njc110381 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I haven't read through all the bull that's being posted here and am replying from page 2 of 5 but the way I look at it is quite simple. There was a man/male/teenage child on a bike who rode up behind the torch where he shouldn't have been and then cut across towards it. We now know he was a minor but at the time he was a male acting out of order. He could have had a knife, he could have had bad intentions for the runner. The security guy didn't have time to mull over the situation as we have and he didn't have a "look at the slow motion" option. He barged in there to remove the potential threat and rightly so. Yes we now know it was a kid who wasn't armed but he shouldn't have been there. The security chap treated him as a possible threat and nobody was hurt. He was neutralised and sent on his way. It looks over the top but if he had let the "kid" pass and the runner had been stabbed by some nutter who wanted to create a scene I bet you would all be saying "where were security? Bunch of useless idiots!". Kid was in a place he shouldn't have been and the security guy nailed him. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 That's a low ball. The police can never be questioned for their conduct as a result? What about the matter of Ian Tomlinson, it would be pretty lame to row that into the Claction PC thread? There's good and bad in all walks. I probably did not present my case very well, apologies. It just seems to me that what ever the police do they are slated for, and this is the case here, in my opinion. I just felt it worth reminding the "knockers" on here they the majority of the Police do a really good job. I agree they should be held to account and should not be and must not be above the law, but equally they should not be condemnded out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 There are police who do a good job, but I think it is vital in a free society that those who don't are highlighted and criticised appropriately. Once we lose the tenacity to criticise law enforcement officials when neccessary we head down a very dark road indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chard Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Pitiful wretches. A child on a bike. **** the torch, load of overblown cobblers. I'm not one for the compo society but if that was my kid, I'd rip these drama queens a new ****hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I haven't read through all the bull that's being posted here and am replying from page 2 of 5 but the way I look at it is quite simple. There was a man/male/teenage child on a bike who rode up behind the torch where he shouldn't have been and then cut across towards it. We now know he was a minor but at the time he was a male acting out of order. He could have had a knife, he could have had bad intentions for the runner. The security guy didn't have time to mull over the situation as we have and he didn't have a "look at the slow motion" option. He barged in there to remove the potential threat and rightly so. Yes we now know it was a kid who wasn't armed but he shouldn't have been there. The security chap treated him as a possible threat and nobody was hurt. He was neutralised and sent on his way. It looks over the top but if he had let the "kid" pass and the runner had been stabbed by some nutter who wanted to create a scene I bet you would all be saying "where were security? Bunch of useless idiots!". Kid was in a place he shouldn't have been and the security guy nailed him. What's the problem? The problem is he had already stopped him so why did he have to go all rambo and throw him to the ground,is it simply a cop going a tad over the top? or more an insight into the tactics of control from the met coming to the fore yet again? I know which one I favour. KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 IMHO the initial action from the security guy can be justified but the follow through was way OTT. I venture he'll look back on that with more than a little cringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Might seem a bit heavy handed but had the lad fallen in front of the convoy of following vehicles and been crushed we all would be saying Why didn’t security stop him. ! Can’t win in this situation British Police...best in the world. If I had done something similar in my youth the Vilage bobby would have cuffed me around the back of the head and my dad would have given me an extra whallop as well. I can never understand why some use every minor opportunity like this to criticise HM Police Force. If you think you can do any better then......put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) i would agree with the fact that he shouldnt have been there but for the fact it was a public event mainly for children to enjoy and it was very unlikely anyone would attack a torch. of course he could have been removed for his own safety because they feared he may get run over if so fair enough Edited July 11, 2012 by storme37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 i would agree with the fact that he shouldnt have been there but for the fact it was a public event mainly for children to enjoy and it was very unlikely anyone would attack a torch. of course he could have been removed for his own safety because they feared he may get run over if so fair enough yep throwing him in front of a moving car can only be looked upon as ensuring the lads safety KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Seems to be a lot of moving car sensationalism going on here lads, anyone would think the very slow car was driverless. It has to be borne in mind though as a product of risk assessment surely? What I saw without overly studying the vid (viewing from the front) was a kid on a bike straying towards the path of the car. I'm not going to go back and look again, because the cop didn't have that option either. By memory, he grabbed the small person from behind - without being able to check his facial details/colour and then, possibly due to his own inertia, and the bikes inertia stumbled or got drawn further towards the path of the car where the view was obstructed by a participant in the carrying event. The kid was then quickly and safely removed from ahead of the approaching car without further delay. I honestly don't see anything to get all anti establishment about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 The problem is he had already stopped him so why did he have to go all rambo and throw him to the ground,is it simply a cop going a tad over the top? or more an insight into the tactics of control from the met coming to the fore yet again? KW Look at the original video. At 4 seconds you'll see the peeler turns round and sees the kid over his right shoulder, at this point he's heading to the middle of the box on his bike. The peeler has to spin round to grap the kid and turns another time after grabbing him. At this point they're standing in front of a moving car. He tries to push the kid out of the way, it's hard to see if the kid resists. At 50/51 seconds in the video you can see they both clearly trip over the bike, resulting in the (armed) policemen grovelling around on the ground on his knees (ie hardly what he intended). What bit of this is incorrect? Nial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) well it aint no biggy is it nobody died , i personalty just think as it was a kid it was a little heavy handed. i think the kid was just going to ride past from the look of it Edited July 11, 2012 by storme37 