Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After expending £3 mil. of public money they'll find it was the Police's fault but thankfully that lessons have been learned. The guilty officer(s) will have long retired. You're welcome." I think you argued that the taxpayer should spend £46 million on a memorial for the late Queen. Yet £3 million (I don't know if this is an accurate prediction btw) for investigating police brutality, corruption and lies by the government and the BBC is a waste of money? I can see that those responsible won't be retrospectively prosecuted but it's important that such people don't get a free ride into history. A bright light needs to illuminate where the state apparatus went off the rails, even if it was 40 years ago. If there are no consequences, even of shame, then people in positions of power will rightly conclude that thay can get away with pretty much whatever they like in the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is possible that if an enquiry into the SYP's behaviour had been held more promptly then the Hillsborough disaster might not have happened. " This..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After expending £3 mil. of public money they'll find it was the Police's fault but thankfully that lessons have been learned. The guilty officer(s) will have long retired. You're welcome. I think you argued that the taxpayer should spend £46 million on a memorial for the late Queen. Yet £3 million (I don't know if this is an accurate prediction btw) for investigating police brutality, corruption and lies by the government and the BBC is a waste of money? I can see that those responsible won't be retrospectively prosecuted but it's important that such people don't get a free ride into history. A bright light needs to illuminate where the state apparatus went off the rails, even if it was 40 years ago. If there are no consequences, even of shame, then people in positions of power will rightly conclude that thay can get away with pretty much whatever they like in the future. " My point is, whatever the £ numbers, it's a complete and utter waste of public money that will only enrich lawyers and KCs. It's just a bone being thrown to mollify left wingers. The fact is, you can't judge the politics and actions of 50 years ago by the standards of today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is possible that if an enquiry into the SYP's behaviour had been held more promptly then the Hillsborough disaster might not have happened. This.. "I don't think Hillsborough would have been prevented due to the Orgreave. May be the police would have taken more account for their actions; ie blaming it on the fans. But the fans going into that stand probably would have still occurred. That happened before proper ticketing and all seater stadium (I think) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point is, whatever the £ numbers, it's a complete and utter waste of public money that will only enrich lawyers and KCs. It's just a bone being thrown to mollify left wingers. The fact is, you can't judge the politics and actions of 50 years ago by the standards of today." I agree it's a matter of judgement. For some people the idea of spending £46 million on a memorial is excessive. But both the memorial and an enquiry into a serious injustice will have long lasting effects. 1984 is not 50 years ago by the way and plenty of those affected are still alive. Also I think most reasonable people believe that the second inquest into the Hilllsborough disaster in 2016 was essential even though it was about something that happened in 1989. Anyway as I tried to argue earlier the main purpose of this kind of enquiry is to shine light and prevent people in power from thinking they can get away with such brutality, corruption and dishonesty in future. From conversations I've had, many on the right don't understand what happened and the lies feed into their vision of anti-trade unionism and their almost cult like worship of Thatcher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think Hillsborough would have been prevented due to the Orgreave. May be the police would have taken more account for their actions; ie blaming it on the fans. But the fans going into that stand probably would have still occurred. That happened before proper ticketing and all seater stadium (I think)" It's impossible to know for sure if changes to SYP's leadership in the aftermath of Orgreave would have saved lives but the jury of the 2016 inquest came to a verdict of unlawful killing. The subsequent legal proceedings were a shambles with even Jacob Rees-Mogg calling it the "the greatest scandal of British policing of our lifetimes" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57266824 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point is, whatever the £ numbers, it's a complete and utter waste of public money that will only enrich lawyers and KCs. It's just a bone being thrown to mollify left wingers. The fact is, you can't judge the politics and actions of 50 years ago by the standards of today. I agree it's a matter of judgement. For some people the idea of spending £46 million on a memorial is excessive. But both the memorial and an enquiry into a serious injustice will have long lasting effects. 