Current affairs Serious incident in Woolwich

[The_Rev]

Nice to hear that Celtic fans were gloating over the death of Lee Rigby at their friendly against Brentford today.  Stay classy guys. 

[omariqy]

Saw that. Horrible stuff. 

 

Clare from Redditch is a right hoot. I've told the wife we cant have any babies cos Clare said so.

[Awol]

 

Can someone now please post something irrelevant about the EDL - or other suitably uncouth white people - in order to restore the correct liberal balance to a thread that is supposed to be about the murderers of Lee Rigby?

I can't oblige on the EDL thing but in attempt to address the acknowledged imbalance ( ), I'd like to ask (rhetorically, I guess) what gives people the right (be they persons running amok on the streets of Woolwich with knives and so on or people employed to guard prisoners) to annoint themselves as those appropriate to mete out 'justice' (whichever particarly warped sense of it they purport to be acting for)?

 

The POA rep said the guy lost his teeth during the application of approved control and restraint techniques, therefore it wasn't a case of the screws meting out their own form of justice.

 

The fact that I personally would like something terrible to befall this chap has no relation to their lawful actions, however it's also worth noting that these particular screws have to physically interact with some of the most dangerous men in the country on a daily basis. Given that, it is perhaps not surprising that they may be a little risk averse and apply techniques legally available to them when said nutters 'kick off'.  If he hadn't needed to be restrained I'm sure the poor dear would still have his Colgate smile.

[peterms]

 

 

Can someone now please post something irrelevant about the EDL - or other suitably uncouth white people - in order to restore the correct liberal balance to a thread that is supposed to be about the murderers of Lee Rigby?

I can't oblige on the EDL thing but in attempt to address the acknowledged imbalance ( ), I'd like to ask (rhetorically, I guess) what gives people the right (be they persons running amok on the streets of Woolwich with knives and so on or people employed to guard prisoners) to annoint themselves as those appropriate to mete out 'justice' (whichever particarly warped sense of it they purport to be acting for)?

 

The POA rep said the guy lost his teeth during the application of approved control and restraint techniques, therefore it wasn't a case of the screws meting out their own form of justice.

 

The fact that I personally would like something terrible to befall this chap has no relation to their lawful actions, however it's also worth noting that these particular screws have to physically interact with some of the most dangerous men in the country on a daily basis. Given that, it is perhaps not surprising that they may be a little risk averse and apply techniques legally available to them when said nutters 'kick off'.  If he hadn't needed to be restrained I'm sure the poor dear would still have his Colgate smile.

 

I think you're being far too hard on yourself over on the Condem thread where you say you have an overly suspicious mind.  Clearly you are capable of seeing people in the best possible light, and believing them unreservedly and without question.

[snowychap]

The POA rep said...

I would have thought you'd be innately cynical about statements made by union representatives.

[Awol]

 

The POA rep said...

I would have thought you'd be innately cynical about statements made by union representatives.

 

With no evidence as yet to the contrary, or even an allegation of wrong doing by the screws that I'm aware of, where's the story?

[PompeyVillan]

Getting hurt is a likely byproduct of being restrained, what doesn't seem to have been questioned, unless I've missed something, is the need for restraint. So he's either been violent, was going to cause harm to himself or others through his actions, or was being highly non-compliant.

That doesn't mean that he deserves to get hurt, accidentally or otherwise, but it means that he's made an active choice to put himself in that position. If he had not been restrained, he would not have been hurt.

[snowychap]

Edit: Can't be arsed.

Edited July 21, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

Getting hurt is a likely byproduct of being restrained, what doesn't seem to have been questioned, unless I've missed something, is the need for restraint. So he's either been violent, was going to cause harm to himself or others through his actions, or was being highly non-compliant.

That doesn't mean that he deserves to get hurt, accidentally or otherwise, but it means that he's made an active choice to put himself in that position. If he had not been restrained, he would not have been hurt.

