- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
That sounds juvenile even to me, and that's saying a lot.
and help to keep the site free for all
Armed police
- Thread starter SFTPhotography
- Start date
- Status
That sounds juvenile even to me, and that's saying a lot.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Garry
You keep getting even more childish.
As I am not concerned with the High Court case, it cannot be sub judice, which is the term you should be using.
Either way, as police use of firearms has nothing to do with your sons difficulties, I fail to see why you should have any disclosed evidence on the subject of false reporting of ND's as AD's. I refer back to
my earlier comment, which is I simply don't believe you have the evidence you claim to. In short, you are making it up as yhou go along. I've warned you, quite properly, that you need to be very careful when you make false allegation and for very good reasons. You see, libel applies to you as well.
Now, having read your web site, it's interesting, you make the case (amongst the silly and pointless allegations which are plainly untrue but seem to be your hallmark), that NYP PCC may well have a case to answer for libel. I agree she possibly does, but I've not heard her interview, so can't and wouldn't say that for definite. Now, you see, the difference, I have agreed with your point as a possibility, not certainty, because I fully acknowledge I don't have all the facts.
This is obviously a polar opposite to you. You are presenting things as factual, when in reality you don't have the evidence that supports it, thats what we are talking about here Garry. I appreciate you think your son hard done by, but slinging mud when you have nothing to back it up strikes of gross hypocrisy to me.
If it's wrong for the NYP PCC to allegedly libel your son, why is it alright for you to do precisely the same to Police Officers?
Lastly, again going back to your web site, you are really not helping your sons case. Drop the mud slinging and stick to what you know to be true. I'm afraid a lot of what you have written is hearsay, assumption and guesswork.
You keep getting even more childish.
As I am not concerned with the High Court case, it cannot be sub judice, which is the term you should be using.
Either way, as police use of firearms has nothing to do with your sons difficulties, I fail to see why you should have any disclosed evidence on the subject of false reporting of ND's as AD's. I refer back to
my earlier comment, which is I simply don't believe you have the evidence you claim to. In short, you are making it up as yhou go along. I've warned you, quite properly, that you need to be very careful when you make false allegation and for very good reasons. You see, libel applies to you as well.
Now, having read your web site, it's interesting, you make the case (amongst the silly and pointless allegations which are plainly untrue but seem to be your hallmark), that NYP PCC may well have a case to answer for libel. I agree she possibly does, but I've not heard her interview, so can't and wouldn't say that for definite. Now, you see, the difference, I have agreed with your point as a possibility, not certainty, because I fully acknowledge I don't have all the facts.
This is obviously a polar opposite to you. You are presenting things as factual, when in reality you don't have the evidence that supports it, thats what we are talking about here Garry. I appreciate you think your son hard done by, but slinging mud when you have nothing to back it up strikes of gross hypocrisy to me.
If it's wrong for the NYP PCC to allegedly libel your son, why is it alright for you to do precisely the same to Police Officers?
Lastly, again going back to your web site, you are really not helping your sons case. Drop the mud slinging and stick to what you know to be true. I'm afraid a lot of what you have written is hearsay, assumption and guesswork.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,333
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie,
That website hasn't been updated for a very long time and it will stay exactly as it is, because the evidence that now exists is indeed sub judice. At the time that the very limited information on that website was published, the writs had not been served, that changed some time ago which is why the website cannot now be updated. The radio interview however is not sub judice, it's in the public domain and if you would like to hear it for yourself I will gladly let you have a copy.
But my son's case is neither here nor there, and nothing to do with either this thread or with my misgivings about police safety standards when it comes to firearms. My misgivings are based entirely on my own knowledge and my own training. It is my belief that the police standard of safety awareness falls short of the accepted standards employed by both civilian shooters and the military. You have ignored this. Not all armed police officers are satisfied with the safety standards to which they have been trained, and obtain further training elsewhere, all credit to those who follow this course.
My belief that police figures on negligent firearms discharges is based on my belief (which you have confirmed) that many crimes are not recorded accurately.
