• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Behavior of UK Police officers.

MikeG said:
He was refused by his driver. He (the Met Commissioner) wanted to stop. Police were already on the scene, of course, so his role was to go and co-ordinate the city-wide policing response.
Click to expand...

Had Mackey actually got out of the car and been stabbed himself, no doubt people would now be castigating his driver for not stopping him. We don't know if the driver was armed, but the number one rule for close-protection is that you don't leave you principal to deal with what may very well be a deliberate distraction.
 
Last edited:
Baylor said:
This is a reification and meaningless statement.
Click to expand...

English really is your second language, isn't it. It was a very simple and easily understood comment that you describe as "meaningless". Again, it was perfectly clear to everyone else in the thread, and I'm sorry for you that you are the only one unable to understand its content.
 
Here we go for, I believe, the 4th time:

Name any street in any town in Britain (you know, in one of your "no-go areas"), and we'll ask a forumite to walk along it. We're all unarmed, of course, so it goes without saying that they'll be walking along unarmed. They can then report back on what they experience.

Why are you so frightened of accepting this really simple offer?
 
Information Analyst said:
Had Mackey actually got out of the car and been stabbed himself, no doubt people would now be castigating his driver for not stopping him. We don't know if the driver was armed, but the number one rule for close-protection is that you don't leave you principal to deal with what may very well be a deliberate distraction.
Click to expand...

Indeed. At that stage, could anyone have known whether or not the guy was wearing a suicide vest? Of course not.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I agree on the fat but the training not so much. I doubt he would have any time to keep up with training but he will have had it in the past and should have known what to do.
Click to expand...

There's training and there's training. He's only 56 but look at the state of him. He doesn't have to be able to storm buildings from the sky, but a reasonable level of physical fitness and competence should surely be expected.

Captain_Swoop said:
As for the taser, I don't agree at all. Not every officer is trained or cleared to carry a tazer and not all those cleared get to carry one anyway. In Cleveland at least they are only issued to Firearms officers (or were until recently)
Click to expand...

I didn't say he should carry one. It was he who said that the reason he didn't get out of the car was because he didn't have the correct equipment. I said that's his fault. He's the police chief!

MikeG said:
He was refused by his driver.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence for a) the 'fact' the chauffeur had the authority to order the police chief to do anything and b) he was prevented on exiting the car by the chauffeur. Because that's not what I read.

He recalled locking the doors of his chauffeur-driven car, where neither of the two other people inside had stab vests, any other equipment or a radio to communicate with officers about what was happening.

“A colleague in the car had clearly seen what had gone on as well, and I locked the door,” he added. “I’ve got no protective equipment, no radio … we were in a ministerial meeting and literally came out to that.”
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ckey-met-police-inquests-latest-a8574676.html
 
Last edited:
After bit of checking, it seems that:

a) Mackey was in the front passenger seat
b) His driver was a civilian
c) Mackey's chief of staff - another civilian - was also in the car
d) It was either the driver or the CoS who locked the doors, prompted by a constable outside
 
Information Analyst said:
After bit of checking, it seems that:

a) Mackey was in the front passenger seat
b) His driver was a civilian
c) Mackey's chief of staff - another civilian - was also in the car
d) It was either the driver or the CoS who locked the doors, prompted by a constable outside
Click to expand...

And Mackey then went on to co-ordinate the response to the attack, which is what his job is. If he'd been the only policeman on the scene, then he probably should have done something, but since there were better equipped people already on hand, putting himself at risk would have been more of a liability (not to mention a coup for the terrorists if they'd killed him).

From the Grauniad:
Responding to Monday’s evidence, a Met spokesperson said: “Neither he [Mackey] nor the two civilian members of police staff he was in the car with during the time of the attack had any protective equipment with them … His initial reaction as a police officer was to get out of the vehicle. However, an operational decision was made with a police officer at the scene that the then acting commissioner should not get out and that he and the two police staff should leave New Palace Yard immediately.

“It was evident that there were officers already present with the necessary skills to neutralise the threat and to administer advanced first aid. At this stage, the full extent of the threat was still unknown.

“Mr Mackey then returned immediately to New Scotland Yard, where he carried out his responsibilities as acting commissioner; namely to lead and coordinate the strategic response across the Metropolitan police to protect London during what was an ongoing terrorist incident.”
Click to expand...
 
Apparently there is a serious problem with Christians in Scotland. I didn't know about this. According to Police Scotland they (and only they) are spreading hate and bigotry and victimising Muslims. Police Scotland (by association) now refer to Christians as 'Bigots' and threatens them with prosecution if they say anything disagreeable. Or, more accurately, if they criticise Islam.

DoCSr6rXoAAmfnt.jpg


Needless to say, this example of hate speech has itself been reported as such. Fat lot of good that will do.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/dear-bigots-poster-upsets-christians-h97hxsxvn

https://theweeflea.com/2018/10/02/the-hate-police-are-now-here/
 
Last edited:
Interesting that anyone would see that as being aimed at them personally.
 
Worm said:
Interesting that anyone would see that as being aimed at them personally.
Click to expand...

It's aimed at Christians only. So religious hatred can, apparently, only come from Christians. How else could you conceivably read it?
 
baron said:
It's aimed at Christians only. So religious hatred can, apparently, only come from Christians. How else could you conceivably read it?
Click to expand...

Show me the bit that says it's aimed only at Christians, if it isn't too much trouble. And then show me the bit that says it's aimed at Christians who aren't bigots. In fact, show me the bit that says it's aimed at anyone but actual bigots, whatever religion they do or don't subscribe to.

Dave
 
Worm said:
Interesting that anyone would see that as being aimed at them personally.
Click to expand...

Telling I would say.

baron said:
It's aimed at Christians only. So religious hatred can, apparently, only come from Christians. How else could you conceivably read it?
Click to expand...

Seems to me that it is aimed at ...er... bigots - the big text at the top sort of gave it away.
 
baron said:
It's aimed at Christians only. So religious hatred can, apparently, only come from Christians. How else could you conceivably read it?
Click to expand...
It's aimed at bigots. In really big type. It's not subtle. Or more specifically religious bigots. Christianity isn't mentioned, nor is any other religion.

I can conceivably read it as a warning to those who exhibit religious bigotry, of any kind. Whether they actually deliver on that message is a different question, but the message is clear.

I suspect that anyone who feels this is aimed at them should probably examine their own conscience.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Show me the bit that says it's aimed only at Christians, if it isn't too much trouble. And then show me the bit that says it's aimed at Christians who aren't bigots. In fact, show me the bit that says it's aimed at anyone but actual bigots, whatever religion they do or don't subscribe to.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's obvious. I'm not wasting my time explaining something this blatant so you guys carry on playing your silly little games. But maybe you can explain why religious bigots must be religious themselves. And whilst you're at it, why bigotry should be a crime.
 
Worm said:
I suspect that anyone who feels this is aimed at them should probably examine their own conscience.
Click to expand...

It's obviously not aimed at me because I'm not religious. So that's that inference down the pan.
 
baron said:
It's obvious. I'm not wasting my time explaining something this blatant so you guys carry on playing your silly little games. But maybe you can explain why religious bigots must be religious themselves. And whilst you're at it, why bigotry should be a crime.
Click to expand...

Did you perhaps link the wrong image as none of the highlighted is in the image you did link to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom