> Doug riseup.net> wrote:

>> On 25 Aug, 11:55, %%ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>>> Fod googlemail.com> wrote:

>>>> thats funny, I read that as "An investigation has been launched"

>

>>> I also read it as "the unimpeachable source for the claim that the
>>> police officer was going for a takeaway was "The Sun".

>

>>>> Doug reads it as "The police were found to be not to blame after the
>>>> investigation had concluded"

>

>>>> How can two people arrive at such vastly different conclusions from
>>>> the same text?

>

>>> And how can two people (Duhng and "Dynamo" Hansen) reach the same
>>> conclusion based entirely upon their prejudice. One also wonders if this
>>> is the same police force that Duhng uncritically applauds when they
>>> issue fines to motorists using a robot device to do the work?

> ...

>

>> And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
>> the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
>> the police when they arrest motorists.
>>

> Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
> are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.

>> I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
>> police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.
>>

> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
> allowed to kill with impunity.

>>>

>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>> allowed to kill with impunity.

>
> That's a lie, as ever.
>

> "Steve Firth" <%%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...
>

>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>>> allowed to kill with impunity.

>

>> That's a lie, as ever.

>
> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. But they can't as they are
> dead.

> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt" spam.org> wrote:

>> "Steve Firth" <%%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...
>>

>>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are
>>>> obviously allowed to kill with impunity.

>>

>>> That's a lie, as ever.

>>
>> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry
>> Stanley or Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. But
>> they can't as they are dead.

>
> And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
>

> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt" spam.org> wrote:
>

>> "Steve Firth" <%%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message

>

>>news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...

>

>>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>>>> allowed to kill with impunity.

>

>>> That's a lie, as ever.

>

>> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
>> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. �But they can't as they are
>> dead.

>
> And they are not the only ones. Many die in police custody each year.
>
> "The very mention of custody deaths brings to mind nasty foreign
> repressive regimes. But these deaths happen in Britain, too - on ...

> "Steve Firth" <%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...

>>>>

>>> Huh! Investigated maybe. Severely punished, never. They are obviously
>>> allowed to kill with impunity.

>>
>> That's a lie, as ever.
>>

> Steven Waldorf (whose survival owed nothing to the police), Harry Stanley or
> Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree with you. But they can't as they are
> dead.

> On 27 Aug, 00:04, "Colonel Colt" spam.org> wrote:

>> "Steve Firth" <%%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1im9zcl.17u7qsm1n7051cN%%%%steve%%@malloc.co.uk...
>>

>>>> Huh! Investigated...

>
> The vast majority of deaths in custody are drunks choking on their own
> vomit. In an ideal world a police officer would sit with each one
> "just in case" but would you pay the extra tax to fund such numbers,
> oops sorry, you don't pay tax. Sad as it may be to you, they are not
> beaten to death.

> Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>

>>> And another rant without basis in fact from Duggerlarse. You don't like
>>> the police because they detect your chums committing crimes. You do like
>>> the police when they arrest motorists.

>

>> Whereas you know nothing about police behaviour because, mired as you
>> are in your own smug complacence, never say boo to a goose.

>
> If you're trying to say, in your distorted way, that you have a criminal
> record longer than both your arms and that I don't then yes, I agree
> with you.
>

>

>>> I'm happy to see the police doing their job. I'm pleased to see that the
>>> police are not above being investigated if they abuse their position.

> ...