|
Post by scfc73 on Jul 26, 2024 9:25:20 GMT
No go areas in Rochdale? Not in the sense that you are in danger if you go there. More like you wouldn’t want to go there. Who’d want to go to Richdale if a county aren’t playing anyway?🤣 the police have all the power they can handle. They don’t need to be given any more. Anyone who attended football games in the 80s or witnessed what they did in the various strikes at the time can tell you they did exactly as they wished and the have only been given more since not less. i am ambivalent towards what happened at the airport based on what has come to light so far. If the lad that got stomped on did what they say he did, quite frankly anything coming his way he was asking for. However, the police are paid and trained and told to act in a certain way. They are given powers and weapons the rest of us (quite rightly) don’t possess. Whilst it is a difficult job, they need to be able to show control of their behaviour at all time. This police officer clearly didn’t have that. He had lost it completely and for someone who is armed, that is a very dangerous thing, even if entirely understandable. I can’t see him remaining in the police. There won’t be any manual he has seen that shows that move. The difference between this incident and what happened with football fans in the 80s is everything is filmed, I've been kicked and punched by the old Bill and probably deserved it, I can't believe anyone would be so stupid to do that now with everyone carrying a camera, he's basically just thrown his career away. Same here in terms of getting a crack off the old bill some of the times it was unjustified & over zealous policing (West Midlands & South Yorkshire police I'm looking at you) but other times it was because I was a bellend or had put myself in a situation that I shouldn't of. I don't harbour any ill will towards the police at all despite a few negative interactions over the years. The times I felt wronged by the police didn't make me want to muster a mob up to lay siege to a police station. I'm not defending the officers stamp or kick to the head at all, that was wrong, but Mozzer has called it right in his post in how this should be dealt with. The family themselves have called for calm but the usual rent-a-mob have jumped on it, people turning up to lay siege to Rochdale police station, waving Palestinian flags? What the hell has the Palestinian issue got to do with any of this? Just bandwagoners looking for the next rumpus.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 26, 2024 9:29:48 GMT
Obviously some more video evidence of this attack to come out as the family lawyer has apparently been across various media stating it was an attempted assassination ! A quick google of said lawyer suggests he has a slightly contentious view on certain things. The prosecution would probably be pushing for attempted murder if someone in work boots stomped on someone’s head in a fight outside a pub for example, so saying it might also be the case for a police officer in Danner Tachyons (or whatever counts as ally footwear these days in the police) isn’t too big of a stretch TBH…
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 26, 2024 9:33:04 GMT
Correct. I apologise for that mistake. it is the A627M. The M621 does indeed give a reasonable exit from the other shithole known as Leeds. Why is Leeds a shithole? I work there, it's a great city. The city centre might be, but like all big cities they have there shithole parts in them that many do not see even if they drive into it or come in by train in certain directions. Coming into it via the A62 or the M621 is quite different than entering it from other areas.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 26, 2024 9:36:47 GMT
Obviously some more video evidence of this attack to come out as the family lawyer has apparently been across various media stating it was an attempted assassination ! A quick google of said lawyer suggests he has a slightly contentious view on certain things. The prosecution would probably be pushing for attempted murder if someone in work boots stomped on someone’s head in a fight outside a pub for example, so saying it might also be the case for a police officer in Danner Tachyons (or whatever counts as ally footwear these days in the police) isn’t too big of a stretch TBH… Whilst in no way condoning what that officer did (and I’ve already said he’s proven himself unfit for his role) it wasn’t a sustained (though completely unnecessary) attack and I don’t agree a similar level of offence by anyone else would get much more beyond a GBH charge.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 26, 2024 9:50:54 GMT
The prosecution would probably be pushing for attempted murder if someone in work boots stomped on someone’s head in a fight outside a pub for example, so saying it might also be the case for a police officer in Danner Tachyons (or whatever counts as ally footwear these days in the police) isn’t too big of a stretch TBH… Whilst in no way condoning what that officer did (and I’ve already said he’s proven himself unfit for his role) it wasn’t a sustained (though completely unnecessary) attack and I don’t agree a similar level of offence by anyone else would get much more beyond a GBH charge. What, after putting him in a headlock, taking him to the ground by his neck, then tasering him and rounding it off with a kick in the face and a stomp on the head? Not sustained at all…
