Is Gruff the only one finding it impossible to understand the opinion of 'Bystander' at The Magistrate's Blog in this case.
'Heavy-handed' policing (in itself a subjective assessment) may be cause for a complaint to whatever post-Blair body handles complaints about the police these days but it is not an excuse for a mob-handed assault on a police station and magistrates have no business asserting the contrary (in public at least).
8 comments:
CIAO!!! Mi dispiace di non poter leggere i tuoi scritti perchè non conosco la lingua , chisà quante cose belle avrai scritto. Il mio blog e di solo poesie Vuoi venire a visitarlo?? Ti aspetto ..grazie Lina
An international readership. I'm overjoyed.
As I recall, the commenter who is now missing, seemed to be advocating the message of his blog. Basically 'Down with the Police'!
Dickiebo,
I was advocating no such thing.
What I said was that everyone has a tipping point, and we as a nation have been fed rules, laws, licencing, more rules.
The police are then sent to play out to a mass 'detection' exercise along with 200 colleagues from Suffolk and Essex in order to meet their targets, (Norfolk is currently on the low side with detections this quarter) and sometimes, for some people it is the straw/camels back.
I also questioned when the suspicion of carrying sound equipment became an arrestable offence.
I also defended the right of a magistrate to say so.
Here is the link if you wish to read the post that I put up.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/8/19/3168749.html
"it is not an excuse for a mob-handed assault on a police station and magistrates have no business asserting the contrary"
Exactly where do I say this? Along with many other people you have chosen to infer that which I did not imply. I questioned the deployment of police resources, and the priorities thereof. That's it. For the record, I disapprove of mobs attacking police atations, and anywhere else for that matter.
Having reread your post I can find no such justification and, there being no evidence to support my assertion, I must apologise to you for making a statement about you that I cannot now support.
I am doubly culpable since I am aware of the need for repeated careful readings of material that is intended to be the object of criticism. I was sure that I had read your piece four times, and seen, each time, a line excusing the conduct of the frustrated youths, but I cannot have done, for the line is not there. Clearly my critical reading lacked critical rigour.
My memory must be failing along with my 'intellect'; I remember the piece as being slightly longer than it is.
I'm sure as a magistrate you make allowances for failures of memory every day. Thank you for bringing mine to my attention. I will make sure to keep copies of articles I comment on in future.
Grudging, Mr. Gruff, and implying dishonesty on my part. It's all in Google cache, so you can check up if you like. You imply, nudge-nudge, that I have edited the piece. I have not. If you can prove me wrong I will pay £100 to victim support. If you cannot (as you will not) will you do the same?
Bystander
Firstly: That you have inferred something does not mean I have implied it.
Secondly: I think my apology far from grudging and your 'wager' puerile. Pay one hundred pounds to whom you will; you clearly have far more money than I to throw about.
Thirdly: I have no intention of bandying brickbats with you and will publish no more of your comments.
Post a Comment