Olympic torch don't get to close.

[Doc Lynam]

Unnecessary use of force on a child by a policeman surely not!

BBC News - Olympic torch: Security team tackle cyclist

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Shouldnt of been such an idiot then, stupid being where he was anyway.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Shouldnt of been such an idiot then, stupid being where he was anyway.

What are you on about, you think that is reasonable force on a kid cycling by the side!?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I agree he should not have been there, but it looks a little bit harsh.

 

[Mellotron]

RIDICULOUSLY over the top. Like the article's attempt at making the kid look like he was causing trouble.

"He attempted to enter the security bubble" - utter BOLLOCKS. He was just riding along quite casually, and clearly hadn't noticed he was somewhere he shouldn't be.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

RIDICULOUSLY over the top. Like the article's attempt at making the kid look like he was causing trouble.

"He attempted to enter the security bubble" - utter BOLLOCKS. He was just riding along quite casually, and clearly hadn't noticed he was somewhere he shouldn't be.

What next, surface-to-air missiles on peoples roofs lol.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

What are you on about, you think that is reasonable force on a kid cycling by the side!?

He shouldnt of got that close, yes it was a bit over the top and they could of just told him to stay back, although i guess the Police may not of knew who it was at the time and didnt know what they were doing - but it is his fault for getting too close.

and clearly hadn't noticed he was somewhere he shouldn't be.

How could he not notice the "bubble" of police officers around the torchbearer ? Why was he even getting that close to them ?

 

[Doc Lynam]

He shouldnt of got that close, yes it was a bit over the top and they could of just told him to stay back, although i guess the Police may not of knew who it was at the time and didnt know what they were doing - but it is his fault for getting too close.

How could he not notice the "bubble" of police officers around the torchbearer ? Why was he even getting that close to them ?

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[rool]

This breach was handled much better (edited to say perfectly actually)

[video]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18671509[/video]

Can only assume the guy in the first video felt really tough after that. Surprised he didn't taser him for good measure.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Not really, the kid got too close and they didnt want to take any chances - but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. Common sense not to get too close, he did, he got forced away - although with a bit much force of course.

 

[rool]

Not really, the kid got too close and they didnt want to take any chances - but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. Common sense not to get too close, he did, he got forced away - although with a bit much force of course.

They should try that approach on an ill newspaper seller, oooh

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

They should try that approach an an ill newspaper seller, oooh

Always comes back to this doesnt it ? Just because 1 police officer in London was heavy handed and his actions contributed to the death of an innocent man - all police are heavy handed thugs - pathetic.

 

[rool]

Wouldn't have been pathetic had he actually injured this kid (maybe he did), or if he had been hit by that car which he was bundled down in front of.

 

[Bladders]

Surely a truncheon in his front spokes would have sufficed.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Wouldn't have been pathetic had he actually injured this kid (maybe he did), or if he had been hit by that car which he was bundled down in front of.

And the police will say they didnt know what they were doing and that they got too close. As ive said, they did use too much force, could of just told the kid to stay away, but they are hardly all in the right as they were too close.

 

[severnside gull]

Difficult. We train people to react quickly in order to prevent incidents and they really do only have a split second to both analyse what is happening and react to it. Little wonder that with "harmless" incidents they are seen to over-react while if something more serious were to occur they would be heroes.

Of course it was over the top but it is one of those situations where you have to choose whether you want security at all or if you would rather just allow that what will be will be...................

 

[Doc Lynam]

Not really, the kid got too close and they didnt want to take any chances - but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. Common sense not to get too close, he did, he got forced away - although with a bit much force of course.

Hindsight! Are you telling me of all the things that could happen they hadn't legislated for a kid maybe on a bike to cycle nearby? If they didn't then they are incompetent or worse still they had planned for this level of force! Its only a bloody torch, should a child be wrestled to the ground like that over a torch? It wasn't a member of Al qaeda cycling with a rocket launcher on shoulder saying "death to the infidels!"

 

[rool]

And the police will say they didnt know what they were doing and that they got too close. As ive said, they did use too much force, could of just told the kid to stay away, but they are hardly all in the right as they were too close.

See the second video that I posted of a much closer breach and how it was handled for comparison

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Hindsight! Are you telling me of all the things that could happen they hadn't legislated for a kid maybe on a bike to cycle nearby? If they didn't then they are incompetent or worse still they had planned for this level of force! Its only a bloody torch, should a child be wrestled to the ground like that over a torch? It wasn't a member of Al qaeda cycling with a rocket launcher on shoulder saying "death to the infidels!"

"Its only a bloody torch" ? Its the Olympic Torch, of course its going to be bloody well protected, they are hardly going to let anyone nick it are they !?!?!?!

No the kid shouldnt of been wrested to the ground, but they were too close - do you actually read anything thats posted ?

See the second video that I posted of a much closer breach and how it was handled for comparison

They are tiny kids and its probably a different officer, thats how it should of been handled of course.

 

[Hillian1]

What next, surface-to-air missiles on peoples roofs lol.

MoD unveils surface-to-air cockneys


COCKNEYS will be launched from the top of a tower block if someone attacks the Olympics, it has been confirmed.





The Ministry of Defence said the rocket-propelled geezers will have a range of five miles and be told that any rogue planes entering Olympic airspace have insulted their lovely old mum.

A spokesman said: “We understand residents will be concerned about having a live cockney on the roof but the weapons will be controlled by a handler armed with tranquiliser-laced mashed potato.

“We will only unleash the cockneys as a last resort, unless of course we grow sick of them and just fire them directly into the ground.”

The MoD has been testing market stall traders on Dartmoor, where local people have reported a loud ‘CAAAHHHNNNT!’, whenever a cockney is launched from a catapult.

Early prototypes were unstable and often kicked off for no discernible reason, forcing engineers to try and hypnotise them with a live eel.

Bow resident Roy Hobbs said: “I bought this flat in the hope the area would become a gentrified haven of antique fairs and artisan bakeries, so I am peeved at the notion of a battery of tattooed cockneys on my roof.

“Surely it’s better that the Olympics are attacked and everyone dies?”