Oh, no he is Not one of their own. No-one despises a bad cop more than a good cop. Don’t make out all Police are the same.
2 Likes
Ok, I can see this isn’t going to happen. 
Agreed, and one of the few (two, presumably) witnesses to the events is dead.
However this particular speculation was offered by the BBC so I doubt there is additional harm repeating it here.
1 Like
but was that before or after the D notice issued by the AG?
1 Like
No idea.
Moving to the demonstrations there is an irony, that the demonstrations in London about the policing of the vigil have been larger, more packed with people and of longer duration than the vigil itself.
EDIT: the speculation was definitely reported by “The Sun” (much as I hate to post a link to that particular rag).
How am I supposed to know that? I visit the forum where there is a picture of you alongside your name and the word Team. I was aware that you had a role of some sort beyond making vitriolic posts, but that’s all.
Testosterone.
They should not have been there. That many people gathering is not allowed under Covid restrictions. No different to anybody else. Why do people forget this and criticize the police. They were doing their jobs.
1 Like
That is somewhat insincere and bleeding typical of your ilk 
1 Like
Deputy Assistant Commissioner was Gold Command and he is the one who has whitewashed all the reccommendations following the Operation Midland scandal.
This has been stated before and I’m not convinced it is as cut & dried as that.
Admittedly a judgement was made “banning” a protest but the common is a public space. There is no ban on using public spaces as long as social distancing is maintained and no mixed household groups are formed.
From Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19 - GOV.UK
There’s enough wriggle room in that guidance to allow a peaceful vigil.
That’s an interesting view.
We live in an age where
pornography of all types is readily available;
sex is a commodity;
the participants in pornography are objectified;
and - because women and men are different - this creates a change in men’s attitudes towards women which is not mirrored in women’s attitudes towards men. Women become dehumanised in a way that men do not.
I think sometimes we want to have our cake and eat it. We want the “freedom” to watch porn, but not the effect it has on our attitudes. We want to allow prostitution but criminalise the punters. We want to do anything we want, but not take responsibility for the consequences.
“Take what you want, and pay for it.”
Trust me, you haven’t seen vitriolic.
1 Like
Don’t worry Graham, I shall get back in the kitchen and carry on baking scones shortly 
3 Likes
I suppose I could say “ha, obviously a woman who knows her place” but 
1 Like
What’s striking - and depressing - looking over this thread is that the apologists for the police are mainly men, whereas those most sympathetic to the women - are women (with a few honourable exceptions like Paul). This division alone ought, I think, to give the men contributing pause for thought.
Nor can I see anything in the ‘recent changes’ argument (it’s down to pornography, the decline in religion, etc, etc) - there is plentiful evidence of men’s violence against women in history - long before the internet, etc.
5 Likes
I was just looking in the “About” section of your site. Confusingly, under the heading of moderator, it’s your name and photo.
My point was that we don’t do ‘moderating’ per se on SF - as anyone who spends any time here should realise.
The site is built by Discourse and some aspects of it are unalterable by the organisations using the resource (SF in this case). It’s a standard “package”.
Fair enough. But I’d say very easy to make a wrong assumption if someones name and photo is attached to that role. I remember Cat was an owner from previously using SF a few years back - but I also thought she had a role as a moderater - confirmed by the info I mention. I assume that aspect cannot be changed then?