On Jan 1, 4:38*pm, Bruce wrote:
furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 8:52 pm, ian batten
wrote:
On Dec 31, 4:09 pm, furnessvale wrote:

As a policeman [...] we
knew who had to be off the streets.
Nothing I have said has even implied that innocent men would be
"stitched up" simply that known villains would be reported for
motoring offences at every opportunity to deprive them of their
wheels
which form such an integral part of their criminal activity.

Do you condone the shooting by serving police officers of Mark Duggan
in Tottenham, then their attempts to "prove" that he fired at them
first - despite the fact that he was unarmed - by planting a weapon?

After all, he was said to be a 'known' villain. *Not enough evidence
for a conviction, but enough for the police to shoot an unarmed man
in cold blood.

Presumably we should be truly thankful that the people of this
country are protected from unarmed men by their swift execution
without having to wait for the criminal justice system to put them in
prison.

You have added an inability to read to your list of imperfections. I
have specifically stated that I don't condone "stitching up" but that
doesn't mean I would shy away from getting a villain legitimately
banned from driving to curtail his criminal activities.

Or, is that not cricket and you would rather the police spent 10 times
the manpower to catch him in the act of burglary to achieve the same
end?

George