|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 2, 2024 13:47:35 GMT
Letting in say ..a million migrants a year …wouldn’t be uncontrolled immigration . I didn’t see the strict quotas of illegal migrants coming here on dinghies either . So you don’t have much of a point there. But no-one wants a million immigrants, do they. Really, now? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 13:47:54 GMT
Because as I demonstrated to TTL a tasered person is fully able to physically move and resume an attack. Neither you or anyone else has answered my question ( a very relevant question ) The suspect was in the ideal position to be cuffed, meaning he was laid on the floor, face down, at least partly subdued by electric shock, and surrounded by police officers. Why at that point did the officers not handcuff him ? ... It was the perfect opportunity If any of your excuses for excessive force were even remotely acceptable in defence, then why instead did one of the officers not use a trungeon instead, and hit the suspect in a a part of the body which is acceptable, and for which officers are trained to do. I thought they did cuff him ..after they made sure he was neutralised as a threat . What part of the body is it acceptable to hit a potential threat lying on the floor with a truncheon? The leg ? The back? Have you ever been hit with a truncheon or even handled a truncheon or baton ? If you knew what you were talking about you would choose the boot in the head . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 13:51:18 GMT
Letting in say ..a million migrants a year …wouldn’t be uncontrolled immigration . I didn’t see the strict quotas of illegal migrants coming here on dinghies either . So you don’t have much of a point there. But no-one wants a million immigrants, do they. I didn’t say they did. I’m pointing out that we don’t have control of immigration and that even if we did the numbers could be excessive. I use the term uncontrolled because it’s the correct term . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 13:53:03 GMT
Letting in say ..a million migrants a year …wouldn’t be uncontrolled immigration . I didn’t see the strict quotas of illegal migrants coming here on dinghies either . So you don’t have much of a point there. But no-one wants a million immigrants, do they. It’s not necessarily a matter of wanting . It’s a matter of controlling the numbers and quality . Now tell me that is happening. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 14:00:04 GMT
But no-one wants a million immigrants, do they. It’s not necessarily a matter of wanting . It’s a matter of controlling the numbers and quality . Now tell me that is happening. We (or at least the government) do have control. They HAVE chosen to let in so many. What you are complaining about not that they don't have control, but that they chose to increase it anyway. That's a totally justifiable complaint, and I think one that we're all in agreement with. I think that whoever had won the election, those numbers would come down anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 2, 2024 14:04:00 GMT
It’s not necessarily a matter of wanting . It’s a matter of controlling the numbers and quality . Now tell me that is happening. We (or at least the government) do have control. They HAVE chosen to let in so many. What you are complaining about not that they don't have control, but that they chose to increase it anyway. That's a totally justifiable complaint, and I think one that we're all in agreement with. I think that whoever had won the election, those numbers would come down anyway. They haven’t got control . They haven’t got control of the numbers of illegal migrants on dinghies and if they are letting deliberately letting in excessive numbers they do not have control . They have relinquished it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Aug 2, 2024 14:05:59 GMT
Sandypine
That could well be the case. Perhaps someone here knows how the tasers are meant to work ? For instance should they stun someone to the extent that they become totally 'disabled' for some considerable time, and won't even have the strength to raise their head ? Is the usual reaction to being tasered not eventually to try to raise your head from the ground ? Or is the taser meant to be just sufficiently effective to give an Officer time to approach and stamp on the head of a suspect who has regained head movement ? If the Police Officers acted according to their training and utilised only approved procedures, then they'll all be fully exonerated.
The findings of the inquiry should answer a lot of our questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 2, 2024 14:14:06 GMT
Neither you or anyone else has answered my question ( a very relevant question ) The suspect was in the ideal position to be cuffed, meaning he was laid on the floor, face down, at least partly subdued by electric shock, and surrounded by police officers. Why at that point did the officers not handcuff him ? ... It was the perfect opportunity If any of your excuses for excessive force were even remotely acceptable in defence, then why instead did one of the officers not use a trungeon instead, and hit the suspect in a a part of the body which is acceptable, and for which officers are trained to do. I thought they did cuff him ..after they made sure he was neutralised as a threat . What part of the body is it acceptable to hit a potential threat lying on the floor with a truncheon? The leg ? The back? Have you ever been hit with a truncheon or even handled a truncheon or baton ? If you knew what you were talking about you would choose the boot in the head . Contrary to your once again - ridiculous post - police officers are trained to use trungeons, and contrary to everything which you have stated, officers are trained to NOT hit people in or on the head, and that is a fact. When officers are trained as to how to use trungeons, they are shown which areas of the body to go for, and which areas of the body to avoid hitting, such as any hit which may cause a spinal injury or brain injury. Posters keep on coming back with various pathetic excuses, all of which are simply ridiculous, we all know that to kick a man when he is down is not defendable and not acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 14:22:04 GMT
