Coincidence?
- Thread starter ellal
- Start date
Sponsored Links
You obviously think it's too wet and windy for the scum to kick off any sooner.
I hope they won't let the rioters have their way as they did last time.
I hope they won't let the rioters have their way as they did last time.
Elly, obviously wasn't affected by any of the rioting then. 
We were all affected, since the rule of law was temporarily suspended and then the law was shown to be an ass!
I'm just wondering why the news story about water cannons was released on the same day as the verdict....
It's also curious how Radio 5Live refused to broadcast the family's reaction...
I'm just wondering why the news story about water cannons was released on the same day as the verdict....
It's also curious how Radio 5Live refused to broadcast the family's reaction...
Sponsored Links
Dianne Abbott where are you?
You flushed her out AJ, and she's still full of shoite.
What about the hose pipe ban?
We haven't got it yet but wait till summer!
Andy
We haven't got it yet but wait till summer!
Andy
I'm glad there was no point in mentioning Bernie Grant.
It doesn't seem to have been reported recently; how are the levels?
As it is probably going to go to judicial review, I would have thought it sensible to not broadcast live reaction and comment.
Peter Allen did say that all comment would be recorded, and played later (having been run past the lawyers, IIRC).
Playing a 'recording' can always be succeptible to editing for whatever reason..
You only have to look at the way the reporting went after the shooting itself to realise that nothing has been learnt!
Of course, a recording can be edited, for good or not-so-good purposes. I was offering what I thought was a reasonable opinion.
"Refused to broadcast the family's reaction" can also be interpreted as having an inflammatory slant, or implied meaning, to it.
You appear to have set your stall out, Ellal, with your choice of words.
"Refused to broadcast the family's reaction" can also be interpreted as having an inflammatory slant, or implied meaning, to it.
You appear to have set your stall out, Ellal, with your choice of words.
Not at all
I'm merely observing that the delayed reporting could have a similar effect as the actions and proven lies of the police after the shooting that the media then picked up on and then 'edited' for sensationalism...
That had the effect of triggering the initial rioting (although not the copycat stuff), and lessons have not been learnt as to getting the facts out as soon as they occur!
I hear that armed police are to get body cameras...
Well there were plenty of cameras around when menezes was shot and yet mysteriously 'none were working'...
I fully expect that there will be cases in the future which are controversial where a camera is 'forgotten to be turned on', and yet 'fully operational' when it suits the police to show footage!
I'm merely observing that the delayed reporting could have a similar effect as the actions and proven lies of the police after the shooting that the media then picked up on and then 'edited' for sensationalism...
That had the effect of triggering the initial rioting (although not the copycat stuff), and lessons have not been learnt as to getting the facts out as soon as they occur!
I hear that armed police are to get body cameras...
Well there were plenty of cameras around when menezes was shot and yet mysteriously 'none were working'...
I fully expect that there will be cases in the future which are controversial where a camera is 'forgotten to be turned on', and yet 'fully operational' when it suits the police to show footage!
"Refused" is IMHO opinion far more loaded than merely "offering an observation", but we'll have to differ on that one then.
I agree on the cameras, although I offer you this (entirely real - call it Sod's Law) situation. Entirely real as in an analogous situation has happened in my experience. You know you are in the right, but the bit that exonerates you is just out-of-shot.
Cam up all the armed rozzers. I guarantee that (given enough incidents), the critical bit of footage will be missing, as the crucial "action" will be just out of view / off cam / obscured.
Please tell me that you would give the rozzer the benefit of the doubt, rather than accuse him/her of deliberately "just missing" the shot, for want of a better word?
(rushing this post, as in the office!)
I agree on the cameras, although I offer you this (entirely real - call it Sod's Law) situation. Entirely real as in an analogous situation has happened in my experience. You know you are in the right, but the bit that exonerates you is just out-of-shot.
Cam up all the armed rozzers. I guarantee that (given enough incidents), the critical bit of footage will be missing, as the crucial "action" will be just out of view / off cam / obscured.
Please tell me that you would give the rozzer the benefit of the doubt, rather than accuse him/her of deliberately "just missing" the shot, for want of a better word?
(rushing this post, as in the office!)
Actually the issue of that live coverage was raised further on air this morning and the presenter said that 'permission was refused to broadcast the post court comments live'...
So you can take from that what you will...
And sadly I would not give the police the 'benefit of the doubt' given the weight of history, not just when they are involved in a killing but in many areas of their deployment...
But more importantly, those who would then commit violence (who I have never condoned) wouldn't either!
Hence we go back to the original post...
Water cannon announcement - coincidence?
So you can take from that what you will...
And sadly I would not give the police the 'benefit of the doubt' given the weight of history, not just when they are involved in a killing but in many areas of their deployment...
But more importantly, those who would then commit violence (who I have never condoned) wouldn't either!
Hence we go back to the original post...
Water cannon announcement - coincidence?
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
