Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Grenfell Tower bonfire

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1362
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178851

Postby SteMiS » November 7th, 2018, 7:45 pm

kiloran wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
kiloran wrote:It does seem doubtful, but I'll let the police decide that. They are certainly guilty of moronic behaviour and that should be a crime.

Half of the country would have a criminal record if that was the case.
"..something that's grossly offensive doesn't necessarily become a criminal offence..."

Sorry, I missed out the smiley (is that allowed on this board or do I have to play it completely straight?).

It's preferable not to leave any ambiguity in your comments. There's a 'wide range' of views on this board and it's not always easy to spot who's joking....err hum

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1691
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 1016 times
Been thanked: 381 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178856

Postby csearle » November 7th, 2018, 7:54 pm

Lootman wrote:So deliberately burning down Parliament is OK to celebrate but an accidental fire in a ratty old council block is not?
Lootman, the very first first rule of this forum is "No trolling". Please try and adhere to that. Thanks, Chris

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3756
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178883

Postby BobbyD » November 7th, 2018, 11:07 pm

SteMiS wrote:
kiloran wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
I've yet to hear a coherent argument that they committed a crime.

It does seem doubtful, but I'll let the police decide that. They are certainly guilty of moronic behaviour and that should be a crime.

Half of the country would have a criminal record if that was the case.


If you want to get the other half convicted just use somebody else's definition of moronic.

Imagine living in a world where all that stood between you and a prison sentence each and every day was the inability of a prosecutor to convince a magistrate or 12 jurors that something you had done was 'moronic', especially when finding you innocent might itself be considered to be 'moronic. That way lies totalitarianism. We don't need to let you know what the laws are, we'll tell you when you've broken them, and how much time you will serve as a result.

Sorcery
Lemon Slice
Posts: 502
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178885

Postby Sorcery » November 7th, 2018, 11:20 pm

BobbyD wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
kiloran wrote:It does seem doubtful, but I'll let the police decide that. They are certainly guilty of moronic behaviour and that should be a crime.

Half of the country would have a criminal record if that was the case.


If you want to get the other half convicted just use somebody else's definition of moronic.

Imagine living in a world where all that stood between you and a prison sentence each and every day was the inability of a prosecutor to convince a magistrate or 12 jurors that something you had done was 'moronic', especially when finding you innocent might itself be considered to be 'moronic. That way lies totalitarianism. We don't need to let you know what the laws are, we'll tell you when you've broken them, and how much time you will serve as a result.


For what it's worth and whatever your views on liberation(Brexit) I am starting to admire you. :-)

Howyoudoin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 539
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178888

Postby Howyoudoin » November 7th, 2018, 11:42 pm

I guess it's an age thing.

When I was in secondary school, and didn't really know what a tragedy was, I joked about some really horrible stuff.

It's only when you get older that the seriousness of some of this stuff hits you.

Having said that, it would appear that some of those involved here were aged 50 and above. That really beggars belief.

HYD

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5207
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 834 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178892

Postby Lootman » November 8th, 2018, 12:51 am

Howyoudoin wrote:I guess it's an age thing. When I was in secondary school, and didn't really know what a tragedy was, I joked about some really horrible stuff. It's only when you get older that the seriousness of some of this stuff hits you.

Having said that, it would appear that some of those involved here were aged 50 and above. That really beggars belief.

The other way to look at this is that, as Lord Byron opined, we laugh so that we do not weep.

And in a world where everything get politicised and this tragedy ended up as little more than an exercise in identity politics, can we really blame those who mock the whole thing?

Howyoudoin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 539
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178931

Postby Howyoudoin » November 8th, 2018, 9:18 am

Lootman wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:I guess it's an age thing. When I was in secondary school, and didn't really know what a tragedy was, I joked about some really horrible stuff. It's only when you get older that the seriousness of some of this stuff hits you.

Having said that, it would appear that some of those involved here were aged 50 and above. That really beggars belief.

The other way to look at this is that, as Lord Byron opined, we laugh so that we do not weep.

And in a world where everything get politicised and this tragedy ended up as little more than an exercise in identity politics, can we really blame those who mock the whole thing?


Yeah, I get the whole 'you've got to laugh otherwise you'll cry' thing and I participate in that type of humour.

