Jobs & Education1 min ago
Frightening, Sickening, But The Politicians Across Europe Are The Ones Responsible For This.
298 Answers
http://
What can be done before all this becomes out of control?
What can be done before all this becomes out of control?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That is not rudeness.That is my assessment of an ABer who has backed himself into a corner and is now being ridiculous .Accusing someone of shouting when they are patently not by Site Rules definition. Now that is rudeness.
//As an ex-policeman, I am sure you are familiar with concept of 'threatening behaviour' Public Order Act Section 5 - that sort of thing? //
//So what exactly would you do, Andy? //
//Intervene. //
Well A-H as you keep reminding me that I was formerly a police officer you like to make yourself look clever by quoting Sec 5 POA which must be considered, by you, for stitching up Finnish vigilantes who you consider illegal.
We all know how you use your power of censorship here on AB but I am so relieved you never were given real authority over real people in the real world as a police officer.!!
As a former police officer may I direct you to another English Law. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. Equally useless to Finnish Vigilantes in this case but could be useful for you.
As you have now shown a "volte face" and feebly opined that you would "intervene" you could consider the above statute which you may or may not know as a Citizens power of arrest.
It does however have some limitations as to the powers a civilian has as opposed to a constable. So you, A-H, would obviously know what an indictable offence was or was not wouldn't you???? As you quote the law to me I am sure you would not over abuse the legal authority you are so aware of.
I think rape or indecent assault certainly comes under the list of indictable offences in the UK do you not agree?
//Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead. //
I think 3b would justify your heroic intervention in the UK so why should you not think that a similar clause does not exist in Finland.
If the police are not available a civilian (s) can exercise an arrest.
A lot better power for good than you attempting to fit them up for a public order offence that has not yet been committed!!
//So what exactly would you do, Andy? //
//Intervene. //
Well A-H as you keep reminding me that I was formerly a police officer you like to make yourself look clever by quoting Sec 5 POA which must be considered, by you, for stitching up Finnish vigilantes who you consider illegal.
We all know how you use your power of censorship here on AB but I am so relieved you never were given real authority over real people in the real world as a police officer.!!
As a former police officer may I direct you to another English Law. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. Equally useless to Finnish Vigilantes in this case but could be useful for you.
As you have now shown a "volte face" and feebly opined that you would "intervene" you could consider the above statute which you may or may not know as a Citizens power of arrest.
It does however have some limitations as to the powers a civilian has as opposed to a constable. So you, A-H, would obviously know what an indictable offence was or was not wouldn't you???? As you quote the law to me I am sure you would not over abuse the legal authority you are so aware of.
I think rape or indecent assault certainly comes under the list of indictable offences in the UK do you not agree?
//Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead. //
I think 3b would justify your heroic intervention in the UK so why should you not think that a similar clause does not exist in Finland.
If the police are not available a civilian (s) can exercise an arrest.
A lot better power for good than you attempting to fit them up for a public order offence that has not yet been committed!!
Retrocop - remember this around 11 o'clock this morning?
//retrocop - //I am outta here. You are taking this round in circles and becoming over sensitive. That is when I start seeing answers removed which I note has already started. Criticism but no viable solution offered!
Good OP Mr aog but I fear it may go the way of your others.!! //
I am sorry you are leaving the debate, but I concede that our exchanges have probably reached a natural end, we must agree to differ in our respective positions.
I would only say, in terms of being 'over-sensitive' - I have already expressed my view on one of your more 'forcefully expressed' opinions on my position, but obviously we are not going to debate that further because it is off-thread, and will bore everyone else reading.
Thank you for a stimulating exchange - see you on the next one. //
And your response - //Fair enough//.
Then you reappeared at 14:44, with the sort of mammoth screed I get moaned at for posting.
Since then you have posted a further eight times, every single one of them directed at me, despite the fact that half-a-dozen other people are involved in the debate.
Your posts are getting ruder, and more aggressive. I have no idea why you have taken such a fervent personal dislike to me, rather than the argument I put forward, but your combination of rudeness and your unpleasant tone means that I am doing what you said you were going to do – I am ‘outta here’.
If you want to see that as me being weak, or sad, or anything else you like, or that you have ‘won’ or I have failed in my argument, then please be my guest.
I am not willing to exchange with you in this mood, as I said earlier, when I thought we have reached an amicable conclusion – I will see you on the next thread.
Hopefully you will have calmed down by then.
//retrocop - //I am outta here. You are taking this round in circles and becoming over sensitive. That is when I start seeing answers removed which I note has already started. Criticism but no viable solution offered!
Good OP Mr aog but I fear it may go the way of your others.!! //
I am sorry you are leaving the debate, but I concede that our exchanges have probably reached a natural end, we must agree to differ in our respective positions.
I would only say, in terms of being 'over-sensitive' - I have already expressed my view on one of your more 'forcefully expressed' opinions on my position, but obviously we are not going to debate that further because it is off-thread, and will bore everyone else reading.
