looked like she deserved a slappin tbh, as most of them prolly did , peacfull protest crap , put your self on the line , its a very scary place to be , i can tell you, they spit at you , swear at you , lob stuff at you , more tear gas imo.
I know this is 'only' an internet forum etc, and I'm not going to step into the debate, but I think it's really significant that there are people out there who aren't prepared to sit back and swallow the lies, b*llshit and deceit that we're fed on a daily basis in this country, and who are actually prepared to speak out eloquently and succinctly on things like this. MisterGnar, Rudeboy (and others)- thank you for your words on this subject. It's been a refreshing read.
looked like she deserved a slappin tbh, as most of them prolly did , peacfull protest crap , put your self on the line , its a very scary place to be , i can tell you, they spit at you , swear at you , lob stuff at you
yep those plastic bottles looked lethal, you could easily cause someone a nasty scrape or even get get covered in vicious sticky liquid.
Been an interesting read.
I have tried to imagine what it must be like in that situation. Arresting that woman wouldn't really be an option in that situation. Not enough Police resource to keep arresting people.
My take on it is that Police are just normal people like everyone else. To be stood in front of that many people in a sitaution that could potentially kick-off at any moment, must be pretty scary. And if I was there as a Police officer, knowing how out-numbered 'we' were I would want to keep things as calm as possible. I don't think the bloke should have clobbered that woman based on that short piece of video, but for all we know she might have been antagonising for hours or been seen with other perhaps more 'able' looking protestors. Maybe the policeman genuinely thought that his actions were justified.
I think that if you go to a protest with hundreds (if not thousands) of other people, make a point of getting right into a policemans face, swearing at him/her and ignoring requests to move back you are very naive if you don't think you might get a bit of a shoeing.
My partner is training to be a police officer. She is probably more intelligent than a lot of the people on here who keep claiming that the Ploice are neanderthal bullies etc.
If she was in a situation where she felt that physical action was required to stop harm to herself or others, then I would hope she would use it.
I am not saying the policeman in that vid was right, but I am not saying he was wrong either......it's all too easy to judge from a short snippet of video....
easygirl - Memberive got it now.......
the police are thick stupid violent thugs,
Yup we already clarified this point 😉 It seems to me that there is a lot of frustration in your speech easygirl. Is it because you end up being a traffic warden/cop wannabe rather that a proper one?
I have not done any research on the topic through english books, but if you speak french I'll be happy to provide you with numerous books filled up with story of cops being no more than just thugs. More than enough in my opinion to fear them and basically change side of the street when I cross one.
Griz, when will I be able to vote for you as PM 😛
stumpy01but for all we know she might have been antagonising for hours or been seen with other perhaps more 'able' looking protestors
Still doesn't justify it and is quite absurd. Shout at a policeman for long enough and he has a licence to beat you? Hang around with "able looking" people and the policeman is liable to beat you, especially if you are smallest and least intimidating? That does make sense though, most bullies are cowards and will pick on the weak.
stumpy01Maybe the policeman genuinely thought that his actions were justified.
Still doesn't justify it in the slightest.
stumpy01I think that if you go to a protest with hundreds (if not thousands) of other people, make a point of getting right into a policemans face, swearing at him/her and ignoring requests to move back you are very naive if you don't think you might get a bit of a shoeing.
Yes because we all know, the punishment for disobedience is physical violence.
stumpy01My partner is training to be a police officer. She is probably more intelligent .....
Oxymoron.
Actually I'll vote for griz only if he appoit Mister Gnar as police minister 😀
So MisterGnar, you think his actions were erm, perhaps not justified or something??
I don't remember saying they were, either. In fact I said that from that short video clip I don't think he should have clobbered her.
Oxymoron......excellent.....ha ha.....great one...... 😐
I see the 'small completely innocent young lady' has now employed Max Clifford as her 'PR agent" lol
Nice little earner if you can get it
More importantly, I see that Ian Tomlinson's death was caused by internal bleeding not a heart attack, according to the 2nd post-mortem.
I see the 'small completely innocent young lady' has now employed Max Clifford as her 'PR agent" lol
Nice little earner if you can get it
WTF do you mean by writing [i]small completely innocent young lady[/i] in apostrophes ??
