View previous topic | View next topic

Ways to protest

Page 12 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

Gyndawyr
591977.  Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:11 pm Reply with quote

hahahaha I generally follow the rule of not pointing a death inflicting weapon at something im not going to kill. Drawing a weapon with the intent to use it depends on whether its aimed at you, or a small rodent I would suggest :P

I hope not to get into a situation where by a weapon is pointed at me. I find pointing a gun at somebody without pulling the trigger to be an act of disrespect and thus I dont think the situation would end too well :S I cant imagine the police having a gun pointed at them responding too kindly either. Its not nice lol

there are videos on you-tub of police officers doing stupid things (like accidentally discharging weapons) and I probably dont trust a police officer with a gun anymore than I trust a civillian with a gun. If you think i would respect them as law of the land, you honestly cant expect me to do that... british freedom advocacy ftw :P

 
bobwilson
669427.  Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:22 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
moderate


I really dislike the use of that word. It's meaningless.

I meant it to indicate the people and parties holding views and positions more in the mainstream than the more extreme parties such as the Communists or BNP.


I don't like that term either - it's equally meaningless.

 
bobwilson
669428.  Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:27 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Tell you what - I'll email the Grauniad and ask them if any payment was offered, solicited or made for the video - that'll clear up any confusion. OK?


Incidentally - I did email the Grauniad - and got a response that my query had been passed on to the relevant department. Since I still haven't had a response I've (just now) emailed them again to ask if they need any clerical help in looking through their files.

 
themoog
669448.  Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:14 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
Tell you what - I'll email the Grauniad and ask them if any payment was offered, solicited or made for the video - that'll clear up any confusion. OK?


Incidentally - I did email the Grauniad - and got a response that my query had been passed on to the relevant department
= bin

 
bobwilson
678085.  Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:41 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Tell you what - I'll email the Grauniad and ask them if any payment was offered, solicited or made for the video - that'll clear up any confusion. OK?


Finally I've had an answer from the Guardian. I should mention that I've had to badger them since posing the question but the definitive answer from someone signing themselves Lesle is

Quote:
I mentioned this to somebody in our legal department, and she confirmed there was no payment.


For the record - the original query was whether the Guardian offered, was solicited, or made any payment for the video in question. The most recent email to the Guardian included:

Quote:
I don't seem to have ever had a response to this query. The query was inspired by this statement:

(quote from CB27 - source not notified to the Guardian) "the video was sent to the Guardian instead, that's something I'm still personally angry about because it's obvious someone put money in front of actually helping an investigation by selling this video to the papers."


So however angry, CB27, you may have been about it being sent to the Guardian it wasn't (as you supposed) a decision taken because of the transfer of filthy lucre. And whilst it may have been "obvious" to you that the only explanation for choosing to send this video the Guardian was due to some payment you are wrong.

 
CB27
678288.  Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:11 am Reply with quote

Blimey, had to spend ages looking for my post that this relates to :)

I take it this relates to post 534311, and if so then I hold my hands up and say that if I can't prove that payment was made then I'm wrong. It still doesn't explain the actions of the person who gave the tape to the paper as opposed to at least giving a copy to the police or other authority, and at that I still express my "anger" because it hindered any investigation which was ongoing at the time.

The fact that the Guardian published the video on their website before advising the posilce and/or any authority of it's existence, and that they burned their logo onto the image so that it gave them free advertising every time it was played meant that they did come under very heavy criticism.

Anyway, thanks for tenaciously chasing this up as I'd forgotten all about it, together with most people...

 
bobwilson
679062.  Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:10 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
It still doesn't explain the actions of the person who gave the tape to the paper as opposed to at least giving a copy to the police or other authority


The reason I was so tenacious about chasing this is because I too would have given the tape to a media outlet in preference to the police. And I'd do so in the hope that they'd publish it widely and quickly.

The simple reason being - I don't trust the buggers (the police that is).

If they had given it to the police first my expectation is that we still wouldn't be aware of its existence. If they'd given it to the Guardian and the police simultaneously there's every chance that the police would have tried to get a gagging order to prevent the dissemination of the tape (on the spurious grounds that it formed part of a criminal investigation - but actually because they'd hope the story would be long dead before the facts came to light).

In fact, I'd have made it a condition of giving it to the Guardian that they publish it on their website before handing a copy to the authorities.

As for burning their logo onto the images to generate free advertising - well, that seems a minor transgression when compared with the lies told by serving police officers.

Quote:
I'd forgotten all about it, together with most people...


Exactly. If you don't get the information published at the time then it just falls by the wayside.

I'm also unclear how publishing the tape on the Guardian website hindered the investigation?

 
suze
679262.  Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:19 am Reply with quote

I wish I didn't agree with bob on this one. (I don't have a problem in agreeing with bob as such, I just wish that he were wrong on this matter. But he isn't.)

