comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve just realised that Obelix is Mamba. It all makes sense now.

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are naive, aren’t you? I don’t know if this is the case in this instance, but haven’t you heard of someone taking a hit for the team? It happens all the time, maybe if superiors deem its for the greater good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was trying not to call you naive too. First you think Cressida "decided to apologise" because you don't want to accept that it was actually Scotland Yard that had to give it up and apologise.

Now you think cops would take a hit for the team when they are entirely on the right?

There is no doubt mate. If the cops were right they would have exposed the couple.

Its more likely they looked at all the evidence and they knew it was over, so issued an apology to stop people investigating what actually happened and to kill the issue, because exploring it further would have revealed that the cops are lying and this would damage the image of police irreparably.

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 5 seconds ago
I’ve just realised that Obelix is Mamba. It all makes sense now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotyping and prejudgement. Better not see you preaching about these anymore.

comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
I’ve just realised that Obelix is Mamba. It all makes sense now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it he/she has history involving the likes of this.Hates authority,but will be the first to cry if the police don't arrive on the doorstep in minutes if he/she has a problem.

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------
This was an early review of the footage, not the entire incident. After a full review of footage, statements and all evidence, they decided to apologise.

Ask yourself why. How does taking a hit help anyone? This apology is clear evidence of wrong doing IMO. That's what an apology is, but now you want to say the cops likely did nothing wrong, and the apology is to take a hit for the team even though they did nothing wrong.

Are you listening to yourself?

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 5 seconds ago
I’ve just realised that Obelix is Mamba. It all makes sense now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotyping and prejudgement. Better not see you preaching about these anymore.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre judgement? Not at all, just referring to how you post. And in what way am I stereotyping you?

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
I’ve just realised that Obelix is Mamba. It all makes sense now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it he/she has history involving the likes of this.Hates authority,but will be the first to cry if the police don't arrive on the doorstep in minutes if he/she has a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I don't. Not even close. Why would you even attempt that guess? Because it would help your argument if I was like that?

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------
This was an early review of the footage, not the entire incident. After a full review of footage, statements and all evidence, they decided to apologise.

Ask yourself why. How does taking a hit help anyone? This apology is clear evidence of wrong doing IMO. That's what an apology is, but now you want to say the cops likely did nothing wrong, and the apology is to take a hit for the team even though they did nothing wrong.

Are you listening to yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not said they are taking a hit for the team MAMBA,get your facts right,if you were a serving police officer I'd be demanding an apology from you now

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof that the car was driven erratically?

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof that the car was driven erratically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof it wasn't?

That was easy wasn't it

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------
This was an early review of the footage, not the entire incident. After a full review of footage, statements and all evidence, they decided to apologise.

Ask yourself why. How does taking a hit help anyone? This apology is clear evidence of wrong doing IMO. That's what an apology is, but now you want to say the cops likely did nothing wrong, and the apology is to take a hit for the team even though they did nothing wrong.

Are you listening to yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not said they are taking a hit for the team MAMBA,get your facts right,if you were a serving police officer I'd be demanding an apology from you now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure?

"You really are naive, aren’t you? I don’t know if this is the case in this instance, but haven’t you heard of someone taking a hit for the team? It happens all the time, maybe if superiors deem its for the greater good."

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------
This was an early review of the footage, not the entire incident. After a full review of footage, statements and all evidence, they decided to apologise.

Ask yourself why. How does taking a hit help anyone? This apology is clear evidence of wrong doing IMO. That's what an apology is, but now you want to say the cops likely did nothing wrong, and the apology is to take a hit for the team even though they did nothing wrong.

Are you listening to yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not said they are taking a hit for the team MAMBA,get your facts right,if you were a serving police officer I'd be demanding an apology from you now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure?

"You really are naive, aren’t you? I don’t know if this is the case in this instance, but haven’t you heard of someone taking a hit for the team? It happens all the time, maybe if superiors deem its for the greater good."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not me saying that knobhead

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really are naive, aren’t you? I don’t know if this is the case in this instance, but haven’t you heard of someone taking a hit for the team? It happens all the time, maybe if superiors deem its for the greater good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was trying not to call you naive too. First you think Cressida "decided to apologise" because you don't want to accept that it was actually Scotland Yard that had to give it up and apologise.

