Bristol Bears Today

[Jiffie]

I am surprised that anybody would want to join the police these days. The lack of support from the government and public is mind numbing, the advice about police procedures from people who have absolutely no comprehension whatsoever WTF they are talking about.

One day a police officer will under pressure from a baying crowd stand up and say "ok you deal with it" and somebody (hopefully one of the baying mob) will be seriously injured.

I would love to see some people who complain about the police, work a set of nights in a city area, most would **** their pants. As the saying goes 'walk a mile in their shoes' and then complain or perhaps explain their nonsense to the widow of Andrew Harper.

Just a read of this story and the utterances from this nutbar parasite lawyer is enough to for anybody to say, "do you know what i've had enough".

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10817948/outrage-lawyer-britain-punish-machete/

 

[Red Alert]

1) I didn't ignore the link. I quite clearly accepted in my last post that I need to do more reading on that and I will. Not that anyone else here would have the humility to do the same of course.
2) Bristol protest extreme? Please. We know who the real snowflakes are don't we

how would i able to quote BLM's website in threads and know what they stand for without reading them?? humility??? your posts lack it.

 

[Jiffie]

Give me a break JGF. Just because the average age here is a fair bit older than me, and therefore has different points of view, doesn't mean I've ever been 'defeated'. I don't consider myself to have ever 'defeated' any of you even when I've actually had people on my side. It's nothing more than a different point of view in my mind and I'd never consider any of these a 'victory'. Victory would be us all getting along with the same viewpoint and having a cider together .

Well I asked the question, because @Red Alert's post made me think he doesn't understand what 'defund the police' actually means. I.e. it's not as crazy as simply getting rid of the police, which obviously no one thinks is a good idea. But I'm pretty certain that despite his claims of visiting BLM websites, he doesn't really know what it entails based on his previous posts, so I wanted to check.

What does defund the police actually mean then?

 

[BCFCRob]

Not to be rude, but everyone here is more than capable of finding that out for themselves online, I'm not going to summarise it myself as there's no way I could do it as well as an actual reporter online, and I'm sure I'd get it wrong in some part or not do it justice properly.

My point really was that defund the police isn't simply getting rid of the police. I'm fairly certain a few here will take it at face value and think that people actually want it canned in it's entirety, when in reality it's more about taking away the resources that are arguably making things worse in the States (aggressive policing, use of weapons, arguably not doing their job fairly and properly) and instead putting those resources into more preventative measures. The police over there can't be trusted to enforce the law equally and fairly so instead those resources should be put into another way of stopping crime, in theory.

I think it's far less relevant here, seeing as we have decent healthcare, education, etc compared to some parts of the US, but over there it certainly has merit, where healthcare and social services can be abysmal dependent on where you are, which can in turn impact levels of crime.

There's nothing better to stop crime than preventing it in the first place. I use it loosely as an example but you could apply the same reasoning to the 'war' on drugs, which most of us know simply hasn't worked. But if you prevent the need for someone to do them then you prevent the need to police it entirely. And I suppose that (at a stretch) is what it's about.

 

[Reliant Robin TC2]

What does defund the police actually mean then?

I don't think BLM or any other interested party really have to worry.... Successive governments have effectively done that over the last 20 or more years, leaving the poor guys and girls on the front line up **** creek without a paddle!!!

 

[johngalleyfan2]

What other methods exactly?

any that do not wear their knees out! … supporting verbally that racism is wrong and all lives matter

 

[johngalleyfan2]

My point really was that defund the police isn't simply getting rid of the police. I'm fairly certain a few here will take it at face value and think that people actually want it canned in it's entirety, when in reality it's more about taking away the resources that are arguably making things worse in the States (aggressive policing, use of weapons, arguably not doing their job fairly and properly) and instead putting those resources into more preventative measures. The police over there can't be trusted to enforce the law equally and fairly so instead those resources should be put into another way of stopping crime, in theory.

are you aware how many police in USA get killed in line of duty...or maimed … or threatened by guns or knives and are you aware of where this threat mainly comes from …. and do you not think/researched/ … actually a lot takes place things are in place in some parts...but still the element that it is trying to embrace is still a threat ……………. it is the easy way out for them …..

