Anger is mounting

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

It is good to know the Police didn’t mean to lie, nor did Priti Patel mean to bully, or Boris mean to serial lie.  I will use it in my defence.

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by “Nasty Piece of work”
Spitting blood

[Staffsknot]

I believe the actual police statement was suspected broken arm and suspected punctured lung. Journos started dropping the suspected part. They also said 20 ofgicers treated for injuries, the actual number was 40.

Just like if you scratch the riot visors your view in dark streetlights is kaleidoscope effect of loads of star points - it is why you will see them raising and lowering visors a bit to get a clear view and probably why 20x20 vision of a video lens they seem to lash out at aggressive crowd members and more passive ones - a load of mobile lighting up means little idea what is happening.

Add in camera flashes and it all makes for a confusing situation where you can barely hear too.

I've had a suspected punctured lung that turned out to be a mix concussion, biting into my cheek and the air being knocked out of my lungs. Now that was assessment by a very experienced  senior CMT not an over worked paramedic knackered and trying to work in additional PPE.

So newsflash everything isn't a conspiracy and people make mistakes. The world is shades of grey and sometimes things just do happen - history is littered with them

Boris & Patel are horrible enough without the wild conspiracy that the police are colluding to make them look good - I think the lack of pay rises might point to police thinking otherwise

Edited March 28, 2021 by Staffsknot

[Bugger BTL]

1 hour ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said:

Sinister times for news and information, by those who control the message:

 

Avon and Somerset Police confirm officers did not suffer broken bones or a punctured lung at Bristol protest.

https://fullfact.org/online/Bristol-police-protest-injuries/

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bristol-police-broken-bones-kill-bill-protests_uk_605c5d00c5b6531eed021915

Shocked, I am.

[“Nasty Piece of work”]

24 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

IBoris & Patel are horrible enough.

But Camoron is a “man of integrity” - pity no shame though.

[Staffsknot]

11 hours ago, “Nasty Piece of work” said:

Camoron is a “man of integrity”

Well if we're going through the list of cretins then its going to take a while so let's just assume there's a lot.

[Big Orange]

20 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Nope its intimidation to avoid conflict and is same as colouring in the animal kingdom. The individual gains no personal benefit from being unidentified in those times - that's why many bore personal adornments to be identified. Only someone seeing it sees less human elements and more animalistic ones.

Concealment can serve a duel purpose of intimidation and dehumanisation - dehumanisation with face concealing helmets made gladiator duels and knight jousting more palatable to the spectators, to soften the blow of traumatic injury and death. It often overlapped with real warfare.

Yes, not wearing a demon mask and purple body paint is less overly intimidating, but it's scary in a more subtle way in you now look like Bill the friendly fruit picker to the enemy (who are more hesitant to engage with you in ritual battle). Funny pet theory.

Also another reason why UK justice and law may decline into vigilantism and family clan enforcement: some UK police can be awful at deterring and punishing stalkers.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Big Orange

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, Big Orange said:

face concealing helmets made gladiator duels and knight jousting more palatable to the spectators, to soften the blow of traumatic injury and death. It often overlapped with real warfare

I think you are applying modern sensibilities to the past there. People went specifically to see the violence and the face mask in jousting was to protect from the splintered lance entering the eye ( as still happened). The melee was very much mini battles and combatants did die. These mock battles didn't all take place in a nice arena for spectators they could range across fields in a small disorganised battle. It was simply a way of rich knights showing off how good they were and poor ones making some cash via ransom or favour.

Hell in the ancient armies many elite units the members were supposed to form intimate relations so they'd fight harder to keep their partner alive.

Its a nice pet thought that a mask lets you do something you couldn't but the sad truth is you put an individual in a group then they can act that way even if it involves running starkers headlong at the Romans as ancient Britons were want to do - sadly that one wasn't the smartest of plans.

