Search results

Yes tbh I agree as long as what they are doing is legal. The issue is that the person he killed was a wounded person that his group had captured. We have rules in this country about what we do with people we captured and, while there's certainly an argument to be made about whether those rules...

You're missing what I'm saying. I don't mind the courts taking past convictions into account when sentencing, as they are the impartial body tasked with deciding what punishment to give out. The police are not, and therefore shouldn't really be making life difficult for known criminals in...

Don't mind the courts taking past offences into account when it comes to sentencing, because they are impartial in the case. If they only target/disrupt the criminal parts of those criminals lives then that's fine, that's common sense. But let's not forget that criminals also have...

No I don't think that, nice one putting words in my mouth though. Proactive policing is all about deterring crime, maintaining a presence at crime hotspots etc. By all means disrupt known criminals ability to commit crime, make it harder for them etc, but making their private life difficult just...

Not offended, just wondering why you think that. I can understand why the police get tired of the people they nick being the same old offenders who have no desire to reform, but I still think it's unprofessional for them to go out and deliberately make life difficult for those people. If nothing...

It's just that most of the time I see someone make a big deal of how tolerant they are, probe a little deeper and it turns out that this only applies if you agree with them. If you dare object, or have a different opinion to them, that tolerance goes right out the window.

Huge shock as people who claim they are tolerant react with intolerance and violence towards someone with a different opinion. Why am I not surprised?

That's fine. Arresting people when they break the law is fine, but if you're specifically going above and beyond to "find something" that someone has done wrong because you don't like them/they are a known criminal, then it starts to go beyond impartial law enforcement, and into the realm of...

Maybe, but you cannot act on this information because in the eyes of the law, the only crimes they have committed are the ones they were caught for. Very dodgy ground if we start saying "well they're probably guilty of more" as justification for treating them differently. Protecting the...

I don't see how you can be intimidated just by the presence of an object. Surely it depends on what the person is doing with it? I saw an armed police officer holding a gun very visibly last week. Didn't feel intimidated because he wasn't doing anything wrong with it. If I saw someone holding...

Well meaning types who feel the end justifies the means are a problem too. I lost a bit of trust in them after hearing what a couple of them said at a party I was at a while ago. They said they go out of their way to make life difficult for known criminals. Now these particular officers are well...

Well said sir. I bet ours will, if they haven't already, use this as justification for the new Snoopers Charter. "this man wasn't on any list, he appeared to just be another innocent person until the attack, so us monitoring everything that everyone does online is needed to keep you safe from...

Yes, I'm open minded about that being the case. I'd like to think that the police tried a common sense approach first but with some of the stuff you hear these days, it's also possible they did just use the sledgehammer>nut approach. I'm just saying that if it happened the way he says, I could...

No but he was honest about it to me and if he had threatened them he'd have said. I'm not sure why you think you need to keep posting the legislation, it's not like I'm disagreeing with you about the wording. He was abusive towards someone and the police responded to that by arresting him...

If he was being threatening in what he said, I'd have said threatening rather than abusive. All I'm saying is that there are sometimes legitimate reasons why people seem evasive or unwilling to talk to the police. He's always saying he'd refuse to answer their questions unless he had a legal...

That's not why you use a Password Manager. As you say, most sites have protection to stop someone brute forcing your password, they will lock you out after a few incorrect attempts. No, the main benefit of a password manager is not using the SAME password for everything and thus having to change...

Did you miss the bit where I told you he didn't say anything threatening? All he said was some abusive words, he himself regrets it and accepts it was wrong of him to lose his cool like that. Of course he doesn't think it's ok to abuse people, I wouldn't call what he did abuse though. I'd say he...

Out of interest why do you think Password Managers are a very bad idea? Anyone with enough access to your system to see the password database when its open is probably already in a position to see what your typing anyway so you're still insecure even without the password manager. But to...

He wasn't threatening anyone, he just shouted some abusive words at his neighbour in anger. I forget what the actual offence they arrested him for was but it was something he didn't even know was a crime. He wasn't doing anything wrong really, he would never have done it if he knew it was...

Probably because the police have changed in their approach to dealing with the public. One of my friends had a complaint made about him, and was arrested, interviewed, and then let go with the complaint not going further because it wasn't in the public interest. It was such a small matter (think...