Would you have intervened at Woolwich?

1789101113»

Comments

  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    And that, in itself, is a great example of why it's not necessarily a great idea.

    If a specific operation involving armed police can cock it up so horrifically on a huge number of levels and then leave the poor guy who was actually there, in the train, to take responsibility for the outcome, why on Earth would the average beat-bobby want that same level of responsibility?

    In a lot of countries it seems like cops shooting drunks or people who act strangely is met with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders and ignored.
    The fact that we DO seem to treat these type of incidents much more seriously is no bad thing, IMO.

    Do you remember that programme "Cops" which used to be on Sky 1 many years ago (this is going back to as long ago as 1990 or 91) I remember one episode where a cop was recalling when he shot someone ~ a suspect ~ and killed him simply because he was running away and failed to heed the "freeze" warning. Turned out he was totally innocent.

    That wouldn't happen in this country. Not from an ordinary copper anyway.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Start another topic.

    Sorry, YOU brought it up,you have to ride this one out to the end.

    You're historically incorrect.
    As I said, America released nearly all German POWs by 1946. Your country and France kept most of those released prisoners imprisoned for up to three more years. I guess Eisenhower forced your government, and France's, to do that?
    United Kingdom [edit]In 1946, the UK had more than 400,000 prisoners, many had been transferred from POW camps in the U.S. and Canada. Many of these were used as forced labour, as a form of "reparations".[30][31]

    The two main reasons for their internment were political re-education (Wilton Park), and for non-officers employment as agricultural and other labour.[32][33] In 1946 a fifth of all agricultural work in the UK was performed by German prisoners.[33] An emotional and public debate ensued in the UK, where words such as "slaves", "slave labour" and "forced labour" were increasingly used in the media and in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.[34] In 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture argued against rapid repatriation of working German prisoners, since by then they made up 25 percent of the land workforce, and they wanted to use them also in 1948.[34] Faced with political difficulties in using volunteer foreign labour a compromise solution was suggested by the ministry of agriculture, German prisoners were to be allowed to remain in Britain as free men.[34] Following disputes about how many former prisoners of war would be permitted to remain voluntarily in Britain and whether they would first have to return briefly to Germany before being allowed to officially migrate to Britain,[34] by the end of 1947 about 250,000 of the prisoners of war were repatriated, and the last repatriations took place in November 1948.[33] About 24,000 chose to remain voluntarily in Britain.[33]

    German "internees" were NOT released by the U.S. - they were transferred from custody in the U.S. to custody in the UK and France....and that is most definitely NOT "release", neither in reality NOR as defined in the Geneva III.

    However - I'm quite sure you'll keep on saying it, even though it doesn't make you any more correct than you haven't been to date.
    Going by that reaction I see my assessment of your comments was correct.

    Actually, I was being ironic...accompanied by several of the most recent examples of YOU doing exactly that, nationalistic pointscoring.



    Blueblade, just for information...Eisenhower's reclassification means that although we tend to CALL them "Prisoners Of War" - they no longer were. The "DEP" classification allowed the Allies to...

    1/ hold them indefinitely;

    2/ NOT have to feed them the same calorie levels as their own civilians; something they were obligated to do for "POWs" under Geneva III;

    3/ they could be used for forced labour; "POWs" ..."other ranks" that is - were obliged to work if work was available but they HAD to be paid for their labour, although this was usually in "prison scrip" only redeemable at camp commissaries.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Blueblade, just for information...Eisenhower's reclassification means that although we tend to CALL them "Prisoners Of War" - they no longer were. The "DEP" classification allowed the Allies to...

    1/ hold them indefinitely;

    2/ NOT have to feed them the same calorie levels as their own civilians; something they were obligated to do for "POWs" under Geneva III;

    3/ they could be used for forced labour; "POWs" ..."other ranks" that is - were obliged to work if work was available but they HAD to be paid for their labour, although this was usually in "prison scrip" only redeemable at camp commissaries.

    Noted, thanks.
  • PPhilsterPPhilster Posts: 1,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry, YOU brought it up,you have to ride this one out to the end.

    Negative. I don't "have to" do anything. From this point on if you are not willing to post on topic you will not get a response. If you wish to discuss another subject then start another post and maybe I will contribute. :cool:
  • PPhilsterPPhilster Posts: 1,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Deacon1972 wrote: »
    If the UK had a gun culture like the USA then our police force would more likely have to be armed, but as we don't and they are not you're going to have to accept the UK is not like the USA.

    Which of course does not explain why most, if not all, European countries have armed police, and why many have much less violent crime than the UK.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PPhilster wrote: »
    Which of course does not explain why most, if not all, European countries have armed police, and why many have much less violent crime than the UK.

