horsefly

It really isn't very simple though is it. Anyone genuinely interested in this issue would do well to listen to a recording of this morning's James O'Brien show on LBC. An ex-senior police officer responsible for managing armed incidents is very informative about the extensive training undergone by officers to prepare them to exercise sound judgement about when lethal force is justified. They are made well aware repeatedly through their training what is required of them to justify using lethal force within the parameters of the law. The CPS has clearly decided there is a case to be brought before the courts in this incidence. It will be down to that court to decide if the officer concerned behaved within the law.

NO ONE has said anything of the sort. The concern is about the behaviour of police officers armed to use lethal force using their powers in accordance with the law. Police officers are equally subject to the law of the land as is any other citizen. They can use their weapons in cases of self-defence, and for protection of the public when either of those is subject to genuine life-threatening harm, and for NO other reason. It is a matter for the courts to determine whether this particular instance was a case of legitimate self-defence and NOT an illegal killing. To believe that police officers should be given special protection from legal action in cases of such killings is effectively to sanction state sponsored killings, and alignment with the sort of dictatorial governments we see in other despotic regimes.

And I'm confident 100% of Scottish fans (a somewhat bigger crowd than Southampton's) would say exactly the opposite.

I'll look up the hundreds of 9-0 defeats in PL history to check if that is the case.

Why do you conclude that? It is just as likely Hassenthutl was responding to the outpouring of rage from Southampton fans who wanted "something done". Changing the keeper after a 9-0 defeat was very much an easy response, justified or not.

Spot on! Over the years there have been a number of police killings of unarmed men. Each one of those is by its very nature a failing of some kind. Being licenced to use lethal force brings with it an enormous and onerous responsibility. It should only ever be entrusted to those with the high-level psychological ability to understand that burden and exercise it with skilled judgement. Any officer handing back their weapon because they do not wish to accept the legal accountability that comes with being armed is not of the psychological temperament to carry a weapon.

You were the buffoon who began your post with abuse, I began my response to you in kind. Yet another unarmed man has been killed by the police, this is a very serious issue that needs genuine debate. Grow up!

It has been widely accepted that in the 9-goal Southampton defeat Gunn was not personally culpable for any of those goals, and indeed made several good saves. In the Championship season when he came to us on loan, he was pretty much faultless. Many very good keepers find it hard to get in the first team when they play for top sides, it's part and parcel of a goalkeeper's lot, competing for one spot in the team.

Try not to be so stupid. This is a fundamental point that we do not arm police officers to use their weapons with impunity. That is the stuff of dictatorships not democracies. A court of law is precisely the appropriate environment in which it should be judged whether an officer has justifiable reason to shoot in any particular instance. The fact that this officer has been charged with murder suggests that those with access to the full details of the actual incident (not simple politically biased newspaper conjecture) believe there is prima facie evidence that he/she did not. The idea that officers should be protected from prosecution would amount to a licence to kill at will. Any officer who thinks they should be protected from legal accountability is absolutely unsuitable to be armed. My eldest brother was a police officer (long retired) who frequently guarded the royal family at Sandringham. He withdrew from those duties when he was told that in future he would need to be armed to do so. His reasoning was that he didn't want to be confronted with a potential situation in which it would be easy to draw a weapon and kill. As he put it, the temptation to draw on the most powerful weapon you have available in a potentially threatening situation would be enormous and hard to resist. Officers who volunteer to carry arms need to be of the highest calibre, psychologically capable of resisting a natural urge to fire when feeling threatened (but without evidence that the threat is real). Officers wanting protection from legal scrutiny are essentially saying that the feeling of being threatened alone should be grounds for allowing them to shoot to kill. Such officers are not psychologically of the calibre to carry arms.

I see a number of police officers have withdrawn from armed duty because of the recent murder charge of an officer for shooting dead an innocent unarmed man. Frankly, any officer who has responded this way is absolutely NOT a person who should be allowed anywhere near a gun. The idea that they should be exempt from accountability for their deadly actions is astonishing. It would be tantamount to saying to any armed officer that they can shoot to kill before they have evidence that the person they kill poses a genuine threat to their own life. If anything this is the ideal test for weeding out officers who are absolutely not fit to be given the responsibility of using armed force. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/24/met-police-requests-support-from-army-after-officers-turn-in-firearms

I see the same Brexiteer liars and cronies (chiefly Farage) have latched on to a new campaign to save cash as a protected form of payment. So I'm sure they will be delighted to make sure there is NO divergence from the EU directive on this matter: Retailers cannot refuse cash payments unless both parties have agreed to use a different means of payment. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/cash_strategy/html/cash-faq.en.html#:~:text=The European Commission issued a recommendation (2010%2F191%2FEU)%2C based,agreed to use a different means of payment.

Christ Almighty! Even the Everton commentators are complaining the ref is giving dreadful decisions all in Everton's favour.

I guess you yourself are one those people who you claim doesn't properly understand what eutrophication is, and how it is related to house building. It is the process of building the house on farm land (disturbing the earth) that significantly increases the release of damaging nutrients into watercourses. Try this article: https://www.mackoy.co.uk/news/the-impact-of-nitrate-pollution-on-housing-developments/#:~:text=These cause the soil to become excessively enriched,which is harmful to us and plant life.

Yep! Can't remember anyone ever hitting the bar 3 times.