Removal of inhibitions in herd mentality is why mobs or groups are more dangerous than individuals - not because you can hide but each act is amplified, some outdo each other to be seen to act and finally you have the reassurance others do it. Individually they may be timid but they don't want to show that fact to their peers - hence indentified.

If people think they are hidden they are actually less likely to take these acts as there's less risk.

[oracle]

On 24/03/2021 at 11:48, Staffsknot said:

 Paratrooper Lee Clegg was sentenced as the fatal shot was adjudged to have come from the rear of the vehicle, they tried to cover up the fact they continued to fire after the vehicle had sped through the checkpoint and ceased to be a threat. It was only that re-examination suggests the fatal shot may have been from side on that got him exonerated - they still broke the rules of engagement by continuing to fire and why it was still being held up as how to f**k up and go to jail when we were training.

Now if a soldier manning a checkpoint goes to jail shooting someone fleeing please explain how you can argue that a homeowner shouldn't. Its not a Michael Winner film. His far right links are a moot point you judge whether he had laid an ambush, he didn't know the burglars would be travellers.

 

Not really the best anaolgy.You said the would be assilants sped THROUGH the checkpoint.That being the case,lee rigby was in the right to continue firing,as said assailants could still constitute a threat.they were not fleeing,were they?

If that was so,then the case should not have even been brought to court.

If we were to put this in modern day terms,lets say iraq or northern ireland,  assialant comes up to checkpoint in car, attempts to detonate an IED but is unsuccessful,so tries to scarper.Are you saying that the military manning that checkpoint do not have the right to remove that threat,even when it is evident that not to take action will result in future harm coming to either you or your colleagues???

As for tony martin,it's a pretty straightforward case of lack of adequate policing prior to the incident being the straw that broke the camels back.Tony martin had simply had enough of burglars persistently incroaching on his property.

[Staffsknot]

12 hours ago, oracle said:

Not really the best anaolgy.You said the would be assilants sped THROUGH the checkpoint.That being the case,lee rigby was in the right to continue firing,as said assailants could still constitute a threat.they were not fleeing,were they?

First off Lee Rigby wasn't involved it was Lee Clegg there chappie so I'd go and correct that asap. Lee Rigby is a completely other person and was murdered.

Second the car is the weapon, once they are through the checkpoint they cease to militarily be a threat unless they whack it in reverse - believe me I happen to have been in the military so respectfully I actually know the effing military law better than someone else. He was jailed for the act of killing someone after the threat to his team had passed so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about as you are arguing against an actual legal ruling and existant military law that is cut and dried.

An assailant from your other example - if not an imminant threat to life no you can't just slot him. If for instance he had a rifle and threw it away he has ceased to be a threat. There is a vast difference between a battlefield and a checkpoint in Basra. You don't just brass up anyone you see that looks suspicious, if someone approaches you need to deliver a challenge unless to do so would endanger life - failure to do so and subsequently found not to be a threat you go to jail. For instance if you shot everyone you came across with a rifle slung on their shoulder the Middle East and Central Asia would be depopulated.

Now if the suspect is wearing a suicide vest and he has tried to set it off unsuccessfully yes you can kill him as while he may have failed it may still be viable. But the yanks had a case of a guy get out of a car crying and raise hands and lie face down - he removed the vest and they arrested him - turns out if he'd said no to this group he would have been introduced to an electric circular saw. He's a victim not a threat.

Another concept for you to get your head around how things are not cut and dried - many remote dets are done by mobile phone so you'd literally be saying driving along or on patrol shoot anyone with a Nokia. Which is madness.

Now if you want to get really technical this is all called the rules of engagement and a similar set of principles are applied to the armed police.

Soldiering is very strange for civilans to understand because it is about doing violent acts to someone until someone shouts stop, followed by seeing if you can keep whatever is left alive because they've given up. We have laws, you break them you do serious time because if everyone starts doing what they feel like we end up in the Mai Lai Massacre of Vietnam.

