Mozzer
Contributor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 1,254
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 26, 2024 13:54:32 GMT
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'. 👍 I think I've covered most of this in my comment above - I think we both agree we need a better answer than just providing more money, but I've yet to see what that looks like. My concern is about how long we let people fall through the cracks whilst we work out what that is. I do still think you're on dodgy ground in terms of the 'deserving and undeserving poor', because that is a can of worms ready to spill out over all benefits and any definition is going to be subjective and likely result in the state invading people's lives in a way I doubt anyone from the 'non-extreme' parts of the political spectrum would want to see. Sometimes you have to accept that some people will take the piss, but that a) they are a minority; and b) it is worth it for the benefits for the majority.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 26, 2024 14:26:26 GMT
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'. 👍 I think I've covered most of this in my comment above - I think we both agree we need a better answer than just providing more money, but I've yet to see what that looks like. My concern is about how long we let people fall through the cracks whilst we work out what that is. I do still think you're on dodgy ground in terms of the 'deserving and undeserving poor', because that is a can of worms ready to spill out over all benefits and any definition is going to be subjective and likely result in the state invading people's lives in a way I doubt anyone from the 'non-extreme' parts of the political spectrum would want to see. Sometimes you have to accept that some people will take the piss, but that a) they are a minority; and b) it is worth it for the benefits for the majority. No child deserves to be hungry or cold is my starting point here. If the solution to that was throwing tax payers money at it then I'm entirely, 100% with you and like you don't think a few piss takers is a concern. But I don't think it's a solution. I think you'll help partly cure a problem that, with more lateral thinking, could be cured entirely (or more thoroughly at least). I'm not saying that you can't tie more holistic solutions to the financial side of welfare benefits by the way. I'm just suggesting if there is one child with crap parents that you're not going to feed, or warm that child by handing those parents more money. It might make one feel better doing so of course but that money isn't getting to the child. For those saying "it's not the child's fault" by the way. I'm literally saying the same.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 26, 2024 14:37:23 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. I'd be hoping the school system would be doing what they can at that age and identifying those that need intervention, that should happen throughout school but it's around 14 and 15 that these kids start to wander off and they're lost to the sysyem, largely because no-one cares.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Jul 26, 2024 15:22:12 GMT
👍 I think I've covered most of this in my comment above - I think we both agree we need a better answer than just providing more money, but I've yet to see what that looks like. My concern is about how long we let people fall through the cracks whilst we work out what that is. I do still think you're on dodgy ground in terms of the 'deserving and undeserving poor', because that is a can of worms ready to spill out over all benefits and any definition is going to be subjective and likely result in the state invading people's lives in a way I doubt anyone from the 'non-extreme' parts of the political spectrum would want to see. Sometimes you have to accept that some people will take the piss, but that a) they are a minority; and b) it is worth it for the benefits for the majority. No child deserves to be hungry or cold is my starting point here. If the solution to that was throwing tax payers money at it then I'm entirely, 100% with you and like you don't think a few piss takers is a concern. But I don't think it's a solution. I think you'll help partly cure a problem that, with more lateral thinking, could be cured entirely (or more thoroughly at least). I'm not saying that you can't tie more holistic solutions to the financial side of welfare benefits by the way. I'm just suggesting if there is one child with crap parents that you're not going to feed, or warm that child by handing those parents more money. It might make one feel better doing so of course but that money isn't getting to the child. For those saying "it's not the child's fault" by the way. I'm literally saying the same. I get a lot of what you’re saying, agree with a lot of it I think. The thing is that lifting the two child cap (even if only lifting it to 3/4 rather than eliminating it all together) will help a lot of children right now. The other schemes you talk about will definitely have medium and long term benefits but here we have an opportunity to roll back a punitive austerity policy (because it is just an act of austerity) in one fell swoop. Sure start as Mozzer mentioned, breakfast clubs, all good stuff and I fully support them. They’ll take time to implement though (and breakfast clubs are only good in term time on weekdays) while the tax credit cap can be done now, straight away, it could be helping people now. Scotland introduced their own extra payment. It’s very small but has had a positive impact on a lot of lives. It’s not a panacea, it’s not perfect, but the pursuing perfection could prevent something great from being done.
