Can't really have terrorism without any actual terror, otherwise it's just criminal damage, though some people are afraid of the dark I suppose. People really do through the word "terrorism" around too much these days.
Arrested for asking a policeman his badge number
- Thread starter MarkDavis
- Start date
Can't really have terrorism without any actual terror, otherwise it's just criminal damage, though some people are afraid of the dark I suppose. People really do through the word "terrorism" around too much these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
I expect the arresting officers had the close minded "I hate activists because I don't like change, it scares me" view so felt like arresting her.
But because the police are "upstanding pillars of society" (even though i know a warrant officer who does more drugs than keith moon) they get away with it.
Flawed systems again, media fueling arguments.
But because the police are "upstanding pillars of society" (even though i know a warrant officer who does more drugs than keith moon) they get away with it.
Flawed systems again, media fueling arguments.
Is that how it works? So for example, "Kilburn Battalion" bombing of Post Office Tower in London in 71. Not terrorism. IRA blowing Warrington gasworks in 93. Not terrorism. 17 November faction firing two rockets at a MEGA TV station facility in 95. Not terrorism. No victims. no one to witness terror or be actively terrorised. Not terrorism? Right?
Last edited:
I would take the side of the police officers anyday
I love the establishment.
Yea. One day they'll show you their love. Via the use of their big, black, foot long black mamba.......
or they may just taze you....
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,340
- Location
- Jarrow
Convince me. What do you see?
I see your attempt (as you have multiple times in this thread) to paint somebody carrying out a perfectly legal and legitimate attempt to ask police to identify themselves, as something she is not. Perhaps you can circle her in one of your irrelevant pictures, because I'm not very good at things like Where's Wally. Or perhaps you can provide evidence of how FIT Watch is really the photography division of Greenpeace? Perhaps there's a picture of her smoking a joint or you have seen leaked results of her blood test on entering the prison service? Either way, the officer was required to give out his number, which is what, 5-6 digits long? I wonder how many times he could have said that between assault, arrest, and filling out lies in his paperwork after the incident.
You should perhaps start another thread if you want to discuss the whole saga of intimidation lead policing at Kingsnorth, the 1700+ legitimate items they effectively stole, how Kent's Chief Constable mislead parliament, refuses to show the government reports of his force's operation and officers' conduct during it, and why he's now asked for a 3rd report in to because he can't bring himself to accept what other police forces have said about it. It's probably been done already though.
No, no, no, Dom. You called me to Goebels for using terms like "siege" and "terrorism". I entertained your rudeness and served you with pictures of the friendly activism as it was captured, amusingly enough, by the activists themselves that day just to suggest that perhaps those words weren't that much out of place. You can go wild hyperbolas all day long, you can go "I see your attempts" scramouche and fandango all you want - I'm going to proverbially pull your internet knickers in a wedgie over your head if I have to but you will start coming up with straight answers. You don't get to call me Goebels, not with my surname, not with my family history, and go sideways on a conversation. So squint your eyes. Then focus. What. Do. You. See.
OK. But only because I like you. If someone else asked, they would have to find Wally all by themselves.
Why would I need to do that? Has anyone implied it was photography division of Greenpeace? Is it even relevant? She was there, she was on the other side of the fence. She was being filmed because she was with the group in the encampment. The group that was known to actively plan and promote siege and sturm on the power grid infrastructure with intent to cause damage and power outage. The group that had court injunction filed against them prohibiting them getting anywhere in vicinity of the power plant. The group that pre planned their attack, brought the equipment with them, acquired funds for number of inflatable boats to desant the plant from water and so on, so forth. And it was treated by Police as such - pre-planned, organized action involving breaking into power grid infrastructure and stopping power source by means of diversion. So here is your context, it couldn't be clearer.
The two ladies, for one reason or another were with the group planning that action. And they were treated in a way any other member of the group interfering with police work would.
Coppers had clear orders. Orders were to start filming the camp in case the illegal action went ahead and video identifications were required. You interfere with that, you delay that, you might be doing that on purpose. To buy time. To distract. To focus units attention on their irrelevant behaviour.
And once you understand that orders and police work during alert don't stop for chit chat you will understand why they were removed from the way. If they were from Reuters, dressed in hoodies and sunglasses and started waving with notepads they would be taken to the station. If they were from Sisters Of Mercy, dressed in hoodies and sunglasses and started waving with notepads they would be taken to the station.
The moment those ladies joined the group planning illegal power outage on other side of the fence, even if just for Kebab and pickles, the grounds for any of their questions, queries, photo sessions or any other time consuming bravados, legal or not, lost any priority. From that point onward, any "in your face" actions had as much chance of success as trying to stop cannonade of tear gas pelets landing at your feet by screaming "by the way, what are your numbers, you have to provide them to me under law" to coppers with launchers in their arms in the middle of the riot. They have job to do and right to take you to the station. Any questions you might have can be answered over there as well.
No, you're right, that was out of line. I apologize. I shouldn't have called her pothead. Can I revise it to something like douche or dumbo?
That doesn't interest me much, to be honest. I am more interested in the perception of those things by media and public. It truely fascinates me. 600 people get wind up by some sort of environmental agenda to the point they are ready to break the law and organize attack on power station in their own country at massive cost to themseleves and everyone else involved. And to achieve what? I mean, what could possibly be achieved there? Do they really think they will break through, shut it down and some guy on the other side of that cable just go to shareholders "that's it gentlemen, it's now touched by environmentalists, it's called, it's theirs, it's as good as dead to us. Let's take the pliers, fuses and move out"? How do those things work in heads of environmentalists? What is the actual target? Anyway - I digress.
Two adult, grown up women, mothers to children apparently, join that action with a mission, by their own admission, of monitoring Police while the forces try to monitor the people attempting to break law and planning attack on national power grid installation. Again, for what, to achieve what? Someone is trying to shut down power in your country. Wouldn't you want police to know who's behind it? Wouldn't you want them to have surveilance of that? Back to the point - the two ladies get slightly overboard, get in the way of police doing their monitoring and get "pressure pointed to the ground". And a year later they go to media to complain.
To me, it's surreal that most of you are outraged at coppers. Given time, place, dress code of those women - I don't see better use of pressure pointing on civilian subjects. I can't think of a police force outside this island that wouldn't add some considerable force and "pronto" factor to the situation. You can ask coppers for numbers and names when they search you in the middle of high street, but when you knowingly joined "activists" camp and police starts arriving with cameras and riot shields around the camp - going out to screw around with them and take pictures that's just dumb. That's out of place. That's a lala land - not knowing what you are doing.
So if you are outraged at coppers, what are you outraged about? Shoudl in your opinion coppers not monitor or try and stop few hundred people trying to cut off power for few million people and cause damage to power plant, in the name of some strange, almost religious environmental belief? And if they are, considering they don't station there, so their presence was an active duty - should they waste time during those duties just because two "movvers from Cornwall" think they are entitled to waste their time?
It's surreal to me that most of you think anyone involved in such agendas or actions, or even travelling across country to "watch the watchers" monitoring such agendas or actions deserve even one minute of media attention for being "pressure pointed"
It's surreal to me, that we are discussing something that involves adult people scaling fences and paddling across rivers on inflatable boats in the name of some green agenda and I get accused of spin and get called Goebels. On one hand, there is me, calling it siege and environmental terrorism, on the other hand it's them, planning an attack on power plant, buying boats, because of CO2 or coal or some dolphin friendly tuna? And that's not spin? Not brain washing? Not a form of indoctrination?
Surreal.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 8,399
- Location
- England
Small minded idiots who are power tripping (those police officers)...why does this not suprise me?