Are you suggesting that in reality she isn't small at all ? I reckon 5 foot tall and six and a half stone is pretty 'small', what would you call it ?
And are you suggesting that you have some sort of proof that she isn't a 'completely innocent young lady' ? Are you saying that this was all an elaborate plan by her whereby she forced a big burly policeman to attack her against his own will ?
What are you ...... a bit of a simpleton or something ?
I don't have the slightest problem with her not wanting to provide free stories to the newspapers, anymore than I have a problem journalist getting paid for writing the story, or newspaper proprietors making a profit from the story, or coppers get paid overtime for [i]their[/i] part in the demo.
I hope she gets as much money as she possibly can for what happened to her. Maybe she'll give a large donation to the animal sanctuary where she works in East Sussex. If it's the one I think it is I was there last Sunday delivering some rescued animals, and it is a very impressive place indeed - spotless and extremely well run.
I also hope it doesn't put her off fighting against the effects of climate change with all it's disastrous environmental consequences to all species across the globe.
As obviously the 5 foot nothing, six and a half stone girl who is prepared to stand up to a violent thug in uniform believes that getting out there and being pro-active is more important than sitting on your ar5se all day behind a computer spouting shite on a mountain bike forum.
Good for her.
Heh, nice one GG.
Hmm, let's see; the police have their PR machine (which has been spouting lies), and the woman who was attacked is quite rightly looking to earn a few quid out of it.She has, after all, been the unwitting actor in a piece of drama that has been shown round the world. The assualt she suffered has been used to sell newspapers and get TV ratings, so why shoon't she have a chunk?
Max Clifford is a slimy **** though, but I only say that because I'm jealous. He's worked hard for years, and is a clever bloke. He exploits the medias' insatiable appetite for sensationalism. Fair play.
He exploits the medias' insatiable appetite for sensationalism. Fair play
Everyone who has taken part in these threads is as guilty in that desire for sensationalism as the press are in their desire to feed it to us. The whole focus of attention since the G20 summit has been focused on the the media fed images of crusties smashing windows or policemen bullying civillians. The real issues of the day, the proposals of the summit leaders have become lost amongst a sea of other stories, far more exciting and, well, sensational. Just have a trawl through the forum records and see how many words have been written on the proposals and how many haver been written on the violence.
Very clever news manipulation and everyone has suckered for it.
Sorry, still seems to me that the hysterical little poison dwarf was asking for trouble - she quite rightfully was told to get back as the crowd surged toward the cordon - the kettling/cordon has been found legal in the highest courts and the police have an absolute right and duty to act to prevent a breach of the peace - madam didn't like being told what to do and she kicked off, the police officer quite correctly started off with minimum force and clear verbal warnings but she chose to ignore them and get in his face in an aggressive and hysterical manner, as such I cannot see that he had much of a choice!
Perhaps if "protesters" on the day before didnt act like [url=
then the police would not have had to control the crowds in a fairly assertive manner? I've been on the receiving end of some big protests from the dog on a string brigade on more than one occasion, and their actions always end up pushing things as far as they think they can, and generally a little further, and then it all kicks off! If you choose to associate with them, then expect to be treated as one of them.
Whatever you choose to believe - no-one was prevented from protesting on that day - however the right to PEACEFUL protest demands that people do it in a controlled manner that allows the police to protect property and protect the safety of the general public - How soon we forget images like this in the centre of london:
[url=
protesting Poll Tax Rioters (all Thatchers Fault Of course)[/url]
Whether you like it or not - not everyone in a protest is willing to do it peacefully, and there are always a small minority of the great unwashed who revel in trying to provoke a riot - and if choose not to distance yourself from them and then you act like a hysterical little bitch then you're going to get slapped like one!
What has size got to do with anything GG? Are you saying a 5ft woman couldn't potentially wield a blade/gun/syringe insert any offensive weapon were appropriate and injury the policeman, is the copper a clairvoyant?
Do you know the woman you seem to know her vital statistics?