Sandypine That could well be the case. Perhaps someone here knows how the tasers are meant to work ? For instance should they stun someone to the extent that they become totally 'disabled' for some considerable time, and won't even have the strength to raise their head ? Is the usual reaction to being tasered not eventually to try to raise your head from the ground ? Or is the taser meant to be just sufficiently effective to give an Officer time to approach and stamp on the head of a suspect who has regained head movement ? If the Police Officers acted according to their training and utilised only approved procedures, then they'll all be fully exonerated. The findings of the inquiry should answer a lot of our questions. Some people have to be tasered several times, some people are gone in a flash, some shake off numerous jolts with ease. There are no hard and fast rules. The blast disabled the man enough for the police to gain at least a temporary upper hand. He was instructed to stay down and decided he was going to get up or at least appear to so control through physical force had to be exercised. That is my take in watching it all on a loop several times and freezing it to know where every person was. The police officer of course had just picked himself up off the floor and had tasered the attacker and was trying to ensure he had complete control over a situation which was ongoing, fluid and proven top already be dangerous for the officers. No choice I think. Initially the video seemed to indicate that the kick was an afterthought of annoyance once control was reached and I think that is far from the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 14:35:46 GMT
We (or at least the government) do have control. They HAVE chosen to let in so many. What you are complaining about not that they don't have control, but that they chose to increase it anyway. That's a totally justifiable complaint, and I think one that we're all in agreement with. I think that whoever had won the election, those numbers would come down anyway. They haven’t got control . They haven’t got control of the numbers of illegal migrants on dinghies and if they are letting deliberately letting in excessive numbers they do not have control . They have relinquished it. OK, you've switched from immigration to illegal migration, which is actually only a very small part. About 10%. The 800,000 are much more of a problem than 80,000. There isn't actually a way of "controlling" the number of illegal migrants, you can't put a cap on it, or just say you don't want it. Successive governments have lied to you that they are going to stop it. You can't, and neither can the current Labour government. You can put incentives or disincentives into play, but they play little effect. Considering the universality of English, I'm not sure that we take a bigger share than other comparable nations, I.e. France and Germany. What you should have is an assessment system that is quick and effective, and returns agreements with countries where possible, and active deportations. The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement? But like I said, the main issue with immigration is legal migration, not illegal migration. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 2, 2024 14:49:56 GMT
"The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement?"
The lack of a returns agreement does not mean failed asylum seekers cannot be repatriated to their point of origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 15:01:15 GMT
"The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement?" The lack of a returns agreement does not mean failed asylum seekers cannot be repatriated to their point of origin. No, but it does make it more difficult. How do you repatriate someone to Iran? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 15:01:38 GMT
They haven’t got control . They haven’t got control of the numbers of illegal migrants on dinghies and if they are letting deliberately letting in excessive numbers they do not have control . They have relinquished it. OK, you've switched from immigration to illegal migration, which is actually only a very small part. About 10%. The 800,000 are much more of a problem than 80,000. There isn't actually a way of "controlling" the number of illegal migrants, you can't put a cap on it, or just say you don't want it. Successive governments have lied to you that they are going to stop it. You can't, and neither can the current Labour government. You can put incentives or disincentives into play, but they play little effect. Considering the universality of English, I'm not sure that we take a bigger share than other comparable nations, I.e. France and Germany. What you should have is an assessment system that is quick and effective, and returns agreements with countries where possible, and active deportations. The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement? But like I said, the main issue with immigration is legal migration, not illegal migration. Yes there is an easy way to control illegal migration. You stop access to British waters. They can throw themselves into the water, we can cross into French water to effect a maritime rescue and take them to France. Those that fail asylum can either return of their own free will or be detained at HMP pleasure, at HMP Detention centre very far away, Outer Hebrides. Legal migration is a disaster area that Tory policy has for some reason been unable to control. They can control it, they have to control it, it may require some heartache for some. No one wants to tackle it yet not tackling it will create a problem sooner than any climate catastrophe and more significant for the people of this country. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 2, 2024 15:05:07 GMT
"The question is, what do you do with those who fail asylum where we don't have a returns agreement?" The lack of a returns agreement does not mean failed asylum seekers cannot be repatriated to their point of origin. No, but it does make it more difficult. How do you repatriate someone to Iran? Buy them a ticket to Iran or send them to a detention centre in bleakest coldest most windswept part of Scotland and we have those in abundance |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 2, 2024 15:25:41 GMT
Yes there is an easy way to control illegal migration. You stop access to British waters. They can throw themselves into the water, we can cross into French water to effect a maritime rescue and take them to France. Those that fail asylum can either return of their own free will or be detained at HMP pleasure, at HMP Detention centre very far away, Outer Hebrides. The first part is of course pie in the sky. The second part I don't have any objection to in principle, but seeing as a) we don't have enough prison spaces for our existing perps, and b) a lot of the vitriol aimed at asylum seekers is regarding the accommodation costs, I'm not sure indefinite detention would help either of these. Legal migration is a disaster area that Tory policy has for some reason been unable to control. They can control it, they have to control it, it may require some heartache for some. No one wants to tackle it yet not tackling it will create a problem sooner than any climate catastrophe and more significant for the people of this country. The first bit I totally agree. In fact that was exactly my point to Bentley. The second bit is just opinion. |
|
