequered past will be taken into consideration during any subsequent happening; in fact, over-riding anything said or seen during the investigation / hearing in question? "Once a liar, always a liar!"?
Exactly contrary to the way in which a defendant is treated.

If you note I said VERY CAREFULLY people would not 'give the benefit of the doubt' to the police...

And you are wrong about how a defendant is treated...

Most would not 'give the benefit of the doubt' to Duggan given the erroneous reporting and proven lies immediately after the shooting...apparently he 'shot at police', remember?

And that is the police's modus operandi - put out as much b*llshit as possible in the aftermath and hope enough will stick to muddy the waters in any subsequent investigation!

If you fail to see that, then you are condoning cover-ups!

 

[Brigadier]

And sadly I would not give the police the 'benefit of the doubt' given the weight of history,

VERY CAREFULLY, you said YOU would not give the benefit of the doubt to the police, NOT "the people".

(Apologies for the tone, but I am still jiggered by the quoting on this site!)


A defendant is the one standing in court, accused (OED definition) So, if I am wrong about the way a defendant is treated, why are the jury specifically instructed only to find on what is offered in court, and to not read the papers, research online, etc?


I don't condone cover-ups. I accept that they happen, which is not condoning.

 

[Big Tone]

Either you give the officer the benefit of the doubt or you don’t. It wasn’t a duck shoot; the officer said he believed Mark had a gun and, as such, shot him. If he shot Mark knowing he had no gun it would have been a very different matter. Are we to presuppose all officers lie now and advocate in situations like this that he’s prosecuted?

Now then, you may say it’s just his word and said all that to ‘get off the hook’. But at the end of the day why did Mark have a gun in the first place and carrying it on public transport and areas (illegally)? There are gun clubs for the general public and IIRC when not in use at the club they belong at home unloaded in a secure case.

He didn’t deserve to get shot, and killed, obviously. But if you want to up your odds of not getting shot and killed isn’t it better not to covet a gun and take it walkies? (Don’t live by the sword).

It’s always the case that someone else’s job looks easy; until you do it! Does anyone here really think the officer would want any man’s blood on his hands for the rest of his life?

 

[jeds]

Actually the issue of that live coverage was raised further on air this morning and the presenter said that 'permission was refused to broadcast the post court comments live'...

So you can take from that what you will...

And sadly I would not give the police the 'benefit of the doubt' given the weight of history, not just when they are involved in a killing but in many areas of their deployment...

But more importantly, those who would then commit violence (who I have never condoned) wouldn't either!

Hence we go back to the original post...

Water cannon announcement - coincidence?

Assuming not a coincidence, it just looks like typical cheap journalism to me - exploiting high emotions.

 

[cajar]

The family appear to be trying to reignite some disorder with their comments 'no justice, no peace'. I don't blame the agencies for not giving them that platform. He was certainly no angel and normal law abiding people don't deserve to suffer for the sake of his family's grief/pride.

 

[ellal]

Assuming not a coincidence, it just looks like typical cheap journalism to me - exploiting high emotions.

But who planted the story in order to exploit 'high emotions'?

There have been countless examples of the police planting lies, and yet they get away with it time and again.

And the fact that they have got away with it time and again is attested to by those on here that refuse to question the 'official version'.

The police themselves are guilty of provoking the initial riots in the aftermath of the shooting by their inability to tell the truth, and no doubt they will do the same again in the future!

 

[ellal]

The family appear to be trying to reignite some disorder with their comments 'no justice, no peace'.

Yet again ill informed b ullshit:

Linky Linky

 

[ajstoneservices]

Funny how you want them to lie when it suits

 

[ellal]

Funny how you want them to lie when it suits

Exactly the point I was making

 

[ajstoneservices]

Of course you were

 

[cajar]

The family appear to be trying to reignite some disorder with their comments 'no justice, no peace'.

Yet again ill informed b ullshit:

Linky Linky

Maybe you could preface all your posts with that sentence so the unwary lurker can get a heads up.

The family have been 'coached' into peace by the relevant agencies, and maybe even with a bit of dirt dug up on them by the met, who knows, because just one day before that link on the day of the verdict she said "no justice, no peace". I am glad they have made the u turn, very sensible decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

 

[cajar]

Given the context, ie the riots that took place, I think it's pretty plain what she meant.

 

[ajstoneservices]

A black power salute and the words "no justice, no peace" room for doubt? maybe.

 

[ajstoneservices]

And of course the salute has never been used by those intent on committing acts of violence.