 

[Jiffie]

any that do not wear their knees out! … supporting verbally that racism is wrong and all lives matter

What an utter load of tosh, you have no idea what you are talking about, perhaps you should have tried it sometime and then talk from a position of strength.

Trying to subdue drug fuelled animals, will never be a precise science and people will still occasionally die and most will die as a result of the chemicals that they have taken, parasite lawyers and white middle liberals, think that you can talk to one these types and unicorns will fly out of their arses and world peace will occur. They continually attempt to remove the tools that police officers have, some think it's ok to have vile sub humans spit at police officers because they don't believe that spit hoods are a good thing, some try to stop the use of tasers.

Perhaps it might be helpful to actually have an alternative and not stupid comments like yours, believe me they don't help.

 

[Jiffie]

I don't think BLM or any other interested party really have to worry.... Successive governments have effectively done that over the last 20 or more years, leaving the poor guys and girls on the front line up **** creek without a paddle!!!

This is undoubtedly true, I think that for all of her faults at least Maggie supported the police and they felt supported, I don't think that the same could be said these days and it doesn't help having leaders who are puppets like the commissioner of the Met.

 

[Jiffie]

Not to be rude, but everyone here is more than capable of finding that out for themselves online, I'm not going to summarise it myself as there's no way I could do it as well as an actual reporter online, and I'm sure I'd get it wrong in some part or not do it justice properly.

My point really was that defund the police isn't simply getting rid of the police. I'm fairly certain a few here will take it at face value and think that people actually want it canned in it's entirety, when in reality it's more about taking away the resources that are arguably making things worse in the States (aggressive policing, use of weapons, arguably not doing their job fairly and properly) and instead putting those resources into more preventative measures. The police over there can't be trusted to enforce the law equally and fairly so instead those resources should be put into another way of stopping crime, in theory.

I think it's far less relevant here, seeing as we have decent healthcare, education, etc compared to some parts of the US, but over there it certainly has merit, where healthcare and social services can be abysmal dependent on where you are, which can in turn impact levels of crime.

There's nothing better to stop crime than preventing it in the first place. I use it loosely as an example but you could apply the same reasoning to the 'war' on drugs, which most of us know simply hasn't worked. But if you prevent the need for someone to do them then you prevent the need to police it entirely. And I suppose that (at a stretch) is what it's about.

So i'm confused, you support defunding the police, but you don't really understand exactly what it means, you support it in America but you are not so sure that we need it in the UK.

So unless somebody actually explains what it is, people will take it at face value.

I would love to hear yours or Jesus Christ's plans for convincing young people not to take drugs.

 

[Cliftonville]

Not to be rude, but everyone here is more than capable of finding that out for themselves online, I'm not going to summarise it myself as there's no way I could do it as well as an actual reporter online, and I'm sure I'd get it wrong in some part or not do it justice properly.

My point really was that defund the police isn't simply getting rid of the police. I'm fairly certain a few here will take it at face value and think that people actually want it canned in it's entirety, when in reality it's more about taking away the resources that are arguably making things worse in the States (aggressive policing, use of weapons, arguably not doing their job fairly and properly) and instead putting those resources into more preventative measures. The police over there can't be trusted to enforce the law equally and fairly so instead those resources should be put into another way of stopping crime, in theory.

I think it's far less relevant here, seeing as we have decent healthcare, education, etc compared to some parts of the US, but over there it certainly has merit, where healthcare and social services can be abysmal dependent on where you are, which can in turn impact levels of crime.

There's nothing better to stop crime than preventing it in the first place. I use it loosely as an example but you could apply the same reasoning to the 'war' on drugs, which most of us know simply hasn't worked. But if you prevent the need for someone to do them then you prevent the need to police it entirely. And I suppose that (at a stretch) is what it's about.

It is very unclear what BLM mean by defund the police. There are at least three differing sites with divergent views. Within these divergent views is support for armed militias and autonomous zones, both are forms of getting rid of the police, the latter has seen murder occur within a BLM police free backed zone.

