Sexual abuse and exploitation by Police officers of vulnerable people

[Swillis]

Hello Alfred's 2nd a/c...you do know your intelligent contributions to the conversation gives you away?

I can't believe you are still going I doubt if is Alfred's second account, he is more than capable of saying what he wants without needing to pretend he is someone else

 

[alfredmizen]

Hello Alfred's 2nd a/c...you do know your intelligent contributions to the conversation gives you away?

It's not , for your guide.

 

[Hastings gull]

You have a pretty warped view in my opinion, no officer should be able to put in an extra kick etc and other officers should then not cover up for them. If that were to happen and the other officers covered up for him, that is calculated deception. As they would all work out what their stories should be.

You simply cannot have police whom cannot be trusted, once you turn a blind eye to one officer then he will return the favour and so on and so on. Now say officer A put in an extra kick and officer B hid it. What would then happen if officer B fits someone up, officer A would have to back him up because he owes him one and he would end up screwed if officer B spilled the beans about the first incident. It's all one big slippery slope.

Yes, it is, but then it is what happens in real life in many organisations. I do not condone that extra kick, just stated that this is what will always happen in highly-charged atmospheres, when the Police are struggling to control some drunken scum, lashing out and spitting at them.Come out of your ivory tower for a day or so, and sample real life, then perhaps you would not be so tempted to use the anonymity of the internet to make yourself sound so holy.

 

[Swillis]

Yes, it is, but then it is what happens in real life in many organisations. I do not condone that extra kick, just stated that this is what will always happen in highly-charged atmospheres, when the Police are struggling to control some drunken scum, lashing out and spitting at them.Come out of your ivory tower for a day or so, and sample real life, then perhaps you would not be so tempted to use the anonymity of the internet to make yourself sound so holy.

Ivory tower! What a nob. I have probably seen more of real life than you would believe. I don't live in the ******** of nowhere, I live in south East London. Not sure what you are getting at talking about the anonymity of the internet, what do you want me to do? Skype you or something? ****

 

[Hastings gull]

Ivory tower! What a nob. I have probably seen more of real life than you would believe. I don't live in the ******** of nowhere, I live in south East London. Not sure what you are getting at talking about the anonymity of the internet, what do you want me to do? Skype you or something? ****

If you live where you say you do, and of course SE London can mean anything, then you should know enough about life not to come up with ivory tower solutions, that do not correspond to real life. And we are talking about abuse here and you have stated how wrong it is and that we expect good standards - do you see the irony?

 

[Swillis]

If you live where you say you do, and of course SE London can mean anything, then you should know enough about life not to come up with ivory tower solutions, that do not correspond to real life. And we are talking about abuse here and you have stated how wrong it is and that we expect good standards - do you see the irony?

If? Why would I lie? How can SE London mean anything. I'm not sure if you are playing with a full deck.

Yes we are talking about abuse, by the police. I am not the police, I have not promised to uphold the law And neither do I get paid to do it. We should be able to expect more from our police than we do normal members of the public. Police have immense powers, they should not be able to abuse them.

 

[Hastings gull]

If? Why would I lie? How can SE London mean anything. I'm not sure if you are playing with a full deck.

Yes we are talking about abuse, by the police. I am not the police, I have not promised to uphold the law And neither do I get paid to do it. We should be able to expect more from our police than we do normal members of the public. Police have immense powers, they should not be able to abuse them.

And that is exactly what I was getting at, with my comment about ivory tower. I can abuse whomever I want, but when it is the police working under extremely difficult circumstances, (of which I am sure that you know nothing ) then I can sit back and judge them. How many more times - we know they have powers and we know they should all behave professionally, and the vast majority do, but in the heat of the moment, we all have it in us to react irrationally. They are normal people.That is a far cry from sustained and deliberate malice, which should in no way be tolerated. Get off your high horse for a moment.

 

[Swillis]

And that is exactly what I was getting at, with my comment about ivory tower. I can abuse whomever I want, but when it is the police working under extremely difficult circumstances, (of which I am sure that you know nothing ) then I can sit back and judge them. How many more times - we know they have powers and we know they should all behave professionally, and the vast majority do, but in the heat of the moment, we all have it in us to react irrationally. They are normal people.That is a far cry from sustained and deliberate malice, which should in no way be tolerated. Get off your high horse for a moment.

