villa89 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In the words of Alan partridge the pikeys are "Scum, Sub-human Scum". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 And here we are back to the namby pamby petal dick policing policy! No, we aren't. Police cant use force when required 'just in case'. In a variation on a phrase that should ring a bell, where do I say that? What, are they supposed to give everyone a medical before moving them on? No. They should held to account for the actions which they take (as should we all) and those who order them to do something should be held responsible for the directions they give. On the 1st point, yes we are. With people like you screaming in the crowd about how you have rights and cant be man-handled out of the way when the police clearly have a job to do. As i said before, you dont want trouble stay at **** home. The business doesnt concern you, stay the **** at home. You have an underlying heart problem, stay the **** at home. On the 2nd & 3rd point, you didnt say it and i never accused you of saying it, but you are trying to say that if Frank the pisshead with cronic heart problems gets asked to move on but refuses, gets shoved a little then keels over and pegs it then the police should be held responsible. Why should they? They are doing a job and Frank the pisshead is stopping them from doing their job, they were'nt to know. Shit happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 There are some pretty disgusting views in here. I might find a different thread and pretend to myself that some of you guys don't actually exist in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Since 2008 i have trying to get my next door neighbours, a travelling family, evicted from their home! Not something i am very proud of but when your constantly receiving verbal abuse, threats to kill, homophobic comments and intentional banging against your internal walls then there is very little else to do when so called mediation has also failed. My neighbour of 35 years decided to move away to be closer to his work. I was very sorry to see him go along with the rest of his family as they were terrific neighbours. Up until my new neighbours moved in i had never considered a bad neighbour. The series 'Neighbours From Hell' was a tv show to me and not even close to actual reality. However, just before my new neighbour moved in, one of my other neighbours informed me that the house next door had been allocated to a real nightmare family. It wasn't that they were travellers that really bothered me, it was the fact that these people coming in beside me had been known to the Police for the past 12 years. I immediately contacted my local Police Station and spoke to one of the neighbourhood officers. To my dismay, the Police Officer confirmed my worst fears that the family moving in beside me were indeed troublesome. However the Police Officer did stipulate that this family were trying to make a fresh start, so without further complaint, i decided to give my new neighbour a chance. Big, big, mistake. Rather than going into too much detail as it is a private matter, my new travelling neighbour has made my life hell after i continually called the Police to report many, many disturbances emanating from my neighbour's home. I made many complaints in writing to the local council about their tenant. I have also spoken to local and national politians who have in turn contacted the local council on my behalf. High ranking local Police Officers have sent Police reports to the council informing them that they can no longer guarantee my safety! Yet the local council will not evict their tenant. Why? Because put quite simply, the Police have informed me that my local council are afraid to evict due to the family being of traveller origin. They are afraid that this family will go to the media if the council start the eviction process. Far better for the council to let me suffer than take responsibilty for their problematic tenant. It is therefore no surprise to me the amount of time taken to evict the families a Dale Farm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The police/bailiff's have wasted far too much time on this already. Give them an hour to get out or be moved by whatever force neccesary It's my bloody tax that's paying for this endless sham. Shift the ****, tazer em if needs be, and if the dozy **** want to tie themselves to poles or by the neck to doors then more fool them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Lazy, selfish, freeloaders, just sponging off us honest hard working tax-payers, still enough about the Royal Family, what about these Pikeys in Essex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 If you dont want trouble and a bit of pushing and shoving, stay the **** away and mind your own business! you mean like Ian Tomlinson ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Not sure if it has been mentioned but just heard on the radio it will have cost £18m to evict this scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 See if I was in gears of war mode I would be saying, In half an hour I'm switching on the hammer of dawn. Get moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I love how most of these "gypsies" have thousands of pounds worth of cameras with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 With people like you screaming in the crowd about how you have rights and cant be man-handled out of the way when the police clearly have a job to do. Having had a look back through the thread the comments about rights (be they 'human rights :winkold:' or whatever) appear to have been in posts other than mine. If the police have a job to do then they should do it but they should be held accountable for their actions and should work within the law and within both their self-imposed guidelines and any which come from the Home Office. On the 2nd & 3rd point, you didnt say it and i never accused you of saying it, but you are trying to say that if Frank the pisshead with cronic heart problems gets asked to move on but refuses, gets shoved a little then keels over and pegs it then the police should be held responsible. You said it in response to something I posted which, at the least, gave the appearance that you were implying that this was my opinion (as you weren't asking me to clarify my position or what I may have been suggesting). What I am saying is that each and everyone one of us should be held accountable for our actions, whatever they are and whoever we may be. It may be that those actions are fine, justifiable, acceptable and so on; it may be that they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 It cost £18million to get rid of all of the gypsies from dale farm. That's a bargain price. Liverpool football club paid £35m for just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 With people like you screaming in the crowd about how you have rights and cant be man-handled out of the way when the police clearly have a job to do. Having had a look back through the thread the comments about rights (be they 'human rights :winkold:' or whatever) appear to have been in posts other than mine. If the police have a job to do then they should do it but they should be held accountable for their actions and should work