|
|
|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Jul 26, 2024 17:24:27 GMT
There's a lot going on in that footage, and a whole lot more that happened before it that the family don't want us to see, hence the editing, and police won't (ever) release the BWV footage. However, I'll attempt to give a rationale as to what has happened and why or the thought processes involved. I've written this over the last couple of days, because 1) I'm on holiday and I'm making sand castles, body boarding and drinking cider, and 2) it's not the type of thing you can fire out without any thought. But as some one who's had 17 years of PPST training I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth in ...
To start, no one is handcuffed at the start of that footage. One is on a chair arms on his head/in the air, one is lying down with his arms down by his side. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't under control and still capable of being a threat. Usually, we're all quick to shout down what about-ery and what if-ery, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's all we have. What if they know martial arts? What if they are carrying weapons? What if they have military experience and know how to use a fire arm, hence them trying to get it? (a lot of restraint there in not shooting any one of them who did try to get their weapons?) What if they are wanted by police and they are now simply fighting to get away? All very valid things, amongst others, that will be going through their minds. They've already got intelligence about these people, they're violent and willing to use violence even against people that are armed. Their response is already heightened because of what they know. It's clear to me that"Excuse me sir ..." is not an option here, and it's practically a batons drawn situation. Thankfully for me drawing and wracking my baton as been enough. I've never had to strike anyone with it and I've only drawn it for defence or to affect an arrest on about 3 occasions, maybe 4.
Second, look at the radio dangling down. That's clipped in place. That only comes out if twisted 180 degrees and pulled up. Or, it comes out when yanked by someone or you have a monumental struggle with someone, like wrestling or rolling around on the floor. Others have ear pieces dangling down too. Something quite serious happened in the lead up to 'this' incident. They're at their highest state of alertness, red, on Cooper's Colour Code, most likely have tunnel vision and they're fine motor skills will be minimal. The PC that kicks and stamps has his taser drawn, he's not going to be doing anything with hands until he thinks that taser can be put away, maybe a kick and a stamp is all he thinks he has in his locker at 'that' moment in time? He may be proven wrong, but Sect 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 say that whether the force used was reasonable is as the person using it genuinely believed it to be, even if that genuinely held belief is mistaken. Not a defence by any means, it may stand up in court, it may not, but he certainly has a lot of explaining to do in terms of justifying those actions. What none of us are aware of though is what was going through his mind, in terms of the National Decision Making model, or just what was actually known regarding this incident.
Third, guy on the floor, it looks to me like he's being given an instruction, more than likely, "arms out, palms up, legs crossed, look away from me". A simple test of compliance, before a ground pin and handcuffing. If he refuses, the officer will make him. Which is also what happens with the guy who was sat down, he's more than likely been told to get on the ground and isn't doing it quickly enough, hence the officer using a distraction strike and kneeing him so that he can get hold of him whilst he's stunned/temporarily incapacitated. Interestingly it looks like someone comes in left of the camera and interferes, which is why another officer runs over. Going back to the first guy lying down, and the what ifs, if the PC goes in to deal with him, without the kick or stamp, what if if he jolts and manages to wrap his arms and legs around the PC's, leans in to him, causing him to fall backwards? It could cause a firearm discharge, potentially lethal at that, or severe injury to the officer, leaving him open to further attack, but either way there's an officer on the ground, and that isn't where any officer ever wants to be, it's game over time in reality, it could result on the officer firing his weapon and this situation has become a whole lot worse than the one we are debating now.
Fourth, the PC with red hair looks like she has been injured and is really struggling, she looks like she's struggling to breathe normally and looks like she's in shock. She's pretty much doing all that she can, in the circumstances.
