![]()
Nadhim didn't ask them if it should be a capital crime
The devil is in the detail of what 'protest' means now doesn't it.
After a few years of XR style antics many are getting increasingly annoyed about 'protestors'
![]()
Nadhim didn't ask them if it should be a capital crime
By design of course from both the protesters who want to be arrested (this is the goal) and the government drooling at the chance to get more power.The devil is in the detail of what 'protest' means now doesn't it.
After a few years of XR style antics many are getting increasingly annoyed about 'protestors'
what seems to be in the bill looks like commonsense https://verfassungsblog.de/uk-silence-protest/The devil is in the detail of what 'protest' means now doesn't it.
The fact she was even let into the force is a disgrace, but then again I suppose it makes sense as any serious lady would get tired of the environment if it's indeed as bad as the allegations.![]()
OnlyFans Met policewoman 'faces disciplinary for Wayne Couzens fail'
A female Metropolitan Police officer who set up an OnlyFans account called 'Officer Naughty' is facing a disciplinary for 'failing to catch Wayne Couzens'.www.dailymail.co.uk
That Rowley is far too much PR and far too little robust policing. They need another Sir James Anderton late of the GMP to come along and sort the Met' out.
Yes yawn despite the Met admitting they ****** up and they weren't locking on devices, you still try to defend their actions against right to protest, instead of questioning the officers common sense for not being able to tell they aren't locking on devices for 16 hours or the waste of police time & resources in arresting entirely innocent peopleyawn....
It doesn't matter if random person from the ocuk forums is convinced, the literal police were convinced they weren't actually locking on devices and could prove no intent, case closed you are wrong, the met was wrong, just give up licking their bootsI'm still far from convinced that the 'luggage straps' where really there just to 'secure some placards'.
Spare us your ‘ill informed commentary’.Yes yawn despite the Met admitting they ****** up and they weren't locking on devices, you still try to defend their actions against right to protest, instead of questioning the officers common sense for not being able to tell they aren't locking on devices for 16 hours or the waste of police time & resources in arresting entirely innocent people
It doesn't matter if random person from the ocuk forums is convinced, the literal police were convinced they weren't actually locking on devices and could prove no intent, case closed you are wrong, the met was wrong, just give up licking their boots
Spare us your ‘ill informed commentary’.
Not every arrest leads to a charge or conviction.
But most arrests should be based on actual reason or thought.
A luggage strap?
I really hope the police never stop me and look in my boot, If they do i'm going away for life, I've got dozens of them in there! and I don't even have anything to secure most of the time*.
The idea that a luggage strap is a "lock on" device is so stupid that it's beyond laughable given they're made out of nylon webbing and take seconds to cut through, there was me thinking that "lock on" devices were things that were hard to remove, not something you could bypass with pen knife or the dreaded "safety hammer" designed to cut through such webbing (dratt have I just given the police a reason to do me for attempted murder, I mean I've got one of those in the car and it's potentially a lethal weapon!).
Arguing that a luggage strap is a lock on device is utter nonsense and certainly wouldn't meet any reasonable "going equipped" argument in a court with magistrates, let alone a jury with anyone who has ever actually used one, or has used a van to transport stuff.
*I think I last used them about 18 months ago, it's just easier to keep them in the boot.