7 posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
Daily Mail commentators?
Block/fake referrer? I would.
Not the first time science has got it wrong. In the third Doctor story "Doctor Who and the Silurians", the Silurians reckoned a newly sighted asteroid was going to rip the Earth's atmosphere off ,and built underground hibernation shelters that would revive them once the asteroid had gone. Only it didn't (it became the moon), and the mechanism never triggered, so they slept a few million years more than planned, emerging in 1970 and causing havoc in rural Derbyshire, although it's faintly surprising that anyone in the county would find anything unusual in people with scales, bug eyes and webbed fingers.
Evidently some of the dodgier Silurian developers (presumably those who failed to account for the moon not leaving orbit) survived annihilation and went on to lead a variety of IT projects under Labour, with the rest going to work for Microsoft's Mac Business unit.
"Wasn't it also disclosed earlier this year or last year that ACPO is quite a profitable organisation."
How very, very New Labour. Buttle/Tuttle here we come.
Paris, cos the labour Big Bro would be more media friendly
"...there are occasions when it is necessary for the police to address the behaviour of individuals."
Surely this would be when they were committing or seemed to be preparing to commit an offence - a real one, not the fantasy imaginary kind that the Stalinist wing of the Met have wet dreams over. Even a copper ought to be able to muster enough common sense to see when this might be the case.
The bland, emotionless "protect the public" cut and paste that gets banged out after every one of these incidents has the dabs of Labours PR boys all over it (what was the line from the Iraq spin? "creating realities", I think) and makes the police look as stupid as it does Labour unelectable.
It's about time the few reasonable politicians left addressed the behaviour of the police.
So which is it?
"When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious."
"As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked."
Those would be the details he refused to give, would they? Or was the suspicious element th fact that a copper deed something suspicious, like perhaps he failed to simply do as he was told when commanded by Those In Authority?
There IS indeed a pattern emerging here; the police are now so mentally denuded by chasing their own self fulfilling targets that they no longer understand what crime, suspicious behaviour or reasonable conduct actually are, unless it's a figure they are trying to hit/avoid. Like a father who's belted his his kid once too often, they (in the immortal words of Lemmy) just confuse respect with fear, attempting to garner public "respect" by coming down on anyone who might have an opinion of their conduct.
If they'd stop behaving like arseholes, they might get a btter response when they do ask questions.
I wonder how much extra it adds that they are the only comparison site approved by Ofcom.