She was warned several times and each time when she failed to respond the consequence got a little more severe. A talking to, a strong word in her shell like, a push, a slap and then a whack with a baton, it fair in my eyes.
You seem to be taking it very personally GG, is she your retarded inbred little sister with whom you have a child out of wedlock and share a chrome plated caravan with?
Very clever news manipulation and everyone has suckered for it.
I couldn't agree less.
The 'clever news manipulation' was attempted on April 1st when newspapers such as the Sun printed, ready for distribution the next day, front pages like this :
[url] 
[/url]
Although the Sun undoubtedly had reporters at the demo who would have witnesses incidences of police brutality and completely unacceptable police tactics, they hoped that the population would be 'suckered' into believing that the police wanted nothing more than to guarantee the right to peaceful protest. And despite that their best efforts, they were unfortunately confronted by angry mobs hell-bent on violence.
Fortunately there were some people at the demo who had cameras and recording equipment and who aren't in the pay of Rupert Murdoch, and who were able to provide us with the truth. As a consequence of this, the attempt of 'clever manipulation of news' failed miserably.
And I for one, am extremely glad of that. Because whilst incidences of police brutality are hardly new, the high profile reporting of them certainly is.
What is also relatively new, are many of the tactics used on April 1st. Including kettling, police officers hiding their faces, widespread removal of shoulder numbers, extensive use of dogs, un-uniformed coppers walking around with truncheons in their hands, police shields been used edge-ways to smash into peoples faces, and senior officers responsible for operations saying "We're up for it"
These are all extremely worrying developments, and if as result of extensive discussions in the media (including the internet) it reduces the chances of recurrence, then hopefully we might have better policing, a better police force, and people will be able to walk the streets without fear of being attacked by thugs wearing uniforms.
is she your retarded inbred little sister with whom you have a child out of wedlock and share a chrome plated caravan with?
Yes she is. So I would be grateful if you would not be abusive about her.
Everyone who has taken part in these threads is as guilty in that desire for sensationalism
I'm not. 😛
hat is also relatively new, are many of the tactics used on April 1st. Including kettling, police officers hiding their faces, widespread removal of shoulder numbers, extensive use of dogs, un-uniformed coppers walking around with truncheons in their hands, police shields been used edge-ways to smash into peoples faces, and senior officers responsible for operations saying "We're up for it"
Or perhaps lawful tactics (Police officers have to follow a lawful order from a superior officer!) which have been forced upon them by the actions of protesters and protagonists - who repeatedly turn every peaceful protest into a chance to Smash the facist pigs!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
These are all extremely worrying developments, and if as result of extensive discussions in the media (including the internet) it reduces the chances of recurrence, then hopefully we might have better policing, a better police force, and people will be able to walk the streets without fear of being attacked by thugs wearing uniforms.
But - perhaps the more likely scenario is that we will see the police avoid taking decisive action early on the next time there is a protest, for fear of upsetting the Guardianistas - with the result that things get out of hand and we see another poll tax riot, or worse, and then the same press leaping all over them for not acting sooner to quell a potential riot - the police still have that pesky duty to ensure the protection of life and property, the preservation of the Queen’s peace, and the prevention and detection of criminal offences!
I couldn't agree less
But you've actually proved my point by carrying on your argument concerning police brutality.
The whole point of manipulation of the news is that no one is talking about the G20 summit, just the violence that surrounded it.
I find it quite ironic that you should feel that exposure of Police shortcomings might lead to improvements in Police accountability, in the anniversary week of Hilsborough where no Police officers have ever been brought to account despite the damning evidence of an independant judicial enquiry ( The Taylor Report ).
Anyway, that's all I'm saying about it. I'm not playing that game anymore.
detection of criminal offences!
Unless perpetrated by themselves of course
Who let Labrat out of his cage? Run out of Valium, Labby?
C'mon Fred - T'was nothing more than a love slap! I'd bet most people on here have given their girlfriends worse and got away with it!
If it was a bloke acting the **** and gobbing off to a police officer like that and crying about it on TV then I have no doubt we'd all be buying tickets for the MTFU thread - As I said before, Hysterical little bitch who it now turns out may well have had something of an axe to grind with Plod, supposedly been nicked a few times for shoplifting and drug possession!
