Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Otherwise known as the garinda backpeddle... maybe a smile in the first one wouldn't then need to pretend its all a joke in this one :)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

My first comment in this thread wasn't a joke, but a serious observation about how everyone can be mistaken, hence no smiley.

The second post had one because Tealeaf is infact young enough to be Jim Bowen's son despite the striking similarity.:D (Smiley.)


Apparently the two men asked to leave the flight have taken it all in good grace according to the press.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Bollocks.

a) The tube was not crowded. He had a seat and a surveillance officer took the seat next to him

b) When his watcher saw his armed colleagues follow through the tube door, he reached back and grabbed Menzies from behind, at the same time as he and his colleagues shouted warnings to the Brazilian

c) Menzies decided to ignore the warnings and struggle, assuming that the cops would not shoot. Well, it was not his lucky day. If he had gone quietly no doubt he would have been charged with no more than being an illegal, let loose after 2 hours and would probably be sunning himself now on the Coppa Cubanna, having spent a couple of years in the UK earning on the lump and paying no tax.

d) I seem to recall that shortly after the news breaking, stating on here that it would not take more than a few hours for the trendy civil rights shoot-to-kill mob to emerge from their slimey pits. Of course, I was right, but little did I expect them still to be rabbiting on about it over a year later.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Not wanting to get dragged into this too much, but I think you are being harsh on the Brazilian.
The cops in his country shoot young men a LOT. I'm not surprised he ran away at all and expect he would have done so if he was a fully paid up member of society, especially given how the Met are prone to react to things (I live in London and am happy to give examples of over zealous armed police. Two weeks after the poor Brazilian I had 4 SO-19 goons pointing guns at me.)

It's an interesting contrast with other European countries, but their even worse performances should not be used as justification for poor policing on our doorstep. (Well, in that case MY doorstep, 4 balaclavad cops pointing an assortment of firearms at my head):eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The simple fact is the cops in this country do not shoot people 'alot'. The stats show that for themselves. we may well see more armed cops on the streets, but unless you want to pick a fight with 'em or violently resist arrest in the middle of an anti-terrorist operation, you are unlikely to be shot.

Brazilian cops shoot thousands each year, many just unarmed children.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

:D
Read, read, read,.....
I said HIS country not THIS country................feel free to re-read my post and retract your wrongwrongwrong! I never said anything about the cops in this country shooting people a lot. So, nowt to argue about!
:D :D

ps the pass mark for SO-19 is 70%........I really hope they don't get things wrong 30% of the time.

There were 5 police shootings (ie shooting at other people) since the IPCC was set up (april 04) to the IPCC meeting the family of the poor lad in August 2005. At least one was in error, so that's 20%. The stats and simple facts show that for themselves, as you say:)

Brazilian cops shoot thousands each year, many heavily armed children (doesn't make it right, obviously)

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Ooops.......there was a bit of mushy pea on the screen before the 'h'.I thought it was a T..:)

Anyway, 70% is X amount within the chest at 30 metres, within a set time frame; the odd ones astray don't rally matter, providing they hit nowt else.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

There were forty eight people in the carriage when he was shot at Stockwell station, including a woman in the next seat who gave evidence that he wasn't warned by the people who were following him, or the man that shot him.

Fact is so much more interesting than supposition.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Have we all got off the plane and now on a train ? Old argument surely.. Can't we have fun with the new one?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Its hardly fact just because you wrote it on accyweb.. if anyone wants to state something is fact then they should show it is fact... play fair rinders :)

Ding dong....

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Although the people were frightened by the two men on the plane, the fact is they were wrong, they weren't terrorists.


All I can say is that I'm glad I'm ruddy faced and fair haired as I too am about to go on holiday, and have often been observed acting 'weirdly'.:D

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

I would argue that they where not wrong.. They formed an opinion that was wrong.. But there actions based on that opinion is the point surely.. and there actions based on that opinion I would say was right and one I would take.. IF the pilot or whoever told us all no.. the two men are not being asked to leave then its my choice to carry on traveling or leave.

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Having just read the question again it states the passengers demanded they be allowed to leave.. Not the two men not allowed to fly... Which was it?

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Re: Were They Right To Object?
 

Would you ever take your family to London, or Madrid on that same proviso?