Diane Abbott Slammed As 'deluded' ….

[naomi24]

…..by police officers after calling spit hoods 'unnecessary'

//Human rights campaigners have slammed the mesh hoods, which cover a suspect’s head and prevent violent offenders from spitting and biting, as “distressing” and “degrading”. …..Responding to Ms Abbott’s criticism, Metropolitan Police Superintendent Roy Smith tweeted: “@HackneyAbbott always open to ideas – would you be willing to meet one of my colleagues infected with Hep C after being spat at to discuss?” //

Not distressing for those spat upon and infected then? People like her and the human rights campaigners mentioned who are all too willing to support the ‘rights’ of the abuser need to get their brains in gear. – if they can find them!

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-slammed-as-deluded-by-police-officers-after-calling-spit-hoods-unnecessary-a3465276.html

[Zacs-Master]

My opinion of Ms Abbot is fairly low. She comes just below Arthropoda and slightly ahead of Amoeba. Not alphabetically of course.

[douglas9401]

Pointless creature.

[Old_Geezer]

I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup isn't it ? There was a bit on local radio a week or so ago and someone was pointing out that other occupations don't need them such as medical staff or firemen and apparently they get that sort of abuse too. Personally I'm unsure whether they are a good idea or not.

[-Talbot-]

Is there any evidence that Diane Abbot is necessary or useful?

[Old_Geezer]

The human race appears to be neither necessary nor useful.

[Zacs-Master]

My my, we are a bit 'glass half empty' today ain't we.

[Samjenko]

Of course they're a good idea, OG. How would you deal with some filthy pig spitting on you?(if YOU had to arrest them)

[ludwig]

// .. someone was pointing out that other occupations don't need them such as medical staff or firemen and apparently they get that sort of abuse too //

Clearly they do need them then

[ludwig]

// .. someone was pointing out that other occupations don't need them such as medical staff or firemen and apparently they get that sort of abuse too //

Clearly they do need them then

[naomi24]

OG, medical staff and firemen may well be subjected to similar abuse, in which case they need them too. However, I would suggest that police attempting make an arrest are probably more likely to meet with aggressive resistance.

[andy-hughes]

I'd agree with Naomi.

Police officers routinely expect physical and verbal abuse as they go about their daily duties, but the consensus is that spitting is one thing they will simply not put up with - nor indeed should they.

Everyone is used to politicians opining on things they know nothing about - stunts like sleeping on the streets for a night and then saying they know how it feels to be homeless, that sort of thing.

But this is pointless nonsense even by politicians' standards.

Ms. Abbott would be better confining her views to things of which she at least has a basic grasp - and being spat at by a violent drug addict is probably not one of them

[Old_Geezer]

So you think medical staff, firemen, and the like have time to subdue someone and force a hood on them ? No they don't and they cope without them. And the other thing was that it was stated on the programme that it was not uncommon that it happens to them either. So the hoods don't appear to be a necessity at all.

[andy-hughes]

Old_Geezer - //So the hoods don't appear to be a necessity at all. //

Your conclusion appears faulty - just because a section of the emergency services manage without this equipment does not automatically mean that they don't need it, or would not welcome and use it, should it be provided for them.

[naomi24]

OG, I don’t understand why you, Diane Abbot, et al, are unconcerned that our police aren’t protected. What’s more important? The safety of our police or the ‘rights’ of people who would spit in their faces?

[Samjenko]

You're not making any sense, OG. Did you vote for Abbot?

[Old_Geezer]

No one is suggesting that the rights of the police are unprotected. And it is naughty of you to suggest it. What I am saying is that the expert on apprehending/controlling (sorry my vocabulary is deliberately deserting me at present) says they don't see it as necessary and that other occupations manage fine without proving it. And his knowledge on the subject will be better than mine. It sounds like it is just a "feel good" thing for the police. (If they were worried they could wear a mask.)

Or are you implying the police need it but the rights of other occupations aren't important ?

[Old_Geezer]

Oh I always make perfect sense. Maybe English is not your first language ? Or was that just an attempt to annoy or something ?

[naomi24]

OG, //No one is suggesting that the rights of the police are unprotected. And it is naughty of you to suggest it.//

I didn’t suggest it. You suggested it by claiming that spit hoods are unnecessary.

//Or are you implying the police need it but the rights of other occupations aren't important ?//

Quite the reverse. See my post at 0912.

[Old_Geezer]

I said I didn't know whether they were a good idea or not, and gave the information that the expert on the radio didn't think they were necessary. And indeed the evidence he gave suggesting they were not. I've not said whether they are necessary or not, merely that the expert gave evidence that they weren't. So no I didn't suggest it but you did say I was unconcerned about police rights.

Given that I pointed out that other occupations could not conceivably overpower someone to force a mask permanently on them, and so must cope without, then returning to the 'police must have them' argument indicates a lack of concern for the other occupations.

[ludwig]

Maybe the police should be made to manage without handcuffs too. I mean it's quite distressing for a person to be restrained, especially when they're trying to assault you.