But the example here crossed the line of decency and those involved were actually reveling in the deaths of those poor people. That's not normal.

Having said the above, I think they should be openly condemned for what they did but not arrested/punished.

HYD

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178943

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 10:06 am

Howyoudoin wrote:
Lootman wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:I guess it's an age thing. When I was in secondary school, and didn't really know what a tragedy was, I joked about some really horrible stuff. It's only when you get older that the seriousness of some of this stuff hits you.

Having said that, it would appear that some of those involved here were aged 50 and above. That really beggars belief.

The other way to look at this is that, as Lord Byron opined, we laugh so that we do not weep.

And in a world where everything get politicised and this tragedy ended up as little more than an exercise in identity politics, can we really blame those who mock the whole thing?


Yeah, I get the whole 'you've got to laugh otherwise you'll cry' thing and I participate in that type of humour.

But the example here crossed the line of decency and those involved were actually reveling in the deaths of those poor people. That's not normal.

Having said the above, I think they should be openly condemned for what they did but not arrested/punished.

HYD


Please explain how this is different to, say, an episode of say Blackadder in WW1, broadcast to the nation, portraying British soldiers and their commanders as idiots, cretins, and psychopaths, yet widely applauded all around, and I believe, used as a basis for history lessons in schools. Their attitude to death in the trenches was light hearted in the extreme, and one episode showed them killing an unarmed German soldier.
Surely it is all just gallows humour.

Howyoudoin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 539
Joined: June 4th, 2018, 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178948

Postby Howyoudoin » November 8th, 2018, 10:23 am

Nimrod103 wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:
Lootman wrote:The other way to look at this is that, as Lord Byron opined, we laugh so that we do not weep.

And in a world where everything get politicised and this tragedy ended up as little more than an exercise in identity politics, can we really blame those who mock the whole thing?


Yeah, I get the whole 'you've got to laugh otherwise you'll cry' thing and I participate in that type of humour.

But the example here crossed the line of decency and those involved were actually reveling in the deaths of those poor people. That's not normal.

Having said the above, I think they should be openly condemned for what they did but not arrested/punished.

HYD


Please explain how this is different to, say, an episode of say Blackadder in WW1, broadcast to the nation, portraying British soldiers and their commanders as idiots, cretins, and psychopaths, yet widely applauded all around, and I believe, used as a basis for history lessons in schools. Their attitude to death in the trenches was light hearted in the extreme, and one episode showed them killing an unarmed German soldier.
Surely it is all just gallows humour.


I'm guessing you are on a wind up mission so i'll duck out.


HYD

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3231
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 203 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178950

Postby XFool » November 8th, 2018, 10:25 am

Nimrod103 wrote:[Please explain how this is different to, say, an episode of say Blackadder in WW1, broadcast to the nation, portraying British soldiers and their commanders as idiots, cretins, and psychopaths, yet widely applauded all around, and I believe, used as a basis for history lessons in schools. Their attitude to death in the trenches was light hearted in the extreme, and one episode showed them killing an unarmed German soldier.
Surely it is all just gallows humour.

Yeah.

Personally, I always found those photos of people in Auschwitz-Birkenau a real gas...


Surely, anything even remotely interesting or useful, has already been said on this thread?

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178956

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 10:58 am

Howyoudoin wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
Howyoudoin wrote:
Yeah, I get the whole 'you've got to laugh otherwise you'll cry' thing and I participate in that type of humour.

But the example here crossed the line of decency and those involved were actually reveling in the deaths of those poor people. That's not normal.

Having said the above, I think they should be openly condemned for what they did but not arrested/punished.

HYD


Please explain how this is different to, say, an episode of say Blackadder in WW1, broadcast to the nation, portraying British soldiers and their commanders as idiots, cretins, and psychopaths, yet widely applauded all around, and I believe, used as a basis for history lessons in schools. Their attitude to death in the trenches was light hearted in the extreme, and one episode showed them killing an unarmed German soldier.
Surely it is all just gallows humour.


I'm guessing you are on a wind up mission so i'll duck out.


HYD


It was a serious question about what we can poke fun at. Is it OK to derive humour from a misrepresentation of WW1, just because it was a long time ago, and all the participants are dead? Is it not permissible to derive humour from Nazi atrocities just because they were not so long ago?

