I'm not sure what has been covered up. The independent video confirms that he shouted put it down. Since the whole thing turned on whether the officer thought Duggan had a gun, the words put it down confirms that he obviously did. I have no particular time for the police myself. Some obviously do put in a decent, honest days work but they are let down by too many others that think they are some kind of paramilitary secret service. And it does really do my head in how they have endless resources to chase motorists with super expensive cars and helicopters but when you phone up to report a crime they can't even be arsed to come round and take a statement. In my view the police force has lost sight of its role of defending the public and solving crime and is now just an agent of the state collecting fines and taxes on its behalf. But I really can't see how the Duggan shooting was any kind of conspiracy. Incompetence or inexperience maybe, but I don't see the conspiracy.
Coincidence?
- Thread starter ellal
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Was that ever its role?
RehangRogue";p="2998852 said:
In addition, if your assertion is that he must have been lying because he is black and black people have told lies before, really does demonstrate your racial prejudice.
The mind boggles.
Either you can't understand english, or you are desperately trying to make the poster out to be something he hasn't demonstrated with the quoted post.
Sponsored Links
In addition, if your assertion is that he must have been lying because he is black and black people have told lies before, really does demonstrate your racial prejudice.
The mind boggles.
Either you can't understand english, or you are desperately trying to make the poster out to be something he hasn't demonstrated with the quoted post.
Come on, sir. He understands English perfectly well, but he's a $hit-stirrer. He'll argue that black (is that word permissible, btw?) is white if it gets people arguing.
Police do seem to have been a tad trigger happy here.
When me and a mate was apprehended in our trannie van by armed police at the height of the troubles they knew we was in possession of a double barrel and their information was that we had just tried to assassinate someone.
Granted the guy pointing the gun in my face when I rolled down the window did look very scared but he never pulled the trigger.
The RUC were the best trained officers in the world!
When me and a mate was apprehended in our trannie van by armed police at the height of the troubles they knew we was in possession of a double barrel and their information was that we had just tried to assassinate someone.
Granted the guy pointing the gun in my face when I rolled down the window did look very scared but he never pulled the trigger.
The RUC were the best trained officers in the world!
I knew full-well that you'd (if called) rely on the "if" - I did think about tying that loose end up in my post-in-question, but I am trying to stick to "one-point posts" (as you will argue the minor bit, and avoid the elephant in the room part).
It is very clear that the poster made no assertion at all (you might want to look up "assertion", as the poster clearly wasn't "asserting").
It is very clear that the poster made no assertion at all (you might want to look up "assertion", as the poster clearly wasn't "asserting").
Nothing wrong with being open minded and suspicious as long as you don't let it prejudice your overall judgement. It's perfectly clear that the police are more than capable of making stuff up and altering statements to suit themselves. Just look at some of the major events over the last 20 odd years; Hillsborough for example. Jimmy Saville for another. Police go to his flat once a month for a tea and cakes party. Nothing going on though. They wouldn't let that influence them in any way. Then there's the plebgate nonsense. An officer makes a statement to support his down trodden officer colleagues on the gate when he wasn't even there! So I'm under no illusions about how some of the police are prepared to behave to protect themselves. But it doesn't seem to be the case here. The officer gave his statement and a lot of people doubted it. But now there's independent evidence that confirms his story. So let's be honest about it, some people are simply promoting and going along with what they want to believe rather than what the evidence points to.
Sorry about that John - quoting from a phone is a pain. I am not any better from a pc, tbh
As far as Brigadier and his use of quotes is concerned, you'll have to be patient with him. He has as much trouble with syntax as he does with semantics.
You are getting desperate now, R.
So in summary, Rehangrogue, you do not (cannot) dispute the reports given, the 'facts' you based your opinions on have been shown to be false, yet you remain in the same position you were when the discussion started - you ignore the evidence and simply decide you dont trust the police so they must be covering something up. That's what your argument has been reduced to - you simply saying nanana i cant hear you. Clearly some deep rooted analytical problems in your thought processes, flavoured with heaps of prejudice and a sprinkling of dogma.
I see. You think you can insult me and that's OK, like so:As far as Brigadier and his use of quotes is concerned, you'll have to be patient with him. He has as much trouble with syntax as he does with semantics.
You are getting desperate now, R.
But I respond to you in a similar manner, and you accuse me of "getting desperate".
Kettle, pot and black come to mind again.
Fair enough - I apologise, and I mean it.
Now, will you retract your accusation that the poster "asserted" certain persons to be liars, based on the colour of their skin?
I can't speak for the others, but I refuse to accept that I have failed to produce an argument to counter your beliefs, simply because I have no wish to try.
Although I happened across your above statement, I have ceased to bother reading all your long-winded prattlings on the grounds that I know you are just putting forward your views in order to stir things up, and I have no wish to encourage you further.
You think you're right: I, and others, know that we're right. We all know that you hate the police for some reason you think best kept to yourself, and I think that causes you to continue to peddle your opinions without offering any concrete evidence. Not interested.
R,
I would have used words akin to "intimation", or "allusion" but, as you are well-versed in addressing the sideshow when you look like being cornered, I steered away from the inevitable "How can you possibly know my intentions?"-type response.
I'd also point out that it was I who first raised the concept of "The Police" in the context of singular entity vs group of individuals, something you have now taken up as a argument yourself.
I would have used words akin to "intimation", or "allusion" but, as you are well-versed in addressing the sideshow when you look like being cornered, I steered away from the inevitable "How can you possibly know my intentions?"-type response.
I'd also point out that it was I who first raised the concept of "The Police" in the context of singular entity vs group of individuals, something you have now taken up as a argument yourself.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
