# Raoul Moat: lunatic in Northumbria Using Facebook



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

Anyone been following the story of the guy just released from prison who has shot his ex, her boyf and a policeman?

He is updating his facebook status saying who is next on his hitlist.

What a looney!!!


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2010)

Utter, utter madness. Why isn't he on Twitter?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

Santino said:


> Utter, utter madness. Why isn't he on Twitter?



Thats what I was thinking. At least I could follow it then.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2010)

Who says prison doesn't work.

/Michael Howard


----------



## N_igma (Jul 5, 2010)

It's all Facebook's fault.


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

I wonder if he's doing favours.

What's his name again?


----------



## N_igma (Jul 5, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> I wonder if he's doing favours.
> 
> What's his name again?



Some fucked up name like Roael.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> I wonder if he's doing favours.
> 
> What's his name again?



Raoul Moat. Im just having a look on his page now.... hold on


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

nada.......he sounds a bit simple TBH


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2010)

Fancy. He doesn't look it at all.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2010)

what were you expecting from a psychotic steroid muncher....

that he was a chess grandmaster with a grudge against his childhood teacher?

or maybe a bond villain?


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Raoul Moat. Im just having a look on his page now.... hold on



Raoul Moat? Look no further for the reason why he's a killer. 

Isn't his full name something like Raoul David Moat? I bet he called himself Dave. I bet until now no one knew he was called Raoul. His life will be hell when he gets back to jail. 

((((Raoul))))


----------



## xes (Jul 5, 2010)

He's not going back to Jail


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 5, 2010)

xes said:


> He's not going back to Jail









NO COPPERS GONNA TAKE ME ALIVE

Big Vern


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

xes said:


> He's not going back to Jail



You'll never take me alive copper!!! 

You think he's gonna take a dive off the Forth Bridge after jumping out of the train he's crossing it in? Never to be seen again except for the next 300 years on conspiracy websites.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

He killed the copper because his ex told him she was dating a copper.

Idiot.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 5, 2010)

xes said:


> He's not going back to Jail



nope, he's going to get shot, either by himself or the armed response team.


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He killed the copper because his ex told him she was dating a copper.
> 
> Idiot.



Turns out he wasn't a copper. 

((((Raoul))))


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 5, 2010)

how exciting


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> how exciting



Are you on FB? Is he still taking friend requests?


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 5, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> Are you on FB? Is he still taking friend requests?



I haven't looked him up, shall I request him?


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2010)

he's clever enough to work the privacy settings.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2010)

His page is unavailable...loads of pages dedicated to catching him and arguing about what he did.

Weird.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 5, 2010)

> Too many friend requests.
> Sorry, this user already has too many friend requests.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

One of the groups is

"Dog the Bounty hunter could find Raoul"


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> One of the groups is
> 
> "Dog the Bounty hunter could find Raoul"



that's true.  And he'd give him some cod psychology about why he done all them bad things too.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> One of the groups is
> 
> "Dog the Bounty hunter could find Raoul"


----------



## tommers (Jul 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


>



That's a sad indictment of something or other.


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


>



Nightmare. That could have been my main claim to fame.


----------



## Geri (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He killed the copper because his ex told him she was dating a copper.
> 
> Idiot.




The copper isn't dead.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


>



Her tits are huge


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

Geri said:


> The copper isn't dead.



Oh shit yeah... 

Right Ms Marple you ay


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Her tits are huge



Dog's a bloke but yeah, they're massive.


----------



## holteman (Jul 5, 2010)

Awww i wanted to befriend him 

I swear the lengths people will go to just to get more friends on facebook!


----------



## zoooo (Jul 5, 2010)

You'd think he'd make his page public before going on a shooting spree.

Selfish bastard.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 5, 2010)

'Go with God.'


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> You'd think he'd make his page public before going on a shooting spree.
> 
> Selfish bastard.



Tell me about it.... FFS


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2010)

http://www.facebook.com/search/?pos...-Fenhams-Bin-Laden/135136026508350?ref=search

Weird.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 5, 2010)

One of his friends just said:

"i hav jst put raouls side of th story in th papers bt i am anonymous in them look out 4 it in th nxt cupple of days cz u all think he is a bad guy nd always has been bt thts rong."


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Jul 5, 2010)

Suicide by cop is the likely outcome of this.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 5, 2010)

Erk, another one, 

"4 t record raoul was a fukn belta dad is kids ment t world 2 im and t pigs tuk it al away sam ment everyfing 2 im and she broke is heart e cudn cope wivowt her rip mate a knw yal b gone 2nite love al us x."

I think he picks his friends by how shit their txtspk is.


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> One of his friends just said:
> 
> "i hav jst put raouls side of th story in th papers bt i am anonymous in them look out 4 it in th nxt cupple of days cz u all think he is a bad guy nd always has been bt thts rong."



Anyone with a bit of sense can see Raoul is a lovely guy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> One of his friends just said:
> 
> "i hav jst put raouls side of th story in th papers bt i am anonymous in them look out 4 it in th nxt cupple of days cz u all think he is a bad guy nd always has been bt thts rong."



Aw, after reading that I bet he's a really nice fella. Probably just a little bit misunderstood but heart of gold no doubt.

Let him eat!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> Erk, another one,
> 
> "4 t record raoul was a fukn belta dad is kids ment t world 2 im and t pigs tuk it al away sam ment everyfing 2 im and she broke is heart e cudn cope wivowt her rip mate a knw yal b gone 2nite love al us x."
> 
> I think he picks his friends by how shit their txtspk is.



LOL where are you reading that?


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> LOL where are you reading that?



Don't marry him Foxy, he's a wrong un.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> LOL where are you reading that?



I clicked on his friends list, and a few of their latest updates are listed.


----------



## holteman (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> Erk, another one,
> 
> "4 t record raoul was a fukn belta dad is kids ment t world 2 im and t pigs tuk it al away sam ment everyfing 2 im and she broke is heart e cudn cope wivowt her rip mate a knw yal b gone 2nite love al us x."
> 
> I think he picks his friends by how shit their txtspk is.



same person...ecplaining his actions to someone who thinks he's mental

"coz he hates pigs theyv tuk everything 4m im sum ppl hate blondes sum ppl r racist raoul hates pigs hes lost it man ne point tryin 2 understand"

Yeah makes sense now.. poor chap


----------



## Edie (Jul 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Aw, after reading that I bet he's a really nice fella. Probably just a little bit misunderstood but heart of gold no doubt.
> 
> Let him eat!


Proper LOL


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

I bet those steriods really helped


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> I bet those steriods really helped



What's the point in having big muscles if you're just gonna use them to beat your girlfriend and kid but need a gun to tackle men.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Jul 5, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> Isn't his full name something like Raoul David


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 5, 2010)

ivebeenhigh said:


>



Gawd, I hope it's not the wall.  We'll never get him out, he'll be out there for days.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 5, 2010)

Why are there so many psychos with guns in the far north of England?


----------



## Geri (Jul 5, 2010)

zoooo said:


> Erk, another one,
> 
> "4 t record raoul was a fukn belta dad is kids ment t world 2 im and t pigs tuk it al away sam ment everyfing 2 im and she broke is heart e cudn cope wivowt her rip mate a knw yal b gone 2nite love al us x."
> 
> I think he picks his friends by how shit their txtspk is.



He should have shot that person instead.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 5, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why are there so many psychos with guns in the far north of England?



Lack of sanitation and dreadful food. It sends them over the edge.


----------



## bigbry (Jul 5, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Who says prison doesn't work.
> 
> /Michael Howard



Well, it doesn't does it ? If it did he wouldn't have got into trouble so soon after coming out of jail !


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

bigbry said:


> Well, it doesn't does it ? If it did he wouldn't have got into trouble so soon after coming out of jail !



Loads of people get released from jail every week. Some go on to reoffend, some dont...
This is an extreme case


----------



## bmd (Jul 5, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> Lack of sanitation and dreadful food. It sends them over the edge.



It's mostly to do with living in caves tbh. That and the dinosaurs.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2010)

far far far fewer guns in tyneside than you would think - they are very traditional in the NE - violence and intimidation rather than popping caps in each others asses - even this bloke is usuing a shotgun, whcih was probabaly pinched from a farmer - gte down to Leeds & Manchester and its a different story however.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Anyone been following the story of the guy just released from prison who has shot his ex, her boyf and a policeman?
> 
> He is updating his facebook status saying who is next on his hitlist.
> 
> What a looney!!!



it's like Urban, only in real life!


----------



## Edie (Jul 5, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> far far far fewer guns in tyneside than you would think - they are very traditional in the NE - violence and intimidation rather than popping caps in each others asses - even this bloke is usuing a shotgun, whcih was probabaly pinched from a farmer - gte down to Leeds & Manchester and its a different story however.


How do you know that then?


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Loads of people get released from jail every week. Some go on to reoffend, some dont...
> This is an extreme case



I think re-offending rates are around 70%. It seems like prison _by itself_ doesn't stop reoffending in a majority of cases. Prison alongside some rehabilitative system has a far better reoffending rate, but then you get accused of spending money on criminals rather than victims which, imo, is utter balls.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why are there so many psychos with guns in the far north of England?



To keep the Scottish out.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 5, 2010)

Metal Malcolm said:


> I think re-offending rates are around 70%. It seems like prison _by itself_ doesn't stop reoffending in a majority of cases. Prison alongside some rehabilitative system has a far better reoffending rate, but then you get accused of spending money on criminals rather than victims which, imo, is utter balls.



i think the fear of prison works better than jailing people. Once someone has done their time they know what to expect next time and probably have gained better knowledge of more lucrative crimes

the Tory backbenchers are loons, wanting to jail people for the slightest offence.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 5, 2010)

Thing is ... this guy isnt very street smart.
If he is still posting on his facebook page then they can track his Ip.... and if he is ringing them they can track that aswell.... 

Twat


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> If he is still posting on his facebook page then they can track his Ip....



Not necessarily true.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> To keep the Scottish out.



 seems perfectly reasonable


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2010)

been a good year for spree killings so far.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 5, 2010)

holteman said:


> same person...ecplaining his actions to someone who thinks he's mental
> 
> "coz he hates pigs theyv tuk everything 4m im sum ppl hate blondes sum ppl r racist raoul hates pigs hes lost it man ne point tryin 2 understand"
> 
> Yeah makes sense now.. poor chap



In the interests of balance: 



> NOTE TO NEWS REPORTERS TRYING TO ADD ME - i have known raoul and sam for many years now and i have no intention of
> giving out any info about either of them. especially seeing as
> the info the news already has has been twisted and in some cases
> just made up. there are also groups using this info to make sick jokes about everyone involved and i will
> not play a part in that.


----------



## madzone (Jul 5, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Thing is ... this guy isnt very street smart.
> If he is still posting on his facebook page then they can track his Ip.... and if he is ringing them they can track that aswell....
> 
> Twat


 Why haven't they then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2010)

the poor formatting of that comment probably triggered this.

Has this bloke out done the cumbrian killa yet?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2010)

Prison warned police over threat from Gateshead gunman

Timeline: Tyneside shootings case


> Temporary Chief Constable Sue Sim, of Northumbria Police, tells a news conference the force was warned on Friday by Durham prison that Moat may intend to "cause serious harm to his partner".
> 
> She says the case has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.





> Det Ch Supt Neil Adamson also reveals that police have received a hand-written letter in the last 24 hours purportedly from Moat.
> 
> He says Moat appears to have a "general grievance" with Northumbria Police, but the shooting of Pc David Rathband seems to have been random.
> 
> Det Ch Supt Adamson says Moat dialled 999 about 12 minutes before shooting Pc Rathband to warn that he intended to target a police officer.



The guy did have issues with the cops.. his previous house was covered in cameras watching out for them....

tbh: I wouldnt hold too much weight in a lot of the FB posts for facts...
Wearside Jack?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2010)

Edie said:


> How do you know that then?





Cos In a previous life, I was involved with the Tyneside "underworld" innit


----------



## pogofish (Jul 5, 2010)

Nutter on Facebook. 

Can't say I'm surprised, nor that they are undoubtedly rubbing their hands in glee at all the free advertising.


----------



## Greenfish (Jul 5, 2010)

has he uploaded any pictures yet?

"me hiding in the woods" etc


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 5, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> To keep the Scottish out.


  Fuck off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm

Did you see the hair on that policewoman...fucking shocking.   Looks like a raped poodle.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off.



My first reply was a knee-jerk "oh, there aren't any guns in London then!" before I realised it wasn't actually a dig at the North and so I edited quickly and that came into my head first.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm
> 
> Did you see the hair on that policewoman...fucking shocking.   Looks like a raped poodle.



who gives a flying fuck what her fucking hair looks like?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 5, 2010)

Me.   She's representing the police and looks like she just got up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2010)

I think her barnet looks reasonable. And TBF her murderer-catching skills are a bit more important than a shit hair day.

'oh a spree killer on the loose murderating my fellow officers? I'll be right on it after a quick trip to the salon to get my hair did'


----------



## weepiper (Jul 5, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I think her barnet looks reasonable. And TBF her murderer-catching skills are a bit more important than a shit hair day.
> 
> 'oh a spree killer on the loose murderating my fellow officers? I'll be right on it after a quick trip to the salon to get my hair did'


----------



## rollinder (Jul 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Did you see the hair on that policewoman...fucking shocking.   Looks like a raped poodle.



How do you know how a raped poodle looks exactly ?


----------



## madzone (Jul 5, 2010)

It's a fucking horrible story. Why is it the source of amusement?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 5, 2010)

we are the generation deadened to tragedy unless it is personal. We value the ironic over the valid and have been systematically robbed of compassion for our fellow man by an atomised society. *hic*


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 5, 2010)

_"Raoul Thomas Moat should not be approached, police have said"_

I think I worked that one out


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 6, 2010)

Greenfish said:


> has he uploaded any pictures yet?
> 
> "me hiding in the woods" etc


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> It's a fucking horrible story. Why is it the source of amusement?


1.Innit
2. Because it's Urban there's some  sad little cunts on here who are just desensitized, hiding in their bedrooms from real life, watching everything just float by on the internet.

I mean come on Madz, what's not to  ROFL about these?







LOL pics released by the Police of  PC Rathband's injury's





LOL pic of ex GF's murdered partner being bagged.


----------



## thriller (Jul 6, 2010)

Anyone up for adding him as a friend and then trying to track him down via facebook?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

See?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

I'd rather be a cunt than a self-righteous twat.   However I'm neither.

Those pics of the policeman don't look that bad, do they?   Some soap and water and he'll be fine.


----------



## thriller (Jul 6, 2010)

So what do you suggest, Sherlock?


----------



## xes (Jul 6, 2010)

sitting back and seeing how many more lolshotcop pics turn up?


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

So, it's self-righteous to question the lulz in people being scared and hurt?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

Police have surrounded a house - looks like they may have him.

Ah well.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Omg I cant believe those pics. Lets  hope he pulls through ok.

Looks like this idiot robbed a chip shop last night...I mean come one
And the police are doing a shit job....


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Police have surrounded a house - looks like they may have him.
> 
> Ah well.




Where you getting that info?


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

Wow apparently he isn't IN THE HOUSE!!!

Did you hear that Raoul!!! Are you or are you not IN THE HOUSE???


I would like to vote 2 for desensitized. There's worse shit going on in the world than a murderer on the run in Northumbria. Kill a few more cops mate, do me a favour. Meanwhile the Deepwater Horizon pumps, pumps, , pumps it up! What do you give more of a shit about?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Who says prison doesn't work.
> 
> /Michael Howard





bigbry said:


> Well, it doesn't does it ? If it did he wouldn't have got into trouble so soon after coming out of jail !


You know, if only I'd thought of that!


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

Raoul speaks:

"The public need not fear me, but the police should as I won't stop till I am dead. They took it all from me, kids, freedom, house, then Sam and Chanel. Where could I go from there. Obviously I have issues, but I was pushed. I never beat my kids."


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

Poor him. My heart bleeds for him.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> Raoul speaks:
> 
> "The public need not fear me, but the police should as I won't stop till I am dead. They took it all from me, kids, freedom, house, then Sam and Chanel. Where could I go from there. Obviously I have issues, but I was pushed. I never beat my kids."



Ummm..... its the police fault you are an absusive violent tosser? Ok then...


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Ummm..... its the police fault you are an absusive violent tosser? Ok then...



He was pushed Foxy. It wasn't his fault. OK!?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> See?



Speaking of the police, the forum ones have arrived.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

I am not defending the man, obviously he is a lunatic as described by the thread title. I have not made any dispute with that. I just wanted to point out that he is least making the pretense of directing, channeling his rage towards the authorities. Man's admitting he's got issues you know. I don't know how he's been treated by the criminal justice system over the years. Do you?


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> Poor him. My heart bleeds for him.



How very dry and cutting of you...


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Speaking of the police, the forum ones have arrived.



Foxy Protection Squad? ^^ 

Drew will be over later to cover your tea breaks


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

Here we go 

That was @Szare, not Kanda


----------



## holteman (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> He was pushed Foxy. It wasn't his fault. OK!?



I was pushed in the supermarket...


I declare war on Morrisons


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> How very dry and cutting of you...


 He's a dick. Unfortunately he's not alone. We seem to breed whining, pathetic excuse-makers who fail to see that they are responsible for their own behaviour.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 6, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> 1.Innit
> 2. Because it's Urban there's some  sad little cunts on here who are just desensitized, hiding in their bedrooms from real life, watching everything just float by on the internet.
> 
> I mean come on Madz, what's not to  ROFL about these?
> ...



Instead of ROFLing at this in our immature and divorced-from-the-real-world bedroom hiding places, perhaps we should take to the streets weeping floods of tears and outrage? 

People die every second in this world, and we need to be equally shocked and saddened by every death every waking moment of our lives. We must express this total horror at every instance to everyone in a public way, even on internet forums if possible, lest some ridiculous people think we are cold heartless bastards who laugh and smile in the face of this relentless second-by-second expiration of our fellow human beings.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Speaking of the police, the forum ones have arrived.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Foxy Protection Squad? ^^
> 
> Drew will be over later to cover your tea breaks



Pie1 was talking to thriller, not Foxy, in the post that Citizen66 quoted. Just to clarify. If you're anti-Fox, that basically makes you a TORY, I'm sure you know this and will desist from tempting our titillated tongues with your tittle-tattle


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> Here we go
> 
> That was @Szare, not Kanda



can't resist madz it's all in good humour and I often find myself wanting to bust out some flames in the early hours of my time zone. keep the faith etc


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Instead of ROFLing at this in our immature and divorced-from-the-real-world bedroom hiding places, perhaps we should take to the streets weeping floods of tears and outrage?
> 
> People die every second in this world, and we need to be equally shocked and saddened by every death every waking moment of our lives. We must express this total horror at every instance to everyone in a public way, even on internet forums if possible, lest some ridiculous people think we are cold heartless bastards who laugh and smile in the face of this relentless second-by-second expiration of our fellow human beings.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 6, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


>



Why are you facepalming? Someone has died here, you need to be  you pathetic cock.


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> can't resist madz


 You're not alone


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> He's a dick. Unfortunately he's not alone. We seem to breed whining, pathetic excuse-makers who fail to see that they are responsible for their own behaviour.



For once, I agree with your whole heartedly. This country seems to be breeding twats like this.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> You're not alone



 do me best


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> For once, I agree with your whole heartedly.


 Please don't


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> Pie1 was talking to thriller, not Foxy, in the post that Citizen66 quoted. Just to clarify. If you're anti-Fox, that basically makes you a TORY, I'm sure you know this and will desist from tempting our titillated tongues with your tittle-tattle



haha 

Can we not just stick to the story? I dont want this topic to turn into a foxy vs the forum bollox. Im enjoying this thread


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Why are you facepalming? Someone has died here, you need to be  you pathetic cock.



Irony and sarcasm don't appear to be your long suits. There is a lot of it about.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> See?





Szare said:


> I am not defending the man, obviously he is a lunatic as described by the thread title. I have not made any dispute with that. I just wanted to point out that he is least making the pretense of directing, channeling his rage towards the authorities. Man's admitting he's got issues you know. I don't know how he's been treated by the criminal justice system over the years. Do you?



He got sent down for assaulting a nine year old child. He is labouring under the illusion that the police are to blame for him losing his family. Everyone's fault but his own.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Irony and sarcasm don't appear to be your long suits. There is a lot of it about.



Heh.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He got sent down for assaulting a nine year old child. He is labouring under the illusion that the police are to blame for him losing his family. Everyone's fault but his own.



Where I grew up, the police were blamed for everything. I guess it is a process of denial for your own actions. 

Absolutely deluded idiots


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

that's deep


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Foxy Protection Squad? ^^
> 
> Drew will be over later to cover your tea breaks



Perhaps you need stronger glasses. Or a shiny horse of your own.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Basically, this guy wants to make a name for himself...to be a face now. That is all that matters to him.He wants to be seen as a hero in his own coimmunity by being a cop killer.
I doubt he wants to die, I just think he has no idea whatsoever of how to control his emotions.
If he goes into Prison, he will pretty much make sure he is held in the highest regard by fellow inmates.. 
I cant see this turning out with his death... an arrest yes... but that is about it. Hopefully, he will spend the rest of his life behind bars.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

Um.. he'll be shot as soon as the police get a chance to shoot him.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2010)

Which is of course what he wants. I suspect they'd rather nick him though.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Um.. he'll be shot as soon as the police get a chance to shoot him.



They will only shoot him if he has a gun in his hands and becomes threatening with it.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Which is of course what he wants. I suspect they'd rather nick him though.



Definately prefer to nick him then kill him.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> They will only shoot him if he has a gun in his hands and becomes threatening with it.



Or if he looks vaguely swarthy.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> They will only shoot him if he has a gun in his hands and becomes threatening with it.



Well he is a gunman running around Northumbria...  My money is they shoot, especially now he's declared war on the police.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

My brother who is mentally ill, actually did something in a similar situation. He rang the police from a phone box and told them he had a gun on him and he would use it on them.... armed police showed up and coaxed him out of the telephone box. They worked really well and professionally with him. My brother didnt have a gun, he just wanted the police to kill him... Police have amazing procedures for this kind of situation and I dont think they will kill him because he looks a bit mean or if he has a gun in his hand. A mediator will be there to speak with him... if it looks as though he is about they shoot.. they will then kill him instantly.
They will want to bring him in alive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

I just threw a sheep at him LOL


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I just threw a sheep at him LOL



He just wrote on his facebook page:

'Sméagol just threw a sheep at me.....bastard!'


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

They killed that guy in Chelsea and he hadn't murdered anyone, he was just taking pot shots at neighbouring houses.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 6, 2010)

his latest status update



> wow that was a weird dream, i think i should lay off the mushrooms for a while. lots of activity outside the flat may pop out to see whats going on


----------



## madzone (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> My brother who is mentally ill, actually did something in a similar situation. He rang the police from a phone box and told them he had a gun on him and he would use it on them.... armed police showed up and coaxed him out of the telephone box. They worked really well and professionally with him. My brother didnt have a gun, he just wanted the police to kill him... Police have amazing procedures for this kind of situation and I dont think they will kill him because he looks a bit mean or if he has a gun in his hand. A mediator will be there to speak with him... if it looks as though he is about they shoot.. they will then kill him instantly.
> They will want to bring him in alive.


 Difference being this bloke DOES have a gun and has already used it on people


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They killed that guy in Chelsea and he hadn't murdered anyone, he was just taking pot shots at neighbouring houses.



He was firing on police. That is why they shot him


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> Difference being this bloke DOES have a gun and has already used it on people



Still isnt the police procedure. They didnt know my brother didnt have a gun at first.. the mediator had to talk to him. He actually had my old replicar gun on him that looked like a real gun.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He was firing on police. That is why they shot him



Which is exactly what northern nutter is threatening to do having done so already.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I just threw a sheep at him LOL


I think he's just trying to get his bonus on Mafia Wars.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Which is exactly what northern nutter is threatening to do having done so already.



Yes but he hasnt done it. They will want to bring him in, killing him is a last resort.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

when OB have pwned him his facebook page will become a sick shrine, with all his txt spaeak mates saying what a great guy he was. Some nutter will blame facebook for this whole affair just like back in the day I bet someone blamed the postal service for delivering Jack the Rippers taunting letters to the police.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Yes but he hasnt done it. They will want to bring him in, killing him is a last resort.



He hasn't done what? Shot a copper? I think he has you know...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Yes but he hasnt done it. They will want to bring him in, killing him is a last resort.



He's shot a cop in the face.  

Of course they will try to avoid killing him. But they won't take any chances seeing as a colleague is in a critical condition in hospital.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Still isnt the police procedure. They didnt know my brother didnt have a gun at first.. the mediator had to talk to him. He actually had my old replicar gun on him that looked like a real gun.



LOL Foxy go sick 

there's no r on the end of replica by the way. so you know


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jul 6, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Instead of ROFLing at this in our immature and divorced-from-the-real-world bedroom hiding places, perhaps we should take to the streets weeping floods of tears and outrage?



Because there is no middle ground between reacting to incidents like this with either hilarity or floods of tears?

You know, it's actually possible to see something like this in the news, feel bad or a bit upset, and then just move on.  That way you don't come across as either an oversized child with a worryingly stunted empathic response, or a recreational outrage drama queen looking for things to be offended about.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2010)

School kids in Northumbria will be making up rhymes about him by now. Probably not no imagination these days meh.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Kanda said:


> He hasn't done what? Shot a copper? I think he has you know...



No, he hasnt stood infront of the police in a stand off with other armed police.

He shot a policeman that had no idea he was about to be shot at. We are talking different situations...


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> LOL Foxy go sick
> 
> there's no r on the end of replica by the way. so you know



Im dyslexic ...forgive me


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 6, 2010)

So there was a media blackout concerning two potential hostages. The two hostages have been found, arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Well, well.


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> Difference being this bloke DOES have a gun and has already used it on people



innocent til proven guilty


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

the plot thickens...


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

Is it ok to laugh at the plot thickening?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> So there was a media blackout concerning two potential hostages. The two hostages have been found, arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Well, well.



Hey? Where did you get that info?


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

hhoooo shit this is gonna get deeper today i got that floaty feelin when a shit just refuses to get flushed like this raoul shit


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

He's only going to kill coppers, mind. Not real people.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> Is it ok to laugh at the plot thickening?



I laughed this morning when they said he may have robbed a fish and chip shop "Give me all the money in the till.......and a large cod and chips. With scraps!"


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I laughed this morning when they said he may have robbed a fish and chip shop "Give me all the money in the till.......and a large cod and chips. With scraps!"



You heartless witch! 

I laughed when they called his 49 page letter to the police 'a note'.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> hhoooo shit this is gonna get deeper today i got that floaty feelin when a shit just refuses to get flushed like this raoul shit


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

jer said:


> He's only going to kill coppers, mind. Not real people.



I have been holding back from actively cheering the fella on as well

someone was always going to say it mind.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


>


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I have been holding back from actively cheering the fella on as well
> 
> someone was always going to say it mind.



Soz. Naturally I don't advocate violence towards the poliz. Just a stern talking to.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm
> 
> Did you see the hair on that policewoman...fucking shocking.   Looks like a raped poodle.



Raped poodle? You choose your words don't you?


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 6, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I laughed this morning when they said he may have robbed a fish and chip shop "Give me all the money in the till.......and a large cod and chips. With scraps!"




The chip shop is in a pretty small village so probably didn't have that much in the till anyway.

Police have cordoned off another village further up in Northumberland now (link).  Although if you believe all the reports flying about he's currently in about ten different places.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

lol.. Firky just been shouted at by Police for being outside. The Police are in his village looking for the dude.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

err... firkys just messaged me, he's in the middle of some heavy shit about raoul because he's in rothbury, he got bollocked by police and told to stay indoors, anyone else up for a sweepstake on him getting shot?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> You heartless witch!
> 
> I laughed when they called his 49 page letter to the police 'a note'.



I did too  Bet it's a cracking read though. Hopefully lots of swearing, invective and capital letters


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Kanda said:


> lol.. Firky just been shouted at by Police for being outside. The Police are in his village looking for the dude.



how exciting


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> err... firkys just messaged me, he's in the middle of some heavy shit about raoul because he's in rothbury, he got bollocked by police and told to stay indoors, anyone else up for a sweepstake on him getting shot?



that would be so incredibly epic


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

Neckshot


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> err... firkys just messaged me, he's in the middle of some heavy shit about raoul because he's in rothbury, he got bollocked by police and told to stay indoors, anyone else up for a sweepstake on him getting shot?



Does he own a water pistol? 'Cos if so I'd say it's odds on


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> that would be so incredibly epic



I know


----------



## T & P (Jul 6, 2010)

jer said:


> He's only going to kill coppers, mind. Not real people.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Neckshot



big enough target eh


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

oh man this is like natural born killers  gwaaan my son!!!


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

someone write on his wall that firky boned his mrs... heat this shit up a bit... I kinda wanna see him on the news running for his life being chased by wild gunman


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

and that he is PCSO


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

Rothbury Under Siege - Firky Stands Alone in Fight for Justice


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> and that he is PCSO



yeah deffo


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> oh man this is like natural born killers  gwaaan my son!!!



I know! 

Oh...

wait...

I hope you're not cheerleading teeps. I hope what you're saying is "Dear Raoul, I hope you can find some peace soon"?


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> Rothbury Under Siege - Firky Stands Alone in Fight for Justice


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> I know!
> 
> Oh...
> 
> ...



course I'm cheerleeding, this is amazing  

I'm putting 5 quid on firky being shot


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> I'm putting 5 quid on firky being shot



Who by though?

Lunatic with shotgun, or

Copper with grudge


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I did too  Bet it's a cracking read though. Hopefully lots of swearing, invective and capital letters



Well the handwriting experts say he's on the edge because he's using crayon.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

I am going to kill all police with this fish that I robbed from the Fish and Chip shop!


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Who by though?
> 
> Lunatic with shotgun, or
> 
> Copper with grudge



either will do, but the lunatic with a shotgun will bring bigger props and be more epic


----------



## the button (Jul 6, 2010)

*Halp!*


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> Well the handwriting experts say he's on the edge because he's using crayon.



wtf 

crayon is actually a really effective medium, it's wax so water wont make it run and you can't rub it out like pencil. raoul is actually quite clever about this.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

firky was always a bit of a sidekick, like a Robin with no Batman if you like.

the question is, is a superhero gonna step in for Firky to assist in bringing down this armed and dangerous madman? or will firky become the sidekick of the killer himself?? DUM DUM DUMMMMM


----------



## Kanda (Jul 6, 2010)

the button said:


> *Halp!*


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

the button said:


> *Halp!*


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

Firky and Moat, the new Burke and Hare.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


> firky was always a bit of a sidekick, like a Robin with no Batman if you like.
> 
> the question is, is a superhero gonna step in for Firky to assist in bringing down this armed and dangerous madman? or will firky become the sidekick of the killer himself?? DUM DUM DUMMMMM



Chaotic Neutral. So he will probably team up with raoul.


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> either will do, but the lunatic with a shotgun will bring bigger props and be more epic



I'm imagining firky wrestling with this dude, the dude kicking firky's arse up and down the road for ages and then firky coming back from the dead and jamming his hand down his throat, snapping his jaws apart and then ramming a hand grenade in there. _That_ would be epic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

Apparently he was using a black lexus. What a don

they see him ridin' dirty


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> wtf
> 
> crayon is actually a really effective medium, it's wax so water wont make it run and you can't rub it out like pencil. raoul is actually quite clever about this.



That just made me proper lol. You sound like you're the handwriting expert on BBC Breakfast.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> course I'm cheerleeding, this is amazing
> 
> I'm putting 5 quid on firky being shot


 

wouldnt it be a shame if he got his dick shot off?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> neckshot



pmsl


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

my music so loud, i'm swingin'./////////////


----------



## neonwilderness (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Apparently he was using a black lexus. What a don


A black lexus with a knackered bumper and two space saver spare tyres


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

GO MOAT!!!!


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2010)

I would like to see Danny Dyer go up there to get shot interview him for Britains hardest men.


----------



## the button (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> GO MOAT!!!!


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

Poor firky. Poor fish and chip shop staff. Poor dead people. 

I am struggling to work out though why all this is just..._funny_ in the way that that bloke in Cumbria wasn't.


----------



## the button (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Poor firky. Poor fish and chip shop staff. Poor dead people.
> 
> I am struggling to work out though why all this is just..._funny_ in the way that that bloke in Cumbria wasn't.



Cos he shot a copper. That's pretty funny in anyone's book.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Poor firky. Poor fish and chip shop staff. Poor dead people.
> 
> I am struggling to work out though why all this is just..._funny_ in the way that that bloke in Cumbria wasn't.



The bloke in Cumbria declared war on real people.

And one solicitor.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Jul 6, 2010)

jer said:


> He's only going to kill coppers, mind. Not real people.



And Doctors if they don't save his girlfriend who HE shot. 

Just listening to his letter on Radio 2 - What a nutter!


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

the button said:


> Cos he shot a copper. That's pretty funny in anyone's book.



Well there is that. 

Plus he used a light load to shoot his ex girlfriend. That's almost touchingly caring. Almost.


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Poor firky. Poor fish and chip shop staff. Poor dead people.
> 
> I am struggling to work out though why all this is just..._funny_ in the way that that bloke in Cumbria wasn't.



The bloke in Cumbria didn't engage his audience like Raoul has. I'm betting Raoul has had a little media help with all this. I wouldn't be surpised if Max Clifford appears with him on his arm in a day or two.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

Chester Copperpot said:


> And Doctors if they don't save his girlfriend who HE shot.
> 
> Just listening to his letter on Radio 2 - What a nutter!



is it as good as the Unabomber manifesto?


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2010)

Chester Copperpot said:


> What a nutter!


Jumping the gun a bit there I think


----------



## the button (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Well there is that.
> 
> Plus he used a light load to shoot his ex girlfriend.



A true gent.


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

IC3D said:


> Jumping the gun a bit there I think



lol


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

the button said:


> A true gent.



I only shot her _a bit_, Guv . . .


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Szare said:


>



I cant see it! Just a red cross 

What is it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

It's some hardcore porn with foxyred in it.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

The plot is really thickening....

There is definately some dick out there helping him.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It's some hardcore porn with foxyred in it.



You lot are stalkers... I tried to hide that shit ok


----------



## xes (Jul 6, 2010)

has he killed anymore lolpigs yet? 

he's a shit serial killer is he hasn't


----------



## zoooo (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> I cant see it! Just a red cross
> 
> What is it?



I CAN see it and I still have no idea what it is. It's funny though.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

xes said:


> has he killed anymore lolpigs yet?
> 
> he's a shit serial killer is he hasn't



That is what I was thinking. He isnt very good at this...

I mean come on, holding up a chip shop ffs?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

I think they'll just close the net very slowly and gently while whispering sweet platitudes about how much he has to live for etc. etc. then shoot him in the neck once they're close enough and he's not looking.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

If I had a gun, I'd hold up a chip shop. Nearly a fiver for cod and chips? Fuck that.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

firky lols aside, this bloke is a cunt

a cunt who it would seem has watched too many Van Damme & Stallone movies

Just listeneing to the half sister of his ex GF talking about him - she is bigging him uip with a lovely selection of movie inspired off the cuff quotes

no redeeming features whasover. hes a cunt.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

He may not do things by the book, but he gets results.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I had a gun, I'd hold up a chip shop. Nearly a fiver for cod and chips? Fuck that.



Its not even a cheap date anymore, mushypeas who do you think I am.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

His reason for shooting her was "so she can never wear a bikini again"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> He may not do things by the book, but he gets results.



quite literaly a loose cannon


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> He may not do things by the book, but he gets results.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 6, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> firky lols aside, this bloke is a cunt
> 
> a cunt who it would seem has watched too many Van Damme & Stallone movies
> 
> ...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I had a gun, I'd hold up a chip shop. Nearly a fiver for cod and chips? Fuck that.



He'd haddocknough!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

the charvas in newcastle will lionise this cretin for a decade now...


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 6, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> firky lols aside, this bloke is a cunt



Bloke being a cunt aside, there are 2 things I think when looking at the pictures of him

1) large doses of steroids really aren't good for you

2) the lights are on but nobody's at home

(1 and 2 may be connected mind)


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> He'd haddocknough!



He's certainly got a chip on his shoulder.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> He'd haddocknough!



It takes a big manta admit it, though.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> He's certainly got a chip on his shoulder.



Needs a good battering IMO


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Bloke being a cunt aside, there are 2 things I think when looking at the pictures of him
> 
> 1) large doses of steroids really aren't good for you
> 
> ...



Completely agree... he will hardly go down for being a criminal mastermind


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

He'd made the news in 2003.....

...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1100415.ece


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> He's certainly got a chip on his shoulder.



hahah oh dear


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Needs a good battering IMO



Some people think he's the salt of the earth.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> He'd made the news in 2003.....
> 
> ...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1100415.ece



LOL you have been researching...

He blatantly did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

One thing that I've noticed about people on steroids is they like to write long self-pitying letters justifying their actions.  You never see 'lengthy whingeing badly-spelt correspondence' listed among the side effects.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Bloke being a cunt aside, there are 2 things I think when looking at the pictures of him
> 
> 1) large doses of steroids really aren't good for you
> 
> ...



Yeah, I knew some bloke who was doing nough 'roids, and he managed to burn INSTANT mash potato - proper


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

the 'roids are bad news, but then again, this is hardly news is it ?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> It takes a big manta admit it, though.



Once in a whale someone comes along who just won't make it anymore.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Jul 6, 2010)

They we're saying on the radio earlier that he already sees himself as on death roe.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Needs a good battering IMO



It isn't your plaice to say that.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> LOL you have been researching...
> 
> He blatantly did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



He's a child chucker.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2010)

Writing analyst on ITV3 news...

says... his writing reveals he is under stress.. such insight!


----------



## bmd (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Once in a whale someone comes along who just won't make it anymore.



I codn't agree more.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It isn't your plaice to say that.



If you really fillet you should you say it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

LOL no shit, being on the run aint stressful at all.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Writing analyst ont ITV3 news...
> 
> says... his writing reveals he is under stress



Graphologists. Up against the wall with the homeopaths, come the rationalution.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> LOL no shit, being on the run aint stressful at all.



At least you get out in the open air.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2010)

madzone said:


> Poor him. My heart bleeds for him.



There but for the grace of god go you.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Writing analyst on ITV3 news...
> 
> says... his writing reveals he is under stress.. such insight!



Fukking hell, I did a better profile on him earlier


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

so this is all an attack of 'roid rage then? if so he hasn't offed anymore people cos he is worn out- too much muscle mass for an underdeveloped cardio vascular system.

And it aint like he can pop to the shop for a tin of Nurrishment milkshake, the breakfast of roiders and smackheids everywhere.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

He needs George Michael with him... he just ram raided Snappy Snaps.They would be an amazing tag team


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

Idiots who have watched First Blood too many times think that running away to the middle of nowhere & living off the land is the best plan.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> If you really fillet you should you say it.



And make no bones about it.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> so this is all an attack of 'roid rage then? if so he hasn't offed anymore people cos he is worn out- too much muscle mass for an underdeveloped cardio vascular system.
> 
> And it aint like he can pop to the shop for a tin of Nurrishment milkshake, the breakfast of roiders and smackheids everywhere.



LOL He probably came out of prison and did loads of roids.. then just went mental with his Nurishment shake....

God, he is well hard.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> Idiots who have watched First Blood too many times think that running away to the middle of nowhere & living off the land is the best plan.



When what you really need to do is hide out in the Arndale Centre in a Santa costume.  People will be confused but no one will question it and you have the run of the M&S food court.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

niodvasdfvad adv


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

+






+






+






=


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

I smirked


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

in fairness, Nurisment is so rank it would drive a man to murderous insanity.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> +
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*wrong lulz*


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

So the roid thing. Did the mother of his child leave him cos his dick shrunk? Maybe she was pretty explicit about it being that reason.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

He's quite a good drawer for a bodybuilder....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

not accurate though. Does anyone still get into chinooks? I fucking wouldn't. Along with Turbolevs and concordes they are on my list of 'best not' aircraft.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> So the roid thing. Did the mother of his child leave him cos his dick shrunk? Maybe she was pretty explicit about it being that reason.



She loved his muscles apparently, thats why she kept going back


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Didn't she connect the muscles with the beatings?

Oh, and...in the nurishment/rambo/traumatised child art post, is the TCA a picture from one of the Waco survivors?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> not accurate though. Does anyone still get into chinooks? I fucking wouldn't. Along with Turbolevs and concordes they are on my list of 'best not' aircraft.



Are you really getting invited onto them that often?

"Heya, DC. Fancy a ride on my Concorde?"

"Nah, best not, Terry. Cheers, though."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

I am an intensely paranoid man fogbat. I'm forever worrying about shit that is not safe and making sure I watch my step.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Tupolevs.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> is it as good as the Unabomber manifesto?



Behave. The unabomber manifesto was a lunatic masterpiece. Even his bombs were a work of art. 

He was like th SPGB with letter bombs 

What always strikes me about these type of "oh fuck it" nutters. They have no style or class. You decide to throw your life away in a shooting spree? Take out the Pope or Jeremy Kyle or Tony Blair for fucks sakes. Go down in history with some class. 

The ex con, chip shop robber who shot his girlfriend, her fella and a random cop? What an epitaph to have on his tombstone.t

(just googling him and one of the hits reads "Raoul the dumped convict". That's his OB)


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

The police have now raided an empty farm house and harassed some sheep.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

...now he's gone and inspired the young hoodies from the Tulse Hill estate to rob the chip shop.....armed witha broom!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

...and some ram raiding chip shop robbers....


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The police have now raided an empty farm house and harassed some sheep.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


>



lol


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


>



Why does that sheep have fangs?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

It's an orthodontic brace, clearly.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Why does that sheep have fangs?



It's a vampire sheep


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## Pseudopsycho (Jul 6, 2010)

Wonder if that copper has seen Black Sheep?


----------



## Riklet (Jul 6, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> 2. Because it's Urban there's some  sad little cunts on here who are just desensitized, hiding in their bedrooms from real life, watching everything just float by on the internet.



I stopped reading here, my life personified in one nice paragraph...  

Bit bored of all the Mr Moat reality TV "where is he? we don't know! more non-news in soon!" bullshit.  He needs to hurry up and smoke some more fools.  He's still sporting the 60s Cockney gangsta look, much more oldskool than Rambo with an M60 tbh....


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

It's weird the police have arrested two people who Moat held hostage for _conspiracy to murder_. Murder who? Moat? Were they in league with him? Did they go native due to his pursuasive charms? Stockholm syndrome?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

my suspicion is that they know something that would incriminate themselves but refused to talk to OB and the 'looking at getting lifed off here mate' pressure is being brought to loosen lips.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)




----------



## holteman (Jul 6, 2010)

Last time anyone lets Firky near a gun and a muscle man costume


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> It's weird the police have arrested two people who Moat held hostage for _conspiracy to murder_. Murder who? Moat? Were they in league with him? Did they go native due to his pursuasive charms? Stockholm syndrome?



Maybe they got him a new shootah.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

He takes them hostage so they get him a gun. Perhaps it would be reasonable to assume they were just palling him on wee break. Quick beer and spliff amd then "I will go and get the fish suppers"...


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Maybe they got him a new shootah.



Of course it's:


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

Apparently the extended use of steroids and over consumption of fish and chips has seen a significant change to Moat's appearence....


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Of course it's:





http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10843117&postcount=14


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 6, 2010)

Oops missed the other one but no harm done eh?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

I'm not going back inside, fuchs. NEVAH!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> It's weird the police have arrested two people who Moat held hostage for _conspiracy to murder_. Murder who? Moat? Were they in league with him? Did they go native due to his pursuasive charms? Stockholm syndrome?



They were in on the murder of Chris B and the ex


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> They were in on the murder of Chris B and the ex



*peels lips back off teeth, East London geezah style* 

I fackin' knew it! They sorted aht the shootah'


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

Has the bloke stopped to eat his cold chips then? Nothings happened for ages.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

' I didn't conspire! I just sorted the steroid addled dangerous man with a gun!'

'You are nicked so hard you won't see sunlight for at least a decade'


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Has the bloke stopped to eat his cold chips then? Nothings happened for ages.



All talk.........

He isnt going to do anything. He has had his rage...Im sure he is calming down now and realising what the fuk he has done.

Look at his mate with the letter he gave him... hahahaha


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2010)

I love his reasoning that he isn't 21 anymore and is thus too old to start over again. The thick cunt is only 37. Unless he was hoping to win Wimbledon or something.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

I reckon the OB are missing a trick here. They need someone who has the background, empathy and wisdom to not only think like a nuttah, but to be hard enough to stand up to them when he finds them on his own:






Fackin' 'ell, woss goin' on 'ere then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

the geeza has been propah nawty tbf


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> I love his reasoning that he isn't 21 anymore and is thus too old to start over again. The thick cunt is only 37. Unless he was hoping to win Wimbledon or something.



37 can feel pretty old if you find it hard counting to up to 10


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Or:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I reckon the OB are missing a trick here. They need someone who has the background, empathy and wisdom to not only think like a nuttah, but to be hard enough to stand up to them when he finds them on his own:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've been propa nawty you cunt, still we all loves ya


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I reckon the OB are missing a trick here. They need someone who has the background, empathy and wisdom to not only think like a nuttah, but to be hard enough to stand up to them when he finds them on his own:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes!! He took the advice of Danny Dyer!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

Danny Dyers gonna play him in the film.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Danny Dyers gonna play him in the film.



He'll love that role, especially if he gets to slash some birds face innit


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

DD's latest project


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

He should have used a glass in the face, instead of a gun.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He should have used a glass in the face, instead of a gun.



?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> ?



Danny's advice was to glass your bird in the face wasnt it?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Yup.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Danny's advice was to glass your bird in the face wasnt it?



What a rotter!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

Raoul probably couldnt read glass and thought it said gun...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 6, 2010)

I thought it was to 'slash her'


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

> He first told the reader, 23, identified only as "Alex, Manchester", to go out "with the boys" and get "on the booze" then find a new girlfriend so he could dump her and "break her heart".
> 
> 
> Danny Dyer's heaven and hell Then he concluded his reply with the words: "Of course, the other option is to cut your ex's face, and then no one will want her."



From the Telegraph...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

Didn't he suggest some geezer burn his girlfriends pubes off as well?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Yeah, but that was to save yer burd money on waxing, nothing malicious.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Yeah, but that was to save yer burd money on waxing, nothing malicious.



Oh that's alright then. Might suggest it to the g/f.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

She'd go for it the way she went for me cock the other night. She needs it too.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> She'd go for it the way she went for me cock the other night. She needs it too.



Oh, you're mixing my g/f and my gran up again!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

Ah, that would explain the false teeth.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 6, 2010)

stolen from twitter/twitpic






"Raoul Moat's car is searched. Meanwhile, a police officer fists a tortoise in the background."


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

That's a propah tasty motah.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

Most Newcastle Bouncers still favor the Subaru Impreza

He could have taken off across the moors , Rally style, if he had invested his ill gotten gains in a suitable getway car - the filth would never have caught him. Ever.

imbecile


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

rollinder said:


> stolen from twitter/twitpic
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hes curled up and hiding in the seatwell blates


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Raped poodle? You choose your words don't you?


Yes.   Who chooses yours?

My guess is he's already involved with the police - these body-building bouncers are usually drug-dealers too...consider the car, guns.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2010)

> My guess is he's already involved with the police - these body-building bouncers are usually drug-dealers too...consider the car, guns



I know the police are dodgy, but come on...


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 6, 2010)

If you were on the run... wouldnt you try and get as far away from your area as possible?

Seems this guy has just stayed in the same place.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> If you were on the run... wouldnt you try and get as far away from your area as possible?
> 
> Seems this guy has just stayed in the same place.



Good fish and chips are hard to find.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> If you were on the run... wouldnt you try and get as far away from your area as possible?
> 
> Seems this guy has just stayed in the same place.



I think the fact he is a loon suggests that he is not thinking clearly - after all, he is demanding the hospital his ex is in saves her or he will go after them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

ITV news are speculating that he has gone to ground in some woods he knows well. I reckon eventually he will emerge in search of nurishment, then OB will put one right between the eyes. Shooting a copper is signing your own death warrant.


----------



## Pinette (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> we are the generation deadened to tragedy unless it is personal. We value the ironic over the valid and have been systematically robbed of compassion for our fellow man by an atomised society. *hic*


Speak for yourself! (hic)


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> ITV news are speculating that he has gone to ground in some woods he knows well. I reckon eventually he will emerge in search of nurishment, then OB will put one right between the eyes. Shooting a copper is signing your own death warrant.



He is the modern day Harry Roberts.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

Nanker Phelge said:


> He is the modern day Harry Roberts.



Is that so. I can't see much ease in having his name in a wind up song for police. 

Has he had his chips yet?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think the fact he is a loon suggests that he is not thinking clearly - after all, he is demanding the hospital his ex is in saves her or he will go after them.


...so he wants to punish them if they don't save her from a wound he inflicted...

I thought we were doing the jokes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Is that so. I can't see much ease in having his name in a wind up song for police.
> 
> Has he had his chips yet?



soon to be cashing them once the armed response unit find the steroid guzzling lolspree killer.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 6, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think the fact he is a loon suggests that he is not thinking clearly - after all, he is demanding the hospital his ex is in saves her or he will go after them.



But he wrote that given he shot the ex with "a modified load with half the powder and light shot", it's the fault of the NHS if they don't save her. Negligence and one more thing to be angry about.

He makes you think. The fish and chip shop robbery seems barmy but most places handling larger amounts of cash are well protected and have not much in the till. He could be thinking still. 

I wonder if is now going to go all "Rogue Male" and dig himself into the hillside emerging only to feast on pike and rabbit and wash in a stream.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Is that so. I can't see much ease in having his name in a wind up song for police.
> 
> Has he had his chips yet?



Moat the Hoople


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

TopCat said:


> But he wrote that given he shot the ex with "a modified load with half the powder and light shot", it's the fault of the NHS if they don't save her. Negligence and one more thing to be angry about.
> 
> He makes you think. The fish and chip shop robbery seems barmy but most places handling larger amounts of cash are well protected and have not much in the till. He could be thinking still.
> 
> I wonder if is now going to go all "Rogue Male" and dig himself into the hillside emerging only to feast on pike and rabbit and wash in a stream.



now that would be awesome, he emerges five years down the road, grizzled and weatherbeaten like some viet nam vet who never realised the war had finished. And then OB shoot him.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> ITV news are speculating that he has gone to ground in some woods he knows well.



ITV news know jack shit.

If it's right and he's taken a Ray Mears book with him we may never see him again, though.  We'll just find the occasional plod with half a head missing.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jul 6, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> now that would be awesome, he emerges five years down the road, grizzled and weatherbeaten like some viet nam vet who never realised the war had finished. And then OB shoot him.



Harry Roberts lasted 3 months in Epping Forest.

He used to go to cafe next door to Bishop Stortford Police stations.

Locals commented on his likeness to Harry Roberts but thought it couldn't be him.....


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 6, 2010)

A quick thread search suggests no hits for 'stobbart.' 

I had a look at Raoul's friends; Sam Stobbart was in there.

Recent activity:

Sam went from being "in a relationship" to "single".

Admittedly, that's from March.

But still.

My dry humour gene kicked in.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jul 6, 2010)

*cough


----------



## Pinette (Jul 6, 2010)

mrs quoad said:


> A quick thread search suggests no hits for 'stobbart.'
> 
> I had a look at Raoul's friends; Sam Stobbart was in there.
> 
> ...


Why?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 6, 2010)

he really has picked some lovely weather for it, hasn't he.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

What are his tools? Cumbria Killa had some shotgun and a scoped hunting rifle.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

I think he just has a pistol and a whole load of tree-based snap traps.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 6, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think the fact he is a loon suggests that he is not thinking clearly - after all, he is demanding the hospital his ex is in saves her or he will go after them.



It's really just another NHS target. But with a decent incentive scheme.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

fogbat said:


> It's really just another NHS target. But with a decent incentive scheme.





(actually literally lolled there)


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

Also, does anyone know why one of the policemen on the pics on the Beeb website is holding an ironing board?

Is he hoping to win the all-time best extreme ironing prize with an 'ironing during a firefight with crazed roidhead' pic taken on his mate's cameraphone?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2010)

8ball said:


> Also, does anyone know why one of the policemen on the pics on the Beeb website is holding an ironing board?



Something to do with getting a good, firm collar?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

Pressing charges?


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 6, 2010)

Hopefully the twat will take one in the nuts and one in the spine and spend the rest of his life sat in his own shit


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

*SahRah Iggle Piggle Appleby*
is raoul hidin kenton orr dee yii not naa coz every corna a turnn thu police r there, n yii shud ov asked yii if thuu news cud put ya fb status on telle likeeee 

Off one of his mates on faceook....is that even english


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

*SahRah Iggle Piggle Appleby*
thu haddd puree millions ov police in toon for tht daft demenstration thng butt nuu sum 1 runnin roond with a gunn thu decied too siit on thier arses like noots happened


----------



## cantsin (Jul 6, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Basically, this guy wants to make a name for himself...to be a face now. That is all that matters to him.He wants to be seen as a hero in his own coimmunity by being a cop killer.
> I doubt he wants to die, I just think he has no idea whatsoever of how to control his emotions.
> If he goes into Prison, he will pretty much make sure he is held in the highest regard by fellow inmates..
> I cant see this turning out with his death... an arrest yes... but that is about it. Hopefully, he will spend the rest of his life behind bars.



do you  ever actually say anything insightful on here ? I dont, but I don't post that much, but whenever I see your stuff it's this kind of garbage for garbage sakes, and you've clocked 4 k posts since Jan ! my brain hurts just thinking about it...."hopefully he'll spend the rest of his  .......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

*Jason 'pottzy' Potts*
FOR FUCKS SAKE hes only shootin ppl tht hav fucked him around lyk his ex nd her lad nd th police

Oh thats alright then mate. Leave him to it eh?  ... ffs


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2010)

punchdrunkme said:


> *Jason 'pottzy' Potts*
> FOR FUCKS SAKE hes only shootin ppl tht hav fucked him around lyk his ex nd her lad nd th police
> 
> Oh thats alright then mate. Leave him too it eh ... ffs



You do realise that these aren't real people, don't you. They are straight out of Viz magazine. I hope.


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

*Gemma Hall*
well that sams family dosent seem like they are all innocent the half sister or w/e seems like shes a pua seshioner and that shes been in a few fights n that sooo a dnt think its all one sided, a just hope ney more innocent people dont get hurt and i hope that he dnt do nwt daft because really hes jst diggin a bigga hole 4 himself but u can understand y readlly x

Yes, lets all hope he wont do anything silly.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

cantsin said:


> do you  ever actually say anything insightful on here ? I dont, but I don't post that much, but whenever I see your stuff it's this kind of garbage for garbage sakes, and you've clocked 4 k posts since Jan ! my brain hurts just thinking about it...."hopefully he'll spend the rest of his  .......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"



If it hurts so much, put her on ignore


----------



## where to (Jul 6, 2010)

heat sensors helicopter things are going to fuck him up if he's out in the wilds.  hate to say it but his best bet will be to hold some granny hostage and cut her phone.

ETA: apparently Rothbury lock down is over - they must know he's elsewhere...??


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

http://www.itv.com/tynetees/ 

anyone look familiar? 

pmsl


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 6, 2010)

punchdrunkme said:


> Oh thats alright then mate. Leave him too it eh ... ffs




Missed apostrophe and misspelt 'to'.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

oh god too hilarious


----------



## weepiper (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://www.itv.com/tynetees/
> 
> anyone look familiar?
> 
> pmsl



lulz


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Missed apostrophe and misspelt 'to'.



 

Typing on this phone is a nightmare. I have no apostrophe


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

*Lana Potts*
Coz th social stopd im 4m cein em and is mate stbd im in t bk by shagn is laz e was neva afta her sh was al e had lft and sh gave im false hope weni dun is time heyl take is own life b4 they get im

Can anyone translate ?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://www.itv.com/tynetees/
> 
> anyone look familiar?
> 
> pmsl



Sounds like the Geordiest motherfucker on the planet.


