• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "More Evidence of Lying Corrupt Thieving Violent Police"

Collapse

  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    First of all, I heard the news on Radio 4 and I searched for the follow up. In the light of the repeated lies of the Police involved in the Menezes shooting being defended by head of the Met (Blair); I was discussed to hear the Chief Constable of Hampshire trivialise the offences made by members of his force. How can courts believe police evidence when they give evidence?

    If you or I were to have such a criminal record we would not get security clearance not would we be allowed to work in banks.

    Many forum members go on about how we should punish benefit fraud but when the police do it, then it id disregarded.
    That's how this all came into the open, believe it or not. A civilian member of the police force was fired after a really quite trivial offence, whereas a serving police officer was allowed to continue after something far more serious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    First of all, I heard the news on Radio 4 and I searched for the follow up. In the light of the repeated lies of the Police involved in the Menezes shooting being defended by head of the Met (Blair); I was discussed to hear the Chief Constable of Hampshire trivialise the offences made by members of his force. How can courts believe police evidence when they give evidence?

    If you or I were to have such a criminal record we would not get security clearance not would we be allowed to work in banks.

    Many forum members go on about how we should punish benefit fraud but when the police do it, then it id disregarded.

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Is the %-tage of offenders among the police is lower than the average in normal population? One would hope so, and if that's the case Paddy then the conclusion you should draw is that you are a thief etc etc.
    That's the definition of a good police force: one that catches more crooks than it employs.

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
    No, it's in other papers as well. You obviously haven’t any brains to make a constructive comment.
    Is the %-tage of offenders among the police is lower than the average in normal population? One would hope so, and if that's the case Paddy then the conclusion you should draw is that you are a thief etc etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • expat
    replied
    Why does a thread called " More Evidence of Lying Corrupt Thieving Violent Police" from a poster called "Paddy" make me laugh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Purple Dalek View Post
    Not at all. I'd recon a copper whose served time for credit card fraud would be perfect to catching others of a similar disposition.

    On the otherhand, the justice system being what it is, you have to be pretty stupid or unlucky to be caught. Do we really want the stupid and unlucky to be our protectors?

    Leave a comment:


  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    [Former Southampton Resident]
    Portsmouth? No surprises there then. Bunch of complete pot-noodlers the lot of them - even the Police, Sack em all!!!
    [/Former Southampton Resident]

    There are 42 offences for 4000 coppers. If it's one offence per person then that's about 1% of the force who have a conviction.

    I'm not saying there's no problem, but is it really such a big problem?
    Not at all. I'd recon a copper whose served time for credit card fraud would be perfect to catching others of a similar disposition.

    On the otherhand, the justice system being what it is, you have to be pretty stupid or unlucky to be caught. Do we really want the stupid and unlucky to be our protectors?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    [Former Southampton Resident]
    Portsmouth? No surprises there then. Bunch of complete pot-noodlers the lot of them - even the Police, Sack em all!!!
    [/Former Southampton Resident]

    There are 42 offences for 4000 coppers. If it's one offence per person then that's about 1% of the force who have a conviction.

    I'm not saying there's no problem, but is it really such a big problem?

    Leave a comment:


  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/39C...ded.4699208.jp

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Purple Dalek View Post
    Your responses brimming with logical fallacies. It is quite amusing.
    The PA report is a direct cut and paste from the Sun article. The Sun claims the article as their own. You can't claim the PA report as a separate source.

    Leave a comment:


  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Just because the BBC reported that an MP had picked up on it doesn't make it any less of a non-story.
    Your responses brimming with logical fallacies. It is quite amusing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Just because the BBC reported that an MP had picked up on it doesn't make it any less of a non-story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    Links for those planks incapable of using a search engine in any meaningful way.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukp..._Jp0tMkrZbp7tw

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7732250.stm

    The reuters one is left as an exercise for the training of planks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Purple Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Have we discovered the true identity of the Purple Exterminator?
    I recon it's Denny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Purple Dalek View Post
    And I read it on PA, Reuters and the BBC website.

    So one should draw ones own conclusions about this plank.
    Have we discovered the true identity of the Purple Exterminator?

    Oh and Links?

    Reuters - http://search.uk.reuters.com/rsearch...srch-top-quote

    BBC - http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=ho...&Search=Search

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X