Lastly, someone else has raised positional asphyxia. This is drilled into everyone on PPST courses and refreshers. The truth is, we've no idea how long he has been on the floor, or how long he was left on the floor afterwards. I'm confident they would have had him on his side sooner rather than later. Truth is, you can't follow the policy if he's thrashing around like a salt water crocodile that feels threatened (ever wondered why police 'pile in' in numbers to restrain people? It's not easy, and bigger numbers give a better chance of resolving a struggle safely). The best you can do is your best. Tac comms are vital in getting people to calm down, but if they won't, what next? You do your best to keep them off their front in whatever way you can. And from what I could tell, no one was kneeling on anyone's back. The knee that is knelt on is the one furthest from the body, the leg next to the body has your foot tucked in close, the more upright your posture is the more it appears your knee is resting on their body. Something else that is drilled in to us because of PA.
It's just a messy, messy situation, and not one I would ever want to be in. It's like a training scenario, where everything that can go wrong does wrong, where everything is thrown at you just to see how much you can take. There but for the grace of God ... Anyway, if you made it this far without nodding off, bravo! But I hope it helps or gives a different perspective on things that you may not have considered.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Jul 26, 2024 17:38:56 GMT
There's a lot going on in that footage, and a whole lot more that happened before it that the family don't want us to see, hence the editing, and police won't (ever) release the BWV footage. However, I'll attempt to give a rationale as to what has happened and why or the thought processes involved. I've written this over the last couple of days, because 1) I'm on holiday and I'm making sand castles, body boarding and drinking cider, and 2) it's not the type of thing you can fire out without any thought. But as some one who's had 17 years of PPST training I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth in ... To start, no one is handcuffed at the start of that footage. One is on a chair arms on his head/in the air, one is lying down with his arms down by his side. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't under control and still capable of being a threat. Usually, we're all quick to shout down what about-ery and what if-ery, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's all we have. What if they know martial arts? What if they are carrying weapons? What if they have military experience and know how to use a fire arm, hence them trying to get it? (a lot of restraint there in not shooting any one of them who did try to get their weapons?) What if they are wanted by police and they are now simply fighting to get away? All very valid things, amongst others, that will be going through their minds. They've already got intelligence about these people, they're violent and willing to use violence even against people that are armed. Their response is already heightened because of what they know. It's clear to me that"Excuse me sir ..." is not an option here, and it's practically a batons drawn situation. Thankfully for me drawing and wracking my baton as been enough. I've never had to strike anyone with it and I've only drawn it for defence or to affect an arrest on about 3 occasions, maybe 4. Second, look at the radio dangling down. That's clipped in place. That only comes out if twisted 180 degrees and pulled up. Or, it comes out when yanked by someone or you have a monumental struggle with someone, like wrestling or rolling around on the floor. Others have ear pieces dangling down too. Something quite serious happened in the lead up to 'this' incident. They're at their highest state of alertness, red, on Cooper's Colour Code, most likely have tunnel vision and they're fine motor skills will be minimal. The PC that kicks and stamps has his taser drawn, he's not going to be doing anything with hands until he thinks that taser can be put away, maybe a kick and a stamp is all he thinks he has in his locker at 'that' moment in time? He may be proven wrong, but Sect 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 say that whether the force used was reasonable is as the person using it genuinely believed it to be, even if that genuinely held belief is mistaken. Not a defence by any means, it may stand up in court, it may not, but he certainly has a lot of explaining to do in terms of justifying those actions. What none of us are aware of though is what was going through his mind, in terms of the National Decision Making model, or just what was actually known regarding this incident. Third, guy on the floor, it looks to me like he's being given an instruction, more than likely, "arms out, palms up, legs crossed, look away from me". A simple test of compliance, before a ground pin and handcuffing. If he refuses, the officer will make him. Which is also what happens with the guy who was sat down, he's more than likely been told to get on the ground and isn't doing it quickly enough, hence the