If you add in UN rules of engagement literally you are not allowed to intervene often so two groups can be killing each other and unless they shoot directly at you then you're probably bystanders as happened in the Balkans a lot.

Now I suggest you don't try and argue the finer points of military law as you don't seem to grasp NI is not a battlefield and that even in civilian law you can't just shoot someone because they broke into your house.

Tony Martin still had no right in the law to take that action. I get sick of of seeing McDonald's litter within 2 miles of the nearest drive thru but I can't go all Falling Down because the police don't have time to deal with all the folks with no self-respect to find a bin.

But you've gone off down a rabbithole here.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Staffsknot

[Big Orange]

21 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

I think you are applying modern sensibilities to the past there. People went specifically to see the violence and the face mask in jousting was to protect from the splintered lance entering the eye ( as still happened). The melee was very much mini battles and combatants did die. These mock battles didn't all take place in a nice arena for spectators they could range across fields in a small disorganised battle. It was simply a way of rich knights showing off how good they were and poor ones making some cash via ransom or favour.

 

We're all violent feeling creatures but often with a degree of empathy, and for most trying to kill somebody (or even watching a killing in person) is still a high trauma event, no matter the era.

And a lot of historians theorise Roman gladiators wearing face obscuring helmets had the purpose of reducing the stress of human killing, as well as providing protection (plus a lot of the gladiators were comrades) even if the spectators were attracted to the thrill of mortal combat. Most of us watch horror/action/crime media and play shockingly violent video games, even if real life killing feels like an impassable hurdle to most of us.

The Tony Martin case is also complicated by him suffering from paranoia and Travellers living in their own little bubble, where UK law and society often does nor apply.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Big Orange

[Staffsknot]

1 hour ago, Big Orange said:

And a lot of historians theorise Roman gladiators wearing face obscuring helmets had the purpose of reducing the stress of human killing

Many gladiators wore whatever weapons and kit they would have had for their culture ie Gauls had their kit, Greeks theirs. There were also the stylised gladiators who had zero helmet protection such as the retiarius ( bloke with net and trident).

The notion that it was for the benefit of the crowd is also at odds with the same group turning out to see the prisoners meet the lions and the penchant to turn out for a crucifixion.

I'd be interested to know which historians are taking this view as its not something the mainstream ones I've have espoused. Unfortunately there's a historian for all seasons and hot takes sell new books whereas taking a line well trodden doesn't.

But again we're off down a rabbithole.

[satsuma]

One school has made a start on solving some of the worlds problems.  By removing football and other traditionally male dominated activities bullying is now a distant memory, its all poetry readings and non binary activities from here on in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473

 

My only remaining question is why does the BBC hate men so much?  No talk of the impact on what young men want to do?  I smell a turd under the floorboards here.  

[Riedquat]

29 minutes ago, satsuma said:

One school has made a start on solving some of the worlds problems.  By removing football and other traditionally male dominated activities bullying is now a distant memory, its all poetry readings and non binary activities from here on in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473

 

My only remaining question is why does the BBC hate men so much?  No talk of the impact on what young men want to do?  I smell a turd under the floorboards here.  

The really depressing thing about that article is that it would've been published as satire not that long ago. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

[Big Orange]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

Many gladiators wore whatever weapons and kit they would have had for their culture ie Gauls had their kit, Greeks theirs. There were also the stylised gladiators who had zero helmet protection such as the retiarius ( bloke with net and trident).

 

I said reduce, not eliminate, plus there's still a degree of separation or distance between the torture then execution of prisoners and rubber necking spectators (plus POWs, criminals, homeless, rebel slaves/serfs, etc, are sadly dehumanised on principle). 

Also, while vigilante killing is still very rare in the UK for many decades into many centuries, there's now a universal perception that the courts and police seem useless at protecting the law abiding or vulnerable while protecting the predatory, like (with the new Bill and police actions seem to be double downing on).