So you are excusing their behaviour. Well I for one don't, I believe they should act better than everybody else. They have rules of how they should behave and deal with things and they should stick to them. It's not a high horse, maybe you have a skewed sense of right and wrong. If the police cannot stick to their own rules they should not be police. When one has acted in the heat of the moment the others more often than not will cover for them. Also its not always the heat of the moment, some police are absolute wankers who tread on others because they can. Until that is someone stands upto them and that person will invariably end up in the shite as the coppers have to explain away the behaviour somehow.
But obviously that never happens as you live in the real world and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

 

[Hastings gull]

So you are excusing their behaviour. Well I for one don't, I believe they should act better than everybody else. They have rules of how they should behave and deal with things and they should stick to them. It's not a high horse, maybe you have a skewed sense of right and wrong. If the police cannot stick to their own rules they should not be police. When one has acted in the heat of the moment the others more often than not will cover for them. Also its not always the heat of the moment, some police are absolute wankers who tread on others because they can. Until that is someone stands upto them and that person will invariably end up in the shite as the coppers have to explain away the behaviour somehow.
But obviously that never happens as you live in the real world and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Unlike yourself, who professes to dislike insults, but feels that he can use them when he wants, I will refrain from saying that you do not have a clue, or worse. You are absolutely right in your assertion that the police should work according to strict moral standards - please don't keep saying that I am excusing anything, which is simply not true. I am pointing out to you that we all fall below our own standards, as we get cross in the heat of the moment, though you clearly do not recognise this facet of human behaviour. We should take every incident on its merits or otherwise, and there will be times when an officer oversteps the mark, as we all do. What do you expect - should they face dismissal for calling someone a name, who has abused them for ages? You are dealing with theory.

 

[Swillis]

Unlike yourself, who professes to dislike insults, but feels that he can use them when he wants, I will refrain from saying that you do not have a clue, or worse. You are absolutely right in your assertion that the police should work according to strict moral standards - please don't keep saying that I am excusing anything, which is simply not true. I am pointing out to you that we all fall below our own standards, as we get cross in the heat of the moment, though you clearly do not recognise this facet of human behaviour. We should take every incident on its merits or otherwise, and there will be times when an officer oversteps the mark, as we all do. What do you expect - should they face dismissal for calling someone a name, who has abused them for ages? You are dealing with theory.

At the moment I'm dealing with a ****, you. I accept people fall below standards, the police should not. When the police fall below those standards they will lie and lie to get themselves out of it and so will their colleague's. Did I say anywhere they should be dismissed for calling someone a name? If an officer called someone a name and they made a complaint, if that officer then lies about that to his superiors or the IPCC, then yes he should be dismissed. Police should be above the normal man on the street and should be honest. The reason the police do not get much respect from certain areas of society is because everybody knows someone who has been treated unfairly by the police and that in turns breeds a lack of trust. I have had many encounters with the police, from being nicked to letting them use some land for their training. SO19 and police dogs. My cousin is reasonably high up in the police.
I have absolutely nothing against the police, I have a big problem with lying and corrupt officers.

 

[Brighton Mod]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...lice-officers-accused-sex-abuse-inquiry-finds

This doesn't surprise me at all. I personally know of two different women who experienced sexually inappropriate behaviour by serving police officers whilst on duty.

Its about people in positions of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not surprised at all, policemen can also execute innocent men in tube stations and the commander Cressida Dick, who oversaw the failed operation is promoted to assistant chief constable. Sometimes the police are quite worrying.

 

[portlock seagull]

So you are excusing their behaviour. Well I for one don't, I believe they should act better than everybody else. They have rules of how they should behave and deal with things and they should stick to them. It's not a high horse, maybe you have a skewed sense of right and wrong. If the police cannot stick to their own rules they should not be police. When one has acted in the heat of the moment the others more often than not will cover for them. Also its not always the heat of the moment, some police are absolute wankers who tread on others because they can. Until that is someone stands upto them and that person will invariably end up in the shite as the coppers have to explain away the behaviour somehow.
But obviously that never happens as you live in the real world and I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

It's not Hastings Gulls fault you're too dim to follow his argument that we don't live in a perfect world and therefore some Police aren't whiter than white but that's not to say the vast majority do a great job in difficult circumstances. Still you, Alfred and Catman carry on with your keyboard crusade about, well. What exactly?

