Jump to content

UK Politics: Step Right Up, Step Right Up. Come Marvel At Our Amazing North Sea Snake Oil. Will Cure All Your Electoral Woes. Get It While It's Hot ;-)


Spockydog
 Share

Recommended Posts

It should be noted that Sir Keir Starmer tried and failed, three times, to put this kid in prison. The cunt. Someone needs to get his explanation on camera. Seeing as he's now all about the victims.... 

Met police agree six-figure payout to man hit by baton at protest

 

Quote

 

The Metropolitan police have apologised and agreed to pay a six-figure settlement to a man who needed emergency brain surgery after being hit by an officer’s baton during the 2010 university tuition fees protests.

Alfie Meadows, then a 20-year-old philosophy student at Middlesex University, sustained a brain injury after he was struck on the head during demonstrations against the tripling of tuition fees. He needed more than 100 staples in his head and was left with a large scar.

After the protest, Meadows was arrested and prosecuted three times for violent disorder. He was unanimously acquitted in 2013

In a letter seen by the Guardian, Insp Andy O’Donnell, of the Met’s directorate of professional standards, told Meadows: “I am writing on behalf of the Metropolitan police service to apologise for the serious injuries you suffered.”

It acknowledged that Meadows was protesting peacefully and not acting aggressively towards any police officer, and that the baton strike that almost killed him was dangerous and unjustified.

In 2019, DC Mark Alston, of the City of London police, was cleared of using unreasonable force against Meadows in a misconduct hearing. A panel concluded that the person who had struck Meadows was an unidentified Metropolitan police officer.

In the letter, O’Donnell said: “I sincerely regret, despite extensive inquiries, the officer who struck you did not come forward, could not be identified and has not been held to account for their actions.”

 

More lies. Of course they know who did it. 

p.s. Looking forward to the justifications this one. 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

the rapist nickname is absolute bollocks and a total fabricationapparently

You can't sack people for being a bit creepy. 

Yeah, and of course, there is absolutely no reason why this might be the actual fabrication. I can't think of a single reason why the people who worked with this guy might now distance themselves from it. Not a single one. No, siree. 

This frankly sounds like that time in Succession where they were grilled on the origins of Mo Lester. 

Anyway, as you rightly pointed out, you can't get sacked for being a creep. What about for committing indecent exposure? Or was that also made up by the papers? 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

It should be noted that Sir Keir Starmer tried and failed, three times, to put this kid in prison. The cunt. Someone needs to get his explanation on camera. Seeing as he's now all about the victims.... 

Met police agree six-figure payout to man hit by baton at protest

 

More lies. Of course they know who did it. 

p.s. Looking forward to the justifications this one. 

Why would I try and justify that? i think I've been more than fair in how I've pointed out failings and raised concerns i have with the MPS, I'm not a constant unapologetic supporter. 

 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Why would I try and justify that? i think I've been more than fair in how I've pointed out failings and raised concerns i have with the MPS, I'm not a constant unapologetic supporter. 

 

Tbh, wasn't talking about you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Why would they want to distance themselves from it when in your mind we are all raving eyed sex pests and colluders. They are saying it to other officers, not the press or their friends and family. 

Why would they want to distance themselves from it? Really?

Okay, off the top of my head, perhaps his line manager, or anyone else working in that nick, was aware of the nickname, and doesn't fancy getting grilled on why he had that nickname in the first place, under oath, beneath the bright, purifying lights of a very Public Inquiry. So it gets played down. Like the Mo Lester stuff on Succession.

I mean, this shit ain't difficult. 

And what's with the hysteria? Who is saying you are all this, or you are all that? I happen to think that you, personally, are a pretty decent bloke.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/man-dies-after-dog-attack-in-west-midlands
 

Sunak is going to ban the American XL breed of dog. About time. You have to question why anyone would want to own a breed like that, well we all know why they do, and it isn’t because they look cute.

I wish they would go further and ban all those unhealthy breeds that have been created purely to sit around and struggle to breathe for their entire lives, get arthritis and organ failure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been banning various breeds of dog since 1991. It's not been a notably successful approach to the issue. In this case, it seems it's necessary to first define what is, and is not, a dog of that particular breed. I'm guessing few owners would have bought one if we hadn't banned other similar breeds. The response to banning this breed will be to buy similar dogs of other breeds. Because the root problem is that some folks just want to own this type of dog.