officer using a distraction strike and kneeing him so that he can get hold of him whilst he's stunned/temporarily incapacitated. Interestingly it looks like someone comes in left of the camera and interferes, which is why another officer runs over. Going back to the first guy lying down, and the what ifs, if the PC goes in to deal with him, without the kick or stamp, what if if he jolts and manages to wrap his arms and legs around the PC's, leans in to him, causing him to fall backwards? It could cause a firearm discharge, potentially lethal at that, or severe injury to the officer, leaving him open to further attack, but either way there's an officer on the ground, and that isn't where any officer ever wants to be, it's game over time in reality, it could result on the officer firing his weapon and this situation has become a whole lot worse than the one we are debating now. Fourth, the PC with red hair looks like she has been injured and is really struggling, she looks like she's struggling to breathe normally and looks like she's in shock. She's pretty much doing all that she can, in the circumstances. Lastly, someone else has raised positional asphyxia. This is drilled into everyone on PPST courses and refreshers. The truth is, we've no idea how long he has been on the floor, or how long he was left on the floor afterwards. I'm confident they would have had him on his side sooner rather than later. Truth is, you can't follow the policy if he's thrashing around like a salt water crocodile that feels threatened (ever wondered why police 'pile in' in numbers to restrain people? It's not easy, and bigger numbers give a better chance of resolving a struggle safely). The best you can do is your best. Tac comms are vital in getting people to calm down, but if they won't, what next? You do your best to keep them off their front in whatever way you can. And from what I could tell, no one was kneeling on anyone's back. The knee that is knelt on is the one furthest from the body, the leg next to the body has your foot tucked in close, the more upright your posture is the more it appears your knee is resting on their body. Something else that is drilled in to us because of PA. It's just a messy, messy situation, and not one I would ever want to be in. It's like a training scenario, where everything that can go wrong does wrong, where everything is thrown at you just to see how much you can take. There but for the grace of God ... Anyway, if you made it this far without nodding off, bravo! But I hope it helps or gives a different perspective on things that you may not have considered. Very interesting that. Not remotely 'nod off' material.
|
|
|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Jul 26, 2024 17:47:15 GMT
There's a lot going on in that footage, and a whole lot more that happened before it that the family don't want us to see, hence the editing, and police won't (ever) release the BWV footage. However, I'll attempt to give a rationale as to what has happened and why or the thought processes involved. I've written this over the last couple of days, because 1) I'm on holiday and I'm making sand castles, body boarding and drinking cider, and 2) it's not the type of thing you can fire out without any thought. But as some one who's had 17 years of PPST training I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth in ... To start, no one is handcuffed at the start of that footage. One is on a chair arms on his head/in the air, one is lying down with his arms down by his side. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't under control and still capable of being a threat. Usually, we're all quick to shout down what about-ery and what if-ery, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's all we have. What if they know martial arts? What if they are carrying weapons? What if they have military experience and know how to use a fire arm, hence them trying to get it? (a lot of restraint there in not shooting any one of them who did try to get their weapons?) What if they are wanted by police and they are now simply fighting to get away? All very valid things, amongst others, that will be going through their minds. They've already got intelligence about these people, they're violent and willing to use violence even against people that are armed. Their response is already heightened because of what they know. It's clear to me that"Excuse me sir ..." is not an option here, and it's practically a batons drawn situation. Thankfully for me drawing and wracking my baton as been enough. I've never had to strike anyone with it and I've only drawn it for defence or to affect an arrest on about 3 occasions, maybe 4. Second, look at the radio dangling down. That's clipped in place. That only comes out if twisted 180 degrees and pulled up. Or, it comes out when yanked by someone or you have a monumental struggle with someone, like wrestling or rolling around on the floor. Others have ear pieces dangling down too. Something quite serious happened in the lead up to 'this' incident. They're at their highest state of alertness, red, on Cooper's Colour Code, most likely have tunnel vision and they're fine motor skills will be minimal. The PC that kicks and stamps