Even Jews AIUI are famous for having a 'dark' sense of humour about their plight through history. And I remember an excellent ditty by Tom Lehrer (Jewish) about Werner von Braun and the V2, a weapon of mass destruction employed against civilians. I didn't take offence, even though a V2 caused casualties in my family during WW2.

chrissyr
Posts: 39
Joined: August 13th, 2017, 9:51 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178966

Postby chrissyr » November 8th, 2018, 11:44 am

As with all humour there has to be an element of the insider and that you are laughing WITH and not AT the butt of the joke.
Black Adder played on 'lions lead by donkeys'. Same as Oh What Lovely War - joyous singing and dancing highlighting the waste of dead soldiers and political playing.
Mel Brookes The Producers which is still playing mock the fascist in WW2 as well as greedy entertainment types.

What part of the bonfire incident included the people of Grenfell? Or was it mocking them - so not gallows humour.

Now I don't know maybe they knew people in the fire and this was their was of grieving. The police investigation should highlight this?

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178988

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 1:18 pm

chrissyr wrote:As with all humour there has to be an element of the insider and that you are laughing WITH and not AT the butt of the joke.
Black Adder played on 'lions lead by donkeys'. Same as Oh What Lovely War - joyous singing and dancing highlighting the waste of dead soldiers and political playing.
Mel Brookes The Producers which is still playing mock the fascist in WW2 as well as greedy entertainment types.

What part of the bonfire incident included the people of Grenfell? Or was it mocking them - so not gallows humour.

Now I don't know maybe they knew people in the fire and this was their was of grieving. The police investigation should highlight this?


I thought the 'Lions led by donkeys' idea had been thoroughly disproven by historians? There was no other way of fighting WW1. Oh what a lovely war was a gross calumny. As is Blackadder because it is purely 'laughing at' the British Army. There are no sensible characters in Blackadder.
Given the evidence so far revealed about the firework party, haven't the police got better things to do?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3113
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178995

Postby ursaminortaur » November 8th, 2018, 2:03 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
chrissyr wrote:As with all humour there has to be an element of the insider and that you are laughing WITH and not AT the butt of the joke.
Black Adder played on 'lions lead by donkeys'. Same as Oh What Lovely War - joyous singing and dancing highlighting the waste of dead soldiers and political playing.
Mel Brookes The Producers which is still playing mock the fascist in WW2 as well as greedy entertainment types.

What part of the bonfire incident included the people of Grenfell? Or was it mocking them - so not gallows humour.

Now I don't know maybe they knew people in the fire and this was their was of grieving. The police investigation should highlight this?


I thought the 'Lions led by donkeys' idea had been thoroughly disproven by historians? There was no other way of fighting WW1. Oh what a lovely war was a gross calumny. As is Blackadder because it is purely 'laughing at' the British Army. There are no sensible characters in Blackadder.
Given the evidence so far revealed about the firework party, haven't the police got better things to do?


The Lions led by Donkeys view goes right back to immediately after the war in the 1920s and 1930s and was certainly the main opinion through the 1960s

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g4/cs1/background.htm

A common view of the relationship between senior officers and their men in the Great War is summed up by the phrase: 'lions led by donkeys'. In this view, the senior officers are assumed to be from privileged backgrounds. They were incompetent and unimaginative. They sent men out to be killed while they stayed back in the safety of comfortable dugouts or lived in luxury miles behind the lines. When shellshocked soldiers went missing or failed to advance against fierce defences, they were court-martialled and shot by firing squad.
This view is neither completely fair nor completely accurate. It developed during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Some very influential people began to publish novels and poems that criticised the war. Good examples are books by the British writer, Robert Graves ('Goodbye to All That'), and the German, Erich Remarque ('All Quiet on the Western Front'). These books described the horrors of the war very accurately. The horrors were their focus and they were not intended as history books. Yet this version of the Great War became the accepted one. This was reinforced by films, plays such as 'Oh What A Lovely War!' and the TV series 'Blackadder Goes Forth'. The war was seen as pointless and the generals as useless.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys

"Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them. The contention is that the brave soldiers (lions) were sent to their deaths by incompetent and indifferent leaders (donkeys).[1] The phrase was the source of the title of one of the most scathing examinations of British First World War generals, The Donkeys—a study of Western Front offensives—by politician and writer of military histories Alan Clark.[2] The book was representative of much of the First World War history produced in the 1960s and was not outside the mainstream—Basil Liddell Hart vetted Clark's drafts[3]—and helped to form a popular view of the First World War (in the English-speaking world) in the decades that followed. However, the work's viewpoint of incompetent military leaders was never accepted by some mainstream historians, and both the book and its viewpoint have been subject to attempts at revisionism.[4]

Since that time a number of historians have railed against this view whilst still accepting that the Generals made serious mistakes

Brian Bond, in editing a 1991 collection of essays on First World War history, expressed the collective desire of the authors to move beyond "popular stereotypes of The Donkeys", while acknowledging that serious leadership mistakes were made and that the authors would do little to rehabilitate the reputations of the senior commanders on the Somme.[4] Hew Strachan quoted Maurice Genevoix for the proposition "[i]f it is neither desirable nor good that the professional historian prevail over the veteran; it is also not good that the veteran prevail over the historian" and then proceeded to take Liddell Hart to task for "suppressing the culminating battles of the war", thus "allow[ing] his portrayal of British generals to assume an easy continuum, from incompetence on the Western Front to conservatism in the 1920s...."[4] While British leadership at the beginning of the war made costly mistakes, by 1915–16 the General Staff were making great efforts to lessen British casualties through better tactics (night attacks, creeping barrages and air power) and weapons technology (poison gas and later the arrival of the tank). British generals were not the only ones to make mistakes about the nature of modern conflict: the Russian armies too suffered badly during the first years of the war, most notably at the Battle of Tannenberg. To many generals who had fought colonial wars during the second half of the 19th century, where the Napoleonic concepts of discipline and pitched battles were still successful, fighting another highly industrialized power with equal and sometimes superior technology required an extreme change in thinking.
Later, Strachan, in reviewing Aspects of the British experience of the First World War edited by Michael Howard, observed that "In the study of the First World War in particular, the divide between professionals and amateurs has never been firmly fixed". Strachan points out that revisionists take strong exception to the amateurs, particularly in the media, with whom they disagree, while at the same time Gary Sheffield welcomes to the revisionist cause the work of many "hobby"-ists who only later migrated to academic study.[20] Gordon Corrigan, for example, did not even consider Clark to be a historian.[21] The phrase "lions led by donkeys" has been said to have produced a false, or at least very incomplete, picture of generalship in the First World War, giving an impression of Generals as "château Generals", living in splendour, indifferent to the sufferings of the men under their command, only interested in cavalry charges and shooting cowards. One historian wrote that "the idea that they were indifferent to the sufferings of their men is constantly refuted by the facts, and only endures because some commentators wish to perpetuate the myth that these generals, representing the upper classes, did not give a damn what happened to the lower orders".[22] Some current academic opinion has described this school of thought as "discredited".[23][24] Strachan quotes Gavin Stamp, who bemoans "a new generation of military historians", who seem as "callous and jingoistic" as Haig, while himself referring to the "ill-informed diatribes of Wolff and Clark".[20]


Hence I think saying that the Lions led by Donkeys view has been "thoroughly disproven by historians" is going too far. It isn't a completely accurate portrayal but it isn't completely inaccurate either.

The phrase itself appears in two books from the 1920s

Evelyn, Princess Blücher, an Englishwoman who lived in Berlin during the First World War, in her memoir published in 1921, recalled hearing German general Erich Ludendorff praise the British for their bravery and remembered hearing firsthand the following statement from the German General Headquarters (Grosses Hauptquartier): "The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."[12]
The phrase Lions Led by Donkeys was used as a title for a book published in 1927, by Captain P. A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."[13]

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178996

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 2:21 pm

WW1 in a nutshell:
WW1 was won with artillery, of which at the start of the war we were woefully short, and short of shells as well. It took years to build up our superiority, during which time we had to support an unstable and unprepared ally (France) who were suffering mutiny because of their high casualty rates. Hence having to launch actions such as the Somme offensive, to keep the alliance together, when our preference would have been not to launch it.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1362
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#178998

Postby SteMiS » November 8th, 2018, 2:38 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:WW1 in a nutshell:
WW1 was won with artillery, of which at the start of the war we were woefully short, and short of shells as well. It took years to build up our superiority, during which time we had to support an unstable and unprepared ally (France) who were suffering mutiny because of their high casualty rates. Hence having to launch actions such as the Somme offensive, to keep the alliance together, when our preference would have been not to launch it.

