From: the_todal@icloud.com 
  
 On 05/09/2025 11:07, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 > On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 08:38:02 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 04/09/2025 15:36, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 >>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 12:35:54 +0100, Simon Parker wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 04/09/2025 12:06, Clive Page wrote: 
 >>>>> On 04/09/2025 11:45, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 >>>>>> On 2025-09-04, Clive Page  wrote: 
 >>>>>>> One can see that if you are police officer it's a much more 
 >>>>>>> exciting way to spend your day dashing onto the runway at Heathrow 
 >>>>>>> in a car with blue lights flashing along with four colleagues all 
 >>>>>>> brandishing guns than trying to investigating a real crime, which 
 >>>>>>> might, for example, involve watching a lot of boring CCTV footage. 
 >>>>>>> So one can see their point of view, it's just not something that 
 >>>>>>> most of the public would support. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Did any of that actually happen, or did you make it up? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>> News reports said he was arrested by five armed police.€€ Perhaps 
 >>>>> that's explainable if all police at Heathrow are armed, but even so 
 >>>>> to waste the time of five of them seems to me a bit over the top. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I cannot speak for Heathrow but a close personal friend is a police 
 >>>> officer at Manchester Airport. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> At Manchester, all police that operate airside, (i.e. those that are 
 >>>> in a position to intercept a passenger disembarking an aircraft), are 
 >>>> armed as a matter of routine.  I expect Heathrow to be similar. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> As such, should one wish to be pedantic one could use the phrase 
 >>>> "police that are armed" (i.e. routinely armed as part of their role), 
 >>>> rather than "armed police" (i.e. police that were specifically armed / 
 >>>> deployed with firearms to deal with this specific incident). 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Similarly, I am not familiar with the deployment protocols for 
 >>>> Heathrow but it is possible that these protocols require five officers 
 >>>> to be deployed when arresting an arriving passenger to enable them to 
 >>>> subdue the passenger should they fail to co-operate / resist arrest. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> "Procedurally mandated number of police that carry firearms as a 
 >>>> matter of course..." is a far less noteworthy sound-bite than "Five 
 >>>> armed police officers..." 
 >>> 
 >>> All of which sidesteps whether such measures were necessary to arrest 
 >>> someone whose home address was known for an offence which did not 
 >>> suggest there was any further risk to public safety (than there was 
 >>> before). 
 >>> 
 >>> No one is suggesting procedures were not followed. In fact they (and I 
 >>> certainly) am suggesting the procedures were never needed, regardless 
 >>> of how textbook their execution. A word I use very cautiously where 
 >>> armed police are involved. 
 >> 
 >> Is it possible that procedures were changed following the Amaaz brothers 
 >> Manchester Airport brawl last year? The level of violence which seemed 
 >> to appear out of nowhere may suggest that the police now consider a 
 >> greater number of officers are required when attending any situation 
 >> where an arrest is expected. 
 > 
 > Apples, oranges. 
 > 
 > There was fuck all urgency to arrest Mr. Linehan. They could have popped 
 > round to his home address anytime they liked. 
 > 
 > Why doesn't the victim of a mugging at knifepoint in a local park get 5 
 > armed offices deployed ? 
  
 Maybe when you want your officers to detain a public figure you expect 
 resistance from his/her supporters. I'd expect the police to send more 
 than one officer if the plan was to arrest Tommy Robinson. 
  
 For some reason Mr Linehan seems to believe that it is now open season 
 on trans people, that the courts have declared them to be worthy of 
 taunting and ridicule. 
  
 I suppose he is comforted by the attitude of certain crowdpleasing 
 politicians who are ready to claim that the police have over-reacted. 
  
  
  
 > 
 > Sorry, no amount of pushing this stone uphill will get it there. The Met 
 > Police chief is a lying piece of shit whose faux "poor us" display merely 
 > confirmed my general dislike of the police as an organisation. 
 > 
 > Frankly, if I wanted crime solved, I wouldn't start with the police. 
 > 
  
 Maybe you are part of the problem. Disrespect for the police is a step 
 towards anarchy. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)