has his taser drawn, he's not going to be doing anything with hands until he thinks that taser can be put away, maybe a kick and a stamp is all he thinks he has in his locker at 'that' moment in time? He may be proven wrong, but Sect 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 say that whether the force used was reasonable is as the person using it genuinely believed it to be, even if that genuinely held belief is mistaken. Not a defence by any means, it may stand up in court, it may not, but he certainly has a lot of explaining to do in terms of justifying those actions. What none of us are aware of though is what was going through his mind, in terms of the National Decision Making model, or just what was actually known regarding this incident. Third, guy on the floor, it looks to me like he's being given an instruction, more than likely, "arms out, palms up, legs crossed, look away from me". A simple test of compliance, before a ground pin and handcuffing. If he refuses, the officer will make him. Which is also what happens with the guy who was sat down, he's more than likely been told to get on the ground and isn't doing it quickly enough, hence the officer using a distraction strike and kneeing him so that he can get hold of him whilst he's stunned/temporarily incapacitated. Interestingly it looks like someone comes in left of the camera and interferes, which is why another officer runs over. Going back to the first guy lying down, and the what ifs, if the PC goes in to deal with him, without the kick or stamp, what if if he jolts and manages to wrap his arms and legs around the PC's, leans in to him, causing him to fall backwards? It could cause a firearm discharge, potentially lethal at that, or severe injury to the officer, leaving him open to further attack, but either way there's an officer on the ground, and that isn't where any officer ever wants to be, it's game over time in reality, it could result on the officer firing his weapon and this situation has become a whole lot worse than the one we are debating now. Fourth, the PC with red hair looks like she has been injured and is really struggling, she looks like she's struggling to breathe normally and looks like she's in shock. She's pretty much doing all that she can, in the circumstances. Lastly, someone else has raised positional asphyxia. This is drilled into everyone on PPST courses and refreshers. The truth is, we've no idea how long he has been on the floor, or how long he was left on the floor afterwards. I'm confident they would have had him on his side sooner rather than later. Truth is, you can't follow the policy if he's thrashing around like a salt water crocodile that feels threatened (ever wondered why police 'pile in' in numbers to restrain people? It's not easy, and bigger numbers give a better chance of resolving a struggle safely). The best you can do is your best. Tac comms are vital in getting people to calm down, but if they won't, what next? You do your best to keep them off their front in whatever way you can. And from what I could tell, no one was kneeling on anyone's back. The knee that is knelt on is the one furthest from the body, the leg next to the body has your foot tucked in close, the more upright your posture is the more it appears your knee is resting on their body. Something else that is drilled in to us because of PA. It's just a messy, messy situation, and not one I would ever want to be in. It's like a training scenario, where everything that can go wrong does wrong, where everything is thrown at you just to see how much you can take. There but for the grace of God ... Anyway, if you made it this far without nodding off, bravo! But I hope it helps or gives a different perspective on things that you may not have considered. Very interesting that. Not remotely 'nod off' material. Ha ha, cheers Martin!
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Jul 26, 2024 18:36:57 GMT
There's a lot going on in that footage, and a whole lot more that happened before it that the family don't want us to see, hence the editing, and police won't (ever) release the BWV footage. However, I'll attempt to give a rationale as to what has happened and why or the thought processes involved. I've written this over the last couple of days, because 1) I'm on holiday and I'm making sand castles, body boarding and drinking cider, and 2) it's not the type of thing you can fire out without any thought. But as some one who's had 17 years of PPST training I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth in ... To start, no one is handcuffed at the start of that footage. One is on a chair arms on his head/in the air, one is lying down with his arms down by his side. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't under control and still capable of being a threat. Usually, we're all quick to shout down what about-ery and what if-ery, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's all we have. What if they know martial arts? What if they are carrying weapons? What if they have military experience and know how to use a fire arm, hence them trying to get it? (a lot of restraint there in not shooting any one of them who did try to get their weapons?) What if they are wanted by police and they are now simply fighting to get away? All very valid things, amongst others, that will be going through their minds. They've already got intelligence about these people, they're violent and willing to use violence even against people that are armed. Their response is already heightened because of what they know. It's clear to me that"Excuse me sir ..." is not an option here, and it's practically a batons drawn situation. Thankfully for me drawing and wracking my baton as been enough. I've never had to strike anyone with it and I've only drawn it for defence or to affect an arrest on about 3 occasions, maybe 4. Second, look at the radio dangling down. That's clipped in place. That only comes out if twisted 180 degrees and pulled up. Or, it comes out when yanked by someone or you have a monumental struggle with someone, like wrestling or rolling around on the floor. Others have ear pieces dangling down too. Something quite serious happened in the lead up to 'this' incident. They're at their highest state of alertness, red, on Cooper's Colour Code, most likely have tunnel vision and they're fine motor skills will be minimal. The PC that kicks and stamps has his taser drawn, he's not going to be doing anything with hands until he thinks that taser can be put away, maybe a kick and a stamp is all he thinks he has in his locker at 'that' moment in time? He may be proven wrong, but Sect 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 say that whether the force used was reasonable is as the person using it genuinely believed it to be, even if that genuinely held belief is mistaken. Not a defence by any means, it may stand up in court, it may not, but he certainly has a lot of explaining to do in terms of justifying those actions. What none of us are aware of though is what was going through his mind, in terms of the National Decision Making model, or just what was actually known regarding this incident. Third, guy on the floor, it looks to me like he's being given an instruction, more than likely, "arms out, palms up, legs crossed, look away from me". A simple test of compliance, before a ground pin and handcuffing. If he refuses, the officer will make him. Which is also what happens with the guy who was sat down, he's more than likely been told to get on the ground and isn't doing it quickly enough, hence the officer using a distraction strike and kneeing him so that he can get hold of him whilst he's stunned/temporarily incapacitated. Interestingly it looks like someone comes in left of the camera and interferes, which is why another officer runs over. Going back to the first guy lying down, and the what ifs, if the PC goes in to deal with him, without the kick or stamp, what if if he jolts and manages to wrap his arms and legs around the PC's, leans in to him, causing him to fall backwards? It could cause a firearm discharge, potentially lethal at that, or severe injury to the officer, leaving him open to further attack, but either way there's an officer on the ground, and that isn't where any officer ever wants to be, it's game over time in reality, it could result on the officer firing his weapon and this situation has become a whole lot worse than the one we are debating now. Fourth, the PC with red hair looks like she has been injured and is really struggling, she looks like she's struggling to breathe normally and looks like she's in shock. She's pretty much doing all that she can, in the circumstances. Lastly, someone else has raised positional asphyxia. This is drilled into everyone on PPST courses and refreshers. The truth is, we've no idea how long he has been on the floor, or how long he was left on the floor afterwards. I'm confident they would have had him on his side sooner rather than later. Truth is, you can't follow the policy if he's thrashing around like a salt water crocodile that feels threatened (ever wondered why police 'pile in' in numbers to restrain people? It's not easy, and bigger numbers give a better chance of resolving a struggle safely). The best you can do is your best. Tac comms are vital in getting people to calm down, but if they won't, what next? You do your best to keep them off their front in whatever way you can. And from what I could tell, no one was kneeling on anyone's back. The knee that is knelt on is the one furthest from the body, the leg next to the body has your foot tucked in close, the more upright your posture is the more it appears your knee is resting on their body. Something else that is drilled in to us because of PA. It's just a messy, messy situation, and not one I would ever want to be in. It's like a training scenario, where everything that can go wrong does wrong, where everything is thrown at you just to see how much you can take. There but for the grace of God ... Anyway, if you made it this far without nodding off, bravo! But I hope it helps or gives a different perspective on things that you may not have considered. Thanks for sharing and plenty of food for thought. There does need to be understanding from the general public and f how difficult these situations are even though we have fortunately never been in one. You have gone a long way to facilitating that!
