When my friend was 20, a bunch of us paid for a stripper to take his virginity thinking he would stop being shy with women. It's completely backfired as he now thinks no one compares to her. He's now 33.
@andygeorgeni@WeAreFairCop Gotta say, just by posting under his own name he gains a lot more credibility than someone hiding behind a moniker. It sounds like @andygeorgeni is quite rightly pointing out that the police cannot keep leaping from one "priority" to another, without leaving groups behind.
I suspect that if the media had engaged properly and honestly with the Leveson Inquiry, they would not be in quite the mess they are in right now. The papers will leap on those parts of the judgement that assist their agenda but the bottom line is that Prince Harry’s claims 1/4
Internet Historian fans are giving the game away. Dude spent years masking his imageboard politics to pass himself off as a "legitimate" video essayist. Only for his fans to fully expose it all in the name of defending him from a video where he wasn't even the main subject.
Crazy story from a few years ago.
In 2001, Sussex Police signed a 30-year private finance initiative (PFI) contract for 4 custody suites in the county.
Under the agreement, the contractor also provided/s custody services at these and two other custody suites in exchange for a yearly payment. This amounted to £11.6m in 2018/19. The total cost of the deal was to be £341 million to the taxpayer between 2001 and 2031.
So the deal should elapse in 2031 but, low and behold, one of the four custody suites (in Chichester) was mothballed in 2018. It's empty.
So that's 13 years of future payments, and millions of pounds, for a facility that isn't being used, and Sussex Police stuck in a dumb contract that no sensible person (now) can defend.
There are so many of these stories re PFI its literally impossible to keep up.
The financialisation of public infrastructure is as destructive as privatisation and austerity - but its so much easier to obscure for those who benefit. This is likely tens of millions over 13 years - for nothing!
https://t.co/0q8mSfk2t9
theres this guy i work with who is always like "hey everyone, im sure this isn't important or anything and probably its a bad idea but maybe we should..." and then follows up with an absolute banger of an idea like every single time. I sit up in my chair when I see him unmute
@AvaSantina Thanks, was just in the cooling-off period for a Nationwide travel insurance policy for the family. Cancelled and taken out new insurance with someone else.
@Carl0s_Vela You see, this here is antisemitic ^
Blaming all Jews for the actions of Israel.
Many Jews do not support Genocide.
Many Christians do.
Do better Carlos.
What the evidence actually shows is that the biggest deterrent is the threat of being caught and the swiftness of punishment.
And Suella has supported the defunding of the criminal justice system so that most offenders aren’t caught and those who are wait 5 years for a trial.
@gmhales All of this should show why there are some glaring holes where a civil claim could quite foreseeably succeed, focused around the actual entitlement to use force at that time. It's still for a court to decide, but there's real possibility of a claim for battery against the force.
@gmhales Addressed in my followup comment sorry, curse this twitter character limit. Key point is officer did not pursue this later, and the evidence summarised is clear that they had no plan to arrest the child. Officer could not honestly have sustained any claim of intent to arrest
@gmhales Well, the officer claimed it at one point on his use of force form, but did not pursue it later. In the civil claim, I wouldn't expect to see: "He was not asked ...whether these were all genuine reasons, or which were the primary reasons; the Panel takes them at face value."
@gmhales Criminal law act requires an offence to be continuing, or an intent to lawfully arrest at the time the force is used. Officers have not claimed any intent to arrest, and so cannot rely on that limb. What offence was ongoing at the time child was walking away in their own home?
@gmhales The fact that an officer feels compelled to act immediately can't be the proof that they were reasonable in deciding to act that way. It would be ex-post-facto justification. Best you can argue is that the panel impliedly considered it and chose not to mention it.
@gmhales To entitle someone to "self defense" or "defence of another", they must honestly perceive an imminent attack to a person. Police feel compelled to act immediately for many reasons, such as duty to prevent crime, or even fear of public criticism. That isn't enough for lawful force