nnfox

Well yeah, I mean, we could do that, but why not start with something simpler like turning the internet off?

A lot of grime is absolute poison. Filled with hate and far more influential than any political party. I don't see how you get rid of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did delete them - hence why he wasn't charged with possession of the images.

Deploy the army onto the streets? Really? The police could be fine if they were backed by politicians and the media. What we see now is the result of years of criticising the police every time some protester get hurt because of a baton strike or being thrown to the floor and crying about it because they were there to "peacefully protest" and it's not their fault everyone else was kicking off.

Defence are putting in their mitigation. When it comes to sentencing there is a range of sentences that can be passed. The starting point will be somewhere in the middle and if there are aggravating factors the sentence will drift towards the tougher end. If there are mitigating factors, they will be taken into account and the sentence may drift to the more lenient end of the scale. Defence are basically saying he isn't a raging pedo that was looking to get access to children, he received a few images that were clearly of children but that wasn't what he was asking for. Suspended sentence all day long.

Age doesn't really come into the categorisation, it's to do with what's going on in the image. Cat A are the very worst. And it's worth pointing out that whilst technically images could be of people aged under 18, they would usually have to be obviously under 18. CPS would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that he knew they were underage, they don't want anyone able to say that it's possible the subjects in the images could potentially be over 18. There are multiple images of all categories in the indictment. I don't feel sorry for him at all. Suspended sentence, sex offender register, fine, costs and a reputation in tatters is how it should play out imo.

I would think it's along the lines of if I send you a picture and you open it, then I have a copy and you have a copy, therefore you have made the image (file) i.e., your copy. If you then delete it, you might say that you're not in possession of it (he wasn't charged with possession), but doesn't alter the fact that you created that particular file in the first place.

We are in strange times and we live in an extremely fast paced world. Laws that were written decades ago have to be questioned. There are rules around what information can be given out about crimes and there's a fine balance between getting useful information to the public and potentially prejudicing a criminal trial. In years gone by, the police could quite easily manage that situation... Tell TV, radio and the printed press what you were happy to publish and that was it. A few witnesses that knew more than that might tell their mates down the pub, but that's as loose as it got. Nowadays, that control of the flow of information has gone. Any and every witness has 4k quality video recorders with them and a platform where they can get those images to literally millions of people in live time. On top of that, any number of those millions of viewers can jump to conclusions and spout their rumour and opinion as fact. Meanwhile, the police try in vain to stick to the old laws and rules. A big shake up is needed so that misinformation can be quashed at the earliest time. That doesn't necessarily mean full transparency, but there has to be recognition that the current system just isn't fit for purpose.

I was going to respond directly but @Salisbury Fox pretty much says what I was going to say: Police are permitted to use force in certain circumstances - heck, they can shoot someone dead if it needs to be done. This is, in law, a question of reasonableness and there are lots of things to take into account before an answer can satisfactorily be reached, not least what the thought process of the officer was. I'm not saying that it's ok to kick people in the head, it should certainly be the exception rather than the rile, but this is a complex situation and the full(est) facts should be taken into consideration before reaching a conclusion. Not just a 5 second video clip.

This is turning into a proper VAR situation. The officer is the one who was doing the job of putting himself in harm's way. He makes a decision in the heat of the moment where everything is being played out one time at full speed. He has all the noise and commotion that goes with the situation as well as one view of the incident through his own eyes. Everyone else gets to watch it in slow motion, multiple times, from every angle and then pass judgement on the guy based on nothing more than their opinion which generally appears to be formed from a very limited knowledge of the law, very limited understanding of police training and procedures, with just a fraction of the facts. I'll be interested in what happens in the end, when the full facts are presented.

Your third paragraph says that the role is underpaid and extremely difficult (please pass my thanks to your sister), and I agree with you here, but your second paragraph suggests that if a cop makes a wrong decision in one of these physically and mentally stressful situations, they should be criminally prosecuted and be likely to lose their job and potentially go to prison. I love all these armchair contributors believing that cops should be some sort of emotionless, robotic superhumans.