Thank you for a stimulating exchange - see you on the next one. //
And your response - //Fair enough//.
Then you reappeared at 14:44, with the sort of mammoth screed I get moaned at for posting.
Since then you have posted a further eight times, every single one of them directed at me, despite the fact that half-a-dozen other people are involved in the debate.
Your posts are getting ruder, and more aggressive. I have no idea why you have taken such a fervent personal dislike to me, rather than the argument I put forward, but your combination of rudeness and your unpleasant tone means that I am doing what you said you were going to do – I am ‘outta here’.
If you want to see that as me being weak, or sad, or anything else you like, or that you have ‘won’ or I have failed in my argument, then please be my guest.
I am not willing to exchange with you in this mood, as I said earlier, when I thought we have reached an amicable conclusion – I will see you on the next thread.
Hopefully you will have calmed down by then.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I've just been listening to some former international rugby players on Radio Scotland. They're discussing possible outcomes of the big game at Murrayfield tomorrow.
One of the told a very amusing story about Will Carling complaining that he wouldn't be travelling from home to play for his club side because other players were 'calling him names'
I then get in from work and see this is still running and Mr C may be on here in another guise. :-)
One of the told a very amusing story about Will Carling complaining that he wouldn't be travelling from home to play for his club side because other players were 'calling him names'
I then get in from work and see this is still running and Mr C may be on here in another guise. :-)
-- answer removed --
A-H
So the great master debater is yet again started to cry foul because I have the temerity to return to an OP and challenge his ludicrous assertions.
Who on earth do you think you are to object to me returning to another's OP.
Of course there are other posters on this OP but you are arguing your particular point and I am disagreeing with you.
Because I do that you sulk and accuse me of picking on you and rudeness.
No that is called debate and you do not like it when someone does not allow you to have it all your own way and challenges some of your bizarre claims.
If you claim someone is committing an illegal act in Finland then you should claim what the illegal act is when challenged.
If you had bothered to read the link you would of seen that the police were trying to find something illegal to accuse them but had not succeeded.
You then suggest to me that they have committed an offence against a British Public Order Law and take a patronising stance that I should of known that as an ex English police officer.
Your reasoning becomes weaker, as it is embarrassing ,as you dig yourself deeper into a hole.
You grudgingly concede you would intervene if you saw a woman violated but consider others doing the same, in your world, as illegal.
You might consider yourself the father of AB but I have not contravened any rules that you might wish to pin on me. I have debated and challenged you and you behave like a spoilt child who didn't get his way.
You did not answer if you were accusing me of threatening you or whether you were citing the POA as an offence committed by the Finns. Why. Because I pointed out that was a ridiculous point to make and totally irrelevant.?
For someone who spends all his time using C&P I would suggest you have a brass neck for accusing me of prolonged posts. My C&P has been minimal but I have taken as much time as necessary to defend my position.
If that doesn't sit well, with you then you are not such a great debater you profess to be and should either back off or keep out the kitchen if you are shown to be a sore loser.
You have made assertions and assumptions on this topic and you cannot substantiate or justify them when challenged so man up and stop crying foul.
e
So the great master debater is yet again started to cry foul because I have the temerity to return to an OP and challenge his ludicrous assertions.
Who on earth do you think you are to object to me returning to another's OP.
Of course there are other posters on this OP but you are arguing your particular point and I am disagreeing with you.
Because I do that you sulk and accuse me of picking on you and rudeness.
No that is called debate and you do not like it when someone does not allow you to have it all your own way and challenges some of your bizarre claims.
If you claim someone is committing an illegal act in Finland then you should claim what the illegal act is when challenged.
If you had bothered to read the link you would of seen that the police were trying to find something illegal to accuse them but had not succeeded.
You then suggest to me that they have committed an offence against a British Public Order Law and take a patronising stance that I should of known that as an ex English police officer.
Your reasoning becomes weaker, as it is embarrassing ,as you dig yourself deeper into a hole.
You grudgingly concede you would intervene if you saw a woman violated but consider others doing the same, in your world, as illegal.
You might consider yourself the father of AB but I have not contravened any rules that you might wish to pin on me. I have debated and challenged you and you behave like a spoilt child who didn't get his way.
You did not answer if you were accusing me of threatening you or whether you were citing the POA as an offence committed by the Finns. Why. Because I pointed out that was a ridiculous point to make and totally irrelevant.?
For someone who spends all his time using C&P I would suggest you have a brass neck for accusing me of prolonged posts. My C&P has been minimal but I have taken as much time as necessary to defend my position.
If that doesn't sit well, with you then you are not such a great debater you profess to be and should either back off or keep out the kitchen if you are shown to be a sore loser.
You have made assertions and assumptions on this topic and you cannot substantiate or justify them when challenged so man up and stop crying foul.
e
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News1 min ago
Animals & Nature2 mins ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.