Page 2 of 7
Re: Barrister's shooting considered by CPS
Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:29 pm
by jj
It's only slander if it's untrue.
Re: Barrister's shooting considered by CPS
Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 6:44 pm
by jj
JRPornstar wrote:
> That statement is slanderous, where is your evidence and proof?
Well, sue me then; but before you do so, consider the [already
well-rehearsed here] example of J-C de Menezes, and about another
twenty recent cases.
As I said above, I don't disagree in general with your point, but
to harp on as if the UK police are somehow always a priori entirely
innocent on such situations is both blinkered and somehow wildly
optimistic.
Re: Barrister's shooting considered by CPS
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:41 pm
by jj
Well, I wouldn't have put about 20 ill-aimed bullets into a tube
carriage, for a start [img]
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/deadhorse.gif[/img]
Re: Barrister's shooting considered by CPS
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:06 am
by jj
If you don't read the press, it's hardly my fault.
I really don't see any further point in continuing this spat- I've
repeatedly stated here that in general I support the police- they
are, after all, poorly-paid and somewhat undervalued people who
are basically our only defence against total anarchy.
But neither am I blind to their faults.
