15 police officers hurt in brixton overnight

Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2003
Posts
3,969
Hold on there. I think you will find that if the story (MSM) doesnt mention colour they must be black.
You still don't get it do you. :rolleyes:

They (BBC) will only mention race if it is a white on black crime, like they did in the GF murder.

I'm still waiting for proof that this is not the case.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2005
Posts
22,947
Location
Glasgow
My point was that for crowd control, riots, public disorder etc it's generally accepted that a mix of men and women, regardless of their different strengths in other situations, just doesn't work as an effect deterrent during violent confrontations, but we don't have enough officers so the police are "forced" to use less effective officers in these situations. So we, as a country, will have to decide whether we leave the system as it is or if we increase Police numbers across the board so that we can adequately staff incidents like these with more effective officers.

The vast majority of the police's work these days involves dealing with mental health, vulnerability, missing persons and other social issues, so unsurprisingly that's what the criteria for new recruits will focus on.

In any case, the specialist resources for these types of events do still exist and especially in London, can be called upon for a spontaneous incident but it's up to management ranks to make that decision and not all are willing to, especially in a climate of overreaction to any police use of force that happens to be captured on video and then edited for maximum impact on social media.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,867
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
Ah the 70's, that time that everyone looks back at fondly, where half the police were in the palms of (or at the very least ignoring) serious crime, when rape was laughed off by them, sexual assault and groping was just part of the daily routine and nothing you should bother the police with, when if they didn't like the looks of you and there had been a crime they were under pressure to clear it wasn't unknown for them make sure the evidence fitted the story they wanted to tell*, and to hell with getting the actual criminal, after all if the criminal struck again they could just get someone else they didn't like to confess in an interview without a lawyer present, if that person was of "diminished responsibility" or a bit different all the better.

The differences between now and those oh, so halcyon days of yore was that an unacceptable number of the police tended to use too much force, didn't bother with evidence or were horrendously sloppy a lot of the time, and the main one, there were far, far more of them, and they were often "local" so likely knew may of the people they saw (unlike now where you're lucky if a town of 50-100k has an actual police station, let alone officers who know the area, it used to be virtually every town had a station/officers who knew it really well).

It's weird, I tend to like police who don't use massive amounts of force as their one and only option, who are chosen at least as much for their intelligence and ability to think/learn as their size, and can actually do their job in a manner that's usually effective.

The old thing about "they had to be 6 foot" was because of intimidation, in reality it's been shown time and time again that having smaller people can actually work better in a lot of situations, as oddly enough if you can train someone to de-escalate a situation (and in this it helps to be smaller or know body language**), you can use force a lot less often, and reduce the risks of injury not just to the suspect, but the officers involved.
Same with general self defence and similar training for the officers, you don't have to a roid'd up 6 foot body builder to be able to subdue someone, you're better off having more or better training, which is oddly enough what they do now.

I always find it telling the people who think the police should be shooting people, and using levels of force that are if not highly likely to be lethal, at the very least are highly likely to maim, including people whose worst crime might be to have not cleared out the way, or got behind a wall fast enough.

*Hence all the cases that got quashed on appeals when it turned out the police had ignored/destroyed evidence that didn't fit the story, or simply didn't bother looking for anything else once they'd got a suspect that a bit of evidence suggested might have been near the scene.

**From memory the police now get training in what sort of body language looks less threatening, which helps relax suspects on an unconscious level so they are less likely to kick off, and more likely to calm down.

Thats odd, I didn't write anywhere that the 70's were a time for the current Police to aspire to and yet you've written a very long reply about a situation no-one, and certainly not myself, have talked about. Very strange.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
Thats odd, I didn't write anywhere that the 70's were a time for the current Police to aspire to and yet you've written a very long reply about a situation no-one, and certainly not myself, have talked about. Very strange.
So what was the point of your opening sentence here :confused:
There was an interview with a Met Officer from the 70's and he was talking about how Hendon used to pump out Police who were 6ft tall at a minimum and "hard men" who ran from no-one and gave twice as good as they got if someone dared whack them and he was ashamed by this "new" form of Policing. While being inclusive has had some fantastic results in some areas I think it's now being shown to have some very negative results in specific circumstances like these. . . .
It is oftentimes difficult to discern what exactly you are trying to say.

Very strange.
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jul 2019
Posts
2,406
Having intimidating looking police i don't think is an issue in most situations. If the officers are respectful and doing their duty there's little need to be intimidated. Any runs i've had with the police they've been decent to me/us. Though suspects/wrong doers acting aggressively you need officers who can be intimidating, or ones that are armed with the appropriate gear to defend themselves, or detain said person/s. I think the lack of sentencing and lack of prisons is a probable reason why the police get needless abuse.

Having a local police officer is a good thing for many reasons, probably some i've not even thought of too, but does open itself up to corruption through favouritism type of behaviour. Still, can't see those kind of police numbers being available ever again sadly.



