What racial aspect? This wasn’t a stop check gone wrong. The bloke had viciously assaulted a member of the public and needed to be lifted. He was an identified suspect, not a random passenger to be harassed because the police were bored. If this is evidence to you of a racial element, put your name forward for a job with the IOPC, they'll make you head of the organisation within a week. If officers attempt to arrest someone and they boot off, should everyone call a time out, call division and hope that there's someone on duty with the same ethnic makeup and is free to attend the location? In your perfect policing utopia, how can an officer arrest someone of a different ethnicity without you assuming racism? Because even with irrefutable evidence that an individual needed to be arrested you've brought that up
I've said it before, the Police do a job I just couldn't. Thankless task and putting their safety on the line for everyone else. I live by "I'd rather live as a chicken, than die a hero". In this case, in the moment, I can't see anything wrong. The Police simply did not know what they were dealing with and had their safety AND our safety to worry about. No racial element to it either. IF it had been as Lincoln said a random stop search etc, maybe there could be a suggestion, but just because they were asian there is no sinister undertones IMO. EDIT: Anyone thinking that there is a racial element is supporting two tier policing IMO. Just because the perpetrators are asian you can't treat them differently.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; the IDF are a "client" to US military firms. Politicians know and accept this. Where's the reset button?!
This looks like the source, https://www.facebook.com/officialspottednews/ the logo matches, no more info on the, who, what, or to whom. No links to verified sources for any of the posted 'stories' that I could see with a quick look. A google search came up with a load of social media disgraces with the same or very similar 'revelations'. Also linked is a Hansard excerpt from Peter Kyle's maiden speech 2nd September last year with a reply from Andrew Griffith the tory who Kyle replaced as Secretary of State for Technology. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...419C6/TechnologyInPublicServices#main-content “What was it, Secretary of State, about the £66,000-donating, Labour-supporting Emily Middleton that first attracted you enough to make her one of the senior civil servants in your Department?” For the truth is that there are real questions to answer. What exercise did the Secretary of State go through between announcing the new Department on Monday and appointing a new director general later in the very same week to satisfy himself that not one single civil servant across Government was fit to perform that role? Did he disclose the £66,000 donation to the permanent secretary on his appointment? Did he tell the Civil Service Commission about the £66,000 donation and the links to Labour? Was is him or someone in his office who told Emily Middleton to delete her LinkedIn account? Why, given that the ministerial code is clear about the duty of Ministers to “ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise”, did he not recuse himself from all decisions and discussions on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not use this opportunity to come clean, to answer all these questions and to publish the relevant correspondence, I really think it is time for Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, to investigate." No investigation made so far as I can see and no links to the Mail, Telegraph or other right wing rags who would be expected to jump on any impropriety nor any mention of a contract award, so not much to see here folks. I did find this which asks questions re the appointment of Emily Middleton saying "The U.K. government did not disclose a top official’s links with the Labour Party on a crucial transparency form when pushing for her to get an impartial civil service job, newly released documents show. Emily Middleton was handed a director general job in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology through a fast-track process in July. The move allowed the new Labour government to circumvent the usual civil service process and urgently fill a role by clearing it under exemption with the Civil Service Commission watchdog. There is no suggestion the government has broken any rules. Britain's tech department said in a statement that the job had been filled “in line with the civil service rules on recruitment.” But the omission has raised eyebrows among experts on civil service procedure." https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-...ation-and-technology-transparency-disclosure/ Can't be arsed to do any more digging, off for a pre lunch walk along the canal.
There is zero "racial aspect" no matter how much people want there to be. The brother that was found guilty headbutted a passenger (found guilty) police went to arrest a guy that had already been violent and was in the process of trying to continue that violence. The defendant went mental as soon as they put a hand on his shoulder and ended up punching one female officer in the face (found guilty) and assaulted the other (missed the face as he intended....found guilty.) All 3 individual counts found guilty. The 1 the jury could not agree on was a count against both defendants. The heavy handed over reaction was not because of any "racial aspect." It was wholly down to his 2 colleagues being floored by the defendant(s) I don't expect they will take that any further until this case, including retrial if it is granted, is concluded because it will affect any decision. This attempt to pin it on a "racial aspect" is everything that is wrong with how things are at the moment! Just because someone is white and the other is not does not mean it is racial anything! Joey Barton's nonsense ignores that the guy had already headbutted a passenger and was aggressively trying to continue things on. They are not going in heavy handed, they are trying to arrest someone who has already been violent, is in the process of being violent and his response to the police when they come to him is to throw multiple punches at the female officers (he should really have been found guilty of punching both because he landed at least 3 punches to the head between the female officers and once they are down goes i to punch the male officer in the head too. 8 attempted punches at the women. At least 3 land as head punches.....then 4 punches to male officer! You think the heavy handed nature was not warranted? Should they have approached and asked "would you mind awfully just putting your hands out so we can put these handcuffs on." It bewilders me why people on the left side of politics defend people like this and go after the police instead! If members of the public had gone over to him to stop him and this happened they would already have been put in prison and the members of the public lauded for their bravery, but because the police did it........lets attack the police and make out its to do with skin colour. This is what had happened before that the police went to apprehend him for. Headbutting someone and then trying to land as many punches as possible. the video you have is later on so you should understand the police are approaching someone who has already been shown to be very violent:
"Right wing Rag" last August: "Peter Kyle took a large donation from Public Digital, before appointing a former Public Digital partner (and a Labour Together staffer) Emily Middleton to a very senior position." https://unherd.com/2024/08/can-labour-avoid-the-stench-of-scandal/ BBC reported on it last August as well.
Seems like the mud didn't stick never mind the shrill hysteria of the social media disgraces so stench avoided thus far. If there's something to answer and then let's be having it, there's parliamentary ethics committees and other bodies where these claims can be investigated whichever party is involved.
There was so much of it when Labour took over. Starmer and Labour were banging on about cronyism and nepotism right up to the wire when the Tories were in and then when they got in just did the same as they had been calling the Tories out for. Papers had a moan, BBC did some mumbled mention and moved on. Its only coming back up now because the lefties have turned on their own Maybe Wes Streeting's boyfriend being appointed to a 100k job at Labour HQ will come up again? Who knows but this lot are the same as the last lot. Cash for access, favours for family, jobs for the boys. Keep it all in house or show us your money. Not a lot changes. It was also in Guido's "IN FULL: Labour’s Long List of Sleaze and Scandal Since Coming to Office" quip in February. Seeing as legacy media gets most of its breaking political news from Guido these days. lol: https://order-order.com/2025/02/18/...of-sleaze-and-scandal-since-coming-to-office/
Seems to me this isn’t a story beyond the fact that, in trying to defend their clients in court, the perpetrators lawyers claimed it was a police over-reaction, and failed Defence lawyers are going to try anything that they think might work, and it didn’t
Whilst not voting for Labour and not being a fan of Starmer I think they've done far more than their predecessors. This has some good points worthy of noting against the rehashing of Peter Kyle's alleged indiscretions. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-that-this-labour-government-can-be-proud-of?
Good sleuthing mate Who even needs to write content, when you can spread disinformation with a sensationalist headline, and have it spread on social media.
Margaret Hodge. lol. And people on the last page or the one before said the police investigating themselves was bad. ha, ha. Mind you going from Tulip Siddiq then everyone seems above board
HIGNFY Donald Trump has revealed plans to build a ballroom in the White House, its not known what kind of dances he would hold although he's definitely something of a tango man. please log in to view this image