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 6, 2010)

punchdrunkme said:


> *Lana Potts*
> Coz th social stopd im 4m cein em and is mate stbd im in t bk by shagn is laz e was neva afta her sh was al e had lft and sh gave im false hope weni dun is time heyl take is own life b4 they get im
> 
> Can anyone translate ?



Because the social stopped him from seeing them and his mate stabbed him in the back by shagging his lass he was never after her she was all he had left and she gave him false hope when he done his time he'll take his own life before they get him

I agree with the last bit. I reckon he'll top himself, no wild west shoot out like the media is hoping for.


----------



## weepiper (Jul 6, 2010)

punchdrunkme said:


> *Lana Potts*
> Coz th social stopd im 4m cein em and is mate stbd im in t bk by shagn is laz e was neva afta her sh was al e had lft and sh gave im false hope weni dun is time heyl take is own life b4 they get im
> 
> Can anyone translate ?



cos the social stopped him from seeing them and his mate stabbed him in the back by shagging his lass he was never after her she was all he had left and she gave him false hope when he done his time he'll take his own life before they get him.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

weepiper said:


> cos the social stopped him from seeing them and his mate stabbed him in the back by shagging his lass he was never after her she was all he had left and she gave him false hope when he done his time he'll take his own life before they get him.



Ok, that's half way - does anyone here do grammar?


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> Sounds like the Geordiest motherfucker on the planet.



What a nob end  And look at the fucking neck on it!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

Chester Copperpot said:


> And Doctors if they don't save his girlfriend who HE shot.
> 
> Just listening to his letter on Radio 2 - What a nutter!



A letter? Oooh, missed all that. Is it like, Thought for the Day or something?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> What a nob end  And look at the fucking neck on it!



Look at his necks! Look as his fucking necks! There's one over there! And another just rolled under the fridge!


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 6, 2010)

It is a bit wrinkled lol


----------



## thriller (Jul 6, 2010)

leave the poor kid and his neck alone, bullying little fuckers


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

thriller said:


> leave the poor kid and his neck alone, bullying little fuckers



That's it. He was probably bullied as a bairn...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 6, 2010)

So these two men charged with conspiracy to murder...they were after Moat then?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 6, 2010)

Does anyone else find the amount of coverage this story is given a bit bizarre? Unfortunately people get shot every day and the people doing the shooting will, unsurprisingly, leave the scene still armed.  Why is this case any different? Why a big armed police manhunt on the spot for this particular gunman and not for, say, someone shot dead on the streets in London?


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 6, 2010)

has he got any more pigs yet?  he's fucking slacking if he wants my support, i tells ye.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

bluestreak said:


> has he got any more pigs yet?  he's fucking slacking if he wants my support, i tells ye.



I reckon he's got just one more pig in him then he's done.

Busted flush.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 6, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Does anyone else find the amount of coverage this story is given a bit bizarre? Unfortunately people get shot every day and the people doing the shooting will, unsurprisingly, leave the scene still armed.  Why is this case any different? Why a big armed police manhunt on the spot for this particular gunman and not for, say, someone shot dead on the streets in London?



The others don't go sending letters, phoning up people etc. They have no PR skills at all.

eta

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/a...breathlessly-awaits-bloody-shoot-out/19543791


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

problem is, he aint hitting no more lone coppers. Next time he sees mr plod it will be mr plod looking at the roidy bastard down the sights of an MP5 sub-machine gun. He be fucked.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 6, 2010)

boy needs to get on a serious mission to another town


----------



## thriller (Jul 6, 2010)

the little fucker needs to be shot on sight. stright tru da head. End this saga.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Jul 6, 2010)

is that firky?  really?  ill never read his posts in the same tone of voice again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2010)

We've slipped onto doing ebonics on the internet here

Abort! abort!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So these two men charged with conspiracy to murder...they were after Moat then?




if you supply help/ weapons / planning/ support to a murder plan, then it is conspiracy or soemthing


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 6, 2010)

Open Sauce said:


> The others don't go sending letters, phoning up people etc. They have no PR skills at all.
> 
> eta
> 
> http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/a...breathlessly-awaits-bloody-shoot-out/19543791



Yes the PR angle certainly has worked in his favour.  I wonder what PR agency he's used? They're awfully good


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yes the PR angle certainly has worked in his favour.  I wonder what PR agency he's used? They're awfully good



Well exactly.  The name 'Raoul Moat' alone is a small piece of genius, though it quickly becomes obvious that using an anagram of 'Alamo Rout' gives away the end of the story.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

I bet there will be filum about this in the next year or two

a bit of work the the ex Auf Wiedersen pet lot

It wont be a "get carter" epic tho


----------



## Riklet (Jul 6, 2010)

Max Clifford advised him to start his rampage with some nice "I woz robbed" facebook chat moaning, in order to acquire maximum reality t.v. impact....

If he survives he's made, ehhh.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> I bet there will be filum about this in the next year or two
> 
> a bit of work the the ex Auf Wiedersen pet lot
> 
> It wont be a "get carter" epic tho




More like Loony Toons, I imagine...


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> if you supply help/ weapons / planning/ support to a murder plan, then it is conspiracy or soemthing



Indeed... lets not forget he was tooled up at the start of this madness.  In fact its probably safer for the two men to be in custody because no doubt blames them as well as the police, the nhs, the social workers, the people he shot at, and people who run chip shops.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 6, 2010)

8ball said:


> Well exactly.  The name 'Raoul Moat' alone is a small piece of genius, though it quickly becomes obvious that using an anagram of 'Alamo Rout' gives away the end of the story.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 6, 2010)

Tonight near Rothbury


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2010)

agricola said:


> Indeed... lets not forget he was tooled up at the start of this madness.  In fact its probably safer for the two men to be in custody because no doubt blames them as well as the police, the nhs, the social workers, the people he shot at, and people who run chip shops.



as i mentioned earlier, the NE isnt awash with guns like BRAAAAP london - a shotgun would be about the limit of what you could obtain at short notice op there


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

Raoul just needs some space to sort his head out


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

I got banned by the

Raoul-Thomas-Moat-Needs-To-Be-Found-Before-He-Kills-Again

Facebook group.  Proper flaming pitchform daily fail rentamob in there and some are going on like Diana died.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

Fingers said:


> I got banned by the
> 
> Raoul-Thomas-Moat-Needs-To-Be-Found-Before-He-Kills-Again
> 
> Facebook group.  Proper flaming pitchform daily fail rentamob in there and some are going on like Diana died.



See how rampaging murderers bring people together? A real sense of community.


----------



## zog (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://www.itv.com/tynetees/
> 
> anyone look familiar?
> 
> pmsl


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

jer said:


> See how rampaging murderers bring people together? A real sense of community.



Innit, here is some useful advice from Craig


> Craig Chappell  I have recenly heard of people trying to add Raoul on facebook, yes his account his still there, more disturbingly i have heard of people sending messages of hatred, I STRONGLY ADVISE AGAINST THIS! He is still out there and if your address is on facebook then you are putting yourself at risk, please do not attempt to c...ontact him in any way!
> 
> I strongly advise people to not approach him or try to be the hero, he is armed and will shoot anyone who gets in his way, if you spot him i advise that you ring the police IMMEDIATELY and safely get inside your home and stay there.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

and the Admin is getting snowed under by people trolling the hand wringers. he is too paranoid to make anyone else an admin because he is not sure who is trolling and who is not. The guy is losing his hair and claims to have deleted over 600 troll posts today.

He has taken the step of posting a fake Facebook message in an attempt the ward the trolls off. 



> Admin: Message from facebook: As you may be awere that the police now have controll of this page aswell as the main admin who made this page. Police will be checking this page daily and checking everysingle comment posted on this page. If any comments are unacceptable they will be removed by admin, Sorry for any inconvenience this may of caused to anybody.



I like the passive aggresive approach from Admin but I have never seen trolling of such magnitude since the McCann thing.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

and all 44 members of this group

GET RAOUL THOMAS MOAT OFF FACEBOOK

are, well..... demanding that Facebook ban him  

eta: actually, at least ten of those are professional trolls I have come across before when the EDL FB group got hit.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 6, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://www.itv.com/tynetees/
> 
> anyone look familiar?
> 
> pmsl



 and that Policeman behind him thinks Firky is well sus. eta talk about being "thrust into the limelight"

oh and that child being interviewed is far too happy while talking about not being let outside due their possibly being a would-be mass-murder with a gun on the premises , even though she's being filmed outside


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

Fingers said:


> and all 44 members of this group
> 
> GET RAOUL THOMAS MOAT OFF FACEBOOK
> 
> ...



 in years to come, religions will spring up around this man


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

No shit, these guys are very pro Raoul Moat with 79 members and growing.

Raoul Moat - Angel of Vengeance


----------



## 8ball (Jul 6, 2010)

Raoul Thomas Moat is an anagram of "Shootout Alarm, Ma!!".

Curiouser and curiouser . . .


----------



## rollinder (Jul 6, 2010)

8ball said:


> Raoul Thomas Moat is an anagram of "Shootout Alarm, Ma!!".
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser . . .



well that explains it, he couldn't not try to live up to his anagram, could he


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

hasn't Ned Kelly done all this shit already?


----------



## pastieburt (Jul 6, 2010)

I think we should go see him.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 6, 2010)

Fingers said:


> hasn't Ned Kelly done all this shit already?



Mick Jagger's now on standby for the film makers call


----------



## punchdrunkme (Jul 6, 2010)

8ball said:


> Raoul Thomas Moat is an anagram of "Shootout Alarm, Ma!!".
> 
> Curiouser and curiouser . . .


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2010)

rollinder said:


> Mick Jagger's now on standby for the film makers call



Jagger? I think it would be more like 







at his age


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2010)

Another jem from the anti Raoul Facebook Group



> Stevie-kay Lovees Himm Oliver  Rekons evry1 is ova reactin if ya nt a coppa yee b areet if u r thn u wna watch ya bk coz moat obvz has his plans n it dnt luk lyk he gna giv up yiz r clueless he nt gna hand umsel in he gna get away wi it 4 as lang as he can he got it in um 2 fne yiz n he dun evrythn he sed he wa gna dee u daft twats shud ov listen we...



Tom Joyce replies



> does anyone understand a fucking word of this?


----------



## rollinder (Jul 7, 2010)

^ please tell me that poster is trolling


----------



## Fingers (Jul 7, 2010)

Unfortunatly not, but the trolling has been stepped up a gear since closing time. Check this exchange 

 Branimir Gyozo  Whichever way you look at this, it;s nowhere near as funny as James Bulger.
21 minutes ago · View feedback (16)Hide feedback (16) · Flag
Fiona Delaney
Fiona Delaney
omg ya horrible cunt i hope u get shot ya fuckin dirty cunt.....
20 minutes ago · 2 people like this.2 people · Flag
Sheila Westerby
Sheila Westerby
thats bad
20 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Ryan Scott
Ryan Scott
You stupid fukin prick! Just by your name it is obvious you aint British! Get back to your shithole of a country you fukin immagrant!!!!
19 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Andrea Sumner
Andrea Sumner
you are fuckin sick.
18 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
James Millwall Little
James Millwall Little
fucking mug cunt people like you shouild been put down at birth
18 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Sheila Westerby
Sheila Westerby
actually its offensive raoul can make his own decsions jamie couldnt
18 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
5-0 in just two minutes. Lol
18 minutes ago · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
Be fair he was a scouser
17 minutes ago · Flag
Jayne Diffley
Jayne Diffley
you are a friggin disgrace... you should be ashamed of yourself
16 minutes ago · Branimir Gyozo likes this.1 person · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
thanks
16 minutes ago · Flag
Zoe Armstrong
Zoe Armstrong
u sick twisted piece of shit, i hope u rot in hell u horrible cunt!!
16 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
James Millwall Little
James Millwall Little
get a life u cunt
15 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Ryan Scott
Ryan Scott
He was scouser but what the fuck are you? Polish let me guess? Fuckoff back home!
15 minutes ago · 2 people like this.2 people · Flag
Andrea Sumner
Andrea Sumner
id rather be a scouser than a sick fuck like you. hope you come to liverpool and get your fuckin head kicked in you would last 5 minutes you smelly immigrant twat
14 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
smelly immigrant twat? that isnt very nice.
14 minutes ago · Loading...1 person · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
Andrea. Are you racist?
10 minutes ago · Flag
Andrea Sumner
Andrea Sumner
not at all. do you not like scousers or children?
8 minutes ago · Flag
Zoe Armstrong
Zoe Armstrong
branimir u r a sick fuck!!
7 minutes ago · Flag
Branimir Gyozo
Branimir Gyozo
Children I'm not fussed about. However Scousers are a cancerous disease. In 1985 they caused the Heysel disaster which murdered 39 Italians and got us all banned. In 1989 they were directly responsible for the so called "Disaster" at Hillsborough where 96 of them died in a mass suicide. After the killings, they pissed on dead bodies, robbed wallets and beat up the cops.
6 minutes ago · Flag


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2010)

thats ubertrolling


----------



## Weller (Jul 7, 2010)

I hope this moves to Devon it would make a better ending with 5 Foot Robin Port on the beat he surely wouldnt harm him .


----------



## Flavour (Jul 7, 2010)

from the grdn:

Prison guards gave police a written warning that Moat planned to kill when he was released from jail and passed a security information report to Northumbria police following his release. This aspect of the case has been voluntarily referred, by temporary chief constable Sue Sim, to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 7, 2010)

Fingers said:


> Unfortunatly not, but the trolling has been stepped up a gear since closing time. Check this exchange
> 
> Branimir Gyozo  Whichever way you look at this, it;s nowhere near as funny as James Bulger.
> ...blahblahblah
> 6 minutes ago · Flag


Is anyone else reminded of that spoof online chat thingymajig in Private Eye?  

I wondered what they were spoofing, I think I know now.


----------



## bmd (Jul 7, 2010)

.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 7, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> So these two men charged with conspiracy to murder...they were after Moat then?



I'm guessing that as they were caught on foot they drove the Lexus to that farm and dumped it to throw the police off the scent while Moat went in the opposite direction. Hence the conspiracy to commit murder charge or whatever they've been held on, if he offs someone else they've aided and abetted his escape & enabled him to do that.

Disclaimer: Could be complete bollocks.


----------



## grimble (Jul 7, 2010)

Dear Mr Moat,

It has come to my notice that John Terry has been shagging your missus while you were in prison.

Yours sincerely,

Wayne Bridge


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

I think the 'hostages' were accomplices.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 7, 2010)

Why haven't the police just checked Raoul Castle?


----------



## Jackobi (Jul 7, 2010)

rollinder said:


> ^ please tell me that poster is trolling



A lot of kids write like that nowadays.


----------



## madzone (Jul 7, 2010)

Jackobi said:


> A lot of kids write like that nowadays.


 Mr madz's landlady texts him like that and she must be nearly 50


----------



## Flavour (Jul 7, 2010)

so these mystery men have gone from being
1. hostages of Raoul Moat (let us never dishonour the outlaw by not calling him by his name)
2. vigilantes trying to kill Raoul Moat themselves, lest he do any more harm to the fabric of Northumbrian society
3. accomplices of Raoul Moat, trying to throw the cops off the scent or indeed just taken in by chance while Moat managed to escape?

the PLOT THICKENS

this is such a good ongoing news story. really, well done Firky, as I imagine you are the culprint behind all these shenanigans. all the news is orchestrated nowadays anyway.


----------



## bmd (Jul 7, 2010)

madzone said:


> Mr madz's landlady texts him like that and she must be nearly 50



My mum does it and she's 60 odd.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

Im sad that he killed that guy, but he certainly is giving the police a run for their money.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jul 7, 2010)

I clicked on the link that Rutuia1 gave on the first page and found this comment:

"ledgend if he goes on westy and shoots all thu pakis "

This is why I don't do the Facebook thing.

Also, if I did I would have no friends, much like real life really.


----------



## Trufflepig (Jul 7, 2010)

Sighted in his woodland lair


----------



## PacificOcean (Jul 7, 2010)

Trufflepig said:


> Sighted in his woodland lair



Ahhhhhhh.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 7, 2010)

There is a new letter and a tent!


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm looking to upgrade my tent after it got trashed at Glastonbury - I wonder what Moat went for in the end?


----------



## Fingers (Jul 7, 2010)

He perhaps borrowed Firky's tent

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=295653&highlight=firky's+tent


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

Update:

They have found Raoul's tent with a new letter to his ex. He still thinks his ex's boyf was a policeman! 

Blaming everyone else still but himself.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Update:
> 
> They have found Raoul's tent with a new letter to his ex. He still thinks his ex's boyf was a policeman!
> 
> Blaming everyone else still but himself.



Yes, that info was posted above at 11:13...


----------



## zoooo (Jul 7, 2010)

I wonder if she *was* dating a policeman, but everyone's lying about it to stop his rampage...

Probably not.

Would be cool though!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 7, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Yes, that info was posted above at 11:13...



_So_ mid-morning . . .


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Yes, that info was posted above at 11:13...



I saw!! Sorry! I got over excited


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

zoooo said:


> I wonder if she *was* dating a policeman, but everyone's lying about it to stop his rampage...
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> Would be cool though!



You never know... the police are being careful about the info they are giving out. It is so obvious that someone will be relaying the information back to him
If I was them, I would do a media blackout...


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Update:
> 
> They have found Raoul's tent with a new letter to his ex. He still thinks his ex's boyf was a policeman!
> 
> Blaming everyone else still but himself.


To be fair, it's not as if he can go log onto the internet to appraise himself of the latest developments in the case.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> To be fair, it's not as if he can go log onto the internet to appraise himself of the latest developments in the case.


 

payg smartphone?


----------



## Thomas_ (Jul 7, 2010)

This isn't even RaoulMoatly funny.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 7, 2010)

the Met are sending armed officers now, i guess cos his name might be a bit Brazillian


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> To be fair, it's not as if he can go log onto the internet to appraise himself of the latest developments in the case.



MObile... think Watson... think


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> MObile... think Watson... think


Which the fuzz could use to track his location if he had one on him. Since they haven't, I'm assuming he doesn't have one...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Which the fuzz could use to track his location if he had one on him. Since they haven't, I'm assuming he doesn't have one...



He's been posting on Facebook though


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

Thomas_ said:


> This isn't even RaoulMoatly funny.



I liked it - even at less than a post a month.

Carry on.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Which the fuzz could use to track his location if he had one on him. Since they haven't, I'm assuming he doesn't have one...



How do you track someone when you dont know the number or information being leaked from who?


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> How do you track someone when you dont know the number or information being leaked from who?


 
 <snip>


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

Pingu said:


> <snip>



You know where he is dont you...


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> You know where he is dont you...


 

once he is caught i will update but for now <looks all serious> its probably not a great idea for me to post what I nearly did.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2010)

madzone said:


> It's a fucking horrible story. Why is it the source of amusement?



how is coppers getting shot not funny?


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> He's been posting on Facebook though


IIRC the facebook post that the papers all quoted was made before he went gun-crazy. There were rumours of a second, "taunting" fb post, but I'm not sure if they've been substantiated.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

Haven't read the thread but this guy is fucking awesome. Stallone in rambo, the one where he goes on the run in Oregon springs to mind. Respect.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2010)

madzone said:


> He's a dick. Unfortunately he's not alone. We seem to breed whining, pathetic excuse-makers who fail to see that they are responsible for their own behaviour.



who are then cleared by the courts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10340798.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 7, 2010)

The RUC/psni have sent over 10 armoured vehicles to the area...

I've a funny feeling the 10k reward money is a lure to get him out in the open.. It may piss him off that the bounty figure is so low?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> How do you track someone when you dont know the number or information being leaked from who?



its not hard ..unless hes smart enough to have taken steps to avoid showing where he is ( if that makes any sense )


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

So whats the general synpopsis of this thread.. what's urbans take on this dude?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> its not hard ....



How?


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2010)

fogbat said:


> He may not do things by the book, but he gets results.



by god he gets results
now hit the showers!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> So whats the general synpopsis of this thread.. what's urbans take on this dude?



I think he's sexy, criminal mastermind and amazing


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

I agree


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> So whats the general synpopsis of this thread.. what's urbans take on this dude?


He's a sick, murdering cunt who should be taken off the streets as soon as possible would appear to be the most rational response.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> So whats the general synpopsis of this thread.. what's urbans take on this dude?




initial action, shooting missus, cunt

shooting coppers?
cunt vs cunt, everyone's a winner


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

I think he should be given a padded room and a nurrisment IV


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> He's a sick, murdering cunt who should be taken off the streets as soon as possible would appear to be the most rational response.



There's a certain romance in this whole story though, im sure u must agree.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

What is this hatred of cops?

If someone in your family had been murdered or something... you would want the police to help you find out who it was...
Not all cops are egotistical wankers.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 7, 2010)

I used to have an acid techno record that had 'Fuck the police, except when you've lost your dog.' stamped on it. I think it might have been a version of Ace of Spades by Dave the Drummer, but I don't really remember exactly...

It's a true story that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> What is this hatred of cops?
> 
> If someone in your family had been murdered or something... you would want the police to help you find out who it was...
> Not all cops are egotistical wankers.



Of course. I think most people are just taking the piss. Obviously, I don't condone violence - be it done by cop or alleged perp.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

I don't like state tools, but then you can't condone a roided up man shooting people in the face.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> So whats the general synpopsis of this thread.. what's urbans take on this dude?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

He seems a bit of a cock, but he does have a lovely name. Raoul.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> There's a certain romance in this whole story though, im sure u must agree.


I'm trying hard to find the romance in a nutcase shooting the mother of his child, murdering her boyfriend just for going out with her and then blasting a random cop in the face.

Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you believe have a touch of the Mills & Boon about them?


----------



## rioted (Jul 7, 2010)

zoooo said:


> I wonder if she *was* dating a policeman, but everyone's lying about it to stop his rampage...


I think it was the girlfriend who told him she WAS dating a copper to wind him up. Succeeded.


Proper Tidy said:


> He's been posting on Facebook though


_Someones_ been posting on Facebook. Probably not him, though. Colin Gunn gets someone to post for him, I imagine the same is true of this nutter. Even psychopaths have friends, even if it is hard to believe.


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> What is this hatred of cops?




Many on here adopt the words, plod, pigs, filth etc  and adopt the whole acab philopsophy.....They think, quite erroneously, that it makes them sound edgy, radical, subversive  but its actually just the online equivalent of giving it the big one in the sixth form area, covered in acne and wearing a tracksuit that smells of fried bread. Think on


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

what is Roauls feem toon?

NWA's Fuck Da Police springs to mind. Any others? for the soundtrack to his biopic?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 7, 2010)

Theme from The Flumps.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

Love is tearing us apart


----------



## holteman (Jul 7, 2010)

The bloke is a fucking piece of shit that needs catching asap.

As for all the jokes about police or "pigs"... there human beings too, with family's.. and mostly decent believe it or not.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

This has to be his theme tune:


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This has to be his theme tune:




and the comments:

rustypops1
1 hour ago
They should re-release this NOW!
alexvegas
1 hour ago
They appear to know where Raoul is. Has someone notified the authorities?
kevsickboy
13 hours ago
@mattbellamysbliss i love 'keep your eyes peeled' too.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

Ross Kemp to play him in the movie please


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> Many on here adopt the words, plod, pigs, filth etc  and adopt the whole acab philopsophy.....They think, quite erroneously, that it makes them sound edgy, radical, subversive  but its actually just the online equivalent of giving it the big one in the sixth form area, covered in acne and wearing a tracksuit that smells of fried bread. Think on



while others with real-world experience find it a relief to say out loud what they think in private
familiarity breeds contempt


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> Ross Kemp to play him in the movie please


Nah, has to be the other Mitchell. The wheezy, potato-headed one.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2010)

he looks a bit like a sontarian  which can't be good news.
 a roid addled idiot with a shotgun.

wandering around the country side looking for an armed lunatic is no fun belive me SGT ****** I hope your still locked up 

hopefully hes done the decent thing and shot himself


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

holteman said:


> The bloke is a fucking piece of shit that needs catching asap.
> 
> As for all the jokes about police or "pigs"... there human beings too, with family's.. and mostly decent believe it or not.



Don't believe it. If their Sargent tells them to hit you on the head they will all do so regardless of whether you have committed a crime, are old, female, disabled, a kid etc....

Nasty lot. I would not my daughter marrying one.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


>



Steroids turn Paranoid into Haemmorrhoid.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

oh I beg someone shop him into a sontaran battle suit


----------



## fogbat (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Nah, has to be the other Mitchell. The wheezy, potato-headed one.



David?


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you believe have a touch of the Mills & Boon about them?



The cunning robbery of a fish and chip shop. The opportunity for Firky to return to U75 (even if just via TV link), the sight of heavily armed police falling over as they run around the fields, the allocation of huge resources by the police to catch him (nothing to do with him shooting a cop obviously), his facebook updates, the mad 49 page letter to the Sun, his excellent ability to catch pike.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> Many on here adopt the words, plod, pigs, filth etc  and adopt the whole acab philopsophy.....They think, quite erroneously, that it makes them sound edgy, radical, subversive  but its actually just the online equivalent of giving it the big one in the sixth form area, covered in acne and wearing a tracksuit that smells of fried bread. Think on



Some people here have backed up their attitude to the police by fighting them on many occasions!


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The cunning robbery of a fish and chip shop. The opportunity for Firky to return to U75 (even if just via TV link), the sight of heavily armed police falling over as they run around the fields, the allocation of huge resources by the police to catch him (nothing to do with him shooting a cop obviously), his facebook updates, the mad 49 page letter to the Sun, his excellent ability to catch pike.



It's an astonishing story alright. So British in its crapness all round.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 7, 2010)

The fact that this idiot has been able to evade the police so long is definately interesting


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 7, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Some people here have backed up their attitude to the police by fighting them on many occasions!



WOW


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 7, 2010)

fogbat said:


> David?



Genuine LOL.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

by all accounts he is a hunting & fishing type macho man who knows the terrain well. wheras the armed response bods are pie-munching townies who haven't seen much more tough woodland than a Ray Mears documentary. 


Maybe Firky rowed him up the tyne after Roauls mates had pulled the lexus/farmhouse distraction'

'ahll nivvir tell man' *row, row*


----------



## pogofish (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> The fact that this idiot has been able to evade the police so long is definately interesting





likesfish said:


> wandering around the country side looking for an armed lunatic is no fun belive me



It struck me that as so much of the land round there has been/is used for military training, it would probably have been better to ask the forces to help-out instead.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> WOW



So your rather stupid analogy fails in all aspects.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

big legal issues there though, I think the Home Sec has to authorise the military to act in a police investgation.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)

bet the special forces are  itching to use this as an E&E exercise


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> by all accounts he is a hunting & fishing type macho man who knows the terrain well. wheras the armed response bods are *pie-munching townies* who haven't seen much more tough woodland than a Ray Mears documentary.
> 
> 
> Maybe Firky rowed him up the tyne after Roauls mates had pulled the lexus/farmhouse distraction'
> ...



A number of them went to the local butchers for breakfast this morning so BBC Breakfast informed me.

Hot pork pies all round for the rozzers I reckon!

They should demand fish and chips. Raoul got fish and chips (maybe!)


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm trying hard to find the romance in a nutcase shooting the mother of his child, murdering her boyfriend just for going out with her and then blasting a random cop in the face.
> 
> Perhaps you could highlight the bits which you believe have a touch of the Mills & Boon about them?



Dont forget the whole unpleasantness of him sniffing around a 14/15 year old girl, either.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 7, 2010)

agricola said:


> Dont forget the whole unpleasantness of him sniffing around a 14/15 year old girl, either.



It was romantic in Romeo and Juliet


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 7, 2010)

TopCat said:


> So your rather stupid analogy fails in all aspects.



not at all it it will always look like being typed by a wadical teenager..keep on fighting the filth, pigs, narks, plod etc... tattoo acab on your knuckles whatever it is floats your boat


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> not at all it it will always look like being typed by a wadical teenager..keep on fighting the filth, pigs, narks, plod etc... tattoo acab on your knuckles whatever it is floats your boat



Are you a copper?


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 7, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you a copper?




nope not at all....just the whole pigs, plod etc is such bollocks...kids stuff from the 70's


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

holteman said:


> As for all the jokes about police or "pigs"... there human beings too, with family's.. and mostly decent believe it or not.



Yeah, they were awfully decent when they were twatting the miners on their heads, enforcing maggie's will on the 'little' people.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> nope not at all....just the whole pigs, plod etc is such bollocks...kids stuff from the 70's



Yes, antipathy towards the police is a phenomena limited solely to the 1970's. Before 1970, all Police were jolly bobbies.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2010)

fogbat said:


> It was romantic in Romeo and Juliet



Romeo wasnt 31, nor was he a doorman at a pub.  

In fact this whole sad tale has all the elements of an especially dark farce rather than a romance, especially the letters... _"If another woman approached me I wanted to punch them straight away"_ etc


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> not at all it it will always look like being typed by a wadical teenager..keep on fighting the filth, pigs, narks, plod etc... tattoo acab on your knuckles whatever it is floats your boat



Fuck off you posh cunt.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> oh I beg someone shop him into a sontaran battle suit


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> not at all it it will always look like being typed by a wadical teenager..keep on fighting the filth, pigs, narks, plod etc... tattoo acab on your knuckles whatever it is floats your boat



Nah your just projecting your own inadequacy.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

Acab is almost as cool as writing "public school gangsta" as your tagline.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 7, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Acab is almost as cool as writing "public school gangsta" as your tagline.



Is that what drink had?


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)




----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2010)




----------



## DRINK? (Jul 7, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Acab is almost as cool as writing "public school gangsta" as your tagline.



 twas a tongue in cheek touche to someone on here who called me it once...surprised you didn't know, you stalking me? as that was changed ages ago, even I had forgotten


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 7, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Some people here have backed up their attitude to the police by fighting them on many occasions!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 7, 2010)

Lout aroma. 

I knew it was an anagram of something, and not a real name.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 7, 2010)

It's nice that his bird's dad has said, "Raoul, son, please this has to stop. We don't want anyone else hurt, *nee more son*." Quoted on the BBC.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 7, 2010)

Apparently Wayne Bridges has written to Moat to let him know that John Terry slept with his ex-girl friend as well.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> The fact that this idiot has been able to evade the police so long is definately interesting



Do you have a conspiracy theory then?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

The police are fucking thick might be one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

The police are blatantly outclassed on this issue is another. Great for nicking local scrotes and that but shit for catching some UK rambo steroid freak who has accomplices and a supply of nurishment. It is the spinach to this murderous popeye

LOL at them calling in the mothballed NI APC's mind. Like our man is packing an RPG or some armour piercing loaded assault rifle


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The police are fucking thick might be one.



Well it is up north!
The Met have arrived now anyway so he will either be dead or in custody by tomorrow morning, the fucker.


----------



## bmd (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm bored with this now.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2010)

Pingu said:


> View attachment 10920



 - in fact all of them made me lol!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

They might have the starship trooper helmets and the big black guns but they're straight outa . . .  Heartbeat. 

Yep, the Met should get him. Just give him a chair leg to carry about or a backpack and they'll fill him full of holes in no time.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 7, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They might have the starship trooper helmets and the big black guns but they're straight outa . . .  Heartbeat.
> 
> Yep, the Met should get him. Just give him a chair leg to carry about or a backpack and they'll fill him full of holes in no time.


I was going to say it but thought I'd leave it to someone else!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2010)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Do you have a conspiracy theory then?


i expect she has several


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Is that what drink had?



Yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

He really needs to take out a pretty blonde WPC to get the PR into full flow. However I don't think he will get the chance. Anyone even remotely potato headed is advised to stay indoors and not carry anything long and tubular. Don't even do the hoovering if you look like phil mitchell. Let that dust lie, unless you want a headshot.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm pretty sure I remember this guy from way back in my raving days in a friend of an dodgy aquaintance kinda way, which makes sense seeing as a lot of my dodgier connections were based around where he apparently lives.

If I'm right, then the kind of people and networks he'd knock around in have fuck all love for the police, and the loyalty thing runs deeper than any concerns about him killing his gf's lover / or shooting her, particularly if he actually did modify the load of the shotgun as I've read he did to make it non lethal.

he may be holed up in the woods as the police think, but it's just as likely IMO that he's been taken out of the area / country, with mates laying false trails for the police to follow if he's still hooked into the sort of networks I think he used to be into. Depends how many favours he was owed / whether he'd pissed certain people off or not etc really, but he almost certainly knows the type of people who could get him out of the country without too much trouble.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 7, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Nah, has to be the other Mitchell. The wheezy, potato-headed one.



David?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I'm pretty sure I remember this guy from way back in my raving days in a friend of an dodgy aquaintance kinda way, which makes sense seeing as a lot of my dodgier connections were based around where he apparently lives.
> 
> If I'm right, then the kind of people and networks he'd knock around in have fuck all love for the police, and the loyalty thing runs deeper than any concerns about him killing his gf's lover / or shooting her, particularly if he actually did modify the load of the shotgun as I've read he did to make it non lethal.
> 
> he may be holed up in the woods as the police think, but it's just as likely IMO that he's been taken out of the area / country, with mates laying false trails for the police to follow if he's still hooked into the sort of networks I think he used to be into. Depends how many favours he was owed / whether he'd pissed certain people off or not etc really, but he almost certainly knows the type of people who could get him out of the country without too much trouble.



of course after any sort of shooting incident it's traditional to top yourself.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2010)

it also sounds from some of what he's written in his diatribe like he's probably having a major manic episode, talking about only sleeping for an hour a night, thinking it was the medication they'd had him on in prison, then it not stopping when he went off the medication on leaving prison etc.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> of course after any sort of shooting incident it's traditional to top yourself.


I get the feeling he'd be going for death by cop rather than actually shooting himself, and take as many of them with him as he can on route if he's not got a way out.


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 7, 2010)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> I'm bored with this now.



I'm not, could well turn out to be the news event of the year if he can outrun em for a bit longer.

He reminds me loads of a kid i work with, so gotta admit I'm pretty interested to hear what his past has been like although I think I could take a guess. Have any of his own family spoken and told him to give up?

His ex and whoever else are saying he can survive for ages on berries and rabbits, that might be physically possible but he's said he wants to kill coppers and he wants attention ("Watch what happens!"). I wonder if he might be too inquisitive at some point and raise his head but I'm still thinking it's more likely he'll top himself and they'll find his body.

Media and police are in overdrive and giving him everything he wants at the moment but he isn't getting chance to see it so there's always the chance he could hand himself in once he's shown them up for a bit but that's probably just my wishful thinking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

he has shown SOME savvy wrt tactical situations so far *robbing a chipshop aside). So he might just be willing to keep on the QT and cap an officer once the wheezing sergeants and APCs of yesteryear have cleared off.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2010)

he should sneak into Rothbury and shoot Kay Burleigh.On Camera.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2010)

I love the chip shop thing. I wonder if he used their salt and vinegar on his chips. Totally northern.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2010)

i thought he'd declared war on the police? pissing off to south america or wherever isn't any kind of 'war'. pathetic.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

Channel found an xl size primark label right near the campfire where he was staying. Fucking hilarious that a journo found this and not the pigs. Quite a good clue as to what this dudes wearing I might have thought.    

Long may uk rambo roam, altho to be fair the opposition he's facin ain't much cop.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> . Quite a good clue as to what this dudes wearing I might have thought.



O.... kay.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

Errrrrm


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> Errrrrm



Unless the tag was the outside one and has the model/garment number on it the only thing it says is that he might be wearing Primark clothes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> Long may uk rambo roam, altho to be fair the opposition he's facin ain't much cop.



So an armed man who has shot three people and killed one is a good thing to have running around writing letters and making threats?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2010)

the body builder steriod lot all wear these tings









STOP!

Hammertime


----------



## rekil (Jul 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> what is Roauls feem toon?
> 
> NWA's Fuck Da Police springs to mind. Any others? for the soundtrack to his biopic?






> His paranoia is absurd
> Are you thinking bout my bird?
> 
> He’s on the ‘roids
> He’s on the ‘roids


----------



## discokermit (Jul 7, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> So an armed man who has shot three people and killed one is a good thing to have running around writing letters and making threats?


if he gets a few more coppers, yes.


----------



## madzone (Jul 7, 2010)




----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2010)

One dead two alive...that's good odds.   Better him than that Cumbrian prick.

What's worse is the police..he's threatened them with death by shooting and all they do is go on the news and say 'peace man, let's chill...your ex says we're ok...she told us about the necklace, she loved you, we love you too...please don't kill us...'   embarrassing.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 7, 2010)

yeah, that was pretty funny.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2010)

Refused. You're dumb as fuck. The primark tag had the size and desciption of clothing on it. Found metres from the campsite. By a film crew. Hours after the keystone cops had 'secured' the scene. Then fucked off. Are u northern too perchance?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> yeah, that was pretty funny.


also, did anyone notice the missing word in the woman copper with the shit hair's phrase?

"rest assured no stone will be upturned in our hunt for Moat"


not that I think he's likely to be hidden under a stone, but...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 7, 2010)

gabi said:


> Refused. You're dumb as fuck. The primark tag had the size and desciption of clothing on it. Found metres from the campsite. By a film crew. Hours after the keystone cops had 'secured' the scene. Then fucked off. Are u northern too perchance?



Yeah, I know that. i was making light of the ambiguity of your turn of phrase.


----------



## Cribynkle (Jul 7, 2010)

Mr Moat as depicted in the Telegraph


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2010)

free spirit said:


> also, did anyone notice the missing word in the woman copper with the shit hair's phrase?
> 
> "rest assured no stone will be upturned in our hunt for Moat"
> 
> ...


Didn't notice that...the hair's designed to distract.  

Seriously though...someone's already said one helicopter with thermal imaging would sort it in 2 minutes.   I don't think there's many campers out there just now.


----------



## madzone (Jul 7, 2010)

How has he got clothes from primark?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 7, 2010)

The choppers are busy hovering over Fenham and Wallsend, supporting drug raids. Fully bewked until Christmas, marra.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 7, 2010)

madzone said:


> How has he got clothes from primark?



Yeah, what an unethical bastard.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2010)

So the thread is about clothes now.

Great etc.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Didn't notice that...the hair's designed to distract.
> 
> Seriously though...someone's already said one helicopter with thermal imaging would sort it in 2 minutes.   I don't think there's many campers out there just now.



i) a thermal imaging camera is relatively useless (especially in the woods or other foliage-rich areas) during summertime.
ii) using a thermal imaging camera to find a target as small as a man, in an area of many square miles, at night, is not something that could be done in 2 minutes.


----------



## where to (Jul 7, 2010)

Sam Stobbart   loves Raoul Moat 83%
Valentine's Day Love Calculator

Sam Stobbart
must be love eh pmsl x
February 15 at 6:18pm

Raoul Moat
Raoul Moat
It must be hahahahaha. And might i say that you are beta than trunks full of toy soldiers while jumping on the spot
February 15 at 8:46pm

Sam Stobbart
Sam Stobbart
lol.
February 16 at 8:16pm


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2010)

agricola said:


> i) a thermal imaging camera is relatively useless (especially in the woods or other foliage-rich areas) during summertime.
> ii) using a thermal imaging camera to find a target as small as a man, in an area of many square miles, at night, is not something that could be done in 2 minutes.


How many days would you think, then?   With police, helicopters, dogs?

Anyway...I would have thought they could narrow the 'optics' to around 98.6 or whatever we are.  Any reasonable logistical analysis could...blah blah.

How can he shoot a policeman through a window with a shotgun and not kill him?   Must be deliberate.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2010)

where to said:


> Sam Stobbart   loves Raoul Moat 83%
> Valentine's Day Love Calculator
> 
> Sam Stobbart
> ...



what the fuck does he mean ?

is it code ? A clue ?


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> what is Roauls feem toon?
> 
> NWA's Fuck Da Police springs to mind. Any others? for the soundtrack to his biopic?


Fuck da police, coming straight from the undergrowth.

I stole that


----------



## two sheds (Jul 7, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> O.... kay.



you didn't realise this was going to spawn a whole new look?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> One dead two alive...that's good odds.   Better him than that Cumbrian prick.
> 
> What's worse is the police..he's threatened them with death by shooting and all they do is go on the news and say 'peace man, let's chill...your ex says we're ok...she told us about the necklace, she loved you, we love you too...please don't kill us...'   embarrassing.



what are they supposed to do, go on the news stating 'Rouel, when you show your mishapen head it is getting ten from an MP5 in it. Mark my words, you roid addled fuck-up, you don't shoot old bill in the face and live to tell the tale. Hand yourself in now and we will calmly murderate you. Hang it out and we might just stomach shot you and so give you a lingering death sans nurishment'


----------



## Flavour (Jul 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> what are they supposed to do, go on the news stating 'Rouel, when you show your mishapen head it is getting ten from an MP5 in it. Mark my words, you roid addled fuck-up, you don't shoot old bill in the face and live to tell the tale. Hand yourself in now and we will calmly murderate you. Hang it out and we might just stomach shot you and so give you a lingering death sans nurishment'



DotCom for chief of police!


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 7, 2010)

agricola said:


> i) a thermal imaging camera is relatively useless (especially in the woods or other foliage-rich areas) during summertime.
> ii) using a thermal imaging camera to find a target as small as a man, in an area of many square miles, at night, is not something that could be done in 2 minutes.





Fair enough, you seem to know a lot more about it than i do.  But i thought the area was only a few square miles and the tv cop shows, Road Wars e.t.c. always seem to clearly pick up body heat?  he isn't downing a helicopter at 800 feet with a shotgun so i'd have thought they could have found him by now.  I doubt there are many others camping there right now!

I'd guess he is either lying dead somewhere and thus cold, or has scarperred with the help of underworld mates.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 8, 2010)

if yer logged on raoul, then heres a tip


get into the river - make a raft or hold onto a log as it drifts downstream tonight - you will be in Amble before dawn and the police will have no idea where you are

I saw rhis in a filum and it worked


----------



## mauvais (Jul 8, 2010)

not-bono-ever said:


> if yer logged on raoul, then heres a tip
> 
> 
> get into the river - make a raft or hold onto a log as it drifts downstream tonight - you will be in Amble before dawn and the police will have no idea where you are
> ...


Quick, guard the prosthetic department and any lists of people who had their  prosthetic arm repaired!


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> How many days would you think, then?   With police, helicopters, dogs?



Weeks, probably - if they dont get a tipoff and if he has unoccupied / friendly places to stay and get food from.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 8, 2010)

What's the law on using cell triangulation? I guess it's technically possible but illegal/unlawful/whatever for this purpose.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

FFS last night he was in the middle of a field with his tent and a fuck off open bonfire with two helicopters buzzing around.

You get a sense he could stay in the local Travel Lodge and that shambles wouldn't find him.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

mauvais said:


> What's the law on using cell triangulation? I guess it's technically possible but illegal/unlawful/whatever for this purpose.


for us on this thread to attempt it, yeah probably not very legal (or possible).


the police can use it in theory, but that'd need him to be daft enough to have a mobile phone switched on, plus it'd not be very accurate out in the wilds where the distance between transmitters is much bigger.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 8, 2010)

tip #2






I saw this on a filum as well


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

You've got to love a man who knows his ground and has accurately assesed the ability of local plod to find thier own cocks while pissing as zero.

Oh he will be found. But not before they've brought military style force to bear. Oh, wait. They have. And still no joy. 

Team Raoul Cheer Here!


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2010)

yay!


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2010)

I bet this dude has watched every episode of 24!


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 8, 2010)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Well it is up north!
> *The Met have arrived now anyway so he* will either *be dead *or in custody by tomorrow morning, the fucker.



Well someone will be. Bring on the City of London's finest next


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

heh, the met might bring him down, but with any luck he'll be half way to soth american non extradition territory by now.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2010)

I soncerly hope you are being ironic/taking the piss, the man is a murderer and a thug


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

Kanda said:


> I bet this dude has watched every episode of 24!


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 8, 2010)

treelover said:


> I soncerly hope you are being ironic/taking the piss, the man is a murderer *and a thug*



How dare you

eta: Lol @ soncerly


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

has anyone else noticed that theres no such place as Northumbria? LOL it's Northumberland, it hasn't been Northumbria since, well, decades... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumberland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Northumbria_and_Northumberland
1089 Northumberland county is created.


----------



## samk (Jul 8, 2010)

He could have killed some elderly person with no friends, taken over their house, eating their mcvities


----------



## TheDave (Jul 8, 2010)

samk said:


> He could have killed some elderly person with no friends, taken over their house, eating their mcvities



This matches perfectly with your location.

Fugitive killer strikes down granny for Hobknobs!!!


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> has anyone else noticed that theres no such place as Northumbria? LOL it's Northumberland, it hasn't been Northumbria since, well, decades...
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone informed the police?  could this be what is tripping their enquiries up?


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

I dunno, are they using it? a quick google tells me they are using the correct name for the county.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

Fingers said:


> He perhaps borrowed Firky's tent
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=295653&highlight=firky's+tent


I lol'd.


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 8, 2010)

Nice quote from his Mum.

"I feel like he hasn't been my son since he was 19 years old. He now has a totally different character, attitude and manner. Now when I see him I don't recognise him at all ... If I was to make an appeal I would say he would be better dead."


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 8, 2010)

This story is full of win.  I'm not sure if I want him to disappear completely or go down in a huge gun battle, either would be pretty cool.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2010)

so Moat is clearly a soaraway number 1 on the most wanted charts, is there a number 2, a top 10? Who was number one before him, is he (gotta be a he surely) still at large, relaxing a lot more as he's been knocked off the number one spot?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

treelover said:


> I soncerly hope you are being ironic/taking the piss, the man is a murderer and a thug



A murderer AND a thug? The swine.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

How irresponsible are the police and the family members?

Releasing a statement from the mother saying he would be better off dead is enough to make anyone go mental... and fly off the handle... 

Then again, maybe this is a tactic to bring him out and end this madness....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> How irresponsible are the police and the family members?
> 
> *Releasing a statement from the mother saying he would be better off dead* is enough to make anyone go mental... and fly off the handle...
> 
> Then again, maybe this is a tactic to bring him out and end this madness....



I think this  is bloody weird actually...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2010)

I read that an 'expert' had looked at Moat's hand writing in that big letter, and declared that some of it pointed to childishness and insecurity 

well 'expert' you tell the Moatster


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 8, 2010)

a related story on the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> I think this  is bloody weird actually...



That is what I thought. Why would you do that? Unless it is some tactic to bring him out of hiding.... but surely this would just escalate the situation.
Hearing your own mother saying I wish you were dead would make anyone, especially this thick idiot, think... fuck it... Im going out in a blaze of glory. And more people will end up dead... 
Probably to do with budgets and over spending. Im sure this operation is costing them a bloody fortune


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> a related story on the BBC website
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm



LOL seems the neanderthals didnt die out after all


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

marty21 said:


> I read that an 'expert' had looked at Moat's hand writing in that big letter, and declared that some of it pointed to *childishness and insecurity *
> 
> well 'expert' you tell the Moatster


 No shit?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

marty21 said:


> I read that an 'expert' had looked at Moat's hand writing in that big letter, and declared that some of it pointed to childishness and insecurity
> 
> well 'expert' you tell the Moatster



Quite.

If I were the handwriting 'expert' (frankly, they may as well investigate the possibility of his astrological chart while they're at it), I'd be declaring it to show that he's a smart, handsome, super-awesome man, who probably has a massive cock.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

There's breaking news on the BBC News channel at the moment, apparently some cops are on standby preparing to go and check out a building that some farmer tipped them off that he had some concerns about.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

So basically any empty farm they search is now a breaking news SAS operation?


----------



## T & P (Jul 8, 2010)

Lone man in the forest being manhunted by the police... now army special forces have joined the hunt as well...

Virtual hobnob for whoever names the film first.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> So basically any empty farm they search is now a breaking news SAS operation?



When you're running a 24hr news channel, you take what you can get, really. Got to fill up the time somehow.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

Do these hand writing experts earn much?

It can't be that difficult when a jealous maniac is on the loose to carefully study his hand writing before declaring oh yeah, his hand writing leans heavily towards him being jealous and a maniac. And on the loose.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 8, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> So basically any empty farm they search is now a breaking news SAS operation?



Anything is breaking news these days.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

Breaking News:

I gave up smoking 2 weeks ago.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 8, 2010)

*Issues which defy explanation:* 

#94:  Why do Private Eye waste their time trying to satarise on-line tossers in their regular "From the Message Boards" feature?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

Great stuff, guys!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Great stuff, guys!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Breaking News:
> 
> I gave up smoking 2 weeks ago.




hahahaha

They seem so desperate.

2 days ago it was "Net closing in on Fugitive" 

Now they have nothing...he must be laughing his head off


----------



## dogDBC (Jul 8, 2010)

If this Moat geezer comes anywhere near my family, I swear I'll do time.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

"I was sleeping with a woman for the first time, and not thinking about anyone else. A massive first for me. Id fallen in love, like in the books"

OMG! 

Also, a friend has come out saying he is like this because he has a tiny willy.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

The statements form the police are clearly for public consumption as I doubt he has his feet up in a B&B and is watching BBC News24 or has popped down the local newsagents to buy a paper.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> The statements form the police are clearly for public consumption as I doubt he has his feet up in a B&B and is watching BBC News24 or has popped down the local newsagents to buy a paper.



No but someone could still be feeding him information. Come on


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> The statements form the police are clearly for public consumption as I doubt he has his feet up in a B&B and is watching BBC News24 or has popped down the local newsagents to buy a paper.


 That's what the bloke who said he has a tiny willy is hoping anyway


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

He sends his squirrel friends off to the newsagents, to steal the daily papers, I heard.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> Lone man in the forest being manhunted by the police... now army special forces have joined the hunt as well...
> 
> Virtual hobnob for whoever names the film first.



*The Hunted*

(or some other two pronged name)


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

This isnt 10 years ago... we are living in a world of wireless internet... 

He could be getting info or someone could be texting him info. Why is that so hard to believe?


----------



## rekil (Jul 8, 2010)

Run Roid Boy Run.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> *The Hunted*
> 
> (or some other two pronged name)



I really hope you're invoking sarcasm....


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

T & P said:


> Lone man in the forest being manhunted by the police... now army special forces have joined the hunt as well...
> 
> Virtual hobnob for whoever names the film first.


Ooh, what was that American one... years ago... Deerhunter?


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> He sends his squirrel friends off to the newsagents, to steal the daily papers, I heard.


 Who did he send to Primark?


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

madzone said:


> Who did he send to Primark?



Presumably one of his 'hostages'


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

madzone said:


> Who did he send to Primark?



A load of squirrels, standing on each other's shoulders, wearing a big coat.

Come on, Madzone. _Think!_


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Is he still updating his facebook page? I dont use the site.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 8, 2010)

It's now 'Breaking News' that the cops have released three cctv images of Moat.

Sky are _desperate_ for something to happen


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> When you're running a 24hr news channel, you take what you can get, really. Got to fill up the time somehow.


Ah.  Sorry.  My bad.  

I thought it was significant.  I'd been listening to the Today programme, but then I had to turn off the radio because it's Thursday and I have an irrational aversion to the sound of Melvyn Bragg's voice, so I turned on the telly to check out the news and it was looking all exciting with the 'breaking news'.  I didn't realise they'd been doing this with every farm house they've looked at.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> No but someone could still be feeding him information. Come on



If he's running around in the forest he won't have a mobile because if he had they'd have found him the moment he turned it on.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Ah.  Sorry.  My bad.
> 
> I thought it was significant.  I'd been listening to the Today programme, but then I had to turn off the radio because it's Thursday and I have an irrational aversion to the sound of Melvyn Bragg's voice, so I turned on the telly to check out the news and it was looking all exciting with the 'breaking news'.  I didn't realise they'd been doing this with every farm house they've looked at.



TBH, I've not been keeping up with the story.

It may be significant, it may not. Mine was more a generic comment about the crap that BBC News 24 use to fill up their airtime


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> *Issues which defy explanation:*
> 
> #94:  Why do Private Eye waste their time trying to satarise on-line tossers in their regular "From the Message Boards" feature?


I dunno, but having looked at that the comments on that Facebook page, it's scarily accurate!


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he's running around in the forest he won't have a mobile because if he had they'd have found him the moment he turned it on.



Not if he had his tin-foil hat on, ffs dont you know anything?


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he's running around in the forest he won't have a mobile because if he had they'd have found him the moment he turned it on.



The local cops couldn't find him despite him lighting a fucking bonfire, im not sure they're on to it enough to know how how to track him electronically


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> I really hope you're invoking sarcasm....



It's a movie title, the title has to invoke "OMG!"


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 8, 2010)

Is anyone else looking at these images:







and thinking of






?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

I haven't been following every detail but, as I understand it, no one has seen him. That village is only the focus because the Lexus was there, and his two mates were in that.

There is the possible fish and chip shop holdup  and the camp in a field, but has either been def linked to him?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 8, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Is anyone else looking at these images:
> 
> and thinking of...


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I haven't been following every detail but, as I understand it, no one has seen him. That village is only the focus because the Lexus was there, and his two mates were in that.
> 
> There is the possible fish and chip shop holdup  and the camp in a field, but has either been def linked to him?



They found a letter from him in the tent i think


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

ah, ok.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 8, 2010)

Actually I keep thinking of that song  by the Automatic

_Let's go see Raoul
Let's make a stand
Let's go see Raoul
For all the ones who
Let's go see Raoul
Used to give a damn
Let's go see Raoul
Working over time_


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> A load of squirrels, standing on each other's shoulders, wearing a big coat.
> 
> Come on, Madzone. _Think!_


 Sorry. I just assumed he had forged an alliance with the paedo foxes. I think I'm projecting.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

He's having the summer holiday of his life. Fresh air, excitement, fish and chips. I don't mind telling you I'm a little bit jealous.


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Loving this shot on the guardian


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> The local cops couldn't find him despite him lighting a fucking bonfire, im not sure they're on to it enough to know how how to track him electronically



By the sounds of it they have the Met's finest on the case....hmm actually you're probably right


----------



## Flavour (Jul 8, 2010)

apparently the SAS are involved now  oh man this is really cheering me up during the ongoing Gulf of Mexico ecodisaster


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian



he's disguised as a cow - cunning.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian



Raoul's cow costume is working brilliantly 

e2a Damn you, BM


----------



## Callum91 (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian



Is that guy on the right Phil Mitchel?!


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Callum91 said:


> Is that guy on the right Phil Mitchel?!



Not sure but he appears to be checking his notes to match up the descriptions of the suspect


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian



cows can get a bit riled tbf, you need to take precautions


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

If I were one of the police there, I'd liven things up by pretending it wasn't a man I was hunting, but a Predator


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Not if he had his tin-foil hat on, ffs dont you know anything?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I were one of the police there, I'd liven things up by pretending it wasn't a man I was hunting, but a Predator



they all need to get into his mind, be Raoul


take loads of steroids and kick off


----------



## Callum91 (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I were one of the police there, I'd liven things up by pretending it wasn't a man I was hunting, but a Predator



To make them feel more inept than they already are


----------



## Pingu (Jul 8, 2010)

free spirit said:


> for us on this thread to attempt it, yeah probably not very legal (or possible).
> 
> 
> the police can use it in theory, but that'd need him to be daft enough to have a mobile phone switched on, plus it'd not be very accurate out in the wilds where the distance between transmitters is much bigger.


 

<snip>


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he's running around in the forest he won't have a mobile because if he had they'd have found him the moment he turned it on.



Ok, we already went over this yesterday.

Pay as you go.. or a phone the police would know nothing about. 
Simple


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I were one of the police there, I'd liven things up by pretending it wasn't a man I was hunting, but a Predator



hahaha you would make a wicked cop


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

As long as there's reception in the wilds of Northumberland, and I wouldn't be sure of that all the time, espeically as he's unlikely to be on top of hills.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Is anyone else looking at these images:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> As long as there's reception in the wilds of Northumberland, and I wouldn't be sure of that all the time, espeically as he's unlikely to be on top of hills.



