Magilla Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Dont think you should be patronising the woman like that to be honest. The policeman was well within his rights as the Law has proved It didn't *prove* anything other than there was a lack of evidence to secure a conviction. It's certainly not proof "the policeman was well within his rights", that is pure fantasy. The police themselves are still debating whether he will be censured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Obviously we need smarter officers then if the only way they can communicate with a non violent person is with a baton...are you surprised the police have such a low rep. with the public? No wonder most people have such low opinions of these self-righteous protester types who think they can bully the police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 No wonder most people have such low opinions of these self-righteous protester types who think they can bully the police Yeah, God forbid anyone ever stands up to a police officer in a non-violent manner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This should serve as an example to the protestors and other areas of society. The police are far too leniant in this country. Try coming at a state trooper in the USA with that type of attitude and a small bruise would be the least of your worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This should serve as an example to the protestors and other areas of society. The police are far too leniant in this country. Try coming at a state trooper in the USA with that type of attitude and a small bruise would be the least of your worries. So because they're not as bad as the yanks, that makes it all okay then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This should serve as an example to the protestors and other areas of society. The police are far too leniant in this country. Try coming at a state trooper in the USA with that type of attitude and a small bruise would be the least of your worries. What does that have to do with the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 This should serve as an example to the protestors and other areas of society. The police are far too leniant in this country. Try coming at a state trooper in the USA with that type of attitude and a small bruise would be the least of your worries. You're against non-violent demonstration then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr. pixel Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 section 5 public order offence = nicked not backhanded and hit with a baton, surely? although that would have meant she wasn't able to 'raise awareness' with help from max clifford (who has never had any interest in being a sensationalist.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 It didn't *prove* anything other than there was a lack of evidence to secure a conviction. It's certainly not proof "the policeman was well within his rights", that is pure fantasy. The police themselves are still debating whether he will be censured. "The prosecution has failed in this respect and the defendant has raised the issue of lawful self-defence and as such is entitled to be acquitted." that to me means he was whithin his rights Judge Wickham added: "I am satisfied he honestly believed it was necessary to use force to defend himself." again, within his rights "I am satisfied he honestly believed it was necessary to use force to defend himself." necessary force, again within his rights She pointed out that Sgt Smellie had deliberately bent his knees to hit Ms Fisher on her legs, causing a "transient flesh wound". he did not panic and acted in a way as to restrain the person and cause as little harm as possible to her Ms Fisher decided not to give evidence at the trial because she feared her lifestyle may be raised by the defence slightly odd, what is she hiding? bold is from the article, normal text is my added opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 So because they're not as bad as the yanks, that makes it all okay then? They should be more like the yanks. Why did she refuse to give evidence but thought nothing of flashing the flesh at the media? I'm sure the £ sign never entered her mind. Maybe if the police and courts were tougher she wouldn't have done what she did in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.