Gipsies Trash Police Helicopter

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Glad to hear its all in the best possible taste, and its friendly banter PHEW thanks for putting my mind at ease:hippy:

  • I have always thought that Direct Action will not work to change an ideal to the best effect with lasting results.


    That rather depends on the level of action.... If direct action doesnt work, that rather invalidates the role of the plod themselves, doesnt it...:whistle:


    Quote

    Do yourself a favour and don't call me 'fucking scum' when you do


    Where did anyone call you/police that?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • ere we go again, knock the f****in gypsies!!! Ye, so they went in there with WE ARE GYPSIES on all there T shirts.

    "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. You know you're going to get it, but it's going to be rough."

  • ere we go again, knock the f****in gypsies!!! Ye, so they went in there with WE ARE GYPSIES on all there T shirts.


    However you might remember it was the Sun newspaper who called them gypsies not the police


    Quote from The SUN

    A Surrey Police spokesman described the identity of the mob members as “unknown”.


    We often get the police helicopter over here - day and night - sometimes with searchlight blazing looking for criminals and it makes me sleep easier (when they're not overhead of course..:whistle:) knowing that they have the ability to search wide areas at night much more quickly than sending police in on foot.


    Quote from Medusa

    I thought the idea of surveillance for evidence gathering was to watch without the suspects knowing though.Helicopter flapping around enough to piss off said suspects is hardly discreet..Overt surveillance is to prevent crime isnt it..the 'we're watching,dont start' thing.So the story here doesnt make a lot of sense..


    You'd be surprised how far back from the search area these helicopters can operate sometimes....they can be out of hearing if there's a lot of background noise and criminals in cars certainly wouldn't know they're there....and the flapping around low bit is as reported by the people they're watching...building it up nicely for the newspaper?


    However I wasn't there so I can't really comment on that but I tend not to believe everything I read in the Sun


    Quote from James

    Mrs James!! Yes Dear will make sure my arse gets up that way.


    I'm getting seriously worried here.....:eek:

  • That rather depends on the level of action.... If direct action doesnt work, that rather invalidates the role of the plod themselves, doesnt it...:whistle:



    Yeaahhhhhhh because we don't do anything else apart from deal with direct action :whistle: Uninformed much? :thumbup:





    Quote from Coyote

    Where did anyone call you/police that?




    Earlier on.

  • The idea that the Police could justify weeks of buzzing a gypsy encampment with a helicopter by saying it was to observe for stolen motors.... rings bells.



    Like when the Police use to endear themselves to thousands of people who'd enjoy the peace and beauty of a festival, get away from the grimy towns and cities, spend a week camping with like minded people in a field, and then have the Police Helicopter making it sound noisier than Piccadilly circus while it buzzed back and forth, supposedly observing, but the real effect is to annoy everyone in the field. Never any real justification afterwards by the Police for what the helicopter 'surveillance' supposedly achieved.

  • Yeaahhhhhhh because we don't do anything else apart from deal with direct action :whistle: Uninformed much? :thumbup:


    Now read it again.....:rolleyes: The police themselves exist to change behaviour through direct action....:whistle:

    Quote


    Earlier on.


    I looked, but couldnt see it anywhere.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Only when am thinking about you baby, knew you couldn't stay away for long :p miss me xoxo


    Well, if ya cant get one of your own I guess fantasy is the only option ;)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • The idea that the Police could justify weeks of buzzing a gypsy encampment with a helicopter by saying it was to observe for stolen motors.... rings bells.



    It makes you suspicious then and of course it would as you do not know the facts of the operation and niether do I.


    Quote from Chazz

    Like when the Police use to endear themselves to thousands of people who'd enjoy the peace and beauty of a festival, get away from the grimy towns and cities, spend a week camping with like minded people in a field, and then have the Police Helicopter making it sound noisier than Piccadilly circus while it buzzed back and forth, supposedly observing, but the real effect is to annoy everyone in the field. Never any real justification afterwards by the Police for what the helicopter 'surveillance' supposedly achieved.



    Am not sure what festival you are talking about man but you can't know the real mens rea (intent of thought) only suspect. Without more information it's impossible to say.


  • No we don't, go look it up if you have a mind to educate yourself :)



    Nice bit of doublethink ;) but the whole nature of "policing" is to use direct action to change behaviour :)


    Quote


    Ummm okay.


    Fabricating evidence? ;)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • It makes you suspicious then and of course it would as you do not know the facts of the operation and niether do I.


    Agreed...life's experience and consideration of costs of running coptors compared to footwork, suggests to me it was much more likely harrassment, but neither of us knows for sure....