    Are you spreading this across the forum without anything to back it up?
  • PPhilsterPPhilster Posts: 1,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gorbag wrote: »
    Jeeesh PPhilster you come a cross as a right dick.


    You always claim other people are point scoring against the US but happily run down my country's legal system, police tactics and levels of bravery. Seems to me you are the point scorer and denegrator of other countries.

    You go off topic about keeping POWs at the end of WWII and as soon as you lose the argument you claim people are off topic.

    You come across as an immature dick.

    Do you have anything to add on topic?
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sorry, YOU brought it up,you have to ride this one out to the end.

    Negative. I don't "have to" do anything. From this point on if you are not willing to post on topic you will not get a response. If you wish to discuss another subject then start another post and maybe I will contribute

    And THAT is what they call a flounce around here :p If you post up something that's patently incorrect and stand on it - you'll be told in no uncertain terms. You CAN of course choose to ignore when the correct facts are pointed out to you - but you'll end up looking even more stupid that way.

    Live with it.

    You got it wrong - AGAIN - when it comes to WWII history. That's four times in recent weeks when you've tried to pontificate.

    It really would be better if you leave off WWII or making WWII-related points...
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PPhilster wrote: »
    Negative. I don't "have to" do anything. From this point on if you are not willing to post on topic you will not get a response. If you wish to discuss another subject then start another post and maybe I will contribute. :cool:

    In that case, I'm sure you'll be reminded at every turn, not to stray off topic the moment you do.

    ...and you will, trust me....

    Rank, rank bad form to raise a topic, then say the person who responds to it is off topic.
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    blueblade wrote: »
    In that case, I'm sure you'll be reminded at every turn, not to stray off topic the moment you do.

    ...and you will, trust me....

    Rank, rank bad form to raise a topic, then say the person who responds to it is off topic.

    A bit like when he suggested our soldiers were likely to be poorly prepared as well and then threw his toys out of the pram when I mentioned the Fort Hood massacre?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 384
    Forum Member
    :mad: With him being american he thinks the real worlds a made up hollywood film, and they can change historical facts willy nilly. Cannot abide obese loudmouthed grit porkbelly pancake a 12pint of full fat coca cola yanks. :mad:
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    aspicjelly wrote: »
    :mad: With him being american he thinks the real worlds a made up hollywood film, and they can change historical facts willy nilly. Cannot abide obese loudmouthed grit porkbelly pancake a 12pint of full fat coca cola yanks. :mad:

    Especially one that's as real as a character in a Bruce Willis film, eh? ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,084
    Forum Member
    no i wouldnt have, id have been terrified if i saw two men with blades etc, nevermind a body nearby, id have done a 180 and ran in the opposite direction as fast as i could. id have rang the police though.
  • habbyhabby Posts: 10,027
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think I would have taken a lot of photos.
  • TrollHunterTrollHunter Posts: 12,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ishina wrote: »
    From his rooftop vantage point, PPhilster would have seen the soldier get run over and the two criminal scum about to begin their frenzied attack. He'd drop in from above, slow-falling with his Batcape and quickly assess the situation. Using a fusion of Capoeira and ancient battlefield Ju-jitsu, he'd immobilise one of them quickly with a solid pressure-point strike. Taking advantage of the element of surprise, he'd swing around the immobilised one to use him as a human shield to protect himself against any bullets. If there is gunplay, he'd wait until the ammo is spent and then re-engage during the reload downtime. Switching to a Mok-gar Tiger stance, he would flurry-strike hard and fast, and take out the remaining street scum swiftly and efficiently, moving like the graceful yet powerful feline, seeking a way to place himself between the injured soldier and the ruffian. If he tried to run, he'd take him out with a temple strike using his Batarang.

    Once the immediate danger is over, he’d tie the criminal scum up, using various Hojo-jutsu knots to secure them to each other. Satisfied that they pose no more danger, he would sweep the soldier up into his embrace and fire his grapple-gun up to a nearby rooftop. By now a crowd would have gathered and there would be cheering and applause. He'd winch them both the hell out of there while winking at a child in the crowd. Call police. Job done.

    Then he would wake up with his face in a bowl of Cherios and the sunshine bus honking its horn outside. Late for school again.

    If this is just chapter one, I can't wait to read the rest of this hugely compelling novel. Put me down for one advance order.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PPhilster wrote: »
    Which of course does not explain why most, if not all, European countries have armed police, and why many have much less violent crime than the UK.

    Most of our police are armed, just with non-lethal weapons.

    Why British police don’t have guns
Sign In or Register to comment.