Politics Thread 5

[Tafdolphin]

On a lighter note: here's a clip of Boris Johnson being a complete strawberry float up for 2 minutes

twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1067386949315567617

EDIT: And another

twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1067392286202494976

(as someone with a passing knowledge now, his accent in French is atrocious)

[KK]

‘They love it when I speak French.’

[Denster]

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq2YaLmBSym ... bm6cbkcvz4

[<]:^D]

There stealing mobile phones not mooped, arn't they. Thees are the people who snatch phones and then take off on their bikes after. I'm guessing it's probably they do both.

[captain red dog]

I actually agree with her. It's fine to be the Daily Mail 'clobber the bad guys' crowd, until a policeman runs over a 14 year old and kills him or her, or bystanders get injured. Police should always use reasonable and appropriate force and I'd argue smashing into a thief on a mo-ped in a police cruiser is massively excessive.

If you did any research into this at all you'd know that they don't smash into mopeds at all, they nudge the rear of the moped in the same way as a car would use the PIT maneuver against another car. It simply makes the moped wobble and become unstable, so the driver (normally wearing a helmet to hide their face) falls off. Never done at high speed, always done as a last resort.

Sorry I have just seen this. I'm sorry but knocking someone off of a moped even at low speed is incredibly dangerous. This isn't the 1970s anymore with Jack Regan chasing down "slags" and beating the gooseberry fool out of them. I can guarantee under this policy you will get a police officer go too far, or hit someone innocent, cause a fatality etc.

The police should always be using the absolute minimum force necessary to apprehend criminals.

[Lex-Man]

There stealing mobile phones not mooped, arn't they. Thees are the people who snatch phones and then take off on their bikes after. I'm guessing it's probably they do both.

This is why my literary career never took off.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

I actually agree with her. It's fine to be the Daily Mail 'clobber the bad guys' crowd, until a policeman runs over a 14 year old and kills him or her, or bystanders get injured. Police should always use reasonable and appropriate force and I'd argue smashing into a thief on a mo-ped in a police cruiser is massively excessive.

If you did any research into this at all you'd know that they don't smash into mopeds at all, they nudge the rear of the moped in the same way as a car would use the PIT maneuver against another car. It simply makes the moped wobble and become unstable, so the driver (normally wearing a helmet to hide their face) falls off. Never done at high speed, always done as a last resort.

Sorry I have just seen this. I'm sorry but knocking someone off of a moped even at low speed is incredibly dangerous. This isn't the 1970s anymore with Jack Regan chasing down "slags" and beating the gooseberry fool out of them. I can guarantee under this policy you will get a police officer go too far, or hit someone innocent, cause a fatality etc.

The police should always be using the absolute minimum force necessary to apprehend criminals.

The only other option is to let them get away.

[Denster]

Which isn't an Option.

[Grumpy David]

I'm quite comfortable with police being legally allowed to do their job.

It's only resulted in two broken bones but massively reduced the crime. Shame it's only two!

twitter.com/MPSInspCamden/status/1067819287174438913

twitter.com/MPSCamden/status/1067472996204494850

[Jenuall]

I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[Lagamorph]

Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

[OrangeRKN]

I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you want to evaluate the safety of it then we should look at the stats, not how dangerous it looks on a video clip.

[Jenuall]

I have no real problem with the principle of using "tactical contact" as a tool for dealing with these situations, but if the way it is being used is going to be as extreme as the example I picked out in the earlier video then I think there is a huge risk of it resulting in severe injury or even loss of life to the offender.

As stated before it offers nothing like the levels of control an officer has when performing a manoeuvre against another car, if they are routinely doing this as aggressively as that example then I think it's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you want to evaluate the safety of it then we should look at the stats, not how dangerous it looks on a video clip.

It's a tactic that has not been long deployed in the field, there is only limited data to go on in terms of assessing the safety so all we can do at this point is look at the current data (including video examples such as this) and extrapolate.

Everything is 100% safe until the first accident.

[Preezy]

Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

Easier solution would be to just ban all mopeds.

Or ban all pedestrians. Either works.

[Denster]

The stats have shown a 90 percent reduction in the crimes.
It's obviously a deterrent now that they know they could be knocked off the mopeds and possibly be injured or apprehended. Long may it continue. If it results in a few broken limbs for the little thieving gooseberry fools - I'm fine with it.

For the bastards that throw acid over people - I've got zero sympathy. It's testament to the police's professionalism that they don't sidewind the banana splits doing 50.
I'd be fine if they did.

[Peter Crisp]

Or people could just not use mopeds to mug pedestrians.

Easier solution would be to just ban all mopeds.

Or ban all pedestrians. Either works.

Just go full on Star Trek: TNG and abolish money completely then all crime is pretty much pointless.

Star Trek is always the answer .

[KK]

The candidates for the May 2020 London Mayoral elections:

Labour - Sadiq Khan

Conservative - Shaun Bailey


Liberal Democrat - Siobhan Benita


Green - Siân Berry

[Preezy]

How does it work with these candidates - are they party members or MPs or what? How do you qualify as a candidate?

[Moggy]

How does it work with these candidates - are they party members or MPs or what? How do you qualify as a candidate?

To stand for a party you have to be a member of that party and then get that party to select you as their candidate. You don’t have to be an MP.

Anybody can stand as an independent.

[Moggy]

The candidates for the May 2020 London Mayoral elections:

Labour - Sadiq Kahn

Conservative - Shaun Bailey


Liberal Democrat - Siobhan Benita


Green - Siân Berry

What is it with the Tories and selecting racist candidates for London mayor?

In October 2018, Bailey was accused of Islamophobia and Hinduphobia after it was reported that in 2005 Bailey had written a pamphlet, entitled No Man’s Land, for the Centre for Policy Studies. In it, Bailey argued that accommodating Muslims and Hindus "[robs] Britain of its community" and risked turning the country into a "crime riddled cess pool" as a result. He claimed that South Asians "bring their culture, their country and any problems they might have, with them" and that this was not a problem within the black community "because we’ve shared a religion and in many cases a language". [56]

In the pamphlet, Bailey had confused the Hindu religion and the Hindi language: "You don’t know what to do. You bring your children to school and they learn far more about Diwali than Christmas. I speak to the people who are from Brent and they’ve been having Muslim and Hindi (sic) days off."[57]

The Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, James Cleverly, defended Bailey and insisted he was misunderstood, and that he was implying black boys were drifting into crime as a result of learning more about faiths other than "their own Christian culture".[58] Andy Slaughter of the Labour Party, who defeated Bailey at the 2010 general election, responded to the report by arguing: "It is increasingly clear that he holds views that are at best divisive and at worst Islamophobic."[59] The anti-racism Hope Not Hate campaign group called Bailey's comments "grotesque".[60] The comments were condemned by the Hindu Council of the United Kingdom who expressed "disappointment at the misrepresentation of our faith" by Bailey. [61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Bailey#Controversy

This twat has history of sexism as well.

In 2005, Bailey wrote: "The boys have got this opinion that if a girl looks clean, and that generally means she’s good looking, she appeals to them, it is less likely she’ll have an infection". However, Bailey warned them: "If a girl appeals to one that way, she’ll appeal to all of them. She’ll tend to have been around".[49] Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan stated his comments constituted "appalling sexism and misogyny".[62]

At the 2008 Conservative Party conference, Bailey said: "Gals [sic] getting knocked up to get housing? It’s a cottage industry where I come from."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Bailey#Controversy