    What suprises me is that some automatically assume the Police are just doing their job and that low flying helicopter surveillance is acceptable without clear justifications and even, god forbid, calling the Police to seriously justify their operations in public debate.


    Hey we all know that when our work is criticised, we'll fob off the critique quickly and quietly if we can...but Policing needs to be seen as reasonably serving the public without prejudice to any group, and certainly not serving Govt or Private agendas.

  • Hey we all know that when our work is criticised, we'll fob off the critique quickly and quietly if we can...but Policing needs to be seen as reasonably serving the public, and not Govt or Private agendas.


    ahh,but weren't they set up for Govt. & private agendas originally ?...they were of course...before Mr. Peel gave them 'respectability'...just thugs who did their masters bidding,so our idea of them being servants of the public is a relatively new idea....


    found this btw :
    The County of Lancaster Constabulary Force laid down a number of rules for constables in the late nineteenth century. These included the following instructions:

    • Constables are placed in authority to PROTECT, not to OPPRESS the PUBLIC.
    • Be COOL and INTREPID in the discharge of duties in emergencies and unavoidable conflicts.
    • Be perfectly neat and clean in Person and Attire.
    • Never sit down in a PUBLIC HOUSE or BEER SHOP.
    • AVOID TIPPLING.
    • It is in the interest of every man to devote some portion of his spare time to the practice of READING and WRITING and the general improvement of his mind. Ignorance is an insuperable bar to promotion.


    ;) a few rules that could be followed now methinks...

  • Nice bit of doublethink ;) but the whole nature of "policing" is to use direct action to change behaviour :)



    No it's not the whole nature at all :)

    I'll help you out as you have issues looking things up -

    A missing / lost child is not a behaviour - who looks for the child?

    A car in a river with a person missing is not a behaviour - what dive team goes looking for a body?

    A road crash and traffic jam is not a behaviour - who comes and deals with that?

    Someone injured is not a behaviour - who tends to be first on scene and gives first aid?

    That's just a few holes in your statement, I could go on all day but am sure you will take an open minded approach and look more up for yourself :whistle:



    Quote from Coyote

    Fabricating evidence? ;)



    Or not prepared to be your P.A, you already got one. :thumbup:

  • No it's not the whole nature at all :)

    I'll help you out as you have issues looking things up -

    A missing / lost child is not a behaviour - who looks for the child?


    A community - it doesnt take a police officer to do that.



    Those things are "add ons" to any police role - you could remove the "enforce the law" part of the role and do all of those tasks and you would not be a plod. If you went the other way around (got rid of all of those extra tasks) but kept the "law enforcement" role, you would still be a plod.


    It really isnt that complicated. The raison d'etre of a police force is to bring about changes in behaviour through (often forceful) direct action.

    Quote


    Or not prepared to be your P.A, you already got one. :thumbup:


    Substantiate your claims, counstable :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."



  • The police do serve Govnment agenda man, it's the government that put down the legislation. Government is supposed to be the rep of the majority of people, hence the vote for a party. Again you got the nail on the head here. There is NO POINT in fighting the Police, they do not have the authority or power to change legislation, the Government does that.

  • Hey James :waves:
    Quick question m'dear..
    Having been on here a while I've seen your responses to these kind of threads over and over (except for the G20 threads when you were oh so quiet :whistle:) and I was just wondering why you feel the need to come in defensive and superior rather than just saying 'I disagree'? Why assume that we're automatically anti police instead of maybe just questioning the actions of some police in a specific case? You might be the only cop in the village but that doesnt make your opinion or assessment of a situation anymore valid that ours :)


    *realises that was a waste of breath but continues to labour under the illusion that James'll 'get it' someday* :whistle:

  • Aww bless, let's try one last time to open that mind a tad ;)



    Quote

    A community - it doesnt take a police officer to do that.



    Yes it does and it is one of the main things we do, a mispa or missing person call is a P1, as in all jobs are put on hold when a shout for a child obs goes out. Because the first thing you do when your child is missing (as in you called around friends to see if it is there) is what? Call the local commuinty centre? No, I didn't think so either.

    The Police have powers of entry for looking for a missing person so you do need to be a Police Officer. Police have special training in search and drving to respond faster to this emergency than the local commuinty centre team or Mrs Miggins from number 42.

    An on going missing person takes up how many Police Officers using investigations? I think you need to be a Police Officer to run a Police investigation of suspicion of vunrable persons....yeah pretty sure on that one! :)

    You really do not know a great deal about Police powers and procedure above and beyond what you have read for your own aims in debates against them.