Now you think cops would take a hit for the team when they are entirely on the right?

There is no doubt mate. If the cops were right they would have exposed the couple.

Its more likely they looked at all the evidence and they knew it was over, so issued an apology to stop people investigating what actually happened and to kill the issue, because exploring it further would have revealed that the cops are lying and this would damage the image of police irreparably.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was speaking generally, you obviously decided to skip over the bit where I wrote ‘I don’t know if it’s the case in this instance’. Fact is, none of us know the actual details of this case, but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions and judgements based on your own biased opinions. I’ve not said anywhere that I think the police are definitely innocent in this case, again all my points have been general ones.

Now you’re putting words into my mouth. I’ve not said anywhere that Cressida ‘decided to apologise’.

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Now if the footage is released and shows the police were correct in their account of what happened then what happens.Will the chief super withdraw her apology(no chance) will the occupants be charged(no chance),will they be charged with endangering a minor(no chance),will the media give it the coverage that is currently happening now(no chance).
----.
Would be stupid to issue the apology without knowing this, no?

Obviously they checked every option before apologising. If they decided to apologise it's probably because the cops were lying about something. If the cops were on the right they would never apologise IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The footage was reviewed and deemed to be acceptable,then the media went into full drive and the apology appeared.

Talk about being thrown under the bus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deemed acceptable by whom?

The apology appeared because it was wrong, not because of the media. If police apologised because of media furore then we'd have very regular apologies.
---------https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/53301318-------------------------------------------------------------
This was an early review of the footage, not the entire incident. After a full review of footage, statements and all evidence, they decided to apologise.

Ask yourself why. How does taking a hit help anyone? This apology is clear evidence of wrong doing IMO. That's what an apology is, but now you want to say the cops likely did nothing wrong, and the apology is to take a hit for the team even though they did nothing wrong.

Are you listening to yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not said they are taking a hit for the team MAMBA,get your facts right,if you were a serving police officer I'd be demanding an apology from you now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You sure?

"You really are naive, aren’t you? I don’t know if this is the case in this instance, but haven’t you heard of someone taking a hit for the team? It happens all the time, maybe if superiors deem its for the greater good."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve lost it Mamba, I said that. And even I’m not saying that this definitely happened. You seem to be the only person who thinks they know definitively the whole truth of the case.

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof that the car was driven erratically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof it wasn't?

That was easy wasn't it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. How would you prove that a car was not driven erratically? How would proof for that look like? I hope you can explain how it's possible to prove this. It's not possible to prove a negative. So you ask me to prove a negative and then give yourself a pat on the back for a point well made.

So on whom is the onus to prove?

He who makes the claim must prove the claim. That's the legal standard.

So police claim the car was driven erratically. Instead of proving this, they issue an apology instead. If they could prove it they would have.

The more logical conclusion is the car was not driven erratically. Cops harassed them because they're black and driving a fabulous car and then tried to frame them for traffic offences to cover up their actions. This comes out in an internal investigation and an apology is the best way to handle it. Far more logical than 'taking a hit for the team', which tbh is a fairy tale.

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof that the car was driven erratically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof it wasn't?

That was easy wasn't it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. How would you prove that a car was not driven erratically? How would proof for that look like? I hope you can explain how it's possible to prove this. It's not possible to prove a negative. So you ask me to prove a negative and then give yourself a pat on the back for a point well made.

So on whom is the onus to prove?

He who makes the claim must prove the claim. That's the legal standard.

So police claim the car was driven erratically. Instead of proving this, they issue an apology instead. If they could prove it they would have.

The more logical conclusion is the car was not driven erratically. Cops harassed them because they're black and driving a fabulous car and then tried to frame them for traffic offences to cover up their actions. This comes out in an internal investigation and an apology is the best way to handle it. Far more logical than 'taking a hit for the team', which tbh is a fairy tale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know it's been referred to an independent tribunal who will have access to all the footage.

It will be made public once it's been reviewed.

Not saying the police version or those in the car are right or wrong.But the truth will come out eventually,I suspect when BLM becomes less prevalent in the media.