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) NJC summed it up nicely and answers your point Chard, about if you were the parent and your actions. Had that been my child he would know that he wasn't supposed to cycle there. Stay on the side of the road along with the rest- simples. HAving watched the torch when it passed near us, the cars were going very slowly and what makes it hard to see in the video is the depth of field. The car could have stopped in plenty of time. In my opinion, the police did the right thing. KW, do i detect an anti police theme from you perchance?. Actually having looked at this closely KW, your plank comment is out of order. He didn't throw him to the ground, they both tripped over the boys bike.....Specsavers? Edited July 11, 2012 by keg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 NJC summed it up nicely and answers your point Chard, about if you were the parent and your actions. Had that been my child he would know that he wasn't supposed to cycle there. Stay on the side of the road along with the rest- simples. HAving watched the torch when it passed near us, the cars were going very slowly and what makes it hard to see in the video is the depth of field. The car could have stopped in plenty of time. In my opinion, the police did the right thing. KW, do i detect an anti police theme from you perchance?. Actually having looked at this closely KW, your plank comment is out of order. He didn't throw him to the ground, they both tripped over the boys bike.....Specsavers? hes a plank end of and no he didnt trip he threw him and went over with him again a plank 1st 2nd and 3rd class KW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 . KW, do i detect an anti police theme from you perchance?. Really?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 SAS motto "Who dares wins". British Police Motto "Who cares who wins". Discuss. fuddster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Maybe this kind of thing has always happened but thanks to the miracle of modern technology we can all see it and are free to pass judgement on it. What I want to know is why the massive G4/police bloke (whatever he was) didn't propel the little kid away (as in to their right as you watch it) as opposed to going left, all across the front of the convoy Maybe a 'keep over sonny' would have worked? Oh yes but in the world of the 'split second kid on BMX decision' the intensive training must take over, eh? All this BS about 'threat neutralised' is walting 'tactical' nauseating claptrap. Maybe the kid was a little chavvy scrote, maybe he wasn't, but I reckon there is a worrying trend in our society at the moment and I don't feel 100% comfortable with it. Remember we live in a country where this last week countless thousands were spent 'neutralising' the threat of an electronic cigarette on a bus. Some pretty funny comments here. Apparently the 'officers' take it in turns to 'sleep with' the Olympic torch :blink: :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I was fortunate enough to be taught Constitutional Law by a lady called Jane Kay - she was not a raging lefty, she was like everyone's Grandma. She explained to a spotty bunch of idiots the benefit of an independent House of Lords as a sanity check on Parliament and as a pool of skill and resource, the benefit of a non political Monarchy to whom the Armed Forces are loyal, the pro's and con's of a written constitution and the danger of a society under constant surveillance and so on. She wasn't a raging lefty, she just had the wisdom and ability to make us aware of the bigger picture. Following on, the "you can't ever question the police because they do a tough job and you wouldn't want to do it" is just moronic in the extreme. A brave copper died in Clacton, no doubt. But to raise that incident in the context of this thread as some sort of justification as to why we can’t question why a kid on a bike was floored in pursuit of the “protection” of a torch is just pathetic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that the kid was no where near the protective “bubble”, didn’t appear to be heading towards the bubble and had the take down gone wrong he would have ended up under the wheels of a car, as did his bike. Frankly, the whole “torch” thing is a ridiculous pantomime and as a tax payer I’m paying for it and the roving squad of security services personnel. Hooray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 I was fortunate enough to be taught Constitutional Law by a lady called Jane Kay - she was not a raging lefty, she was like everyone's Grandma. She explained to a spotty bunch of idiots the benefit of an independent House of Lords as a sanity check on Parliament and as a pool of skill and resource, the benefit of a non political Monarchy to whom the Armed Forces are loyal, the pro's and con's of a written constitution and the danger of a society under constant surveillance and so on. She wasn't a raging lefty, she just had the wisdom and ability to make us aware of the bigger picture. Following on, the "you can't ever question the police because they do a tough job and you wouldn't want to do it" is just moronic in the extreme. A brave copper died in Clacton, no doubt. But to raise that incident in the context of this thread as some sort of justification as to why we can’t question why a kid on a bike was floored in pursuit of the “protection” of a torch is just pathetic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that the kid was no where near the protective “bubble”, didn’t appear to be heading towards the bubble and had the take down gone wrong he would have ended up under the wheels of a car, as did his bike. Frankly, the whole “torch” thing is a ridiculous pantomime and as a tax payer I’m paying for it and the roving squad of security services personnel. Hooray. Im clenching my teeth but bang on now just to prove how pathetic this torch running is I give you straight from billy smarts a proper chance to vomit KW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18754314 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Im clenching my teeth but bang on now just to prove how pathetic this torch running is I give you straight from billy smarts a proper chance to vomit KW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18754314 4 seconds and Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Just come back from the park with the dog..... all the young lads on the Cycle ramp... spinning each other around, pushing each other off, leaning on each other, one fell off on top of another when they were racing down the ramp side by side...got back up and dusted himself off and carried on.... Im of a mind to call the Police and complain.... do you think I should...advice welcomed... Couldnt see any torches though but one old girl with her dog had a flashlight..does that count? Edited July 11, 2012 by Fisherman Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Just come back from the park with the dog..... all the young lads on the Cycle ramp... spinning each other around, pushing each other off, leaning on each other, one fell off on top of another when they were racing down the ramp side by side...got back up and dusted himself off and carried on.... Im of a mind to call the Police and complain.... do you think I should...advice welcomed... No way man, that's too big a job. You need to call...: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storme37 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 maybe a swat team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts