bluemanc said:Just shown 2 brothers 16/17 being arrested by the police smashing down their front door at 5am,Ah well.
The parents of a 14yr old said they had to work so couldn't make it to court,not a happy couple when they had cameras shoved in their faces outside.
ElanJo said:TCIB said:"And your suggestions mean shit."
If that isnt a sign of your mentality of abuse towards others with a different viewpoint i don't know what is. I will attempt to trawl through the posts and get more quotes of your abusive nature towards others when i get up, i doubt it will be hard. That one im sure you said at some point during your closed minded rants.
Why would i need to check another users posts, the point is here you are abusive to others with a different viewpoint. I would suggest a holiday matey.
Untill tomorrow my friend :)
Yea, that was so abusive... I'm a sick, sick puppy.
And it wasn't because you have a differing viewpoint. It was because your suggestion, that the lad did something that deserved what we saw, was irrelevant to the post of mine you were replying to, which was concerned with legality.
Like I said at the time, most of what you wrote was irrelevant.
Ancient Citizen said:bluemanc said:Just shown 2 brothers 16/17 being arrested by the police smashing down their front door at 5am,Ah well.
The parents of a 14yr old said they had to work so couldn't make it to court,not a happy couple when they had cameras shoved in their faces outside.
Ah, well.
TCIB said:ElanJo said:TCIB said:"And your suggestions mean shit."
If that isnt a sign of your mentality of abuse towards others with a different viewpoint i don't know what is. I will attempt to trawl through the posts and get more quotes of your abusive nature towards others when i get up, i doubt it will be hard. That one im sure you said at some point during your closed minded rants.
Why would i need to check another users posts, the point is here you are abusive to others with a different viewpoint. I would suggest a holiday matey.
Untill tomorrow my friend :)
Yea, that was so abusive... I'm a sick, sick puppy.
And it wasn't because you have a differing viewpoint. It was because your suggestion, that the lad did something that deserved what we saw, was irrelevant to the post of mine you were replying to, which was concerned with legality.
Like I said at the time, most of what you wrote was irrelevant.
In your OPINION ;)
Describing certain variables that led to the situation as i did as "irrelavent" are simply wrong and that is not an opinion of mine. It was information i know of processes that the law demands are met with regards to public disorder.
You say you know law, does the law go of feelings and opinions ? ahh thought not.
The police just saw those lads and thought "aye lets give em a beating" according to your comments.
My opposing view led you to insults its as simple as that.
My view was different to yours and not extreme unless the vast vast majority of English people were wrong and you were right.
I wont go into the ratio of for and against in that thread, i doubt you would also. So i will spare you this time.
I will not spare you this though...
"It doesn't matter whether the police used a helicopter, what the parenting was like etc. when arguing over whether what we see is excessive and illegal."
Please show me what was proved to be illegal and i will eat my words. Maybe you could explain how the reason for the looters/rioters being confronted by the police happened or is that "irrelaevant" in a court of law also, or maybe just your law xD
What?You say you know law, does the law go of feelings and opinions ? ahh thought not.
It's a possibility but not what I am arguing.The police just saw those lads and thought "aye lets give em a beating" according to your comments.
Saying "your suggestions mean shit" is not an insult. If I was to insult someone it would be because of the content of the view being expressed, not due to the fact the someone has a differing viewpoint. Do you understand the distinction here?My opposing view led you to insults its as simple as that.
You're speaking for the "vast, vast majority of English people" now? It matters not anyway. Again, completely irrelevant. The fact you bring it up shows a lack of understanding of fallacious reasoning.My view was different to yours and not extreme unless the vast vast majority of English people were wrong and you were right.
I wont go into the ratio of for and against in that thread, i doubt you would also. So i will spare you this time.
Please show me what was proved to be illegal and i will eat my words. Maybe you could explain how the reason for the looters/rioters being confronted by the police happened or is that "irrelaevant" in a court of law also, or maybe just your law xD
Skashion said:Let's even put aside the matter of guilt for the moment, which seems to be irrelevant to some unfortunate utter degenerate twats on here, and let's assume guilt. The guy gets off his bicycle, he's surrounded and outnumbered and clearly not resisting arrest at that point. Whatever he might have done earlier is now completely irrelevant. Police are no different to the rest of us. They are required to use only the force necessary to make an arrest or protect themselves from attack. It is then up to the courts to convict if there's sufficient evidence and the policeman or woman gets their salary rather than stand before the judge - assuming they carried out their job properly. That's how it works and that's how it should work. If not, why don't we just dispense of an ourselves of an expensive court system, prison system and policing and just have mob and counter-mob and save ourselves a bundle in taxes?
Something else about how it works: an individual is assumed to be responsible for their own actions and nobody else's. A lot of people are arguing for arbitrary beatings (and let us assume that a beating is legitimate punishment - which it isn't) or what has laughably been labelled 'summary justice' (which is an actual legal term with a specific meaning and is being raped here to make the person sound authoritative) predicated on the notion that an individual within a mob (who may only have been a spectator) is now considered responsible for arson, looting etc. to make an example or so forth. That is collective punishment and has no justification whatsoever in law in any civilised country. It is even banned in wartime occupation under the Geneva Convention. So plenty on here would be war criminals if they ever carried out their words in a wartime situation. Fortunately I suspect it's just hot air coming from internet hardmen. There's been a lot of that over the past few days. If they come to our town they said (when they were in London and it was easy to say), I'm rounding up the boys. When they did come to your town it changed to, if they come out again tomorrow I'm rounding up the boys, meanwhile they continued posting on Bluemoon even as the riots were unfolding. Fortunately, your blushes seem to have been spared by Manchester's propensity to rain.
TCIB said:You said my views meant shit and you were totally right in every way, legally morally etc etc.
I asked you for evidence or proof you were right you could not give any, its pretty simple.
Now swallow your medicine and run along.