1984 is not 50 years ago by the way and plenty of those affected are still alive. Also I think most reasonable people believe that the second inquest into the Hilllsborough disaster in 2016 was essential even though it was about something that happened in 1989. Anyway as I tried to argue earlier the main purpose of this kind of enquiry is to shine light and prevent people in power from thinking they can get away with such brutality, corruption and dishonesty in future. From conversations I've had, many on the right don't understand what happened and the lies feed into their vision of anti-trade unionism and their almost cult like worship of Thatcher. " Well yes, but what actually did happen? You I can witness or experience an event yesterday and have totally different recall. Reality and truth are not absolutes, they depend on the observer. This is especially true 41 years later (45 by the time they publish). So can a committee of the great and the good add anything? I doubt it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well yes, but what actually did happen? You I can witness or experience an event yesterday and have totally different recall. Reality and truth are not absolutes, they depend on the observer. This is especially true 41 years later (45 by the time they publish). So can a committee of the great and the good add anything? I doubt it." Maybe you don't realise that the police filmed much of what happened and that the attempt to lock miners up for 15+ year sentences on trumped up charges of riot collapsed mostly because the falsified written accounts of the police officers involved didn't match their own footage? The BBC edited their footage and switched the timing around to make it look like the miners response to the police brutality occurred before rather than after the miners were attacked. Also the BBC conveniently lost footage of a policeman standing over a miner beating him unconcious. We already know the police were in the wrong because they paid out of court settlements and legal fees to avoid being pursued for assault, wrongful arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. The main questions though are about how much of this illegality was political. How much planning was involved by central government? Who ordered what and when? Who covered up what? As mentioned by another poster this is still recent news with incriminating files apparently being destroyed to cover up what happened. I understand why some want to sweep it under the carpet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well yes, but what actually did happen? You I can witness or experience an event yesterday and have totally different recall. Reality and truth are not absolutes, they depend on the observer. This is especially true 41 years later (45 by the time they publish). So can a committee of the great and the good add anything? I doubt it. Maybe you don't realise that the police filmed much of what happened and that the attempt to lock miners up for 15+ year sentences on trumped up charges of riot collapsed mostly because the falsified written accounts of the police officers involved didn't match their own footage? The BBC edited their footage and switched the timing around to make it look like the miners response to the police brutality occurred before rather than after the miners were attacked. Also the BBC conveniently lost footage of a policeman standing over a miner beating him unconcious. We already know the police were in the wrong because they paid out of court settlements and legal fees to avoid being pursued for assault, wrongful arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. The main questions though are about how much of this illegality was political. How much planning was involved by central government? Who ordered what and when? Who covered up what? As mentioned by another poster this is still recent news with incriminating files apparently being destroyed to cover up what happened. I understand why some want to sweep it under the carpet. " It's not a matter of sweeping it under the carpet, it's a matter of whether the REAL facts can be ascertained, the background properly understand and any meaningful conclusions reached. You've already decided what you want out of it, that's clear. Starmer is just throwing you a bone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a matter of sweeping it under the carpet, it's a matter of whether the REAL facts can be ascertained, the background properly understand and any meaningful conclusions reached. You've already decided what you want out of it, that's clear. Starmer is just throwing you a bone." Let's sweep it under the carpet, it's all in the past, what can we do, your concerns are just being manipulated, things have changed beyond recognition, we've learnt the lessons, no lessons to be learnt, you're missing the context, we should look forwards not backwards, who knows what really happened, stop being awkward, it was just a few bad apples, move along, nothing to see here. You might be 100% comfortable with such bullshit but many of us aren't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a matter of sweeping it under the carpet, it's a matter of whether the REAL facts can be ascertained, the background properly understand and any meaningful conclusions reached. You've already decided what you want out of it, that's clear. Starmer is just throwing you a bone. Let's sweep it under the carpet, it's all in the past, what can we do, your concerns are just being manipulated, things have changed beyond recognition, we've learnt the lessons, no lessons to be learnt, you're missing the context, we should look forwards not backwards, who knows what really happened, stop being awkward, it was just a few bad apples, move along, nothing to see here. You might be 100% comfortable with such bullshit but many of us aren't. " But it will be selective to mollify certain