The police think he is in the woods... doesnt mean he is


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Ok, we already went over this yesterday.
> 
> Pay as you go.. or a phone the police would know nothing about.
> Simple




Really? Do either of these fail to give off a signal that isn't picked up by phone transmitters?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 8, 2010)

Still some class action going on on those FB pages.


Hannah Lee Crosby  
is the admin in bed because loads ov stuff have been deleted off sick people !!!!

Ras Putin
No, they probably just think you're a cunt.

Hannah Lee Crosby
EMMM noo i somehow dont think soo mate

Ras Putin
I beg to differ, you're use of the English language is atrocious and your face looks like the back end of a 50 year old mule.

In chav terms you're a cunt

Ben Cordery
big man behind fake name an pic

Hannah Lee Crosby
you can talk useing that pic mate

Ras Putin
I can type yes, I can also talk.

What I can't do is translate your drivel all night.

Ben, Big man behind a fake name and picture*

Mark Mcculloch
Nothing wrong with her face

Ras Putin
Nothing right with it actually.

Ben Cordery
thanks for the spell check. oh yeah aint your cock in a jar??

Ras Putin
You want to talk about my cock?
Fucking weirdo.

Hannah Lee Crosby
no a dont think so no fucker wants to talk about YOUR cock your the weirdo

Ben Cordery
mewerido u have a fake name an pic of some huy who died years ago

Ras Putin
Mark, you look like a steroid freak gone wrong. Unfortunately I am the only one here who seems to be over 13.
Hannah, I never mentioned my cock Ben did he's a sick little man.
But now we are on the subject, how much do you charge for anal?
I can probably pimp you out to some other crack fiends down here.

Ras Putin
What Ben?

Calm down and try again.

Mark Mcculloch
Ras ur obsession with c**k is quite disturbing u horrid individual

Ras Putin
Did you just say .horrid individual'?
How gay are you?

Mark Mcculloch
Yes i'm gay with my wife, u f*****g knob head, i'm astounded u can walk under you're own brain power.

Ras Putin
You may have a wife Mark, doesn't mean you're not a raging faggot.

Mark Mcculloch
What a man who hides behind fake pictures of dead people? hmm I bet the women are qeueing up 4 u?

Ras Putin
You'd be surprised Mark.
More than they cue up for a fat cunt, who thinks bacon and eggs is important enough for a status update.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Really? Do either of these fail to give off a signal that isn't picked up by phone transmitters?



The police wont know the number of the phone. So how do you track a phone you dont know exists?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Really? Do either of these fail to give off a signal that isn't picked up by phone transmitters?



He wouldn't have it switched on all the time unless he's monumentally thick.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> The police wont know the number of the phone. So how do you track a phone you dont know exists?



They could see if a signal is transmitting in that area.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They could see if a signal is transmitting in that area.



Via a cell you mean?

Surely Roaul wouldnt have the phone on all the time.. he would quickly check the updates and be on his way?


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> Ras Putin
> You'd be surprised Mark.
> More than they cue up for a fat cunt, who thinks bacon and eggs is important enough for a status update.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He wouldn't have it switched on all the time unless he's monumentally thick.



That was my original point.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Via a cell you mean?
> 
> Surely Roaul wouldnt have the phone on all the time.. he would quickly check the updates and be on his way?



He wouldn't need to have it on all the itme.

If he was somewhere remote and he turned it on, the nearest transmitters would pick up the signal. An absence of other signals within that area might make that signal of interest to the police. Clearly he'd be better off turning it on somewhere populated where mobile signals are plentiful.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> The local cops couldn't find him despite him lighting a fucking bonfire, im not sure they're on to it enough to know how how to track him electronically


Seemed a bit of a poor effort, considering the said on the news the tent was only 200 yards away from his car.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

elevendayempire said:


> Is anyone else looking at these images:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Genius!


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

madzone said:


> Sorry. I just assumed he had forged an alliance with the paedo foxes. I think I'm projecting.


Oh, Madz, you crack me up.  Paedo foxes.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Ok, I really, _really_ haven't been following this, but why on this BBC report do they have a picture of him as a kid?





> Raoul Moat, now 37, pictured as a child


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 8, 2010)

Pie 1 said:


> Still some class action going on on those FB pages.
> 
> 
> Ras Putin
> ...


Is Ras Putin an urbanite??    Come on 'fess up.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ok, I really, _really_ haven't been following this, but why on this BBC report do they have a picture of him as a kid?



To warn parents of the potential danger of evil looking ginger kids obviously


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Interesting article on mobile phones and bugging




> The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.
> 
> The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.
> 
> ...


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ok, I really, _really_ haven't been following this, but why on this BBC report do they have a picture of him as a kid?



He was a bit _Village of the Damned_, wasn't he?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Ok, I really, _really_ haven't been following this, but why on this BBC report do they have a picture of him as a kid?



 indeed.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> To warn parents of the potential danger of evil looking ginger kids obviously





fogbat said:


> He was a bit _Village of the Damned_, wasn't he?


"This all could have been prevented, if only..."


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky....dickheads.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

"How fucking cool do I look right now? I am such a man. Would you like to see my trunch... come back!"


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

Hahaha @ operation good guys


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

The reporting on this story is fucking hilarious. Definitely simon pegg's on the ground there somewhere.



> 11.17am:
> The excitement over the raid on the farm appears to have eased. PA reports that armed officers were seen getting back in their cars "indicating they did not find anything of significance". It added: "Other officers - not believed to be armed - walked away from the farm and went out out of sight over the brow of a hill."


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

haha! quality, it's like a Brass Eye Special.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Sky....dickheads.



Are they suggesting he is kitted out like that or that the police are?


----------



## fogbat (Jul 8, 2010)

That suit looks highly impractical for jungle warfare.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 8, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Seemed a bit of a poor effort, considering the said on the news the tent was only 200 yards away from his car.



 Seriously?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 8, 2010)

I love how the "Sky Copter" has now become the "Sky *HD* Copter"


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Ooo apparently we will hear something of interest at 12:30

An arrest would be interesting..... speculation is not


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Ooo apparently we will hear something of interest at 12:30
> 
> An arrest would be interesting..... speculation is not


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Seemed a bit of a poor effort, considering the said on the news the tent was only 200 yards away from his car.



Really?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

Have they not caught that sad, cowardly twat yet? I reckon he'll hand himself in when they finally catch up with him. He hasn't got the balls to come out shooting.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

Tbh, he will probably get bored and hand himself in soon. Perhaps that's their plan?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 8, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Have they not caught that sad, cowardly twat yet? I reckon he'll hand himself in when they finally catch up with him. *He hasn't got the balls to come out shooting*.



Not after that amount of steroids he hasn't


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> Not after that amount of steroids he hasn't



Very true. Maybe that's why his girlfriend dumped him and his shrivelled micropenis.


----------



## og ogilby (Jul 8, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Tbh, he will probably get bored and hand himself in soon. Perhaps that's their plan?


It's only a few months till the winter weather will make it too difficult for him to carry on evading the cops.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

og ogilby said:


> It's only a few months till the winter weather will make it too difficult for him to carry on evading the cops.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

He probably isnt even in the country now. 
Sipping on a cocktail on the Costa Del Sol already


----------



## machine cat (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> If I were one of the police there, I'd liven things up by pretending it wasn't a man I was hunting, but a Predator





"If it bleeds we can kill it"


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He probably isnt even in the country now.
> Sipping on a cocktail on the Costa Del Sol already



No chance. He's too thick to evade capture for long.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> No chance. He's too thick to evade capture for long.



Done better than most already


----------



## boing! (Jul 8, 2010)

This story was made for Newswipe.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 8, 2010)

Pedro compels him to kill.


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Im liking this development..



> 11.40am:
> Major Martin Comerford, range officer at Defence Training Estates, Otterburn, has just confirmed to me that training on the range had to be suspended for an hour this morning while police searched a farm building just south east of the range.
> 
> He said: "I had to suspend all live firing activities, air craft, for approximately one hour, during pre-deployment training for Afghanistan. The police helicopter required our air space above the range. The aircraft has since moved on, so how successful that search was I'm unsure."



A chance to reload?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Done better than most already



Yeah, right.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Yeah, right.



Such a high profile hunt? You reckon? 

He should have been caught ages ago..especially if they are adament he is in the area. So funny


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

The net's definitely closing in


----------



## ashie259 (Jul 8, 2010)

Northumbria Police are offering a £10k reward for info on Raoul Moat. If he's not caught by next Tuesday it goes up to £20k, making it a Raoulover


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

ashie259 said:


> Northumbria Police are offering a £10k reward for info on Raoul Moat. If he's not caught by next Tuesday it goes up to £20k, making it a Raoulover


Oh dear...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

Northumberland police are searching for a fat geordie wearing a Newcastle top last seen eating a bag of chips. An official source confirmed that they'd arrested 40,000 suspects.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

http://twitter.com/raoulontherun  has this been posted I cant be arsed to look


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

I don't reckon he's in the woodland close to firkyville. Leave a car and tent there as a red herring and fuck off elsewhere.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't reckon he's in the woodland close to firkyville. Leave a car and tent there as a red herring and fuck off elsewhere.



wel blatantly! he's probably long gone from the area they are searching


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

RaoulMoat said:
			
		

> Ey up lads. Sorry for bein' a bit quiet, like. Thought the rozzers had turned up. Turns out it was just a randy badger. Shot it anyway, tho'


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Information has now imerged that dickface is making threats towards the wider public

How do they know this shit?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

They don't, but they're worried he's gaining the sympathy vote so have to demonise him further.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Good_Guys

This is what the search for raoul moat reminds me of.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They don't, but they're worried he's gaining the sympathy vote so have to demonise him further.


I do wonder how he can get the sympathy vote when he's shot three people, one fatally  It's not like his motives would be generally considered reasonable either.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Good_Guys
> 
> This is what the search for raoul moat reminds me of.



Do you remember the episode where the little one had a sports bag full of his own shit? I was nearly sick laughing at that.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Information has now imerged that dickface is making threats towards the wider public
> 
> How do they know this shit?



Erm...



> Det Chief Supt Neil Adamson said: "Information has come to our attention about a wider threat to the public from Mr Moat.
> 
> *"I am not prepared to comment further on this."*



LOL.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

fen_boy said:


> Do you remember the episode where the little one had a sports bag full of his own shit? I was nearly sick laughing at that.



LOL!!!!!!!  I loved the one where they all had to go undercover and bones had to be a tramp and eat out of bins

the dvd box set is only a tenner on play, I might buy it, haven't seen any for years


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> I do wonder how he can get the sympathy vote when he's shot three people, one fatally  It's not like his motives would be generally considered reasonable either.



Hes a modern folk hero, thats how. Long may Raoul roam.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Erm...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.



Ah! Thanks..

Maybe they should comment further on it. They dont seem to have a clue what they are doing. He is probably walking around in one of his mother's dresses and they havent spotted him


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Hes a modern folk hero, thats how. Long may Raoul roam.



Sadly, in some areas of the land this guy will be seen as a hero.
Unbelievable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> http://twitter.com/raoulontherun  has this been posted I cant be arsed to look


\n \n \n I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.\n \n \n \n about 22 hours ago\n via web\n \n \n\n
\n\n


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> \n \n \n I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one.\n \n \n \n about 22 hours ago\n via web\n \n \n\n
> \n\n


----------



## TopCat (Jul 8, 2010)

So he has shaved his head into a mohican. What a stereotype!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Hes a modern folk hero, thats how. Long may Raoul roam.


Are people really _that_ anit-authoriy/police that they're turning this guy into a hero for evading them? Jaysis...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

we need moar badly written rants. Roaul, speak to us man.


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are people really _that_ anit-authoriy/police that they're turning this guy into a hero for evading them? Jaysis...



It's more that it's a bit quiet on the football front at the mo i think. This dude's filling a gap.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Two more arrest have been made...

RT @raoulontherun: Threats to the public, my arse. I were only havin&apos; a laugh on Twitter, like.


----------



## zoooo (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are people really _that_ anit-authoriy/police that they're turning this guy into a hero for evading them? Jaysis...



I'm assuming all the people on here who've suggested they think that are being ironic...

If I'm wrong, do let me continue on naively, thank you.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Ah! Thanks..
> 
> Maybe they should comment further on it. They dont seem to have a clue what they are doing. He is probably walking around in one of his mother's dresses and they havent spotted him



Well you'd have thoght if he was so dangerous they should comment, given that they are supposed to protect the public?

Ho hum


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> It's more that it's a bit quiet on the football front at the mo i think. This dude's filling a gap.


They do say "know your audience". Will have to make a prediction on the final though if he doesn't want Paul the Octopus to steal his airtime.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2010)

I want to hear what Zizek has to say about Raoul's lone quest for Justice & Revenge


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

I bet he fucking ends up down here


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

....



> The military is advising the police on how to track down Moat, as is the National Search Centre and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Temporary Chief Constable Sue Sim said Northumbria was "extremely difficult to search" because of its varied landscape, including caves, ravines, dense woodland and deep water.



Yes, he's hiding at the bottom of a deep lake.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yes, he's hiding at the bottom of a deep lake.


He's the North's answer to Nessie! Ok, the no-quite-so-North's answer to Nessie.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2010)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ley?-rothbury-asks-armed-police-201007072887/


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

> "And of course by this time I am just looking at her blankly and wishing to God that a little red dot would appear in the middle of her forehead."





> Meanwhile, earlier today, as the police continue to scour the surrounding countryside, one of the villagers sneaked up to Burley and attached a hand written note to her back which read 'I am Raoul Moat in a bad wig'.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ley?-rothbury-asks-armed-police-201007072887/



haha!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

id point out that shooting Kay Burley is not funny or clever. She has people who love her. Apparently.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Everytime I see Kate Burley I cringe... wish they would just get rid of the sociopathic wench


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

two more arrests? Just how many sidekicks does rouel have? What a leg end


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 8, 2010)

Loads of armed police and reporters outside the main police station in Newcastle at the moment...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

sales of fast food, already pretty high in geordie land, must have rocketed


----------



## sojourner (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> LOL!!!!!!!  I loved the one where they all had to go undercover and bones had to be a tramp and eat out of bins
> 
> the dvd box set is only a tenner on play, I might buy it, haven't seen any for years



I'd forgotten all about this - just looked it up on Amazon and bought all 3 for a tenner!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> id point out that shooting Kay Burley is not funny or clever. She has people who love her. Apparently.


I'd point out that something doesn't need to be funny or clever to be necessary.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

sojourner said:


> I'd forgotten all about this - just looked it up on Amazon and bought all 3 for a tenner!



bloody hilarious wasn't it


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> bloody hilarious wasn't it



I've just bought it too.


----------



## sojourner (Jul 8, 2010)

tribal_princess said:


> bloody hilarious wasn't it



Oh yes - used to choke laughing 

my lass will bloody love it


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Loads of armed police and reporters outside the main police station in Newcastle at the moment...



he was hiding in a jail cell all along.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'd point out that something doesn't need to be funny or clever to be necessary.



You're quite right. Shoot the bitch


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 8, 2010)

sojourner said:


> Oh yes - used to choke laughing
> 
> my lass will bloody love it



me too, the one where the gaffer becomes a boxer called 'the raging pig' was funny as fuck   also 'don't eat the berries!!!!'


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> You're quite right. Shoot the bitch


Oh come on, there's no need to use such violent language.


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 8, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ley?-rothbury-asks-armed-police-201007072887/



She make me think of Fragel Rock puppets


----------



## gavman (Jul 8, 2010)

ashie259 said:


> Northumbria Police are offering a £10k reward for info on Raoul Moat. If he's not caught by next Tuesday it goes up to £20k, making it a Raoulover



best pun yet


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2010)

Police Urged to Check Net For Holes


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

Fix yer link.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 8, 2010)

Sky News always have their finger on the pulse. They have already interviewed the farmer lol


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Sky News always have their finger on the pulse. *They have already interviewed the farmer* lol



Oh dear...


----------



## rollinder (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Are people really _that_ anit-authoriy/police that they're turning this guy into a hero for evading them? Jaysis...



over on Moneysavingexperts far more serious thread (in discussion time), there's people defending him  and others wanting the police to hurry up and put him down like the rabid dog he is


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 8, 2010)

This danger to the public thing is a load of shit. I think they've also said they didn't think it would be random targets but the media are reporting it as though everyone is at risk. 

He probably named a few people or maybe they think he'd hijack a vehicle or something if he's pushed into a corner.

Excuses all round from the police today, the press conference sounded like they were struggling to cope with the questioning and getting frustrated already. Sounds like they're pretty clueless and it will be a stroke of luck if they catch him early on or at all.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

He executed a random guy for dating the wrong girl, badly injured his ex-gf (and has a history of similar shit) after being sent to prison for assaulting his nine year old daughter.

Internet lols aside, hero my arse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2010)

perhaps he'll catch one or two of them first


----------



## rollinder (Jul 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> He was a bit _Village of the Damned_, wasn't he?



so all the Police need to do to catch/kill him is to trick him with an exploading briefcase while thinking of a brick wall


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

"What does incompetent mean?" "What does baffled mean?"


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

rollinder said:


> over on Moneysavingexperts far more serious thread (in discussion time), there's people defending him  and others wanting the police to hurry up and put him down like the rabid dog he is


 How the fuck can anyone defend him?


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

this meeting and the latest coming from the police is pathetic, and risks further riling the nutter.  as usual the number one objective of the police is to cover their own backs.

i think it would be pretty funny if he'd topped himself by jumping into a deep lake with a few bricks in his backpack and they keep hunting him for months.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2010)

madzone said:


> How the fuck can anyone defend him?


with some difficulty, i expect. but anyone who shoots a cop can't be all bad.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

rollinder said:


> over on Moneysavingexperts far more serious thread (in discussion time), there's people defending him  and others wanting the police to hurry up and put him down like the rabid dog he is


With all due reservation and impending sense of regret, exactly what are they defending?



Citizen66 said:


> He executed a random guy for dating the wrong girl, badly injured his ex-gf (and has a history of similar shit) after being sent to prison for assaulting his nine year old daughter.
> 
> Internet lols aside, hero my arse.


This rather, and I didn't even know about why he was in prison.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian



and the cow's thinking - 'do I look like a fucking steroid nutter gun murderer, you thick cunts'


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> He probably named a few people



aye and he did that days ago.  on the sunday via that 49 page letter in fact.  

its total spin from the police and they're putting their own PR ahead of the risk of further aggravating the loonie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Loving this shot on the guardian


to her on the left: yes, your bum does look big in that


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2010)

but you know it's the silly season when this sort of non-story enthralls otherwise intelligent people for days.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

I think they're planning a game of Cow, Lake, Bomb to pass the time.


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> This rather, and I didn't even know about why he was in prison.



i suspect this is part of the news blackout.  i did read at some point somewhere that it was for assault though, and his own letter suggested it may have been for beating his kids (which he has always denied).

otherwise its totally inexplicable that the media wouldn't be giving us this info which is readily available to them and which would easily form part of their "aggressive nutter" narrative.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> With all due reservation and impending sense of regret, exactly what are they defending?



'he's just a poor, hard working family loving man who had his life ruined by the police and was forced into it/pushed over the edge by his girlfriend betraying him..."


----------



## madzone (Jul 8, 2010)

Oh god, I've got a log in over there


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

where to said:


> i suspect this is part of the news blackout.  i did read at some point somewhere that it was for assault though, and his own letter suggested it may have been for beating his kids (which he has always denied).
> 
> otherwise its totally inexplicable that the media wouldn't be giving us this info which is readily available to them and which would easily form part of their "aggressive nutter" narrative.


To be honest, in my case at least it's because I only really started paying any kind of attention today. For example, I'd heard there was a letter but didn't know it was 49 pages long (  ).


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

some individual member of the public has just decided that there should be police outside the school.  the policewoman at the meeting has said they will do so if thats what he wants.

mental.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

rollinder said:


> 'he's just a poor, hard working family loving man who had his life ruined by the police and was forced into it/pushed over the edge by his girlfriend betraying him..."


Woah... 

"family loving"


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

is anyone watching this live public meeting on news24?

these 2 coppers are absolute muppets

'would it make you feel better if we had police officers at the schools?...'

erm, bit fucking late to be asking that isn't it seeing as they've been telling people to bring their kids to school and they'd ensure their safety - how the fuck were they doing that without having coppers there?


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> To be honest, in my case at least it's because I only really started paying any kind of attention today.



i've been following this one closely since monday and his offence has been conspicuous by its absense in reporting


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> anyone who shoots a cop can't be all bad.





Wadical Internet blow hards are sitting that way <<<< at the beginning of the thread, Prickman's.


----------



## where to (Jul 8, 2010)

free spirit said:


> is anyone watching this live public meeting on news24?
> 
> these 2 coppers are absolute muppets
> 
> ...



to be fair they stick coppers there and it could make it a target.

this just underlines why the whole tack of "carry on like normal but don't take risks" is laughable, and its only a matter of time before this crowd starting tearing their position apart as it isn't credible.

the way they're approaching this meeting, the desperate placation of the audience tells you they know they've fucked this whole thing up good and proper.  police don't fawn like this unless they have to.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 8, 2010)

I heard they were bringing police in from as far away as Portugal for the search...


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

that female copper's missed her vocation as a village idiot...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

where to said:


> i think it would be pretty funny if he'd topped himself by jumping into a deep lake with a few bricks in his backpack and they keep hunting him for months.



This crossed my mind. He had one last night of caning the drugs and saying his goodbyes and then took a dose to sink a battle ship and his associates dropped his cold body into a vat of sulphuric acid, never to be seen again. 

Everyone he loathed would spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder. The ultimate psychological revenge.

I do let my mind get carried away I do!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2010)

N_igma said:


> I heard they were bringing police in from as far away as Portugal for the search...





Subtle...


----------



## Pinette (Jul 8, 2010)

free spirit said:


> that female copper's missed her vocation as a village idiot...



No, no, no, no, no!!! She is clearly Alice, from The Vicar of Dibley. Cast your mind back.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 8, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Ah! Thanks..
> 
> Maybe they should comment further on it. They dont seem to have a clue what they are doing. He is probably walking around in one of his mother's dresses and they havent spotted him



You don't have a clue about this sort of thing do you? He could have a hostage for all you know, maybe they haven't said for whatever reason.Maybe he's threatened to kill them.

Maybe they do know where he is but they want to take him alive and it's better to watch and take their time. You are so clueless.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 8, 2010)

And now on ITV6, it's Raoul Night.

*20.10 - RAOUL HAND LUKE*

Paul Newman stars as Luke, the prisoner who will not conform or post coherent Facebook wall messages.

*21.50 - BATTLE RAOUL*

Gassed while on a study trip, Raoul awakes to find himself on the shithole island of Lindisfarne. If he is to survive, he must battle to the death against warblers, wigeons and British folk/rock band _Lindisfarne_.

*23.59 - DERREN BROWN'S RUSSIAN RAOULETTE*

Episode 1 of short lived 2010 series feat. psychic bollock Derren Brown and madman Raoul Moat. In a desperate attempt to piggyback on to the news, Derren plays the infamous game with the fugitive. Moat has two shotguns and no understanding of the rules. Cameo appearances from cast of Heartbeat.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

Pinette said:


> No, no, no, no, no!!! She is clearly Alice, from The Vicar of Dibley. Cast your mind back.


I think in this case we're both right...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2010)

i wish he'd hurry up and do some more coppers, this is getting boring.


----------



## Callum91 (Jul 8, 2010)

discokermit said:


> i wish he'd hurry up and do some more coppers, this is getting boring.



Snap , kill some coppers ffs!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 8, 2010)

When they find him, is somebody going to shout through a megaphone, "Moat! We have you surrounded"?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> When they find him, is somebody going to shout through a megaphone, "Moat! We have you surrounded"?




I can't believe that one escaped me


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

mauvais said:


> And now on ITV6, it's Raoul Night.
> 
> *20.10 - RAOUL HAND LUKE*
> 
> ...



Not forgetting

1.00 - 3.30 - CASINO RAOUL - Spy thriller in which pumped-up steroid freak beats his own testicles with a truncheon to show his anger at society.


----------



## rioted (Jul 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> ...this sort of non-story....


This is why some people hate them Londoners - "if it's not here, it's not news". Tosser.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 8, 2010)

all this talk of him robbing a chippy is making me want fish & chips for the first time in ages


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 8, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Not forgetting
> 
> 1.00 - 3.30 - CASINO RAOUL - Spy thriller in which pumped-up steroid freak beats his own testicles with a truncheon to show his anger at society.



'The Raoul Family'- man beats his kids and shoots is wife while saying 'My arse'


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

rioted said:


> This is why some people hate them Londoners - "if it's not here, it's not news". Tosser.


Nah, we're just used to a higher calibre of lunatic; Moat sounds like someone you'd meet on the nightbus


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'The Raoul Family'- man beats his kids and shoots is wife while saying 'My arse, why does my face look like my arse? Fookin steroids!!!



Like it. 
'


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Cmon raoul, shoot a cop or something! Pref the one who looks like a fraggle. Altho the one who talks exceptionally slowly wouldn't go amiss either. Boooooooring.


----------



## rioted (Jul 8, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Nah, we're just used to a higher calibre of lunatic; Moat sounds like someone you'd meet on the nightbus


A nightbus would be news in most of the country.


----------



## og ogilby (Jul 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'The Raoul Family'- man beats his kids and shoots is wife while saying 'My arse'


That's class, that is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2010)

> Detectives warned today that the fugitive gunman Raoul Moat has made threats to the wider public and not just the police.
> 
> Speaking at a press conference, Northumbria's temporary chief constable, Sue Sim, said new information led officers to believe the threat extended beyond members of the force


Bull.
Shit.


----------



## thriller (Jul 8, 2010)

mauvais said:


> And now on ITV6, it's Raoul Night.
> 
> *20.10 - RAOUL HAND LUKE*
> 
> ...



like it.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Bull.
> Shit.



(((((firky)))))


----------



## thriller (Jul 8, 2010)

*RAOUL MADRID.*

Top shooter. 

Hehehehehe

Just thought that one up myself.  

Best one so far (if I do say sso myself )


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

rioted said:


> A nightbus would be news in most of the country.


he he, touche


----------



## Augie March (Jul 8, 2010)

thriller said:


> *RAOUL MADRID.*
> 
> Top shooter.
> 
> ...



Well done. You must be very proud of that handsome little joke baby you made.

*thinks to self* Dear God in heaven, that poor baby has no face!


----------



## thriller (Jul 8, 2010)

Augie March said:


> Well done. You must be very proud of that handsome little joke baby you made.
> 
> *thinks to self* Dear God in heaven, that poor baby has no face!



Have no idea what the feck you are barking on about? Joke baby? baby has no face? wt feck??


----------



## Augie March (Jul 8, 2010)

thriller said:


> Have no idea what the feck you are barking on about? Joke baby? baby has no face? wt feck??



It's surraoulism.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 8, 2010)

Brother on the run 


!
















Sorry if they offended anyone.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 8, 2010)




----------



## Pingu (Jul 8, 2010)

rioted said:


> A nightbus would be news in most of the country.


 
what is this nightbus of which you speak?


----------



## gabi (Jul 8, 2010)

Just saw the news at ten

live reporter in the centre of the village being drowned out by drunken chanting in the background, including what I swear was 'we love you raoul!'

news story of the year. No contest.  Just keeps giving.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 8, 2010)

Smurker said:


>


----------



## Maggot (Jul 8, 2010)

mauvais said:


> And now on ITV6, it's Raoul Night.
> 
> *20.10 - RAOUL HAND LUKE*
> 
> ...




I don't like the look of that channel. Where's the RaoulMoat control?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2010)

Rambo: First Blood Part II just started on ITV4. Rather lucky it wasn't Part I


----------



## mauvais (Jul 8, 2010)

Maggot said:


> I don't like the look of that channel. Where's the RaoulMoat control?


Hahahaha. Tosser


----------



## northeastoipunk (Jul 8, 2010)

why do the rozzers keep making appeals to him on the telly if hes holed up on some northumberland moor somewhere ???does he carry a portable generator and his hi def plasma with digi box surely thats easy to spot


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

gabi said:


> Just saw the news at ten
> 
> live reporter in the centre of the village being drowned out by drunken chanting in the background, including what I swear was *'we love you raoul!'*
> 
> news story of the year. No contest.  Just keeps giving.


this'll be the most exciting thing to have happened in rothbury since firky moved back home.


if he's still on the run by the weekend that chant'll be getting sung down the bigg market a fair bit as well I reckon


----------



## free spirit (Jul 8, 2010)

northeastoipunk said:


> why do the rozzers keep making appeals to him on the telly if hes holed up on some northumberland moor somewhere ???does he carry a portable generator and his hi def plasma with digi box surely thats easy to spot


from the sounds of it he's spent at least one night sleeping in the spare room of an empty house (then apparently going back in after the police had searched it and left the place unguarded...) so I guess he might be watching the telly.

also last time he didn't think they were taking him seriously he shot one of them, so maybe it's not such a daft policy to feed his ego a bit even if it does just reinforce the keystone cops appearance of the situation


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 8, 2010)

free spirit said:


> keystone cops appearance of the situation


----------



## T & P (Jul 8, 2010)

Nice headline-photo combination on the front page of Friday's Daily Mail...


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 9, 2010)

Where's Raoul?????


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Apparently a policeman saw someone fitting Raoul's description late last night in the village, but by the time the armede police arrived he had gone....so say GMTV who re-inacted the scene of Raoul walking round a corner and vanishing!


----------



## madzone (Jul 9, 2010)

T & P said:


> Nice headline-photo combination on the front page of Friday's Daily Mail...


----------



## thriller (Jul 9, 2010)

Maggot said:


> I don't like the look of that channel. Where's the RaoulMoat control?



LMFAO. That made me chuckle. Hehehehehehe. :


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2010)

they brought in a tornado jet with a fancy recce pod not exactly sure how thats going to help


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 9, 2010)

likesfish said:


> they brought in a tornado jet with a fancy recce pod not exactly sure how thats going to help



Probably wont much, but it'll give the crews and the analysts a good excuse to exercise under real conditions in the UK.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

you know you are on epic escape ground when they bring the military in


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Pingu (Jul 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> you know you are on epic escape ground when they bring the military in


 

for some reason i am imagining this as an episode of dads army as opposed to some sort of special forces exercise.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 9, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


>


 
w.t.f. is that?

its probably some cult thing I guess


----------



## machine cat (Jul 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> you know you are on epic escape ground when they bring the military in



Six stars in Grand Theft Auto


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 9, 2010)

Pingu said:


> for some reason i am imagining this as an episode of dads army as opposed to some sort of special forces exercise.



The Home Guard would have done much better than Plod


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> Six stars in Grand Theft Auto



Haha  

He must be in the river then.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 9, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> The Home Guard would have done much better than Plod


 

all thats needed now is for some bloke with a big tash and a scotish accent* to come onto telly and give instruction to capt manwairing on how to track and use search patterns. then it cuts to them all climbing over fences, getting stuck on barbed wire and having to climb up a tree to escape from a pissed off bull.

* for i do believe that it is compulsary for any of "them" who appear on tv to be so adorned


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 9, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> Six stars in Grand Theft Auto


ROFL. Now there's a photoshop that's waiting to happen. GTA: Northumbria.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2010)

Northumb*erland*.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 9, 2010)

anyhow am not that surprised hes still not been caught after all the whole of the england football team, went missing in south africa for four weeks


----------



## Mation (Jul 9, 2010)

Tsk. Why are the police pretending he's threatening the public now? 

I'm off up there on Monday. I'll let you know if I see anything suspicious


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 9, 2010)

fuck me, this is more of a shambles than the WMD's Saddam supposedly had. All they gotta do is find a dude in some fucking woods.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 9, 2010)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Where's Raoul?????



LOL I was gonna make a where's Raoul


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

It'ss be some Agent Orange defoliation shit next. What is this bloke, Predator?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Cracking headline in The Guardian:


> Police lose trail of man fitting description of suspected gunman seen walking through Rothbury


say . . _walking where _ . . .


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

> Police lose trail of man fitting description of *suspected gunman* seen walking through Rothbury


Would I be right in thinking his crimes are all still suspected and alleged?

Do we go The Fugitive or The A-Team with this one?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

I dunno, but if he's been "walking through Rothbury" you wonder why he wasn't id'd by 27 tv crews, 18 snipers, 34 of Northumberland's finest and the crews of 6 armoured vehicles arrived from Norn Iron and totally lost in the village.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2010)

unfortunatly no he's pretty much admitted it was him and prison service apprantly heard him making threats 

yes some shadowy goverment agency may have framed him so they can give there latest piece of uber death tech a work out
 but ex bouncer into steroids going parnoid and violent  whos suprised.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 9, 2010)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Where's Raoul?????


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Cracking headline in The Guardian:
> 
> say . . _walking where _ . . .



He'd popped in for a snack and to catch up on his headlines.


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

I was amused last night to hear the Brian Dennehy character in this movie who's leading the search describing the area as 'vast'. Like its the the fucking outback or something.

Is there any truth to the story that a Tornado's been deployed to take him out now?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

likesfish said:


> unfortunatly no he's pretty much admitted it was him and prison service apprantly heard him making threats
> 
> yes some shadowy goverment agency may have framed him so they can give there latest piece of uber death tech a work out
> but ex bouncer into steroids going parnoid and violent  whos suprised.





I like this theory. They'd be chasing Jesus round in a similar way


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

The Roaul Hustle: This week he scams some fish n chips using ony his wits and a gun.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

gabi said:


> I was amused last night to hear the Brian Dennehy character in this movie who's leading the search describing the area as 'vast'. Like its the the fucking outback or something.
> 
> Is there any truth to the story that a Tornado's been deployed to take him out now?



Yes.



> An RAF Tornado with imaging equipment joined the manhunt yesterday, after a request from Northumbria police, and completed a search of the area.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Apparently his camp was made at Wagtail Farm.




> Bookable Product Facilities‎	Colour TV in all bedrooms‎‎, Hairdryer in all bedrooms‎‎, Non smoking rooms available‎‎, Radio in all bedrooms‎‎, Tea & coffee making facilities in all bedrooms‎‎
> Catering‎	Cater for vegetarians‎‎, Serve breakfast‎‎
> Children‎	Accept children (minimum age)‎‎
> Email‎	‎‎	*removed*
> ...


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yes.





He's now seen off the RAF too


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 9, 2010)

They're going about this all wrong, they need to think like he does in order to catch him.

I suggest that they send in at least 10-20 ripped-to-the-tits steroid abusers to challenge his alpha-male status and fling him out of the forest to a waiting armed response team.











A Roaul Rumble, if you will.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> The Roaul Hustle: This week he scams some fish n chips using ony his wits and a gun.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)

Press conference at 2.00pm apparently?  just getting prepared.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


>



He's like a c c c cameleon!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Smurker said:


> Press conference at 2.00pm apparently?  just getting prepared.



lol her hair and make-up was hilarious the other day, i nearly choked on my tea.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Has anyone seen any "I'm Raoul Moat!" t-shirts yet?


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> lol her hair and make-up was hilarious the other day, i nearly choked on my tea.



She's definitely working an interesting look. 






She's also developed the same speaking style as her sidekick..

'This. is. a. message. to. mr..... moat'.

Fuck off!


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 9, 2010)

3 of his phones found apparently

I recon he's just waiting till after the world cup final to surrender.


----------



## rekil (Jul 9, 2010)

Mation said:


> Tsk. Why are the police pretending he's threatening the public now?


Because they've arsed this up spectacularly and he's become The People's Nutter. 

*Das Moat*
Raoul roams the North Sea in a pedalo and despite being pursued by the entire royal navy succeeds in carrying out a signature fish and chips raid on an oil rig canteen.


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

That old cunt Alexander Chancellor in the guardian is horrified that he's getting public love... more points to the Moat!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> 3 of his phones found apparently
> 
> I recon he's just waiting till after the world cup final to surrender.



So my suspicions were correct... he was or still is being fed information via mobile phones..

Who knows how many he has


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

u should get a job for northumbria police with skillz like that foxy


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 9, 2010)

Mation said:


> *Tsk. Why are the police pretending he's threatening the public now? *
> 
> I'm off up there on Monday. I'll let you know if I see anything suspicious



I worked this out last night when watching the press conference.

See it from his perspective... you already feel like you have nothing to loose... then.. you are fed information that your own mother is saying she wants you dead...
For someone who is already mentally unstable..do you not think that this could send them completely over the edge? Therefore...going out in a complete blaze of glory and just fucking killing everyone
Plus, phones have been found he was using.. you dont know what the messages on that phone say. The police are not going to reveal much now knowing he is listening (even though they should have already worked out he could be)
Northumbria Police are basically shit... and I could have done a better job. 
I loved the little boy in the press conference who said "Dont you think he is out of Rothbury by now.. I mean hes not stupid is he?"... they laughed it off.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 9, 2010)

gabi said:


> u should get a job for northumbria police with skillz like that foxy



Im telling you!!!!!!!!! I would have found him ages ago and Im not even playing.
The police is thick as shit up there


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2010)

radio 4 was talking to the local hunt leader.

This could be there moment of glory get the readcoats out saddle up the horses release the hounds
 moat gets chased across moor makes a last stand killing a couple of hounds or hinds but the pack finish him off.

result fox hunting compolsoury on the national curriculim and statue of the dead hound on the empty plinth


----------



## moomoo (Jul 9, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Im telling you!!!!!!!!! I would have found him ages ago and Im not even playing.
> The police *is* thick as shit up there



'are'


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

likesfish said:


> radio 4 was talking to the local hunt leader.
> 
> This could be there moment of glory get the readcoats out saddle up the horses release the hounds
> moat gets chased across moor makes a last stand killing a couple of hounds or hinds but the pack finish him off.
> ...



This guy's seen off 14 police forces, the SAS and the RAF.

Maybe it IS time to bring in the toffs.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 9, 2010)

It takes a killer to catch a killer.

They should release a heavily-armed Peter Sutcliffe into the woods nearby.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 9, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> The police are not going to reveal much now knowing he is listening (even though they should have already worked out he could be)


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

Cops saying they are 'satisifed with the direction of the search' 

Yep, its going swimmingly!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2010)

A woman I know, who believes every cock and bull story she's told, insisted to me that he isn't real and that this is all a diversion to cover up some other big news story. I asked her what they were covering up and she said 'I don't know - that's the point!'. Brilliant, really.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A woman I know, who believes every cock and bull story she's told, insisted to me that he isn't real and that this is all a diversion to cover up some other big news story. I asked her what they were covering up and she said 'I don't know - that's the point!'. Brilliant, really.



You can't argue with her logic. You should suggest some things-that-are-really-happening-and-are-being-covered-up scenarios to her...maybe start small, death of a royal for instance and then lead up to a full scale alien invasion


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> a full scale alien invasion




What do you know? WHAT DO YOU KNOOOOW?!?! :


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> You can't argue with her logic. You should suggest some things-that-are-really-happening-and-are-being-covered-up scenarios to her...maybe start small, death of a royal for instance and then lead up to a full scale alien invasion



Her logic is faultless.

I was thinking of suggesting that we are currently undergoing a coup launched by the Americans, then seeing if a thread pops up on here about such a plan.


----------



## Pseudopsycho (Jul 9, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> You can't argue with her logic. You should suggest some things-that-are-really-happening-and-are-being-covered-up scenarios to her...maybe start small, death of a royal for instance and then lead up to a full scale alien invasion [/Q]
> 
> Conspiracy Theory was on telly last night too...


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> What do you know? WHAT DO YOU KNOOOOW?!?! :



 nothing  *wraps head in more silver foil*


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

gabi said:


> u should get a job for northumbria police with skillz like that foxy







FoxyRed said:


> Northumbria Police are basically shit... and I could have done a better job.





FoxyRed said:


> Im telling you!!!!!!!!! I would have found him ages ago and Im not even playing.
> The police is thick as shit up there





What would you have done Foxy, PM’ed the editor of the local rag and got them to close/bin the chase?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 9, 2010)

fogbat said:


> It takes a killer to catch a killer.
> 
> They should release a heavily-armed Peter Sutcliffe into the woods nearby.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

gabi said:


> This guy's seen off 14 police forces, the SAS and the RAF.
> 
> Maybe it IS time to bring in the toffs.



Tally Ho!

*blows bugle*

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Why have I got this image in my head of Foxy stumbling across the moors in her high-heels with the hunt in hot pursuit?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Why have I got this image in my head of Foxy stumbling across the moors in her high-heels with the hunt in hot pursuit?



Because you are a perv


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> *Das Moat*
> Raoul roams the North Sea in a pedalo and despite being pursued by the entire royal navy succeeds in carrying out a signature fish and chips raid on an oil rig canteen.



I fucking love this thread.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Why have I got this image in my head of Foxy stumbling across the moors in her high-heels with the hunt in hot pursuit?





QueenOfGoths said:


> Because you are a perv


----------



## machine cat (Jul 9, 2010)

Did everyone get their free cut out and keep Rambo Raoul mask in The Sun today?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

> I am a 23 year old blonde nymphomaniac with a thing for large ginger Geordies who like writing long letters, camping and firearms. If this is you please email me at armedresponse@northhumerlandconstabulary.org


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

Too fucking funny!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

> RAOUL: French from of German Ralph, meaning "wise wolf."


http://www.family-crests.com/family-crest-coat-of-arms/surnames-7-7/male-french-names.html


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Is it too late to tell him John Terry's been around to comfort his missus?


----------



## gabi (Jul 9, 2010)

I think the Automatic foresaw these remarkable events.. not just 'Raoul'.

This just came on the radio..



> Brain fried tonight through misuse
> Through misuse, through misuse
> You can't avoid static abuse
> Abuse, abuse
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Raoul, Raoul, Raoul your Moat gently down the stream Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily you're in the snipers beam.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Arghhh MY EYES!


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 9, 2010)

"Fog on the Tyne means Raoul's fine, all fine, Fog on the Tyne means Raoul's fine"


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

LOLZ @ YouTube comment.



> it's guerilla war - the next phase is destroying sections of railway line at random, disabling pylons, power stations, aerials, electronic warfare against individual police officers, ammo dumps in the woods, taking out phone masts, broadcasting on police radio channels, and so on, I'd imagine


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

> it's guerilla war - the next phase is destroying sections of railway line at random, disabling pylons, power stations, aerials, electronic warfare against individual police officers, ammo dumps in the woods, taking out phone masts, broadcasting on police radio channels, and so on, *I'd imagine*




Yeah, just your average guess there, casually speculative...


----------



## T & P (Jul 9, 2010)

gabi said:


> She's definitely working an interesting look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 She reminds me of John Cleese's screen wife in _A Fish Called Wanda._


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Why have I got this image in my head of Foxy stumbling across the moors in her high-heels with the hunt in hot pursuit?





QueenOfGoths said:


> Because you are a perv



That would only work if I were master of the hounds, which would sadly be totally against my principles.   









But, TBF, I am a perv.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Arghhh MY EYES!



never mind your eyes! WTF is going on with HERS?!?! 
got the good cop eye bad cop eye thing going on


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 9, 2010)

@ thread


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @ thread



One of the best. Obviously the "rampent killer on the loose" theme is Urban's piece de resistance.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2010)

Mitre10 said:


>



 Christ, you guys are too much today. I blame you for the pitiful amount of work I'm getting done.

This is like one of those b3ta competitions...


----------



## ska invita (Jul 9, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> _"Raoul Thomas Moat _


_
anagrams of his name include:

Alarm Ma! Shootout
Thous Amoral Moat 

and considering he writes 50 page letters:
 Alas, A Motormouth_


----------



## scooter (Jul 9, 2010)

Isn't it time to deploy nuclear weapons?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 9, 2010)

he.must.be.stopped.at.any.cost.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 9, 2010)

Have they got him yet?


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 9, 2010)

I love how one man is showing up an entire police force!

They even have the RAF helping out now ffs!


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 9, 2010)

WWWeed said:


> I love how one man is showing up an entire police force!
> 
> They even have the RAF helping out now ffs!



in fact according to what BBC news just said FOURTEEN police forces are now involved not just one!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 9, 2010)

I think we've all learnt a valuable lesson from this: Do not cross the moat.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 9, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> One of the best. Obviously the "rampent killer on the loose" theme is Urban's piece de resistance.



Oh most definitely! 

I'm champing at the bit for some sniper action, as are other comrades on Urban75 i suspect


----------



## T & P (Jul 9, 2010)

They should've called the Americans in. They certainly have a lot of experience in this kind of situations...


----------



## Augie March (Jul 9, 2010)

Raoul Moatse.

Someone, please make this picture happen. For the sake of the internet.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 9, 2010)

T & P said:


> They should've called the Americans in. They certainly have a lot of experience in this kind of situations...



They'd be pretty much guaranteed to take out more policement through _friendly fire_, too...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

1%er said:


> Have they got him yet?



Translation:  are we there yet? 

Answer: nope, we’re waiting on Foxy to sort it.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

If anything, these mobile phones they've found make it even more likely he's no where near where they're looking - of course you'd have a mate leave them laying around there to be found. Surely what you wouldn't do is leave a trail and confirmation . . .

I seriously wonder if he's within 25 miles of that place . . .


----------



## spliff (Jul 9, 2010)

T & P said:


> They should've called the Americans in. They certainly have a lot of experience in this kind of situations...


Are there any wedding parties in the area this weekend then?


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 9, 2010)

I bet that octopus could tell us where he is.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> I bet that octopus could tell us where he is.



They've already joined forces, I'm afraid


----------



## Weller (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## Part 2 (Jul 9, 2010)

Three phones found, last one used on Tuesday, second used before he shot the copper, first used before that.

Hardly a development.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 9, 2010)

Weller said:


>



quality


----------



## scooter (Jul 9, 2010)

Think they've caught him - well they've apprehended someone


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 9, 2010)

He's holding a gun to his head according to skynews


----------



## Pingu (Jul 9, 2010)

All chip shops in Northumberland will remain closed till further notice, so there will be no fishys on the dishys till the Moat comes in


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)

What do you think, will he top himself?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Smurker said:


> What do you think, will he top himself?



I hope so, it'll save the tax-payers a fortune.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)

So that probably was him walking around the high street when the pubs were kicking out last night 


How the fuck did he manage that!



I hope they maim him and he spends the rest of his days with half his face blown off.


----------



## Apathy (Jul 9, 2010)

Pingu said:


> All chip shops in Northumberland will remain closed till further notice, so there will be no fishys on the dishys till the Moat comes in



thats not even Raoulmoatly funny


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 9, 2010)

Im thinking if he was going to kill himself he would've done it already.

I reckon he'll hold out for a while then give up.  

If they shoot at him would it be to disarm or kill? 

Despite what he's done, I can't see the cops wanting to give him what he wants.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 9, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Despite what he's done, I can't see the cops wanting to give him what he wants.



Haddock and chips?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> He's holding a gun to his head according to skynews




Threatening to play Russian Raoul-ette?


----------



## Miss Potter (Jul 9, 2010)

disarm I reckon, if he dies he'll want it to be by police hands rather than his own as he'll think it's more heroic


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

Gutted i was waiting till next week to dob him in and claim the £20,000 Raulover.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

He still has a gun to his head.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

I wish John Sopel would leave the Geordie lass (who's trying to talk to her mam on the phone) alone. Properly intrusive.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2010)

Fuck off tory boy. Didn't take you long to show your colours.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I wish John Sopel would leave the Geordie lass (who's trying to talk to her mam on the phone) alone. Properly intrusive.



Agreed. He's now speaking to the ma.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

^ this


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

i thought sky was bad...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck off tory boy. Didn't take you long to show your colours.



Are you addressing me, sir?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

that was hilarious tv, for all the wrong reasons. Id have told him to fuck off the parasitical bastard.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 9, 2010)

dear radio and telly people, is it really necessary to interrupt my friday night schedule with minute by minute updates.

(bet the cops shoot him first chance they get)


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

But the daughter says "it's the man from the telly ma" and hands over the phone!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

I quite fancied her, in a kind of "someone you see every day and occasionally knock out a cheeky one over" way.


----------



## sim667 (Jul 9, 2010)

*Lunatic in Northumbria Using Facebook*

The guy with the bottle of magners in the background of BBC news


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I quite fancied her, in a kind of "someone you see every day and occasionally knock out a cheeky one over" way.



Didn't take you long to be so urban like


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

I want live footage of an epic shootout.  Anything else will be a letdown.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Didn't take you long to be so urban like



I've just taken a couple of weeks to figure out how much I can share. Seems like most things.

Except my experiments in the cellar.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

if this was the USA we would see it live...... True story


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

sim667 said:


> The guy with the bottle of magners in the background of BBC news



Firky?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

R2, R2, L1, R2, Up, Down, Up, Down, Up, Down.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

The blonde lady officer with her arms crossed 

nice


----------



## extra dry (Jul 9, 2010)

just seen it on the bbc, what a mess, ma could have got out the house, leaving raoul hiding in the bushes to get blown to pieces.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> The blonde lady officer with her arms crossed
> 
> nice



Innit. 

Meanwhile.BBC News talks with the local dog walkers.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

And Sky reports more vehicles coming from the left.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

cummon firks get in the background lad!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

crashstone cops


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 9, 2010)

what is the chances of this guy when caught getting a slap on the wrist, due to public spending cuts?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

i_got_poison said:


> what is the chances of this guy when caught getting a slap on the wrist, due to public spending cuts?



Nil. He shot a police.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

why is there no chopper noise


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

WTF am I doing sat in this office with BBC News on the main ‘puter, Sky News on the laptop, whilst monitoring urban on the netbook? 

Oh, hang on, the Beeb has someone that can actually see Moat from his window. 

Sky must be gutted.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

Is he going to get riddled with police bullets live on tv? That would be worth watching.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

On a genuine note....I feel fortunate i have had the opportunities and good fortune in life to avoid ending up finding myself stood on a riverbank on a beautiful sunny afternoon in some picturesque Northumbrian town, surrounded by armed police whilst pointing a shotgun at my own neck.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> On a genuine note....I feel fortunate i have had the opportunities and good fortune in life to avoid ending up finding myself stood on a riverbank on a beautiful sunny afternoon in some picturesque Northumbrian town, surrounded by armed police whilst pointing a shotgun at my own neck.



Same here.

Although, on the other hand, I am not a murdering fuckwit cunt of the highest order.

Fuck him.


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 9, 2010)

Sounding like they've got him


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky
Some pictures of firearms officers.
No sound 'cos of the language


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2010)

The BBC have got a mad still for their video clip. It looks like a weird bit of Photoshoppery.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

"wasn't dressed as you'd expect"

like the cctv footage you mean?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> "wasn't dressed as you'd expect"



Just what is this year's fashion wear for murders?


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

C'mon raoul - it's a sticky situation but you can get out of it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> C'mon raoul - it's a sticky situation but you can get out of it.



He could swim downstream as the bullets splash in the water around him. Swim for it Raoul, you turd.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

editor said:


> The BBC have got a mad still for their video clip. It looks like a weird bit of Photoshoppery.



looks like she's about to be shot in the side of the head.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Come on, FFS, bring it to an end – shoot the fucker in an arm or leg and jump him.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

I thought it was interesting they flew a warplane over the area with a thermal imaging camera, would love to know how that works, and what levels of heat it can detect.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Come on, FFS, bring it to an end – shoot the fucker in an arm or leg and jump him.



In the US he'd have been dead over an hour ago. I'm glad they try (usually) not to shoot suspects here.


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I thought it was interesting they flew a warplane over the area with a thermal imaging camera, would love to know how that works, and what levels of heat it can detect.



Daft idea imo - how on earth can they use that to find him during a heatwave?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

He is getting enough coverage in the news, 

I just googled him http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Raoul Moat&FORM=BNLH


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Come on, FFS, bring it to an end – shoot the fucker in an arm or leg and jump him.



Why, what's on next?


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I thought it was interesting they flew a warplane over the area with a thermal imaging camera, would love to know how that works, and what levels of heat it can detect.



no good in hot weather

dagnammit ^^


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

purves grundy said:


> Daft idea imo - how on earth can they use that to find him during a heatwave?



Oh I doubt they would have wasted their time unless they could pick up body heat.  Trouble might be all the overgrown foilage at the moment.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I thought it was interesting they flew a warplane over the area with a thermal imaging camera, would love to know how that works, and what levels of heat it can detect.




The police helicopters are equipped with thermal imaging cameras, it’s not new, but the trouble is they pick-up allsorts of heat-spots from humans to dogs via cows and compost heaps. 

Have you never watched any of those real life cop ‘copter shows?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Why, what's on next?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

When does he reveal he's got that Chief Copper's wife's head in a box?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> The police helicopters are equipped with thermal imaging cameras, it’s not new, but the trouble is they pick-up allsorts of heat-spots from humans to dogs via cows and compost heaps.
> 
> Have you never watched any of those real life cop ‘copter shows?



I never watch any of those cop shows, too sanctimoneous for my liking. 

But it also stands to reason that they would not have blasted a warplane around the area unless they thought it could add something to the investigation. 

Unless they planned to drop agent orange and deforest the area or napalm to burn him out


----------



## Goatherd (Jul 9, 2010)

A bit confused at the BBC referring to this as a 'hostage situation'. Can you take yourself hostage?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

does the cop that pops him get a bonus?
or just time off and counselling


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> When does he reveal he's got that Chief Copper's wife's head in a box?



they would know that already, the hair could not be contained within any box made by man and would stick out of the sides


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> When does he reveal he's got that Chief Copper's wife's head in a box?



The Chief Copper is woman. 

More likely is him having Firky's head sticking out of a box.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 9, 2010)

Raoul claims more victims -



> Eye-witness Judith Ellis said that two police cars collided in their efforts to get to the scene,


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

and lol @ the media being moved _ten miles away
_


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> they would know that already, the hair could not be contained within any box made by man and would stick out of the sides



Not "Rod Hull". That geezer that kept trying not to lose his temper in the press conference yesterday.


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Why, what's on next?



IT Crowd


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

All pictures on all my Sky channels are on the blink - maybe a storm coming. Hang on Raoul - don't do owt stupid til the live feed's back on, lad!


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

The police are going to force the media out.
10 miles out
About time!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But it also stands to reason that they would not have blasted a warplane around the area unless they thought it could add something to the investigation.



You reckon?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> and lol @ the media being moved _ten miles away
> _



He should demand his own camera crew like in Natural Born Killers. Then he could shoot Jonathon Ross at the end of his interview. Great telly!!! This is all a bit dull.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Just what is this year's fashion wear for murders?



*Adopts voice of a Sky News announcer*

'And now it's over to our resident Style Wanker (fresh from London Fashion Week, ladies and gentlemen) Monsieur Albert Aubergine...'

'Thank you, thank you. Well, 'zis season your well-dressed murderer-about-town is going for the military look. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, camouflage is IN! The fugitive seems to teaming combat trousers with a baseball cap and some simply stunning black boots, the tiger stripe patterns being set off nicely by the twin bandoliers of simply striking red shotgun cartridges worn in an off-the-shoulder fashion...'

'Back to you in the studio...'


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> All pictures on all my Sky channels are on the blink - maybe a storm coming. Hang on Raoul - don't do owt stupid til the live feed's back on, lad!



Watch online - http://tvcatchup.com/


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 9, 2010)

i wonder what phil mitchell would do in a situation like this.

britain's hardest man against armed police. you couldn't write it.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

Phil Mitchell is a pussy!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

i think they should strap Kay Burley to a catapult and launch her from the roadside, over the bridge and onto Raoul Moat's head. Job done.


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 9, 2010)

Can I assume that Big Vern has already appeared in this thread?


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

HE HAS A SHOTGUN UNDERNEATH HIS CHIN

capsequalscruisecontrol


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

BBC headline

*Man resembling Raoul Moat found*

They don't sound too sure. How many other murderers are wondering around Rothbury?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2010)

I am bored now plus the better half is beckoning me, so night all. 

I just hope come the morning the twat has taken himself out.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Phil Mitchell is a pussy!