|
|
|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Jul 26, 2024 18:43:18 GMT
There's a lot going on in that footage, and a whole lot more that happened before it that the family don't want us to see, hence the editing, and police won't (ever) release the BWV footage. However, I'll attempt to give a rationale as to what has happened and why or the thought processes involved. I've written this over the last couple of days, because 1) I'm on holiday and I'm making sand castles, body boarding and drinking cider, and 2) it's not the type of thing you can fire out without any thought. But as some one who's had 17 years of PPST training I thought I'd throw my two penn'orth in ... To start, no one is handcuffed at the start of that footage. One is on a chair arms on his head/in the air, one is lying down with his arms down by his side. Whichever way you look at it, they aren't under control and still capable of being a threat. Usually, we're all quick to shout down what about-ery and what if-ery, but when it comes to stuff like this, it's all we have. What if they know martial arts? What if they are carrying weapons? What if they have military experience and know how to use a fire arm, hence them trying to get it? (a lot of restraint there in not shooting any one of them who did try to get their weapons?) What if they are wanted by police and they are now simply fighting to get away? All very valid things, amongst others, that will be going through their minds. They've already got intelligence about these people, they're violent and willing to use violence even against people that are armed. Their response is already heightened because of what they know. It's clear to me that"Excuse me sir ..." is not an option here, and it's practically a batons drawn situation. Thankfully for me drawing and wracking my baton as been enough. I've never had to strike anyone with it and I've only drawn it for defence or to affect an arrest on about 3 occasions, maybe 4. Second, look at the radio dangling down. That's clipped in place. That only comes out if twisted 180 degrees and pulled up. Or, it comes out when yanked by someone or you have a monumental struggle with someone, like wrestling or rolling around on the floor. Others have ear pieces dangling down too. Something quite serious happened in the lead up to 'this' incident. They're at their highest state of alertness, red, on Cooper's Colour Code, most likely have tunnel vision and they're fine motor skills will be minimal. The PC that kicks and stamps has his taser drawn, he's not going to be doing anything with hands until he thinks that taser can be put away, maybe a kick and a stamp is all he thinks he has in his locker at 'that' moment in time? He may be proven wrong, but Sect 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 say that whether the force used was reasonable is as the person using it genuinely believed it to be, even if that genuinely held belief is mistaken. Not a defence by any means, it may stand up in court, it may not, but he certainly has a lot of explaining to do in terms of justifying those actions. What none of us are aware of though is what was going through his mind, in terms of the National Decision Making model, or just what was actually known regarding this incident. Third, guy on the floor, it looks to me like he's being given an instruction, more than likely, "arms out, palms up, legs crossed, look away from me". A simple test of compliance, before a ground pin and handcuffing. If he refuses, the officer will make him. Which is also what happens with the guy who was sat down, he's more than likely been told to get on the ground and isn't doing it quickly enough, hence the officer using a distraction strike and kneeing him so that he can get hold of him whilst he's stunned/temporarily incapacitated. Interestingly it looks like someone comes in left of the camera and interferes, which is why another officer runs over. Going back to the first guy lying down, and the what ifs, if the PC goes in to deal with him, without the kick or stamp, what if if he jolts and manages to wrap his arms and legs around the PC's, leans in to him, causing him to fall backwards? It could cause a firearm discharge, potentially lethal at that, or severe injury to the officer, leaving him open to further attack, but either way there's an officer on the ground, and that isn't where any officer ever wants to be, it's game over time in reality, it could result on the officer firing his weapon and this situation has become a whole lot worse than the one we are debating now. Fourth, the PC with red hair looks like she has been injured and is really struggling, she looks like she's struggling to breathe normally and looks like she's in shock. She's pretty much doing all that she can, in the circumstances. Lastly, someone else has raised positional asphyxia. This is drilled into everyone on PPST courses and refreshers. The truth is, we've no idea how long he has been on the floor, or how long he was left on the floor afterwards. I'm confident they would have had him on his side sooner rather than later. Truth is, you can't follow the policy if he's thrashing around like a salt water crocodile that feels threatened (ever wondered why police 'pile in' in numbers to restrain people? It's not easy, and bigger numbers give a better chance of resolving a struggle safely). The best you can do is your best. Tac comms are vital in getting people to calm down, but if they won't, what next? You do your best to keep them off their front