groups. What about looking into the miners? Infiltrated by Trotskyite rabble rousers? What about their bl@ckmailing of ordinary people with strike after strike? How about their picketing tactics? You see, a selective investigation will only endorse what the pre-determined findings. You already know that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it will be selective to mollify certain groups. What about looking into the miners? Infiltrated by Trotskyite rabble rousers? What about their bl@ckmailing of ordinary people with strike after strike? How about their picketing tactics? You see, a selective investigation will only endorse what the pre-determined findings. You already know that." I'm talking about state sanctioned violence, corruption and illegality. You are talking about Marxism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it will be selective to mollify certain groups. What about looking into the miners? Infiltrated by Trotskyite rabble rousers? What about their bl@ckmailing of ordinary people with strike after strike? How about their picketing tactics? You see, a selective investigation will only endorse what the pre-determined findings. You already know that. I'm talking about state sanctioned violence, corruption and illegality. You are talking about Marxism. " See, you've reached your conclusions already - you might as well write the report yourself and save taxpayers £3 mil. But yes, if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you?" the falacy of false equivalence has been spoken | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you? the falacy of false equivalence has been spoken" Ah so you know what the report is going to say too then? FFS why bother? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See, you've reached your conclusions already - you might as well write the report yourself and save taxpayers £3 mil. But yes, if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you?" I doubt many miners would have described themselves as communists to be honest. I knew a few Yorkshire miners. One was my uncle. He was a Labour supporter but in no way a communist. But let's say you are right - would that make them criminals? Would their political opinions have any bearing on these matters? I don't have access to government or police files or the ability to call witnesses under oath so I don't know what the outcome of this enquiry will be. I do however know what is already on the public record. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you? the falacy of false equivalence has been spoken Ah so you know what the report is going to say too then? FFS why bother?" you're just being hysterical now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree it's a matter of judgement. For some people the idea of spending £46 million on a memorial is excessive. But both the memorial and an enquiry into a serious injustice will have long lasting effects." The enquiry won't have any effect. Anyone around at the time has had 50 years of believing what they do, and they won't be changing their minds now. Those on one side will say that the police were faced with a murderous gang of thugs that just wanted to cause damage, and those on the other side will say that it was state sponsored brutality against peaceful strikers. It doesn't matter what conclusions the enquiry comes to, the people that are upset about it will continue to be so, regardless of whether it's true or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you? the falacy of false equivalence has been spoken Ah so you know what the report is going to say too then? FFS why bother? you're just being hysterical now" .........or merely open minded maybe? Let's see what the report says. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See, you've reached your conclusions already - you might as well write the report yourself and save taxpayers £3 mil. But yes, if the Unions were communist infiltrated, I think we should know, don't you? I doubt many miners would have described themselves as communists to be honest. I knew a few Yorkshire miners. One was my uncle. He was a Labour supporter but in no way a communist. But let's say you are right - would that make them criminals? Would their political opinions have any bearing on these matters? I don't have access to government or police files or the ability to call witnesses under oath so I don't know what the outcome of this enquiry will be. I do however know what is already on the public record. " Good point and I agree they were not. But nonetheless they had fallen under influence of Scargill, Gormley and others who were Trotskyite wreckers that came within a whisker of bringing this country to it's knees. Thank God common sense prevailed in Nottinghamshire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But it will be selective to mollify certain groups. What about looking into the miners? Infiltrated by Trotskyite rabble rousers? What about their bl@ckmailing of ordinary people with strike after strike? How about their picketing tactics? You see, a selective investigation will only endorse what the pre-determined findings. You already know that. I'm talking about state sanctioned violence, corruption and illegality. You are talking about Marxism. " So whenever a "peaceful" protest ends in violence it's always the fault of the police. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The enquiry won't have any effect. Anyone around at the time has had 50 years of believing what they do, and they won't be changing their minds now. Those on one side will say that the police were faced with a murderous gang of thugs that just wanted to cause damage, and those on the other side will say that it was state sponsored brutality against peaceful strikers. It doesn't matter what conclusions the enquiry comes to, the people that are upset about it will continue to be so, regardless of whether it's true or not." 1984 wasn't 50 years ago. It's a bit weird that some people on the right can't do even very basic arithmetic, although maybe not that surprising on second thoughts. The enquiry won't be based on eye-witness accounts There's already plenty of film and other evidence about what happened. The police can't dispute this evidence and have already paid out compensation because they know they were in the wrong. The enquiry will be drawing together all the strands of evidence that's already in the public domain and then trying to dig deeper into things that aren't yet in the public domain. Then they'll make recommendations about how to hopefully protect us from such barbaric abuses of power in the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""I'm talking about state sanctioned violence, corruption and illegality. You are talking about Marxism." So whenever a "peaceful" protest ends in violence it's always the fault of the police." Could you elaborate on your reasoning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The enquiry won't have any effect. Anyone around at the time has had 50 years of believing what they do, and they won't be changing their minds now. Those on one side will say that the police were faced with a murderous gang of thugs that just wanted to cause damage, and those on the other side will say that it was state sponsored brutality against peaceful strikers. It doesn't matter what conclusions the enquiry comes to, the people that are upset about it will continue to be so, regardless of whether it's true or not." "1984 wasn't 50 years ago. It's a bit weird that some people on the right can't do even very basic arithmetic, although maybe not that surprising on second thoughts. The enquiry won't be based on eye-witness accounts There's already plenty of film and other evidence about what happened. The police can't dispute this evidence and have already paid out compensation because they know they were in the wrong. The enquiry will be drawing together all the strands of evidence that's already in the public domain and then trying to dig deeper into things that aren't yet in the public domain. Then they'll make recommendations about how to hopefully protect us from such barbaric abuses of power in the future." You seem to be under the impression that any evidence uncovered will quite definitely be against the police and will show the strikers to be peaceful and innocent. Are you quite sure that you're taking a balanced view of the process? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You seem to be under the impression that any evidence uncovered will quite definitely be against the police and will show the strikers to be peaceful and innocent. Are you quite sure that you're taking a balanced view of the process?" As I have already said there is plenty of evidence about what happened on the day and the immediate aftermath. The enquiry will only be looking at this evidence as a preamble and to frame the references. The main focus (or at least the novel aspect) of the enquiry will be on trying to understand what happened behind the scenes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The enquiry won't have any effect. Anyone around at the time has had 50 years of believing what they do, and they won't be changing their minds now. Those on one side will say that the police were faced with a murderous gang of thugs that just wanted to cause damage, and those on the other side will say that it was state sponsored brutality against peaceful strikers. It doesn't matter what conclusions the enquiry comes to, the people that are upset about it will continue to be so, regardless of whether it's true or not. 1984 wasn't 50 years ago. It's a bit weird that some people on the right can't do even very basic arithmetic, although maybe not that surprising on second thoughts. The enquiry won't be based on eye-witness accounts There's already plenty of film and other evidence about what happened. The police can't dispute this evidence and have already paid out compensation because they know they were in the wrong. The enquiry will be drawing together all the strands of evidence that's already in the public domain and then trying to dig deeper into things that aren't yet in the public domain. Then they'll make recommendations about how to hopefully protect us from such barbaric abuses of power in the future. " I'll stick with 50 years, this episode has deep roots of unionisation and disruption that go back to the 70s. What's weird is the lefties focusing on a single event in an extremely complex period of history. It smacks of just wanting to have a pop at the Police (again) instead of a balanced and accurate understanding of the situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll stick with 50 years, this episode has deep roots of unionisation and disruption that go back to the 70s. What's weird is the lefties focusing on a single event in an extremely complex period of history. It smacks of just wanting to have a pop at the Police (again) instead of a balanced and accurate understanding of the situation." Most of us are talking about an event in 1984. You are of course free to meander off into thoughts about dialectical materialism and other stuff in whatever time frame you like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'll