Exactly. I remember some handy-looking blond bloke jumping on the bar of the Vic and _both_ Mitchell brothers shiteing it.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

purves grundy said:


> Can I assume that Big Vern has already appeared in this thread?



yup
at least twice


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

Against the standard armed police they are quite matched, Moat's shotgun does not have much range but neither do the police's small machine guns. The police though do have body armour which Moat hasnt. Then there are the snipers, they could change the whole situation if he gets spotted. 

Is he still there? that is an interesting question.


----------



## Goatherd (Jul 9, 2010)

Apparently this is him -

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754306/Getty-Images-News


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> BBC headline
> 
> *Man resembling Raoul Moat found*
> 
> They don't sound too sure. How many other murderers are wondering around Rothbury?



It could be one of his bodybuilder mates covering for him. He'd have to be a pretty good mate though.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> yup
> at least twice



Then I'd also assume that this individual has made at least one appearance as well:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Roberts_(murderer)


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 9, 2010)

Goatherd said:


> Apparently this is him -
> 
> http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754306/Getty-Images-News



This pic's hilarious! Surely not real plod?

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754528




			
				ddraig said:
			
		

> yup at least twice



bugger


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Go go go!!!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Lovely annotated map from the Beeb there, clearly labelled with 

RIVER
BOWLING GREEN
STANDOFF


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> Lovely annotated map from the Beeb there, clearly labelled with
> 
> STANDOFF



They'll start intersplicing the voiceover with Ennio Morricone tunes in a minute.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> Lovely annotated map from the Beeb there, clearly labelled with
> 
> RIVER
> BOWLING GREEN
> STANDOFF



it's like im really there...

Where's Morris when you need him?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

purves grundy said:


> This pic's hilarious! Surely not real plod?
> 
> http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754528
> 
> ...



classic
looks like them on the sky footage!


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> it's like im really there...
> 
> Where's Morris when you need him?



probably sneaking up to the media area with some party poppers


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Then I'd also assume that this individual has made at least one appearance as well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes but not pictoraly afaik


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

It has to be just a matter of time before they run into him.... 

He has probably been watching too many Rambo films...


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2010)

why shouldn't he be angry(the cop) the journo is compromising the mission

it is real though, the older guy was on earlier, its a wonder no journo has been shot wandering around the countryside with a large camera, etc.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

they are interviewing tourists now on sky...


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> they are interviewing tourists now on sky...



"We've become part of the community"


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> It has to be just a matter of time before they run into him....
> 
> He has probably been watching too many Rambo films...



he'd need Arnie's 'Commando bullet avoiding ability' to get out of this one...


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> It has to be just a matter of time before they run into him....
> 
> He has probably been watching too many Rambo films...



I should imagine his having a serious steroid habit has probably affected him immensely.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> "We've become part of the community"



'We _*need*_ to belong, to something...'


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

The media thing is very American.
Not really right is it?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> The media thing is very American.
> Not really right is it?



the yanks would have a camera on Moat with the gun to his head, be thankful for small mercies.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Bloody incompetent police - they just need to all agree that he's drawn the gun on them and they can have this all over with in time for the IT Crowd.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> The media thing is very American.
> Not really right is it?



It's not right, but it boosts circulation figures and audience ratings, unfortunately.

There's a popular saying in the American media:

'If it bleeds, it leads.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

hanging this out a bit. I've watched whole film and he still aint dead


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

"I felt the breath of the heavily-armed police officer on my cheek...."


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> "I felt the breath of the heavily-armed police officer on my cheek...."



I heard that.
Prick!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Pick . . up . . the . . gun . .


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

picture of Moat now, or an actor lying down in a black hoody


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

His friend taken into a cordon?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Yay - it's the weather!


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

Sky are describing this new image as "an incredible picture".


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Moat : Surrounded - ironic.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

R4 10pm news are saying the police claim to have surrounded someone they think is Moat.

Apparently he has been found on a riverbank near the centre of town and they are negotiating with him.


----------



## Goatherd (Jul 9, 2010)

Radio Five presenter going on about how still Moat is in the live video he's watching. 10p says they've got Sky on and didn't realize it was a photograph.


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

I hope raoul survives this.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2010)

i hope firky does!?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

from Wookey's big brother thread 



Orangesanlemons said:


> I don't know which eviction to watch tonight.
> Anyway, a joint final eviction *oddsflash!*
> 
> Nathan: 1.02
> ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Moat : Surrounded - ironic.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

purves grundy said:


> This pic's hilarious! Surely not real plod?
> 
> http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754528



Just used this image on Sky but they have photo shopped his mouth so he's no longer grrrrrrrrrrrrrring


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

Right now Endemol are trying to figure out their chances of resurrecting some interest in Celebrity Big Brother if he lives.


----------



## ontheballbiy (Jul 9, 2010)

purves grundy said:


> This pic's hilarious! Surely not real plod?
> 
> http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/102754528
> 
> ...



they just showed the same lads on sky news,different pic but the same lads


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

ontheballbiy said:


> they just showed the same lads on sky news,different pic but the same lads



shopped pic


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Then I'd also assume that this individual has made at least one appearance as well:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.._is our friend, is our friend_, etc etc.....


----------



## yardbird (Jul 9, 2010)

yardbird said:


> The blonde lady officer with her arms crossed
> 
> nice



The beeb just did a lingering shot of her face in the ten o'clock news.
A chosen shot methinks


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

paul gascoigne has arrived

the shark has been jumped


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

GAZZA @eek:


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Jul 9, 2010)

And now Gazza's here to negotiate? Wtf?
This is the story that just keeps on giving...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

lizzieloo said:


> Just used this image on Sky but they have photo shopped his mouth so he's no longer grrrrrrrrrrrrrring



id put my gun down if a clown with that grin and a water pistol was facing me off.


----------



## Weller (Jul 9, 2010)

WTF - Paul Gascoine arriving on the scenes to negotiate , am I having a surreal dream


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 9, 2010)

Weller said:


> WTF - Paul Gascoine arriving on the scenes to negotiate , am I having a surreal dream



I just saw that too, im lost for words. Claims to be moats friend??


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

Orangesanlemons said:


> And now Gazza's here to negotiate? Wtf?
> This is the story that just keeps on giving...



the breaking news in a weeks time will be all about how al-qaeda managed to put acid into the water supply of the entire uk, this is unbelievably bizarre and clearly a mass hallucination


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 9, 2010)

> Gazza: "I drove from Newcastle to Rothbury. I brought him a dressing gown, can of lager. I think I can help him through this"


.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 9, 2010)

For gods sake don't send Shearer down there. There'll be mass suicides.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Paul Gascoigne has arrived at police cordon claiming to be Moat's friend.

WTF? Im trapped in Chris Morris's head. Leat me out!


----------



## Apathy (Jul 9, 2010)

yeh he's gonna go out on the toon with Gazza, Jimmy 'five bellys' Danny Baker and Chris Evans


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

why have Sky photoshopped his face? Can anyone get a creen grab of the one they are using? Please.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 9, 2010)

> Gazza is not being allowed in to Roaul Moat siege location: "Police told me Raoul might shoot me. I just want to shout Moaty I'm here"


.


----------



## Edie (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Paul Gascoigne has arrived at police cordon claiming to be Moat's friend.
> 
> WTF? Im trapped in Chris Morris's head. Leat me out!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

ITV totally wiped the floor with the BBC on the 10.00pm news.

BBC - usually old guff, ITV - live interview with person looking at Moat from her window and the story that he has no ammo left from his best mate.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

Is Moat lying down or standing up? This is the big question.


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

The police had raoul in their sights hours ago, how is he still alive?


----------



## Scarlette (Jul 9, 2010)

This is the maddest thing ever. EVER.

It's like a Douglas Coupland novel or something.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> .



Is he getting Moaty mixed up with Motty in his booze-addled mind do you think?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Is Moat lying down or standing up? This is the big question.


 Sitting cross legged says ITV. BBC fckn clueless


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

Gazza? _What?_


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Paul Gascoigne has arrived at police cordon claiming to be Moat's friend.
> 
> WTF? Im trapped in Chris Morris's head. Leat me out!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> The police had raoul in their sights hours ago, how is he still alive?



Double time after 8pm.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

Should we read too much into Cheryl Cole leaving intensive care earlier?  Will there be a cavalcade of Geordie celebrities visiting the scene?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is he getting Moaty mixed up with Motty in his booze-addled mind do you think?



Serious enough for Sky Sports News to break into their breaking news that Michel Platini has collapsed. Expect to see Gazza in South Africa tomorrow offering him a get well soon kebab


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> Double time after 8pm.



Well, yeah.  Must be.  You'd think they shoot him in the arm or something.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> a cavalcade of Geordie celebrities


I'm a bit stuck after Cheryl and Gazza 

Jimmy Nail?
The Likely Lads?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm a bit stuck after Cheryl and Gazza
> 
> Jimmy Nail?
> The Likely Lads?



Ant and Dec


----------



## Jackobi (Jul 9, 2010)

Raoul Goatse

For some reason I got the idea in to my head that this was a request.



Spoiler: NSFW


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm a bit stuck after Cheryl and Gazza
> 
> Jimmy Nail?
> The Likely Lads?



They could get the rest of the cast of Auf Wiedersehen Pet back together to give him a good send-off.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 9, 2010)

They've ordered food


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

It'll be fish and chips for Moat then, he likes that.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm a bit stuck after Cheryl and Gazza
> 
> Jimmy Nail?
> The Likely Lads?



I hope Malcom McDonald turns up. He's a right knob.

As long as Bob Mortimer represents him in court, that could be just as fascinating. His opening statement would be him crawling across the floor of the courtroom singing "Michael row the boat ashore" and Moat would get off, chaired from place by Gazza and the bloke who does the voiceovers on Big Brother.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> They've ordered food


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)

Howay, lerrus in, ill just gaan on in an make moaty laff pet


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Steve Cram?

No . . . him off the Big Brother voiceover: Daey eet, Raoul is in the gardin . .


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

Jackobi said:


> Raoul Goatse
> 
> For some reason I got the idea in to my head that this was a request.
> 
> ...



Why would you do that?


----------



## Jackobi (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> Why would you do that?



I misread a post about Raoul Moatse...I think.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm a bit stuck after Cheryl and Gazza



May I suggest Tyneside's silver-tongued cavalier?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

he's wearing G-Star jeans! 

Sales up 150%


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

got a cop chopper above me in Cardiff for atmospheric effect!


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2010)

gazza now on sky news



edit: obviously ruined


----------



## rorymac (Jul 9, 2010)

This country is a fuckin joke more like !!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 9, 2010)

lol @ Gazza interview

"Somewuns wound im up or summat"


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> got a cop chopper above me in Cardiff for atmospheric effect!



can't hear it... you moved


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

reckon Chris Morriss's head has exploded watching this?!?! 

e2a bOB - yeah man, west side, nowhere near as regular


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2010)

Sounds like something the Chief Constable up there would say.


----------



## Scarlette (Jul 9, 2010)

Did you hear the radio clip of Gazza? Dear lord, he's lost it. And is causing a 'kerfuffle' apparently.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

safe bruv...


----------



## rorymac (Jul 9, 2010)

Fuckin load of soppy wufters taking it up the arse .. not a clue about fuckall !


----------



## Apathy (Jul 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> lol @ Gazza interview
> 
> "Somewuns wound im up or summat"



classic


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Jul 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> lol @ Gazza interview
> 
> "Somewuns wound im up or summat"



How drunk?

"Ee wus a gennleman like..."


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> got a cop chopper above me in Cardiff for atmospheric effect!



We're all Raoul Moat now.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

rorymac said:


> This country is a fuckin joke more like !!



Fucking hell, i thought i saw Rorymac. Things are getting to me.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 9, 2010)

Scarlette said:


> Did you hear the radio clip of Gazza? Dear lord, he's lost it. And is causing a 'kerfuffle' apparently.



Damn, missed that.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

Scarlette said:


> Did you hear the radio clip of Gazza? Dear lord, he's lost it. And is causing a 'kerfuffle' apparently.



Yep, I'll bet that's exactly what the negotiators and emergency services need, him showing up and kicking off while rubberneckers and his fans turn up and clog the roads looking for autographs.

Just makes an already difficult situation worse, from the negotiators point of view.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> We're all Raoul Moat now.



just shaved me ed and gerrin camo oot nah


----------



## purves grundy (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Fucking hell, i thought i saw Rorymac. Things are getting to me.



send him in


----------



## rorymac (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm well upset with society and I feel like a copper is going to fuckin get it !


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 9, 2010)

.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

rorymac said:


> I'm well upset with society and I feel like a copper is going to fuckin get it !



A vision!

What should we do now oh Rory?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2010)

how the fuck did the plod not have loads of towerlights etc on hand already?

night vision now 
and red dots ooooh


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## stethoscope (Jul 9, 2010)

They'll be tears with Gazza there


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> how the fuck did the plod not have loads of towerlights etc on hand already?



Fear not, comrade, for I hear that a much more competent major incident commander is already headed for the scene:






'Listen very carefully. I shall say zees only once...'


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

Whats next? Kerry Katona to turn up with a king prawn ring?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Whats next? Kerry Katona to turn up with a king prawn ring?



She's on holiday at the moment.

I hear Elvis is available and is making a comeback. He's only got six feet to go.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 9, 2010)

You need to fucking sort stuff out and get a grip Barking Mad !
Put in a shift !


----------



## Apathy (Jul 9, 2010)

Ex Krypton Factor host Gordon Burns, with a live webcam attached to his forehead?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

rorymac said:


> You need to fucking sort stuff out and get a grip Barking Mad !
> Put in a shift !



Yes Lord, Yes oh Lord.....but how shall i put in a shift oh lord?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yes Lord, Yes oh Lord.....but how shall i put in a shift oh lord?



Rorymac granting an audience to his many followers, yesterday:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 9, 2010)

i think this is his 23rd coming, but i might have miscounted....


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> i think this is his 23rd coming, but i might have miscounted....



Must make a mess of the bedsheets.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Must make a mess of the bedsheets.



It's how the Turin Shroud was fashioned.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

The fog on the Tyne is Raoul mine, Raoul mine....


----------



## rorymac (Jul 9, 2010)

I can tell when folks take the piss .. I tried to send a big fat bloke through a glass window today. His nose exploded but he got wedged in the frame!


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

It seems he has been arrested.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2010)

Truefax?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> It seems he has been arrested.



link?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

I thought he was going to be an hero


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 9, 2010)

Can you even get aressted in GTA , I can't even remember anymore


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

Actually not arrested.  Soz I got that impression from news 24.  They have him under control or some shit, apparently.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> The fog on the Tyne is Raoul mine, Raoul mine....



Who shall have a fishy on a little dishy, who shall have a fishy, when the Moat caves in?


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

He may still an hero yet.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 9, 2010)




----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> Actually not arrested.  Soz I got that impression from news 24.  They have him under control or some shit, apparently.



Gazza or Moaty


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2010)

sky news filling hard here


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

Police are negotiating with a man fitting the description of fugitive gunman Raoul Moat in Rothbury.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Police are negotiating with a man fitting the description of fugitive gunman Raoul Moat in Rothbury.



Really?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2010)

Are they still negotiating? Still?


----------



## machine cat (Jul 9, 2010)

lol at the picture on the bbc new front page


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 9, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> lol at the picture on the bbc new front page



 He's taking the piss.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

That was particulary odd, wasn't it.

Looks like Kevin McKidd.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 9, 2010)

I've only just switched the news on, have we seen Firky again in all this?


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 9, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> He's taking the piss.



He's probably telling the press to fuck off


----------



## machine cat (Jul 10, 2010)

who chose that picture?


----------



## tar1984 (Jul 10, 2010)

lizzieloo said:


> He's probably telling the press to fuck off



should've just pointed the gun at them


----------



## xenon (Jul 10, 2010)

Some /most of those armed coppers must be thinking, just get on with it you fuck. Shoot something. Yourself, one of us. C'mon I've trained all this time and I want a live target.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Jul 10, 2010)

Good grief, now Gazza's in on the act
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/09/paul-gascoigne-raoul-moat

_Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, arrived in Rothbury to offer his support for Raoul Moat, the fugitive who was tonight in confrontation with armed police.

"He is willing to give in now. I just want to give him some therapy and say 'come on Moaty, it's Gazza'.

"He is all right – simple as that – and I am willing to help him. I have come all the way from Newcastle to Rothbury to find him, have a chat with him."

Gascoigne, who has battled with drink for much of his adult life, is a frequent visitor to Rothbury as the fishing is good locally.

"I guarantee, Moaty, he won't shoot me. I am good friends with him," he said_.

I love this quote from his agent...
_"He's doing what? I am sitting having an evening meal in Majorca. I'm speechless."_


----------



## xenon (Jul 10, 2010)

What's his Facebook status now?

Doh


----------



## killer b (Jul 10, 2010)

fb rumour suggests there's a big fuck off tunnel underneath rothbury that no-one thought to look in...


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> the breaking news in a weeks time will be all about how al-qaeda managed to put acid into the water supply of the entire uk, this is unbelievably bizarre and clearly a mass hallucination





paulhackett66 said:


> Quote: Gazza: "I drove from Newcastle to Rothbury. I brought him a dressing gown, can of lager. I think I can help him through this"
> .





Barking_Mad said:


> Paul Gascoigne has arrived at police cordon claiming to be Moat's friend.
> 
> WTF? Im trapped in Chris Morris's head. Leat me out!



just read this and it's made me shout "WHAT THE FUCK!!!!" at my computer


----------



## machine cat (Jul 10, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Good grief, now Gazza's in on the act
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/09/paul-gascoigne-raoul-moat
> 
> _Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, arrived in Rothbury to offer his support for Raoul Moat, the fugitive who was tonight in confrontation with armed police.
> ...



This is an episode of Brass Eye.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> The BBC have got a mad still for their video clip. It looks like a weird bit of Photoshoppery.



It certainly doesn't do wor Paula any justice. She's no oil painting but she's not as bad as all this. Maybe a four pinter.


----------



## BettyBlue (Jul 10, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Good grief, now Gazza's in on the act
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/09/paul-gascoigne-raoul-moat
> 
> _Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, arrived in Rothbury to offer his support for Raoul Moat, the fugitive who was tonight in confrontation with armed police.
> ...



He's  a crackpot of the highest order isn't he?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> This is an episode of Brass Eye.



I might go and get my dressing gown on in a minute, see if it makes this lager even more brilliant.

It's just what you want, isn't it, at the absolute nadir of your life, whne you think it can't get any worse and your continued existence as a human hangs in the balance - a gurning, sweating Gazza showing up and calling you a good lad. Anything but that...BLAMMO!


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

James Cordon is at the scene now


Well, i assume he is, he is everywhere else.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 10, 2010)

.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 10, 2010)

So it is still going on. 

Well, no hurry I suppose. 

But, if he was going to kill himself he probably would have done it by now.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 10, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So it is still going on.
> 
> Well, no hurry I suppose.
> 
> But, if he was going to kill himself he probably would have done it by now.



Agreed, as soon as they caught him. He's probably just stringing it out, see if can get a pizza.

Unless...it's a man in a Raoul mask, and he's fucked off to Scotland or somewhere...


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

he stole a fucking tomato !!! what a cunt


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

How does *Paul the Octopus* think that the *Raoul* story will end?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

toblerone3 said:


> How does *Paul the Octopus* think that the *Raoul* story will end?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 10, 2010)

toblerone3 said:


> How does *Paul the Octopus* think that the *Raoul* story will end?



Spain wins !!!


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


>



is that a psychic octopus or just a pole dancing one?


----------



## mancboy (Jul 10, 2010)

rollinder said:


> is that a psychic octopus or just a pole dancing one?



What, it can't be both?

Just because it _chooses _to make its money through erotic dancing doesn't mean an octopus can't have other talents too you know


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

Don't Joke. He has a gun held against his head!


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 10, 2010)

no, I don't think he's 'alright', Mr Gascoigne!


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

Wedding celebration is just ending in a bar nearby in Rothbury.


----------



## janeb (Jul 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It certainly doesn't do wor Paula any justice. She's no oil painting but she's not as bad as all this. Maybe a four pinter.



She's a woman worried sick about her mam, what makes you think it's appropriate to make such a sarky nasty comment


----------



## Pingu (Jul 10, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> It could be one of his bodybuilder mates covering for him. He'd have to be a pretty good mate though.


 
understatement of the decade

you would want more than "a couple of pints next time I see you" for doing that, thats for sure


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> lol at the picture on the bbc new front page



Please, for the sake of memes somebody shop the sparta face onto that cop


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

Pingu said:


> understatement of the decade
> 
> you would want more than "a couple of pints next time I see you" for doing that, thats for sure





True, yet apparently he persuaded two lads to come along in the car to find a copper to shoot, remanded in custody so there might be some truth in their willingness.  (then again, a copper was shot, different rules and all that).


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

kin el, this story now has everything if gazza's involved.

actually, are we sure it's not gazza by the river with a gun to his head trying to steal moats limelight?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> True, yet apparently he persuaded two lads to come along in the car to find a copper to shoot, remanded in custody so there might be some truth in their willingness.  (then again, a copper was shot, different rules and all that).



boredom's a terrible thing...


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

This situation is very dramatic.  !!!!!!

Shotgun placed underneath his head confronted by 20 police marksmen with their weapons trained on him.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> kin el, this story now has everything if gazza's involved.
> 
> actually, are we sure it's not gazza by the river with a gun to his head trying to steal moats limelight?



No reference to Gazza on the BBC.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2010)

as I posted just heard the bit about Gazza on FiveLive.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> boredom's a terrible thing...





Rumours are bouncing around the internet that early cucumbers and possibly spring onions are missing in the surrounding location.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> Rumours are bouncing around the internet that early cucumbers and possibly spring onions are missing in the surrounding location.



are they sure he's not really a giant rabbit or slug?


----------



## madamv (Jul 10, 2010)

This is so intense that I am worried he is going to escape and turn up at my house.... wtf is that all about? I just got the fear whilst shutting all my Windows and doors before coming up to bed.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

madamv said:


> This is so intense that I am worried he is going to escape and turn up at my house.... wtf is that all about? I just got the fear whilst shutting all my Windows and doors before coming up to bed.





gunshots heard   i'd guess he is gone.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

toblerone3 said:


> This situation is very dramatic.  !!!!!!
> 
> Shotgun placed underneath his head confronted by 20 police marksmen with their weapons trained on him.



innit.

anyway, Mr Moat, or should I call you Raoul, if by any remote chance you're also reading this while holding the shotgun to your head and facing off 20 armed coppers, I think I've sussed out your best escape move.

1 - keep the police talking for another few hours while it's raining to let the river level rise a bit and get faster

2 - Identify a suitable looking reed on the river bank between you and the river

3 - surrepticiously weigh yourself down with nearby stones to just the right weight so your not quite boyant.

4 - A couple of hours before dawn, when the coppers are getting tired, move the shotgun slightly to the side of your head and pull the trigger so it looks like you've shot yourself, while at the same time falling backwards dramatically into the river as if you've blown your head off, not forgetting to pluck the reed from the river bank on your way in.

5 - float off down the river on your back gradually sinking, then once under water use the reed as a straw to breathe through as the current takes your submerged body away downstream.

6 - climb out, jump in gazza's car boot. 

7 - job's a good'un


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

Shot been heard.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> gunshots heard   i'd guess he is gone.





Strumpet said:


> Shot been heard.


I guess that makes the timing of my post either particularly insensitive, or he's an incredibly fast reader


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)




----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2010)

Has the fucking twat killed himself yet?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I guess that makes the timing of my post either particularly insensitive, or he's an incredibly fast reader



Well, you did all you could in the circumstances.


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Has the fucking twat killed himself yet?



Possibly. There was a shot and a scuffle of sorts and lots of shouting then all quiet apparently and police started moving about n kinda standing down....


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

2 shots


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> gunshots heard   i'd guess he is gone.



More than one shot to shoot yourself?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Has the fucking twat killed himself yet?


that's a bit harsh isn't it? I know he did a shit version of fog on the tyne and never really live up to the hype, but there's no need to wish death on the bloke...


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

Nah, it was Gazza acting up as per usual











Though, it looks like he might have blew a bullet into his head/got killed to death at the same time.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

This is it, this is what we've all been waiting for, bollocks to the world cup this is raw action.


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

They're saying one shot now.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Strumpet said:


> They're saying one shot now.



Fuck it, let's say 3.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

Strumpet said:


> They're saying one shot now.


let the conspiracy theories begin...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

I bet that bloke who killed those prostitutes in Bradford is well pissed off with the week long solid coverage that Mr Moat has received.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Fuck it, let's say 3.



2 shots and the ptsss sound of someone firing a poisoned dart from a blowpipe.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

8ball said:


> 2 shots and the ptsss sound of someone firing a poisoned dart from a blowpipe.



From a grassy knoll?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Hang on, hasn't this 'showdown' happened near a river?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

The sky reporter based further away thought he heard a second gun shot (kind of like an echo) but worth reporting as those closer might have missed it.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2010)

police statement 'can confirm a shot or shots have been fired'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> The sky reporter based further away thought he heard a second gun shot (kind of like an echo) but worth reporting as those closer might have missed it.



Blatantly lizards near by.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> police statement 'can confirm a shot or shots have been fired'


need time to get their story straight?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I bet that bloke who killed those prostitutes in Bradford is well pissed off with the week long solid coverage that Mr Moat has received.






What with this and D. Birds rampage, the Crossbow chap has been well undermined, forgotten already.  In fact, i think Gazza has come out of this period the best.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2010)

according to google, apparently moat has been shot and is recieving treatment


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

Chief Super talking to press now - "A shot or shots have been fired and the suspect has a gunshot wound and is currently being treated."


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> need time to get their story straight?



They could have easily done that beforehand, cleared the area and shot him hours ago.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> What with this and D. Birds rampage, the Crossbow chap has been well undermined, forgotten already.  In fact, i think Gazza has come out of this period the best.



The crossbow chap fucked up the PR angle.  Moat got it spot on with the letters declaring war on the police.  Bird went for brute force marketing.  The crossbow chap just bought a few crappy books from Amazon and made it all up on the spot in court.  Text book marketing fail.

Christ, what a fucking cynical and depressing society we live in eh?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

thank fuck i can sleep now...


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

No officers have been injured. Apprently he is in ambulance on way to Newcastle hospital but Chief Super wouldn't confirm.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Strumpet said:


> No officers have been injured. Apprently he is in ambulance on way to Newcastle hospital but Chief Super wouldn't confirm.



This is thrilling stuff, Strumpet.  Did you manage to catch the exact key the ambulance's siren was blaring in?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

£20 says he wakes up dead.


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

D and the driver had xmas boxer shorts on.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Strumpet said:


> D and the driver had xmas boxer shorts on.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

LOL It was on a river bank too.  In my mocking of this story I was saying to a mate that they'll be a text/phone vote and one of the options would be a river bank.  Looks like the British public have spoken.


----------



## machine cat (Jul 10, 2010)

I take it Rambo Raoul is no longer with us?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

8ball said:


> They could have easily done that beforehand, cleared the area and shot him hours ago.



this is northumbria police we're talking about


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> I take it Rambo Raoul is no longer with us?



inconclusive


----------



## Jackobi (Jul 10, 2010)

Man resembling gunman Moat shot in police stand-off

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10583839.stm


----------



## machine cat (Jul 10, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> inconclusive



You think he managed to shoot them all with one round?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 10, 2010)

Looks like a sad end. Another person dead.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

I would absolutely love to see Charlie Brooker newswipe all this.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> You think he managed to shoot them all with one round?



No just that it's not been confirmed that he's dead just has 'sustained a gunshot wound'.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 10, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> No just that it's not been confirmed that he's dead just has 'sustained a gunshot wound'.


"a shot or shots have been fired" - what is this? can't they count?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

Jackobi said:


> Man resembling gunman Moat shot in police stand-off
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10583839.stm


hold on 'man resembling Moat'?

they'd best not have shot gazza by mistake


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I would absolutely love to see Charlie Brooker newswipe all this.



same here  be a good reason to reshow that clip with the man explaining why the media shouldn't sensationalise coverage of murderers compared to how they'd covered a story, only recut with Sky footage...


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

they think he shot himself.... or something


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

sky news just played the shot really loud... he did himself for sure.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Looks like a sad end. Another person dead.


I'm crying real tears here for the woman-shooting, murdering scumbag.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2010)

they won't report dead till the docs signed off on it, but I fear old Moaty has shot his last copper.
I'm off to bed then


----------



## free spirit (Jul 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> let the conspiracy theories begin...





Jazzz said:


> "a shot or shots have been fired" - what is this? can't they count?


*taps watch*


----------



## extra dry (Jul 10, 2010)

well if you shot yourself in the head with a shot gun I think it is 99.99% sure you will end your life, that is if he is dead and not just wounded....bet he 'falls down the stairs' at the nick if he is not already dead.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

rollinder said:


> same here  be a good reason to reshow that clip with the man explaining why the media shouldn't sensationalise coverage of murderers compared to how they'd covered a story, only recut with Sky footage...



Oh god yeah I totally forgot about that.

This is one of the most absurd news stories i've ever heard, the media have been involved in a week long circle jerk and now we've had the money shot.  I can't begin to put into words just how thoroughly depressing the whole thing has been. One bloke dead, one woman shot, a cop shot, a bloke having a complete mental breakdown and the whole country has been wanking over it for a week.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/place...F8&ll=55.376184,-2.04586&spn=0,0&z=12&iwloc=A


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

from twitter - apparently a genuine trending topic explanation eta. not photoshopped (but prob written by a member of the public)


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm crying real tears here for the woman-shooting, murdering scumbag.





I've never understood why it is worse to shoot an unarmed female as opposed to an unarmed un-aware male.   I did think the bullet sound appeared to be a rubber bullet or a muffled shotgun sound, i'd like to think that the cunt is injured, disfigured and going to spend the end of his days in the slammer.  Fuck him.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

extra dry said:


> well if you shot yourself in the head with a shot gun I think it is 99.99% sure you will end your life, that is if he is dead and not just wounded....bet he 'falls down the stairs' at the nick if he is not already dead.



I knew someone who shot herself in the head and lived.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 10, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Oh god yeah I totally forgot about that.
> 
> This is one of the most absurd news stories i've ever heard, the media have been involved in a week long circle jerk and now we've had the money shot.  I can't begin to put into words just how thoroughly depressing the whole thing has been. One bloke dead, one woman shot, a cop shot, a bloke having a complete mental breakdown and the whole country has been wanking over it for a week.



Just heard news reporter say "We have footage of the moment the scene reached its climax" see, even the language is one of masturbation.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Just heard news reporter say "We have footage of the moment the scene reached its climax" see, even the language is one of masturbation.




They timed it all wrong.


----------



## BettyBlue (Jul 10, 2010)

<3 Gazza


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm crying real tears here for the woman-shooting, murdering scumbag.


He shot a man too, is that not so bad?


----------



## yardbird (Jul 10, 2010)

He's in hospital


----------



## Shevek (Jul 10, 2010)

I know he did wrong but in a way I feel quite sorry for him


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

dead according to sky sources.


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Jul 10, 2010)

BettyBlue said:


> <3 Gazza




Fucking hell that's terrible. He doesn't seem to comprehend that the brutal murder of an innocent man is anything other than "not nice".
A dressing gown, a chicken, a can of lager and a fishing rod. Ok Gazza, that'll work. 

Seriously though, this cunt's on the way to becoming a geordie folk legend. Fuck him, and fuck Gazza.


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2010)

BettyBlue said:


> <3 Gazza




Aw 

Gazza: "He's killed someone which is not nice, really"


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2010)

Orangesanlemons said:


> Fucking hell that's terrible. He doesn't seem to comprehend that the brutal murder of an innocent man is anything other than "not nice".
> A dressing gown, a chicken, a can of lager and a fishing rod. Ok Gazza, that'll work.
> 
> Seriously though, this cunt's on the way to becoming a geordie folk legend. Fuck him, and fuck Gazza.



Ee's tukkit bread an all pet


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2010)

Oh well


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

As a non-Brit (although I've lived in London), I had to Wiki Paul "Gazza" Gascoigne. Fucking hell. First the World Cup, now this 'Moat Mate' shit. It's not looking good England...

And this Raoul Moat feller. He obviously stepped out of the room during the bathroom scene in "Full Metal Jacket".

*You put it your mouth Raoul. You put the gun in your mouth.*


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Jul 10, 2010)

They think it's Raoul over- it is now


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

ebay sex moomin said:


> They think it's Raoul over- it is now



Apparently, confirmed by BBC. Perhaps Raoul _did_ see the whole of "Full Metal Jacket".


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2010)

yup brown bread link


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 10, 2010)

Well, this has been one of the more mental news stories in quite a while...


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Jul 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well, this has been one of the more mental news stories in quite a while...


Yeah. I have this weird feeling like I dreamed it all. The main story was crazy enough; his mum wishing him dead an' that; some local resident claiming he stole a tomato from their greenhouse; then Gazza turning up was the bonus ball. Proper mixed bag of nuts. And then firky- the joker in the pack. 

Of course, it was only ever gonna end one way...


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

The nu English Bulldog:








Hardcore, threatening grimace...whilst pointing a Tazer from two thousand yards...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 10, 2010)

It's the bloke behind him with the comedy tache that worries me


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's the bloke behind him with the comedy tache that worries me



Have to disagree...as an old skool colonial, I find just a wee bit of comfort with the old English warrior-class. All so Powell and Pressburger and whatnot...

BTW, his tache is the worst Photoshopped hackjob I've ever seen in my life. Was that black 20px line across his upper lip supposed to connote 'authority'? And he's got a fucking Marlboro sticking out of his double chin...


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

BettyBlue said:


> <3 Gazza




That was just pure comedy.


----------



## Apathy (Jul 10, 2010)

just woke up to find he is dead. arsed

but Gazza


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> That was just pure comedy.




"ee'sh a looverly blurke!"


----------



## mauvais (Jul 10, 2010)

Goodbye People's Murderer, may you ever be in our storm drains.


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 10, 2010)

"12 years and with good behaviour, out in 6" gazza quote


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 10, 2010)

This will be like a JFK moment - 'where were you when Raoul shot himself up'.

Unfortunately most people will say in bed.


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

Well that was fun.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 10, 2010)

ebay sex moomin said:


> They think it's Raoul over- it is now



Indeed.


----------



## Geri (Jul 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's the bloke behind him with the comedy tache that worries me



Clearly you failed to spot Gazza behind him!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm crying real tears here for the woman-shooting, murdering scumbag.



Unless you believe in 'evil' you have to believe somewhere in his life was tradgedy. Is he worthy of sympathy? Not much, he seemed particularly self obsessed and selfish. Somewhere it went wrong for whoever he was when he was 5 though.

You don't have to feel empathy for this misogynist, but it's not wholly inappropriate to do so, as I imagine you might if we were discussing a death row prisoner.

So neither yours, nor jazz's comments are unreasonable.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

I should think the prospect of Gazza 'helping' finally tipped him over the edge.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jul 10, 2010)

Shreddy said:
			
		

> First the World Cup, now this 'Moat Mate' shit. It's not looking good England...



You can talk.
Last time you were even at the world cup was 1986 & your loon chopped someones fucking head off on bus & ran up & down it, waving it around before tucking into some of what was left.


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 10, 2010)

Shreddy said:


> The nu English Bulldog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(the guy in the background is Phil Taylor, darting legend.)


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 10, 2010)

Farewell Moaty, you beautiful mad bastard.


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 10, 2010)

Geri said:


> Clearly you failed to spot Gazza behind him!



Where's the fishing rod?


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2010)

RIP raoul. 

A hero has fallen


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 10, 2010)

Drug-fucked thugs and bullies have a breaking point too.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2010)

I look forward to the IPCC cover up on all manner of shit surrounding this case.  From why he was released after openly telling all n sundry he was gonna shoot his gf to how the pigs took seven days to find him. In a two mile radius.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jul 10, 2010)

When Gazza showed up I was thinking...this is like when Colonel Trautman turns up to talk to Rambo in First Blood!


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 10, 2010)

i get the feeling raoul is going to be the face of angry britain.

"where's my cash mister?" victim

"don't mess with me or i'll raoul u!" angry bloke


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

Shreddy said:


> The nu English Bulldog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. What a stupid guy. Why make a face like that when Roaul aint even close enough to tase? 

His colleagues must be having a real laugh now.


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

BettyBlue said:


> <3 Gazza




His IQ must be soo low.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> Unless you believe in 'evil' you have to believe somewhere in his life was tradgedy. Is he worthy of sympathy? Not much, he seemed particularly self obsessed and selfish. Somewhere it went wrong for whoever he was when he was 5 though.
> 
> You don't have to feel empathy for this misogynist, but it's not wholly inappropriate to do so, as I imagine you might if we were discussing a death row prisoner.
> 
> So neither yours, nor jazz's comments are unreasonable.



Do you feel empathy for David Copeland?


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

Geri said:


>



The fat fuck in white creeps me out. It's usually the guys in black with weapons who do 'dat.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 10, 2010)

Shreddy said:


> The nu English Bulldog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's expression reminds me of David Schneider from The Day Today.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> Unless you believe in 'evil' you have to believe somewhere in his life was tradgedy. Is he worthy of sympathy? Not much, he seemed particularly self obsessed and selfish. Somewhere it went wrong for whoever he was when he was 5 though.
> 
> You don't have to feel empathy for this misogynist, but it's not wholly inappropriate to do so, as I imagine you might if we were discussing a death row prisoner.
> 
> So neither yours, nor jazz's comments are unreasonable.


 
This sort of stuff boils my piss 

Yeah, let's feel sypathy (however little) for a bloke who from appearances was ultimately just a selfish cunt. No doubt he did have some tragedy in his life but lots of people have. Where does personal responsibility come in?


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> This sort of stuff boils my piss
> 
> Yeah, let's feel sypathy (however little) for a bloke who from appearances was ultimately just a selfish cunt. No doubt he did have some tragedy in his life but lots of people have. Where does personal responsibility come in?



Where mental health impacts on someone's ability to make rational decisions?


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> Where does personal responsibility come in?



He's dead.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

Shreddy said:


> He's dead.


 What does that have to do with anything? Did he kill himself out of some sense of social responsibility?


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Where mental health impacts on someone's ability to make rational decisions?


 What were his mental health issues?

Millions of people have mental health issues and don't go on some killing spree.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> In a two mile radius.



I can hear Laurel and Hardy's Dance of the Cuckoos.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

I thought the story would die a death but we haven't had the bun fight yet have we?


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

He was just an attention seeker. Will be forgotten shortly.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> lol at the picture on the bbc new front page



Best picture of the whole story: _"When I grow up I want a real gun."_


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

A chicken and a couple of fishing rods...?!


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> What were his mental health issues?
> 
> Millions of people have mental health issues and don't go on some killing spree.



I'll stick my neck out and say borderline personality disorder, but it's only a guess based on working with a number of younger men with mental health problems.

Some people's mental health issues are worse than others and affect each person differently, as I'm sure you know. The idea of dismissing genuine problems as selfishness is just a bit lazy.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 10, 2010)

Goodbye England's murderer,
May you ever hide in our garden,
You gave the plod the runaround
And the news a stonking hard-on.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> I'll stick my neck out and say borderline personality disorder, but it's only a guess based on working with a number of younger men with mental health problems.
> 
> Some people's mental health issues are worse than others and affect each person differently, as I'm sure you know. The idea of dismissing genuine problems as selfishness is just a bit lazy.


 Does that mean every person who behaves violently towards another is some victim of tragedy or mental health issues? Because that's what I was taking issue with. This assumption that we're all inherently good, that if we cause pain to another we must have had something bad happen to us or have some kind of mental health problem.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> Does that mean every person who behaves violently towards another is some victim of tragedy or mental health issues?



Nah some just do it for a laff like innit.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Nah some just do it for a laff like innit.


 
Yeah, some do.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2010)

He totally humiliated a police force and I suspect the 'acting' chief constable won't be gettin the perm job. Good enough result. 

Anyway it's the 3rd/4th playoff this arvo. Let's move on!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 10, 2010)

> 2222 BST: The BBC's Fiona Trott says former footballer Paul Gascoigne appeared a short while ago at the police cordon. She says he posed for some pictures with children before driving off.



I know I am a bit behind the times but What????


----------



## Part 2 (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> Yeah, some do.



Do you think that was the case here?


----------



## JimW (Jul 10, 2010)

Heard some local who could hear the negotiating say what stuck in their mind was Moat saying 'I haven't got a dad'. If I was a Guardian journo I could probably get a 3,000 word pretentious cod sociology jeremiad on the state on English manhood out of that


----------



## mauvais (Jul 10, 2010)

Almost-as-weird factoid:



> An RAF Tornado plane with infra-red equipment roared overhead.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Do you think that was the case here?


 
Yes, to an extent. I don't know him so can't comment on any diagnoses he may have been given. He certainly seemed to enjoy hurting people though.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> He certainly seemed to enjoy hurting people though.



People who do that aren't mentally ill at all


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> People who do that aren't mentally ill at all


 
Do you feel sorry for him? Do you think people with mental health issues are released from personal responsibility of any kind? Because that's what's being discussed. I also question the assumption that we're all basically 'good'.


----------



## machine cat (Jul 10, 2010)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I know I am a bit behind the times but What????







> Gascoigne's agent, Kenny Shepherd, said: "He's doing what? I am sitting having an evening meal in Majorca. I'm speechless."


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> Do you feel sorry for him? Do you think people with mental health issues are released from personal responsibility of any kind? Because that's what's being discussed. I also question the assumption that we're all basically 'good'.



If they're unable to take responsiblity because of a disease of the mind, there's not much they can do about it really.

Should wheelchair-bound people pull themselves together and use the stairs instead of selfishly hogging the lift?


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> If they're unable to take responsiblity because of a disease of the mind, there's not much they can do about it really.


 
What disease of the mind? What disease did Raoul Moat have that made him fundamentally unable to control his actions?



> wheelchair-bound people pull themselves together and use the stairs instead of selfishly hogging the lift?


 


Yes. Raoul Moat was crippled by society. For fucks sake


----------



## Flavour (Jul 10, 2010)

legendary stuff. you won't take me alive copper!!!


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

God. this is turning into a boring discussion about personaality disorder, mental health issues blah blah blah.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> What disease of the mind? What disease did Raoul Moat have that made him fundamentally unable to control his actions?



Good question, a shame he wasn't assessed before being released from prison.


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

thriller said:


> God. this is turning into a boring discussion about personaality disorder, mental health issues blah blah blah.


 You're not allowed to talk to me like that. I have mental health issues and now I'm allowed to shoot you


----------



## madzone (Jul 10, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Good question, a shame he wasn't assessed before being released from prison.


 How do you know he wasn't?


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

drcarnage said:


>



Reacting with shock to the news Gascoigne was in Rothbury, his agent Kenny Shepherd said: "He's doing what? I am sitting having an evening meal in Majorca. I'm speechless." 

Comedy gold.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2010)

> Raoul "Rambo" Moat was an hero who, after administering three doses of miracle shotgun mouthwash to his ho and her copper boyfriend and another PC, lost a seven-day game of Manhunt with a 6-star wanted level.
> Let "Battle Raoul" Commence!


http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Raoul_Moat


----------



## thriller (Jul 10, 2010)

there will be many many fashion conscious youths going for the Moat Orange and Black look. Remember I said it here first:


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

thriller said:


> there will be many many fashion conscious youths going for the Moat Orange and Black look. Remember I said it here first:



Especially for Halloween.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

He's got the camp David look.


----------



## Strumpet (Jul 10, 2010)

Jesus shit. Just listened to Gazza link up there ^. At one point the dj said it was dangerous and he might get shot and Gazza replied "Knowing my luck, he'd miss"


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Even for Gascoigne, that interview was _very_ bizarre.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

Must have been a full moon.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

The cringing part was the dj, desperate to get his piece of Gazza; fantastic promo for him and his show.


----------



## gabi (Jul 10, 2010)

I'll say it again. Story of the year. Superb stuff from start to finish.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Even for Gascoigne, that interview was _very_ bizarre.



Indeed, icing on the cake.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2010)

FFS, people were murdered, cop shot full in the face, is this Class War circa 1988? the 'ironic' jokes, jibes, etc, on here are pathetic, grow up!


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 10, 2010)

what's captured the public's imagination is the whole GTA element to the story.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)




----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> I'll say it again. Story of the year. Superb stuff from start to finish.


Story of the year my arse. Some selfish murdering cunt fucks up other people's lives AND completely fucks up his own children's lives and the press have nothing better to do than make him the most important person in the world for a couple of days. He'll soon be forgotten.


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 10, 2010)

thriller said:


>


He'd of blended well in a gang of Dutch football supporters.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 10, 2010)

That Gazza interview is classic. Actual classic, like Of Mice and Men, except everyone is Lenny.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 10, 2010)

Wish the 24 hour news channels would shut up about it if they've got nothing new to report on it, but oh no, can't have that now can we....


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 10, 2010)

thriller said:


> there will be many many fashion conscious youths going for the Moat Orange and Black look. Remember I said it here first:



That's insane pumpkin right there. Albeit dead. Happy Halloween everyone.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Do you feel empathy for David Copeland?



Do you believe in 'evil'?

To be honest I'm not much of a bleeding heart about egotistical bastards who impose their will and cruelty upon others, but regret and recognition are not unreasonable either. I wouldn't assume people who have that space have no time for the actual victims.

Perhaps people agree with the 'let's try to understand less' Tory line.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 10, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Even for Gascoigne, that interview was _very_ bizarre.





mauvais said:


> That Gazza interview is classic. Actual classic, like Of Mice and Men, except everyone is Lenny.



deserves a thread of its own!


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 10, 2010)

madzone said:


> This sort of stuff boils my piss
> 
> Yeah, let's feel sypathy (however little) for a bloke who from appearances was ultimately just a selfish cunt. No doubt he did have some tragedy in his life but lots of people have. Where does personal responsibility come in?



Too hot for boiling piss.

I was just reacting to the reaction - I don't feel much sympathy myself, but I'm not going to get hot under the collar about anyone who does. We don't need a venge-fest to follow the media-fest do we?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2010)

deadringer said:


> deserves a thread of its own!



A couple of days ago in the 'news'



> He (Gazza) said: “I fancy Amy Winehouse. She’s class. I’m going to give her a call and see what she’s up to. Amy’s the woman for me.
> 
> “I thought she was in rehab and I sent her a couple of cards wishing her all the luck. I love her. I’m dying to meet her.”


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

They'd be ideal for each other tbf.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 10, 2010)

Rumour has it that Raoul was about to put down his gun and surrender until Gazza arrived. Apparently, he said "I can handle a 20 stretch but I aint listening to that cunt"


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2010)

that gazza interview is almost as bad as galloway making a dusty springfield musical ...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> that gazza interview is almost as bad as galloway making a dusty springfield musical ...


The world that just keeps on giving.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> The world that just keeps on giving.



It's a bit like someone's got into reality's config box and has been fucking around with the switches at the moment.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2010)

how on earth did he think moat would benefit from "some chicken and a fishing rod"


----------



## Belushi (Jul 10, 2010)

Well Raoul must have been hungry and probably didnt have much to do hidig in that culvert all day. Ilike Gazza's thinking


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

As if he'd break cover to have a chat with gazza with the news agencies in tow and the police standing back and cool about it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Aye, but Gazza knew him, he's a nice lad.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2010)

It is a fairly impressive and WTF thing that one man evaded capture for so long when faced with the might of fuckloads of police forces, NI's second hand APC's and eventually a fucking RAF recc. plane.

That is some epic hiding skills.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 10, 2010)

You have to credit Paul Gascoigne for introducing light relief here. Who else could have managed it?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2010)

Be interesting to see how many turn out for his funeral.....
Ive a feeling it may be well attended


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> You have to credit Paul Gascoigne for introducing light relief here. Who else could have managed it?


Bruce Forsyth? I dunno, Gazza's a north-east lad.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It is a fairly impressive and WTF thing that one man evaded capture for so long when faced with the might of fuckloads of police forces, NI's second hand APC's and eventually a fucking RAF recc. plane.
> 
> That is some epic hiding skills.



Will Shannon Matthews  have to hand over her hide and seek champion trophy?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> Will Shannon Matthews  have to hand over her hide and seek champion trophy?


 It's like in one story Moat has tied together all the major "what the fuck" stories of the past year or so.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It is a fairly impressive and WTF thing that one man evaded capture for so long when faced with the might of fuckloads of police forces, NI's second hand APC's and eventually a fucking RAF recc. plane.
> 
> That is some epic hiding skills.



Or really, really shit policework.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 10, 2010)

So, what's been the most amusing thing in this whole jolly affair then - Gazza or that tazer dude's face?


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Jul 10, 2010)

quimcunx said:


> Will Shannon Matthews  have to hand over her hide and seek champion trophy?



maddie mccann is still in the game.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> how on earth did he think moat would benefit from "some chicken and a fishing rod"



It was a cunning trap...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2010)

lolz


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2010)

Loved his agent's reaction:


> Talking to Real Radio Northeast, the 43-year-old appeared to suggest he had brought Moat, 37, a "can of lager, some chicken, a mobile phone and something to keep warm".
> 
> Gascoigne added: "He is willing to give in now. I just want to give him some therapy and say 'come on Moaty, it's Gazza'.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2010)

You couldn't make this up! Fuck me lol


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 10, 2010)

The radio interview was priceless!!!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2010)

looks like Moat was tazered and then shot himself


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

yeah thats what they said in the press confrence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> yeah thats what they said in the press confrence.


the police negotiation strategy: urge someone to give themselves up then drive them to suicide.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2010)

The Times is reporting that the police acknowledge many many people in the criminal fraternity risked long sentences to aid him, well imo, he is not Ned Kelly, he is a thug, albeit a tormented one


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> yeah thats what they said in the press confrence.



I can't help thinking that a large surge of electricity causing muscle spasm might cause your trigger finger to convulse. you know...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I can't help thinking that a large surge of electricity causing muscle spasm might cause your trigger finger to convulse. you know...


i can't help thinking that fucking about with something shooting fuck loads of electricity when it's pissing down with rain is not something an intelligent person does.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

or tip you over the edge.... he was laying down so they couldnt get a good shot at him with one.... he knew his stuff.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It is a fairly impressive and WTF thing that one man evaded capture for so long when faced with the might of fuckloads of police forces, NI's second hand APC's and eventually a fucking RAF recc. plane.
> 
> That is some epic hiding skills.



He was lucky that he only had officers from 14-15 police forces after him.

Had they put Foxy on the job he would have been fucked from day one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I can't help thinking that a large surge of electricity causing muscle spasm might cause your trigger finger to convulse. you know...



I bet they didn't say

'Look mate, youve caused the biggest manhunt in recent memory. You've shot a copper and caused about a million plus worth of APCs and RAF gear bought to bear. Sure, you are going jail but you will be feted as a living legend. Drop the piece and accept a heroes welcome in jail'


----------



## where to (Jul 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> The Times is reporting that the police acknowledge many many people in the criminal fraternity risked long sentences to aid him



i can't help but wonder why they would do that.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I can't help thinking that a large surge of electricity causing muscle spasm might cause your trigger finger to convulse. you know...



If you're giving yourself up, by lying down, why would you have your finger on the trigger?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

he was laying down all night, he wasnt giving up.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> If you're giving yourself up, by lying down, why would you have your finger on the trigger?



Sorry I've missed this at what point was it claimed he was giving himself up?

He was laying down in longish grass because it made it harder for snipers to shoot him without also laying down and exposing themselves to his weapon and range.  Equally it's widely been reported he spent most of the time with the shotgun under his chin in that position...

So where are you getting the info from he was giving himself up?

Equally I'm fairly sure they said earlier on that as long as he only posed a danger to himself they were happy for him to stay like that so who in operational command made the change of orders or once again are we going to see the whitewash of coppers saying well he was asking for it...

In this case it'll be harder for anyone to claim he was innocent but seriously as soon as the Met were involved did anyone think it was going to end any other way...

Odd really if he'd be none white I wonder if he'd have been treated differently..

again in many ways full credit to the Northumbrian police if the Met had been in charge it'd have been a lot shorter an event really but far more people would have been gunned down particlarlly if they happened to be none white...

Seems to be if you have a gun and shoot at police they don't try and take you out as quickley as if you don't have a gun and are going about your lawful business...  oyu know getting on a tube or having your table repaired...

Maybe there is a direct correlation between having armed police and it causing more violent crime... shame that the real criminals in blue never get chastised let alone serve sentences for their thuggery... 

also intresting how it all seemed to go tit's up after the Met arrived... no suprises there either...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 10, 2010)

> He was laying down in longish grass because it made it harder for snipers to shoot him without also laying down and exposing themselves to his weapon and range



If lying down makes you harder to hit why are you saying lying down leaves you exposed?  Can't be both.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)




----------



## MysteryGuest (Jul 10, 2010)

thriller said:


> there will be many many fashion conscious youths going for the Moat Orange and Black look. Remember I said it here first:



i can imagine him in front of a mirror going "way eye man, are yus lookin at ME, leik?"


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If lying down makes you harder to hit why are you saying lying down leaves you exposed?  Can't be both.



fuck off cunt.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Sorry I've missed this at what point was it claimed he was giving himself up?



By lying on the ground with a gun to his head he was obviously giving himself up.........either by killing himself or by waiting for the police to do it. 

Either way he was giving himself up. To whatever he believed or to the cops.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> fuck off cunt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> By lying on the ground with a gun to his head he was obviously giving himself up.........either by killing himself or by waiting for the police to do it.
> 
> Either way he was giving himself up. To whatever he believed or to the cops.



Erm, no. If he gave himself up he would be in custody right now.

What he did was orchestrated his own demise on his terms which is anything but giving up.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 10, 2010)

I'm just glad he's dead. Still struggling to get my head around Gazza being involved.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Erm, no. If he gave himself up he would be in custody right now.
> 
> What he did was orchestrated his own demise on his terms which is anything but giving up.



He gave up on life.

Did you read my post?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> Hew gave up on life.



I always thought give yourself up is a euphemism of surrender.

He was cornered and took his own life. He was still in control, that was his final fuck you.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I always thought give yourself up is a euphemism of surrender.
> 
> He was cornered and took his own life. He was still in control, that was his final fuck you.



Gave himself up............ to what, nobody knows. 

Still, just a sad wanker that killed innocent people, and put two fingers up at the establishment.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 10, 2010)

_Investigations into the actions of Northumbria police in the hours before the death of Raoul Moat are concentrating on two Taser shots fired at the fugitive before he killed himself.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will ask if the 50,000-volt charges from the stun gun prompted the former bouncer to fire his shotgun on himself after a six-hour confrontation with police._




So the rozzers may have accidentally offed him. Boys and their toys.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

big eejit said:


> _Investigations into the actions of Northumbria police in the hours before the death of Raoul Moat are concentrating on two Taser shots fired at the fugitive before he killed himself.
> 
> The Independent Police Complaints Commission will ask if the 50,000-volt charges from the stun gun prompted the former bouncer to fire his shotgun on himself after a six-hour confrontation with police._
> 
> ...



So he was waiting for the police to do it for him. 

Cool tactic, shoot and kill a few people and then wait for the police to turn you into a hero.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This will be like a JFK moment - 'where were you when Raoul shot himself up'.
> 
> Unfortunately most people will say in bed.



obsessivly hitting refresh on this thread


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> So he was waiting for the police to do it for him.
> 
> Cool tactic, shoot and kill a few people and then wait for the police to turn you into a hero.


Suicide by cop.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

rollinder said:


> obsessivly hitting refresh on this thread



No one will care in about 2 days.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Suicide by cop.



If he was lying down that doesn't make sense.

*Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other armed individual, such as being shot to death.[1]*


----------



## rollinder (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> If he was lying down that doesn't make sense.
> 
> *Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other armed individual, such as being shot to death.[1]*



he couldn't even get that right


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> If he was lying down that doesn't make sense.
> 
> *Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other armed individual, such as being shot to death.[1]*


I don't bloody know, I was just responding to your post!

I really haven't followed the details of what happened, I peaked at Gazza.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 10, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> I don't bloody know, I was just responding to your post!