You said that there have been just a handful of negligent police firearms discharges in the last 20 years, other people have listed rather more than that in a much shorter time period, and you have ignored that.
I have said that I am personally unhappy at police safety standards, based on personal knowledge, which again you have ignored.
All that you ever do is to attack people who disagree with you...
That website hasn't been updated for a very long time and it will stay exactly as it is, because the evidence that now exists is indeed sub judice. At the time that the very limited information on that website was published, the writs had not been served, that changed some time ago which is why the website cannot now be updated. The radio interview however is not sub judice, it's in the public domain and if you would like to hear it for yourself I will gladly let you have a copy.
But my son's case is neither here nor there, and nothing to do with either this thread or with my misgivings about police safety standards when it comes to firearms. My misgivings are based entirely on my own knowledge and my own training. It is my belief that the police standard of safety awareness falls short of the accepted standards employed by both civilian shooters and the military. You have ignored this. Not all armed police officers are satisfied with the safety standards to which they have been trained, and obtain further training elsewhere, all credit to those who follow this course.
My belief that police figures on negligent firearms discharges is based on my belief (which you have confirmed) that many crimes are not recorded accurately.
You said that there have been just a handful of negligent police firearms discharges in the last 20 years, other people have listed rather more than that in a much shorter time period, and you have ignored that.
I have said that I am personally unhappy at police safety standards, based on personal knowledge, which again you have ignored.
All that you ever do is to attack people who disagree with you...
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah, so you are using one thing to prove something unconnected. Oh that makes it all OK then doesn't it?
Its a bit like me saying that someone once owned a firearms certificate and murdered people, so you son must be guilty of attempted murder. Quite clearly that is flawed logic, as indeed is yours.
An 'attack' on you is your own fault. Perhaps you'll learn something from it. In fact I've not attacked you, simply presented back to you some questions and challenged your basis for the malicious allegations. On every Police firearms topic you do the same thing. You put what you think, on at best tenuous evidence, your opinion, but put it as factual and in terms of it being expert opinion.
But by challenging you, you've admitted you are not an expert and your allegations are nothing more than simplistic opinion in reality not based on any evidence whatsoever. You've prolonged it by the attempt to muddy the water and to claim you had something, in reality you didn't.
I don't regard that as an attack Garry, I regard that as calling your bluff, after you decided you wanted to make to attack police officers. Now dry your eyes princess and get over it but remember next time you feel the need to make false allegations I will challenge you again.
As for your son, he's relevant simply because you have complained bitterly about the way he's been treated, yet you are treating police the same way. My comment though stands, you are doing him no favours at all in what you have tried to achieve in that blog. It's full of inaccuracies, and allegations without evidence. While I can see what you are trying to do, that was not the way, and it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up coming back to bite you.
Its a bit like me saying that someone once owned a firearms certificate and murdered people, so you son must be guilty of attempted murder. Quite clearly that is flawed logic, as indeed is yours.
An 'attack' on you is your own fault. Perhaps you'll learn something from it. In fact I've not attacked you, simply presented back to you some questions and challenged your basis for the malicious allegations. On every Police firearms topic you do the same thing. You put what you think, on at best tenuous evidence, your opinion, but put it as factual and in terms of it being expert opinion.
But by challenging you, you've admitted you are not an expert and your allegations are nothing more than simplistic opinion in reality not based on any evidence whatsoever. You've prolonged it by the attempt to muddy the water and to claim you had something, in reality you didn't.
I don't regard that as an attack Garry, I regard that as calling your bluff, after you decided you wanted to make to attack police officers. Now dry your eyes princess and get over it but remember next time you feel the need to make false allegations I will challenge you again.
As for your son, he's relevant simply because you have complained bitterly about the way he's been treated, yet you are treating police the same way. My comment though stands, you are doing him no favours at all in what you have tried to achieve in that blog. It's full of inaccuracies, and allegations without evidence. While I can see what you are trying to do, that was not the way, and it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up coming back to bite you.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Could you two get a room please?
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,282
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Status