    Quote

    Those things are "add ons" to any police role - you could remove the "enforce the law" part of the role and do all of those tasks and you would not be a plod. If you went the other way around (got rid of all of those extra tasks) but kept the "law enforcement" role, you would still be a plod.



    Wrong again, this really is not your round is it! You can always revert to your normal debate tactic of ignoring your errors and focus on the things you think you know about in the reply. So here goes.

    They are not add ons, they are part of being a Police Officer and each one has powers that only a Police Officer can use, each one has training that only a Police Officer has. There are powers and legislation for water dives and areas as this could lead to a crime and you need to know how to perseve a scene and investigate a search while you are looking.

    Road traffic - Am not even going to go into how much law there is on that and you cannot do that without being a Police Officer. You have the Civilian Traffic bods in the Shoguns on the motorway to help with break downs etc but what do they do if they have a serious incident? Yeah they call us to come and deal with it as it is part of our training to deal with that. Part of our role, our responsiblity as laid down by statute. How much of our role than that can you get!



    Quote

    It really isnt that complicated. The raison d'etre of a police force is to bring about changes in behaviour through (often forceful) direct action.



    So it has gone from WHOLE reason to d'etre and often from only :). So it may be more complicated than you first assumed.

    Quote


    Quote:
    Or not prepared to be your P.A, you already got one. :thumbup:
    Substantiate your claims, counstable :)


    Again you assume my position in the service :thumbup: I don't need to substanciate my claim, you asked, the burden of proof is on you.



  • Superior and condersending much? :whistle: It's a shame you don't see the irony of your own words.

    Hey Medusababes!! :waves:

  • Aww bless, let's try one last time to open that mind a tad ;)


    Awww and there was an opportunity for a police officer to not have "patronising twat" as part of his description :whistle:

    I'm not debating against you, I'm debating with you :rolleyes: and as for the subject of that debate...well, the fact that people go to the police when seeking a missing person does not mean this is central to the police role. The police have taken that role for themselves (cant be having civilians with initiative....) yet it remains a role that anyone can partake :)


    Like I said, without the law enforcement role the police would not exist. Without those other roles (which can all be done by paramedics/civilians/etc), the role of "Police" continues. The essence/root/raison-d'etre/purpose of a Police force is to Police (enforce the peace).


    But I'm not surprised you have got caught up in the double think :)

    Quote

    Wrong again, this really is not your round is it!

    Baiting me on Scar, talking of debating against, now on rounds....you really are addicted to competition arnt you...:whistle:


    Quote


    Road traffic - Am not even going to go into how much law there is on that and you cannot do that without being a Police Officer.

    Exactly. LAW. :rolleyes:


    Quote

    Again you assume my position in the service :thumbup: I don't need to substanciate my claim, you asked, the burden of proof is on you.

    I really dont care what [strikethrough]w[/strikethrough]rank you have :) and as the accusation of the language was yours (accusing Jim of calling you "fucking scum"), the burden of proof is then yours also.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from James

    I was far more vocal than yourself when sat next to me at the fire pit, shame you had no questions then :whistle:


    We've never met James :D Youre getting me confuzzled with someone else ;)

    Quote

    I've seen you follow me around on these over and over too waiting for something to say and it tends to be about me rather than the debate but ok I still loves you anyway.


    Nope.Pretty much everytime I've been posting in the debate before you come along,these sort of debates interest me :) I've also never posted 'pig scum' type stuff,and often challenge others who do..which you'd remember if you had a clue who I am :D *Us* pikeys all probably look the same to you though right :whistle:

    Quote

    I still hate the way you use the royal we like am not part of the community :mad:


    Mea culpa.Apologys mate.

    Quote

    Superior and condersending much? :whistle: It's a shame you don't see the irony of your own words.


    Where have I ever claimed I'm not superior and condescending :D
    Anyways I wasnt trying to start a fight ;) You seem to have your hands full here already :D



  • Oh am not fighting! I love a debate but I think the one with Coyote has gone far enough and he seems to be getting upset for real so am leaving that one alone until he's had his nap. My words are never meant to come across as aggressive, they can tend to be rather 'to the point' and that may even come across as rude. Am aware of that but when am having a debate with someone or a few people then I tend to be factual.

    I have tried in the past to use the same style as the person debating with me to show how they are coming across to me but it seldom works so I think I will have a rethink on that one.

    Am gutted now and wonder who the poor lady is that I was sat next to thinking 'damn Medusa is quite'!! LOL Will have to fix that some day and see how we get on with a debate in person. Name the place and I will see when I have time if Police issues are a real interest to you. I won't have all the answers but what I do know and able to talk about then I will babes :hug: