august, 2011

ianuarie, 2009

mai, 2008

Puteți sprijini activitatea noastră cu o donație unică sau una recurentă prin Patreon.

 
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 COMENTARII

  1. Why police were so soft on London looters: They ‘were ordered to stand and observe’ as capital burned (but in Manchester they were hunting looters within hours)

    Police were ordered to ‘stand and observe’ rioters as they laid waste to London’s streets instead of confronting them, it was claimed today.
    Scotland Yard insiders have revealed teams were frustrated at their inability to wade in and arrest troublemakers while they looted and burnt out shops.
    They had apparently been told to try and contain any violence but not to haul away offenders who would instead be identified through video footage later, according to The Times.
    It was only on Monday night, when the riots escalated still further, that tactics changed and armoured vehicles called Jankels were used to disperse the crowds.
    On Tuesday night, some 16,000 officers also flooded London’s streets – almost triple the previous night’s deployment – and they were finally given the green light to confront the gangs.


    It has been suggested that the softer approach has been sparked by controversy over the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 riots and wider criticism of policing during protests.
    Mr Tomlinson was struck by a policeman wielding a baton during the G20 protests in 2009 and shoved to the ground.
    He suffered massive internal bleeding and died minutes later. The officer involved is now awaiting trial for manslaughter over his death.
    Scotland Yard was also heavily criticised in the High Court in April for using ‘kettling’ during the G20 demonstrations.
    Judges ruled the Met had broken the law in the way it kettled 5,000 protesters because it was ‘unjustified’ and an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

  2. Libertatea nu are sens daca proprietatea privata nu este respectata. Atata timp cat gloata distruge si jefuieste magazine, case si masini, folosirea fortei, inclusiv a celei implicit letale, cum sunt armele de foc, este perfect justificata atat din partea membrilor fortelor de ordine, cat si proprietarilor ale caror bunuri sunt afectate, si din contributiile carora sunt platiti politistii. Decizia de a restrictiona sever detinerea si portul armelor de foc este una iresponsabila din partea autoritatilor britanice, iar asta se vede mai ales in astfel de situatii. Oamenii au ajuns sa isi apere pravaliile cu pari, adica exact cu ceea ce foloseste si gloata. Chiar si in cazul in care armele sunt prezente de ambele parti ale conflictului, agresorul este intr-un vadit dezavantaj, pentru ca numarul si forta fizica nu mai reprezinta un atu.

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here