I posted the top Google search result for 'Scotland Yard' which lists it as a police station. If that's the biggest stick you've got to hit me with here, it's a bit desperate.
you try and be clever but haven’t once discussed the issues raised but try and keep points with daft points
doesn’t matter who the Twitter handle is. it’s the content
again what makes me laugh. you are more concerned who the twitter handle is rather than the video it highlights
says it all
not one person can discuss anything but shout about who the person posting the video
it makes me laugh how you guys shout Muslim but never talk about the wrongdoings
all I’ve seen on this thread is police brutality and laughing at twitter handles but don’t discuss any content
it’s like a echo chamber in here
you said Scotland Yard was a police station. It’s not. so you don’t like being called out but call me windmilling it’s brilliant on here
They shot Menezes who was unarmed.
Yes because they though he was a suicide bomber, so totally different situation to this.
And the fact that he was wrongly killed is just proof of why lethal force is so very rarely used.
There was absolutely no justification for these two offenders to be shot, just typical contrarianism from Grendel.
They shot Menezes who was unarmed.
How can I put this politely. You are buying into the narrative of a racist idiot, so yes, it matters.
Of course it matters where you get the content from - do you believe everything you read? You should be concerned about who you're using to give you your world view, and what that says about you.
I'm going to say this again, because depressingly, it never seems to stick.
If you think all Muslims are the same (and let's not pretend you're thinking of them being all the same in a positive way) you are a racist.
So, what is your issue with Muslims, mate? What "wrongdoing" is it that you and Tommy think that they are all guilty of, that the rest of us are ignoring?
What about Chris Kaba?
Also a fair few agree shooting was an entirely justifiable response
wtf are you on about? I've repeatedly said anyone breaking the law should be dealt with in line with the laws of the land.you conveniently missed the hate speech part out standing outside saying get the motherfuckers
it’s magical how you try to claim the classic holier thou holier approach but won’t call anything out that goes against your narrative
wtf are you on about? I've repeatedly said anyone breaking the law should be dealt with in line with the laws of the land.
not really sure some twat with a megaphone saying 'get the motherfuckers' is going to meet the threshold for hate speach.
80% of wars in the world involve Muslims.
I think the issue with the 'right wing loon' you are referring to was more that he was trying to set fire to a hotel containing refuges while others tried to get into the hotel to attack them.I remember that next time some right wing loon outside a hotel says get the motherfuckers and you’ll be happy with that?
I think the issue with the 'right wing loon' you are referring to was more that he was trying to set fire to a hotel containing refuges while others tried to get into the hotel to attack them.
I think the issue with the 'right wing loon' you are referring to was more that he was trying to set fire to a hotel containing refuges while others tried to get into the hotel to attack them.
here you go. When it suits
Muslim outside police station. if we don’t get justice we will get the morherfuckers is fine
but say it outside a hotel, it’s wrong.
get you
You wanna name them? Israel isn't very Muslim, and neither was Russia last time I checked. This should be good...
Yeah, a fair few idiots maybe.
The fact that the incident was resolved using tasers and without lethal force is all the proof you need that killing someone would have been excessive force.
Absolute contrary nonsense as usual.
Threatening violence against the police because you don’t like how the justice system is working is never OK.
Whats the solution?pick up a history book
look what’s happening in Africa at the minute
Just because it’s not on news doesn’t mean other parts of the world haven’t got wars going on
Whats the solution?
You wanna name them? Israel isn't very Muslim, and neither was Russia last time I checked. This should be good...
Lol “contrary nonsense” - really shooting for internet points ma today
Kaba I believe was unarmed. Apparently you can’t shoot unarmed people
Can you not read, thats not what I've said in the slightest.here you go. When it suits
Muslim outside police station. if we don’t get justice we will get the morherfuckers is fine
but say it outside a hotel, it’s wrong.
get you
look what’s happening in Africa at the minute
You can't shoot unarmed people because they've thrown some punches no.
It's for exceptional cases only, with an incredibly high threshold to get to that point.
Shooting this man would have been unlawful and it's absurd to suggest otherwise.
I just did, and that accounts for two distinct conflicts as far as I can tell. Where'd you get 80% from?
Edit: please don't post YouTube clips. Just tell me what you think and where you got your facts from.
Man seriously injured after being shot by police outside Kent village pub
The Independent Office for Police Conduct watchdog has launched an investigation into the incident.news.sky.com
Can you not read, thats not what I've said in the slightest.
I'll try again and make it as easy as possible for you.
1) anyone who breaks the law should be punished. The law should be applied and due process followed
2) people should refrain from posting partial clips of events on social media as it risks negatively impacting due process and causing those charged to be able to escape on a technicality
3) publishing partial clips of events risks escalating situations unnecessarily
4) throwing eggs at a police station is stupid but most likely isn't going to cause the police to shut the station down out of fear
5) a person shouting 'we will get the motherfuckers' is idiotic and not something I would support however it is very unlikely to meet the threshold for hate speech, if it does then 1 applies and they should be punished to the full extent of the law using due process.
I suspect it would be more likely a successful charge under incitement to violence but even for that you'd need to show a level of influence over others and I'm not sure that threshold would be met
6) trying to set fire to a hotel containing refugees is not legal and should be treated accordingly
7) trying to break into a hotel containing refugees is not legal and should be treated accordingly
No list in the link and no breakdown of the ethnicity or religious affiliation of the forces involved. It's hard to trust your number crunching on this one. 80% sounds like a number you used because it's used a lot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?