 

The allegation is that guards twisted his injured arm and that he tried to free himself from that.  The questions will be about why they first touched him at all, whether they did in fact twist his injured arm, and whether their response to his reaction was proportionate.  You seem to accept the POA statement that there was a need for restraint in the first place, but that seems to be the very first thing that needs to be established, not accepted without question.

 

His brother says Adebolajo reports that prison staff have repeatedly targetted him and made it clear they were looking for an opportunity to do him.  Presumably an inquiry will ask whether there was an attempt to provoke a reaction by causing pain by twisting his injured arm, as an excuse for using more aggressive "restraint".

[drat01]

 

It was the screws who did it whilst restraining the excitable young man. Apparently suspension is SOP. From what I can gather the sacko has complained about the treatment.

Pity he wasn't accidentally and repeatedly impaled on a spoon, the horrible little word removed.

 

Can someone now please post something irrelevant about the EDL - or other suitably uncouth white people - in order to restore the correct liberal balance to a thread that is supposed to be about the murderers of Lee Rigby?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Why say "white" people?

[drat01]

 

Getting hurt is a likely byproduct of being restrained, what doesn't seem to have been questioned, unless I've missed something, is the need for restraint. So he's either been violent, was going to cause harm to himself or others through his actions, or was being highly non-compliant.

That doesn't mean that he deserves to get hurt, accidentally or otherwise, but it means that he's made an active choice to put himself in that position. If he had not been restrained, he would not have been hurt.

 

The allegation is that guards twisted his injured arm and that he tried to free himself from that.  The questions will be about why they first touched him at all, whether they did in fact twist his injured arm, and whether their response to his reaction was proportionate.  You seem to accept the POA statement that there was a need for restraint in the first place, but that seems to be the very first thing that needs to be established, not accepted without question.

 

His brother says Adebolajo reports that prison staff have repeatedly targetted him and made it clear they were looking for an opportunity to do him.  Presumably an inquiry will ask whether there was an attempt to provoke a reaction by causing pain by twisting his injured arm, as an excuse for using more aggressive "restraint".

 

Peter - there are a few things with this. The cynic in me wonders why he makes these allegations on a day that EDL (also scum) make a racist march in B'ham. People like him will always be targets within the prison system, targets for retribution be it within or outside rules from those who are running the prisons and those that are incarcerated. Sort of dispels the myth about them being holiday camps that the Daily Mail etc would have you believe.

 

If I were a betting man (yup I am ) and there were odds available on this, then I am sure it would be certain money that the warders etc would be back at work soon (and probably quite rightly so) , but rightly there has to be a process that is followed in cases like this where things are investigated. That is a bigger issue thing and despite the obvious odious nature of this bloke and what it appears he is guilty of, the rules have to be followed or we are on a very dangerous road.

 

The reality is that it's a non-story, something that probably happens on a regular basis in the whole scheme of things where allegations are made and investigated. The biggest problem is the obvious mileage that some people will make out of it from both sides of a pretty obnoxios divide

Edited July 21, 2013 by drat01

[Kingfisher]

Getting hurt is a likely byproduct of being restrained, what doesn't seem to have been questioned, unless I've missed something, is the need for restraint. So he's either been violent, was going to cause harm to himself or others through his actions, or was being highly non-compliant.

That doesn't mean that he deserves to get hurt, accidentally or otherwise, but it means that he's made an active choice to put himself in that position. If he had not been restrained, he would not have been hurt.

The allegation is that guards twisted his injured arm and that he tried to free himself from that. The questions will be about why they first touched him at all, whether they did in fact twist his injured arm, and whether their response to his reaction was proportionate. You seem to accept the POA statement that there was a need for restraint in the first place, but that seems to be the very first thing that needs to be established, not accepted without question.

His brother says Adebolajo reports that prison staff have repeatedly targetted him and made it clear they were looking for an opportunity to do him. Presumably an inquiry will ask whether there was an attempt to provoke a reaction by causing pain by twisting his injured arm, as an excuse for using more aggressive "restraint".