She's apparently in line for up to 50K off the papers for her poor little me story - hang on, wasn't this supposed to have been an anti Capitalism march?
The Internet + Labrat =not a good combination.
Don't you have something to delete off your Hard Drive, Labby? 😉
And most men don't go round slapping women, no.
But we know you prefer 'em not to be able to fight back, eh?
Play the ball Fred, you can do better than that - and you know the trouble you've got into before round here for making those comments... 😉
What comments would those be? Dunno what you're on about.
Play the ball? Bit rich, coming from someone who advocates using violence towards women/smaller people...
See bottom of page [url] http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/animal-rights-activists-terrorist-right/page/2 [/url]
using violence towards women/smaller people...
Hey, I wouldn't want to be accused of discrimination - however nowhere did I [i]advocate[/i] anything of the sort
nowhere did I advocate anything of the sort
It's a shame that Singletrack archives are no longer accessible. I remember a certain labrat posting his fantasies about raping and breaking a woman's neck. I have the URL but it doesn't appear to be working ..... lucky you.
Sorry Gus - If you're sad enough to have saved the URL of something said clearly in jest a different context about a year ago - then you're a stranger bloke than I'd previously taken you for.
In other news - Common sense has now dictated that the best course of action when repeatedly told to move by riot police is to do as you're ****ing well told:
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police-dog-bite [/url]
If you're sad enough to have saved the URL of something said clearly in jest a different context about a year ago -
Yep - that's me.
It was brought to my attention by someone else on here when he reminded you of it. I did indeed bookmark it, as it was the sickest post I've ever read on here. And whilst it might well have been said in 'jest', I reckon that it was an excellent example (as clearly the other punter did) of just how your mind works.
Just because something is said in 'jest', doesn't make it acceptable. You wouldn't for example, 'joke' about having sex with children.
Would you ?
all she had to do was . move away , her choice not to = tough s$*t
something said clearly in jest a different context
In what 'context' could such sick fantasies be taken, pray tell?
Your comments, re violence towards people, and hitting women, aren't particularly funny. In fact, on many an occasion, you've revealed some pretty vile and disturbing aspects of your character. I won't go over old ground, but suffice to say, some of your attitudes seem to be quite nasty, really.
T'was nothing more than a love slap! I'd bet most people on here have given their girlfriends worse and got away with it!
So you think it's acceptable, to use violence towards people, especially for a man to use it against a woman? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. And you do seem to advocate using violence against people exercising their legal democratic rights.
Sorry, have I taken anything out of 'context'? I don't think I have.
I'm not going to continue this any further, as I think it's quite unsavoury.
But for your own sake and others, please think about what implications the views you express may have, speshly on a forum such as this.
I really do hope you aren't serious, and that you're just trying to get attention, albeit in a particularly provocative and inadequate manner.
Because your 'jokes' aren't funny.
get back to the point ladies
or is thread finally going to finally die the horrible death it deserves
The reason for staring it, was so's we could 'discuss' the issues at stake; issues which ultimately affect all of us, not least, the misuse of police powers, and the implications on all our civil liberties and democratic freedoms.
I think it's succeeded, pretty well. Still think there's more room for intelligent and informed debate though. something that people like GG seem to be able to do, but which others aren't capable of, sadly.
these threads do tend to drag on though
not that I'm helping...
I guess I'm just trying to gain some perspective on this whole topic and whilst some of the comments are well put, informative and informed, when the posts inevitably get too left/right-wing and posters rely on insults, poor analogy and diatribe they get a bit irritating
Frankly Fred - I don't think the fact she's a woman really has any bearing on it - The fact that she's a hysterical little harpie who's mouthing off and acting in an aggressive manner, and refusing to do as she's told by a police officer in the execution of his duty to uphold the law and prevent a breach of the peace clearly does have a bearing on the situation, and is the only reason that force was used to prevent her, and the situation in general, getting out of hand - not because she was a woman.
As I said above, the right to protest is at all times (and always has been) tempered against the risk of a breach of the peace - I cannot see what police powers have supposedly been breached in this situation - the kettle/cordon has been judged[i] (Austin (FC) (Appellant) & another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2009) [/i]a legal method of preventing a demonstration escalating onto a riot where a minority of people are threatening to do so (as the leaflets above show), and the police have a duty and the power to use force to maintain the peace if they deem it necessary to do so.
I would support the identical use of force against a person of any sex, colour, race or religion who was acting in the same way in the same situation.
(No personal attacks, no slagging people off, entirely on topic, there Fred/Gus - lets keep it that way)
Edited to add: Surely if she felt she had been assaulted when told and pushed first time to "GET BACK" , there were adequate other people she could have spoken to to resolve the situation - people with cameras everywhere she could have got the evidence from, plenty of senior officers about, established and known methods to report a complaint to the police (eg, walked into any police station) - was the correct course of action to grab and scream at the officer, swearing at him - and when he moved away going and trying to confront him in an aggressive manner? Her actions were not self defence, the policeman was backing away and leaving her alone, but her choice to try and carry the fight to him resulted in her getting first slapped, and when she still chose to ignore what any person with an ounce of common sense would take to be a strong message, got her given a good smack with a baton.
refusing to do as she's told by a police officer
She din't have to do anything he told her to, as she weren't actually breaking any law. Had she done so, then she shooduv been arrested. She was not. She had every right to occupy the space she was in. If she wanted to speak to the officer, then she also had the legal right to do so. The officer's job is to uphold Law and Order. Not to take it into his own hands, and act unlawfully, which he quite clearly does. His actions were grossly disproportionate, and he has been rightly suspended from duty. If his bosses din't believe he'd done anything wrong, and they could legally justify his actions, then there's no way he wooduv been suspended.
The kettling was unjustified, and legally indefensible, as there was not sufficient evidence to support claims a riot was definitely imminent. A few posters off tinternet would not constitute evidence of intention. They cooduv been made by anyone. Granted, there undoubtedly were a tiny minority bent on causing trouble, but the police's job was to ensure that Law and Order was upheld, to the best of their abilities. They failed to do so, as they prevented people from exercising their democratic right to protest, by impeding their freedom of movement. Since any trouble erupted [i]after[/i] the kettling began, it can easily be argued that the police's actions were antagonistic, and provocative. These actions are in fact the subject of a major investigation; again, if the police had done nowt wrong, they'd have nowt to defend themselves from. As to whether or not Justice shall be served, I am quite skeptical.
Now you can have whatever views about the protest/ers you like. What you can't argue with, is the Law. Of which you seem to have a selective knowledge. But your comments are based not on legal fact, but on your own opinions and prejudice, and therefore do not carry any validity.
And your attempts to crawl out of the hole you've dug for yourself, with your comments re violence, are pathetic. Don't try coming over all righteous; we know what you're like.
Fred - have a careful read of the Austin judgement, the Kettling was clearly legal. There's plenty of case law to also support the fact that where a police officer believes there is an imminent likelihood of a breach of the peace occurring then they have the power to demand you do something, including moving back, and the right to use force to make you do so - if you want to argue that I'm wrong in law, then back your argument up.
The Austin ruling is being challenged in the Yerpean Court of Human Rights. The Lords' ruling seems to conflict with Article 5 of the Human Rights act.
Article 5: Right to liberty and security
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law -
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics and drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reason for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.This limits the circumstances in which someone can be detained and have their freedom taken away. This covers detention for both long periods (for example, if you are in prison or are forced to stay as a patient in a mental hospital) and short periods (for example, if you are arrested). It may even cover stop and search provisions.
Hmm, detaining a bunch of people in an area, depriving them of food, water and sanitary facilities, for any length of time, would seem not to be lawful. I'd hazard a guess the Lords got it wrong, or simply thought it best to support the Police.
Of course, proving something is unlawful and actually seeing Justice served, can be two entirely separate things. As we have witnessed far too often.
RudeBoy, why do you bother ? No really, I don't understand why you bother - I learnt a long time ago that it's a complete waste of time arguing with labrat, all he wants to do is to 'score points' and engage in silly school yard taunting.