I've not taken sides like you,you do seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder as regards authority.I feel sorry for ytou as the bitterness you have must eat away inside of you.

I've not taken sides like you,you do seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder as regards authority.I feel sorry for ytou as the bitterness you have must eat away inside of you.
-----
We've both taken sides here. Your just not very aware of yourself Your comments show it's you that has a chip on their shoulder which I wasn't gonna mention.

I don't know what bitterness you're on about. No need to lash out because you lost the debate mate.

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 15 seconds ago
Cressinda decided as good PR to say sorry to those 'aggreived'.
------
Was it her decision alone? Or was it the position of Scotland Yard as a whole?

I think she didn't decide to issue the apology, more like there was consensus that it was the right thing to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologise because her police officers carried out their duty correctly.
-----
Why would she do that? You're saying the cops did a good job but Scotland Yard decided to apologise anyway? That's fantasy.

Obviously they apologised after discovering the cops had facked up. There's no other logical explanation.




Would she have been so quick to apologise if the occupants of the car were any other colour than black????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's the right thing to do, then I would hope so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in the UK and cannot remember any case where a car being pulled over for erratic driving getting this much media coverage involving people of white colour.

Can you bring any up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof that the car was driven erratically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the proof it wasn't?

That was easy wasn't it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. How would you prove that a car was not driven erratically? How would proof for that look like? I hope you can explain how it's possible to prove this. It's not possible to prove a negative. So you ask me to prove a negative and then give yourself a pat on the back for a point well made.

So on whom is the onus to prove?

He who makes the claim must prove the claim. That's the legal standard.

So police claim the car was driven erratically. Instead of proving this, they issue an apology instead. If they could prove it they would have.

The more logical conclusion is the car was not driven erratically. Cops harassed them because they're black and driving a fabulous car and then tried to frame them for traffic offences to cover up their actions. This comes out in an internal investigation and an apology is the best way to handle it. Far more logical than 'taking a hit for the team', which tbh is a fairy tale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re incapable of logic. You’re confusing logic with you’re own pre conceived biased opinions. To you, it’s impossible that the police are anything but 100% at fault.

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I've not taken sides like you,you do seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder as regards authority.I feel sorry for ytou as the bitterness you have must eat away inside of you.
-----
We've both taken sides here. Your just not very aware of yourselfYour comments show it's you that has a chip on their shoulder which I wasn't gonna mention.

I don't know what bitterness you're on about. No need to lash out because you lost the debate mate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not taken any side,I have been consistent in my view that until all the evidence is reviewed then it's pure speculation in who is right and who is wrong.

I think both parties maybe a bit economical with the truth,but I will wait until the footage comes out.

You fooking hate the police,it's so obvious I feel embarrassed bringing it up.For you thr police are guilty end off.You come across as a sad bitter individual

comment by * and Obelix - Super Duper World Euro Champ19ns (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
I've not taken sides like you,you do seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder as regards authority.I feel sorry for ytou as the bitterness you have must eat away inside of you.
-----
We've both taken sides here. Your just not very aware of yourselfYour comments show it's you that has a chip on their shoulder which I wasn't gonna mention.

I don't know what bitterness you're on about. No need to lash out because you lost the debate mate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’re the only one here that thinks they know what definitely happened. Both myself and Coleman’s have stated we don’t know for sure what the actual truth is. You don’t even know who said what, you’re all over the place.

I know it’s what you’re obsessed with and well known for on here, but you certainly haven’t ‘won the debate’. All you’ve done is highlight your own discrimination against the police.

You’re incapable of logic. You’re confusing logic with you’re own pre conceived biased opinions. To you, it’s impossible that the police are anything but 100% at fault.
-----
First you try to force the narrative that I have a chip on my shoulder and issues with authority. And now this.

Can't you just debate the issue without getting personal? Usually that happens when one has got nothing left.

You’re the only one here that thinks they know what definitely happened
-----
Coleman said the cops were taking a hit for the team by apologising. He also said the car was being driven erratically.

In response I said that that was not the most logical conclusion and gave my opinion on what is most logical.

There's a difference between that and thinking I know what happened. Your not usually this dumb. Are you not reading the posts or what?

I never said the cops were taking a hit for the team.

Show me where I said that oh bitter one