in whatever way you can. And from what I could tell, no one was kneeling on anyone's back. The knee that is knelt on is the one furthest from the body, the leg next to the body has your foot tucked in close, the more upright your posture is the more it appears your knee is resting on their body. Something else that is drilled in to us because of PA. It's just a messy, messy situation, and not one I would ever want to be in. It's like a training scenario, where everything that can go wrong does wrong, where everything is thrown at you just to see how much you can take. There but for the grace of God ... Anyway, if you made it this far without nodding off, bravo! But I hope it helps or gives a different perspective on things that you may not have considered. Thanks for sharing and plenty of food for thought. There does need to be understanding from the general public and f how difficult these situations are even though we have fortunately never been in one. You have gone a long way to facilitating that! Cheers Matty.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 26, 2024 19:28:01 GMT
It’s sub judice now apparently (was always likely to be TBF) so probably best to talk about something else. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c19ky4z8kjmoI hear the FBI are wanting to ask Trump if he was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. I’m not sure how he’d know? It’d probably be a Tomahawk missile if you asked him - he’s already tweeted his entire ear was shot off and grew back! The fizz-crack fizz-crack noise picked up by the microphones on the lectern certainly sounded like bullets whizzing past followed a fraction later by the report of the rifle each time…
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 27, 2024 8:14:37 GMT
I think if you leave the engagement until they’re 15 it’s probably too late. I'd be hoping the school system would be doing what they can at that age and identifying those that need intervention, that should happen throughout school but it's around 14 and 15 that these kids start to wander off and they're lost to the sysyem, largely because no-one cares. Or just alter the school system with smaller schools instead of the massive ones built on school bases far away from where people live. Not a fan of comprehensive education in large schools as in my senior school life i have witnessed both, grammar and comprehensive on the same spot. Much easier to identify problems with less pupils to watch over.
|
|
|
Post by redhatter on Jul 27, 2024 12:43:57 GMT
I don't think anyone wants to see child poverty and it's very frustrating that the government is not in a position to scrap the cap on child benefits straight away.
The problem is the new government has inherited a £20bn financial black hole in the budget, national debt that has trebled in 14 years, zero economic growth and a long, long list of decaying public services. The Tories have caused catastrophic damage.
8 million on the NHS waiting list (2.6m of those economically active), crumbling hospitals (look at the absolute state Stepping Hill is in), an NHS dentist desert, a care system that is massively underfunded and with a lack of capacity which leads to 1 in 7 hospital beds been blocked, child poverty, millions using food banks... It goes on and on. Where does the government start?
In my view, they are right to focus on kick starting economic growth. We've seen barely any growth in the past 14 years and living standards have collapsed. If the UK had grown at the average rate of OECD, the UK economy would be £143.3bn (6.3%) larger on an annualised basis. This is £2081 per person, or £5053 per household. Tax receipts would have been £58bn higher in 2023-24. That £58bn is money that could have been spent on the public services we all want and need.
Without economic growth, we can't get the country back on it's feet. Taxes are already at a 70 year high - and apart from a few specific wealth / capital gain taxes there isn't much scope to do much more. Spending has already been cut to the bone by the Tories, aside from the £billions they squandered and stole during Covid.
I also think the government has to align closely with the EU and look at rejoining, because that is the biggest single way economic growth can be achieved.
Sort the economy and a Labour government can get to work on fixing our public services.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 27, 2024 17:52:41 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. CCTV footage now out in the public domain showing the lead up to the incident which was shared of the copper kicking the lad
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Jul 27, 2024 18:09:17 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. CCTV footage now out in the public domain showing the lead up to the incident which was shared of the copper kicking the lad The copper under investigation is right at the centre of when it escalates as he gets aggressive towards the person being detained and arguably throws the first punch of the whole fracas to the other person who approaches him. He's completely lost his head there and what follows is a shitshow all round. Several arrests and charges need dishing out.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 27, 2024 18:22:58 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. CCTV footage now out in the public domain showing the lead up to the incident which was shared of the copper kicking the lad The guy who ended up being kicked has to face charges after seeing that.
|
|