It's like trying to get rid of boy racers by banning particular makes and models of car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retrievers retrieve, and pointers point. This is unavoidable fact. As is the fact that fighting dogs fight. 

Whether it's Japanese Akita or Tosa, American Pit bulls, or Bully XLs, if I see one of these things down the park, imma going to a different park.

He's right to ban 'em. 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think what might be workable would be requiring owners with dogs above a certain height* and weight to get a licence and maybe pay into some sort of deposit scheme. Stick in £2000. You get it back after three years with a clean record. A big, powerful dog can do horrific damage very quickly. e.g. the flock of 24 pregnant sheep near Wrexham that were killed by a couple of XL bulldogs recently. 

Yes, the basic problem is the stupid owners wanting status dogs. But sadly we can't have the owners put to sleep. Plus, waiting for an ideal world where the housing/social/economic/psychological problems that create these people have been removed is appealing, but it won't help the humans and animals being attacked by the Hellhounds Extra Plus now. 

* If the requirement were just weight-based, there'd be a thousand labradors with a biscuit problem falling over the threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a genuine, logistical question and not meant to disagree with any of the posts above. How do these "bans" work in practice for those who already own one of these breeds? This was something someone asked me today at work when we were discussing it and I didn't know the answer so, here I am.

Presumably they aren't just immediately asking for these dogs to be put down? And if you own one already, what do you do? Turn them over to some kind of facility? I am just genuinely curious here and my apologies if I'm missing something obvious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HexMachina said:

This is a genuine, logistical question and not meant to disagree with any of the posts above. How do these "bans" work in practice for those who already own one of these breeds? This was something someone asked me today at work when we were discussing it and I didn't know the answer so, here I am.

Presumably they aren't just immediately asking for these dogs to be put down? And if you own one already, what do you do? Turn them over to some kind of facility? I am just genuinely curious here and my apologies if I'm missing something obvious 

No. They tried that with the original bill, back in the nineties.

It resulted in a lot of well-trained, well-socialized dogs, being taken away and destroyed. With no right of appeal.

This was changed later, and there was a route to saving your pet. So if you could demonstrate you were a responsible owner, the dog had no history of violence, you'd keep yer dug.

With a lot of these chavvy XL owners, all you need is one look at them to know they shouldn't be allowed to have any kind of dog. Let alone one that can kill or maim so easily.

I'm a dog lover. I've had dogs all my life. But if I see one of these things, I'll never take the slightest chance if I can avoid it.

I can't imagine what it would be like to see my Maggie get torn to pieces by an out of control beast, let alone one of our bairns.

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HexMachina said:

This is a genuine, logistical question and not meant to disagree with any of the posts above. How do these "bans" work in practice for those who already own one of these breeds? This was something someone asked me today at work when we were discussing it and I didn't know the answer so, here I am.

Presumably they aren't just immediately asking for these dogs to be put down? And if you own one already, what do you do? Turn them over to some kind of facility? I am just genuinely curious here and my apologies if I'm missing something obvious 

The chief vet has answered that

American bully XLs would not be culled, says chief vet https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66829892

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I can't imagine what it would be like to see my Maggie get torn to pieces by an out of control beast, let alone one of our bairns.

Isn't she like more in danger of a Hawk snatching her?

Minority opinion, I prefer those lazy ass big size dogs than those annoying barky overgrown guinea pigs. And no, I am not into falconry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't she like more in danger of a Hawk snatching her?

Minority opinion, I prefer those lazy ass big size dogs than those annoying barky overgrown guinea pigs. And no, I am not into falconry.

As someone who does not and has no intention of ever owning a dog, I do too. They seem much more relaxed and far less likely to bother you when you pass them on a narrow footpath.

Edited by Maltaran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't she like more in danger of a Hawk snatching her?

Minority opinion, I prefer those lazy ass big size dogs than those annoying barky overgrown guinea pigs. And no, I am not into falconry.

Maggie is 20kg of whirling Wheaten Terrier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...