Meanwhile In England

[Sweep]

5 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I asked a question since you said we had to get ready. I merely asked ‘for what’? And I still don’t know what we have to be ready for. It’s not an unreasonable question. 

Are you not ready then? 

[gonzo]

6 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I asked a question since you said we had to get ready. I merely asked ‘for what’? And I still don’t know what we have to be ready for. It’s not an unreasonable question. 

He was probably thinking we could have another Southport on our hands and things would all kick off again.

I'm sure you know this like. 

Funnily any misinformation was quashed immediately and the ethnicity of those involved made public within minutes.

Funny that...

 

[Casino]

2 minutes ago, gonzo said:

 

Funnily any misinformation was quashed immediately and the ethnicity of those involved made public within minutes.

Funny that...

 

shame that its necessary really, dont you think

with the girls it was immediately said to not be terror related but that didnt stop the wankers making shit up

[mickbrown]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

My intuition was correct, hence the comment.

Two prats trying to be clever, and posting twatty bollocks as ever.

 

What was your intuition?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, gonzo said:

He was probably thinking we could have another Southport on our hands and things would all kick off again.

I'm sure you know this like. 

Funnily any misinformation was quashed immediately and the ethnicity of those involved made public within minutes.

Funny that...

 

I don’t really know why every time we have a knife crime we should expect riots.

Regardless far as I saw a couple of hours post the event all that had been said by the police was the exact same as post Southport re not suspected to be terror relates. Nothing more. Which is absolutely normal. 

[Casino]

52 minutes ago, Ani said:

I would imagine at lot of interviews down the station are ' you could be charged with rioting and go to trial and get 10 years, if you take the lesser charge you will be out in 12 months if you plead guilty'

there was an ex cop i heard and he said that if its a charge of riot, then central govt pay the costs

if its violent disorder or whatever, thats normal policing costs

might be bollocks

[Alf Hartigan]

Bearing in mind it’s 25 years since I left the police but nobody was ever interviewed for public order offenses. Even riot being section 1 and violent disorder section 2. You just wrote a statement and then waited for the plea which was then dealt with at court 

[Ani]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

He was probably thinking we could have another Southport on our hands and things would all kick off again.

I'm sure you know this like. 

Funnily any misinformation was quashed immediately and the ethnicity of those involved made public within minutes.

Funny that...

 

Was the ethnicity made public ? 
 

If so by who ? There were pictures on social media, but I did not see any official statement.  I did see the posts on social media go from 'guess who' to 'looks Eastern European' pretty quick. 
 

The only real difference with the info as I see it is that images posted of the attacker seem to be of the right person and in terms of the attackers description no one had made anything up.

The Police have not said if he was known to them or if he was on a watch list. But no furore from the usual suspects. You think they have realised lying on line has consequences ?

Edited August 12, 2024 by Ani

[Tonge moor green jacket]

38 minutes ago, Alf Hartigan said:

Bearing in mind it’s 25 years since I left the police but nobody was ever interviewed for public order offenses. Even riot being section 1 and violent disorder section 2. You just wrote a statement and then waited for the plea which was then dealt with at court 

Interesting that.

No solicitor then?

I'm intrigued as to how evidence was gathered and presented if a not guilty plea was made- wasn't there a risk of "one word against another" if no other witnesses/victims?

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

He was probably thinking we could have another Southport on our hands and things would all kick off again.

I'm sure you know this like. 

Funnily any misinformation was quashed immediately and the ethnicity of those involved made public within minutes.

Funny that...

 

Wasn't difficult really was it! 😁

But, as you say, they knew that.

Just chose to make a scene.

For a while I reckon senior police and politicians would have held their collective breath.

 

 

[Alf Hartigan]

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Interesting that.

No solicitor then?

I'm intrigued as to how evidence was gathered and presented if a not guilty plea was made- wasn't there a risk of "one word against another" if no other witnesses/victims?

 

They got a solicitor for the court appearance whether guilty or not guilty. Charges of riot usually got downgraded to violent disorder or  less like affray (section 3). I think it’s still pretty similar.

[mickbrown]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Wasn't difficult really was it! 😁

But, as you say, they knew that.

Just chose to make a scene.

For a while I reckon senior police and politicians would have held their collective breath.

 

 

Still non the wiser regarding your intuition which was proved correct 

Take it you thought it wasn’t terror related?

[Alf Hartigan]

And also, interviews at police stations are a waste of time as all solicitors tell them to go no comment or ‘make a prepared statement’.

[gonzo]

9 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Still non the wiser regarding your intuition which was proved correct 

Take it you thought it wasn’t terror related?

We've just had riots in every town in England since the last stabbing.

TMGJ won't have been the only one to think here we go again...

They had a fella on sky news within thr hour saying the bloke was white.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

12 minutes ago, Alf Hartigan said:

They got a solicitor for the court appearance whether guilty or not guilty. Charges of riot usually got downgraded to violent disorder or  less like affray (section 3). I think it’s still pretty similar.

Aye.

Just more intrigued about a "non" interview. 

If there was just (not saying that isn't a valid means) a statement, but no video/body worn camera footage etc, how would you go about proving it, or providing sufficient evidence?

To offer up an example: one mon chucks a brick, it hits no one, and he gets arrested for it. If he pleaded not guilty and said he was just "in the area" sort of thing, how do those sitting make a judgement?

 

[Ani]

8 minutes ago, gonzo said:

We've just had riots in every town in England since the last stabbing.

TMGJ won't have been the only one to think here we go again...

They had a fella on sky news within thr hour saying the bloke was white.

Last time we had people naming him, giving out his religion and immigration status on Twitter. 
 

Pretty sure people would have thought twice about doing that this time. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

19 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Still non the wiser regarding your intuition which was proved correct 

Take it you thought it wasn’t terror related?

My intuition that the usual fucknugget would be on casting his usual aspersions. 

As for the incident, I had/have no idea what the motivation was- I'd just heard about it, like everyone else.

Given the recent trouble however, it wasn't beyond the wit of man to understand the serious concerns the authorities would have had.

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

Last time we had people naming him, giving out his religion and immigration status on Twitter. 
 

Pretty sure people would have thought twice about doing that this time. 

Yes.

Police were between a rock and a hard place then, because of the lad's age, versus public interest. 

I saw an interview with a retired senior officer who said he felt they had got it wrong, and should have given details much quicker, especially given the fact that he was just a few days shy of 18.

Certainly got it out there quickly today.

[Alf Hartigan]

13 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Aye.

Just more intrigued about a "non" interview. 

If there was just (not saying that isn't a valid means) a statement, but no video/body worn camera footage etc, how would you go about proving it, or providing sufficient evidence?

To offer up an example: one mon chucks a brick, it hits no one, and he gets arrested for it. If he pleaded not guilty and said he was just "in the area" sort of thing, how do those sitting make a judgement?

 

In the 90s body cam did not exist and a magistrate or judge would have to make a judgment against one person’s version to another’s. The police were usually genuine but I’m not naive enough to say this was always the case.

[Ani]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Yes.

Police were between a rock and a hard place then, because of the lad's age, versus public interest. 

I saw an interview with a retired senior officer who said he felt they had got it wrong, and should have given details much quicker, especially given the fact that he was just a few days shy of 18.

Certainly got it out there quickly today.

It took a judge to agree disclosing the info. It is not a Police call.

This is where it highlight how deliberately the likes of Farage are stirring trouble. They know the rules, they know the law, but instead of issuing statements to that affect they stirred the pot. 
 

Imagine the difference if instead of asking 'questions' about the guys immigration status Farage had said ' As evil as todays events are we have to respect the fact that when someone is under 18 we have laws that limit what is said. Please respect the loss of the families and remain calm'

[gonzo]

15 minutes ago, Ani said:

Last time we had people naming him, giving out his religion and immigration status on Twitter. 
 

Pretty sure people would have thought twice about doing that this time. 

It appears they did or it was nipped in the bud pretty sharpish by all concerned.

Like I say TMGJ wasn't alone in thinking oh shit this could all go off again...especially if the dude was anything but white.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, gonzo said:

It appears they did or it was nipped in the bud pretty sharpish by all concerned.

Like I say TMGJ wasn't alone in thinking oh shit this could all go off again...especially if the dude was anything but white.

The only difference appears to be there weren’t far right groups spreading malicious rumours with the intent to incite this time round….

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

It took a judge to agree disclosing the info. It is not a Police call.

Not entirely. 

The police can request it, if it is felt it's in the public interest. 

I may be mistaken, but I think the request came from the press this time.

[bolty58]

2 hours ago, Casino said:

shame that its necessary really, dont you think

 

Yep, agreed. Afraid balance of likelihood comes into play so you can see why some folk jump to conclusions. If anyone has learned anything from Southport it should be the general public to wait for all of the facts and for the authorities to minimise the amount of time they need to massage the message (not terrorism, mental health issues etc.) and arrive at the podium.

[Ani]

9 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Not entirely. 

The police can request it, if it is felt it's in the public interest. 

I may be mistaken, but I think the request came from the press this time.

As I said it is the judges decision.