I’ll even throw Mandelson into the mix for his association with Epstein. https://www.ft.com/content/07238b43-48e6-4e7b-96d2-d50a4ada4646
I don’t know if anyone else has seen this video but I found it very interesting and informative. I also read, a couple of days ago, that a renowned forensic pathologist has reviewed 1000 cases of suicide, using the same method as Epstein allegedly used. His findings were that it was very rare for any of the suicides to have 2 broken bones in their neck. Epstein, apparently, was an even rarer case because he said that Epstein had three broken neck bones.
When people start throwing the "guilty by association" card around it always backfires. Sharing a platform with..... is a fav of the left but when they receive return fire they say "sharing a platform doesn't mean..........X" Peter Kyle is basically saying "If you oppose the government policy then you are aligned with (something nasty)" which is ridiculous. What next? If you oppose the farm's inheritance tax you are on the side of mega business? If you oppose cuts to winter fuel allowance you are a nasty person trying to keep tory voters alive? Its a silly statement. Opposition regularly votes against government policy, not because they disagree in its supposed aim but quite often because they disagree with its effectiveness, or the way a part of the bill is structured, or because there's something else in the bill hiding away under the headline intent.........or because opposition very often vote against the government. "Saw you out drinking with a Pompey fan last week....that means you're a pompey fan now" sort of thing. It's the "either/or" of modern politics (and I daresay all life) that you can only be 100% either way. No middle ground. I daresay all of us have known someone, present or in the past, that has done something pretty bad in their lives and we won't even know about it.
Shameful that this was allowed to happen in Northern Ireland . Police in Northern Ireland are investigating a loyalist bonfire that featured effigies of refugees sitting in a boat as a hate incident. Crowds in the County Tyrone village of Moygashel cheered on Thursday night when the towering pyre was lit and flames engulfed the vessel and a dozen dark-skinned, lifesize mannequins with lifejackets. Placards beneath the boat stated “stop the boats” and “veterans before refugees”. An Ireland flag also burned in the bonfire, which was part of wider loyalist commemorations. Police Service of Northern Ireland said it was investigating it as a hate incident. please log in to view this image
HIGNFY. Donald Trump has criticised the UK for planning to recognise Palestine, having said on Monday he "didn't mind it", as he moves from a two-state to a two-faced solution. please log in to view this image
Trump calls Nicola Sturgeon terrible. Her reply. “Feeling was mutual, Donnie. Forever proud to represent all the things that offend your view of the world.”
And if you do, by using the same standards, you had better be squeaky clean yourself. By being the accuser Kyle is a hypocrite, my post was not about defending Farage or that difficult to understand. Putting up more examples of Farage's associates doesn't remove Kyle's hypocrisy.
Quite surprised by today's conviction of Mohammed Awaaz following the confrontation with police officers at Nanchester Airport. I think that the jury got it right insofar that the evidence was unclear as to whether his brother should have been convicted too especially as the male police officer can be seen throwing the initial punch. Clearly Awaaz was totally out of order with the level of violence he meted out against the female police officers. What really shocked me is that there has been little mention of the male police officer stamping and kicking Mr Awaaz in the head once he had been incapacitated by a tazer. For me, this is the most shocking element of the incident as Awaaz could have been killed. Not sure why this appears to have been brushed over. One of the worst cases of police violence I have seen. Just feel the police officer's actions were as bad as Mr Awaaz's. He should have been in the dock too.
This is something I would like to see outlawed in politics. No company or individual, making a political donation, should be allowed to receive a government contract, either directly or by proxy. They’re not donations, they’re bribes.
The police officer is apparently under investigation by police complaints and may face a criminal prosecution. Just wondered if you had seen the footage? I would not expect our police to behave like that despite the obvious provocation. Add the fact the the police officer applied his boot to an Asian individual, I think it sends a bad message out. The officer was no less culpable than Awaaz who , incidentally, comes from a family where cousins are in the police force. The force used was no reciprocal. Awaaz had been incapacitated by the taser. Stamping on his head could cause brain damage - a bit more serious than a broken nose, I should think.
Yes I've seen the footage. Have you? Actually all of it? The vicious assault by Awaaz on an innocent member of the public which caused his interaction with GMP in the first place? You realise that officers are allowed to punch people if they can justify it? After your pontificating on NX121 did you look at S3 CLA, common law provisions in respect of self defence or S117 PACE? (His family member being a police officer means the square root of **** all.)
I am not exonerating Awaaz but it is clear from the video thst Awaaz posed no threat. Stamping in someone's head is a shocking and gross over reaction. You would think our police were better.
Shocking yes, but all violence is shocking especially when you're deliberately fed an edited clip. Again, review the full CCTV. Don't just look at it actually watch it. Slow it down and watch it again and again. Watch from the second the men enter Starbucks. After being punched multiple times in the head, by 2 assailants, would you think it's fair to say his adrenaline was peaked? Would it be fair to say he's going to be fairly dazed and confused? Would it be fair to assume that as a firearms officer his overriding priority is to ensure the security and retention of his firearm? How was he to know that the subject had been tasered and was no longer a threat? (Are you aware how Tasers work, and their effective rate?) He had his back turned when the other officer deployed it. After being assaulted by 2 men he ensured the most violent of the two stayed down. It was found to be within the law and the officer is not facing criminal charges
To come up with your initial conclusion you haven't watched the video like you say you have. The latter part on the head kick by the male officer you may have a point but that does not change the fact that when the police got to these 2 and tried to restrain them they went mental and the 2 female officers were punched flush in the face when they were not throwing punches. Your attempt to belittle a broken nose is just plain weird. They were found guilty of assault on both the women. The CPS is pushing for a retrial on the issue of assault on the male officer. This case is about them assaulting police officers. If there were to be a case on the male officer's response that would be a different trial and I daresay it would not be held at the same time as it might hinge on this case's result on whether the male officer had been assaulted and that will have to wait until a retrial takes place if it is approved. Whilst it would not affect that kicking someone down on the ground in the head is a bit past the mark I would guess that a finding that he had been assaulted or not would affect the level of self defence (or not) in any case that was brought against him.