BLM are an extreme left wing Marxist movement who are deliberately creating division and disorder. It is political situationism. Resources should not go into the hands of these extremists v the police of democratically elected nations.

 

[Jiffie]

Serious question for those experts who think that there are better ways of subduing extremely violent people who do not want to be subdued, but have absolutely no idea or clue what those ways are or no concept of how dangerously violent these incidents can be, because they have never had to deal with one, but still think that they know best, moan but have absolutely no viable solutions.

A true story.

One night maybe late 80's, a 5ft 4in skinny bespectacled drug fuelled moron, decided to break into a car lot and rob car stereos, causing a huge amount of damage and financial loss to the owner.

The first police unit on scene happened to be a dog handler. The moron runs for it and the police dog is released and after 150 yards or so said moron is taken down by said police dog, the handler and other officers reach the scene of the take down and are greeted by the sight of said moron actually fighting the dog (I have it on very good authority that said police dog is one of the nastiest on the section).

The moron has already been bitten multiple times but manages to get the dog into a headlock and is slowly but surely choking the dog, the dog is getting very angry but after a while breaks free and is recalled to the handler, a command the dog immediately responds to, as the dog is on his way back the moron kicks the dog in the stomach and the dog (who is trained to defend itself) recommences it's attack on said moron.

The scenario of dog being recalled and moron kicking him happened 4 more times. The handler finally has had enough and realising that said moron is although bloodied and bruised is not feeling a modicum of pain, he recalls his dog grabs hold of the dog to stop him re attacking even though said moron kicks the dog yet again.

The moron then with head down charges at the handler like a raging bull, the handler at the right moment takes a step to his left and catches bespectacled moron with a powerful right hook, so powerful said moron is lifted off of his feet and his glasses are shattered, moron is stunned sufficiently to allow other officers to handcuff him.

Now you would be entitled to think that was game over but no, our friendly neighbourhood moron manages to break out of the handcuffs twice and re commences his violence on at least 4 other officers, eventually a 2nd pair of hand cuffs are applied and he is taken kicking screaming and fighting to a police station.

The moron had 19 separate dog bites, he had a fracture to his eye socket and severe bruising to his arms where he resisted being cuffed.

So 4 questions:-

1. How do people who know best, think a puny 5ft 4in bespectacled moron became suddenly so mad, so strong and so pain free?

2. Do the same people believe that excessive force was used in this arrest?

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, then please explain what could have been done differently?

4. This is a daily occurrence in the UK for police officers, especially those in inner cities, please one of you who knows better especially mainly white middle class liberals, who line up to defend these violent individuals, of course unless they move in next door, GIVE THE POLICE SOLUTIONS.

 

[BCFCRob]

So i'm confused, you support defunding the police, but you don't really understand exactly what it means, you support it in America but you are not so sure that we need it in the UK.

Incredibly incorrect take on it of course, but you're inevitably going to read it how you want it to be read aren't you.

I would love to hear yours or Jesus Christ's plans for convincing young people not to take drugs.

So you think the current way of going about it is good do you? We should just leave it as is? Bloody hell.

It's a complete tangent, but drug use has actually gone down in some cases where it's legalised. Plus people are going to do it anyway (whether you're a kid at a festival or a politician in Parliament), you'd might as well make it as safe as possible for them to do so.

 

[Jiffie]

Incredibly incorrect take on it of course, but you're inevitably going to read it how you want it to be read aren't you.



So you think the current way of going about it is good do you? We should just leave it as is? Bloody hell.

It's a complete tangent, but drug use has actually gone down in some cases where it's legalised. Plus people are going to do it anyway (whether you're a kid at a festival or a politician in Parliament), you'd might as well make it as safe as possible for them to do so.

You are missing the point.

I never said leave it as it is, I unlike yourself am not advocating anything, I am asking as with the question of police tactics during arrests, what solutions you or anybody else might have. It is fine to oppose things and complain but you need better solutions but as usual, we hear complaints but no solutions. The police would love to hear any suitable solutions from politicians, white middle class liberals, families of people who have died from drugs or during an arrest, but no all that happens is indignation, protests, looting and more violence and no solutions.