I just responded with the first line from the link you posted to my post.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 10, 2010)

Dandred said:


> I just responded with the first line from the link you posted to my post.


I know, I was just saying that I don't know whether it _was_ suicide by cop or not, just that that's the scenario you were describing 

Sorry, all got a bit crossed wires...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 10, 2010)

I hear that Moat got some crossed wires. They were from the tazer gun fired by the police. I wonder if it was the same policeman shown in the photograph holding a tazer and with a fierce grimace on his face.

I first saw the above mentioned photograph in a photo-shopped version that included Gazza. At the time I thought the grimace on the policeman's face was part of the photo-shoppery. Then I saw the original.

Whoever fired the tazer, they have a bit of explaining to do. It was pouring with rain and the temperature had dropped dramatically. Moat would have sooner or later shot himself without being provoked. 

I suppose it is possible that Moat did shoot himself unprovoked and the tazer operator reacted instinctively to the noise of the shot and fired. He would most likely not be as well trained as the police marksmen in staying calm.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

more than one taser was fired.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

The taser thing makes no sense, why not either

a) Wait it out til he gives up / nods off / does something provoking a lethal response / shoots himself
b) Get your story straight and shoot him


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

Not siding with plod here as I think they're snidey cunts.

But...

Why wait 6 hours and then tazer someone? Something must have changed. They already stated that if he pointed a gun at the police they would kill him. So the likely scenario is that moat was trying to kill himself and the tazer was an attempt to stop him doing that.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So the likely scenario is that moat was trying to kill himself and the tazer was an attempt to stop him doing that.



Or attempting to move to a better position without provoking a lethal response.  Some senior plod was probably insisting on trying tasers as a way of bringing him in and pleasing superiors by showcasing their 'less lethal' technology.

Or they perhaps thought he'd fallen asleep so they'd get close enough to taser, paralyse him with the tasers and get his gun away from him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2010)

If the information given isn't bollocks, of course.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 10, 2010)

"The comedy moustache hasn't worked sir, let me try the Music Hall taser  routine"


----------



## big eejit (Jul 10, 2010)

"Can I have a go with the proper gun now?"


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

They really are the definition of provincial up there aren't they: Alan Partridge playing soldiers.


----------



## JimW (Jul 10, 2010)

Can't understand why with all those snipers someone couldn't have just had a shot at his trigger hand. Surely more likely to work with at most loss of a few fingers (of course could also go equally as wrong as this seems to have)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 10, 2010)

Whatever the cause, the cunt shot himself and the world just got a little bit lighter.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They really are the definition of provincial up there aren't they: Alan Partridge playing soldiers.



I didn't follow this saga but on the bit I did see they said a load of the coppers were from the Met, so these are quite likely your sophisticated London police.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

Not in charge they weren't.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 10, 2010)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the goons in the photo.


----------



## scooter (Jul 10, 2010)

The cop pulling the face is obviously shouting at the photographer to get back as he's too close. Notice that the guy next to him is also looking at the camera. Can't believe that I'm the only person to have arrived at this blindingly obvious conclusion.

There's a whole gang of armed cops pointing guns at a violent, armed lunatic and some knob of a photographer is trying to creep up to get his money shot. Not surprised the cop is angry.

Likewise that other pic of Moat lying in the grass - reckon that was some knob of a photographer getting too close as well. Bet if he'd got shot he (or his estate) would be suing the police for letting him get that close.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 10, 2010)

As this operation involved the Northumbrian Police, a police helicopter, the Met Police, the Army and even an RAF Tornado, I suspect that they were using this as a chance to practise multi-agency anti-terrorism tactics.

Had he run for the coast they could have got the Navy in there as well. The air-ambulance was not used and I bet the Mountain Rescue volunteers felt a bit left out.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

scooter said:


> The cop pulling the face is obviously shouting at the photographer to get back as he's too close. Notice that the guy next to him is also looking at the camera. Can't believe that I'm the only person to have arrived at this blindingly obvious conclusion.


Not only that but it's obviously a distraction to the guy with the fuck off gun.

Obvious question is, where was the police cordon . .


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They really are the definition of provincial up there aren't they: Alan Partridge playing soldiers.



Who are 'they'? 

You mean the 14 or 15 different police forces involved, including the Met?


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They really are the definition of provincial up there aren't they: Alan Partridge playing soldiers.




Are you suddenly from London now then?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2010)

Now I understand the 'posh' thing and the rest of your gibberish - you extrapolated a whole profile from the non league team I follow!

Step aside Sherlock, there's a new player !


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Jul 10, 2010)

I think this whole thing has been horrifically mishandled, almost a case study in bad policing - from ignoring the initial warnings, mistaking accomplices for hostages, fish and chip shop robberies, late night walks down the high street and so on to his death.

I get the impression that this has been run more as a PR exercise than as a serious attempt at catching a murderer, who they believed at least at first posed no threat to the general public - armed police at schools WTF?  

Somebody somewhere has obviously been giving good advice to who ever is running the press conferences, to tell him that he has a future, to remind him of his family etc, but its been largely ignored on the ground.  I mean if you had done something really really stupid would you really be inclined to hand yourself in with the saturation media coverage about how evil you are and zillions of police marksmen all aimed you way that finally backed you into a corner.  The fact that he swithered for 6h before killing himself showed that there was part of him that wanted to live and to face his future His uncle very publically offered to speak to him, but wasn't taken up on the offer.  FFS even a drunken Gazza could probably have made some headway.  

He hadnt shot anyone, or showed any serious signs of aggression for days.  I'm no psychiatrist, but I reckon that he started out shooting out of anger and once that disperced didnt know what the fuck to do.  Not to minimise the fact that he has killed someone and nearly killed two others, I feel sorry for him I really do, and moreover, given that he is gone, I suspect that the whole story will never really come out - there has been a complete media blackout on his history, other than sensationalised tripe about "roid rage".  He clearly had serious issues around control and relationships and echoing other, I doubt if anyone who takes a gun to their ex-gf's home is truely sane, but this was handled all wrong.

A sad story all round.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

more info on the blackout here

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...reats-To-Public/Article/201007215662742?f=rss


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> They really are the definition of provincial up there aren't they: Alan Partridge playing soldiers.



Yeah, call themselves professionals, they can't even manage to take out the odd Brazilian electrician while they're at it!  You want that there Lunnun folk for that kind of performance.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Now I understand the 'posh' thing and the rest of your gibberish - you extrapolated a whole profile from the non league team I follow!
> 
> Step aside Sherlock, there's a new player !





Call you posh because you slagged everyone in Croydon as being 'bargain' people and 'yoots'.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 10, 2010)

One question were there any independent witnesses on the scene.so will we have to depend on the police account


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> One question were there any independent witnesses on the scene.so will we have to depend on the police account



Far be it from me to be mr police endorsment but he spent about 7 hours surrounded. They had more than enough chance to off him as an 'accident' and every reason to believe media scrutiny would expose any off the cuff shooting. I genuinely think Moat had given up on life a while back and this epic denouement was his extended suicide.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Far be it from me to be mr police endorsment but he spent about 7 hours surrounded. They had more than enough chance to off him as an 'accident' and every reason to believe media scrutiny would expose any off the cuff shooting. I genuinely think Moat had given up on life a while back and this epic denouement was his extended suicide.


yeah, but its live target practice innit?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2010)

posted on another forum im on, not saying it's what i think, just copy and pasting before anyone kicks off  



> 2 police officers fired tasers attempting to disable him from his gun... shocked he managed to shoot himself in the neck but was still alive and due to the tasers and gunshot wound he starts screaming in agony! (clearly heard on media footage) The police then shout for him to "put that gun down" because he still had it in his hand, shortly after this he passes out, police disarmed him and he is rushed to hospital but pronounced dead on arrival
> Should they have tasered him? Could they have talked to him longer and resolved it peacefully? probably not! apparently this was a last resort, as his mental state deteriorated over the hours during the standoff and then in the heavy rain, Police anticipated he was about to commit suicide anyway and the tasers were ordered as a final attempt to keep him alive
> 
> info leaked from Police at the scene through family members


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 10, 2010)

i'd have fucking tasered the loon spud _and_ poured salt'n'vinegar on paper cuts on his hands


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 10, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> One question were there any independent witnesses on the scene.so will we have to depend on the police account



I thought there was at least one eyewitness who reported the shooting live on the radio as it occurred during an interview (eyewitness = local resident who could see everything from his window)?


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Jul 11, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> more info on the blackout here
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...reats-To-Public/Article/201007215662742?f=rss



Yeah, blackout or whitewash.  One of the two.  This explains *why* they asked for a media blackout, but has no indication of the content other than what Raoul Moat considers "lies".  So what was Moat's truth?

He clearly had a grudge against police officers, much was made of the fact that he believed his g/f was involved with one, he shot one officer and threatened them en masse.

He was clearly seeking publicity - using facebook, letters to friends, letters left in a tent, dictaphone messages.  He wanted to get his message out there.

What was it and will we ever know.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 11, 2010)

What purpose did the lurid coverage serve?

Why was it allowed?

How did police know Moat didnt have a radio where he could have heard, at times, the positions that were being taken up against him and wide ranging discussions and speculations that could have been useful to him and a possible danger to others?

It's all rather weird, there could and probably should have been some kind of blackout. Was it ever considered, or was it ajudged at some level that the serfs should be treated to a macabre spectacle and psycho drama?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2010)

scooter said:


> The cop pulling the face is obviously shouting at the photographer to get back as he's too close. Notice that the guy next to him is also looking at the camera. Can't believe that I'm the only person to have arrived at this blindingly obvious conclusion....


So why's he pointing a taser at somebody who's most likely not within 5 metres?

It's a pose for the papers by idiots who don't know how to pose for the papers.

There's more to this than we know...he wasn't threatening to shoot police because his g/f claimed she was shagging one.   Ah well, all over now.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 11, 2010)

scooter said:


> The cop pulling the face is obviously shouting at the photographer to get back as he's too close. Notice that the guy next to him is also looking at the camera. Can't believe that I'm the only person to have arrived at this blindingly obvious conclusion.



you're not the only person to come to that conclusion, I came to that same conclusion ages ago.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 11, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Yeah, blackout or whitewash.  One of the two.  This explains *why* they asked for a media blackout, but has no indication of the content other than what Raoul Moat considers "lies".  So what was Moat's truth?
> 
> He clearly had a grudge against police officers, much was made of the fact that he believed his g/f was involved with one, he shot one officer and threatened them en masse.
> 
> ...



Lol, you soppy twat!


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> how on earth did he think moat would benefit from "some chicken and a fishing rod"



Rob a fish n chip shop and you eat for a day, give a man a fishing rod and he can eat every day until shot


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2010)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Sorry I've missed this at what point was it claimed he was giving himself up?
> 
> He was laying down in longish grass because it made it harder for snipers to shoot him without also laying down and exposing themselves to his weapon and range.  Equally it's widely been reported he spent most of the time with the shotgun under his chin in that position...
> 
> ...




How do you think he would have been treated?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What purpose did the lurid coverage serve?
> 
> Why was it allowed?
> 
> ...



why was it 'allowed'? because it is the story of the week. Should they have banned coverage, mr. civil liberties? To protect the 'serfs' (loathsome twat)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Should they have banned coverage, mr. civil liberties?


Indeed.

And it is somewhat ironic that one of the main sources for criticism of the police in the last few hours of the incident are the residents / reporters who were allowed to remain within sight / earshot when they _could_ just have easily been moved significantly further away ...

I really do believe that policing is pretty much impossible in the gaze of the 24hour rolling news media ... give them something and they fuck about with it (and demand more); don't give them something and they claim cover-up ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What purpose did the lurid coverage serve?
> 
> Why was it allowed?
> 
> ...



What dark Machiavel was pulling the strings do you think - and to what end? I don't think we should be allowed to ask.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Was it ever considered, or was it ajudged at some level that the serfs should be treated to a macabre spectacle and psycho drama?



'The Serfs' were busy sending in hilarious pictures of the whole episode.

I'm all for dignity in the death, but this man apparently chose his path. That's not to say he should be held up for public amusement, but as he was a threat, people had a right to know what was going on. The media did that well in some ways and poorly in others.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Was it ever considered, or was it ajudged at some level that the serfs should be treated to a macabre spectacle and psycho drama?



People were being shot ffs, the public had a right to know what was going on!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What dark Machiavel was pulling the strings do you think - and to what end? I don't think we should be allowed to ask.



 You mean "they" were behind this as well Butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2010)

You must never discount the possibility - taffboy should tread very carefully here.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2010)

I can't remember seeing "get Gazza to give Moaty some chicken, a fishing rod and a dressing gown" in you-know-what hundred year old book ...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You must never discount the possibility - taffboy should tread very carefully here.



Strangely I have been thinking much of the same...
and im far from a conspiroloon...


btw: surpised not to hear any rauol ira jokes yet


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

Oh please don't say that after gazza the lizards are now making a late appearance in all of this.


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Jul 11, 2010)

Has the the police been in a situation like that before??... i cant think of one even remotely similar.
Maybe they will act differently if there ever is a next time . Least now they know what went for them and what went against them.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

They tasered him so his muscles would go into spasm and he'd pull the trigger.

I know this for a fact. They murdered him.

What were they trying to cover up?

It's clear that Moat was just a misguided soul who just wanted to get an important message across. He never really meant to hurt anyone.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2010)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> He hadnt shot anyone, or showed any serious signs of aggression for days.  .


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 11, 2010)

Moaty's last supper (video):

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/873086/Battle-to-keep-beast-breathing-Heroic-floodlit-flight-to-save-Raoul-Moat-in-vain.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> One question were there any independent witnesses on the scene.so will we have to depend on the police account



Yes.



> Investigators will be looking at the account of Susan Ballantyne, a Rothbury resident, who described how police officers had crowded around Moat in the moments before he shot himself. They will also look at Moat's police history.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/11/raoul-moat-family-postmortem-taser


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> They tasered him so his muscles would go into spasm and he'd pull the trigger.
> 
> I know this for a fact. They murdered him.
> 
> ...



That message being 'i am an attention seeking violent twat'.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2010)

...



> Angus Moat said of his younger brother: "He was a mentally ill man under a lot of stress who cracked, and it was just the final straw.
> 
> "His actions, although I appreciate were absolutely horrendous, and although I wish he hadn't gone ahead and done what he did, were a cry of anguish.
> 
> "It was a cry of pain. The media have been bigging him up as a kind of Rambo type character. It's crazy."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10590754.stm


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> That message being 'i am an attention seeking violent twat'.


 Yeah, I'm taking the piss


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10590754.stm


 That would be all well and good if (like the taxi driver) his actions were a one-off.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 11, 2010)

i think it was pretty disgusting the way the media made it out to be some kind of new Big Brother programme, Sky news cunts just standing there trying to think of something to say as someone's life is being played out


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

The picture of the snarling, taser wielding copper, featured in the papers today doesn't inspire confidence. Nor does the reported "pandemonium that erupted among the 200 officers involved", including later 10 snipers, who went to the scene where Moat had been located.

More pandemonium when two squad cars collided outside one of the local pubs in the area as information was relayed on the police radio network. Police liaison wasn't helped, when a card with a goodwill message was read out at a press conference describing Moat as a "nutter". The officer leading the manhunt was seen to smirk at this remark and made another gaffe when she announced that she would leave "every stone unturned".

"The British police are the best in the world..." etc.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Why do you think the policeman was snarling?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The picture of the snarling, taser wielding copper, featured in the papers today doesn't inspire confidence. Nor does the reported "pandemonium that erupted among the 200 officers involved", including later 10 snipers, who went to the scene where Moat had been located.
> 
> More pandemonium when two squad cars collided outside one of the local pubs in the area as information was relayed on the police radio network. Police liaison wasn't helped, when a card with a goodwill message was read out at a press conference describing Moat as a "nutter". *The officer leading the manhunt was seen to smirk at this remark *and made another gaffe when she announced that she would leave "every stone unturned".
> 
> "The British police are the best in the world..." etc.



No, she wasn't. I watched it and she didn't smirk.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> No, she wasn't. I watched it and she didn't smirk.



Take it up with the Observer that's what they've reported.

Moat apparently visited his mate at his house twice after the police had interviewed this guy. It seems incredible that his friends house wasn't being watched by the police?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Why do you think the policeman was snarling?



Have you seen this image? I have and have no doubt that the snarl is real.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2010)

The card that was being read out was written by a youngster who was the one who used the word 'nutter'. What was meant as a PR stroke showing that there was support from the public, backfired when the media picked on the word 'nutter'. I think they had misunderstood that it was a quote from a child. The media themselves have been using the word 'crazed' about Moat so it is hardly surprising that a child would pick up on that idea.

There seems to have been a lot of hostility towards the police in this case, even in the questioning by Channel 4 television quoting random members of the public claiming that the tent the police had found was a decoy and implying that the police were on the wrong track. Soon afterwards Moat was discovered right at the centre of where the police were looking.

I know that it must be very boring waiting hours outdoors for new information but to vent that frustration on the police in order to create false news, is of no use to the viewer. 

As soon as Moat was dead and the danger to public and police over, there was no congratulation on completion of a difficult task, but in order to keep the story going the media started to demand an explanation of the time it took to locate Moat. This was a relatively short time, it could have taken many weeks or even months to catch him.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

Snarl, or no snarl? You decide.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Have you seen this image? I have and have no doubt that the snarl is real.



Who was he snarling at?

Of course I've seen the image, everyone who reads a paper or watches the news has.

So, I'll repeat my questions. Why was he snarling and who was he snarling at?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Snarl, or no snarl? You decide.



I didn't say he wasn't snarling. I asked why and who at?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 11, 2010)

oh !!! me me me pick me me me !!! i know this one !!!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

He's snarling at the photographer probably because he doesn't want his photo taken during that sensitive situation.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Oh. The photo wasn't taken by Moat then? 

Yeah the bloke is snarling. Probably at some fucking twat of a photographer who has climbed a tree or something else that was potentially dangerous or distracting to the situation at hand. He's not snarling at Moat unless it was Moat who took the fucking picture. I would probably snarl too in that situation. Actually I'd probably taser the fucking prick of a photographer which is why it's best that I'm a civilian.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Snarl, or no snarl? You decide.




probably just the cameraman shouting 'look mean for the picture'!!


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 11, 2010)

Or the pap was too close to the action


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The card that was being read out was written by a youngster who was the one who used the word 'nutter'.



Apparently so, but it doesn't take much nouce to understand that by reading this out in a press conference and including the word "nutter" knowing that Moat would most likely hear about it would not assist in the police operation. 'Oh look everyone thinks I'm a "nutter" I'll act like one then' is a likely response from someone in this position and the police should have taken that on board to minimise destabilising Moat's mental state further and therebye protecting the public don't you think?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

Oh you're pissing about, I see.

But my genuine answer would be that the direction the guns are pointing in would suggest not.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

lol @ all the keyboard warriors that reckon they know better or could have done better than 14 police forces working together.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> lol @ all the keyboard warriors that reckon they know better or could have done better than 14 police forces working together.



Link?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> lol @ all the keyboard warriors that reckon they know better or could have done better than 14 police forces working together.



What they should have done was.......


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> What they should have done was.......


 
Chicken, dressing gown and fishing rod. It's the only language these people understand.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> I didn't say he wasn't snarling. I asked why and who at?



Is it the now the duty of a 'highly trained' police officer, acting in a professional manner, with an offensive weapon in his hand to snarl at anyone?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Is it the now the duty of a 'highly trained' police officer, acting in a professional manner, with an offensive weapon in his hand to snarl at anyone?



Oh how _desperate_   

I say mr photographer, would you mind awfully if I just moved you along. See, we're trying to negotiate with a chap who's a bit flustered. The silly sausage has a gun so I wonder if you'd mind terribly just getting down out of that tree because if you spook him there's simply no telling what he might do. Thanks old chap.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh how _desperate_



Answer the question instead of the desperate dodge, complete with triple smilies.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> lol @ all the keyboard warriors that reckon they know better or could have done better than 14 police forces working together.



My guess is Moat's friend Gazza would have done a better job of it if he hadn't been turned away by the police.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Answer the question instead of the desperate dodge, complete with triple smilies.



The triple smilies are because your comment truly made me laugh out loud. What the fuck is he supposed to do? They've got a  NUTTER with a gun 20 yds away with trained negotiators trying to talk him down and some halfwit of a fucking media photographer decides to climb a fucking tree to get a shot of the 'action' . What would _you_ do in that situation?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> My guess is Moat's friend Gazza would have sorted it if he hadn't been turned away by the police.



 Fucks sake. You're a troll and I fell for it


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh how _desperate_
> 
> I say mr photographer, would you mind awfully if I just moved you along. See, we're trying to negotiate with a chap who's a bit flustered. The silly sausage has a gun so I wonder if you'd mind terribly just getting down out of that tree because if you spook him there's simply no telling what he might do. Thanks old chap.



He should have just ignored the photographer with zoom lens outside of cordon and got on with what he's paid to do and not act like a prat.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

In what way has he acted like a prat?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Yeah, I'm taking the piss



(reboots irony detector)


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Fucks sake. You're a troll and I fell for it



I'm being serious. A couple cans of brew and a chat with Gazza and no second head blown apart. I honestly believe that. Instead we get the Keystone cops.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> In what way has he acted like a prat?



Have you got a problem with comprehension? His face is all over the newspapers looking like a prat.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Is it the now the duty of a 'highly trained' police officer, acting in a professional manner, with an offensive weapon in his hand to snarl at anyone?



Tbf - _this particular point_ you're trying to make is rubbish (whether the Obs made it or not  ) - not much else he could do given the situation but to pull a *WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING GET THE FUCK AWAY!*  face at the photographer, iyswim (I'm assuming btw that you didn't follow it in real time - or read the thread through, even  - that image was from much earlier on).


The pic was a total bonus for the rest of us for the lols ofcourse  but it's a blatantly a stupid argument to take up with regards to the way the police handled _Raoul,_ specifically.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> The triple smilies are because your comment truly made me laugh out loud. What the fuck is he supposed to do? They've got a  NUTTER with a gun 20 yds away with trained negotiators trying to talk him down and some halfwit of a fucking media photographer decides to climb a fucking tree to get a shot of the 'action' . What would _you_ do in that situation?



Climb a tree? Have you a link to confirm this? And if he did climb some tree how far away is this tree and why was he allowed up a gum tree in the first place?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I'm being serious. A couple cans of brew and a chat with Gazza and no second head blown apart. I honestly believe that. Instead we get the Keystone cops.



Presenting Moat with a not very bright footballer coming to have a chat, would have given him an easy hostage of a celebrity to use in bargaining for a way out of there or just some time while he formulates ideas on how to kill some more police.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Link?



You not been reading the thread?



madzone said:


> What they should have done was.......



Spot on....



audiotech said:


> My guess is Moat's friend Gazza would have done a better job of it if he hadn't been turned away by the police.





And how you would have moaned if a pissed-up Gazza was allowed anywhere near the nutter and got shoot.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Climb a tree? Have you a link to confirm this? And if he did climb some tree how far away is this tree and why was he allowed up a gum tree in the first place?



Doesn't matter. Photographer is clearly being a distraction in a tense situation. OB pulls a fucking face. Big deal.  



Your original point, btw -




			
				audiotech said:
			
		

> The picture of the snarling, taser wielding copper, featured in the papers today doesn't inspire confidence.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2010)

Blair peach, Ian Tomlinson, Cherie groce, Charles De Menzies, Raoul Moat ...

oh hang on ...


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

sheothebudworths said:


> Tbf - _this particular point_ you're trying to make is rubbish (whether the Obs made it or not  ) - not much else he could do given the situation but to pull a *WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING GET THE FUCK AWAY!*  face at the photographer, iyswim (I'm assuming btw that you didn't follow it in real time - or read the thread through, even  - that image was from much earlier on).
> 
> 
> The pic was a total bonus for the rest of us for the lols ofcourse  but it's a blatantly a stupid argument to take up with regards to the way the police handled _Raoul,_ specifically.



The officer should have been focussing on the job in hand, i,e tasering it seems? There were 200 officers reportedly at the scene, so why has no other police officer took offence to where this photographer was? Still nothing to confirm the claim made that that the photographer was up a tree either?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You not been reading the thread?



So no link then?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 11, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Presenting Moat with a not very bright footballer coming to have a chat, would have given him an easy hostage of a celebrity to use in bargaining for a way out of there or just some time while he formulates ideas on how to kill some more police.



Bollocks they werew mates and gazza is not as thick as some make him out to be, usually tabloid fuelled.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The officer should have been focussing on the job in hand, i,e tasering it seems? There were 200 officers reportedly at the scene, so why has no other police officer took offence to where this photographer was? Still nothing to confirm the claim made that that the photographer was up a tree either?



I'm not really fussed, tbf. 
Just wanted to point out that if you're going to get fucked off about it, there're gotta be loads better points to be made than this one, which was insignificant at best. 
Fuck sake - tabloid jobby in reverse, innit.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2010)

lol

IMO, they wanted him alive, hence using the taser. He shot a copper, so surely that'd warrant a jolly good kicking behind closed doors?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

Oh, _YES!_   


Like ten years worth of Saturday nights, rolled into one!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The officer should have been focussing on the job in hand, i,e tasering it seems? There were 200 officers reportedly at the scene, so why has no other police officer took offence to where this photographer was? Still nothing to confirm the claim made that that the photographer was up a tree either?



I love the way that you can deduce all that from one photograph of a copper pulling a face. 

You should work for the tabloids.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Have you got a problem with comprehension? His face is all over the newspapers looking like a prat.



Actually, you know what? You're quite right. I don't pay my taxes for policemen to pull faces!  It's a fucking travesty


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2010)

Whatever happened to tranquiliser darts?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So no link then?



Here you go.

It started with that draft biatch Foxy claiming she could have dealt with the situation better than the police and several others have chipped-in along similar lines, audiotech  being the latest.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2010)

I wonder how long a prison sentence Gazza will get for the chicken, and fishing rod. Helping a criminal on the run must be fairly serious I would think.

That grimacing policeman with the tazer is going to get some stick from his colleagues for that, whatever the reason he was grimacing. 

As for the photographer, with the lenses available today he might have been in the next county (slight exaggeration). From the image he didn't seem to be very high so perhaps in a tree or bush but at ground level.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> why has no other police officer took offence to where this photographer was?



How do you know they didn't?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Here you go.
> 
> It started with that draft biatch Foxy claiming she could have dealt with the situation better than the police and several others have chipped-in along similar lines, audiotech  being the latest.



I don't recall anyone claiming they could do a better job than the police.

Can you link to the actual post/s?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder how long a prison sentence Gazza will get for the chicken, and fishing rod. Helping a criminal on the run must be fairly serious I would think.
> 
> That grimacing policeman with the tazer is going to get some stick from his colleagues for that, whatever the reason he was grimacing.
> 
> As for the photographer, with the lenses available today he might have been in the next county (slight exaggeration). From the image he didn't seem to be very high so perhaps in a tree or bush but at ground level.



He looks quite high up to me. Both the police are looking up at him. And he's close enough for both of them to be looking right at him iyswim. He's close enough to be seen and to be deemed a problem.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2010)

Maybe tazer cop had an attack of wind or indigestion?

Undercooked donuts i rekon.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2010)

I tell you what, if I'd spent ages hiding in a sewer creating my own misguided action film (working title: Die Hard Five Pound Fifty), only to have fucking _Paul Gascoigne _wander up in the epic finale and ask if I want to go fishing, I think I'd have shot meself too. VOT ESS ZIS FOG ON ZE TYNE? GET ME MCCLAAAAAANE!


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2010)

cesare said:


> Whatever happened to tranquiliser darts?


The last thing you'd want is a drowsy armed murdering nutter staggering about with his finger on the trigger.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2010)

sheothebudworths said:


> Oh, _YES!_
> 
> 
> Like ten years worth of Saturday nights, rolled into one!









They don't like it up 'em, Capt' Mainwaring!


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

editor said:


> The last thing you'd want is a drowsy armed murdering nutter staggering about with his finger on the trigger.



They could've just got firky in and he could've overtukkit on ee's bike and chucked a net over him.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I'm being serious.


I can see the coverage now:

*"Crazed (and now drunk) gunman kills former England football star (also, and considerably more, drunk) in petty argument over the last chicken drumstick and is then shot dead by police" * 

Police were last night praised for their decision to let a drunken football star who vaguely knew the gunman have a go at negotiating a surrender, sharing beer and chicken with him.  Although it went wrong (and although Article 2 rights of both the footballer and the gunman have been grossly violated) the media unanimously agree that it was by far the best and least risky alternative available ... Supercillious, know-it-all, hindsight-addicted internet warriors were also united in levelling no criticism at all at the police ...

You're _actually_ being a total, complete and utter tosser.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 11, 2010)

.


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2010)

editor said:


> The last thing you'd want is a drowsy armed murdering nutter staggering about with his finger on the trigger.



Nooooo! Not drowse darts! Proper knock out rogue elephant type darts like you see on natural geographic and skippy the bush kangaroo


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can see the coverage now:
> 
> *"Crazed (and now drunk) gunman kills former England football star (also, and considerably more, drunk) in petty argument over the last chicken drumstick and is then shot dead by police" *
> 
> ...



Welcome back etc but have you not dealt with your tourrettes during your absence?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2010)

Knockout darts as used on animals take a while to work. Moat would have felt the initial sting and had time to pull the trigger, just as he did when he got tasered.

Also to add the local veterinary service to the operation would add further to the enormous list of people hunting Moat, and of course to the cost. If this hunt had taken much longer they might have had to withdraw troops from Afghanistan to sustain it.

I wonder how much it cost to order the Tornado to do a fly-past. The police helicopter costs about £2,000 an hour to keep flying but a jet bomber must use up the same amount of fuel in minutes.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Did he really get tasered? I thought they were too far away.


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Did he really get tasered? I thought they were too far away.



Well that's the ridiculousness of that snarl pic isn't it. Taser next to rifle lol


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Snarl, or no snarl? You decide.



And why is MInty wearing a false moustache? Eh? Eh?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't recall anyone claiming they could do a better job than the police.
> 
> Can you link to the actual post/s?



Be buggered if I am going back over the whole thread to provide links to posts that you have somehow missed, but I’ll give you these two as they were easy to find as I quoted them in my first post on the thread in one of those ‘what the fuck, how fucking thick can some people be’ moments.  



FoxyRed said:


> Northumbria Police are basically shit... and I could have done a better job.





FoxyRed said:


> Im telling you!!!!!!!!! I would have found him ages ago and Im not even playing.
> The police is thick as shit up there


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

cesare said:


> Well that's the ridiculousness of that snarl pic isn't it. Taser next to rifle lol



THAT'S why he's pulling the face!  


It IS Minty!  Fucking hell - they just got some shit actors in, didn't they?!  Shit actors and Gazza!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't recall anyone claiming they could do a better job than the police.
> 
> Can you link to the actual post/s?



LOL


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Be buggered if I am going back over the whole thread to provide links to posts that you have somehow missed, but I’ll give you these two as they were easy to find as I quoted them in my first post on the thread in one of those ‘what the fuck, how fucking thick can some people be’ moments.



Fair dos I stand corrected. Those comments were ages ago though and probably not entirely serious.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

<cough>


----------



## the button (Jul 11, 2010)

sheothebudworths said:


> It IS Minty!  Fucking hell - they just got some shit actors in, didn't they?!  Shit actors and Gazza!



He's not happy about firky putting his World Cup tickets through the wash.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Bollocks they werew mates and gazza is not as thick as some make him out to be, usually tabloid fuelled.



He's not as thick as you, you moronic bellend, that's for sure.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

sheothebudworths said:


> LOL



Why the lol? It's a discussion board and people discuss things.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Did he really get tasered? I thought they were too far away.



According to reports yes, there were coppers moving in on him from behind whilst those in front of him kept him busy.


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2010)

the button said:


> He's not happy about firky putting his World Cup tickets through the wash.



We now need a pic of firky vacating ROTHBURY at the crucial moment and going to Scotchland with part of a tent.


----------



## the button (Jul 11, 2010)

*Ah saw a hearse, but I overtukkit on ma bike.*


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Why the lol? It's a discussion board and people discuss things.



Yes, but you seem to be reading a different thread TBF.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, but you seem to be reading a different thread TBF.



As opposed to commenting on remarks made almost a week ago...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

LOL at the cunt’s brother moaning about the media coverage - during in his exclusive interview with Sky News.  

I wonder how much he got paid for that.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> As opposed to commenting on remarks made almost a week ago...



And several others since, including audiotech's classic 'i know better' post from a little over an hour ago - do try to keep up. 



> audiotech said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is Moat's friend Gazza would have done a better job of it if he hadn't been turned away by the police.



ETA: BTW - those posts were two days ago, not a fucking week.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And several others since, including audiotech's classic 'i know better' post from a little over an hour ago - do try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: BTW - those posts were two days ago, not a fucking week.



It's to do with who posted them, not when


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Why the lol? It's a discussion board and people discuss things.





Because of the subsequent clear up *yes here are the links* post. 

_OK?!_


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2010)

So, have the denizens of urban decided this was police overeaction or a random muerderous thug who met his end in an entirely predictable way?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> It's to do with who posted them, not when



God, you're obsessed! Just shag her!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Did he really get tasered? I thought they were too far away.



Sorry for the NoW link, but this does seem fairly likely - 



> Speaking exclusively to the News of the World the cop told how, unknown to Moat, 20 officers were silently inching towards him from BEHIND as the main group 20ft in front continued to try to coax him into giving up.
> 
> But Moat panicked after hearing a noise. Fearing the killer was about to use his shotgun, officers loosed off the Tasers.
> 
> ...


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> God, you're obsessed! Just shag her!


 Shag who? Oh, you mean foxy? Oh dear no, she's not my sort at all. I like people who don't take themselves that seriously, who are up for a laugh and don't think that pouting like a duck = sexy.

I have to say I think your suggestion that I'm obsessed and want to shag her is classic projection.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> LOL at the cunt’s brother moaning about the media coverage - during in his exclusive interview with Sky News.
> 
> I wonder how much he got paid for that.





According to sky, the family have all refused offers of money for interviews and sky didn't pay him a penny.  

I thought the brother expressed himself well and made a lot of good points to be honest.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Sorry for the NoW link, but this does seem fairly likely -


 Ahhh...from behind. That makes sense. So, _is_ it possible that being taserd caused his boddy to convulse and pull the trigger?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Welcome back etc but have you not dealt with your tourrettes during your absence?


Thanks ... but I'm not really "back" ... and I see from this thread that Urban hasn't dealt with it's tossers during my absence ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

Smurker said:


> I thought the brother expressed himself well and made a lot of good points to be honest.



Such as?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Shag who? Oh, you mean foxy? Oh dear no, she's not my sort at all. I like people who don't take themselves that seriously, who are up for a laugh and don't think that pouting like a duck = sexy.
> 
> I have to say I think your suggestion that I'm obsessed and want to shag her is classic projection.



nope, not playing. Go and discuss her with someone who's interested in the topic.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> nope, not playing. Go and discuss her with someone who's interested in the topic.



Errr....._I_ didn't bring her up


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thanks ... but I'm not really "back" ...



Bloody hell, a mirage!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Errr....._I_ didn't bring her up



No claphamboy did. Then you got your little digs in about me.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Bloody hell, a mirage!


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2010)

Has anybody made a sighting of the topic recently?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No claphamboy did. Then you got your little digs in about me.



I was just helping claphamboy in his confusion


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2010)

Of course, dear.


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Glad we got that sorted.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> I was just helping claphamboy in his confusion



I was confused?


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I was confused?



Yes, yes you were.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Such as?





Sorry, been watching the football...


A couple of points that the brother made:

  The press didn't help matters with the Rambo sensatialism,  his brother isn't a psycho, he had a complete breakdown.  The things that he would have seen said about him would have only be making things worse. 

  In particular he was upset about his mothers comments being splashed across the media.  He claimed that his mother is extremely mentally handicapped (if true, that is a bit off by the press).

  He approached the police as soon as they found him, to offer his help, which the refused, he believed that he could have diffused the situation.

  Footballs back on...


----------



## madzone (Jul 11, 2010)

Smurker said:


> Sorry, been watching the football...
> 
> 
> A couple of points that the brother made:
> ...


 
He wasn't a 'psycho'....


What was he in jail for?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can see the coverage now:
> 
> *"Crazed (and now drunk) gunman kills former England football star (also, and considerably more, drunk) in petty argument over the last chicken drumstick and is then shot dead by police" *
> 
> ...



Thought you'ld flounced for good?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> He wasn't a 'psycho'....
> 
> 
> What was he in jail for?



What was he in jail for?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> I love the way that you can deduce all that from one photograph of a copper pulling a face.
> 
> You should work for the tabloids.



He looked like a plank and probably is. He would probably get on well with Kelvin Mackenzie .


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> Actually, you know what? You're quite right. I don't pay my taxes for policemen to pull faces!  It's a fucking travesty



Flippant comments seem to be your trade mark?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Here you go.
> 
> It started with that draft biatch Foxy claiming she could have dealt with the situation better than the police and several others have chipped-in along similar lines, audiotech  being the latest.



Bullshit. I thought gazza would have done a better job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

I've heard cameras have these zoom things now. It means you don't have to be 4ft in front of the twat you're snapping. Anyone else heard tell of this voodoo?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> He's not as thick as you, you moronic bellend, that's for sure.



I've criticised the filth. So sorry you knob.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And several others since, including audiotech's classic 'i know better' post from a little over an hour ago - do try to keep up.




Pffft.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Sorry for the NoW link, but this does seem fairly likely -



News of the World source? Interesting.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> I've criticised the filth. So sorry you knob.



So you have. Let's hope that the next time some steroid-addicted, violent, paranoid nutcase goes on the rampage that you are on the receiving end of a blast from the shotgun you worthless, mindless, bollock cramp.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard cameras have these zoom things now. It means you don't have to be 4ft in front of the twat you're snapping. Anyone else heard tell of this voodoo?



It's really hard to keep up with all these new technological developments.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> So you have. Let's hope that the next time some steroid-addicted, violent, paranoid nutcase goes on the rampage that you are on the receiving end of a blast from the shotgun you worthless, mindless, bollock cramp.




News of the World scribe in the making.


----------



## chazegee (Jul 12, 2010)

Thank you Moaty
For entertaining us all properly for a week.
And I hope the bloke you shot.
Was a cunt.


----------



## scooter (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard cameras have these zoom things now. It means you don't have to be 4ft in front of the twat you're snapping. Anyone else heard tell of this voodoo?



I've heard that trees have leaves and branches which cancel out the zoom voodoo so you still have to get close.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

scooter said:


> I've heard that trees have leaves and branches which cancel out the zoom voodoo so you still have to get close.



What - they can see through things by going close? The pics have leaves in you fucking clown. It's not a distance issue. Sorry to burst your OMG i've worked out why he looks like a cunt bubble.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

> I've heard that *trees have leaves and branches which cancel out the zoom voodoo so you still have to get close.*


----------



## scooter (Jul 12, 2010)

That's a hell of a bubble. But yes you'll notice that the leaves in the picture are cunningly placed so they're not in the way of the shot. Do you think maybe he had to work his way in to get to a place where the leaves weren't in the way?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

scooter said:


> That's a hell of a bubble. But yes you'll notice that the leaves in the picture are cunningly placed so they're not in the way of the shot. Do you think maybe he had to work his way in to get to a place where the leaves weren't in the way?



Yes, placed immediately _in front_ of the shooters, 4ft away. For sure. Where else could they be given  modern capabilities.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> People were being shot ffs, the public had a right to know what was going on!



As Moat's brother has said - this had the ring of a public execution.

The family were denied the opportunity to talk to him. The press were allowed to show it. 

Someone somewhere may well have wanted him to die on screen.

It certainly had provided for a frenzy of masturbation from the drooling Sunday rags and for their "readers" who we are told "demand" this kind of coverage.

None of this is not to decry the professionalism of the majority of the police involved. I am the 1st to criticise the police but I dont sense this was too badly a handled op beyond the critique I have made.

Why should I tread carefully? Is someone making some kind of weird threat?

Am I alone in finding the rubber-necking disgusting?

We should know who made the key decisions related to the questions I raise, and how (not that we will). It is evident those decisions were taken and reasonable to question motive.

If Moat had had a radio, the knowledge he would have gained could have made him more dangerous. It strikes me as operationally unwise to have allowed the media frenzy, unless media frenzy became part of the bigger operation.

This whole episode has further underlined what  a nasty voyereuristic society we are. Of course I expect to be flamed for saying so. It's par for the course to play the man and not the ball.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As Moat's brother has said - this had the ring of a public execution.
> 
> The family were denied the opportunity to talk to him. The press were allowed to show it.
> 
> ...




Every point wrong. Garbled shit. No one saw him die - not a very good public execution ( a feast for you pubic lice though). The family were asked to talk to him. And then you call for a cover up -what the fuck is wrong with you?

You just hate people don't you? You should've have been there for this knobber then - sorry too w/c for you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2010)

Moat clearly had mental health issues. I am amazed that no consideration has been given to that angle. The press are too busy wanking off over his blasted off face and other facets of the case that make Chris Morris look less like satire and more like mild prophecy.

Moat was a murderer who was dealt with by police as properly as might have been. A community was frightened but many aspects of reassuring them went well. 

We do not have the "right" to watch people kill themselves on TV, no matter what they have done. 

scores of people die on the roads each week. Do we have the "right" to watch that as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Moat clearly had mental health issues. I am amazed that no consideration has been given to that angle. The press are too busy wanking off over his blasted off face and other facets of the case that make Chris Morris look less like satire and more like mild prophecy.
> 
> Moat was a murderer who was dealt with by police as properly as might have been. A community was frightened but many aspects of reassuring them went well.
> 
> ...



No one watched him die you fucking ignorant turd. Really do get infoed up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Shut down the press cries green/lib-em civil libertarian - stop them doing their job as i find it personally distasteful. With friends like you... what a disgusting attack on freedom of the press. _Get your morals off my tv screen_ taffboy.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Every point wrong. Garbled shit. No one saw him die - not a very good public execution ( a feast for you pubic lice though). The family were asked to talk to him. And then you call for a cover up -what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> You just hate people don't you? You should've have been there for this knobber then - sorry too w/c for you.



Quite a few strawmen in that post psychicboy. You going for a record?

Where did I call for a coverup?

Nowhere, that's where. 

I don't know the full details because I have better things to do than ogle at such situations.

What the fuck it has to do with class I don't know, but it is a chance for you to imagine more things about someone you've never met.

I'm sure the range of people involved, be they police, hacks, victims or twisted voyeurs, takes in all classes.

Of course I hate people. That's why I am so concerned about the human dignity angle in this case. 

Sorry, I forgot to swear and insult you so you may consider this post has little merit.

Fuckity fuck fuck you nobber. Will this do?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As Moat's brother has said - this had the ring of a public execution.



He did stick his own head in the noose and start balancing on the ricketey old stool though. How did you get a ringside seat by the way? You ghoul!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Quite a few strawmen in that post psychicboy. You going for a record?
> 
> Where did I call for a coverup?
> 
> ...



The range of wrong things - deal  with them I.e what i said. Because that above doesn't. It ignores it. Have another go. Fingers crossed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

> That's why I am so concerned about the human dignity angle


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2010)

Surely freedom of the press is about things like this (whidh didn't include moat being filmed as he died) as much as it is some guy at a protest being arrested? If you don't want freedom of speech for people you despise you don't want it at all etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Not if taffbot don't like it. Not a good enough reason.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The family were asked to talk to him. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Were they?  from what i can tell the only family that he had any relationship with was his brother, who requested to be able to speak to him but was not allowed.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The family were asked to talk to him. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Were they?  from what i can tell the only family that he had any relationship with was his brother, who requested to be able to speak to him but was not allowed.
> ...



His best mate i.e his family were brought up to the line - this bloke wasn't banished and told never to come back for we have a dark plan to execute.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 12, 2010)

oh, ok, fair enough,  i wasn't aware of that.  Did his mate get to have words with him during the stand off then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The family were asked to talk to him.





> Were they?  from what i can tell the only family that he had any relationship with was his brother, who requested to be able to speak to him but was not allowed.
> 
> He had never found out who his father was, his mentally ill mother wanted him dead, he didn't get on with his step-dad and he was banned from seeing his children.  I remember his uncle offering to go and meet him, who knows how their relationship was.



Did you see, from what you can tell, see the police stopping the family in line with this:



> The family were denied the opportunity to talk to him.



That's the claim  you should be aiming at smudger, not trying to look for a small part on my part.

Or maybe looking at this bullshit from the same sentence:



> he family were denied the opportunity to talk to him. The press were allowed to show it.



Now, this never happened. It's made up. It's a lie. It's what a loon thinks will happen in these situations. It''s also totally wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

-taffboy said:
			
		

> The family were denied the opportunity to talk to him. The press were allowed to show it.



Where did you see this taffboy?


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Where did you see this taffboy?



Also, with a family as disfunctional as Moat's appears to have been, why do people automatically assume that allowing them to speak to him would be a good thing?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 12, 2010)

I hope i'm not playing the loon role!  i'm sure that the police have standard practices in place and wouldn't allow anyone into the area for fear of a hostage situation.  All that i do know is that his brother, seemingly his only nucleur family member left of note, wanted to be able to speak to him during the siege but alleges that his request to the police was denied. 

  I also understand that the police might have feared dialogue with the family might have made things worse, easy in retrospect i guess.  Maybe the negotiator asked him if he wanted to speak to anyone in his family and he said no, who knows yet eh.  Sad all round really.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Shut down the press cries green/lib-em civil libertarian - stop them doing their job as i find it personally distasteful. With friends like you... what a disgusting attack on freedom of the press. _Get your morals off my tv screen_ taffboy.



butchers in bollox spouting shock.

You are one of the most pompous and judgemental posters on these boards. I suppose the irony escapes you that the log is in your own eye.


----------



## madzone (Jul 12, 2010)

This thread has just got ridiculous. Butchers - why do you ruin threads by just coming on and being sarcastic and abusive?


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2010)

All this analysis and counter analysis is very predictable but did anyone really doubt that this was how it was going to end?

Nutter shoots people, goes on the run with weapon, ends up dead. 

Not rocket science really


----------



## the button (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> the log is in your own eye.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> All this analysis and counter analysis is very predictable but did anyone really doubt that this was how it was going to end?
> 
> Nutter shoots people, goes on the run with weapon, ends up dead.
> 
> Not rocket science really



You missed out the bit about him repeatedly stating he wouldn’t be taken alive and threats to take others with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> This thread has just got ridiculous. Butchers - why do you ruin threads by just coming on and being sarcastic and abusive?



It was all good fun before. Blaming the media for going on and on about it. Just because you got narky about some film nothing film.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2010)

agricola said:


> Also, with a family as disfunctional as Moat's appears to have been, why do people automatically assume that allowing them to speak to him would be a good thing?



They are his family, as dysfunctional as he and they might be. There was nothing to lose by letting his own Dad speak to him. His mother was stupid and the media grossly irresponsible for reporting her as saying "He would be better off dead". (although i do wonder if she said that without knowing it would be headline news)

You can't condone him shooting and killing anyone, but to jump into a man’s life during the last few days and fail to understand what brought him to that moment is short-sighted and pretty fucking dumb. Im not sure anyone needs to die knowing that their own mother thought they would be better off dead.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

the button said:


>



I had images off, but i was sure you did what was needed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> This thread has just got ridiculous.



Need i say any more?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> butchers in bollox spouting shock.
> 
> You are one of the most pompous and judgemental posters on these boards. I suppose the irony escapes you that the log is in your own eye.



So what? You're still the only poster suggesting that the press have no right to cover this and that it might be directed for darker aims. Where, oh lord, is mine own log?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Every point wrong. Garbled shit. No one saw him die - not a very good public execution ( a feast for you pubic lice though). *The family were asked to talk to him.* And then you call for a cover up -what the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> You just hate people don't you? You should've have been there for this knobber then - sorry too w/c for you.



No they weren't. His father and brother repeatadly asked the police to speak to him but were ignored.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2010)

I've been away for a few days, can someone please sum up what's happened since the murder of raoul the other night?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 12, 2010)

the button said:


>


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2010)

gabi said:


> I've been away for a few days, can someone please sum up what's happened since the murder of raoul the other night?



Brother/Father rang the police and repeatadly asked to speak to him but were ignored. There is a theory that they tazered him which involunatarily caused him to squeeze the trigger and kill himself. The autopsy makes no report of tazer marks, but just of "rough living", family has asked for another post mortem.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2010)

Ahh... so enter the good ole IPCC then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> No they weren't. His father and brother repeatadly asked the police to speak to him but were ignored.



The people he cared about were asked to talk to him. They brought his mate to the line. His father (sorry fatha) he hated. And the other claim, the bit where the media had free unfettered access to him and were broadcasting interviews live?

Anyway, this is offically *no-fun anymore*, 48 hours after some bloke shot their own head off after killing one perons and trying to kill two others. *No fun!*


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2010)

gabi said:


> Ahh... so enter the good ole IPCC then?



I think they were being called in anyway because the prison told Northumbria Police that he was a possiblr threat - but yes...the IPCC. It will be cleared up in no time!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2010)

Yes, they'll investigate themselves and find that they're entirely blameless. Again.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2010)

Todays mail are reporting that he was a police informer. I can't imagine he'll remain a folk hero for much longer amongst the criminal fraternity if its not a smear.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, they'll investigate themselves and find that they're entirely blameless. Again.



some rent-a-quote bobby was on the radio soon after the self-pwning of roaul hedging on about how they have to weigh all warnings given to them by the police service about released individuals and etc etc basically we done nothing wrong.

cock-chafers. Can't even wait for the investigation to begin before weighing in with the auto-justify


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

So I literally watched the stand off with Police on Friday since 7:30pm that evening until about 10pm..
Pretty disgusted to find out the next day Raoul had shot himself after two officers had shot him with tasers.

But after the recent shit efforts from the police, I am hardly surprised it ended this way. 

Why you would taser someone who had been sat in the pouring rain, would have been cold and had a gun pointed to their face is beyond me.... 

I also read that his brother was not allowed to speak to Raoul while the negiotions were going on....

Im sorry, but I still believe I could have done a better job... my 15 yr old niece could have done a better job then these amateur police.

Would have much preferred him to stand trial... not go out like assisted suicide


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> So I literally watched the stand off with Police on Friday since 7:30pm that evening until about 10pm..
> Pretty disgusted to find out the next day Raoul had shot himself after two officers had shot him with tasers.
> 
> But after the recent shit efforts from the police, I am hardly surprised it ended this way.
> ...



i know his brother so if i bump into him in Spoons i will get the truth, and i bet it differs from the media's version of events


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2010)

As his bro said, it was effectively a public execution. Back to the good ole days. Like REALLY ole.

Can't believe Gazza wasn't let through the cordon with his fishing rod and lager either. That could've saved the situation.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2010)

If Gazza was let through and taken hostage the police would be a laughing stock. And the comedy would have increased so shame they didn't tbh.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Todays mail are reporting that he was a police informer. I can't imagine he'll remain a folk hero for much longer amongst the criminal fraternity if its not a smear.



Police smeering someone who dies at their hands?

Surely not. 

It did all seem like a hi-tech keystone cops with massive media overkill. Moat pretty much signed his own death sentance with his threats - my main surpise was that the cops just didn't shoot him the first opportunity they had - result of massive media presence maybe?

However trying to make out this is up there with the de menzies and tomlinson cases in terms of police violence is pretty pathetic. 

I'm sure the IPCC will give them a clean bill of health though.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Um.. he'll be shot as soon as the police get a chance to shoot him.





FoxyRed said:


> They will only shoot him if he has a gun in his hands and becomes threatening with it.





Told ya..


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Told ya..



You bloody did! Cant believe I actually put some faith into those twats.
I thought that because it was such a high profile issue, they wouldnt take any chances for fear of being castrated in the media...

Unbelivably..they did just that.

I will listen to you more in future!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Told ya..



Uh...am i missing something?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 12, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Told ya..



They didn't shoot him though did they? 

Just gave him a tickle with a Taser and the muscle contractions/realisation that it was all over did the rest.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

Fuchs66 said:


> They didn't shoot him though did they?
> 
> Just gave him a tickle with a Taser and the muscle contractions/realisation that it was all over did the rest.



Assisted Suicide.. they might aswell have just pulled the trigger. Was obvious what was going to happen!


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Was obvious what was going to happen!



Never said it wasn't obvious, although likely would be a better word, it's just the police can now shrug their shoulders and say he topped himself.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 12, 2010)

One of the red tops yesterday was saying that some of the coppers were crying after Where's Wally? blasted his face off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2010)

the sun weighed in with a typically sensitive headline of 'Got Him'

not as pithy as the headline on Shipmans self-pwnage 'Ship Ship Hooray'


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 12, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Police smeering someone who dies at their hands?
> 
> Surely not.



Um, no. Someone who got sent down apparently on evidence given by Moat made the claims. Said he made the discovery whilst reading legal papers and that it would explain why Moat never got sent down for anything when he faced the courts apart from his recent incarceration which caused him to resent the police.

The police refused to confirm or deny it saying they don't reveal the identities of informers.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Ship Ship Hooray'



LMAO


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 12, 2010)

If you call your kid Raoul then you have to expect them to turn into a nutter.

I blame the parents.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

His mother was disgusting saying "he was better off dead"...
Alot of people could have lost their lives over that stupid comment


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> His mother was disgusting saying "he was better off dead"...
> Alot of people could have lost their lives over that stupid comment



Did they?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Did they?



No but they could have. Irresponsible of the media and the mother.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> No but they could have. Irresponsible of the media and the mother.



But did they?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Um, no. Someone who got sent down apparently on evidence given by Moat made the claims. Said he made the discovery whilst reading legal papers and that it would explain why Moat never got sent down for anything when he faced the courts apart from his recent incarceration which caused him to resent the police.
> 
> The police refused to confirm or deny it saying they don't reveal the identities of informers.



Cops could easily have put the hacks in touch with the source. 
Yeah - they could have had nothing to do with it but I cant think of a single case of people dying at the hands of the cops where there hasn't been smeer stories. 

However I'm not on any sort of crusade for moat or - unlike some people - able to make sweeping assertions about how the police behaved - other then they seemed pretty restrained by their usual standards (although there was that copper pulling a face .....)


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But did they?



When he comes back from the other side to wreak his revenge they might.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 12, 2010)

his brother who apprantly had'nt seen him in several years
 so thats a close relantionship that might help talk a nutter down 

fuck it cordon round nutter at 100 metres 4 on hour stags let him stew at 100 metres your out of range of his sawn off if he moves shoot him otherwise leave him till morning


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But did they?



That is not the point. 
The reason why they said there was now a threat to the public is because a dictorphone was phone where Roaul said he was unhappy with the information being posted in the media. If it continued he would start taking pot shots... but wouldnt shoot old ladies like Derrick Bird did...

It could have happened and that is the point. 

Its very good to look back in retrospec knowing he didnt do it... at the time the threat was made very clear that he was thinking about it, and could have done it


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> That is not the point.
> The reason why they said there was now a threat to the public is because a dictorphone was phone where Roaul said he was unhappy with the information being posted in the media. If it continued he would start taking pot shots... but wouldnt shoot old ladies like Derrick Bird did...
> 
> It could have happened and that is the point.
> ...



So what are you suggesting? Tape round the old girls mouth?


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So what are you suggesting? Tape round the old girls mouth?



No, I expected the media to be more responsible and not print such crap in such a volatile situation


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> No, I expected the media to be more responsible and not print such crap in such a volatile situation



Why?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> He probably isnt even in the country now.
> Sipping on a cocktail on the Costa Del Sol already



Sherlock Holmes does it again.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 12, 2010)

touching naivte in the media being responsible if its a story they will print broadcast it reguardless of damage


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why?



Cant be bothered to play your game today


----------



## CJohn (Jul 12, 2010)

Seems to me that the police _did_ put a lot of effort into bringing him in alive. Thats doesn't mean that they acted faultlessly, and I'm sure theres a lot to be learnt from the whole thing. It certainly seems like it was a pretty desperate situation, especially when moat became increasingly suicidal. In this sense you can see the taser use as a last ditch effort to take him in before he killed himself, if indeed they were used in this context.