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 26, 2024 9:57:57 GMT
Whilst in no way condoning what that officer did (and I’ve already said he’s proven himself unfit for his role) it wasn’t a sustained (though completely unnecessary) attack and I don’t agree a similar level of offence by anyone else would get much more beyond a GBH charge. What, after putting him in a headlock, taking him to the ground by his neck, then tasering him and rounding it off with a kick in the face and a stomp on the head? Not sustained at all… Putting someone who’s seemingly assaulted a police officer in a headlock, tasering him and taking him to the ground doesn’t really constitute an assault, that would likely fit under “reasonable force”.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 26, 2024 10:13:27 GMT
What, after putting him in a headlock, taking him to the ground by his neck, then tasering him and rounding it off with a kick in the face and a stomp on the head? Not sustained at all… Putting someone who’s seemingly assaulted a police officer in a headlock, tasering him and taking him to the ground doesn’t really constitute an assault, that would likely fit under “reasonable force”. I did say “pushing for”, and as far as “sustained” goes, my point was that the person had already been subject to force (arguably reasonable as you say), and then subdued before the events in the clip that’s shown on the news happened Bear in mind the guidance says: When a detainee is restrained in a prone position, a safety officer should be responsible for monitoring the detainee’s conditions, particularly the airway and response, protecting and supporting the head and neck.…Care should also be taken not to place pressure on a detainee’s chest or obstruct the airways. The guidance on the use of force has been written because of bitter experience, but the officer then went on to use potentially lethal force before kneeling on his back. I’m not for one moment saying the police should have turned to other cheek in that situation, but this officer’s actions were so far away from what they should have been that I’m not surprised the person’s legal representative is painting it as bad as they are. [edit:] To reiterate: I didn’t originally say I thought it was attempted murder; I said I didn’t think it was too much of a stretch that a barrister might try and portray it as such. You can even argue this comes under the “alternative truths” point made earlier in the thread. [edit 2:] The legal test for attempted murder is that the perpetrator intended to kill the victim, but failed to do so; there’s nothing about particular circumstances/durations anyway. We can’t surmise what the officer was thinking at that moment, however I would suggest that a reasonable person doesn’t stomp on someone’s head just to stop them gobbling off or whatever. And if the rumours are true about the officer with the broken nose being his girlfriend… Only takes an unguarded utterance of “I’ll kill that <whatever>!”
|
|
|
Post by malc on Jul 26, 2024 12:03:44 GMT
The diversity of Yellow Board never ceases to amaze me.
Yesterday we were discussing women with dicks and today we're discussing coppers with kicks!! 😂😂
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 26, 2024 12:21:48 GMT
My working life’s never been that good! But a whole bunch of people all my age, straight out of the office into the middle of town after work, sneaky naps on the trollies down in the archives if you’d overdone it the night before, free lunches in the canteen, AND five pounds an hour paid weekly… What wasn’t to like?!?! I probably should clarify in case you wonder what I'm talking about. There used to be a regular table tennis league amongst the insurance businesses around Manchester. I used to take part as I worked for a large Corporate called 'Sedgwick' (now Marsh McLennan). Matches were pretty much all held at the CIS, and I'm sure it was the 13th Floor but I could be wrong, as they had a number of tables. Great times in an otherwise generally miserable part of my career and life in truth. Brought back a really good memory mention of the CIS building.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 26, 2024 12:26:18 GMT
My working life’s never been that good! But a whole bunch of people all my age, straight out of the office into the middle of town after work, sneaky naps on the trollies down in the archives if you’d overdone it the night before, free lunches in the canteen, AND five pounds an hour paid weekly… What wasn’t to like?!?! I probably should clarify in case you wonder what I'm talking about. There used to be a regular table tennis league amongst the insurance businesses around Manchester. I used to take part as I worked for a large Corporate called 'Sedgwick' (now Marsh McLennan). Matches were pretty much all held at the CIS, and I'm sure it was the 13th Floor but I could be wrong, as they had a number of tables. Great times in an otherwise generally miserable part of my career and life in truth. Brought back a really good memory mention of the CIS building. Ah-ha. 18th floor was where the magic happened IIRC. Us youngsters weren’t really allowed up there!