Didn't any of you watch 100 Days to Victory!?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bpvyb1

The War was won by the Canadians and Australians.... ;)

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3113
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#179000

Postby ursaminortaur » November 8th, 2018, 2:46 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:WW1 in a nutshell:
WW1 was won with artillery, of which at the start of the war we were woefully short, and short of shells as well. It took years to build up our superiority, during which time we had to support an unstable and unprepared ally (France) who were suffering mutiny because of their high casualty rates. Hence having to launch actions such as the Somme offensive, to keep the alliance together, when our preference would have been not to launch it.


The artillary shortage affected all combatants not just the British.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/shells_crisis_of_1915

In the winter of 1914-1915, every belligerent confronted shell shortage to varying degrees. A military problem, which could have been alleviated by tactical solutions, became an industrial one, and then a political one. Generals rationalized their own failures by saying they could only break the enemy line if they had enough guns and shells. They were not wrong. This was an artillery war, but by increasing the length of bombardments they exacerbated the problem. They turned the spotlight on politicians, pushing them to challenge the workings of the free market. In May 1915, the British liberal government fell in part because it had failed to deliver sufficient shells, and its successor established a ministry of munitions under David Lloyd George (1863-1945). France appointed the socialist politician Albert Thomas (1878-1932) to a comparable job, albeit still situated within the ministry of war. Both states worked with private industry to meet national targets. In Russia, businessmen created a war industries committee, but the government was reluctant to cooperate. The Prussian war ministry set up a raw material agency at the war’s outset, but did not address munitions production directly until confronted, in September 1916, with the so-called "Hindenburg Programme". Although it created a weapons and munitions procurement agency, Germany never resolved the tension between collectivism and the free market, and never established an independent and all-encompassing ministry for munitions.

chrissyr
Posts: 39
Joined: August 13th, 2017, 9:51 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#179001

Postby chrissyr » November 8th, 2018, 2:54 pm

Nimrod103 said:
[quote]Given the evidence so far revealed about the firework party, haven't the police got better things to do?/quote]

The police requested further evidence when they thought a public order offence may had occurred. 5 men presented themselves to a police station saying it was them. I assume the police interviewed them and from what was said decided they needed to arrest them ( again an assumption but maybe on suspicion of public order offence). They visited the possible crime site to see if there was further evidence.
I don't know what was said in the interview evidence but the police thought it was enough to investigate. Isn't that their job?

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#179020

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 4:19 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:WW1 in a nutshell:
WW1 was won with artillery, of which at the start of the war we were woefully short, and short of shells as well. It took years to build up our superiority, during which time we had to support an unstable and unprepared ally (France) who were suffering mutiny because of their high casualty rates. Hence having to launch actions such as the Somme offensive, to keep the alliance together, when our preference would have been not to launch it.

Didn't any of you watch 100 Days to Victory!?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bpvyb1

The War was won by the Canadians and Australians.... ;)


Reviewed here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/10/ ... -war-film/
2 stars out of 5 shows what the reviewer thought of the historical accuracy of that programme.
A travesty - but what can you expect o the BBC?

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2010
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Grenfell Tower bonfire

#179023

Postby Nimrod103 » November 8th, 2018, 4:24 pm

chrissyr wrote:Nimrod103 said:
Given the evidence so far revealed about the firework party, haven't the police got better things to do?/quote]

The police requested further evidence when they thought a public order offence may had occurred. 5 men presented themselves to a police station saying it was them. I assume the police interviewed them and from what was said decided they needed to arrest them ( again an assumption but maybe on suspicion of public order offence). They visited the possible crime site to see if there was further evidence.
I don't know what was said in the interview evidence but the police thought it was enough to investigate. Isn't that their job?


I don't think their job is go snooping around to see if a crime has been committed (a minor crime that is, if crime at all). It seems very like the sort of intimidatory activity you get in a police state. At a time of stretched resources, it is not the job of the police.
In today's paper - 1 in 100 thefts being solved.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anticrank, Bing [Bot], Charlottesquare and 8 guests