If that tape had gone to the police prior to or simultaneously with it going to The Guardian, it would have become mysteriously lost (like the CCTV tapes at Stockwell station), its existence would have become the subject of a superinjunction (like a thing that I'm not allowed to name), or the guy who made the recording would have found himself the subject of a large amount of police "interest" (as we know, some police officers assert that it is illegal to film or photograph them, even though it isn't).

I wish I didn't believe any of the previous paragraph, but comparable incidents in recent years make it hard not to.

 
CB27
679440.  Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:14 pm Reply with quote

Sorry, but I'm looking at the fact that these kind of incidents are in the minority because there have been plenty of cases against police officers which have gone ahead without much trouble.

With respect to superinjunctions, they would have been pointless as their usefulness would have run out the moment an enquiry had been completed and the police would have been in even bigger shit then.

With regard to extra "interest" from the police, the first thought that comes to mind is protection of source which will mean the police might not get to know who the person that had the footage is. The second is that whatever pressure police or whoever put on the paper or the original source, we know from history how ineffective this is in keeping stories from breaking out.

BTW, the bit I wrote about criticism of the Guardian were not criticisms of mine, but criticism from IPCC and other journalists.

 
Ion Zone
679497.  Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:12 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
The fact that the Guardian published the video on their website before advising the posilce and/or any authority of it's existence, and that they burned their logo onto the image so that it gave them free advertising every time it was played meant that they did come under very heavy criticism.


I've never liked the guardian. This alone should be enough reason to change their name!

 
bobwilson
680030.  Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:19 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Sorry, but I'm looking at the fact that these kind of incidents are in the minority because there have been plenty of cases against police officers which have gone ahead without much trouble.

With respect to superinjunctions, they would have been pointless as their usefulness would have run out the moment an enquiry had been completed and the police would have been in even bigger shit then.

With regard to extra "interest" from the police, the first thought that comes to mind is protection of source which will mean the police might not get to know who the person that had the footage is. The second is that whatever pressure police or whoever put on the paper or the original source, we know from history how ineffective this is in keeping stories from breaking out.

BTW, the bit I wrote about criticism of the Guardian were not criticisms of mine, but criticism from IPCC and other journalists.


CB27 wrote:
Sorry, but I'm looking at the fact that these kind of incidents are in the minority because there have been plenty of cases against police officers which have gone ahead without much trouble.


Really? Plenty of cases against police officers which have gone ahead without much trouble? I can think of plenty of cases which have gone ahead against police officers with a great deal of trouble - I can't think of any that have gone ahead with little trouble. Do please tell - which particular cases against police officers which have gone ahead without much trouble were you thinking of?

CB27 wrote:
With respect to superinjunctions, they would have been pointless as their usefulness would have run out the moment an enquiry had been completed and the police would have been in even bigger shit then.


If superinjunctions would be pointless then they wouldn't exist. Their whole existence is based on the premise that the public is fickle - by the time the details emerge the story has moved on (probably to some non-existent threat posed by - choose your poison - Global warming/another terrorist group/some deadly superbug/ the EU/ the Grand Gadaffi Wizards of the Black Satanic Metal Death Cult/ Invent a threat here)

A superinjunction serves its purpose the moment it is granted - it delays discussion of the problem until some other purported threat can take its place in the grand pantheon. Their only function is to delay and obfuscate.

CB27 wrote:
With regard to extra "interest" from the police, the first thought that comes to mind is protection of source which will mean the police might not get to know who the person that had the footage is. The second is that whatever pressure police or whoever put on the paper or the original source, we know from history how ineffective this is in keeping stories from breaking out.


Protection of source - yeah right. You mean like the way that the Guardian (for instance) and Peter "weasel" Preston stood up valiantly against the non-judicial order to reveal their source? If I remember correctly one woman spent a considerable period in prison for telling the truth due to the actions of that particular episode - due entirely to the actions of one Mr Preston.

As for stories breaking out - well, if you can avoid a definitive source and get multiple conflicting stories published at the same time that'll do to muddy the waters.

CB27 wrote:
BTW, the bit I wrote about criticism of the Guardian were not criticisms of mine, but criticism from IPCC and other journalists.


IPCC stands for Independent Press Complaints Commission. Independent is a bit of a joke really - just not a very funny one.

There are many things to criticise the Guardian for (not least their weasel attitude when confronted with a non-legal requirement to disclose sources and their willingness to have Peter Preston on their CV) - but to take the IPCC as a source for criticism is to take the biscuit.

I have to say CB27, I admire your naivety. And I also have to say that I'm glad we don't live in a country where you would be allowed to vote for a Government which would impose its will on me - because that really would be a travesty.

 
CB27
680150.  Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:20 am Reply with quote

You can admire all you like bob, but the truth of the matter is that all your arguments set out above are complete rubbish because they are based on your personal view and not on facts.

I find the accusation of naivity quite funny, perhaps it's because I don't simply jump on any bandwagon and/or chase people with a pitchfork at every opportunity. The fact of the matter is that we only look at these kind of things when something negative happens, so to assume each case is the same is naive in itself.

 

Page 12 of 12
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group