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 26, 2024 12:38:33 GMT
Agreed, that's why I referred to the overall police response not the individual who took it upon himself to carry out the assault on the person on the ground. Hopefully everyone stays calm until the investigation is concluded and everyone has been served what they deserve. So, three armed police officers and a female police officer were attacked. The question that perhaps needs to be asked would there be this outcry had they used their weapons to stun them with shots to their ankles or knees to calm them down? Sadly there are people, indeed groups in the UK who appear to think they are above the law. Would you attack an armed policeman? I certainly wouldn't. I've worked over at Rochdale for almost twenty years. It's a shithole. There are certainly plenty of no go areas and the only good thing coming out of it is the M621. What the policeman did at Manchester Airport was wrong, however it's probably time for the police to be given more power to go about their daily jobs without their action constantly being put under the microscope. Oh by the way, I speak from experience with a friend of ours being murdered over there four years ago by a gang of these out of control freaks. There's no such thing as "stun shots" with guns. No army, no police force, no security service has ever trained weapons users in such a thing. Guns in this mode are used to stop someone by killing or serious injury. That's their purpose. They train gun users who's job that is to hit the chest area as a) it's the easiest part to hit and b) it contains lots of vital organs that, if hit, will stop you. Where are these "no go areas" in Rochdale precisely? I live there, my grandson goes to school there. I regularly play snooker there. My son got married there. I've been to most areas of it over the years. Are they the same kinds of "no go areas" that Stockport has? By the way, it's not a shithole. It has some deprived areas and needs investment just like some areas of Stockport do. But I certainly don't live in what I'd call a "shithole" (I accept Heywood isn't particularly salubrious, but it's nicer in my opinion than Hyde where I've also lived and has a lot more going for it - which is ironic as I moved to Heywood because I could not afford the house I needed in Hyde). There are, by the way, some extremely pleasant and affluent parts of Rochdale. Again (there might be a theme), just like Stockport.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 26, 2024 12:51:31 GMT
Nearly right. I'm saying irresponsible parents shouldn't have more money handed to them. Because, guess what? They're irresponsible and it won't reach the kids. You've accepted those type of people exist, so basically what you're advocating is that THOSE particular kids can freeze or starve but at least we'll help some kids. Hmm. And yes, that means you are bypassing great, responsible, parents fallen onto hard times or working for poverty as you put it earlier. But their children STILL benefit. Whereas your way leaves a percentage of kids (and we can argue what that percentage would be, but you've accepted they do exist, right?) in precisely the same situation. As I said earlier by using a blanket, one size fits all solution (ie. throwing the panacea of more money at people) you're literally starving and freezing some kids with your kindness. I just don't think it works. I think there's a better way. And, when I listened to Starmer earlier, I got the impression that alternative way is what they are investigating. You've just made an argument for providing no benefits to anyone, because someone, somewhere is abusing the system. 'Sorry, son, I know your parents are decent people, but as someone else's parents are shithouses according to me, I'm not giving your parents sufficient money to support you. Whilst you're going hungry please be assured that those shithouses have got less money with which to do what I consider to be inappropriate. There's a better way, which I'll tell you just as soon as I've worked it out. If you'd been lucky enough for your parents to have previously decided to stick at an arbitrary number of children, this wouldn't be an issue for you.' It appears that at present most experts in child poverty agree that lifting this cap is the best way of addressing child poverty from where we are now. That does not mean, as I keep saying, that we should not be seeking other ways to address it so that fewer people are reliant on such benefits. It is a fairly blunt instrument to deal with a complex issue, I agree with that. But whilst we're all wondering what those other, more targeted, nuanced methods might be and getting things in place to deliver them, real children in real lives will