comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home
From: John Joseph Massey
Category: Other stuff
Date: 16 May 2001
Oh dear Jasper you've embarassed yourself once again! Right, so the police should have waited until people were assaulted and property damaged until they even turned up? Don't talk such shit. I can see that going down well with the taxpayers when they came to clear out the charred remains of their shops the next day.'Oh it's ok Madam we saw the person that did it; we didn't think to try to stop him.Policemen don't do that sort of thing any more..' Next time a burglar/rapist/arsonist/mugger/terrorist is standing outside the home of one of your close family members be sure not to dial 999 until they are actually inside the house and heading for the bedroom; you myopic twat. If I may say your response demonstrates the kind of half-baked naivety that those of us who've spent the past three gruelling years dealing with the victims of serious assaults, racially motivated attacks on families and their property or investigating literally thousands of burglaries and thefts have managed to rid ourselves of. Clearly some of us have been fortunate enough to have spent our time since college in complete isolation not only from the all too grim realities of life in the capital but also from the realities of human behaviour and social responsibility, prefering instead to close our eyes and enjoy a utopian wet dream. No one is suggesting that everyone was going set fire to cars -try following the argument Jasp - but the fact that some did, and have done with such delight in the past, does rather suggest that some sensible measure had to be implemented to prevent a minority from endangering lives -not just waiting for some to 'commit crimes' then trying to pick these individuals out of 5,000 protesters. Moreover, only those who actually committed offences were arrested, although PACE 1984 does actually allow a constable to arrest a person they believe is about to commit an arrestable offence (I believe it's called crime prevention..) No one was being 'punished in anticipation of a crime they might commit'. How vain of the protesters to see themselves as the focus of attention! The purpose of the exercise was to ensure that other members of society were being protected; if this wasn't to the protesters liking - tough. Sacrificing one's freedom of movement briefly (even when warned not to attend a particular area) so that others can enjoy a greater liberty (the right not to be set alight, kicked to death, see your entire life's work go up in smoke etc.) is what REAL democratic societies are all about. If the majority merely wanted to protest peacefully there are another 364 days of the year they can choose. No? didn't think so..If protecting people and property to the very best of one's ability in accordance with the wishes of the MAJORITY of Londoners and with close adherence to the law {Preventing a Breach of the Peace, Use of force in Preventing Crime (S.3 CLA), preventing injury to life, limb or property S.17 PACE and S.117 PACE etc etc}AND with the full blessing of a DEMOCRATICALLY elected (Labour) government (which you no doubt voted for..) is not democratic then may I suggest you employ your Oxford English dictionary to better effect. Your use of the term 'Plod' and allusion to 'London Tonite' are not worthy of rejoinder suffice it to say that, as ever, you have felt it necessary to lower the argument to a typically humorless level. I won't go on; I suspect you are still recovering from the devastating effect of being revealed as the conceited two-dimensional pseud you really are by Ann Robinson.
comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home