Interviewer: I know this guy is a vile excuse for a human being, but can you not see that in a civilised society individuals cannot dish out violence in this way, especially prison guards. Can you not see how this might be a slippery slope? And should this not be investigated? No matter what our personal feelings are, this cannot ever be allowed to happen, can it?

Clare from Reddich: ugh! I can't answer that right, you're just trying to sound silly now right, they're Muslims right, they got mosques on every corner now and those guards didn't do nothin anyway. This isn't Muslim centry like. If they want to live in our country right, they gotta live in our way, this is our way, our way of life like, right.

[peterms]

Peter - there are a few things with this. The cynic in me wonders why he makes these allegations on a day that EDL (also scum) make a racist march in B'ham.

He didn't make the allegation on the day of the march. He made the allegation when he spoke to his family after the incident on Wednesday, I understand. The family then lodged a formal complaint via a lawyer (Thursday, I suppose?). As a result, the staff were suspended pending investigation. Presumably that would be Thursday or Friday. The Guardian covered this at lunchtime on Friday, and I don't know if that was even the first report.

 

People like him will always be targets within the prison system, targets for retribution be it within or outside rules from those who are running the prisons and those that are incarcerated.

He doesn't come into contact with any other prisoner, at all. If he is a target, then he can only be a target of the staff. That would be unacceptable to the law, to prison regulations, and from what they say, to the POA as well.

 

I am sure it would be certain money that the warders etc would be back at work soon

Yes, I'm sure you're right.

[mjmooney]

I see the guys held for the mosque bombings are Ukrainian. 

 

Oh, the irony. 

[chrisp65]

coming over here, stealing our racism

[thetrees]

I see the guys held for the mosque bombings are Ukrainian. 

 

Oh, the irony.

One of them is also suspected of committing the recent murder of an elderly Muslim gentleman.

As Britain, save for the odd nutter, is a largely welcoming and inclusive society, it comes as no surprise that we are importing apparent white supremacists from Eastern Europe.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

There is more than 'the odd nutter' in Britain, to be perfectly honest.

 

There is a nasty sort of racism in the UK, and it isn't the Fred Perry wearing, shaved head EDL supporting kind, it is the insidious comments and anecdotes at dinner parties over a bottle of sauvingnon blanc kind.

 

There is a difference between being tolerant and being inclusive.

[thetrees]

There is more than 'the odd nutter' in Britain, to be perfectly honest.

 

There is a nasty sort of racism in the UK, and it isn't the Fred Perry wearing, shaved head EDL supporting kind, it is the insidious comments and anecdotes at dinner parties over a bottle of sauvingnon blanc kind.

 

There is a difference between being tolerant and being inclusive.

I think that it depends upon how far left thinking you are.

'Nasty' racism is the sort where other human beings are attacked or abused for no other reason than their colour, and there are 'nasty' racists of all colours and faiths.

I haven't attended any of the 'dinner parties' that you describe, but I do accept that there are people who grew up at a different time to me, both older and younger, and whose opinions were therefore formed under different circumstances. They have a right to their opinions in a free and democratic society.

I accept that there can be a difference between being tolerant and inclusive, but surely it s possible to be both?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Certainly it is possible, but I think the UK isn't as inclusive as it should be, not by a long stretch, and not just with people of different faiths or nationalities.

 

I mean, how long before we have a muslim prime minister? A (openly ) gay prime minister? They wouldn't even be in the running as things currently stand imo. How much of a marker is that? Not much, I suppose. Obama is a good example - America is certainly not 'post-racial' as a result of his presidency.

 

And while I'd say the UK is tolerant, you can see in earlier posts in this thread, or after any incident of this nature, that it doesn't take much for that veil to be pulled away.

Edited July 21, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[darrenm]

I'll admit that I find it impossible to be objective in anything relating to the Woolwich killers. When it's a crime as brutal and chilling as this, the visions of the hacked up body of someone's husband, father, son lying on the floor while some mentally deranged sub-norm is preaching about fairy stories into someone's phone, just makes me not really bothered if they're getting a bit of roughing up in prison.

 

Sorry if that makes me a lesser human being.