There's no consistency in his arguments - he simply wants to argue for the sake of arguing. As an example you've only got to look at the stuff he's posted on this thread. He claims that he has complete faith in the judgement of the police, and yet in the third post on this thread, he challenges the Met's statement when they say : "The apparent actions of this officer raise immediate concerns"
He also claims that the police only ever uphold the law, and yet he regularly slags off the police on here claiming that they are all thick and know nothing about the law when it comes to knives/weapons. He trawls through the internet to find pictures of stuff published by anarchists or whatever, so that he can suggest that only ultra-leftists are concerned about police brutality, even though right-wing newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph have published articles critical of police action all this week. His posts are all a complete waste of time.
All I do RudeBoy, is maybe give ratty's posts a quick glance/speedread, but they are really not worth much more than that. imo.
The austin judgement may be being challenged - however the unanimous judgment by the highest court in the land is currently that it was legal given the circumstances, as it was a justifiable intervention with peoples article 5 rights - read esp. para 57-64 of the judgement
Also have a good read up on King V Hodges 1974
Ah, gus - come one, can you really not argue the points - must you always go off ina hissy fit when someone actually sits down and disagrees with you in a polite fashion and says that, for example - in this case the police action was justifiable.
I have not said that the police are perfect, indeed you'll see very early on in this thread that I thought what happened with the dead bloke was a very different issue from the poison dwarf.
Tell you what - if I'm talking bollocks about the powers of the police tell me why I'm wrong - its not point scoring, but its also not jumping on the bandwagon saying "yeah, police, bunch of thugs" I
He claims that he has complete faith in the judgement of the police, and yet in the third post on this thread, he challenges the Met's statement when they say : "The apparent actions of this officer raise immediate concerns"He also claims that the police only ever uphold the law, and yet he regularly slags off the police on here claiming that they are all thick and know nothing about the law when it comes to knives/weapons
I'll defend the police when I think they are in the right, and I'll critisise them when I think they are in the wrong - I have not said that I have complete faith in their judgement at all - but in the case of the poison dwarf, I think that the individual copper was well within his powers.
Ah, gus - come one, can you really not argue the points - must you always go off ina hissy fit when someone actually sits down and disagrees with you
Not at all. Take for example crism/aracer. He is more than happy to challenge me on here - often and regularly. It is something which he does much better than you. And yet I would never ignore his challenges, as I'm sure he'd testify. In fact I think that it would be fair to say that I'm [i]usually[/i] 'up for it' when it comes to current affairs issues. But until you come up with some consistency rather than your silly 'point scoring', I don't think I'll bother thank you.
Sounds more like you cannot accept that someone is able to hold a viewpoint on the facts of the individual case rather than an entrenched position along the lines of "the police are all brilliant" or "the police are all facist perpetrators of state control" without any ground inbetween.
I don't see your argument regards point scoring - it about whether the officer in this case was justified in his use of force or not, if he was then the entire premise of the "police thugs" argument falls apart.
If you want to try and be precious regards quality of debate, then I'd comment about glass houses and stones!
rather than an entrenched position along the lines of "the police are all brilliant" or "the police are all facist perpetrators of state control" without any ground inbetween.
LOL ! You haven't a clue what I've been posting about the police on here have you ratty ? 😀
Another officer, who allegedly wrote on a social networking website that he was keen to "bash some long haired hippies" at the protests, has also been disciplined.
This gets a mention as part of this [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8026661.stm ]story[/url] about a copper who resigned after saying that
I see my lot have murdered someone again.
Which seems a bit of a shame really. The copper who wanted to bash people gets disciplined whereas the one who was prepared to say (but clearly slightly overstepped the mark) that things hadn't gone well has to resign.
It's a funny old world.
Actually, I've just found a longer version of the quote
Pc John Hayter, 49, a member of the elite Royal Protection Unit, wrote on social networking site Facebook: ''I see my lot have murdered someone again. Oh well, s*** happens.'
I wonder why the BBC chose to cut it down?
Anyway, so much for me giving him the benefit of the doubt, he wasn't just admitting that things hadn't gone well, he was saying he didn't care that things hadn't gone well - clearly better suited for a job in wheel clamping.