within the law and within both their self-imposed guidelines and any which come from the Home Office. On the 2nd & 3rd point, you didnt say it and i never accused you of saying it, but you are trying to say that if Frank the pisshead with cronic heart problems gets asked to move on but refuses, gets shoved a little then keels over and pegs it then the police should be held responsible. You said it in response to something I posted which, at the least, gave the appearance that you were implying that this was my opinion (as you weren't asking me to clarify my position or what I may have been suggesting). What I am saying is that each and everyone one of us should be held accountable for our actions, whatever they are and whoever we may be. It may be that those actions are fine, justifiable, acceptable and so on; it may be that they are not. So do you accept that police should be allowed to use moderate force (pushing & shoving) when required? ie. people who are being asked to move along be refuse to. Also, if the police do shove Frank the pisshead out of the way, and he keels over and pegs it, your saying that the police should be held responsible even tho they had no idea about his underlying heart complaint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you dont want trouble and a bit of pushing and shoving, stay the **** away and mind your own business! you mean like Ian Tomlinson ? He was repeatedly asked to move away, why he was there in the first place God only knows. Why was he squaring up and arguing with the police who were trying to do a job? He had no business being there in my opinion. As i say, if you dont want trouble, dont go looking for it ie. stay the **** at home. So in answer to your question...yes. Mr. Tomlinson had no reason to be there in the first place. Im not happy with the outcome of what took place that day as its not nice to hear about anyone losing their life, but lets call a spade a spade for a second, he was pissed up interfering with police business of why he had no reason to be there. The police were trying to do a job and he was hindering their progress. A tragic accident imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you dont want trouble and a bit of pushing and shoving, stay the **** away and mind your own business! you mean like Ian Tomlinson ? He was repeatedly asked to move away, why he was there in the first place God only knows. Why was he squaring up and arguing with the police who were trying to do a job? He had no business being there in my opinion. As i say, if you dont want trouble, dont go looking for it ie. stay the **** at home. So in answer to your question...yes. Mr. Tomlinson had no reason to be there in the first place. Im not happy with the outcome of what took place that day as its not nice to hear about anyone losing their life, but lets call a spade a spade for a second, he was pissed up interfering with police business of why he had no reason to be there. The police were trying to do a job and he was hindering their progress. A tragic accident imo. I'll leave snowy et al to rip this one to pieces .... the ball has been laid on a plate, the keeper is out of his area ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you dont want trouble and a bit of pushing and shoving, stay the **** away and mind your own business! you mean like Ian Tomlinson ? He was repeatedly asked to move away, why he was there in the first place God only knows. Why was he squaring up and arguing with the police who were trying to do a job? He had no business being there in my opinion. As i say, if you dont want trouble, dont go looking for it ie. stay the **** at home. So in answer to your question...yes. Mr. Tomlinson had no reason to be there in the first place. Im not happy with the outcome of what took place that day as its not nice to hear about anyone losing their life, but lets call a spade a spade for a second, he was pissed up interfering with police business of why he had no reason to be there. The police were trying to do a job and he was hindering their progress. A tragic accident imo. I'll leave snowy et al to rip this one to pieces .... the ball has been laid on a plate, the keeper is out of his area ... Do you think the police were at fault Jon? I may not know the complete story and might be missing some info which would sway my judgement on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 If you dont want trouble and a bit of pushing and shoving, stay the **** away and mind your own business! you mean like Ian Tomlinson ? He was repeatedly asked to move away, why he was there in the first place God only knows. Why was he squaring up and arguing with the police who were trying to do a job? He had no business being there in my opinion. As i say, if you dont want trouble, dont go looking for it ie. stay the **** at home. So in answer to your question...yes. Mr. Tomlinson had no reason to be there in the first place. Im not happy with the outcome of what took place that day as its not nice to hear about anyone losing their life, but lets call a spade a spade for a second, he was pissed up interfering with police business of why he had no reason to be there. The police were trying to do a job and he was hindering their progress. A tragic accident imo. I'll leave snowy et al to rip this one to pieces .... the ball has been laid on a plate, the keeper is out of his area ... Do you think the police were at fault Jon? I may not know the complete story and might be missing some info which would sway my judgement on the matter. Very, very brief (and accurate IMO) summary from Wiki: Ian Tomlinson (7 February 1962 – 1 April 2009) was an English newspaper vendor who collapsed and died in the City of London after coming into contact with the police while on his way home from work during the 2009 G-20 summit protests. A first postmortem examination indicated he had suffered a heart attack and had died of natural causes.[2] His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained video footage showing him being struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. The video appeared to show no provocation on Tomlinson's part—he was not a protester, and at the time he was struck was walking along with his hands in his pockets. He walked away after the incident, but collapsed and died moments later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Wasn't Tomlinson (albeit boozed up) just trying to get home? I read that the route he was on was his usual one he took every day after work, but he kept having to double-back on himself due to the police cordons. Plus according to the footage he was walking away from the officers and was posing no threat/resistance whatsoever when Harwood cracked him in the back. Also, Harwood had a track-record of misconduct including a previous incident where he quit the Met before a case for unnecessary force was brought against him (he was on leave and repeatedly tried to arrest another driver he was involved in an accident with). How Harwood then managed to get back into the Met is beyond me, surely they have a vetting process of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 20, 2011 You expect me to believe that Harewood tried to hit something and succeeded?! Oh...Harwood. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts