Yes, that false imprisonment is what caused his rampage,
(Moat)
He wasn't complaining about being imprisoned even he didn't argue that he deserved it. His beef was that he thought is ex was bonking a copper and that racked him off.
Well to the rational amongst us, once someone is your ex it is nothing to do with you who they bonk.
With hindsignt it was a bad idea but I can see why the ex thinking she was with a copper might make her feel safer. She just hadn't planned for quite how nust he was.
He wasn't complaining about being imprisoned even he didn't argue that he deserved it. His beef was that he thought is ex was bonking a copper and that racked him off.
Well to the rational amongst us, once someone is your ex it is nothing to do with you who they bonk.
With hindsignt it was a bad idea but I can see why the ex thinking she was with a copper might make her feel safer. She just hadn't planned for quite how nust he was.
Agreed. Moat was a thug and a bully, nothing more. Certainly no hero that's for sure.
I think the police should have kept their beaks out and the courts for the matter, who cares he could maybe be sexual abusing the lad or putting the boy in a dangerous situation?
Police should stay away and let us all do as we please, regardless of who or what it damages, God damn coppers interfering and upholding the law, whatever next? Doctors saving lives?
Some professionals "lost sight" of their responsibilities to protect Khyra, who succumbed to an infection after months of starvation and cruelty, and instead focused on the rights of the girl's mother and her partner, the review found.
The mother and partner basically told them where to get off.
Whatever the details of the case, the police shouldn't be suffocating kids or blocking what they're doing to the kids by waving papers at the camera.
they shouldn't' be threatening the guy with violence either nor even arresting him as far as I can tell. there;s certainly no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part in the video.
In a "straightforward" contact dispute the police will not forcibly remove a child. So if my ex say had an order for contact Friday to Sunday and he didn't return him on the Sunday refusing point blank and I called the police, the police would tell me to go to court the next day for an emergency hearing. They could not go and grab the child as a family court court contact order doesn't give them those powers even when those orders are breached. It's back to court in front of a judge.
I assume the guy in civvies is a soical worker who has applied for and been given an order for remmoval of the chlld. That's serious stuff going on there. IMO.
I wonder if there are other orders in place the man isn;t going to be open about, though?
Whatever the details of the case, the police shouldn't be suffocating kids or blocking what they're doing to the kids by waving papers at the camera.
they shouldn't' be threatening the guy with violence either nor even arresting him as far as I can tell. there;s certainly no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part in the video.
Wow. So smart of you to form an opinion over 15 minutes of video.
Wow. So smart of you to form an opinion over 15 minutes of video.
Not really an opinion, just common sense based on what evidence could be seen in the video.
Better than your previous contibution to this thread which is nothing other than pure speculaiton and an attempt to smear the father based on no evidence:
The dad may have done something dreadful which warrented the court order against him. Just becuase the boy wants to stay with him. doesn't mean it's actualy the best thing for him.
some kids want to stay with their parents even after they have done dreadful things to them.
Whatever the details of the case, the police shouldn't be suffocating kids or blocking what they're doing to the kids by waving papers at the camera.
they shouldn't' be threatening the guy with violence either nor even arresting him as far as I can tell. there;s certainly no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part in the video.
I suspect a legally obtained court order supersedes your uninformed internet warblings.
To all these people who say that the boy should have been allowed to stay with his father, if that's what he wanted - many victims of domestic abuse choose to stay in their relationships but it doesn't mean its the right to do. :rolleyes:
[Careworker] The court today was persuaded really that...
[Dad] Well [the kid] is saying to me that he's staying here and he doesn’t want to go anywhere, so the thing is, he's staying here.
[Careworker] The problem that we've got is that the judge and the courts
[Dad] (interrupts) Erm
[Careworker] (interupts) No, hang on, it's important you get to know (something), at the court today the decision was made, for whatever reason - I don't know the reason, but nonetheless the court has made the decision that [the kid] has to be removed from here and go into foster care.
Now that doesn't mean that you can't make representation like I advised you earlier to get a solicitor.
[Dad] He's not going.
[Officer] We've got the court order, you can have a look at it yourself. It clearly states he have legal power to take him. If you refuse to then we can take you by force. If we have to carry you out we will do, I know it's not what you want to hear and I know it's not a nice thing, but it will be happening tonight.
(irrelevant exchange about the camera)
[Dad] I don't like my son being kidnapped from my own house
[Officer] He is not being kidnapped, we have a court order
[Dad] You have no right to take my son
[Officer] We have every right I'm afraid. It's been ordered by a district judge that we have every right to take the child.
So if you want to get your shoes on [child], it's up to you how we play this, we can either go out civilly or we carry you out.
[Child] I'm not going
[Officer] I won't have to have to put handcuffs on you and force you but if
[Dad] (interrupts) Pardon? You're saying you're going to put handcuffs on my son when no one has committed any crime. You're all in the wrong
[Officer] If anyone obstructs us to do that then they'll be committing a crime.
[Dad] What did you just say?
[Officer] If anyone obstructs us from taking the child then they will be committing a crime themselves
(irrelevant you're going/im not going exchange)
[Officer] (to Dad) Have a quick read of the [order] and it'll set out the legalities of it.
[Dad] (reading from order) ... using reasonable force if necessary ... any person .... You're not taking my son into foster care at Christmas
[Officer] It's not my decision, I'm purely a messenger to carry out what a court has ordered
[Dad] He's going anywhere, he's staying with me and he's been saying he's staying here for 3 months. You've told a pack of lies in court, your social services have told a pack of lies, I've been posting it on youtube for the last 3 months
[Careworker] The fact remains Mr (removed) that the judge heard you argument and heard social services argument and then they heard from [the child]'s own solicitor and guardian and a decision has been made. Now that doesn't stop you from appealing...
[Dad] (interrupts) We're in opposition to the decision.
(more irrelevant you're going/im not going exchange)
[Officer] The courts granted the order and we have to carry out that order. We cannot leave here without [the child], under any circumstances.
(noise of camera blocks audio)
[Careworker] ... and we would be in contempt of that so unfortunately it does have to happen, but the important thing is you still have recourse to a solicitor...
[Dad] (interrupts) You took all my rights
[Careworker] Mr (removed), you could've had a solicitor. Of course [the child] did have a solicitor.
[Dad] The one who has refused to come here? The one who said he is in danger and doesn't like it here and im a danger? All lies
[Officer] Well I can't comment on that, that's something that's going to have to be taken up at a later date
[Dad] Here, look at this playlist...
[Officer] I'm not interested, we're here to carry out a court order.
Sounds like another stitch up job to me, exactly the same thing happened to Raoul Moat.
If it's not illegal then it's not their place to pass comment.
It's certainly their right to ask him not to film, as much as it's his right to refuse. If they'd lied about it being illegal you might have had a point.
Sounds like another stitch up job to me, exactly the same thing happened to Raoul Moat.
If you think some small time thug was "fitted up" then it's safe to conclude that your opinion on this is equally wrong and that the removal of the child was 100% justified.
Comments
(Moat)
He wasn't complaining about being imprisoned even he didn't argue that he deserved it. His beef was that he thought is ex was bonking a copper and that racked him off.
Well to the rational amongst us, once someone is your ex it is nothing to do with you who they bonk.
With hindsignt it was a bad idea but I can see why the ex thinking she was with a copper might make her feel safer. She just hadn't planned for quite how nust he was.
Agreed. Moat was a thug and a bully, nothing more. Certainly no hero that's for sure.
Yep, like this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-10770907
The mother and partner basically told them where to get off.
I disagree, Is that allowed?
they shouldn't' be threatening the guy with violence either nor even arresting him as far as I can tell. there;s certainly no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part in the video.
I wonder if there are other orders in place the man isn;t going to be open about, though?
Wow. So smart of you to form an opinion over 15 minutes of video.
Not really an opinion, just common sense based on what evidence could be seen in the video.
Better than your previous contibution to this thread which is nothing other than pure speculaiton and an attempt to smear the father based on no evidence:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=46909230&highlight=rapist#post46909230
The camera never lies.
some kids want to stay with their parents even after they have done dreadful things to them.
I suspect a legally obtained court order supersedes your uninformed internet warblings.
Cameras can lie or rather your perception of the video can be wrong.
This is a neat experiment which illustrates this
http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
You can't entirely trust videos put up on YouTube as reliable, legitimate sources either particular when the source was involved in the altercation.
The message about the legality of filming never quite seems to get through to the police.
Did they need to mention it at all ?
If it's not illegal then it's not their place to pass comment.
Sounds like another stitch up job to me, exactly the same thing happened to Raoul Moat.
...seriously? That's your shining example of a "stitch up"? Not the best choice in the world.
Point 1. All speculation and no good can come of this.
Point 2. arguments will throw forthwith to and fro, get no one anywhere.
Point 3. Sad state of affairs but belongs personal and in the courts not on DS. Good Day.
Not a fan of free speech then?
Free speech of what? Post anything on youtube, get everyone to argue.
Point 1. Police are in the right.
Point 2. Everyone has their own opinion
Point 3. There is only one right answer, and many wrong opinions.
Point 4. Free speech is indeed free, but a book costs a poor man a small fortune.
Except when he goes to a library.