I also thought his brother was in denial (which is of course very understandable at this early stage): everything he said placed responsibility for moats actions outside of himself, perhaps its just too much of a headfuck to consider his brother willfully killing these innocent people. He also seemed to want to avoid the possibility that his brother then also killed himself, saying that he felt it was an involuntary spasm secondary to he tasers. Of course thats possible, but so is the alternative. 

On the radio phone-in this morning, I heard a few people saying that moat was "mentally ill". Certainly he may well have been suicidally depressed and rageful, but that doesn't mean that he was totally unaware of his action or their consequences - in that sense he seemed fairly psychologically intact. I've no doubt that his world had totally crumbled and that the murders were for him some last ditch effort to restore some form of equilibirum to his existence, yet this doesn't mean he was 'mad' in the sense of being completely unaccountable for his actions. Certainly he likely had a very restricted view of himself, others, and the world, at this time, and this also likely facilitated his violence, but that doesn't also rule out the fact that this was a man, seemingly, intact enough to be personally responsible and accountable for what he did.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Todays mail are reporting that he was a police informer. I can't imagine he'll remain a folk hero for much longer amongst the criminal fraternity if its not a smear.




Which criminal fraternity ?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 12, 2010)

think theres no good way to take a gun off someone whose trying to kill himself.
 theres a video of somebody in the US shooting the gun arm of somebody who'd sat  on a chair in the middle of the road pointing a pistol at there head.
  But it was daylight a clear line of sight the copper had his own custom sniper rifle so probably spent hours on the range  and the deep south don't do police complaints
 rather than stupid a clock in the morning in the pissing rain facing a murderer


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Which criminal fraternity ?



The lone nutter/gone postal crowd. It's a very small fraternity, tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Getting smaller by the day.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2010)

All that 'live from the scene' 10.00pm news type stuff was just so embarrassing. Totally Chris Morris.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Which criminal fraternity ?



Psy poppa cappa in yo assa


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> ... dictorphone ... retrospec ...


Your spelling is pretty shite for the UK's top fucking detective ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

It's you're


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's you're



No it's not.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2010)

likesfish said:


> theres a video of somebody in the US shooting the gun arm of somebody...


That is quite simply not a tactic available to an armed police officer in the UK.  IF they consider it appropriate to fire their weapons at someone the law requires that they have an honestly held belief that they represent an immediate threat to the life of someone else (either the officer or another person, NOT the suspect themself) and that the firing of their weapon is an appropriate (reasonable and necessary) response to that.  If that is the situation then the only justifiable outcome of the firing of the weapon is to REMOVE the threat - that means incapacitating the person from firing their own weapon.  That is only a likely outcome if a pair of shots (followed by another pair a second or two later if necessary) is fired into the largest part of the body available (chest / body).  Anything less than that is far more likely to (a) miss, (b) cause a minor injury or (c) cause a more serious injury but not prevent the suspect firing their own weapon.  It therefore ADDS to the risk because instead of having someone with a gun threatening to fire it you now have an even more annoyed person with a gun, quite possibly with a sore hand / whatever, threatening to fire it.

Police officers in the UK ONLY fire if they are able to justify it to STOP a threat.  If you believe that shooting guns out of people's hands, hitting their arms / legs or whatever _should_ be an option then you need to have a debate with ACPO / Home Office rather than individual officers as it is simply not something that is legitimately available to them at present.

(And if an electric shock is likely to cause involuntary firing of a weapon, so is shooting the arm / leg / whatever too)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Maidmarian said:


> No it's not.


It's comforting to know that the gobshites who are so quick to criticise here are _still_ so bloody thick that half the time they get it wrong themselves ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Thats' 2.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> No they weren't. His father and brother repeatadly asked the police to speak to him but were ignored.



From reports he hadn't seen his brother in years, he denied he had a father and told police after he was cornered that there was only one person he would to talk - a mate, called Tony I think.

Under the circumstances it seems odd that people expected the police to put his brother, father or fucking Gazza at potential risk of being taken hostage or killed. 



Kaka Tim said:


> However trying to make out this is up there with the de menzies and tomlinson cases in terms of police violence is pretty pathetic.



Indeed, he's a man with what would appear a long history of bullying, threatening and extreme violent behaviour up to and including rape, that had shot 3 people at least and killed at least one person. 

He had plenty of time to give himself up, almost a week, but instead decided he wasn't going to be taken alive and threaten to take other(s) with him. 

So, the end result was far from surprising.

Not that it will stop idiots’ continuing to claim they could have done better and saved him.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

The nearest relative Moat had to a father was his uncle, Charles Alexander, who like Moat's brother Angus was not allowed to speak to Moat by the police. 

Alexander said: "I'm the closest thing he's got to a father. I rang the police at 11 o'clock last night to ask them to take me to him as I knew I could make a difference. It was family he needed."

A former partner of Moat, Yvette Foreman, said that she planned to add her own tribute. She described Moat as a "happy-go-lucky and caring man" very different to the writer of the vengeful letters portrayed in the media.

Moat's brother, Angus said that Moat was a "broken man" who was walking to the river to give himself up.

He also said that watching his own flesh and blood die on live television was akin to a "public execution" and that Moat should be remembered as a man who had broken down rather than as a "psycho killer".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

Neither of of them say they were not allowed to speak to him.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Neither of of them say they were not allowed to speak to him.



Reportedly, "stopped from helping negotiators". So did they speak to Moat?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

That's a very diff thing isn't it. Angus Moat talked to the cops, they made a judgment that he might might bring up family shit that would make the situation worse. They might have been wrong on that but it wasn't part of some kill him conspiracy.  This is all in hos own video.

All the lib-dems turn acab now.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 12, 2010)

we need woody guthrie to write a song about it, i bet he would get the tone just right.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 12, 2010)

it was a fairly unique set of circumstances in the States probably did'nt need to be done but was south carolina


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 12, 2010)

R.I.P RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND! ♥

a (rather odd) facebook page


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Angus Moat talked to the cops, they made a judgment that he might might bring up family shit that would make the situation worse.



I don't imagine it took long.

"Who he?"

"Related to nutso out there."

"Like that'll help. Ignore."


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> R.I.P RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND! ♥
> 
> a (rather odd) facebook page



An even odder one with this comment:



> I hope this snarling little bastard gets hunted down and shot as well, the police in this country try to play god, judge and jury, say what you will about what Moat did but he like everyother british citizen deserved a fair trial NOT to be tasered by this little prick!
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Police-officer-with-the-taser-gun-LEGEND/131567873547286


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The nearest relative Moat had to a father was his uncle, Charles Alexander, who like Moat's brother Angus was not allowed to speak to Moat by the police.
> 
> Alexander said: "I'm the closest thing he's got to a father. I rang the police at 11 o'clock last night to ask them to take me to him as I knew I could make a difference. It was family he needed."



So, you think the police should have allowed his family members to try and talk to him when he had stated the only person he wanted to talk to was his mate Tony?



> A former partner of Moat, Yvette Foreman, said that she planned to add her own tribute. She described Moat as a "happy-go-lucky and caring man" very different to the writer of the vengeful letters portrayed in the media.



And, yet at least two other former partners claimed he used to beat them and at least one claims he raped her.



> Moat's brother, Angus said that Moat was a "broken man" who was walking to the river to give himself up.



If that was the case why didn't he give himself up?



> He also said that watching his own flesh and blood die on live television was akin to a "public execution" and that Moat should be remembered as a man who had broken down rather than as a "psycho killer".



People suffering nervous breakdowns, IME, don't tend plot to kill in cold blood and then several days later carry out that premeditated plot and then go on to shot some random copper - psychos do.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)




----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> So, you think the police should have allowed his family members to try and talk to him when he had stated the only person he wanted to talk to was his mate Tony?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Psycho Killer
Qu'est-ce que c'est?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 12, 2010)

Apparantly there are twats leaving flowers in front of his home. How's that going to make his victims feel?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Psycho Killer
> Qu'est-ce que c'est?



Listening to it now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2010)

laptop said:


> I don't imagine it took long.
> 
> "Who he?"
> 
> ...



There's actual evidence that this is not how it happened. The brother might have been asked/refused on gen grounds.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2010)

A third former partner has now come forward to say she was threaten with death by Moat if she didn’t give him an alibi to cover his tracks following the gangland killing of a drug dealer 10 years ago.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...threat-to-ex-lover-exclusive-115875-22406837/

This is in addition to the one he used to beat-up before shooting her and the other one that he used to beat-up and rape, sort of blows a hole in this "happy-go-lucky and caring man" image some are attempting to portray.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's actual evidence that this is not how it happened.



Fair enough - trying to focus on three other things here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Apparantly there are twats leaving flowers in front of his home. How's that going to make his victims feel?



Are people not allowed to leave flowers to remember their mates or relatives you sad prick?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Apparantly there are twats leaving flowers in front of his home. How's that going to make his victims feel?


i don't care myself. the dead man won't feel a thing though.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 12, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Are people not allowed to leave flowers to remember their mates or relatives you sad prick?


Not if that 'mate' had just shot three innocent people. Leaving flowers outside his home is a public gesture of support. Total insensitivity. 

Send flowers to his family maybe, if they genuinely know them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Not if that 'mate' had just shot three innocent people. Leaving flowers outside his home is a public gesture of support. Total insensitivity.
> 
> Send flowers to his family maybe, if they genuinely know them.


yeh yeh the old "innocent victim" routine. i thought that that had passed out of fashion.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 12, 2010)

Don't understand. His victims weren't innocent?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Don't understand. His victims weren't innocent?


innocent of the great train robbery, certainly. but innocent?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2010)

andrew

what i think you mean is 'they didn't deserve it': which is not the same as 'innocent'.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> andrew
> 
> what i think you mean is 'they didn't deserve it': which is not the same as 'innocent'.


Oh for crying out loud...


----------



## rollinder (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Apparantly there are twats leaving flowers in front of his home. How's that going to make his victims feel?



there was this idiot on radio1 news about 4ish talking about how she'd left flowers even though "I never knew him" but "from what I've gathered, he was a gentle giant who'd been pushed to the edge. We all say things in anger..."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2010)

rollinder said:


> there was this idiot on radio1 news about 4ish talking about how she'd left flowers even though "I never knew him" but "from what I've gathered, he was a gentle giant who'd been pushed to the edge. We all say things in anger..."



Most people up here, whatever their views about most things seem to have a lot of sympathy for the bloke, that he was a decent bloke who went down the wrong path. I was even talking to some civilian police staff in a neighbouring force yesterday who felt sorry for him, hardly ACAB. 

They may or may not be right in this particular case - but it is refreshing to see so many people showing some sympathy and human understanding for someone who carried out a series of shocking crimes.

I get the impression somepeople here would prefer swivel eyed mobs with pikes and torches digging up his corpse and putting it on trial.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 13, 2010)

They've got monkey hangers nearby, so probably, yeah.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

There's reports today that he beat and raped his ex girlfriend. He's a shitcunt and anyone elevating him to hero status is a shitcunt too.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 13, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Most people up here, whatever their views about most things seem to have a lot of sympathy for the bloke, that he was a decent bloke who went down the wrong path. I was even talking to some civilian police staff in a neighbouring force yesterday who felt sorry for him, hardly ACAB.
> 
> They may or may not be right in this particular case - but it is refreshing to see so many people showing some sympathy and human understanding for someone who carried out a series of shocking crimes.
> 
> I get the impression somepeople here would prefer swivel eyed mobs with pikes and torches digging up his corpse and putting it on trial.



I think (rightly or wrongly) that there a lot of people who didnt know him, but feel like they understand what happened to him and identified with him. 

They may have lost sight of some of the details of the case, but it appears that people think this was a man who was trying to make his way through life but came up against trouble at each turn and in the end had a nervous breakdown leading to him going off and doing what he did.

Whilst for these people its a romantic story of one man pushed to the very edge of reason (almost a little like the film Falling Down), these same people are identifying his problems with the daily struggles that they are facing themselves - hard times, split up families, the government not helping them out, unemployment, lack of a future etc etc.

Dont forget we have had 3 of these in the last few months - Moat, Levi Bellfield and Bird. I think that this 'going postal' scenario could well become more prevalent bearing in mind the groundswell of support not for the man himself, but for the perceived understanding of what drove him to his actions. There's already a facebook group with about 18000 supporters.

If you take it at this value - that of a man who was trying to get by, trying to do his best, failing but trying, failing again, trying again,  and then who just snapped and decided to sort things out himself despite it being illegal - then there are probably tens of thousands, if not more of people in the UK who feel like that. 

Sadly I dont think that Moat will be the last person to do this.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 13, 2010)

rollinder said:


> there was this idiot on radio1 news about 4ish talking about how she'd left flowers even though "I never knew him" but "from what I've gathered, he was a gentle giant who'd been pushed to the edge. *We all say things in anger*..."



Fucking hell, lol


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Police officers in the UK ONLY fire if they are able to justify it to STOP a threat.


I think what you mean is that that is how they're _meant_ to behave.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

@ average Joe

Levi Bellfield wasn't in the last couple of months and nor did he go on a rampage like Moat and Bird. He mudered women over a period of time in the most calculating and cowardly ways possible.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> @ average Joe
> 
> Levi Bellfield wasn't in the last couple of months and nor did he go on a rampage like Moat and Bird. He mudered women over a period of time in the most calculating and cowardly ways possible.



Quite.

Bellfield was a very bad example to use.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Quite.
> 
> Bellfield was a very bad example to use.



Hopefully it hasnt totally undone what I said. I feel suitably chastised for using a bad example.

ITS THIS KINDA COMMENT THAT SENDS A MAN OVAH THE EDGE!!!!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 13, 2010)

Some people are victims of them system.... 
But then again, you make your own choices in some situations.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Within a day or two of being out of jail he had got hold of guns and mates to seemingly help him start shooting people up.  Now I don't know what sort of mates everyone else has but I reckon that would take me a lot longer to sort out.

It seems to me he had connections with some very shady characters, possibly gangland shit and now with loads of other stories coming out about him it all paints a slightly different picture than a hard working family man who was pushed to far.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

And he went to prison for assaulting his nine year old daughter. Just seems to me the typical sort of bullying prick that gets his own way by throwing his weight around.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Within a day or two of being out of jail he had got hold of guns and mates to seemingly help him start shooting people up.  Now I don't know what sort of mates everyone else has but I reckon that would take me a lot longer to sort out.
> 
> It seems to me he had connections with some very shady characters, possibly gangland shit and now with loads of other stories coming out about him it all paints a slightly different picture than a hard working family man who was pushed to far.



Oh I totally agree. But the sheer volume of people who are identifying with him in their own way can only hint at how many other folk feel the same way he did. So, do we have tens of thousands of people around the country who feel the same way Moat did about life? And if so are we about to have a long hot summer of killing sprees?

/social commentary


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

It's because he had 15 minutes of fame on the Telly and shot a cop. Apparently that is enough to overlook the fact he was an egotistical misogynist woman raping twat.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 13, 2010)

And thats the worry isnt it?


----------



## madzone (Jul 13, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> but it is refreshing to see so many people showing some sympathy and human understanding for someone who carried out a series of shocking crimes.





Citizen66 said:


> There's reports today that he beat and raped his ex girlfriend.



Refreshing is it, Spanky?


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

yawn. lotsa sanctimonious twats on what was a good thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

No fun


----------



## madzone (Jul 13, 2010)

gabi said:


> yawn. lotsa sanctimonious twats on what was a good thread.



Oh do fuck off. Why was it such a good thread? It was full of teenage pricks bigging up some fucking halfwit thug and laughing about a person being shot in the face. Grow the fuck up.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

There's people on Facebook aswell apparently placing the blame for all if this firmly at the door of his ex. She's un hospital recovering from being shot, may have been mentally, physically or sexually abused by him if he was anything like previous form and now has to live with Twats saying shit like that.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh do fuck off. Why was it such a good thread? It was full of teenage pricks bigging up some fucking halfwit thug and laughing about a person being shot in the face. Grow the fuck up.



See my previous post.



> yawn. lotsa sanctimonious twats on what was a good thread.



oh. and. yawn.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

gabi said:


> yawn. lotsa sanctimonious twats on what was a good thread.



Yup lets back to the real serious issues, like the slight rearrangement of the sport section on a meaningless forum in the musty corner of the internet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

It's because he shot a copper then successfully hid for a bit, that's why he's become an unlikely folk hero. Give it a couple of centuries and he'll be like Robin Hood.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Yup lets back to the real serious issues, like the slight rearrangement of the sport section on a meaningless forum in the musty corner of the internet.



Good point. I too would like to know when that's going to be rectified but the editor has made it clear to start a thread about that specific issue if you want it to be discussed. I'd suggest you do so.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

gabi said:


> See my previous post.
> 
> 
> 
> oh. and. yawn.



Cock off scabi.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Cock off scabi.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> There's reports today that he beat and raped his ex girlfriend. He's a shitcunt and anyone elevating him to hero status is a shitcunt too.



It's difficult to keep count, but it's at least 3 ex-girlfriends that claim they were beaten and threaten with death, at least 1 claiming rape, plus the kid he beat the shit out off, and various other bits and pieces surfacing about attacks and threats to the various ex-girlfriends' new partners, friends and family – and other random people he came in contact with.

And that's before he had his little 'nervous breakdown' shot 3 and killed 1, but we should all remember he was a 'gentle and cuddly' man that was just 'misunderstood'. 

Fuck him and all the cunts showing sympathy for the animal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Yup lets back to the real serious issues, like the slight rearrangement of the sport section on a meaningless forum in the musty corner of the internet.



ooh


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2010)

BBC news 24 is on chanel 80 of my TV and B3ta is in my favourites. I reckon Moat is the funniest thing to happen in years.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2010)

gabi said:


> yawn. lotsa sanctimonious twats on what was a good thread.



gabi:

Aoteaora/New Zealand's SHAME.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> BBC news 24 is on chanel 80 of my TV and B3ta is in my favourites. I reckon Moat is the funniest thing to happen in years.



I concur. The Gazza thing at the end was just fucking extraordinary. A worthy conclusion.



> Ex-Newcastle United hero Gazza, 43, arrived at the police cordon asking to be let through to speak to "Moaty" and clutching a dressing gown and a fishing rod.
> 
> Gascoigne - who had apparently come by taxi from Newcastle - said he had brought the wanted man a "can of lager, some chicken, a mobile phone and something to keep warm".
> 
> ...



Genius.


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> gabi:
> 
> Aoteaora/New Zealand's SHAME.





*bows*


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2010)

The funniest thing has been the reaction of the miserablists to the people taking the piss. I've had a great argument with a ginger CPGBer on facebook. I woke up one day pissing myself at the spectacle and went to bed a homophobic misogynist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

gabi said:


> I concur. The Gazza thing at the end was just fucking extraordinary. A worthy conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Genius.



Yep. Telling his ex girlfriend that he 'owned' her and that if she acted like a slag (by daring to speak to another man that he subsequently beat to a pulp) then he'd treat her as one. So, true to his word, he tied her to a bed, beat her with a belt and then raped her.

Comedy gold.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2010)

It's not real it only exists on the tv, the internet and on t-shirts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> The funniest thing has been the reaction of the miserablists to the people taking the piss. I've had a great argument with a ginger CPGBer on facebook. I woke up one day pissing myself at the spectacle and went to bed a homophobic misogynist.



There's people like you laughing at the absurdity of it though, people we can trust to have a grasp of the wider nuances, and then there's people like scabby gabi who just want to be entertained by death and murder though.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's people like you laughing at the absurdity of it though, people we can trust to have a grasp of the wider nuances, and then there's people like scabby gabi who just want to be entertained by death and murder though.



I don't know how true that is of gabi, I know nothing about them. But yeah, there are people who find this stuf entertaining for itself who have a skewed attitude to domestic violence - they must like it or they'd leave type arguments- but Moat isn't suitable to hang an argument about those issues on. He is nothing but spectacle now, he's more idea than a reality, he's pretty much whatever you want him to be. As you say the whole thing is now absurd.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2010)

Moat is a concept, I think John Dillinger is a good comparison.

In years to come at least four (his brother, his ex, the copper who fired the shot and a muck raking tabloid journo) books will have been written, one of which will be filmed, and all around the North East children will be told stories about him, he will become like a cross between Fred West and Fatha Christmas (with Gazza as Rudolf or Rose).


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

> Ex-Newcastle United hero Gazza, 43, arrived at the police cordon asking to be let through to speak to "Moaty" and clutching a dressing gown and a fishing rod.
> 
> Gascoigne - who had apparently come by taxi from Newcastle - said he had brought the wanted man a "can of lager, some chicken, a mobile phone and something to keep warm".
> 
> ...


It is genius on so many levels. Apart from the obvious warmth and thought Gazza mustered in choosing what he took, his plan to talk to Moat on a mate-to-mate level was infinitely better than what the police came up with (and assuming surrender was the goal). I mean . . .

But yeah, you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

For the women in his life he was more than a 'concept'. And their voices are being drowned out by the hero worship and lols.

But yeah, the media coverage and the wider public's relationship with it says a lot about our society. And it isn't particularly good.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It is genius on so many levels. Apart from the obvious warmth and thought Gazza mustered in choosing what he took, his plan to talk to Moat on a mate-to-mate level was infinitely better than what the police came up with (and assuming surrender was the goal). I mean . . .
> 
> But yeah, you couldn't make it up.



In other news:



> Troubled Paul Gascoigne did not really seem to know Raoul Moat - despite rushing to the siege site.
> 
> Cabbie Brian Hutchinson, who drove the footie legend to Rothbury, said Gazza seemed ill.
> 
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

I half suspected it to be a new Chris Morris project tbh


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


>


 *



* Why are we doing this?


----------



## gabi (Jul 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's people like you laughing at the absurdity of it though, people we can trust to have a grasp of the wider nuances, and then there's people like scabby gabi who just want to be entertained by death and murder though.



Being called 'scabby' by someone who's been scabbing off the taxpayer for his entire adult life is just plain offensive


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> There's reports today that he beat and raped his ex girlfriend. He's a shitcunt and anyone elevating him to hero status is a shitcunt too.





Citizen66 said:


> It's because he had 15 minutes of fame on the Telly and shot a cop. Apparently that is enough to overlook the fact he was an egotistical misogynist woman raping twat.





Citizen66 said:


> There's people on Facebook aswell apparently placing the blame for all if this firmly at the door of his ex. She's un hospital recovering from being shot, may have been mentally, physically or sexually abused by him if he was anything like previous form and now has to live with Twats saying shit like that.





claphamboy said:


> It's difficult to keep count, but it's at least 3 ex-girlfriends that claim they were beaten and threaten with death, at least 1 claiming rape, plus the kid he beat the shit out off, and various other bits and pieces surfacing about attacks and threats to the various ex-girlfriends' new partners, friends and family – and other random people he came in contact with.



So whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> So whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty?



The cunt is death - he can't sue.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> So whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty?



Oh, so his ex girlfriends are all liars? 

He admitted shooting his most recent ex and that pretty much demonstrates his attitude and behaviour to women does it not?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> So whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty?



But he WAS guilty of shooting three innocent people. As with any crime, we need to have understanding of the circumstances behind it. But to show sympathy is just a kick in the teeth for his victims and their families.

I can't help thinking that some of this 'sympathy' is because one of his victims was a copper.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

He was also recently released for beating his nine year old daughter.

_innocent til proven guilty! Innocent til proven guilty!_

If you say so.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, so his ex girlfriends are all liars?
> 
> He admitted shooting his most recent ex and that pretty much demonstrates his attitude and behaviour to women does it not?



It's in the tabloids - it must be true! The fact that a person committed one offense also means they committed all the others they are alleged to have committed. Pity the poor cunt up on charges with you on the jury.



Andrew Hertford said:


> But he WAS guilty of shooting three innocent people. As with any crime, we need to have understanding of the circumstances behind it. But to show sympathy is just a kick in the teeth for his victims and their families.
> 
> I can't help thinking that some of this 'sympathy' is because one of his victims was a copper.



And?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> It's in the tabloids - it must be true! The fact that a person committed one offense also means they committed all the others they are alleged to have committed. Pity the poor cunt up on charges with you on the jury.
> 
> 
> 
> And?



And nothing. Sorry, you'll have to explain.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

I was wondering quite how what you posted in reply related to my post.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> It's in the tabloids - it must be true! The fact that a person committed one offense also means they committed all the others they are alleged to have committed. Pity the poor cunt up on charges with you on the jury.
> 
> 
> 
> And?



He's a proven misogynist by shooting his ex and beating his nine year old daughter. Regardless of any emerging allegations. I'd say they carry a lot of water though.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He was also recently released for beating his nine year old daughter.
> 
> _innocent til proven guilty! Innocent til proven guilty!_
> 
> If you say so.



The modern day/male feminist version of the knight in shining armour routine gets you no more knee-tremblers in the long run, chief.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> The modern day/male feminist version of the knight in shining armour routine gets you no more knee-tremblers in the long run, chief.



There's information in the public domain screaming at you about his disgusting attitude to women. You're the sort of cunt that dismisses all that as the other accusations are probably lies.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> I was wondering quite how what you posted in reply related to my post.



There were three violent crimes for which he was clearly guilty.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> There were three violent crimes for which he was clearly guilty.



I've not stated otherwise. Nor have I shown any "sympathy" for him - didn't express an opinion on that one way or another. My post was directed entirely at the hypocracy of some on here, who, in different circumstances, would be entirely keen to argue that someone should be innocent until proved guilty and should not be assumed to have done everything alleged by the tabloids.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

It isn't alleged by the fucking tabloids. It's alleged by ex girlfriends and I'm inclined to believe them on the basis of his violent behaviour towards his current ex and daughter. It won't lead to a miscarriage of justice as the cunt is dead so your 'point' is an irrelevant one.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I can't help thinking that some of this 'sympathy' is because one of his victims was a copper.


That's precisely where it is coming from.  There is ample evidence of that from posters on this very thread.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> I've not stated otherwise. Nor have I shown any "sympathy" for him - didn't express an opinion on that one way or another. My post was directed entirely at the hypocracy of some on here, who, in different circumstances, would be entirely keen to argue that someone should be innocent until proved guilty and should not be assumed to have done everything alleged by the tabloids.



Fine, but using the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" when he's clearly just commited three other terrible crimes is innapropiate.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

he was into body building an ex bouncer and known to the police not only for assaulting his child which he got jailed for but questioned about a murder related to a drug deal .

now anyone can be questioned about serious offences
 officer did you shoot the bloke outside your house who got shot in the leg
 me what at that range I'd have got a head shot.

he was a wrong un


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> The modern day/male feminist version of the knight in shining armour routine gets you no more knee-tremblers in the long run, chief.



And why do people who disagree with me always bring sex into it?


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It isn't alleged by the fucking tabloids. It's alleged by ex girlfriends and I'm inclined to believe them on the basis of his violent behaviour towards his current ex and daughter. It won't lead to a miscarriage of justice as the cunt is dead so your 'point' is an irrelevant one.



So where have the allegations been published? Not in the tabloids, then? The fact that there's no chance of Moat suing for libel might in no way have influenced the decision to publish or the degree to which the papers chose to verify the stories? The ex-girlfriends' decisions to come forward now are entirely untainted by any desire to cash in on his notoriety?

The bloke was one horrible cunt, doubtless. But I fail to see how his beating his daughter supports a conclusion of misogyny - not unless you're saying it would have been ok for him to have beaten or nine year old son, or that he wouldn't have beaten his child had it been male? 

All of this really no more than about opinion versus fact. He may well have been a misogynist and the allegations by the ex-partners are quite possibly true - but they are not the unqualified _facts_ that your posts suggested.



Andrew Hertford said:


> Fine, but using the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" when he's clearly just commited three other terrible crimes is innapropiate.



Is it? I'm not sure he was even charged with the offenses in the allegations, much less convicted.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

Well apparently the crimes weren't reported earlier as the women were scared witless of him. But nice that your theory is that they're typical gold digging women!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> So where have the allegations been published? Not in the tabloids, then? The fact that there's no chance of Moat suing for libel might in no way have influenced the decision to publish or the degree to which the papers chose to verify the stories? The ex-girlfriends' decisions to come forward now are entirely untainted by any desire to cash in on his notoriety?
> 
> The bloke was one horrible cunt, doubtless. But I fail to see how his beating his daughter supports a conclusion of misogyny - not unless you're saying it would have been ok for him to have beaten or nine year old son, or that he wouldn't have beaten his child had it been male?
> 
> ...



Everything the tabloids say is true,  unless it's about immigrants.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Or our side.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

Funny how none of his exes are coming out of the woodwork claiming that he was a great guy etc.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

I doubt the tabloids would pay for that kind of story.

And the "typical gold-digging women" would realise that. By the way, ex-partners of those who the tabloids wish to dig dirt on are always women. Men would _never_ stoop so low as to dish the dirt.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 13, 2010)

The guy was a violent fucking nutter who shot some people up.

boo fucking hoo.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> I doubt the tabloids would pay for that kind of story.



Evidence that Marissa Reid has been paid?


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Evidence that she hasn't?


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Evidence that Marissa Reid has been paid?



Posted entirely without irony, too. Quality.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Evidence that Marissa Reid has been paid?



Asking for 'evidence' cuts the ground out from your point.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> Posted entirely without irony, too. Quality.



Yeah, its ironic that you're making claims about her while bleating about innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Asking for 'evidence' cuts the ground out from your point.



It equally undermines his argument that he hasn't sought it.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, its ironic that you're making claims about her while bleating about innocent until proven guilty.



No such fucking claim was made, you numpty. You're unable to read, now, on top of being unable to think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It equally undermines his argument that he hasn't sought it.



Sorry. I don't know what this means.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> No such fucking claim was made, you numpty. You're unable to read, now, on top of being unable to think?



You've stated that the tabloids print lies. You also stated that the allegations were made by the tabloids when they weren't, they were made by an ex. You then suggested that she may have lied due to the financial incentive. That is an allegation so I've asked you to back it up.

And I'm sure he doesn't need you tag teaming, butchers.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've stated that the tabloids print lies.



No, although are you seriously disputing that they do? What I actually said was,



past caring said:


> The fact that there's no chance of Moat suing for libel might in no way have influenced the decision to publish or the degree to which the papers chose to verify the stories?



which was a point about the way that the tabloids operate and a rhetorical question as to why the scepticism with which one would often read much of what they publish should suddenly not apply, particularly given the considerations that in most circumstances compel them to exercise a degree of circumspection no longer factor in this case. It is not a statement of unqualified fact that the allegations published are lies.



past caring said:


> The ex-girlfriends' decisions to come forward now are entirely untainted by any desire to cash in on his notoriety?



Again, a rhetorical question that is to do with how people who have a story might relate to the tabloids, not a suggestion that this is actually what actually motivated the ex-partners here - and a point that applies equally to male ex-partners of those who the tabloids wish to dish the dirt on. Bit of a stretch to your,



Citizen66 said:


> But nice that your theory is that they're typical gold digging women!



which is why you got the sarcasm you deserved;



past caring said:


> I doubt the tabloids would pay for that kind of story.





Citizen66 said:


> You also stated that the allegations were made by the tabloids when they weren't, they were made by an ex.



How did you become aware of the allegations? Did they come to you through the ether? 



Citizen66 said:


> You then suggested that she may have lied due to the financial incentive. That is an allegation so I've asked you to back it up.



Nope - see above. Even if that were what was said, the qualification introduced by "may" is a sight different to your convicting of rape solely on the basis of the ex's say so.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> I doubt the tabloids would pay for that kind of story.
> 
> And the "typical gold-digging women" would realise that. By the way, ex-partners of those who the tabloids wish to dig dirt on are always women. Men would _never_ stoop so low as to dish the dirt.



Really?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mark+croft&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

Ooh, two tasers fired at Moat before he did himself.

First one from not-yet-approved shotgun style Taser...

Some OB could be in trouble


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

pinkmonkey said:


> Really?



No, not really - a clue to which can be found in that part of my post which is in inverted commas.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

> The BBC has announced it is to construct a moat around its central London offices as a tribute to Raoul Moat.
> 
> The moat is to be filled with the crocodile tears cried by BBC and Guardian journalists, members of the Northumberland Police service and Moat's own family - providing they are paid by Tally-Ho! magazine.
> 
> http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i78708#this



lol


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

No, I don't dispute that the tabloids tell lies. But that doesn't mean that an ex of moat has lied for a financial incentive which was the possibility you keep pushing. If you'd established whether she had been paid or not you'd be halfway towards destroying my position. But you seem unwilling or unable to do that.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ooh, two tasers fired at Moat before he did himself.
> 
> First one from not-yet-approved shotgun style Taser...
> 
> Some OB could be in trouble



The shotgun style Taser has been approved for police trails, so I can't see that causing any additional trouble beyond the use of normal Tasers.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> The shotgun style Taser has been approved for police trails, so I can't see that causing any additional trouble beyond the use of normal Tasers.



Not according to the news it hasn't. 'Yet to gain full approval', and this is apparently just reporting the comments of the IPCC.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not according to the news it hasn't. 'Yet to gain full approval', and this is apparently just reporting the comments of the IPCC.



See the word 'FULL' there ^^^, you didn't use that in your earlier post - it is being trialled by police with approval, pending full approval or rejection at some point no doubt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

It's being trialled by police with part approval.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> See the word 'FULL' there ^^^, you didn't use that in your earlier post - it is being trialled by police with approval, pending full approval or rejection at some point no doubt.



So it isn't yet approved, then.

If I don't have my 'full' drivers licence then I can't drive, can I? Ffs.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So it isn't yet approved, then.
> 
> If I don't have my 'full' drivers licence then I can't drive, can I? Ffs.



FFS - of course you can, if you have a provisional licence, under supervision.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

So was the copper in question under supervision and wearing L Plates?  We must be told!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> FFS - of course you can, if you have a provisional licence, under supervision.



What point are you arguing, grass? The shotgun taser apparently hasn't yet been signed off for use.

I'm fairly sure the approval board or whatever didn't say they could use it but only with supervision.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> See the word 'FULL' there ^^^, you didn't use that in your earlier post - it is being trialled by police with approval, pending full approval or rejection at some point no doubt.



So now it's been used in a real life situation, im sure it will pass their test. I mean, how could it not? 

The bloke either shot himself volunatarily, so it didn't work - or he shot himself involuntarily, so it didn't work...

Im sure it will be in full use in no time!


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

is that the taser shotgun round?
 looked a huge lump of a shotgun round wth a taser on the end of it.
 how they manage to make it reach any distance accuratly but not put so much energy behind that it turns into something that does massive damage then shocks you as an afterthought


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

To be honest, I'm not really sure any of this matters.  It seems obvious they were trying to save the guy, they made a judgment call which may or may not have been the right decision, we'll have to await the outcome of the report.

It's not like he was gunned down in cold blood on a station platform.  Whilist a review of the procedure of tasering someone who is soaking wet and holiding a gun to their head is needed I don't think you can be to harsh on the Police, they made a judgment call on the best way to save him.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No, I don't dispute that the tabloids tell lies. But that doesn't mean that an ex of moat has lied for a financial incentive which was the possibility you keep pushing. If you'd established whether she had been paid or not you'd be halfway towards destroying my position. But you seem unwilling or unable to do that.



I don't "keep pushing" the possibility - I raised it once, and subsequent posts have only been attempts to clarify your somewhat willful misinterpretation of what I said. Perhaps I shouldn't use phrases colloquially here, because they're open to misinterpretation or wider meanings get lost - but it's possible to "cash in" other than in a purely financial sense, whether that be in terms of reflected "fame" or an attempt at personal vindication. And those things may also motivate someone in circumstances where what they are alleging is true.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What point are you arguing, grass? The shotgun taser apparently hasn't yet been signed off for use.
> 
> I'm fairly sure the approval board or whatever didn't say they could use it but only with supervision.



And what the fuck would be the point of approving the trailing of these things by the police, if they are not actually allowed to, you know, trial the fucking things?

You think they would only be allowed to use them on fucking bunny rabbits?

Jesus.

More likely any trial would be something along the lines of (a) only fully trained firearms officers to be issued with them (unlike the standard ones) and (b) can only be issued and/or used under orders of a high-ranking officer.

ETA I think that ^^ is how the original Tasers were first introduced.



> The shotgun taser apparently hasn't yet been signed off for use.



Where has this been claimed? link?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And what the fuck would be the point of approving the trailing of these things by the police, if they are not actually allowed to, you know, trial the fucking things?
> 
> You think they would only be allowed to use them on fucking bunny rabbits?
> 
> ...



What the fuck are you on about you lunatic?

According to ITN and the IPCC, the shotgun had not been approved for use.

You're the one speculating about trials and all sorts - nobody has said anything about that. I'm just going off what has been said on the fucking news.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> I don't "keep pushing" the possibility - I raised it once, and subsequent posts have only been attempts to clarify your somewhat willful misinterpretation of what I said. Perhaps I shouldn't use phrases colloquially here, because they're open to misinterpretation or wider meanings get lost - but it's possible to "cash in" other than in a purely financial sense, whether that be in terms of reflected "fame" or an attempt at personal vindication. And those things may also motivate someone in circumstances where what they are alleging is true.



Yes but you weren't saying that earlier. The tabloids will print lies or truths as long as it shifts copies. I suppose in this situation they can do whatever they want as they won't get a libel case against them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But he WAS guilty of shooting three innocent people. As with any crime, we need to have understanding of the circumstances behind it. But to show sympathy is just a kick in the teeth for his victims and their families.
> 
> I can't help thinking that some of this 'sympathy' is because one of his victims was a copper.


in what way were they 'innocent'?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What the fuck are you on about you lunatic?
> 
> According to ITN and the IPCC, the shotgun had not been approved for use.
> 
> You're the one speculating about trials and all sorts - nobody has said anything about that. I'm just going off what has been said on the fucking news.



You said they weren't approved, then you changed you mind to them not being *fully* approved, which I agreed with whilst pointing out they are, however, being trailed and now your back to claiming they have not been approved. FFS make your mind up.

Or are you suggesting the trials haven't been approved? 

Are you suggesting the police just decided to buy a couple off e-bay and use them in unapproved trials?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You said they weren't approved, then you changed you mind to them not being *fully* approved, which I agreed with whilst pointing out they are, however, being trailed and now your back to claiming they have not been approved. FFS make your mind up.
> 
> Or are you suggesting the trials haven't been approved?
> 
> Are you suggesting the police just decided to buy a couple off e-bay and use them in unapproved trials?


i think some pedant points need to be handed out here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

leaving aside the question of whether the tasers were approved or just happened to be lying about handy, what sort of numpty cunt pisses about with a taser in the pouring rain?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way were they 'innocent'?



Free from evil or guilt?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Free from evil or guilt?


so neither you or andrew know.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> leaving aside the question of whether the tasers were approved or just happened to be lying about handy, what sort of numpty cunt pisses about with a taser in the pouring rain?



Well I dunno, is there a problem with using it in the rain?  I can see the potential for problems but I'd be amazed if the guidelines issued to the Police didn't address those.

Surely this weapon is safe to use in the rain, or at least as safe as it normally is?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so neither you or andrew know.



And you do?

Please tell.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

This is getting wierd now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You said they weren't approved, then you changed you mind to them not being *fully* approved, which I agreed with whilst pointing out they are, however, being trailed and now your back to claiming they have not been approved. FFS make your mind up.
> 
> Or are you suggesting the trials haven't been approved?
> 
> Are you suggesting the police just decided to buy a couple off e-bay and use them in unapproved trials?



If they aren't fully approved then they're not approved you silly wanker.

My wife is not fully pregnant. My wife is not pregnant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And you do?
> 
> Please tell.


i don't have to, i don't think they were innocent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Well I dunno, is there a problem with using it in the rain?  I can see the potential for problems but I'd be amazed if the guidelines issued to the Police didn't address those.
> 
> Surely this weapon is safe to use in the rain, or at least as safe as it normally is?


given that the guidelines issued to the police are not issued to the rest of us, it's hard to tell. but you wouldn't piss about with an electric fire in the rain and so it stands to reason that something you're not supposed to use near a swimming pool (according to taser manuals online) you're not supposed to use on a riverbank.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And you do?
> 
> Please tell.


how's his ex-gf innocent? she's given information leading to a copper getting shot.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> given that the guidelines issued to the police are not issued to the rest of us, it's hard to tell. but you wouldn't piss about with an electric fire in the rain and so it stands to reason that something you're not supposed to use near a swimming pool (according to taser manuals online) you're not supposed to use on a riverbank.



I know what you're saying but I just find it very hard, if not impossible, to believe that the British Police would be issued with a weapon they couldnt use in the rain, it rains all the time here.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> If they aren't fully approved then they're not approved you silly wanker.



Look you thick twat, the original tasers were trialled in ten police forces in 2007 - "following the completion of the trial, the Home Secretary agreed on 24 November 2008 to allow chief police officers of all forces in England and Wales....."

source.

Of course the fucking trial was approved, before they were *fully* approved across across all forces. 

And you have the cheek to call me a lunatic? 



> My wife is not fully pregnant. My wife is not pregnant.



Well, perhaps if you spent less time on here you could resolve that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I know what you're saying but I just find it very hard, if not impossible, to believe that the British Police would be issued with a weapon they couldnt use in the rain, it rains all the time here.


the psni have water cannon. i can't imagine they're often used in the rain.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how's his ex-gf innocent? she's given information leading to a copper getting shot.



You’re like a scarecrow trying to have a wank.

You’re just clutching at straws.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the psni have water cannon. i can't imagine they're often used in the rain.



I've no idea about water cannons, I don't see any reason why they wouldnt be used in the rain.

I take your point regarding being next to a river, but in the rain?  No I'm very confident that this is common practice.

I'm more interested in why they are using it when a man has his finger on the trigger.  The theory that he could have convulsed and pulled the trigger is certainly plausible.

However as I said earlier the Police clearly tried to help him and they made a judgment call.  I have no sympathy for the fuck nut, whatever the outcome of the IPCC report.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes but you weren't saying that earlier. The tabloids will print lies or truths as long as it shifts copies. I suppose in this situation they can do whatever they want as they won't get a libel case against them.



What wasn't I saying earlier? I've just clarified that I used the phrase "cash in" in a wider sense, without discounting the possibility that Marissa Reid was paid. Whether or not her motivation was financial, it doesn't appear to have been the purest - Reid's two daughters were removed from her care in 2006, apparently due to allegations made by Moat and she's now "fighting to get them back". Whilst the Mirror story doesn't make clear whether the children were placed in Moat's care, that of some other relative or in the care of social services, I can well imagine why Reid might want to vilify Moat publicly. Whether her informing the Mirror of things that her children have supposedly said about Moat (and which the children may regret were published when they become older), whether her supplying the Mirror with photographs of her children's father as a "kinky cross-dresser", whether her increasing the chances that the children might be teased or bullied because of who their father is likely to weigh in her favour when the decision comes to be made as to whether the children should be returned to her care, I cannot say, and I do wonder whether the Mirror advised her to seek independent legal advice on that question before agreeing to give her story......


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Look you thick twat, the original tasers were trialled in ten police forces in 2007 - "following the completion of the trial, the Home Secretary agreed on 24 November 2008 to allow chief police officers of all forces in England and Wales....."
> 
> source.
> 
> ...



I'm well aware of the original taser trial - North Wales was the first force to get Tasers.

But what the fuck does that have to do with any of this?

Nobody has mentioned anything about a trial (or trail as you insist on putting). You're just making shit up. All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.

Stop wandering off into never-never land, grassing boy.

PS I don't actually have a wife.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I'm more interested in why they are using it when a man has his finger on the trigger.  The theory that he could have convulsed and pulled the trigger is certainly plausible.



Indeed, as is the theory that he had heard the coppers coming up behind him and made moves that suggested finally he was going to end it, so they tasered him as their last chance to prevent that.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way were they 'innocent'?



Of course they were fucking innocent you dick. If you want an argument on the definitions of the word 'innocent' then sorry, I've got better things to do. 

You're just making yourself look stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You’re like a scarecrow trying to have a wank.
> 
> You’re just clutching at straws.


i see. but they were _all innocent victims_

you pedantic wanker.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

> Nobody has mentioned anything about a trial (or trail as you insist on putting). You're just making shit up.



Err, it was reported on the BBC, which for all its faults I would consider far more reliable than your source – ITN. 

Oh look, even Sky News is reporting "the controversial weapon is currently being trialled by police."



Proper Tidy said:


> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



We only have your word for that, I can't seem to find any reports confirming that.

Again are you seriously suggesting that they just got the fucking thing off e-bay and used it without approval?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Of course they were fucking innocent you dick. If you want an argument on the definitions of the word 'innocent' then sorry, I've got better things to do.
> 
> You're just making yourself look stupid.


yes. i've been waiting ages for you to say what you mean and you don't, you come out with some embarrassing guff about how they were innocent, which according to my dictionary means 
* not tainted or corrupted with evil; sinless; pure. as one of them was a copper, we can rule that one out, especially as the lady involved set the cop up.
* not guilty of a particular crime. this is the one for courts.
* free of, lacking.
* harmless or innocuous.
* not cancerous.
* credulous, naive or artless. which could be either andrew or claphamboy
* simple-minded, slow-witted. which could be either andrew or claphamboy
* an innocent person, esp a young child or an ingenuous adult.
* a simple-minded person. which could be either andrew or claphamboy

i don't see how any of those apply to these three.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Again are you seriously suggesting that they just got the fucking thing off e-bay and used it without approval?



It's inconcievable to think that the Police were not authorised to use this weapon.  That being said I do find it surprising they chose to use it given it's trial status and the high profile nature of the case.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Err, it was reported on the BBC, which for all its faults I would consider far more reliable than your source – ITN.
> 
> Oh look, even Sky News is reporting "the controversial weapon is currently being trialled by police."
> 
> ...



I'm not suggesting anything you massive fuckwit. I'm repeating what the news said.

Btw, your link says nothing about it being trialled by Northumberland Police specifically, and the IPCC are saying it should not have been used.

I don't know who you are arguing with but it isn't me. Yourself, would be my guess.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not suggesting anything you massive fuckwit. I'm repeating what the news said.
> 
> Btw, your link says nothing about it being trialled by Northumberland Police specifically, and the IPCC are saying it should not have been used.
> 
> I don't know who you are arguing with but it isn't me. Yourself, would be my guess.



Er - where do the IPCC say this taser should not have been used?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. i've been waiting ages for you to say what you mean and you don't, you come out with some embarrassing guff about how they were innocent, which according to my dictionary means
> * not tainted or corrupted with evil; sinless; pure. as one of them was a copper, we can rule that one out, especially as the lady involved set the cop up.
> * not guilty of a particular crime. this is the one for courts.
> * free of, lacking.
> ...



 

They were innocent in the sense that they were not guilty of anything that deserved them being shot and/or killed, you pedantic wanker.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Er - where do the IPCC say this taser should not have been used?



Oh for fucks sake. I have already said several times that this was on ITN news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> They were innocent in the sense that they were not guilty of anything that deserved them being shot and/or killed, you pedantic wanker.


as you seem determined to make up your own definition of innocent (and approved) i'll leave you to wallow in your own filth.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh for fucks sake. I have already said several times that this was on ITN news.



Have a link do you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Have a link do you?



To the fucking television news? No, surprisingly I don't.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. i've been waiting ages for you to say what you mean and you don't, you come out with some embarrassing guff about how they were innocent, which according to my dictionary means
> * not tainted or corrupted with evil; sinless; pure. as one of them was a copper, we can rule that one out, especially as the lady involved set the cop up.
> * not guilty of a particular crime. this is the one for courts.
> * free of, lacking.
> ...



Hilarious. 

So we're all guilty. You're a catholic, right?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Btw, your link says nothing about it being trialled by Northumberland Police specifically, and the IPCC are saying it should not have been used.



No? 



> Sky's home affairs correspondent Mark White said the controversial weapon is currently being trialled by police, and *the only force he knows to be using it is Northumbria*, but there may be others.



I suggest you get your sorry arse down to specsavers. 



> and the IPCC are saying it should not have been used.



Yes I've noticed you have changed your story and have recently started claiming that, yet you can't provide any link to support that, perhaps you need to get your hearing tested too?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> To the fucking television news? No, surprisingly I don't.



Thats odd, because none of the other news agencies reporting this actually say that the IPCC state this taser should not have been used.  Nor, surprisingly, does the ITN website.  Nor do the IPCC themselves (indeed nor would they, a couple of days into their investigation).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Hilarious.
> 
> So we're all guilty. You're a catholic, right?


no, no i'm not. but i can sense you're a wanker.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No?
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you get your sorry arse down to specsavers.



Fair enough, I missed that. I don't know, I don't even care. I simply repeated what the news said and, presumably because you don't like being reminded what a tell-tale you are, you got your knickers in a knot and jumped all over it.



claphamboy said:


> Yes I've noticed you have changed your story and have recently started claiming that, yet you can't provide any link to support that, because you need to get your hearing tested too?



It is what I said from the start, dickhead. The TV news reporter said the initial findings of the IPCC were that this new Taser was used when it should not have been. That is all.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERXREP.aspx

 you really would'nt want to be hit by that


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats odd, because none of the other news agencies reporting this actually say that the IPCC state this taser should not have been used.  Nor, surprisingly, does the ITN website.  Nor do the IPCC themselves (indeed nor would they, a couple of days into their investigation).



It's odd that I don't have a link to the lunchtime news, or that they would say that?

Btw, it is the first day of the investigation.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, no i'm not. but i can sense you're a wanker.



Yes I most certainly am. So does that mean I'm "tainted or corrupted with evil; sinlfull; impure"? Perhaps I deserve to be shot with a sawn off shot gun!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yes I most certainly am. So does that mean I'm "tainted or corrupted with evil; sinlfull; impure"? Perhaps I deserve to be shot with a sawn off shot gun!


i wouldn't go that far: there's no need to mutilate a shotgun for you.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's odd that I don't have a link to the lunchtime news, or that they would say that?
> 
> Btw, it is the first day of the investigation.



Its the first day of the inquest.  IPCC investigators looking into the death were dealing with it on Saturday.

As for the lack of links, it is the lack of *any* link that backs up your claim that is the relevant issue here.  There are links (from the Mail and the Mirror for a few) which report that the taser they fired at Moat was not fully approved, but none of the reports I have seen mention the IPCC said it should not have been used.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Its the first day of the inquest.  IPCC investigators looking into the death were dealing with it on Saturday.
> 
> As for the lack of links, it is the lack of *any* link that backs up your claim that is the relevant issue here.  There are links (from the Mail and the Mirror for a few) which report that the taser they fired at Moat was not fully approved, but none of the reports I have seen mention the IPCC said it should not have been used.



I don't know. I really don't care enough about this subject to be arsed getting into a huge debate.

I was watching the ITV news whilst using Urban. They did a piece, I posted something trivial about it. That's it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's odd that I don't have a link to the lunchtime news, or that they would say that?



Here you go - ITV Lunchtime News - report starts about 11.30 minutes. 

There is NO mention that the IPCC state this taser should not have been used.

What they do say is that these tasers do not yet have FULL approval, however the police HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE whatever equipment in such circumstances as they see fit to use.

BTW - they also state it was WEST YORKSHIRE police officers, not Northumberland.

You've made a proper dick of yourself, haven't you?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't know. I really don't care enough about this subject to be arsed getting into a huge debate.
> 
> I was watching the ITV news whilst using Urban. They did a piece, I posted something trivial about it. That's it.



shouldnt you beep when you back up like this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> shouldnt you beep when you back up like this?





> During the stand-off police were armed with the Taser XREP, which is still being tested. It is up to four times as powerful as a normal Taser. The Home Office confirmed today it was not approved for use by forces in England and Wales.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...o-shoot-raoul-moat-were-still-being-tested.do


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> shouldnt you beep when you back up like this?



Took a minute, but lol.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> What they do say is that these tasers do not yet have FULL approval, however the police HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE whatever equipment in such circumstances as they see fit to use.


that's not entirely true, is it?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...o-shoot-raoul-moat-were-still-being-tested.do
> 
> would you like salad with your humble pie?



fucking hell pickmans, if you are going to post gotcha quotes please at least have the decency to not post the link, so we can be spared the two seconds of effort it takes to find the bit immediately afterwards:



> *"However, legally, police forces have discretion to use any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
> 
> "The process for approval of less lethal weapons is set out in a Home Office code of practice document on police use of firearms which Chief Constables must 'have regard to'."*


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Here you go - ITV Lunchtime News - report starts about 11.30 minutes.
> 
> There is NO mention that the IPCC state this taser should not have been used.
> 
> ...



A summary of that news report:

Steve Reynolds, leading the IPCC investigation confirmed use of shotgun taser which is yet to be approved. ITV can confirm this weapon does not have approval for use in England.

So no, I don't think I have made a dick of myself, grassing boy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> shouldnt you beep when you back up like this?



Fuck off, I haven't backed up on anything. Now that grass has posted up the link you can watch for yourself can't you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> fucking hell pickmans, if you are going to post gotcha quotes please at least have the decency to not post the link, so we can be spared the two seconds of effort it takes to find the bit immediately afterwards:


yes. and i suppose you're going to tell us now what conclusions the inquest and any subsequent tribunal will reach on the issue of lawful, reasonable and proportionate force.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 13, 2010)

I don't know what to believe now.  Lot of contridictory stories being published.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A summary of that news report:
> 
> Steve Reynolds, leading the IPCC investigation confirmed use of shotgun taser which is yet to be approved. ITV can confirm this weapon does not have approval for use in England.
> 
> So no, I don't think I have made a dick of myself, grassing boy.



So no "The IPCC have said the taser should not have been used", then.  Quelle surprise.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. and i suppose you're going to tell us now what conclusions the inquest and any subsequent tribunal will reach on the issue of lawful, reasonable and proportionate force.



The only person who has claimed to do that is Proper Tidy with his statement about what the IPCC had said, I think you will find.  

In any case, the point was that you put a misleading quote up, and were daft enough to provide the link so that it could easily be exposed as such.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> So no "The IPCC have said the taser should not have been used", then.  Quelle surprise.



The IPCC confirm shotgun taser used. This is not approved for use in England.

So I re-worded it, same fucking sentiment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The IPCC confirm shotgun taser used. This is not approved for use in England.
> 
> So I re-worded it, same fucking sentiment.


i thought i heard the grinding sound of claphamboy moving the goalposts a post or three up.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought i heard the grinding sound of claphamboy moving the goalposts a post or three up.



Ssshhh, he'll tell on us. Look busy


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> The only person who has claimed to do that is Proper Tidy with his statement about what the IPCC had said, I think you will find.
> 
> In any case, the point was that you put a misleading quote up, and were daft enough to provide the link so that it could easily be exposed as such.


the issue of the approval of the taser has been debated over the last page or two. it has not been approved. end of, on that point. as for the reasonableness of using the taser, the proportionality, several issues remain to be examined. as the sop for tasers are not, as far as i can ascertain, in the public domain, how that taser came to be used, why the more usual sort wasn't, remains to be explained. what did the police hope to gain from it? there is, as far as i can see, no claim that any of the police were in any real fear for their lives, while i have seen reports that the police used the tasers to stop mr moat topping himself. it does present an interesting light on the 'negotiations' which preceded his demise. plus, you have to be close to someone to use a taser - their effective range is measured in yards: it is possible that the use of the tasers, no matter their make, precipitated mr moat's apparent suicide rather than hindering it. more will undoubtedly emerge in the course of the inquest and in any subsequent legal action.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The IPCC confirm shotgun taser used. This is not approved for use in England.
> 
> So I re-worded it, same fucking sentiment.



It is emphatically not the "same fucking sentiment".  You said that the IPCC had said they should not have used it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> It is emphatically not the "same fucking sentiment".  You said that the IPCC had said they should not have used it.