The officer isn't Robocop, he's human and just been seriously assaulted by two individuals seconds before. He won't know that the situation is under control, he doesn't know how many of his colleagues are left standing to assist, he doesn't know if he's about to be further attacked by anyone and in a violent situation like that, and who's to say that he doesn't believe there's a risk that his live firearm won't be taken from him? These are all factors that inform his decision making. Add to that he has both hands on a taser and the older woman has hands on the offender, he's probably actually showing control by not deploying the taser because she'd likely get it too! Split seconds count, he can't let that guy get back up off the floor. We now enter a period where that split second decision made in the heat of the moment will be scrutinised for the next 6-9 months by people that weren't there.

Difficult to say, if the spray came after the kick, then he's had time to put his glasses (I think) and hat back on. If it came before then that would add weight to the intensity of the situation leading up to the kick. I think the spray came later though.

The officers responded to an incident that had become totally out of control. They would be hearing their colleagues requesting urgent assistance because they had become victims of a very violent situation where they had obviously become the target of the aggression, leaving three officers hospitalised. When the officers turn up, they will have been faced with utter chaos and been on a heightened state of alert, rightly thinking they are heading into a very dangerous situation. On arrival their training would have told them to take control of the situation. That initial attendance is not the time to try and instigate a calm investigation as to who's done what. Take control and then figure it out. The level of force used I would think is largely fine. When officers in that situation, with tasers and spray drawn, start shouting instructions at you to get back or get on the floor, don't expect to be listened to at that time and don't expect them to be happy for them to wait for you to follow their instruction at your own pace. Members of the group in question have clearly shown a propensity to use pretty extreme violence against police officers. Officers are not trained to stand around and wait to be assaulted before acting. The kick to the head looks terrible and that's the bit that will need a full explanation, but the lad on the floor clearly turns towards the officer and says something just before the kick. Who knows what it was? The lad wasn't exactly restrained either, the only person with hands on him was the lady kneeling next to him (a family member?). There'll now be a massive investigation into what happened. To all those who way he isn't fit to carry firearms, I'm pretty sure he will have had to go through a pretty rigorous application and training process to be allowed to carry a gun, it isn't like they just give every officer a gun on day one out of training school. He would have demonstrated the right characteristics in his career until this incident, he might have had a distinguished career. The last thing any police force want is to give live firearms to an officer who runs the risk of shooting someone who didn't need to be shot. It's now for the officer to explain his actions to the investigation when put in context of the actual facts of the case. Either he'll be justified in his actions or the red mist descended and he made an error of judgement. If that's the case, I suspect the outcome for the officer will be worse than the scumbag that broke the officer's nose in the first place.

This is pretty much right. The 44 second clip is the tip of the iceberg for this incident. The officer will have to explain his actions and rational to justify the level of force used That will be checked not just against social media, but all available CCTV, any body worn video and statements from the other officers present and members of the public. Then a decision will be made which could be anywhere between nothing and actual criminal charges.

Brendan Rodgers. Great on camera and a serial winner. Surprised he hasn't been mentioned.

It's called progress... When the Tories took power last time, didn't Labour leave a note saying "There's no money"? "Not a huge amount" is better than nothing, so at least she has something to work with!

I think he'll be fine.

He's cheap.

Good that our first game isn't until the Monday. Gives us a few more days to find a manager.

I think you'll find it is. Sun is shining and the mood seems right. Announcement 4pm.

Does this mean it looks unlikely that OGS will be coming?

Not just stabby, but also a trend of resorting to extreme violence with very little value on human life, for minor things. It's messed up.

Just because he works in a circus, doesn't make him a clown!

I don't think anyone would suggest that parents should be held directly responsible for their child's crime BUT it shouldn't be lost that being a parent is one of THE most important roles in society, and bring children up to be law abiding, functional people in society should be taken seriously. Most parents do a decent enough job, but, like in any job, you get some who are bad at it, some who are plain lazy and some who are just not interested. If your child starts coming to the continual notice of law enforcement, there should be some consequence - mandatory parenting lessons, supervision, specific tasks and so on. Make it optional if you like, but failure to engage carries some sort of consequence if your child goes on to commit a serious crime. I'm not supporting the idea that a parent can be held responsible for a single, horrific act - that's nuts. But these kids who glorify and carry knives (and perhaps older siblings) and cause anti social problems in their community can and should be put on a different path. The parents have a huge role to play in that and should be helped to do so, with the caveat that if they don't try, then they have to share some responsibility.