Plus I learnt to drive in a very hilly and steep road area so handbrake hill starts at traffic lights were a necessity.

Did you learn to drive in an automatic?

Which would be all the more reason for the well tuned press team of the leadership to stamp on it. She’s not just front bench, but a shadow cabinet minister FFS, do you really think that the press team just leave her to pitch up at TV studios and say what she likes?

Yes. Abbott and Livingstone don’t do what they’re told. New Labour tried really hard to keep office holders “on message”. It didn’t work. Evidently you missed the whole New Labour period (in which case – congratulations!).

It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn’t it?

No.

stopped rather than standing on the brakes in drive?

No-one puts a car in park while waiting at the traffic lights. You’re not even meant to.

I’m not against smart meters, just the lack of foresight that means what’s being offered isn’t useful to 1000’s

If the problem is in the thousands, then the problem is statistically insignificant

Presumably if the ethnic cleaning plan isn’t at all antisemitic but merely technocratic, then the better course of action would be to relocate the Palestinians to the US. There are fewer Palestinians in ex-Mandatory Palestine than Israelis, and more Arabic speakers in the US than Hebrew-speakers, so the deportees will feel right at home.

if you keep your foot on the brake at a standstill when the disks and pads are hot, you will get an uneven lumpy feel as the pad material will transfer to the disk.

So why doesn’t every automatic car have warped disks?

op: why would your behaviour change if you got a smart meter?

“Again, what has he got to apologise for?”

For being an absolute **** bellend and throwing petrol on a fire with his stupid tenuous grasp of history (Hitler’s beliefs) and politics (Zionism). It’s time for him to piss off back to his newts.

Otoh I’d actively volunteer if they did that

His bacon sandwich photo op was to show the Labour voters he wasn’t Jewish

Jambahoneyjamba

I don’t think shooting people is the same as heckling them. We’ve got a long tradition of heckling in this country and a fairly short one of shooting people, thankfully

Ted Roach was Irish. Jim Carver was English.

It’s DCI Gordon Wray: http://thebill.wikia.com/wiki/Gordon_Wray

There you go – support Zionism or you’re a racist

I couldn’t even slightly give a toss what some spotty student from Birmingham thinks.

Why is everyone being so tetchy?

What do you think the cutoff for insight in threads is? Like, has anyone ever said anything smart, useful or funny after about page 8?

Tosh Lines was English

Are you talking about the DI that played the clarinet? In the Burnside era (you slag)?

people are completely convinced she called for the extermination of the jewish people

1) are you familiar with the legal definition of genocide?

2) are you familiar with the episodes in Jewish history that begin with someone else suggesting that Jews ought to be forcibly moved from here ——–> there? They don’t usually have a happy ending.

Ha ha that’s awesome!

I don’t think they wilfully opened the gates knowing it would lead to deaths

No-one is saying the police wanted to kill people.
No-one is saying the police wanted to kill people.
No-one is saying the police wanted to kill people.

so we do have to remember the ‘times’

It was an obvious risk at the time – that’s why they covered it up.
It was an obvious risk at the time – that’s why they covered it up.
It was an obvious risk at the time – that’s why they covered it up.

the blame culture of today is now looking for someone to pin it on. a sad tragic accident that was caused by a sport and it’s fans.
who will get the blame in the end?

That whirring sound? Oh, it’s just my printer printing out the “manslaughter” page on Wikipedia. Now, would you mind looking at this strange object I have in my hand…?

If one more dim bulb shows up and says “ooh, there shouldn’t be a criminal prosecution when no-one meant to kill people, I’m going to staple the Wikipedia entry for “manslaughter” onto their forehead

But, even now the inquest has gone with unlawful killing, which policemen do you prosecute and what for?
The people at the top for Corporate manslaughter? They’re all dead. Marshall for manslaughter for asking for the gate to be opened to save lives outside? Duckenfield for manslaughter for opening the gates in response to Marshall’s information? I really can’t see who you prosecute for the deaths.

You can only prosecute legal entities for corporate manslaughter and the offence didn’t exist at the time.

Gross negligence manslaughter for Marshall and Duckenfield, for example. Let’s see what, if anything, the CPS says.

My OH works in roughly this area (kids with sen because of complex health issues), and from what I’ve heard (which has all been anonymous) amazing results can be achieved when everyone pulls in the same direction but it can be a struggle to get there. Hang in there, matey, and good luck.

the trade union of police rank and file officers.
POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

It’s also the organisation that sat on minutes of the meeting at which senior police officers spread “the truth” which got to the Prime Minister and then to The Sun…so they can do one

Member
Or the rice straining order.
POSTED 15 HOURS AGO # REP

Very good

clear evidence of a conspiracy

There is clear, well-documented evidence of a conspiracy (now proven to a tribunal) between police officers institutionalised and covering up for each other.

There is no such evidence of a conspiracy among masons, just one office whose mate Kevin told him about it in the canteen but Kev didn’t think he could prove it.

Heard a similar story from my Nan who lived in the midlands

And did she worry sheep after she got the treatment?

Trading standards?

It’s all a scam by the oil companies to sell the leftovers they have when they make petrol anyway

I can’t believe anyone set out to kill 96 people

No-one is suggesting that anyone did.

It’s sort of odd that JHJ is determined to subvert the radical and now widely accepted truth (that the state and in particular the South Yorkshire Police, as an institution and criminal enterprise, engaged in a conspiracy to cover up crimes) for a more modest lie (that it was the work of a few rogue Masons)…

I think this is spot on – we all know that they made some tragic errors, they know they made some tragic errors, but trying to convict someone for the deaths rather than the cover up will be a long and costly exercise in revenge as much as justice. The unlawful killing verdict was a majority verdict, so presumably a criminal jury may also be unable to reach a conclusive verdict, and then what do we do in another 4-5 years and several million pounds down the swanny?

There’s nothing wrong with a majority verdict. It wasn’t a narrow margin. You don’t need a unanimous verdict in a criminal trial. The outcome of criminal trials is never guaranteed. I don’t think you can say criminal prosecution is an act of revenge when the likely defendants have had every protection and procedural right they were entitled to – and quite a few they weren’t entitled to (like having a police force cover up their actions).

It depends on the person and what they did.

Truly and awfully terrible, but not malicious

I’m not flaming you here…I don’t think there was any malice or intent to kill anyone. However, our legal system has long punished people for doing things where they were negligent or indifferent and where the thing they did was so bad it deserves criminal punishment. (I agree that this is slightly circular).

The unlawful killing and the cover up are separate issues – although the fact that the killing was unlawful explains why there was a cover up.

He pretends not to have a opinion but he sets the narrative.

Indeed he does set the narrative. He’d be a pretty crap documentary maker otherwise but his apparent impartial approach in person is exactly why his style works for me, but clearly not for others.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying what I like is the only true path for documentary films (I have terrible taste fwiw). I just think that Theroux’s docs get treated as being objective (see spin’s comment after yours) when they’re not. The effect of the observer on the observed situation is a well-worn debate (and tbf I don’t think Theroux has ever denied it).

Imvho I prefer the work of Nick Broomfield – the decision to appear on camera is a recognition of that “dialogue” between the subject and the filmmaker.

was any other stadium / setup different at that time, I doubt it. A load of unfortunate circumstances led to an outcome.

A load of patently f’ing obvious circumstances that were easily foreseeable at the time and not just in hindsight. And the failure to consider those circumstances was so negligent and so awful as to merit criminal punishment.

And it’s tiresome and disingenuous.

For me his documentaries show a pretty non-judgemental insight into a range of subcultures or environments.

His Beaker-like “ooh, I’m just a hapless everyman” schtick is a bit tiresome when he organises, executes, produces and edits his documentaries. He pretends not to have a opinion but he sets the narrative.

my riding skillz you’d be jealous, but after a while, I got bored of arguing about wheel sizes and brand fashions, so decided to focus instead on issues of global importance.

This is how you deliver a sick burn

So I hate to think what is all over everyone’s fingers.

This is why people wash their hands before eating, and you use clean plates instead of other people’s armpits

sigh. The secret of comedy is timing, and I was late.