[satsuma]

18 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The really depressing thing about that article is that it would've been published as satire not that long ago. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

So I can imagine the situation, kids playing football and there is one or two that complain and cry every time they dont get picked or they get tackled or someone scores.  Parents are calling in banging on about it and the teachers are sick listening to all of them.  Solution in a neat bow is to call it all bullying and ban sports.  Keep everyone inside doing quiet activities where teacher can supervise while reading facebook and having a nice cuppa.  Jobs a good un.  

[Big Orange]

I ended up despising school football and sports (it really brought out the worst in pupils and staff).

[nightowl]

17 hours ago, satsuma said:

My only remaining question is why does the BBC hate men so much? 

Because the Guardian paper does?

[14stFlyer]

17 hours ago, satsuma said:

I smell a turd under the floorboards here.  

In my view the most important job a school can do is provide a safe environment in which our young can be prepared for life out in the big wide world. 
 

This school may have focussed more on the “safe” bit, but may not be doing enough of the “prepare”.   The more cosseted the school environment, the more of a shock youngsters have when they leave it. 

[satsuma]

2 hours ago, nightowl said:

Because the Guardian paper does?

Pointless response, adds nothing to the debate 

[Riedquat]

8 hours ago, Big Orange said:

I ended up despising school football and sports (it really brought out the worst in pupils and staff).

I wasn't at all keen on organised school sports (they did their best to put me off wanting to play), so whilst I'd have been happy not having to take part in them that's not the same as saying kids shouldn't be allowed to have a kickabout during break.

[scottbeard]

21 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I wasn't at all keen on organised school sports (they did their best to put me off wanting to play), so whilst I'd have been happy not having to take part in them that's not the same as saying kids shouldn't be allowed to have a kickabout during break.

Break time football was not permitted at my school back in the 1990s.  But not because of worrying about male dominance, rather because of worrying about windows.

[Big Orange]

We're going off tangent here, but when we've got over 50, 000 backlogged court cases now (but nearly 40, 000 before Covid hit) we've got a CPS that is not very efficient to begin with and may be permanently damaged by the lockdowns, we'll probably see more Tony Martin style revenge/defence killings shoot through the roof.

Criminality is c aomplex thing - yes, you get many criminals who are just low intelligence, low self-esteem people with drink/drug problems who need rehabilitation, and poverty can exacerbate crime. But then you had criminals like Jimmy Savile who had widespread adulation, wealth, and support of the establishment, yet still went on to sexually and physically abuse many hundreds of children and vulnerable people....

[Si1]

On 30/03/2021 at 13:05, satsuma said:

One school has made a start on solving some of the worlds problems.  By removing football and other traditionally male dominated activities bullying is now a distant memory, its all poetry readings and non binary activities from here on in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473

 

My only remaining question is why does the BBC hate men so much?  No talk of the impact on what young men want to do?  I smell a turd under the floorboards here.  

that's depressing - also by who's measure is bullying being reduced?

you also rather wonder how that's preparing the kids for the wider competitive cooperative world

[satsuma]

1 hour ago, Si1 said:

that's depressing - also by who's measure is bullying being reduced?

you also rather wonder how that's preparing the kids for the wider competitive cooperative world

You know they type of person the principal will be without even meeting her.  Dishonest to the core and self serving but well able to hide behind PC nonsense when it suits.  The definition of bullying will have been changed to fit the situation.    

[dances with sheeple]

On 30/03/2021 at 13:05, satsuma said:

One school has made a start on solving some of the worlds problems.  By removing football and other traditionally male dominated activities bullying is now a distant memory, its all poetry readings and non binary activities from here on in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56568473

 

My only remaining question is why does the BBC hate men so much?  No talk of the impact on what young men want to do?  I smell a turd under the floorboards here.  

Love this guy`s arrogance and Couldn`t give a ******ness ..LOL...the bbc/sky etc. however don`t like it at all and don`t want it in society....