stick with 50 years, this episode has deep roots of unionisation and disruption that go back to the 70s. What's weird is the lefties focusing on a single event in an extremely complex period of history. It smacks of just wanting to have a pop at the Police (again) instead of a balanced and accurate understanding of the situation. Most of us are talking about an event in 1984. You are of course free to meander off into thoughts about dialectical materialism and other stuff in whatever time frame you like. " The event has roots, it didn't take place out of the blue. full context is crucial, even socialists should understand that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You seem to be missing the point. It does no good focusing on a single event of over 40 years ago unless you look at the broader context. That is, unless you just want to blame the Police and vindicate the Miners. It's bollox." As someone said earlier, this isn't really about left and right. But I'm trying to understand your position. Is it that state sponsored violence and corruption is acceptible providing that it is directed at communists? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another pointless enquiry where we pay millions to lawyers to possibly nail a few old coppers who can barely remember their own name . All to placate a few union blowards. " To mollify Starmer's hard left faction who are increasingly rebellious. He's chucked them a bone to keep them quiet for a bit. The report and conclusions are already written of course, just remains to spend the £3 mil. and enrich some lawyers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You seem to be missing the point. It does no good focusing on a single event of over 40 years ago unless you look at the broader context. That is, unless you just want to blame the Police and vindicate the Miners. It's bollox. As someone said earlier, this isn't really about left and right. But I'm trying to understand your position. Is it that state sponsored violence and corruption is acceptible providing that it is directed at communists? " "state sponsored violence and corruption" The report concludes that does it? You must have a crystal ball. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""state sponsored violence and corruption" The report concludes that does it? You must have a crystal ball." You are in effect demonstrating one of the reasons why this enquiry is needed. You seem to be wanting to rewrite history. Others accept history and think what happened was a good thing. Others don't know what happened. Others say they don't care, but feel a need to express an opinion anyway. Others really don't care. What I've written about the events of 1984 are incontrovertible facts. There's video of what happened filmed by the police themselves along with plenty of other forms of reliable evidence. If there was any doubt then why did the prosecution of the miners collapse and why on earth did the police pay out compensation to them? What is in doubt is what happened behind the scenes. And it is what happened behind the scenes that this enquiry will be focused on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""state sponsored violence and corruption" The report concludes that does it? You must have a crystal ball. You are in effect demonstrating one of the reasons why this enquiry is needed. You seem to be wanting to rewrite history. Others accept history and think what happened was a good thing. Others don't know what happened. Others say they don't care, but feel a need to express an opinion anyway. Others really don't care. What I've written about the events of 1984 are incontrovertible facts. There's video of what happened filmed by the police themselves along with plenty of other forms of reliable evidence. If there was any doubt then why did the prosecution of the miners collapse and why on earth did the police pay out compensation to them? What is in doubt is what happened behind the scenes. And it is what happened behind the scenes that this enquiry will be focused on. " Hang on, you're the one who seems to know the report's conclusions already. These miners were not some innocent chaps out for a Sunday stroll. They were violent and abusive to anybody crossing their picket lines and happy to hold the nation to ransom for months on end - a situation that had prevailed for more than a decade. The NUM were strongly communist influenced and intent on bringing down an elected government (Mick McGahey was a card carrying communist). So it's convenient for the left to now focus on a single incident on a single date, but I say let's look at the full picture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hang on, you're the one who seems to know the report's conclusions already." We are going in circles here. I don't have a clue what the report will say, however I do know what is already in the public domain. " These miners were not some innocent chaps out for a Sunday stroll. They were violent and abusive to anybody crossing their picket lines and happy to hold the nation to ransom for months on end - a situation that had prevailed for more than a decade." They were in a dispute and yes some miners broke the law and were rightly prosecuted for offences. I don't have any sympathy for those who used violence. "The NUM were strongly communist influenced and intent on bringing down an elected government (Mick McGahey was a card carrying communist)." As I've said before it doesn't have any bearing on these matters whether the NUM were communist or not. Being a communist isn't illegal. I