 

[portlock seagull]

The fact that you see an equivalence between someone saying 'Diddums'to you & sexual abuse of vulnerable people by police officers just about sums you up

I wasn't. I was referring to earlier posts including some of your 'intelligent' contributions. You know where you rage and swear because you're not getting your way. Diddums did you say?!

 

[portlock seagull]

It's the "seeing what the rest of us are" bit that gets me. One person ranting against logic and apparently everyone is on their side. Although nobody is.

I'm a bit uncomfortable about this now though as I think whoever it is has some serious issues and I wouldn't want to make light of that. If I were a moderator I'd be having a word.

Sorry, lost me a little by that remark. I think you've misinterpreted. The trolls on this thread who have been abusing me as self are failing to see they're dishing out abuse on a thread that's about a different type of abuse. Still abuse though isn't it? I.e. Not nice, uncalled for etc. Bit ironic eh? That's all. And yes, if I were a Mod I'd be looking at some of Swill, Alfred and Catmans posting and wondering whether they're a little bit OTT and some time out might be in order. Deeply offensive stuff some of it. Online bullying and trolling par excellence. But I can take it, their prerogative to lose their dignity by getting so angry.

 

[portlock seagull]

Its about people in positions of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm not surprised at all, policemen can also execute innocent men in tube stations and the commander Cressida Dick, who oversaw the failed operation is promoted to assistant chief constable. Sometimes the police are quite worrying.

See the problem with that is you've used the word execute. Otherwise I wouldn't have too much of a problem with what you've written. But it's just not true the police executed someone. They killed a man. Mistakenly. Using the wrong words in such a situation as this is irresponsible and moreover make your statement a complete lie. You meant to use the word 'killed'

 

[Swillis]

It's not Hastings Gulls fault you're too dim to follow his argument that we don't live in a perfect world and therefore some Police aren't whiter than white but that's not to say the vast majority do a great job in difficult circumstances. Still you, Alfred and Catman carry on with your keyboard crusade about, well. What exactly?

To be fair, I haven't got a clue what you are prattling on about. Not to mention I cannot be bothered to get into it with you as you are not quite the full ticket. You seem to be rambling about things I have not even said.

 

[portlock seagull]

To be fair, I haven't got a clue what you are prattling on about. Not to mention I cannot be bothered to get into it with you as you are not quite the full ticket. You seem to be rambling about things I have not even said.

But you just did? Make your tiny mind up or is your picnic missing a sandwich perhaps? Not entirely sure what you're blithering on about anyway. Only that you are blithering. A lot. So hush now.

 

[Swillis]

But you just did? Make your tiny mind up or is your picnic missing a sandwich perhaps? Not entirely sure what you're blithering on about anyway. Only that you are blithering. A lot. So hush now.

 

[Brighton Mod]

See the problem with that is you've used the word execute. Otherwise I wouldn't have too much of a problem with what you've written. But it's just not true the police executed someone. They killed a man. Mistakenly. Using the wrong words in such a situation as this is irresponsible and moreover make your statement a complete lie. You meant to use the word 'killed'

Held the man down and then fired six rounds into his head is murder. They then colluded their stories which then still didn't correlate and their boss gets promoted. Is it any wonder that the Met Police are held in such low esteem by the public. You're probably not old enough or maybe you are, but in the north stand at the Goldstone we used sing 'if you drive a yellow mini you'll be shot' in response to the Met Police shooting a guy in a yellow mini at traffic lights. Despite firing over twenty rounds into the car the driver survived and that was a mistake. The John Charles Menenez was executed as the coppers thought he was a terrorist and had lost contact with control. Having been a soldier, you don't make mistakes with weapons, Met police firearms squad have been bailed too many times.

 

[aolstudios]

I wasn't. I was referring to earlier posts including some of your 'intelligent' contributions. You know where you rage and swear because you're not getting your way. Diddums did you say?!

When was that then?