Point it out with underlined, bold, red letters perhaps?

'have'

I still don't get your point.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
He's saying you've got a simple mind because you put wouldn't of instead of wouldn't have in the post he quoted as it's the correct way of using the engerlish langwage. :p


Technically "of" is incorrectly used to replace " 've" so he should've written... well, that. :D

"wouldn't've" I don't think works too well, however i think I would much prefer reading that than the incorrect use of "of".
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
Technically "of" is incorrectly used to replace " 've" so he should've written... well, that. :D

"wouldn't've" I don't think works too well, however i think I would much prefer reading that than the incorrect use of "of".
Out of curiosity I Googled this practice and encountered this:
Apparently all six of your examples are sometimes correct, depending upon the context. Below you see what a standard guide says about it (including using "have" in its contracted form, which becomes would've, could've, etc.). I can tell you this, sadly but truly, most teachers and professors these days would kiss the ground to see a student use "would've, could've, or should've" just to avoid seeing "would have, could have, or should have"! You think I'm kidding? Sadly, I'm not. Anyhow, here's the rule:

"A contraction is the result of compressing a word or phrase by omitting certain sounds (or letters) and closing up the string that is left: He is becomes He’s; I am becomes I’m; they are becomes they’re. The most common contractions in American English are those between subject and auxiliaries, such as have, do, shall, and will, and the verb be, and in negative combinations with these auxiliaries (John won’t [will not]; Mary shouldn’t [should not]; I can’t [cannot]). Contractions are above all Conversational. They sound like talk, and indeed they are characteristic of all but the most elevated levels of American English speech. Standard English employs them as well in writing, although conservative use limits them to Informal writing, and most other Standard use employs them sparingly in Semiformal and rarely or never in Formal writing. But there is nothing wrong with contractions in the right context, and there can sometimes be a good deal wrong without them."
I am not convinced that posters knowingly use contractions, they just type as they speak, a depressing condemnation of our declining education standards, all too often from people who claim to love all things Ingerlich :(
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,867
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
So what was the point of your opening sentence here :confused:It is oftentimes difficult to discern what exactly you are trying to say.

Very strange.

I'll hopefully try to explain it better this time. I used the quote from the 70's Officer where he said when they had 6ft+ men they didn't run away, as an example of why it's important to have big strapping male Officers in a riot situation. So my thoughts then were if we had more 6ft+ officers then maybe we wouldn't see scenes of the Police being forced to run away from a baying mob.

I also said that, despite all the advances of inclusivity in the modern Police with all it's many benefits (of which I gave examples), the current mix of males and females being used to control riots, caused by the overall lack of officers forcing everyone onto the front line, has been shown to be a weak link as evidenced by the Police being forced to run away twice in a matter of weeks, with all the negative "optics" that gives the law abiding folks.

So at no point did I opine for the return of 70's policing only for more tall/big male Officers for Riot Control and I asked if we should be increasing Police numbers so that, as well as increasing female numbers, we would also get more tall/big men who are better equipped genetically over female officers for violent crowd situations such as these, so that the Police don't have to run away again.

I "think" that may be more clear but I suppose thats not for me to say really.
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
It would probably have been wiser not to mention the Police of the 1970s - who were certainly reputed to be a wee bit corrupt.

We should certainly be increasing Police numbers (LINK) - remind me who has been in Government for the past ten years?
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Apr 2014
Posts
2,585
Location
East Sussex
I think they should take a different approach and avoid violence as much as possible - a badly aimed swing of a batton can have serious consequences.

They should get some kind of device that can be attached to a proper riot van or Land Rover that just sprays rioters or violent protesters with something horrible, like loads of liquified stinky rotton cabbage, cauliflower etc - just make being there so minging and horrible that people would rather leave.

There must be loads of options for something like this - would be cheap, and no one needs to go to hospital. Happy days.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
I think they should take a different approach and avoid violence as much as possible - a badly aimed swing of a batton can have serious consequences.

They should get some kind of device that can be attached to a proper riot van or Land Rover that just sprays rioters or violent protesters with something horrible, like loads of liquified stinky rotton cabbage, cauliflower etc - just make being there so minging and horrible that people would rather leave.

There must be loads of options for something like this - would be cheap, and no one needs to go to hospital. Happy days.
This is the type of post I like. Thoughtful, unique and non-inflamatory. Good idea, and hopefully already what we're aiming for. Didn't Boris have something to do with a water cannon at one point?
Usual suspects then.....
This is not any type of post I like. Disgraceful.
 

NVP

NVP

Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2007
Posts
12,649
Looks like you have a short memory.

And again in 1995
And you have an extremely obvious and not well executed agenda.

People like you fuel hate. People like you are why society is segregated. People like you are shameful in behaviour.
 
Back
Top Bottom