Here's mine (tongue in cheek) people who think they know better, be attached to inner police and when arrests of drug fuelled people gets to the point where only violence is going to end in an arrest, the police say 'there you go, you think you know how to deal with situations like this, over to you' of course these well meaning citizens will be issued with a safe word, for when they are about to **** themselves.

I see your point about legalising, what happens when somebody inevitably dies from an overdose?, who will the grieving parents sue?, the government?

 

[johngalleyfan2]

What an utter load of tosh, you have no idea what you are talking about, perhaps you should have tried it sometime and then talk from a position of strength.

.............a rather confusing statement... tried what? which would give me a position of strength? !

Trying to subdue drug fuelled animals, will never be a precise science and people will still occasionally die and most will die as a result of the chemicals that they have taken, parasite lawyers and white middle liberals, think that you can talk to one these types and unicorns will fly out of their arses and world peace will occur. They continually attempt to remove the tools that police officers have, some think it's ok to have vile sub humans spit at police officers because they don't believe that spit hoods are a good thing, some try to stop the use of tasers.

……... is this an answer to different [ someone elses? ]comment? cant see the relevance in commenting I do not agree to protesting on one knee? but an advocate of no room for racism in our society ….

Perhaps it might be helpful to actually have an alternative and not stupid comments like yours, believe they don't help.

… ... what is stupid about a comment that disagrees with a protest to go "down on the knee" … an action I seem to remember you championed of Bristol Bears????

 

[Jiffie]

.............a rather confusing statement... tried what? which would give me a position of strength? !


……... is this an answer to different [ someone elses? ]comment? cant see the relevance in commenting I do not agree to protesting on one knee? but an advocate of no room for racism in our society ….


… ... what is stupid about a comment that disagrees with a protest to go "down on the knee" … an action I seem to remember you championed of Bristol Bears????

I do apologise, I was trying to answer 2 posts at once and fired off the wrong one to you, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

PS:- I agree with you on this.

 

[BCFCRob]

I see your point about legalising, what happens when somebody inevitably dies from an overdose?, who will the grieving parents sue?, the government?

I don't think everything should be legalised, but we definitely need a different perspective on it. Of course people will die but also lots of people will be saved from doing drugs in a safe environment rather than swallowing/snorting/smoking illegal stuff mixed with god knows what.

Loads of banned drugs cause far less damage than alcohol does. The sooner society accepts that a huge percentage of people from all walks of life smash drugs then the sooner it can begin to treat the problem better.

This is off topic anyways and I'm ever so slightly outnumbered but good to have had the debate anyway. And while I'm yet to do so, I'll be reading a bit more on BLM before commenting again, based on the comments on here.

 

[Jiffie]

I don't think everything should be legalised, but we definitely need a different perspective on it. Of course people will die but also lots of people will be saved from doing drugs in a safe environment rather than swallowing/snorting/smoking illegal stuff mixed with god knows what.

Loads of banned drugs cause far less damage than alcohol does. The sooner society accepts that a huge percentage of people from all walks of life smash drugs then the sooner it can begin to treat the problem better.

This is off topic anyways and I'm ever so slightly outnumbered but good to have had the debate anyway. And while I'm yet to do so, I'll be reading a bit more on BLM before commenting again, based on the comments on here.

I hear what you say, believe me I really do, society is well aware of the danger of drugs, but sadly far too many don't give a crap, you are correct the war against drugs has been lost and it will get worse, because addicts will get more desperate for money to feed their habit, given recent events.

If kids now don't realise the damage that drugs can do then let's be honest they never will.

 

[johngalleyfan2]

Of course people will die but also lots of people will be saved from doing drugs in a safe environment

really! ..lol

 

[johngalleyfan2]

If kids now don't realise the damage that drugs can do then let's be honest they never will.

drugs is like smoking an addiction as we all know … in this day and age it is amazing how the trend has gone from an extremely high % of the population smoking to a relatedly low %... indeed males used to be more than double female smokers … last time I looked [ couple or so years ago ] females made up 63% of smokers …..
but there is now a vast choice of alternatives super addictive ..whereas smoking so called calmed the nerves ..drugs do the opposite? !