think it's pretty fanciful to imagine that they could bring down a government, but I suppose it is in the realm of possibilities after what happened with Ted Heath. Although we then obviously need to get into further discussion - if coal was so crucially important to the nation that it could topple a government then why were the government so keen to stop coal production? "So it's convenient for the left to now focus on a single incident on a single date, but I say let's look at the full picture." If you or the enquiry want to look at the wider context then I have no problem, so long as this doesn't mean that we don't also look at what happened in 1984 and what was going on behind the scenes. To be honest I'm genuinely confused about your position. It seems to be based on not much more than an intense dislike of communism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hang on, you're the one who seems to know the report's conclusions already. We are going in circles here. I don't have a clue what the report will say, however I do know what is already in the public domain. These miners were not some innocent chaps out for a Sunday stroll. They were violent and abusive to anybody crossing their picket lines and happy to hold the nation to ransom for months on end - a situation that had prevailed for more than a decade. They were in a dispute and yes some miners broke the law and were rightly prosecuted for offences. I don't have any sympathy for those who used violence. The NUM were strongly communist influenced and intent on bringing down an elected government (Mick McGahey was a card carrying communist). As I've said before it doesn't have any bearing on these matters whether the NUM were communist or not. Being a communist isn't illegal. I think it's pretty fanciful to imagine that they could bring down a government, but I suppose it is in the realm of possibilities after what happened with Ted Heath. Although we then obviously need to get into further discussion - if coal was so crucially important to the nation that it could topple a government then why were the government so keen to stop coal production? So it's convenient for the left to now focus on a single incident on a single date, but I say let's look at the full picture. If you or the enquiry want to look at the wider context then I have no problem, so long as this doesn't mean that we don't also look at what happened in 1984 and what was going on behind the scenes. To be honest I'm genuinely confused about your position. It seems to be based on not much more than an intense dislike of communism. " I'm not a fan of communism, but my real objection to this inquiry is that it's a complete waste of time, effort and cost to just reach conclusions that have already been predetermined. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not a fan of communism, but my real objection to this inquiry is that it's a complete waste of time, effort and cost to just reach conclusions that have already been predetermined." Ah right, so it's you who has a crystal ball. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what communication there was between the Home Secretary and the ACPO regarding the establishment of the NRC? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not a fan of communism, but my real objection to this inquiry is that it's a complete waste of time, effort and cost to just reach conclusions that have already been predetermined. Ah right, so it's you who has a crystal ball. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what communication there was between the Home Secretary and the ACPO regarding the establishment of the NRC? " I only wish I did. But reading this thread, the outcome is pretty obvious, no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I only wish I did. But reading this thread, the outcome is pretty obvious, no?" How does reading this thread give anyone any idea about what the outcome of the enquiry will be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I only wish I did. But reading this thread, the outcome is pretty obvious, no? How does reading this thread give anyone any idea about what the outcome of the enquiry will be? " The outcome is clear : blame it all on the Police (again). Conveniently ignore the context and background. It's bullshit revisionist history. The left re-writing the past (again). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The outcome is clear : blame it all on the Police (again). Conveniently ignore the context and background. It's bullshit revisionist history. The left re-writing the past (again)." We already know that some police in this specific case were in the wrong. There isn't a left-wing conspiracy rewriting history or saying that all police are bad. It's you who are trying to deny reality. The enquiry will bring together all of the strands of evidence, then they'll be asking questions trying to probe what was happening behind the scenes. This will involve calling witnesses to give statements under oath and requesting the release of documentation that is currently not in the public domain. It might be problematic as it seems some documents have recently been destroyed so there may be some forensic work to figure out who and why said information has been deleted. There will be government and police files covering various exchanges and directives. Some of these may be covered by time-limited disclosure rules, some might not be. The reason it could be expensive is that legal experts will be involved and they don't charge minimum wage rates. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