be living out the real effects of not having enough money to get enough of the basics. And that comes at a financial and social cost, not to mention the direct personal effects. But still, at least we've not given an indeterminate number of subjectively undeserving people some money in the meantime. www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/two-child-benefit-cap-poverty-taskforce/On the plus side, what you've got here is two people, who are no doubt regarded as woke lefties (whether we are or not), disagreeing with each other without falling out, which feels like a timely reminder that some people really do talk nonsense about how this thread operates to try to justify their own positions. Absolutely not and it's slightly frivolous to suggest that if I may say because it's clearly not my intention as, I think, you probably know (because despite seeing this a different way you are quite correct - I am still a snivelling lefty wokerati). My intention is that every child in need is looked after. That is, more children not less. By simply doing what we've always done (ie. throw money at a problem) your, and all the experts', solution leaves some children behind. As I say, for albeit noble reasons, what that solution does is feed and heat some children but starve and freeze others. I'd like a solution that goes directly to all needy children so that none of them are left behind, or at least that more children are looked after. You seem to have accepted that in this society of ours there are some bad parents. The extent of that is open to debate. I actually think there are quite a lot. I hope I'm perhaps wrong. But they do exist. We all see them around and know them. We all know that not everyone puts their children first above all else. I've said it before on the thread I'll say it again, give those particular parents more money and it elevates them but does sod all for their children. That's only a part solution at best. I'm arguing that if there is a way of bypassing those parents and getting help to all children then that's the solution to aim for. I'm not advocating means-testing or anything like that. I just think there might be a better financial solution than just throwing money at people who, in some instances, will abuse that welfare. My delayed response was because I was out all day yesterday on 'date day'.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 26, 2024 13:04:50 GMT
Not so long ago a lot of those parents were kids in need, the kids we all feel sorry for now we'll be slagging off in 10 to 15 years time, there's a cut off point for sympathy. We need to break the cycle and invest in the areas that need it most and it has to be targeted, engage with kids at 15 and the rest will follow.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 26, 2024 13:14:26 GMT
Not so long ago a lot of those parents were kids in need, the kids we all feel sorry for now we'll be slagging off in 10 to 15 years time, there's a cut off point for sympathy. We need to break the cycle and invest in the areas that need it most and it has to be targeted, engage with kids at 15 and the rest will follow. I think if you leave the engagement until they’re 15 it’s probably too late.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 26, 2024 13:45:56 GMT
Surestart is my 'go to' on this. It was such a good, positive, constructive programme that reached the parents and children who really needed that help. I know people who worked in those places and the stories they would tell about how some parents in all good conscience were doing bad things, because that's what they'd known, and how really simple changes made huge improvements were both frightening and uplifting. Surestart's benefits in terms of improving health and education outcomes (which are themselves linked) was significant. Of course it was one of the early casualties of austerity government, because we were being told a national economy is like a household budget and ideologically it served no purpose for Osborne to fund support for families in need. And the price has been paid.
This is where I agree with BM that there have to be better ways of dealing with issues than simply throwing money at people. My issue is that until you know what it is you are going to do, doing nothing is doing something detrimental. And no-one does seem to know what they're going to do, whilst the people who know about this stuff are pretty much unanimous in saying lifting the cap is the best thing you can do *for now*.
If the government was able to say 'We'll have a plan worked out and everything in place and operational by the end of the year' you could probably see the argument for not lifting the cap now. At the moment, it feels like it's 'jam tomorrow' territory.
|
|