Yes. Because it wasn't approved. It is exactly the same sentiment.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model;10872931][QUOTE=claphamboy said:


> What they do say is that these tasers do not yet have FULL approval, however the police HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE whatever equipment in such circumstances as they see fit to use.


that's not entirely true, is it?[/QUOTE]

In the sense that is would the report says, and I am repeating what the report said, yes it's entirely true.

Unlike the claim that the IPCC said the taser should not have been used, which doesn't appear in the report - as it seems the IPCC hasn't taken a view on that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> In the sense that is would the report says, and I am repeating what the report said, yes it's entirely true.
> 
> Unlike the claim that the IPCC said the taser should not have been used, which doesn't appear in the report - as it seems the IPCC hasn't taken a view on that.


what you're saying is that the police can do whatever they like and it's alright because the police say so. which is neither moral nor legal. at least agricola has the nous to point out that police actions need to be proportionate, reasonable and lawful.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the issue of the approval of the taser has been debated over the last page or two. it has not been approved. end of, on that point.



In your mind, maybe.  Why do you have difficulty reading the important proviso afterwards?




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> as for the reasonableness of using the taser, the proportionality, several issues remain to be examined. as the sop for tasers are not, as far as i can ascertain, in the public domain, how that taser came to be used, why the more usual sort wasn't, remains to be explained. what did the police hope to gain from it? there is, as far as i can see, no claim that any of the police were in any real fear for their lives, while i have seen reports that the police used the tasers to stop mr moat topping himself. it does present an interesting light on the 'negotiations' which preceded his demise. plus, you have to be close to someone to use a taser - their effective range is measured in yards: it is possible that the use of the tasers, no matter their make, precipitated mr moat's apparent suicide rather than hindering it. more will undoubtedly emerge in the course of the inquest and in any subsequent legal action.



This makes very little sense, given how you have been highlighting that the xrep taser (which has a much greater range than the handheld) was used, why then go on to having to be close to him to use the shorter range taser?  As for the negotiations, didnt they take place for nearly six hours?  Thats a bit of a stretch to go down and then decide to execute him, they surely would have been better served popping him off as he was first sighted.

As for "no real fear for their lives", I guess being within range of an armed man who has by his own admission shot one cop and publically threatened to shoot as many as he can doesnt give real fear.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

They had him cornered there was no way out for him and he knew it. talks had gone on for 6 hours.
 the shotgun taser has a range of 30 metres so was possibly used as a last ditch attempt to stop him shooting himself.
 police don't have anything else that could possibly incapitate someone from that distance and be non lethal
  thesethings tend to end either the bloke gives himself up tops himself or decides to get the police to shoot him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

likesfish said:


> They had him cornered there was no way out for him and he knew it. talks had gone on for 6 hours.
> the shotgun taser has a range of 30 metres so was possibly used as a last ditch attempt to stop him shooting himself.
> police don't have anything else that could possibly incapitate someone from that distance and be non lethal
> thesethings tend to end either the bloke gives himself up tops himself or decides to get the police to shoot him.


especially when his family (and gazza!) weren't allowed to try to talk him down.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what you're saying is that the police can do whatever they like and it's alright because the police say so. which is neither moral nor legal. at least agricola has the nous to point out that police actions need to be proportionate, reasonable and lawful.



Perhaps you would like to point out the post(s) where I've said anything like that, Mr Scarecrow?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes. Because it wasn't approved. It is exactly the same sentiment.



So you still havent found any statement where the IPCC state it shouldnt have been used, then.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Perhaps you would like to point out the post(s) where I've said anything like that, Mr Scarecrow?



Silly boy, direct quotes dont actually mean anything on this thread except what they are reinterpreted by someone else to mean.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> So you still havent found any statement where the IPCC state it shouldnt have been used, then.



What?

What point are you trying to prove here?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What?
> 
> What point are you trying to prove here?



That you are telling fibs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> In your mind, maybe.  Why do you have difficulty reading the important proviso afterwards?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your final point first: there have been no reports i've seen which indicate that his demeanour during the negotiations was threatening to the police. instead everyone seems agreed that for the majority of the time he was holding the gun on himself. i haven't said that they executed him, i said that the use of the taser may have precipitated his death rather than preventing it, which seem to have been the stated aim of the police. there seem to be a number of warnings required by taser sop, that seem unlikely to have been given in this case; cf the case of one jean charles de menezes, when the police claimed to have shouted warnings which were ultimately shown to have been, er, lies. i expect that the inquest will find the acpo taser guidance wasn't entirely honoured in the observance. as for me making a mistake, it is common practice (indeed, mentioned in the faq) that you don't indulge in cut and paste odysseys. so i didn't quote the entire article. you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, for your own perverse agenda.


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i said that the use of the taser may have precipitated his death rather than preventing it, which seem to have been the stated aim of the police.



About half an hour ago the news.bbc.co.uk teaser for the story changed from 

Tasers were used on Raoul Moat before he killed himself​
to

"Tasers used by police attempting to stop gunman Raoul Moat from killing himself"​
Hmm... they'd had a phone call from police lawyers, I think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Here you go - ITV Lunchtime News - report starts about 11.30 minutes.
> 
> There is NO mention that the IPCC state this taser should not have been used.
> 
> ...





claphamboy said:


> Perhaps you would like to point out the post(s) where I've said anything like that, Mr Scarecrow?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Silly boy, direct quotes dont actually mean anything on this thread except what they are reinterpreted by someone else to mean.


thank you for that exposition on your debating style


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> your final point first: there have been no reports i've seen which indicate that his demeanour during the negotiations was threatening to the police. instead everyone seems agreed that for the majority of the time he was holding the gun on himself.



Which is perhaps true, but you cannot remove what went before from any dynamic risk assessment of the situation.  




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i haven't said that they executed him, i said that the use of the taser may have precipitated his death rather than preventing it, which seem to have been the stated aim of the police. there seem to be a number of warnings required by taser sop, that seem unlikely to have been given in this case; cf the case of one jean charles de menezes, when the police claimed to have shouted warnings which were ultimately shown to have been, er, lies. i expect that the inquest will find the acpo taser guidance wasn't entirely honoured in the observance. as for me making a mistake, it is common practice (indeed, mentioned in the faq) that you don't indulge in cut and paste odysseys. so i didn't quote the entire article. you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, for your own perverse agenda.



From the SOPs available online there is no requirement for any warning to be given prior to its use, and indeed in the specific circumstances of this incident it is likely that to have done so would have been improper.  

As for the "molehill", the fact is you posted something which was misleading, given that you missed the vitally important proviso which followed.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


>



FFS I am quoting the reporter, the clue is in the words - *What they do say is...* 

Another one that needs an appointment at specsavers, do they still do two for the price of one?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> What wasn't I saying earlier? I've just clarified that I used the phrase "cash in" in a wider sense, without discounting the possibility that Marissa Reid was paid. Whether or not her motivation was financial, it doesn't appear to have been the purest - Reid's two daughters were removed from her care in 2006, apparently due to allegations made by Moat and she's now "fighting to get them back". Whilst the Mirror story doesn't make clear whether the children were placed in Moat's care, that of some other relative or in the care of social services, I can well imagine why Reid might want to vilify Moat publicly. Whether her informing the Mirror of things that her children have supposedly said about Moat (and which the children may regret were published when they become older), whether her supplying the Mirror with photographs of her children's father as a "kinky cross-dresser", whether her increasing the chances that the children might be teased or bullied because of who their father is likely to weigh in her favour when the decision comes to be made as to whether the children should be returned to her care, I cannot say, and I do wonder whether the Mirror advised her to seek independent legal advice on that question before agreeing to give her story......



Probably not. I doubt they have much in the way of support, they'll just get the story and move on to the next one.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> especially when his family (and gazza!) weren't allowed to try to talk him down.



because drunk possibly mad bloke with a fishing rod is just what you need in a hostage situation
 Well his close family dad he hated mum said he was better off dead brother had'nt seen him in several years not exactly going to inspire confidence


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> That you are telling fibs?



Fuck off. The ITN report quite clearly states that the stun gun is not yet approved for use in England. I paraphrased that as 'should not have been used'.

Where have I been telling fibs you cheeky cunt?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

The reason why a tazer shouldn't be used in the rain isn't because it could cause more harm to the recepient. It's because it could hamper its operation and potentially put the police from risk of harm although unlikely.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not sure she'd need independent legal advice as it's unlikely her allegations will end up before a criminal court as he isn't around to put on trial and you can't libel the dead.



Eh? I'm not talking about libel. Read the post again.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 13, 2010)

past caring said:


> Eh? I'm not talking about libel. Read the post again.



Yep, sorry, I edited about a minute before you posted. Concentrating on too many things at once but re-read your post and realised my error.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off. The ITN report quite clearly states that the stun gun is not yet approved for use in England. I paraphrased that as 'should not have been used'.
> 
> Where have I been telling fibs you cheeky cunt?





> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



Did the IPCC say this?  No.  Did you know that they didnt say this?  Yes.

Sounds like a fib in my book.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep, sorry, I edited about a minute before you posted. Concentrating on too many things at once but re-read your post and realised my error.



Ok, fair do's.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did the IPCC say this?  No.  Did you know that they didnt say this?  Yes.
> 
> Sounds like a fib in my book.



The IPCC said it wasn't yet approved for England, yes. I repeated this. Now do fuck off.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The IPCC said it wasn't yet approved for England, yes. I repeated this. Now do fuck off.



Again:




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



You can keep pretending that black is in fact white, but forgive everyone else if we dont believe you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> Again:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep pretending that black is in fact white, but forgive everyone else if we dont believe you.



Believe me, don't believe me. All my posts are there, the interview is there.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

A proper hole...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> A proper hole...



Piss off snitch


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Believe me, don't believe me. All my posts are there, the interview is there.



We know your posts are there - including those where you have tried to reinterpret the earlier ones - but have you actually found the interview where the IPCC say what you claim they said?  A reminder:



> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

agricola said:


> We know your posts are there - including those where you have tried to reinterpret the earlier ones - but have you actually found the interview where the IPCC say what you claim they said?  A reminder:



What the fuck are you getting at? You've heard the interview. I stand by what I said, it was a close-enough re-wording of it. The IPC said it hadn't been approved in England. Northumberland is in England. That is what I have said.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

tasers regardless of type possibly did'nt even penetrate rouls clothing so usleless


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2010)

BBC headline seems to agree with PT's paraphrasing of the ITV report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10615302.stm


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> BBC headline seems to agree with PT's paraphrasing of the ITV report
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10615302.stm



Hmm, no mention of 'fully' in that headline either...

Also a very critical report on C4 news which raised the possibility of further action.

I'm sure Agricola will be forthcoming in his apology for accusing me of lying. The cunt.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 13, 2010)

Raoul Moat is a message to all you gingers out there - We will find you, and we'll make it look like suicide. 
================================================== ==============================


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 13, 2010)

belboid said:


> BBC headline seems to agree with PT's paraphrasing of the ITV report
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10615302.stm





Proper Tidy said:


> Hmm, no mention of 'fully' in that headline either...





Do you think that when you two grow up you may actually get beyond the headline and read the fucking report, which says they have not been fully or otherwise approved by Home Office, yet they don’t need to be?

Once you do that, you could perhaps put two and two together and accept that clearly they have some level of approval because they are currently being trialled by a number of police forces? 

And that the police can use them within the law and therefore Proper Tidy’s idea that they could be in trouble for using them just because they haven't been fully approved [by the H.O.] is incorrect, just like virtually all his claims over the last few pages.

I see he still thinks he has been right all the way along, so let’s put the record straight once and for all, so no one can be in any doubt, including him. 

Proper Tidy stated:

1)	First one from not-yet-approved shotgun style Taser...some OB could be in trouble. 

_This is incorrect their use only has to be approved at Deputy Chief Constable level, not Home Office level, the OB will not be in any more trouble than using a standard taser or firearm as I stated at the time. _

2)	The shotgun taser apparently hasn't yet been signed off for use. 

_This is incorrect; it has been signed off for use by certain police forces that are trialing them._

3)	I'm fairly sure the approval board or whatever didn't say they could use it but only with supervision.  

_Incorrect again, their use has to be under the same supervision as firearms rather than the more slack control of normal tasers._

4)	If they aren't fully approved then they're not approved you silly wanker. 

_Incorrect, they are not fully approved by the Home Office, but they are approved by various police forces._

5)	Nobody has mentioned anything about a trial. You're just making shit up. 

_Incorrect, I have been proved right._

6)	IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved. 
_
Incorrect, they have said no such thing._

7)	I simply repeated what the news. 

_Incorrect, you half-heard something, made-up a load of bollocks and posted it as fact. _

8)	The TV news reporter said the initial findings of the IPCC were that this new Taser was used when it should not have been. 
_
Incorrect yet again, the reporter said no fucking thing._

I said right at the start that most likely any trial would be something along the lines of (a) only fully trained firearms officers to be issued with them (unlike the standard ones) and (b) can only be issued and/or used under orders of a high-ranking officer.

And, I was correct – their use comes under the Home Office’s ‘Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms *& Less Lethal Options*’,* which set out the basic principles in relation to the selection, testing, acquisition and use of firearms and less lethal weapons by police. The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the approval of the Deputy Chief Constable – not the Home Office. 

Basically, the Deputy Chief Constable can approve trials of these new tasers, as ‘less lethal options’ to firearms, but they can only be used by fully trained firearms officers under the same strict conditions and supervision of more lethal firearms. 

* Source


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2010)




----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 13, 2010)

I can't even be arsed arguing with you. You're not correct, you're fitting square pegs into round holes. You're just a tremendous bellend. Oh yeah, and a grass too.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> wank wank wank wank



I simply pointed out that PT had summarised the story the same way the BBC did.  Your absurd overreaction here does rather indicate that you know it was you who fucked up and are overcompensating. 

Now go and play outside, there's a good boy.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're just a tremendous bellend.


I would object to your use of the word 'bellend' tho.  Sorry, old school thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2010)

Who you fighting with now bellers?


----------



## past caring (Jul 14, 2010)

The board tout. Is claphamboy one of those pcso types, by the way? Blakey with bells on?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

past caring said:


> The board tout. Is claphamboy one of those pcso types, by the way? Blakey with bells on?



Detective Boy's apprentice


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What the fuck are you getting at? You've heard the interview. I stand by what I said, it was a close-enough re-wording of it. The IPC said it hadn't been approved in England. Northumberland is in England. That is what I have said.


Let's look at what the IPCC have _actually_ said, shall we:




			
				IPCC Press Release said:
			
		

> "The review of tactics will consider the deployment and use of the XRep Taser. The XRep is an electronic device that is deployed from a 12-gauge shotgun."
> ...
> "... Terms of Reference: ... 5.To investigate the acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers including what training was provided to the principal officers concerning its use and capability."



http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_13072010_moat.htm

You see, unlike you (and many others here) the IPCC don't immediately jump to conclusions.  They _investigate_ the full circumstances and then see what the evidence and other information they find tells them.

And so there is no "The IPCC said it wasn't yet approved for England".

Now why do you find it so fucking difficult to accept that and, more to the point, how do you justify continuing to propogate incorrect information?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hmm, no mention of 'fully' in that headline either...


Seeing as you're such a fan of inverted commas I'm surprised you didn't notce the ones around 'not approved' in the headline ... an absolute bog-standard media device allowing them to use words in a way which gives an _entirely_ misleading impression because they have been taken out of context ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Detective Boy's apprentice


Fuck off cunt.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 14, 2010)

WTF is going on in here? I cant be arsed to read pages of bullshit Update me please


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 14, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> WTF is going on in here? I cant be arsed to read pages of bullshit Update me please



some people who don't like the police are arguing with some people who like the police.
but secretly they are only doing it raise their post counts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 14, 2010)

Serious business.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 14, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Serious business.



Thats the interwebz!

In all honesty, if someone in your family had been raped or murdered... you would be calling the police to assist on it. 

Yes, there are some police who are corrupt as fuck... but the majority of them are trying to serve the public to make things safer on our streets.


----------



## fogbat (Jul 14, 2010)

Glad that's sorted out then.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 14, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Thats the interwebz!
> 
> In all honesty, if someone in your family had been raped or murdered... you would be calling the police to assist on it.
> 
> Yes, there are some police who are corrupt as fuck... but the majority of them are trying to serve the public to make things safer on our streets.



Until you have a grievance with how the show is being run and take to the streets. Then they cosh you over the head to keep you in your place. If you're in the police, you've demonstrated whose side you're on, even if you're on helping old grannies over the road duties.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2010)

Keeping the streets safe from women with juice cartons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> In all honesty, if someone in your family had been raped or murdered... you would be calling the police to assist on it.


i don't think the police are in the business of assisting murder, as they seem to carry it out off their own bat quite frequently enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Seeing as you're such a fan of inverted commas I'm surprised you didn't notce the ones around 'not approved' in the headline ... an absolute bog-standard media device allowing them to use words in a way which gives an _entirely_ misleading impression because they have been taken out of context ...


^^ it's chief supt pedant reporting for duty


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Now why do you find it so fucking difficult to accept that and, more to the point, how do you justify continuing to propogate incorrect information?



what a cock.  He said it wasn't approved, It isn't approved.  The only person who has deliberately lied is that pig wannabe prick claphamboy who said it had been approved for trials.

Fact is, it isn't approved. The fact that it is the Home Office who hasn't approved it rather than the IPCC is utterly irrelevant, and you're making a bit of a prat of yourself by going absurdly OTT.  Calm down and sidle off before you do your normal thing of completely blowing your top and threatening someone.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Hmm, no mention of 'fully' in that headline either...
> 
> Also a very critical report on C4 news which raised the possibility of further action.
> 
> I'm sure Agricola will be forthcoming in his apology for accusing me of lying. The cunt.



You did not "paraphrase the IPCC report" - this is a lie in itself.  What you actually wrote was (repeated for the nth time):



> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



Did the IPCC - or indeed any of these bloody reports since - say that the xrep taser should not have been used?  No.  All that they have said is that it was not approved by the Home Office.  All of these reports then go on to include the proviso about the Police being able to use " any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate", an important proviso which you, PM and now belboid seem to wilfully ignore.  

You are lying.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> what a cock.  He said it wasn't approved, It isn't approved.  The only person who has deliberately lied is that pig wannabe prick claphamboy who said it had been approved for trials.



You thick fucking cunt.

The police forces are independent, with operational control resting solely with the chief officer of each force, they can approve use of tasers for their own force they don't need Home Office approval.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 14, 2010)

Two days to argue this one thing?


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jul 14, 2010)

What have you started, Raoul!?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fuck off cunt.



You must hear that a lot officer


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> You did not "paraphrase the IPCC report" - this is a lie in itself.  What you actually wrote was (repeated for the nth time):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bollocks. Listen to the interview and read the articles. The IPCC confirmed not approved for England. If something isn't approved for use then it can't be used. It is entirely reasonable to then say 'they shouldn't have used the tasers'.

As for the 'any equipment' line you think so important - it isn't. The Police have always been able to use 'any equipment' if deemed necessary and justifiable. It doesn't give anybody carte blanche, it just means a copper hasn't automatically committed an offence by using a non-standard weapon. It still has to be investigated and justified.

Now, this whole pile of bollocks started because Clapham Cock took issue with me not saying 'not fully approved', instead just saying not approved.

Yet it appears this particular omission is quite popular too.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...-tasers-not-approved-by-home-office-1.1041142

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10615302

The only person talking shit on this thread is him.

As for you - you're just one of those sad pricks who desperately carries grudges on to new threads.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bollocks. Listen to the interview and read the articles. The IPCC confirmed not approved for England. If something isn't approved for use then it can't be used. It is entirely reasonable to then say 'they shouldn't have used the tasers'.



That is emphatically not correct.  For a start, you made an allegation that the IPCC had said something which has become blatantly obvious they did not in fact say.  That was, however you want to reinterpret it, a lie.

You now then state that a non-Home Office approved piece of equipment cannot therefore be used.  This is also not correct, as the Home Office made abundantly clear (well, abundantly clear to anyone who was actually prepared to read it) in the proviso that has accompanied each and every article on the use of this taser.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> As for the 'any equipment' line you think so important - it isn't. The Police have always been able to use 'any equipment' if deemed necessary and justifiable. It doesn't give anybody carte blanche, it just means a copper hasn't automatically committed an offence by using a non-standard weapon. It still has to be investigated and justified.



You appear to (finally) recognize that the Police could have used this piece of equipment providing its use was necessary and justifiable, and yet are also arguing that it couldnt have been used because it wasnt approved.  Make your mind up, please.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Now, this whole pile of bollocks started because Clapham Cock took issue with me not saying 'not fully approved', instead just saying not approved.
> 
> Yet it appears this particular omission is quite popular too.
> 
> ...



Once more, for old times:



> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



Have you found the quote from the IPCC that backs that up?




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> As for you - you're just one of those sad pricks who desperately carries grudges on to new threads.



I think you overestimate your own importance.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> That is emphatically not correct.  For a start, you made an allegation that the IPCC had said something which has become blatantly obvious they did not in fact say.  That was, however you want to reinterpret it, a lie.
> 
> You now then state that a non-Home Office approved piece of equipment cannot therefore be used.  This is also not correct, as the Home Office made abundantly clear (well, abundantly clear to anyone who was actually prepared to read it) in the proviso that has accompanied each and every article on the use of this taser.
> 
> ...



Are you a simpleton?

The Police have and have always (afaik) had a get-out clause which states that it isn't automatically an offence to use a non-standard weapon on duty if absolutely necessary - for example, if a copper used a pint glass in fear of his and others safety. That doesn't mean coppers can go around glassing people with impunity, does it?

So it doesn't really mean anything. It will still need to be investigated, and the Police will need to justify their use of a weapon which _they should not have been using_.



> Once more, for old times:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you found the quote from the IPCC that backs that up?



Yes. Yes I have. It wasn't approved for use. As every media report now states. It isn't approved, _ergo they shouldn't have used it_. How the fuck is that a lie?



> I think you overestimate your own importance.



No I don't. You're taking pedantic issue with me on this because of a previous grudge. We both know it.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 14, 2010)

so how would you try to stop someone topping themselves with a sawn off shotgun?
 remeber its leathal out to about 20 metres?
 they spent 6 hours talking to him already?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

likesfish said:


> so how would you try to stop someone topping themselves with a sawn off shotgun?
> remeber its leathal out to about 20 metres?
> they spent 6 hours talking to him already?



The most bizarre thing is that I don't greatly care. It clearly isn't a case of police brutality. I just relayed what I'd heard on the lunchtime news and got jumped all over for it. I probably agree with you, based on the limited amount that we know.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you a simpleton?



Why, do you feel a kindred spirit?




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> The Police have and have always (afaik) had a get-out clause which states that it isn't automatically an offence to use a non-standard weapon on duty if absolutely necessary - for example, if a copper used a pint glass in fear of his and others safety. That doesn't mean coppers can go around glassing people with impunity, does it?



What you appear to be describing is "instant arming", which contrary to what you say is not limited to the Police, but is a widely accepted part of the law relating to offensive weapons.  For example, if you, as a member of the public, picked up a knife off the street and used it to defend yourself or others then you would not be found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon (wheras if you carried it around with you on the off chance you would be).  

This is - as should be obvious - *not* what the Home Office were referring to in the proviso you were ignoring up until a few posts ago.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> So it doesn't really mean anything. It will still need to be investigated, and the Police will need to justify their use of a weapon which _they should not have been using_.



Of course it needs to be investigated, but they will not - indeed they havent, despite your lie to the contrary - prejudge that investigation by saying that the Police should not have used it.  




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Yes. Yes I have. It wasn't approved for use. As every media report now states. It isn't approved, _ergo they shouldn't have used it_. How the fuck is that a lie?



Because - and please try to understand this - that is not what you were arguing.  You made a very clear statement, which I will repost once again:




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



Now, if we were talking about an honest person, people might think that the above statement would suggest that the IPCC had said that the taser should not have been used as it was not yet fully approved.  It has transpired that the IPCC have not, in fact, said anything of the sort.  The Home Office have said it has not been approved for use, and the IPCC have said that:




			
				IPCC said:
			
		

> •The IPCC investigation will also investigate the command strategy and tactics employed by the police and review all records in order to ascertain what steps were taken to resolve the incident. The review of tactics will consider the deployment and use of the XRep Taser. The XRep is an electronic device that is deployed from a 12-gauge shotgun.
> 
> ...
> 
> 5.To investigate the acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers including what training was provided to the principal officers concerning its use and capability.



from here

Of course, such has been your behaviour on this thread that I have no hope at all that I will get a reasonable response.  Feel free to continue your fibbing about fibbing though.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> No I don't. You're taking pedantic issue with me on this because of a previous grudge. We both know it.



Self-obsessed, much?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Why, do you feel a kindred spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh do fuck off. If something is not approved for use then it is entirely reasonable to summarise that as 'should not have been used'. Any _reasonable_ person could see that. I have not fucking well lied at any point.

I'm not referring to instant arming, which is on the criminal statute. I am referring to the regulations pertaining to Police conduct, and is therefore relevant only to coppers not the general public. It is precisely this which the IPCC, Northumberland Police and the HO have referred to.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh do fuck off. If something is not approved for use then it is entirely reasonable to summarise that as 'should not have been used'. Any _reasonable_ person could see that. I have not fucking well lied at any point.



*Not when the fucking report you claimed you were quoting actually stated they could use them.* 

^^ there it’s in green crayon now, maybe that will help you to understand.   

Fucking hell, you’re like the Duracell Bunny; you just keep going on and on and on – you were wrong, get over it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> *Not when the fucking report you claimed you were quoting actually stated they could use them.*
> 
> ^^ there it’s in green crayon now, maybe that will help you to understand.
> 
> Fucking hell, you’re like the Duracell Bunny; you just keep going on and on and on – you were wrong, get over it.



But I wasn't wrong, at any point. I was bang on the money.

You, on the other hand, made a big song and dance about the word 'fully', which btw was completely unnecessary (if something isn't fully approved then it isn't approved) and which pretty much all the media reports have also dropped. You wrote some cock and bull essay about how the word 'fully' made all the difference when anybody with half a bran could tell it meant sweet fuck all.

Notice you aren't banging that particular drum now.

Now fuck off tout.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But I wasn't wrong, at any point. I was bang on the money.



Delusional.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You thick fucking cunt.
> 
> The police forces are independent, with operational control resting solely with the chief officer of each force, they can approve use of tasers for their own force they don't need Home Office approval.



oh dear, wannabe has completely lost it.

yes dear pigfucker they are legally allowed to use them.  But they are not approved, not in any way, not approved for trials _like you claimed they were_.  Similarly bags filled with piss are allowable, but i doubt even you would view them as being particularly useful.

So, to sum up these two pages of nonsense - the only person to have lied is claphamboy.  Now grow up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh do fuck off. If something is not approved for use then it is entirely reasonable to summarise that as 'should not have been used'. Any _reasonable_ person could see that. I have not fucking well lied at any point.



As the green crayon says, you were lying when you made that statement and you are lying now when you insist you did not in fact type out what you did. 




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> I'm not referring to instant arming, which is on the criminal statute. I am referring to the regulations pertaining to Police conduct, and is therefore relevant only to coppers not the general public. It is precisely this which the IPCC, Northumberland Police and the HO have referred to.



No, it isnt.  For a start, to use your example of the copper with the pint glass the relevant area of the law would be the same for the public as it is for cops (the use of force in self defence being under common law, the use of a weapon* under s1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953).  

That was your example, and it is emphatically and obviously not what the Home Office were referring to (as you belatedly appear to have recognized).  What the investigation will focus on, as they have said in my link above, is how it was authorised, whether its use was necessary, proportionate and justifiable, and whether the officers who were expected to use it had recieved enough training in its use.  *They will not prejudge that investigation before it starts by stating it should not have been used.*  This should be obvious.

* though whether a pint glass would be an offensive weapon in those circumstances would be questionable


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> As the green crayon says, you were lying when you made that statement and you are lying now when you insist you did not in fact type out what you did.



The green crayon, as you put it, does not say they can use them specifically. It says the Police can use any weapon in the right conditions. Clapham Boy, being a bit thick, can't make this distinction, but you can, so don't play dumb.

Now - categorically they were not approved for use at all in England, and contrary to Clapham Boy's claims they were not being trialled either. So they should not have been using them.



agricola said:


> No, it isnt.  For a start, to use your example of the copper with the pint glass the relevant area of the law would be the same for the public as it is for cops (the use of force in self defence being under common law, the use of a weapon* under s1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953).
> 
> That was your example, and it is emphatically and obviously not what the Home Office were referring to (as you belatedly appear to have recognized).  What the investigation will focus on, as they have said in my link above, is how it was authorised, whether its use was necessary, proportionate and justifiable, and whether the officers who were expected to use it had recieved enough training in its use.  *They will not prejudge that investigation before it starts by stating it should not have been used.*  This should be obvious.
> 
> * though whether a pint glass would be an offensive weapon in those circumstances would be questionable



This is bollocks, complete and utter. You are confusing laws with police conduct.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> This is bollocks, complete and utter. You are confusing laws with police conduct.



Ok then.  What part of police regulations gives an officer the legal power to use force in self-defence?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Ok then.  What part of police regulations gives an officer the legal power to use force in self-defence?



The part quoted in all the articles. You should read some of them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10615302



BBC said:


> A Home Office spokesman said the XREP Tasers were "currently subject to testing by the HOSDB (Home Office Scientific Development Branch)".
> 
> He added: "However, legally, police forces have discretion to use any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate.



Not 'an individual has the right to use any weapon in self-defence' which clearly would not apply, given the Police had access to a range of weapons.

The Independent says this:



> The two police officers who fired at Raoul Moat with stun guns were using weapons that they had received little or no training for and which had not been approved by the Home Office.
> 
> The inquest into the death of Mr Moat heard yesterday how he had been fired at by two firearms officers using XRep Tasers – shotgun-style weapons which can reach further and are more powerful than the standard hand-held Tasers carried by most police forces.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...id-not-have-home-office-approval-2025991.html

And the coppers themselves say this:



> It has now been disclosed at the opening of the inquest into the death of Raoul Moat that he was shot by two officers using a new type of stun gun not yet approved for police use.
> 
> The use of the XRep Taser by police in the stand-off with Raoul Moat will be among the areas investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
> 
> The investigation will consider the "acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers" and the precise sequence of events "regarding the discharge of the Tasers".



And the IPCC say this:



> 5. To investigate the acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers including what training was provided to the principal officers concerning its use and capability.
> 
> 6. To consider and report on whether any criminal or disciplinary offence may have been committed by any police officer or former police officer or member of police staff involved in the incident, and whether relevant local and national policies/guidelines were complied with.



http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Police-To-Review-Use-Of-XRep-Taser-_25071.html


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> they are not approved, not in any way, not approved for trials _like you claimed they were_.



Oh dear, green crayon time again. 

The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.

As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white on this link: Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options



Now, if you had only bothered to read the information and link provided you could have avoided making a twat of yourself, again. 

Or are you claiming Deputy Chief Constable hadn't approved their use and those officers just turned-up with a couple of shotgun tasers brought down the pub?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

No need for any crayon dear - except to mark you out as a prick. I understand perfectly well. You were the one who made things up.  the only one.  Your desperate backtracking is embarassing.  

Enjoy your spit roast with d-b and agricola tho.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The part quoted in all the articles. You should read some of them.
> 
> etc



Dont bother PT, the only ones who are arguing are the cops/ex-cops/wannabe cops.  Their opinion wont change.  Everyone else gets the picture, worry ye not.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh dear, green crayon time again.
> 
> The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.
> 
> ...



The Home Office hadn't approved them - they were still testing them in the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (not trialling them with forces as you claimed). See how the Indie puts it:



> Given that the weapons have not been approved by the Home Office, the decision of Northumbria Police to buy and use them was described as "rare" by police sources.



And stop writing your posts in green. It makes you look an even bigger wanker.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> Dont bother PT, the only ones who are arguing are the cops/ex-cops/wannabe cops.  Their opinion wont change.  Everyone else gets the picture, worry ye not.



Aye, I should probably adopt your more philosophical approach...

Is Clapham Boy really a plastic copper then?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Well done PT, you have just demonstrated that you clearly know fuck all about the subject.  




			
				PT said:
			
		

> Not 'an individual has the right to use any weapon in self-defence' which clearly would not apply, given the Police had access to a range of weapons.



As anyone who has read the thread, and who isnt a complete imbecile, will have realised, back there at post #1940 you wrote:




			
				PT said:
			
		

> The Police have and have always (afaik) had a get-out clause which states that it isn't automatically an offence to use a non-standard weapon on duty if absolutely necessary - for example, if a copper used a pint glass in fear of his and others safety.



Now, and I appreciate that this will be wasted on you, the part of the law that gives the Police that "get-out clause" is in fact the same part of the law that gives a member of the public exactly the same "get-out clause".  There is no difference in the law between cops and public on this issue.  There is no other, police-only, get-out clause in the circumstances you describe.   Police regulations and training recognize this.  That this was your own example that you now consider irrelevant to the debate is remarkable.

By the way, its good to see so many of those other articles, none of which contain a quote from the IPCC saying that police should not have used these tasers.  I wonder why that could be?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Aye, I should probably adopt your more philosophical approach...


A rare day when anyone can say that to me with any justification 



> Is Clapham Boy really a plastic copper then?



dunno, sure seems to be.  As he hasn't denied it, going by the logic of some on this thread, he must be.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> A rare day when anyone can say that to me with any justification



ha - couldn't help laughing at that point


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Well done PT, you have just demonstrated that you clearly know fuck all about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are an idiot aren't you?

Home Office:



> However, legally, police forces have discretion to use any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate



The OB:



> The investigation will consider the "acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers" and the precise sequence of events "regarding the discharge of the Tasers".



The IPCC:



> To investigate the acquisition, use, operational authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers including what training was provided to the principal officers concerning its use and capability.





> To consider and report on whether any criminal or disciplinary offence may have been committed by any police officer or former police officer or member of police staff involved in the incident, and whether relevant local and national policies/guidelines were complied with.



You'll note the references to police forces, not individuals; to authorisations and to national policies and guidelines.

A police officer on duty and in the course of his/her duty is subject to a plethora of additional laws and regulations concerning their conduct. The above quotes quite clearly make refernence to this. You seem to believe that unless something is worded in exactly the right way to please you then it can just be dismissed as 'oh what you were saying was totally different'. That's a cunts trick, fella.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> I understand perfectly well.



Excellent, so you now accept the police can approve the use of these things, they don't need Home Office approval. The Home Office advise, the police decide. 

At least we have some progress - the green crayon worked. 

10/10



> You were the one who made things up.  the only one.  Your desperate backtracking is embarassing.



Err no, I provided links to confirm that I had heard, we are still waiting on PT to provide links to what he made-up.

0/10 - must try harder.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Excellent, so you now accept the police can approve the use of these things, they don't need Home Office approval. The Home Office advise, the police decide.
> 
> At least we have come progress - the green crayon worked.
> 
> 10/10



This simply is not true.





claphamboy said:


> Err no, I provided links to confirm that I had heard, we are still waiting on PT to provide links to what he made-up.
> 
> 0/10 - must try harder.



Bollocks.

Where's proof of your absurd distinction between approved and fully approved? Oh, that's right, there is no distinction.

Where's proof of your claim that these tasers were being trialled by Northumberland Police? Oh, of course, turns out that the HO had yet to authorise any such trial, given they were still being tested by the boffins, and that Northumberland Police acquired the weapons off their own back and not for a trial but for use in the Moat case.

The only person who has consistently bullshitted on this thread is you.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Now, and I appreciate that this will be wasted on you, the part of the law that gives the Police that "get-out clause" is in fact the same part of the law that gives a member of the public exactly the same "get-out clause".  There is no difference in the law between cops and public on this issue.  There is no other, police-only, get-out clause in the circumstances you describe.   Police regulations and training recognize this.  That this was your own example that you now consider irrelevant to the debate is remarkable.



ignoring all the 'you are a liar' bullshit, i know you are capable of arguing these things sensibly sometimes agricola. So...

There is a rather big difference here tho isn't there?  Here, the police went out armed with that pint glass, which is a rather different thing. Whilst the police were indeed legally allowed to use the rifles, it is _very unusual_ for them to use any weapon that is not specifically HO approved.  To use them without being fully tested, indeed to use them in an ongoing case without full testing could well leave them open to prosecution, as it could well be seen as endangering lives.  So it does seem a rather daft thing to have done, no?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> At least we have some progress - the green crayon worked.



you really are thick arent you?  You'll make a great cop.  You lied sonny, you are the one who made shit up.  You have embarassed yourself wholly.  Bye.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> > Excellent, so you now accept the police can approve the use of these things, they don't need Home Office approval. The Home Office advise, the police decide.
> 
> 
> 
> This simply is not true.



Oh, but it is, the police forces are independent of the Home Office. 



> Except in Greater London, each territorial police force covers one or more of the local government areas  (counties) established in the 1974 local government reorganisations (although with subsequent modifications), in an area known as a police area. These forces provide the majority of policing services to the public of England and Wales.
> 
> These forces have been known historically as "Home Office police forces" due to the Acts of Parliament [citation needed] that established them although use of that description was only correct for the Metropolitan Police and in that case ceased to be so when local control was transferred from the Home Office to the Metropolitan Police Authority.
> 
> ...



Oh, and here's another link confirming trials, seems as you have ignored the ones posted previously. 



> Raoul Moat: *On-trial Taser* bid to 'save' gunman
> 
> *The XRep guns, on trial in England and Wales*, were used "around the time" he put a sawn-off shotgun to his head and took his own life.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ial-taser-bid-to-save-gunman-115875-22411564/



Poor Proper Tidy can't get anything right.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> you really are thick arent you?  You'll make a great cop.  You lied sonny, you are the one who made shit up.  You have embarassed yourself wholly.  Bye.



See post 1966, seems as you ignored the pervious posts, you thick cunt.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

PT,

Surely even a fuckwit like yourself would recognize that quoting from the IPCC statement into this investigation, which says that they will look into the authorisation, deployment, and use of the XRep taser might, you know, contradict your argument that the IPCC have said that it should not have been used?  




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> There is a rather big difference here tho isn't there? Here, the police went out armed with that pint glass, which is a rather different thing. Whilst the police were indeed legally allowed to use the rifles, it is very unusual for them to use any weapon that is not specifically HO approved. To use them without being fully tested, indeed to use them in an ongoing case without full testing could well leave them open to prosecution, as it could well be seen as endangering lives. So it does seem a rather daft thing to have done, no?



Which is something that the IPCC will be _investigating_ (ie: not already decided and stated was wrong as PT has repeatedly claimed).  You are right that it is very unusual in recent history for forces to use non-Home Office approved equipment, but these were of course very unusual circumstances.  Furthermore, there is nothing that I am aware of that would prevent a force using a piece of equipment that was not in and of itself banned (either legally or something that could only be deployed with a higher level of authority), though of course its use would be subject to the tests that the Home Office has stated.  This is of course does not mean "you cannot use X because it has not been approved by the Home Office".


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

It isn't _that_ unusual to have a nutter with a gun about.  Using equipment that is not fully tested and approved is just asking for trouble.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> It isn't _that_ unusual to have a nutter with a gun about.  Using equipment that is not fully tested and approved is just asking for trouble.



Yeah, far better to use real firearms, far less lethal.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2010)

David Cameron has come out and condemned the roaul moat tribute facebook group


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> It isn't _that_ unusual to have a nutter with a gun about.  Using equipment that is not fully tested and approved is just asking for trouble.



It was considerably more serious just an average nutter with a gun, and while you are right that these things should be tested and approved in an ideal world, and given that the alternative was using normal firearms on him, I can at least understand why they looked at using them.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, far better to use real firearms, far less lethal.



actually, the hit rate for usage in the UK to date seems to be overwhelmingly: Taser Rifles - 100%; real guns - rather less than that.

Not that real guns would be the only alternative anyway.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> David Cameron has come out and condemned the roaul moat tribute facebook group



And The Sun called them sickos yesterday, iirc.


----------



## gabi (Jul 14, 2010)

British PM disses someone for being a 'callous murderer'.. lol

meanwhile, in afghanistan..


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> It was considerably more serious just an average nutter with a gun, and while you are right that these things should be tested and approved in an ideal world, and given that the alternative was using normal firearms on him, I can at least understand why they looked at using them.



I can _understand_ it.  But I can also understand why some people are racist bastards, I can understand why sometimes people want to blow things up.  Doesn't mean they are sensible conclusions.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

belboid said:


> actually, the hit rate for usage in the UK to date seems to be overwhelmingly: Taser Rifles - 100%; real guns - rather less than that.



I guess you could have a point there if the taser rifle had killed him rather than a real gun.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh, but it is, the police forces are independent of the Home Office.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You fuckwit. They were not on trial, they had yet to pass the scientific testing stage. NH Police sourced the weapons specifically for the Moat case and not for a trial. As nearly every media report states.



> The Independent has also learned that the weapons, which are currently being tested by the Home Office, were ordered by Northumbria Police only last week – purely for use in the search for Mr Moat – and arrived just days before being fired at the fugitive.



They were quite obviously not on trial.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> PT,
> 
> Surely even a fuckwit like yourself would recognize that quoting from the IPCC statement into this investigation, which says that they will look into the authorisation, deployment, and use of the XRep taser might, you know, contradict your argument that the IPCC have said that it should not have been used?



But that isn't what I am saying, is it? I paraphrased 'not approved' as 'shouldn't be used'. And what do the IPCC say? That they aren't approved.

You're clearly looking to score some pedant points because you're like a dog with a bone trying to prove some mystical lie in there. It is two ways of saying the same fucking thing you lemon.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They were quite obviously not on trial.



And yet I've posted several links to reports saying they are. 

Maybe because Northumbria Police had only just ordered them explains why their officers didn't use them and left it to West Yorkshire firearms officers?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And yet I've posted several links to reports saying they are.
> 
> Maybe because Northumbria Police had only just ordered them explains why their officers didn't use them and left it to West Yorkshire firearms officers?



Shall I quote this for you again then?



> The Independent has also learned that the weapons, which are currently being tested by the Home Office, were ordered by Northumbria Police only last week – purely for use in the search for Mr Moat – and arrived just days before being fired at the fugitive.
> 
> It is understood that the XRep guns arrived as late as last Thursday and were handed out to firearms officers from Northumbria and other forces who had travelled to help the hunt for Mr Moat.
> 
> The officers had just hours to familiarise themselves with the weapon, which had never been used in a live situation in Britain before.


----------



## Giles (Jul 14, 2010)

Why are people so concerned about the entirely self-inflicted fate of this nasty, violent, murdering thug?

Why do people feel sympathy for him at all? 

He is dead = he kills no more people = no trial or expensive locking him up for 40 years = a good thing all round. 

Giles..


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But that isn't what I am saying, is it? I paraphrased 'not approved' as 'shouldn't be used'. And what do the IPCC say? That they aren't approved.
> 
> Your clearly looking to score some pedant points because you're like a dog with a bone trying to prove some mystical lie in there. It is two ways of saying the same fucking thing you lemon.



Look, I know you are from Wrexham but I know for a fact that within that fair town most people are familiar with at least a basic level of English.  Your initial statement was a lie, and your continual attempts to prove otherwise smack of fibbery as well.  

For everyone else who hasnt already seen this on its numerous previous appearances, here it is again:




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.



The IPCC have never said this.  Moreover, your latest claim about paraphrasing "not approved" as "should not be used" makes no sense either because the statement, which you claim came from the IPCC, already includes the point about it not being fully approved.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Shall I quote this for you again then?



That is one report, where I've posted several saying they were being trialled by various forces.

Besides, the fact that Northumbria Police had only just ordered some and shared them with other forces helping them doesn't mean that some of those other forces were not already running trials in their own areas, does it?

Nor does it suggest Northumbria Police ordered them without full approval of their Deputy Chief Constable in accordance with the 'Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options.'


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> That is one report, where I've posted several saying they were being trialled by various forces.



It is one report of many, a fair few of which I've already posted. The Indie report also quite clearly states they were ordered specifically for the Moat case, that officers had received no training, and that West Yorks coppers using them was co-incidetal - NHP ordered them and distributed them to whichever officers from whichever force were on the case.



claphamboy said:


> Besides, the fact that Northumbria Police had only just ordered some and shared them with other forces helping them doesn't mean that some of those other forces were not already running trials in their own areas, does it?
> 
> Nor does it suggest Northumbria Police ordered them without full approval of their Deputy Chief Constable in accordance with the 'Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options.'



The reports all say it had not completed HO scientific testing yet you thicko. They were not being trialled, they were still being tested.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Look, I know you are from Wrexham but I know for a fact that within that fair town most people are familiar with at least a basic level of English.  Your initial statement was a lie, and your continual attempts to prove otherwise smack of fibbery as well.



Does it fuck. You're trying to make a big issue out of pedantry. You also have a thing for bringing up the fact I'm from Wrexham, not sure what that is about.



agricola said:


> For everyone else who hasnt already seen this on its numerous previous appearances, here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> The IPCC have never said this.  Moreover, your latest claim about paraphrasing "not approved" as "should not be used" makes no sense either because the statement, which you claim came from the IPCC, already includes the point about it not being fully approved.



Not approved means more or less the same thing. What exactly do you think you are proving? Should I in future insure everything is verbatim? Fuck off.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 14, 2010)

Giles said:


> Why are people so concerned about the entirely self-inflicted fate of this nasty, violent, murdering thug?
> 
> Why do people feel sympathy for him at all?
> 
> ...



You sum it up well Giles, though I think the police were right to try and stop him from taking the easy way out and killing himself. A trial and incarceration would have been good for his victims and would also have been a better outcome for his own family.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> That is one report, where I've posted several saying they were being trialled by various forces.
> 
> Besides, the fact that Northumbria Police had only just ordered some and shared them with other forces helping them doesn't mean that some of those other forces were not already running trials in their own areas, does it?
> 
> Nor does it suggest Northumbria Police ordered them without full approval of their Deputy Chief Constable in accordance with the 'Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options.'


yeh cos everyone knows that it's the DCC's job to oversee the running of the county's police force. but wait - isn't that the job of the police authority?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos everyone knows that it's the DCC's job to oversee the running of the county's police force. but wait - isn't that the job of the police authority?



Oh look, another one with problems reading:

The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.

As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white on this link: Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white



Or green and blue, written in comic sans, by a complete tool


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh look, another one with problems reading:
> 
> The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.
> 
> As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white on this link: Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options


do you have a link to one from a force nearer to northumbria? or is suffolk as good as it gets?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh look, another one with problems reading:
> 
> The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.
> 
> As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white on this link: Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options


what i would like you to show me, now you've got your dander up, is the northumbria equivalent, where every 'suffolk' from your link is replaced by a 'northumbria', where the overseeing committees have northumbria names and where we see who the northumbria nominated officer is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what i would like you to show me, now you've got your dander up, is the northumbria equivalent, where every 'suffolk' from your link is replaced by a 'northumbria', where the overseeing committees have northumbria names and where we see who the northumbria nominated officer is.



*taps watch*


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Not approved means more or less the same thing. What exactly do you think you are proving? Should I in future insure everything is verbatim? Fuck off.



Please, take some of your own advice.  

It ("not approved" vs "should not have been used") clearly does not mean the same thing in this case, which is probably why none of the media reports that we have seen, and especially none of the IPCC statements, have made the same points you are making.  

Nor have any of those reports seen fit to make (and repeatedly defend) a false claim as to what the IPCC had said about the use of that taser.  To point this out is not pedantry.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> *taps watch*



You can clearly go find that for yourself, pickmans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> You can clearly go find that for yourself, pickmans.


claphamboy's made an interesting declaration and i think i'll let him produce the northumbria document for me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh dear, green crayon time again.
> 
> The acquisition of any new weapons and equipment requiring special authorisation will require the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.
> 
> ...


let's put it this way, claphamboy. it can't *always* be the deputy chief constable, because some forces don't have deputy chief constables. you're relying on the way things are done in one force out of 43 to prove your point, when that won't be the way things are done in the met and may well not be the way things are done in northumbria.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Please, take some of your own advice.
> 
> It ("not approved" vs "should not have been used") clearly does not mean the same thing in this case, which is probably why none of the media reports that we have seen, and especially none of the IPCC statements, have made the same points you are making.
> 
> Nor have any of those reports seen fit to make (and repeatedly defend) a false claim as to what the IPCC had said about the use of that taser.  To point this out is not pedantry.



What's the difference? Define it for me, in your own words.

If your significant other says 'you are not approved to eat the spuds for dinner', would you then eat the spuds and say 'oh, that doesn't mean exactly the same thing as 'you should not eat the spuds' so I had them off'? No, that would be silly. And you are being very silly. The tasers were not approved. Any person employing reason would therefore conclude that they _should not have used them_.

I am literally clueless about exactly what point you have been struggling to make for what seems like weeks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What's the difference? Define it for me, in your own words.
> 
> If your significant other says 'you are not approved to eat the spuds for dinner', would you then eat the spuds and say 'oh, that doesn't mean exactly the same thing as 'you should not eat the spuds' so I had them off'? No, that would be silly. And you are being very silly. The tasers were not approved. Any person employing reason would therefore conclude that they _should not have used them_.
> 
> I am literally clueless about exactly what point you have been struggling to make for what seems like weeks.


equally if the northumbria police acquired them purely for the one operation, as appears to be the case, then what you would suppose to be the usual predeployment training and evaluation would not have been done.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> equally if the northumbria police acquired them purely for the one operation, as appears to be the case, then what you would suppose to be the usual predeployment training and evaluation would not have been done.



Quite - I believe that is one of the issues the IPCC have said they will look at too...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what i would like you to show me, now you've got your dander up, is the northumbria equivalent, where every 'suffolk' from your link is replaced by a 'northumbria', where the overseeing committees have northumbria names and where we see who the northumbria nominated officer is.



These are national guidelines, referred to by the IPCC, and including the exact same wording as the IPCC has used in their press release, if you want to disapprove that I suggest you go right ahead - don't expect me to do your work for you.  

I just picked the first link from a google search for the code mentioned - Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options - there's over 20,000 links, so have fun trying to disapprove that anyone apart from the most senior officers get to approve equipment used in operational circumstances. 

I'll not be holding my breath.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What's the difference? Define it for me, in your own words.
> 
> If your significant other says 'you are not approved to eat the spuds for dinner', would you then eat the spuds and say 'oh, that doesn't mean exactly the same thing as 'you should not eat the spuds' so I had them off'? No, that would be silly. And you are being very silly. The tasers were not approved. Any person employing reason would therefore conclude that they _should not have used them_.
> 
> I am literally clueless about exactly what point you have been struggling to make for what seems like weeks.



You clearly are clueless then.  

Look, when you make a statement like _"The IPCC said...."_ it suggests that something or someone called the IPCC made a statement to the effect of whatever it is they go on to say.  When they have not made any such statement, one has to question why you said that they had.  

With regards to the difference between_ "not fully approved by the Home Office"_ and _"should not have been used"_, at the risk of wasting my time, you might have noticed that one of these is a fact (the first one) and one of these is an opinion (the second one).  That opinion, which appears to be that they should not have used it because it wasnt fully approved, and despite your claims about it being from the IPCC, is yours.

It is also wrong. (4.3 onwards, also here for evidence it was in the testing process prior to Moat being shot at with them)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> You clearly are clueless then.
> 
> Look, when you make a statement like _"The IPCC said...."_ it suggests that something or someone called the IPCC made a statement to the effect of something.  When they have not made any such statement, one has to question why you said that they had.
> 
> ...



So, define the difference between 'not approved' and 'should not be used'. What is the actual literal difference between those two statements?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> These are national guidelines, referred to by the IPCC, and including the exact same wording as the IPCC has used in their press release, if you want to disapprove that I suggest you go right ahead - don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> I just picked the first link from a google search for the code mentioned - Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options - there's over 20,000 links, so have fun trying to disapprove that anyone apart from the most senior officers get to approve equipment used in operational circumstances.
> 
> I'll not be holding my breath.


you don't understand google, do you. not a question, a simple fact. if you search for the phrase "codes of practice on the police use of firearms & less lethal options" only one result is returned: http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?rls=i...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4decbba4b4ffde8d


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> These are national guidelines, referred to by the IPCC, and including the exact same wording as the IPCC has used in their press release, if you want to disapprove that I suggest you go right ahead - don't expect me to do your work for you.
> 
> I just picked the first link from a google search for the code mentioned - Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options - there's over 20,000 links, so have fun trying to disapprove that anyone apart from the most senior officers get to approve equipment used in operational circumstances.
> 
> I'll not be holding my breath.






			
				code of practice on police use of firearms and less lethal weapons said:
			
		

> 3.1 Nominated senior firearms officer in each force
> 3.1.1 For the purpose of maintaining standards within each force, chief officers should
> ensure that an officer of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, or
> equivalent, is nominated to take the lead within the force in relation to operational
> policy and practice in respect of weapons requiring special authorisation.


p.5

i don't see the words "deputy chief constable" there. do you?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So, define the difference between 'not approved' and 'should not be used'. What is the actual literal difference between those two statements?



Read the post, the answer is in there.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't understand google, do you. not a question, a simple fact. if you search for the phrase "codes of practice on the police use of firearms & less lethal options" only one result is returned: http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?rls=i...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4decbba4b4ffde8d



Try again, excluding the 'S' from 'codes', muppet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Read the post, the answer is in there.



No, it isn't. You've made some convoluted false distinction that one is fact and one is opinion.

What I want is for you to define for me the exact literal difference between the statements. I'll make it really simple for you.

Statement A:

You are not approved to eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.

Statement B:

You should not eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.

Tell me what the actual difference is in these two statements. Given you've made such big play out of it, I'm assuming this won't be a problem for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Try again, excluding the 'S' from 'codes', muppet.



if the s was good enough for you,  it's good enough for me 

you, after all, were the one who searched for 'codes of practice ...'


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> have fun trying to disapprove that anyone apart from the *most senior officers* get to approve equipment used in operational circumstances.
> 
> I'll not be holding my breath.





Pickman's model said:


> > Originally Posted by code of practice on police use of firearms and less lethal weapons
> > 3.1 *Nominated senior firearms officer in each force*
> > 3.1.1 For the purpose of maintaining standards within each force, chief officers should
> > ensure that an officer of at least the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, or
> ...



I'll take that as a no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I'll take that as a no.



there's the grinding of goalposts again, claphamboy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> the *approval* of the Deputy Chief Constable.
> 
> As I posted earlier, it's there is black and white on this link: Codes of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms & Less Lethal Options





claphamboy said:


> so have fun trying to disapprove that anyone apart from the most senior officers get to approve equipment used in operational circumstances.
> 
> I'll not be holding my breath.


can you spot the difference?

no one was suggesting that constables or even inspectors would be the nominated officer: you were the only person who was insisting on one specific person, the deputy chief constable. now you've been shown to be wrong on two counts, first of being stupid enough to believe that suffolk's policy applied nationwide and now thinking you can change the parameters and no one will notice


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, it isn't. You've made some convoluted false distinction that one is fact and one is opinion.
> 
> What I want is for you to define for me the exact literal difference between the statements. I'll make it really simple for you.
> 
> ...



Are you unable to actually read that post?  In case you are, please find someone who is able to read and tell them this.

The XRep taser is not currently fully authorised by the Home Office.  *This is a fact.*  The XRep taser should not have been used in the Moat incident because it has not been fully authorised by the Home Office.  *This is an opinion.*
*
It is also a wrong opinion. *  Click the Home Office manual to find out why!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Are you unable to actually read that post?  In case you are, please find someone who is able to read and tell them this.
> 
> The XRep taser is not currently fully authorised by the Home Office.  *This is a fact.*  The XRep taser should not have been used in the Moat incident because it has not been fully authorised by the Home Office.  *This is an opinion.*
> *
> It is also a wrong opinion. *  Click the Home Office manual to find out why!



You're wriggling. Tell me what the actual, literal difference is between statement A and statement B. If you can't find any difference, then have the good grace to admit it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> there's the grinding of goalposts again, claphamboy.





