Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,442
No I thought you'd clocked my mistake of misreading your angle but you obviously didn't... you said you don't think you're wrong more often... I corrected it in under minute but you replied before that, thought you were making thing of it... seemed petty but never mind.What the fuck You on about?
I "lol'd" at you saying you're right more often than me. I thought you were being jokey?! If not then it was you being petty. Of course we all think what we post is correct or why would we fucking well post in the first place?
You've made a tit of yourself and have obviously got one on you, so wipe your fanny, have a drink and move on.
Anyway I do joke around but it's hard to see if it's joking or serious agro from some of you.
From the first post I said it was suspicious...
Because of this part:
"100 protesting last night and saying there's a cover up because the police weren't wearing body cameras." Some had said they just mentioned there being a gun to cover their tracks(ok it was press release and just someone's interpretation of that so not as suspicious).
I didn't spot there being an official response about armed police not wearing them where others do, had I been made aware of that I would have agreed it's not suspicious... I had to go and read through an article to see where that came from.
In a statement West Yorkshire’s Assistant Chief Constable Andy Battle said: “Uniformed officers in three of the five districts of West Yorkshire are now equipped with body-worn video cameras, as a force-wide roll out of the devices continues.
“Firearms officers do not currently use them, however, we are seeking a separate solution to meet the specific and specialised requirements of their role.”
Last edited: