It all becomes a little bit Freudian when people talk about the police. Transference, projection, all police officers are fascist/racist/thuggish/sociopathic/inhuman blah blah blah… They must be, because I was dragged out of a disco when I was 15 and they all wear the same uniform. This isn’t Life on Mars anymore! Perhaps things have changed a little and the media only ever focus on events they deem newsworthy. Perhaps (shock horror) it’s in the media interest to encourage negative stories about the police and buy in to peoples blinkered and prejudiced opinions. Of course there are incidents when police officers overstep the mark. It’s human nature, and people are fallible. Some people are so farking blinkered it’s untrue.

Clearly dyna-ti you haven’t dealt with an 18 stone drunk man who is struggling and just GBH’d a colleague.

Cuffing is not a stress position and it is also not standard practice. Cuffing to the rear is preferable if you have someone that is struggling violently because they can’t hit you with their hands behind their back and it also makes it easier to control them safely. No police officer in the UK is taught to cuff someone with their hands opposing each other at the rear. That’s why it’s called the back to back position ie the backs of the hands face each other because it puts the LEAST amount of stress on the wrist, shoulder.

When the officer is striking him he’s actually trying to deaden the arm so he will release it and allow him to cuff it without the risk of breaking his arm. It’s called a distraction strike.

I’ve not seen the lead-up to the footage. But I can see that the guy is still struggling and trying to fight even after being tazered, coupled with the fact he already hospitalised a police officer. That would tend to suggest he’s probably put up quite a nasty fight already. He didn’t even make a complaint after his release!

Perhaps next time they should sit him down with a nice cup of tea and ask him why he was so upset? Perhaps you should be looking at the footage in Iran if you want to see actual police brutality? Or maybe people should stop jumping on band wagons and talking about stuff they have very little understanding of.

In my capacity as a public servant I’ve dealt with a few people who have found their own bikes on the internet and told us about them. My own favourite was a chappy who tried to run away, tripped over the stolen bike and knocked his own front tooth out. I then promptly arrested him. Although I had to sit with the whinging ****t in A&E for about two hours.

The only way you will know if it’s for you is to try it. Some of the comments about trying it and quitting within days or months just show that those people probably weren’t cut out to be teachers. My wife is a modern languages teacher and absolutely loves her job. Yes there are crappy times but that’s the same as in any job. Beats sitting in an office trying to make rich people richer if you ask me.

I’m running a 2.25 60a Advantage on the front and a 2.1 62a on the rear at the moment. Really like them. Although I have torn a sidewall on the rear and will probably swap it over for another 2.25 62a. The Advantage does size up quite big, about the same as a 2.35 high roller (which come up small for the size) The newer design Maxxis come up big, whereas the older designs come up small as a rule. I have heard very good things about the Rubber Queens in 2.2 flavour as well though.

I’ve got the U-Turn Maxle Rev’s and I have ridden Pikes as well. The Revs seem just as stiff to me so I don’t see any reason not to get them if they are lighter.

He didn’t have to use a new one, I could see one next to his right hand as he was moaning at me.

Oh come on guys! I’d already spent money in the shop and I realise it’s not a charity, but it’s just good business sense to keep customers happy. How much would it have cost him to lend me a pump for 30 seconds? I think most MTB’ers would happily lend someone a shock pump for a quick blast of air. Ordinarily bike shops have some of the most helpful and friendly staff around. Probably because most are staffed by mountain bikers, not objectionable old men.

Make F poke G in the I then get Z to P in her shoes. Whilst you get drunk with the rest of the alphabet.

Fair enough. But if they have not been found guilty of anything then they should be released. The efforts to deport smack of someone attempting to cover up embarrassment. To say otherwise would be reactionary toss of the Daily Mail variety.

I agree totally that they should be released if there isn’t sufficient evidence to charge. Not sure I agree entirely about the deporting bit. I can think of instances where there would be insufficient evidence to charge, but strong intelligence to show individuals are a danger to the public. In this instance I would imagine deportation is probably preferable to a control order, thankfully I don’t ever expect to be faced with those options. Although government and police sources have stated that Bob Quick’s faux pas had very little effect on the decision to arrest, the over riding factor in all of these cases is going to be public safety. That means the decision to intervene is always likely to err on the side of caution, rather than effective evidence gathering.

For me the issues of government intrusion and the horrible consequences of getting it wrong are too important to be discussed so flippantly and without proper measured argument. I consider myself to be fairly liberal, but I also experienced first hand the events in London on 7/7. I find the description of the deaths of 56 people as a game try abhorrent. I’m gonna leave it there I think. It’s all getting a bit serious for a Thursday afternoon.

Now I thought about posting on this for a little while. Then annoyance got the better of me. I find it quite staggering that a group of people I would ordinarily consider to be fairly well-rounded and analytical can come up with such a bunch of reactionary toss. The fact is none of you categorically know what the police based the decision to arrest on, but are quite happy to assume they were wrong because there were no charges? It demonstrates a quite staggering misunderstanding of the issues, and that guff about it being linked to G20! Gimme a break! It’s like reading the Daily Mail in reverse.