So are you saying those arrests were justified?
Last edited:
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
So are you saying those arrests were justified?
Nope, I'm quite clearly not saying that.
Edit: you've edited your post from 'you are' to 'are you'.
Last edited:
No I didn't. My edit was putting a question mark on the end.
Last edited:
It's relevant to a lot of people in here (not me though).
Are you sure?
Anyway, I don't have enough information to say whether they were justified. You're the one who insists they weren't.
I'm absolutely certain. You'll notice your quote doesn't include the question mark that the post now includes.
So to be clear, by your own admission you're attempting to argue against arrests being unjustified (remember, ALL of these people mentioned were de-arrested) but don't actually have anything to state that they were justified in the first place.
Wanna think that approach through for a second?
Why be disingenuous about it..They turned up to get drunk and start trouble.
One of them valiantly urinated on a memorial to a dead policeman.
The BBC article says "Jailing Banks, Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said: "I accept you were drunk and did not know where you were urinating."" - so he wasn't deliberately defacing it.. just caught short and still got 18 days in prison.
Yet we can contrast that with the Acquittal of the 4 people in Bristol who literally toppled a statue and threw it in the river in the name of BLM..
Just because my quote doesn't have the question mark in it doesn't mean it's the only thing that's been edited.
No, that's not what I was trying to argue in the post you first replied to. Unlike you, I wasn't arguing whether these particular arrests were justified or not.
So what actually is your argument, seeing as you're apparently not arguing against my point that police are making unjustified arrests?
Which again, I'll state the police have largely conceded by de-arresting these people.
I love you Baz.
The argument is that we don't have enough information to know whether each of these arrests were justified or not, some short clips and some of them being de-arrested later might suggest that, but it's not concrete.
You were saying with absolute certainty that they were unjustfied and that our "dog crap police force" were arresting pretty much anyone.
Last edited:
You don't de-arrest someone if the arrest was justified. You just fail to charge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,997
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
So these protests, enough is enough type stuff, are talking about gathering up all the Welsh and sending them back?
De arresting does not mean the arrest was unjustified.
Its a valid mechanism for the police to remove someone from an area who is failing to follow reasonable instruction.
Its a de-escalation tool, to reduce a situation an in effect prevent the person being arrested from ending up in more trouble.
De arresting does not mean the arrest was unjustified.
Its a valid mechanism for the police to remove someone from an area who is failing to follow reasonable instruction.
Its a de-escalation tool, to reduce a situation an in effect prevent the person being arrested from ending up in more trouble.
The thing is if you have a group marching on specific targets, mosques, downing street etc then you will get a response.
I dont think the name being out there will lower tensions. Just proves all the crap on social media about this ali dude was wrong all a long.
It's known for example that one of the individuals was a news presenter walking home after work. He's smartly dressed in a suit and entirely compliant.
This is literally nonsense.
Arresting/de-arresting is often used for "breach of the peace" situations (e.g. riots/marches etc. or just a drunken heated argument outside a club on a Saturday night)
The purpose is to remove the person from the situation with the aim to de-escalate - once this has been done, that purpose is no longer there, so the need for the arrest is no longer there.
Contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, most* officers don't actually want to arrest and charge everyone - they'd rather it doesn't get to that point in the first place, and an arrest -> de-arrest early in a developing scenario is far preferable (for everyone involved) to waiting until it all kicks off and someone has been hurt...
*obviously there are still going to be the **** power trip officers who do want to do exactly that
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,140
- Location
- Around Town
Shame of the posters here putting up wrong names .
- Status