Pickman's model said:


> can you spot the difference?
> 
> no one was suggesting that constables or even inspectors would be the nominated officer: you were the only person who was insisting on one specific person, the deputy chief constable. now you've been shown to be wrong on two counts, first of being stupid enough to believe that suffolk's policy applied nationwide and now thinking you can change the parameters and no one will notice



What a pair of fucking wankers.

Considering DCC Sue Sim, Acting Chief Constable, of Northumbria Police was running the fucking operation, who the fuck do yoy think approved the use?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're wriggling. Tell me what the actual, literal difference is between statement A and statement B. If you can't find any difference, then have the good grace to admit it.



from that code of practice again:

1.3.4 The range of equipment available for the purposes described at section 1.4 below 
may include not only conventional firearms but also other types of less lethal 
weapons and munitions which may not necessarily fall within the statutory 
definition of a firearm, but for which *stringent standards of competence in their 
command, deployment and use will be required.* This code applies to all such 
weapons available to police forces now or in the future. This entire range of 
equipment, comprising firearms and less lethal weapons, is referred to in this code 
as “weapons requiring special authorisation”. Such weapons are those specified as 
such by the Secretary of State and listed in the ACPO Manual of Guidance on 
Police Use of Firearms. 

i suppose that now agricola will argue that there are no 'stringent conditions of competence' required in the deployment of a weapon as yet unapproved and where the user is unlikely to have been present at the hosdb trials


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're wriggling. Tell me what the actual, literal difference is between statement A and statement B. If you can't find any difference, then have the good grace to admit it.



Oh do fuck off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> What a pair of fucking wankers.
> 
> Considering DCC Sue Sim, Acting Chief Constable, of Northumbria Police was running the fucking operation, who the fuck do yoy think approved the use?


she's temporary chief constable, not acting: see the northumbria police website. 

but is she the nominated officer? are you in fact arguing now that she is the deputy chief constable of northumbria? that the temporary dcc is not in fact the dcc? are you all over the fucking shop - yes you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Oh do fuck off.



here endeth the wriggle


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose that now agricola will argue that there are no 'stringent conditions of competence' required in the deployment of a weapon as yet unapproved and where the user is unlikely to have been present at the hosdb trials



Did you read the part that is actually of relevance Pickmans?  You know, the bit that actually talks about the use of non-fully approved pieces of equipment, and in what circumstances they should be used?  Since you dont like to do your own legwork, here it is:



> Availability of weapons under development or on trial
> 
> 4.4.1 Chief officers of police may also have available for special authorisation weapons undergoing trial or evaluation as part of the national approval process provided for at section 4.3 above. In such cases, Chief Officers of designated trial forces may authorise deployment of such weapons in accordance with any related guidance, for use as weapons requiring special authorisation.



Add that to the Home Office proviso mentioned in every bloody report in the XRep taser and the Moat incident (which has been repeatedly ignored by you and Proper Tidy) and you dont have a leg to stand on, do you?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> here endeth the wriggle



Dont you start acting the illiterate as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did you read the part that is actually of relevance Pickmans?  You know, the bit that actually talks about the use of non-fully approved pieces of equipment, and in what circumstances they should be used?  Since you dont like to do your own legwork, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> Add that to the Home Office proviso mentioned in every bloody report in the XRep taser and the Moat incident (which has been repeatedly ignored by you and Proper Tidy) and you dont have a leg to stand on, do you?


in the code of practice off the npia website it says 3.2, not 4.3. where does your code of practice come from?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 14, 2010)

Has he risen from the dead yet, the heroic Raoul Moat? Or is that not until tomorrow?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Oh do fuck off.



So is this an admission that you can't find any difference in meaning between the two statements?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in the code of practice off the npia website it says 3.2. where does your code of practice come from?



You cant click a link further up the bloody page?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Dont you start acting the illiterate as well.


endeth? endeth illiterate? are you as ignorant as you are stupid?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endeth


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So is this an admission that you can't find any difference in meaning between the two statements?



No, its an opinion from myself that I think you should fuck off.  This is based on the fact that I have, twice, pointed out the difference between your IPCC based lies / opinions / facts above.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> endeth? endeth illiterate? are you as ignorant as you are stupid?
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endeth



Whats this, tag-team trolling?  Pickmans if you are going to comment on something that was posted you could at least read the background to it.  Or do you agree with Proper Tidy and his fibs about what the IPCC said?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> No, its an opinion from myself that I think you should fuck off.  This is based on the fact that I have, twice, pointed out the difference between your IPCC based lies above.



No, you have asserted that one is opinion and one is fact.

I am asking you to demonstrate that one is opinion and one is fact, beyond merely asserting it.

In order to demonstrate this, you will first need to demonstrate a tangible literal difference between 'not approved' and 'should not be used'. I even helpfully provided a couple of sample statements for you.

So, demonstrate away. Unless you can't, in which case admit it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, you have asserted that one is opinion and one is fact.
> 
> I am asking you to demonstrate that one is opinion and one is fact, beyond merely asserting it.
> 
> ...



Did the IPCC ever say that the taser should not have been used?  Please note, this is the IPCC who have said that the taser should not have been used, not you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Whats this, tag-team trolling?  Pickmans if you are going to comment on something that was posted you could at least read the background to it.  Or do you agree with Proper Tidy and his fibs about what the IPCC said?


i'll take that as you stepping back from questioning the queen's english.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Or do you agree with Proper Tidy and his fibs about what the IPCC said?



You again claim I lied. Again, to make a case for this you will have to demonstrate a literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'. You seem to be unable to do this, in which case you should probably stop accusing me of lying.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did the IPCC ever say that the taser should not have been used?  Please note, this is the IPCC who have said that the taser should not have been used, not you.



They said it was not approved.

We're back here again - what is the literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'. Crack on, we won't get anywhere until you produce the goods.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take that as you stepping back from questioning the queen's english.



No, that was me pointing out that the post in question was about you appearing to not understand the difference between fact and an opinion in the same way that Proper Tidy doesnt.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> No, that was me pointing out that the post in question was about you appearing to not understand the difference between fact and an opinion in the same way that Proper Tidy doesnt.



Explain the difference in the two statements that would back up your assertion that one is fact and one is opinion.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

Agricola - what is the difference between these two statements?

Statement A:

You are not approved to eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.

Statement B:

You should not eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They said it was not approved.
> 
> We're back here again - what is the literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'. Crack on, we won't get anywhere until you produce the goods.



Right, and for the last time because you obviously are unwilling to acknowledge any evidence that does not fit with your incorrect opinion.

i) whether or not a weapon is fully approved by the home office for use does not mean it is not allowed - as the Home Office manual, and the statements of the Home Office in the articles you posted as evidence have showed. 

ii) the IPCC have never said that Police were not allowed to use this Xrep taser - the only person who has is you, albeit you maintain that the IPCC have said it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Agricola - what is the difference between these two statements?
> 
> Statement A:
> 
> ...



Care to weigh in on this important potato debate, Pickmans?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Agricola - what is the difference between these two statements?
> 
> Statement A:
> 
> ...



Well as it happens i have a cupboard-potato-eating licence from the home office but i happen to know that those two potatoes in the cupboard are green.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Right, and for the last time because you obviously are unwilling to acknowledge any evidence that does not fit with your incorrect opinion.
> 
> i) whether or not a weapon is fully approved by the home office for use does not mean it is not allowed - as the Home Office manual, and the statements of the Home Office in the articles you posted as evidence have showed.
> 
> ii) the IPCC have never said that Police were not allowed to use this Xrep taser - the only person who has is you, albeit you maintain that the IPCC have said it.



You're still wriggling.

I asked you to define the literal difference between those two statements as you keep accusing me of lying.

If I was lying and not just naturally re-phrasing it, then the meaning between the two statements would have to be different. Yet so far as I can see they are not - they share identical meanings.

So, again, please demonstrate the difference between the two statements. This must be about the tenth time I've asked you - are you unable to demonstrate any literal difference? Just admit it if you are, I'm not so proud I won't accept your apology for accusing me of lying.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're still wriggling.
> 
> I asked you to define the literal difference between those two statements as you keep accusing me of lying.
> 
> ...



Do what you want.  Your statement was clear enough, it has been explained to you on numerous occasions and with abundant evidence why it is wrong, and why you are a liar.

For the very last time:



> All we know is that at the first day of the investigation today the IPCC have said the Taser should not have been used as it is not yet fully approved.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> she's temporary chief constable, not acting: see the northumbria police website.
> 
> but is she the nominated officer? are you in fact arguing now that she is the deputy chief constable of northumbria? that the temporary dcc is not in fact the dcc? are you all over the fucking shop - yes you are.



FFS she's a DCC who is acting temporarily as chief constable, there is that simple enough for you?

OK, I accept that I should have said 'Deputy Chief Constable *(or similar)*', but I didn’t consider that necessary, as I wasn’t expecting some thicko to turn-up suggesting overseeing such operational matters were the job of the police authority as you did when you first posted on the subject, in post 1988. 

So, to answer your question, no it is not the job of the police authority, but that of the Deputy Chief Constable *(or similar)*.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Do what you want.  Your statement was clear enough, it has been explained to you on numerous occasions and with abundant evidence why it is wrong, and why you are a liar.
> 
> For the very last time:



I've been quite clear in what I want.

You are claiming there is significant difference between 'not approved' and 'shouldn't use'. You came up with some laughable fact/opinion nonsense.

I am asking for a literal difference between those two statements. Do you need the examples again or will you finally answer?

Come on, apparently the difference between the two is glaringly obvious, so it should be a simple task for you.

If you accuse people of lying then you should be able to demonstrate why.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

Statement A:

You are not approved to eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.

Statement B:

You should not eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.

Come on Agricola, tell me the difference!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Come on Agricola, tell me the difference!



He is a lying cunt, don't worry too much - he's certainly shown himself up on this thread.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He is a lying cunt, don't worry too much - he's certainly shown himself up on this thread.



I concur


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Statement A:
> 
> You are not approved to eat the two potatoes in the cupboard.
> 
> ...



Jesus Christ.  

Are you going to actually discuss the matter at hand?  You know, the actual matter at hand and not this potato idiocy, which is not even the fucking same argument as you made when you tried to pretend that you didnt make up an IPCC quote?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He is a lying cunt, don't worry too much - he's certainly shown himself up on this thread.



Prove it.  I have pointed out where Proper Tidy has lied, you go point out where I have.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Jesus Christ.
> 
> Are you going to actually discuss the matter at hand?  You know, the actual matter at hand and not this potato idiocy, which is not even the fucking same argument as you made when you tried to pretend that you didnt make up an IPCC quote?



Would it help if I used carrots instead?

You've made this big play out of the massive literal difference between the two statements. Now back it up, demonstrate it rather than asserting it. Or admit you've dropped a bollocks, either way I'm happy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Prove it.  I have pointed out where Proper Tidy has lied, you go point out where I have.



You haven't though. That is what I'm asking you to prove. You seem to be quite reluctant to do so.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You haven't though. That is what I'm asking you to prove. You seem to be quite reluctant to do so.



Have you found the quote from the IPCC that says that the Police shouldnt have used the taser because it wasnt fully approved by the Home Office?  

Do you even realise that the Police can use equipment that has not actually been fully approved by the Home Office?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Have you found the quote from the IPCC that says that the Police shouldnt have used the taser because it wasnt fully approved by the Home Office?
> 
> Do you even realise that the Police can use equipment that has not actually been fully approved by the Home Office?



Yes, I have found the quote from the IPCC saying it wasn't approved by the HO.

You keep asserting there is this massive difference between what I said and what the IPCC said, aside from phrasing it differently.

I am asking you - again - to demonstrate this massive literal difference. You know, the one you keep bringing up and accusing me of lying about.

Demonstrate it. What is the literal difference between 'not approved' and 'should not use'. It is a simple enough request - why so reluctant? It should be a piece of piss for you, fella. No need to wriggle so much.

Lol.

So come on, spill the magical beans.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, I have found the quote from the IPCC saying it wasn't approved by the HO.
> 
> You keep asserting there is this massive difference between what I said and what the IPCC said, aside from phrasing it differently.
> 
> ...



Lets see this quote from the IPCC, then.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 14, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598034


> Q: Is the XRep in widespread use?
> 
> No, because it is still undergoing testing.
> 
> ...



Is this what you two are arguing about?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Lets see this quote from the IPCC, then.



You already have. It is quoted on every single press report linked to on here.

Are you going to keep wriggling or will you point out that massive literal different between not approved and not allowed?

Come on Agricola, answer why don't you. I feel like Paxman.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, I have found the quote from the IPCC saying it wasn't approved by the HO.



Yes, we all know that, but what you missed at the time and continued to miss long after it was pointed out to you was that basically this didn't matter as the police could still use them. 

So, playing your game: 

Statement A:

The IPCC said the HO hadn’t approved them, but the police could still use them.

Statement B:

The IPCC said they shouldn't use them.

Now please explain how these two statements are the same?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, we all know that, but what you missed at the time and continued to miss long after it was pointed out to you was that basically this didn't matter as the police could still use them.
> 
> So, playing your game:
> 
> ...



That isn't my game at all. My game is trying to find out the massive literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'.

Although, if you must - statement A should just be this:

The IPCC said the HO hadn’t approved them.

The second half doesn't apply. The IPCC are citing a general rule. They'd be saying the same thing if Moat had of been charged by coppers armed with Beanos.

So:

Statement A:

The IPCC said the HO hadn’t approved them

Statement B:

The IPCC said they shouldn't use them

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference there, at all.

Are you going to tell us more about the trials and the magical properties of the word fully, Grassing Boy? Lol.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2010)

> Q: Is the XRep in widespread use?
> 
> No, because it is still undergoing testing.
> 
> ...



This makes perfect sense. If you are practiced in the art of doublethink and you're a bit of a twat.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 14, 2010)

Thank fuck they tested it on Moat rather than a decent human being. Shame the army had no new nerve gases to try out, too.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2010)

...



> The fugitive gunman Raoul Moat had repeatedly appealed for psychiatric help in a series of conversations with social workers which he secretly recorded.....In the recordings, which were handed over by a friend of Moat, he is heard in August 2009 talking about his unstable mental state, and asking social workers to get him psychiatric help.
> 
> "Why don't we have a psychiatrist sit me down and say right OK I want to see you regularly, then we can move towards where your areas of fault are, and we can enhance on these areas you know, and work with us. This is one of the things I'm suggesting."
> 
> ...



http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/raoul+moataposs+psychiatric+plea+in+secret+tapes/3710402


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> You already have. It is quoted on every single press report linked to on here.
> 
> Are you going to keep wriggling or will you point out that massive literal different between not approved and not allowed?
> 
> Come on Agricola, answer why don't you. I feel like Paxman.



Er - no, none of those reports contain a quote from the IPCC saying that this piece of equipment was not authorised.  That information has come from the Home Office.  

Whats next, Jeremy?



Proper Tidy said:


> There doesn't seem to be a great deal of difference there, at all.



Only if you havent actually realised that just because they are not fully approved by the Home Office does not mean that they should not be used - indeed, in the Home Office manual I linked to earlier it specifically states that equipment not approved but which is in the testing phase can be authorised for use, and thats in addition to the proviso from the Home Office which follows nearly every mention of it not being authorised.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> *The second half doesn't apply. *



Only in your world, because you chose to ignore it at the time and got it wrong.

It applies in the world of ITN (the report you misrepresented originally), it applies in the world of the IPCC (which you also misrepresented), it applies in world of the Home Office, the government, every police force in the country and in the mind of anyone intelligent enough to understand simple English.  

But, I except that it clearly doesn't apply in your world - you're right and everyone else is just making it up.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thank fuck they tested it on Moat rather than a decent human being. Shame the army had no new nerve gases to try out, too.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> in the Home Office manual I linked to earlier it specifically states that equipment not approved but which is in the testing phase can be authorised for use,





Really, it would be hilarious if not for the human guinea pigs they are 'authorised to test it on'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Er - no, none of those reports contain a quote from the IPCC saying that this piece of equipment was not authorised.  That information has come from the Home Office.
> 
> Whats next, Jeremy?



Which organisation is Steve Reynolds from you tit?





agricola said:


> Only if you havent actually realised that just because they are not fully approved by the Home Office does not mean that they should not be used - indeed, in the Home Office manual I linked to earlier it specifically states that equipment not approved but which is in the testing phase can be authorised for use, and thats in addition to the proviso from the Home Office which follows nearly every mention of it not being authorised.



Blah blah backtrack blah. So are you now saying I wasn't lying? After all, I've not held myself up as an oracle on police procedure...

And when are you going to explain this massive literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Only in your world, because you chose to ignore it at the time and got it wrong.
> 
> It applies in the world of ITN (the report you misrepresented originally), it applies in the world of the IPCC (which you also misrepresented), it applies in world of the Home Office, the government, every police force in the country and in the mind of anyone intelligent enough to understand simple English.
> 
> But, I except that it clearly doesn't apply in your world - you're right and everyone else is just making it up.



What? You don't understand words too well do you? The point I am making, Einstein, is that the same justification can be used for any weapon of any sort. It's a nothing statement. It has no impact on whether or not the OB should be using a weapon which has not yet been fully tested.

I can see why you became a plastic copper.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 14, 2010)

I was out of the country for most of the time that this tool was going about his business and therefore come to the debate pretty late in the day.

The thing I'm trying to work out is what is the issue at hand?

How and why are so many people getting worked up?

Surely this is a non-story that has only got legs from time honoured, prurient, morbid fascination.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 14, 2010)

It's a classic 'Who do we blame for this?' thread. Society? the police? the media? I know who we should blame, the steroid-abusing, psychotic, child-beating, wife-shooting, murdering cunt who got his just desserts. Simples.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Blah blah backtrack blah. So are you now saying I wasn't lying? After all, I've not held myself up as an oracle on police procedure...
> 
> And when are you going to explain this massive literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'?



Backtrack?  Thats what I have been saying since the start of this, you massive cretin.  As for the literal difference, I thought it was "not approved" and "should not have used", or are you redefining once again?

Besides, as you have once again failed to admit, you did lie.  This much is a matter of record on this thread.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's a classic 'Who do we blame for this?' thread. Society? the police? the media? I know who we should blame, the steroid-abusing, psychotic, child-beating, wife-shooting, murdering cunt who got his just desserts. Simples.



Got to find that angle, I suppose.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's a classic 'Who do we blame for this?' thread. Society? the police? the media? I know who we should blame, the steroid-abusing, psychotic, child-beating, wife-shooting, murdering cunt who got his just desserts. Simples.



Gravitas is dead, long live gravitas.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

agricola said:


> Backtrack?  Thats what I have been saying since the start of this, you massive cretin.  As for the literal difference, I thought it was "not approved" and "should not have used", or are you redefining once again?



Oh okay, so now you can tell me the literal difference between 'not approved' and 'should not have used' and the massively different 'not allowed'. Ffs!

It is a backtrack - now you are saying it is an easy mistake unless you are familiar with the caveat that the OB don't need HO approval (which is dubious, btw - so far we only have the OB and the not very independent IPCC to go on that), whereas before you were making hay from the Massive Literal Difference that was Blindingly Obvious.

Who is Steve Reynolds, btw?



agricola said:


> Besides, as you have once again failed to admit, you did lie.  This much is a matter of record on this thread.



It really isn't. Again, if you want to demonstrate a lie then you will need to demonstrate why - by explaining this massive literal difference between 'should not have' and 'not approved'. Yet you can't, can you?

You plum.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2010)

Have you done the facebook debate yet? 

Cameron said it was appaling that there is a RIP Raul Moat page on Facebook onto which thousands of people have left messages in support of Moat. 

Facebook have said it is not against their TOS so they will be leaving it up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh okay, so now you can tell me the literal difference between 'not approved' and 'should not have used' and the massively different 'not allowed'. Ffs!
> 
> It is a backtrack - now you are saying it is an easy mistake unless you are familiar with the caveat that the OB don't need HO approval (which is dubious, btw - so far we only have the OB and the not very independent IPCC to go on that), whereas before you were making hay from the Massive Literal Difference that was Blindingly Obvious.



Oh for fucks sake.  First you made up a statement that the IPCC had said these tasers should not have been used.  When you were called on that lie, you then suggested that you had paraphrased "were not authorised" for "should not have been used", which even an eleven year old would recognize is not the same thing.  All of this of course ignores the fact that the current policy is that non-approved weapons can still be authorised for use by a Chief Officer of Police.

As for the "dubious caveat", doesnt that come from exactly the same fucking source you are basing your argument on?




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Who is Steve Reynolds, btw?



He is from the IPCC.  Do you have a quote of him saying these tasers should not have been used?  Or even that they were not allowed to be used?




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> It really isn't. Again, if you want to demonstrate a lie then you will need to demonstrate why - by explaining this massive literal difference between 'should not have' and 'not approved'. Yet you can't, can you?
> 
> You plum.



With normal, non-troll individuals it is usually simply sufficient to point out that a person alleging that someone else said something that they did not actually say is a lie, but of course this is not possible with yourself.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I can see why you became a plastic copper.



Making things up again. 



Proper Tidy said:


> unless you are familiar with the caveat that the OB don't need HO approval (which is dubious, btw - so far we only have the OB and the not very independent IPCC to go on that)



And another fucking lie, we also have not only the word of the Home Office, but links all over the thread and google to official sites that host the very code that the H.O., IPCC and media keep repeating.

But, again, you seem to have ignored the facts.


----------



## cesare (Jul 14, 2010)

> "However, legally, police forces have discretion to use any equipment they see fit as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate."



Any equipment they see fit? Blimey. Machetes, swordsticks, axes, lightsabres ... that's pretty open ended. Only the _use_ of force is limited, not the method of force.


----------



## ajk (Jul 14, 2010)

I would well join the police if they had lightsabres.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 14, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Have you done the facebook debate yet?
> 
> Cameron said it was appaling that there is a RIP Raul Moat page on Facebook onto which thousands of people have left messages in support of Moat.
> 
> Facebook have said it is not against their TOS so they will be leaving it up.



Cameron gets it right shock horror! 

Mind you, you'd have to be a complete numpty to disagree with him on this occasion.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 14, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Gravitas is dead, long live gravitas.



Is that the Geordie version of Dignitas? They could use Moaty in their next advertising campaign.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Cameron gets it right shock horror!
> 
> Mind you, you'd have to be a complete numpty to disagree with him on this occasion.



You sucker, he's just latching onto populist bullshit, like Tony Blair "defending" Deidre Rashid off of Corrie.

Still carry on lapping it up like the newborn kitten at a bowl of poisoned milk you obviously are.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is that the Geordie version of Dignitas? They could use Moaty in their next advertising campaign.



That would be Greggsatas.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 14, 2010)

It's all a lot of bollocks. It's not real, any of it. It happened on the TV, I've never seen him. Have you?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 14, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You sucker, he's just latching onto populist bullshit, like Tony Blair "defending" Deidre Rashid off of Corrie.
> 
> Still carry on lapping it up like the newborn kitten at a bowl of poisoned milk you obviously are.



And yet he's right. Difficult to accept, eh Spanky?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's right. Difficult to accept, eh Spanky?



Like most of the freaks on this thread I'm guessing you voted Liberal-Con right?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet he's right. Difficult to accept, eh Spanky?



what is he right about exactly?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Like most of the freaks on this thread I'm guessing you voted Liberal-Con right?



You think Proper Tidy, Belloid & Pickmans Model voted ComLib?

Interesting.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 14, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what is he right about exactly?



That there should be no sympathy shown to Moat.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You think Proper Tidy, Belloid & Pickmans Model voted ComLib?
> 
> Interesting.



fucking hell, you're weird.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That there should be no sympathy shown to Moat.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You think Proper Tidy, Belloid & Pickmans Model voted ComLib?
> 
> Interesting.



Ah, the well known Comservative Party


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 14, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


>



Hmm.. Get that from an anti abortion site by any chance? I wouldn't lap up any poisoned milk from there if I was you.

Ah, got it. 'Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery' by Lotto. Does the woman represent Moat's ex? Does Jesus represent Cameron?


----------



## JimW (Jul 14, 2010)




----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 15, 2010)

So to sum up, (unashamedly using a selection of some of my favourite  comments so far):

Raul Moat shoots three people because they were probably not innocent. One was a copper (ie not innocent), whilst the other two were not innocent in a way inwhich we are yet to find out, although there is circumstantial evidence that they were guilty of being impure. The cops chase him all round Northumberland, corner him by a river and then make him shoot himself by doing comedy faces at him and firing tasers of uncertain legality, possibly illegally. It's one of the greatest news stories ever and he’s the new Robin Hood.


----------



## Dandred (Jul 15, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So to sum up, (unashamedly using a selection of some of my favourite  comments so far):
> 
> Raul Moat shoots three people because they were probably not innocent. One was a copper (ie not innocent), whilst the other two were not innocent in a way inwhich we are yet to find out, although there is circumstantial evidence that they were guilty of being impure. The cops chase him all round Northumberland, corner him by a river and then make him shoot himself by doing comedy faces at him and firing tasers of uncertain legality, possibly illegally. It's one of the greatest news stories ever and he’s the new Robin Hood.



You forgot Gazza.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So to sum up, (unashamedly using a selection of some of my favourite  comments so far):
> 
> Raul Moat shoots three people because they were probably not innocent. One was a copper (ie not innocent), whilst the other two were not innocent in a way inwhich we are yet to find out, although there is circumstantial evidence that they were guilty of being impure. The cops chase him all round Northumberland, corner him by a river and then make him shoot himself by doing comedy faces at him and firing tasers of uncertain legality, possibly illegally. It's one of the greatest news stories ever and he’s the new Robin Hood.



Yep that's exactly not what most people on here are saying, well done!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> (well, abundantly clear to anyone who was actually prepared to read it)


I think "able" to read it would be more accurate.

And "With an IQ larger than their shoe size" too ... don't forget that ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm not referring to instant arming, which is on the criminal statute.


Is it?

Which one?

Please do give us a link ... they're all here to save you having to look too hard ...

www.opsi.gov.uk

(Or is that something you heard on the lunchtime news too?)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> ... Whilst the police were indeed legally allowed to use the rifles ...


So now you're alleging that _rifles_ were used ... where the fuck did you get that from?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it can't *always* be the deputy chief constable, because some forces don't have deputy chief constables.


Don't they?

Which ones would they be then?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That isn't my game at all. My game is trying to find out the massive literal difference between 'not approved' and 'not allowed'.


The _NEED_ for fucking approval you pig-shit thick cunt.  

If there is a NEED for approval, and it is NOT approved then it "should not be used" (i.e. it is being used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority).

If (as in this case) there is NO need for approval, the fact that it is not approved (fully or partially) is fucking irrelevant as it can be used regardless and so you cannot say it "should not be used" as there is no requirement for any authorisation and so it has NOT been used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 15, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10641225


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> .. pig-shit thick cunt....


Is that the rank just above sergeant?  

Take a fucking chill pill will you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 15, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That there should be no sympathy shown to Moat.



sure, but if some dolts want to put up a facebook page dedicated to him, no one should stop them


----------



## magneze (Jul 15, 2010)

There's a psychologist on radio 4 analysing the fact that people have created and are posting on this page. FFS.

e2a: the facebook page, not _this_ page.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> FFS she's a DCC who is acting temporarily as chief constable, there is that simple enough for you?
> 
> OK, I accept that I should have said 'Deputy Chief Constable *(or similar)*', but I didn’t consider that necessary, as I wasn’t expecting some thicko to turn-up suggesting overseeing such operational matters were the job of the police authority as you did when you first posted on the subject, in post 1988.
> 
> So, to answer your question, no it is not the job of the police authority, but that of the Deputy Chief Constable *(or similar)*.


but you were quite insistent on it being the deputy chief constable, as your strange green posts show, when - if anything - it should be assistant chief constable or similar as per the code of practice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The _NEED_ for fucking approval you pig-shit thick cunt.


oh dear. did you not spend the time away from these boards seeking help with your anger management issues? you certainly should have done. as any copper can (and probably will) tell you, when you start to swear you've lost the argument; and you'd certainly be leaving yourself open to a section 5 poa.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 15, 2010)

God... people are going to do this shit. Women send inmates like Peter Sutcliffe love letters ffs... it happens. Get over it.

So back to the recent news...
My suspicions again were correct. They tasered him and within 1 sec he shot himself. 

Assisted Suicide.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

It was like Dignitas but in a field, with a shotgun and on telly and with 100% more gazza.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> IIn order to demonstrate this, you will first need to demonstrate a tangible literal difference between 'not approved' and 'should not be used'.



The difference here is that 'not approved' means not approved for general distribution and use by _all_ police forces. 

Northumbria were doing trials on the device so in this case it _could_ be used.


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 15, 2010)

It could be used yes...but in that situation should it have been used? No


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 15, 2010)

yeah i mean if they didnt taser him would he have woken up dead?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So now you're alleging that _rifles_ were used ... where the fuck did you get that from?



I appreciate you are rather distracted by having claphamboy sucking your cock, but i'd have thought you might still have noticed that the weapons used were oft referred to as Taser rifles, which might reasonably be abbreviated to 'rifles.'

Now, given you are rapidly showing your usual inability to maintain any kind of decorum, and a propensity towards completely losing it, I think you'd be wise to return to your flounced state, before you're not allowed back at all.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> It could be used yes...but in that situation should it have been used? No



Of course it should've been used. 

My own favoured method would have been a well placed, live sniper round between the cunts eyes, but I understand that not all would buy into that.  

Use of the taser ended the stand off between an armed murderer and the cops, without further injury to the police or public and at the same time provided the old bill with valuable information about the weapon's performance.

All round win.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it should've been used.
> 
> It ended the stand off between an armed murderer and the cops, without further injury to the police or public and at the same time provided the old bill with valuable information about the weapon's performance.
> 
> All round win.



I'm guessing the stand-off was probably coming to an end anyway which is why they used it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's a classic 'Who do we blame for this?' thread. Society? the police? the media? I know who we should blame, the steroid-abusing, psychotic, child-beating, wife-shooting, murdering cunt who got his just desserts. Simples.



See, this is just a good way of brushing anything you dont want to hear under the carpet.

Sure, Moat was a nasty piece of work, a serial committer of domestic violence for whom i have absolutely fuck all sympathy.  But, as with most cases, there are wider implicatins as well.

For one, there have been various accusations made against Moat since his death.  Accusations ranging from more domestic violence, to rape and murder.  Those people would have deserved to have some kind of justice done - ie Moat being found guilty (if he did indeed commit those acts).  But, as it is, no one is responsbile.  Okay, the women who accused him of beating them up may feel some kind of justice, but I doubt the family of the dead person do.  And they'll never ghet a chance to find out now.

And then there's the fact that some stupid copper decided to allow the use of an untested, non-HO approved, weapon.  Something which the sane (ex) copper here admits is highly unusual. Frankly, whoever made that decision - one which could well have led directly to Moats death - should pay a hefty price.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> All round win.



unless you understand anything about the concept of actual 'justice' that is.  Silly boy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I'm guessing the stand-off was probably coming to an end anyway which is why they used it.



My guess would be similar. I think it's unlikely they tasered him for a laugh. I believe that lethal force would've been the order of the day if he'd threatened someone else, 'non-lethal' in an attempt to prevent him doing himself.    



belboid said:


> unless you understand anything about the concept of actual 'justice' that is.



Well the 'concept of justice' is that an armed murderer who has also maimed several individuals, is contained until he proves a further danger to himself or others. At which point an effort is made to prevent him doing so, and if possible (secondarily) bring him to justice through due process. 

So far it seems that's precisely what happened here. 

The Northumbria plod have done a great job.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> And then there's the fact that some stupid copper decided to allow the use of an untested, non-HO approved, weapon.  Something which the sane (ex) copper here admits is highly unusual. Frankly, whoever made that decision - one which could well have led directly to Moats death - should pay a hefty price.



For all we know the order could have been given to tazer Moat to prevent him from shooting himself. Maybe they saw his finger start to squeeze on the trigger and made a last ditch attempt to stop it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> My guess would be similar. I think it's unlikely they tasered him for a laugh. I believe that lethal force would've been the order of the day if he'd threatened someone else, 'non-lethal' in an attempt to prevent him doing himself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




apart from the bit where they needed six APC's, a surveillance RAF plane and a half dozen police forces to catch a lone steroid addled numpty hiding in a drain


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> For all we know the order could have been given to tazer Moat to prevent him from shooting himself. Maybe they saw his finger start to squeeze on the trigger and made a last ditch attempt to stop it.



This is what I suspect happened.  I'd like to think they would have been prepared to sit it out for as long as it took as long as he was no risk to anyone, including himself.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Well the 'concept of justice' is that an armed murderer who has also maimed several individuals, is contained until he proves a further danger to himself or others. At which point an effort is made to prevent him doing so, and if possible (secondarily) bring him to justice through due process.
> 
> So far it seems that's precisely what happened here.
> 
> The Northumbria plod have done a great job.



That is precisely what didn't happen you stupid boy.  Even on your own definition the northumbrian police did a poor job. He was no longer a danger to anyone but himself, and the cops fucked up stopping him using his weapon.  All round fail.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> For all we know the order could have been given to tazer Moat to prevent him from shooting himself. Maybe they saw his finger start to squeeze on the trigger and made a last ditch attempt to stop it.



Bullshit. Timescales make that all but impossible. Unless Moat was squeezing the trigger in slow motion for added effect.

It is perfectly possible that it was just a horrid coincidence that he was shot by an untested weapon at the same time as he pulled his trigger.  But its also qwuite possible that he pulled the trigger _because_ he was shot with said untested gun.  not a great result for anyone without a naive bloodlust


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

I thought some coppers were trying to approach him from behind while he was distracted by the main bosy of coppers and their lighting rigs etc. in front of him and he'd spotted them, hence the taser.  Has that been confirmed as untrue now?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> ....but I doubt the family of the dead person do.



Pure speculation as I'm sure you're aware. 



> And then there's the fact that some stupid copper decided to allow the use of an untested, non-HO approved, weapon.



Once again, it didn't need approval. It was being tried and tested by the Northumbria force. A perfect scenario in which to test it too, imo. Northumbria should have called up all the other forces who were testing kit too:

"Here, you know that 'whizz-bang-sonic-heat-inducer' that that nutty old fucker knocked up in his shed last week? Want to see if it works?"



> ....whoever made that decision - one which could well have led directly to Moats death - should pay a hefty price



£1.50, maximum.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Bullshit. Timescales make that all but impossible. Unless Moat was squeezing the trigger in slow motion for added effect.
> 
> It is perfectly possible that it was just a horrid coincidence that he was shot by an untested weapon at the same time as he pulled his trigger.  But its also qwuite possible that he pulled the trigger _because_ he was shot with said untested gun.  not a great result for anyone without a naive bloodlust



You seem to be suggesting that the Police may have just got bored of talking and tried to take him out.  I'd be surprised if that was the case.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> I thought some coppers were trying to approach him from behind while he was distracted by the main bosy of coppers and their lighting rigs etc. in front of him and he'd spotted them, hence the taser.  Has that been confirmed as untrue now?



I don't think anything can be confirmed until the IPCC report is issued, of course it then depends on how much you trust the IPCC.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting they _fucked up_ by using a poor choice of weapon.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting they _fucked up_ by using a poor choice of weapon.



Oh right, well yeah that seems to be the case.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it should've been used.
> 
> My own favoured method would have been a well placed, live sniper round between the cunts eyes, but I understand that not all would buy into that.
> 
> ...



A thoroughly nasty post, I'm surprısed at you.

Anyone who doesn't feel sympathy for Moat ıs as bad as he was.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I don't think anything can be confirmed until the IPCC report is issued, of course it then depends on how much you trust the IPCC.



Who was it complained to the IPCC, by the way?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Anyone who doesn't feel sympathy for Moat ıs as bad as he was.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> apart from the bit where they needed six APC's, a surveillance RAF plane and a half dozen police forces to catch a lone steroid addled numpty hiding in a drain



Probably testing more kit. 

Let's face it it's not every day you get a child-battering, murdering, maiming fuckslug to practice on in England.   



belboid said:


> That is precisely what didn't happen ....



Hmmm, seems you have a lot more information about what happened than the rest of us. Care to link it up? 

Thanks.



> Even on your own definition the northumbrian police did a poor job. He was no longer a danger to anyone but himself, and the cops fucked up stopping him using his weapon.  All round fail



Nonsense. Again, what information do you have that this was the case? How do you know that cunt-lugs didn't point the weapon at his head and shout "yippy-kay-ay, motherfuckers" just before getting toasted? 



8ball said:


> I thought some coppers were trying to approach him from behind while he was distracted by the main bosy of coppers and their lighting rigs etc. in front of him and he'd spotted them, hence the taser.  Has that been confirmed as untrue now?



Ask Belboid. It seems he was there.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> Who was it complained to the IPCC, by the way?



The rozzers reported themselves.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> A thoroughly nasty post, I'm surprısed at you.





No you're not.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> A thoroughly nasty post, I'm surprısed at you.



Really?

Spymaster's views on law and order including punishment are quite well known.  Did you miss all those capital punishment threads?


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


>



I'm perfectly serıous.  I hate the way that people take someone's evıl actıons as an excuse to scream hatred at them.  It's vıle, sadıstıc, and ıt shows the same kınd of character flaw as those they revıle.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Really?
> 
> Spymaster's views on law and order including punishment are quite well known.  Did you miss all those capital punishment threads?



I dıd.  I've only seen hım on a wınd-up, albeıt quıte convıncıng wınd-ups at tımes.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I dıd.  I've only seen hım on a wınd-up, albeıt quıte convıncıng wınd-ups at tımes.



Ok well let me update you.

"Somewhere just to the right of the Nazis"

I believe that was the statement.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. Again, what information do you have that this was the case? How do you know that cunt-lugs didn't point the weapon at his head and shout "yippy-kay-ay, motherfuckers" just before getting toasted?



uhh, the fact that that didnt happen?  It has all been widely reported. 

As you are just making shite up to justify your own bloodlust, your opinion is worth nothing, so bye bye.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I'm perfectly serıous.  I hate the way that people take someone's evıl actıons as an excuse to scream hatred at them.  It's vıle, sadıstıc, and ıt shows the same kınd of character flaw as those they revıle.



You should show them some sympathy, otherwise you're as bad as a murdering child beater and rapist too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> I dıd.  I've only seen hım on a wınd-up, albeıt quıte convıncıng wınd-ups at tımes.



oh the chutzpah


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

_Thıs_ ıs the kınd of wanker I expect such reactıons from:

'The prime minister said he could not understand "any wave of public sympathy for this man". Any sympathy should be directed towards Moat's victims, he said.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/15/raoul-moat-psychiatric-help-shootings

As ıf the two are mutually exclusıve.  But at least Cameron has the excuse of havıng to pander to base ınstıncts ın search of votes.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> The rozzers reported themselves.



Bizarre.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> Bizarre.



well, its an automatic referral.  So the cops 'referred themselves' by shooting someone.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> Bizarre.



Standard practice I believe when someone has died when the police are involved.

I'm sure DB could confirm this if he has recovered from his tourettes.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> well, its an automatic referral.  So the cops 'referred themselves' by shooting someone.





Teaboy said:


> Standard practice I believe when someone has died when the police are involved.



Fair enough,  I just assumed a complaint had to be made given they're called the 'complaints commission' and not something like the 'fatalities investigation dept'.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

they spent 6 hours trying to talk him down which is 5 1/2 hours more than I'd have given him.
 gone to jail for beating his daughter up real hard man picking on a nine year old  uses a gun on his former partner blinds a copper yeallow card.

"stay back or I'll shot myself "  go on then thats not much of a fucking threat .
 theres a slight tragedy thats he's dead maybe time in jail might have becaome a better person but as it stood not great loss to humanity.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> uhh, the fact that that didnt happen?



Don't be daft. Nobody but 'Moatie' was hurt. If someone's trying to blow his face off with a shotgun, chances are they'll succeed. ANY attempt to prevent it is liable to failure. Personally I'd have hooked the cunt up to the national grid, but the police are far more patient than I when it comes to dealing with murdering bastards. 

I think Teaboy's probably on the money here. Something happened that led a brave police officer to take the decision to make an attempt to end an escalated threat (either to them or to 'Moatie' himself). 

If that threat was to other police oficers, then the action worked. If not ..... <shrug>.



> It has all been widely reported.



Excellent. Then you'll have no problems finding a link for us. 

Off you pop!


----------



## FoxyRed (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> they spent 6 hours trying to talk him down which is 5 1/2 hours more than I'd have given him.
> gone to jail for beating his daughter up real hard man picking on a nine year old  uses a gun on his former partner blinds a copper yeallow card.
> 
> "stay back or I'll shot myself "  go on then thats not much of a fucking threat .
> theres a slight tragedy thats he's dead maybe time in jail might have becaome a better person but as it stood not great loss to humanity.



I would have preferred him to rot in prison rather than the easy way out, they gave him what he wanted.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> "stay back or I'll shot myself "  go on then thats not much of a fucking threat .



Quite.

"Here, let me help you with that ......"


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> I would have preferred him to rot in prison rather than the easy way out, they gave him what he wanted.



I thought he shot himself.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> _Thıs_ ıs the kınd of wanker I expect such reactıons from:
> 
> 'The prime minister said he could not understand "any wave of public sympathy for this man". Any sympathy should be directed towards Moat's victims, he said.'
> 
> ...



So the facebook thing (35 thousand and growing) is being unfairly attacked, in your opinion?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

jer said:


> So the facebook thing (35 thousand and growing) is being unfairly attacked, in your opinion?



non sequitur - the facebook isn't expressing sympathy for a person who things wentwrong for but lauding an anti-hero in a particularly childish and imbecilic way.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> I would have preferred him to rot in prison rather than the easy way out, they gave him what he wanted.



Ah, the old 'life in prison's a worse punishment than death' gambit! 

It always amuses me when this one comes up, especially when those that use it generally argue it from the humanitarian perspective!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> non sequitur - the facebook isn't expressing sympathy for a person who things wentwrong for but lauding an anti-hero in a particularly childish and imbecilic way.



Bingo. It's similar to the acab sentiment that's being expressed on this thread by the usual suspects. 

"The old bill were responsible for brother Raoul's death because they used some dodgy kit".

Bollocks. 

Raoul was responsible for Raoul's death because he murdered a geezer, critically wounded his ex-bird, blinded a copper and threatened the wider public.

The end.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> non sequitur - the facebook isn't expressing sympathy for a person who things wentwrong for but lauding an anti-hero in a particularly childish and imbecilic way.



Agreed. Should facebook remove it, though?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 15, 2010)

listening to the tapes of his on teh radio this morning & checking out how he rigged his house 'cos he though he was being opersecuted, suggests he had some proper mental health issues & he was well aware of it

the fact that he did kill one / shoot 2 others is hardly praiseworthy or deserving any any kind of hero worship ( though he will be seen as a hero in the NE by many ) , but he was utterly fucked up mentally it would seem - pleading for profssional help at one stage. he didnt come across as a low IQ bouncer idiot in either his letters or his tapes.

once the rambo furore died down , it now feels very very sad all round.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Raoul was responsible for Raoul's death because he murdered a geezer, critically wounded his ex-bird, blinded a copper and threatened the wider public.



I'd say he was chiefly responsible for his death by virtue of shooting himself in the head.



jer said:


> Agreed. Should facebook remove it, though?



No.  But then I'm one of these old-fashioned 'freedom of speech' types.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> No.  But then I'm one of these old-fashioned 'freedom of speech' types.



Also in agreement there. Do you think Cameron (and come to think of it, The Sun) are alienating this group of people?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> I'd say he was chiefly responsible for his death by virtue of shooting himself in the head.



No, no!

It's the pigs what done it, remember?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> I'd say he was chiefly responsible for his death by virtue of shooting himself in the head.



unless he only shot himself n the head as an involuntary reactin to being shot with a taser.  In which case whoever shot him is legally responsible.

Spymaster doesn't care about getting justice for any of his other alleged victims (ie not the ones we know he shot and beat up), he just gets a hardon over thinking about people being killed.  Not your opinion too, surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

Cameron telling me where I should be directing my sympathy is pushing me towards building Rouel a fucking shrine


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No, no!
> 
> It's the pigs what done it, remember?



Well, he may have convulsed when being tasered - I think it's more likely he shot himself on purpose.  I guess the report will discuss that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Cameron telling me where I should be directing my sympathy is pushing me towards building Rouel a fucking shrine


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> unless he only shot himself n the head as an involuntary reactin to being shot with a taser.  In which case whoever shot him is legally responsible.



Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah   !

Where did you do your law training???

Go get your money back!



> Spymaster doesn't care about getting justice for any of his other alleged victims (ie not the ones we know he shot and beat up)...



Wrong again. I'd have dearly loved to have seen your buddy go through due process for all his crimes ........ then I'd have hanged him.

However, it's not always possible to bring in an armed lunatic who's pointing a shotgun at his head without it going bang!

You should know that, you were there after all !


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Cameron telling me where I should be directing my sympathy is pushing me towards building Rouel a fucking shrine



Innit. And packing about fifty bloody pashminas to wind round my face for the next time I go on a daytrip to Calais.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Spymaster doesn't care about getting justice for any of his other alleged victims (ie not the ones we know he shot and beat up), he just gets a hardon over thinking about people being killed.  Not your opinion too, surely?



I don't think he would have been tried over any of those accusations anyway, he would have gone down because the shootings.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah   !
> 
> Where did you do your law training???
> 
> Go get your money back!



That is the law sunshine. If car A hits car B and car B hits person C, it is the driver of car A who is responsible.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> I don't think he would have been tried over any of those accusations anyway, he would have gone down because the shootings.



So he couldn't have been tried for rape?  Or for the other murder?  Really?


----------



## machine cat (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> _Thıs_ ıs the kınd of wanker I expect such reactıons from:
> 
> 'The prime minister said he could not understand "any wave of public sympathy for this man". Any sympathy should be directed towards Moat's victims, he said.'
> 
> ...





phildwyer said:


> I dıd.  I've only seen hım on a wınd-up, albeıt quıte convıncıng wınd-ups at tımes.







phildwyer said:


> I'm perfectly serıous.  I hate the way that people take someone's evıl actıons as an excuse to scream hatred at them.  It's vıle, sadıstıc, and ıt shows the same kınd of character flaw as those they revıle.





phildwyer said:


> A thoroughly nasty post, I'm surprısed at you.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't feel sympathy for Moat ıs as bad as he was.




Why aren't your i's dotted?

Is it just me??


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> However, it's not always possible to bring in an armed lunatic who's pointing a shotgun at his head without it going bang!



why dont you carry out a trial?  Point a gun at your head with one hand, and shoot yourself with a taser with the other, and lets see what happens.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> Why aren't your i's dotted?
> 
> Is it just me??



I think he posts from Turkey and therefore on a Turkish keyboard


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Wrong again. I'd have dearly loved to have seen your buddy go through due process for all his crimes ........ then I'd have hanged him.


what makes you think you'd have been sharing a cell with him?

is there something you're not telling us?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> So he couldn't have been tried for rape?  Or for the other murder?  Really?



They probably wouldnt have bothered with the rape charges as they already had him on the murder.  It would take a lot of resources the bring the rape charge only to have to sentence run concurrently.  It's a sort of 'well hes going down for a long time anyway so what does it matter' thing.

Of course they may well have done if they felt it would benefit the victim.


----------



## gabi (Jul 15, 2010)

So. Been a few days. Anyone win this argument yet?

What did i miss...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

gabi said:


> So. Been a few days. Anyone win this argument yet?
> 
> What did i miss...


what, apart from the point?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> So he couldn't have been tried for rape?  Or for the other murder?  Really?



Is that what I said?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> That is the law sunshine.



Really? 

So you'll be able to quote for us which law it is, that says that a policeman responding to a threat is responsible if the suspect shoots himself as a result?

Excellent. Take your time in finding the link. You'll probably find it near the other one that you've failed to provide. You know, the one that tells us exactly what happened and has been "widely reported".

You're just making stuff up, Bellend.



> If car A hits car B and car B hits person C, it is the driver of car A who is responsible



What if the driver of car A is attempting to stop the driver of car B from killing person C?

Not quite so simple is it?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

gabi said:


> So. Been a few days. Anyone win this argument yet?
> 
> What did i miss...



A lot of swearing and about a 20 page argument over the definition of 'authorised'.

Oh and DB turned up and called everyone a cunt.  Normal day really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> A lot of swearing and about a 20 page argument over the definition of 'authorised'.
> 
> Oh and DB turned up and called everyone a cunt.  Normal day really.



all quiet on the urban front


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> So you'll be able to quote for us which law it is, that says that a policeman responding to a threat is responsible if the suspect shoots himself as a result?
> 
> ...


It's been all over the news dear boy, not one of them reported anythng like your claim. Which they would have done.  



> What if the driver of car A is attempting to stop the driver of car B from killing person C?
> 
> Not quite so simple is it?



yes dear, it is simple.  The driver is legally _responsible_.  Whether they are guilty of any offence is a different matter.  It may well be a justified act, but they are still _responsible._  See the difference?  Everyone else can.

Now, go and carry out that experiment.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> So you'll be able to quote for us which law it is, that says that a policeman responding to a threat is responsible if the suspect shoots himself as a result?
> 
> ...



It's not simple but there has to be a level of responsibility.  If Moat was still talking and seemingly not in immediate danger and the actions of the Police caused him to kill himself then surely they need to be called to account for that?

If however, as I'm sure the report will say (whether it is true or not), the Police assumed Moat was about to kill himself and in vein attempted to save him, then I don't think much blame can be attributed to them.

The questions have to be asked though, was this their only option?  Was this the right call?  At the moment on the evidence I've seen I'd say they got it wrong.


----------



## machine cat (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I think he posts from Turkey and therefore on a Turkish keyboard



aha


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Quite.
> 
> "Here, let me help you with that ......"



release the honey badger

I doubt moat was going to back down had all the look of a sucide by cop routine short of soebody coming up with a phaser style stun gun not much else the cops could do.
 no need to waste an expensive handload on the silly sod either he was going to give up, slot himself or make and hostile move and get ventlated.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I think he posts from Turkey and therefore on a Turkish keyboard



Evet effendım.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> It's been all over the news dear boy, not one of them reported anythng like your claim. Which they would have done.



This is truly desperate stuff. I'm wondering why you haven't hit my radar as a total fucking idiot in the past!

Are you honestly asserting that the media has all the facts here? Can you point us to a definitive source that proves that:

a) 'Moatie' wasn't about to shoot himself anyway.
b) 'Moatie' wasn't about to shoot a copper.
c) That the taser round caused 'Moatie's' weapon to discharge into his face.

Take your time. 



> The driver is legally _responsible_.  Whether they are guilty of any offence is a different matter.  It may well be a justified act, but they are still _responsible._



Brilliant wriggle! I take back what I said about you being a fucking idiot. You're just dishonest!

It's the trusty old "Let's argue definitions because I've been caught out talking poo" play!

Nice swerve !

But can you honestly say that when you said that the shooter is "responsible", you weren't suggesting that he was committing a criminal act???

Honest? 

Don't tell fibs now .


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> release the honey badger
> 
> I doubt moat was going to back down had all the look of a sucide by cop routine short of soebody coming up with a phaser style stun gun not much else the cops could do.
> no need to waste an expensive handload on the silly sod either he was going to give up, slot himself or make and hostile move and get ventlated.



Thing is though, if he was going to end himself then why didnt he before, he had plenty of time?  It's not as if he was making a bid for freedom, he knew he would get caught eventually.

Also he had the opportunity to check out Butch Cassidy style, but yet again didn't.  So from that I figure that there must have been a chance of saving him?  But then I have no idea what went on in the final few hours.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Evet effendım.



Cheers.  I'll have an Efes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> It's not simple but there has to be a level of responsibility.  If Moat was still talking and seemingly not in immediate danger and the actions of the Police caused him to kill himself then surely they need to be called to account for that?



For sure. 

But the only evidence that this was the case is currently in Belboids head!



> If however, as I'm sure the report will say (whether it is true or not), the Police assumed Moat was about to kill himself and in vein attempted to save him, then I don't think much blame can be attributed to them.
> 
> The questions have to be asked though, was this their only option?  Was this the right call?



Agreed again.



> At the moment on the evidence I've seen I'd say they got it wrong



Show me that evidence.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Thing is though, if he was going to end himself then why didnt he before, he had plenty of time?  It's not as if he was making a bid for freedom, he knew he would get caught eventually.
> 
> Also he had the opportunity to check out Butch Cassidy style, but yet again didn't.  So from that I figure that there must have been a chance of saving him?  But then *I have no idea what went on in the final few hours*.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Diamond said:


>



Couldnt spell negociations (sp?) 

True though, none of us do.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Show me that evidence.



Ok, perhaps not worded well.

What I mean is you can only judge how succesful an action has been when you compare it to it's objectives.

Clearly the Police wanted to keep Moat alive, clearly he is now worm food.  So they failed, you have to ask what else could they have done if anything?

So as it stands there actions caused a man to shoot himself, I will await the report which will no doubt tell us that they had no alternatives.

Thing is I don't want to see anyone prosecuted or sacked or whatever about this, but all the same the Police need to know whether tasering a soaking wet man sat next to a river holding a gun to his head was a good idea.

They made a judgment call and it didn't work.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> This is truly desperate stuff. I'm wondering why you haven't hit my radar as a total fucking idiot in the past!
> 
> Are you honestly asserting that the media has all the facts here? Can you point us to a definitive source that proves that:
> 
> ...


No need to take any time. Any fool (but you, it seems) knows full well such things are not definitively provable.  it is incumbent upobn you to find any evidence that he was about to do any of those things. Otherwise it gives carte blanche to shoot anyone.

Simple fact - there is, at present, no evidence that Moat was a danger at that precise point to anyone but himself. 

As to whether it was the taser that led to Moat shooting himself, I have never claimed it DID happen, I have said it is a distinct possibility, one which you have dismissed out of hand. 




> rilliant wriggle! I take back what I said about you being a fucking idiot. You're just dishonest!
> 
> It's the trusty old "Let's argue definitions because I've been caught out talking poo" play!
> 
> ...



There is no wriggle at all, you just aren't very bright. It is your fault you think 'responsible' means 'guilty of a crime', no one elses. _If_ it is found that it was the taser that led to the shot, there would be an investigation into whether it was a justifiable shooting, and whether it was done in an appropriate manner.  In which case it might be that the cop who authorised use of this untested weapon might face charges, tho, given what happened with Jean Charles de Menezes he'd be let off carte blanche too.

None of that in any way diffes from what I have been arguing throughout this thread, if you can't see that then you have blinded yourself from excessive wanking over pics of dead crims, I guess.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> What I mean is you can only judge how succesful an action has been when you compare it to it's objectives.



Indeed. But to do so you need to know what that objective was.



> Clearly the Police wanted to keep Moat alive, clearly he is now worm food.  So they failed, you have to ask what else could they have done if anything?



By all means ask. But don't assert that they could've done something better without knowing all the facts.



> So as it stands there actions caused a man to shoot himself, I will await the report which will no doubt tell us that they had no alternatives.



Me too. And the subsequent posts on this thread by Belboid et al about a police 'cover-up'! 



> They made a judgment call and it didn't work



If that call was to stop Moat killing himself, no, it didn't. However the outcome may well have been the same either way. If the call was to prevent the bastard from shooting another police officer, it was 100% successfull.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> And then there's the fact that some stupid copper decided to allow the use of an *untested*, non-HO approved, weapon.



Whilst not H.O. approved yet, they have been tested over many years, so please stop making shit up.



> Frankly, whoever made that decision - one which could well have led directly to Moats death - should pay a hefty price.



Considering the use of standard tasers were ruled out on safety grounds, the choice between using live rounds or the less-lethal shotgun taser would seem a no-brainer, well at least to anyone with more than half brain.

Tell me, do you automatically get more stupid as each day passes or do you have to work at it?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. But to do so you need to know what that objective was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thing is Spy, if at any point they felt Moat was a danger to the Police he would have ended up full of lead, there is no way they would have bothered with the taser.  DB confirmed as much a lot earlier in the thread.

The objective was to arrest him without anyone getting hurt, they failed.  You're right I don't know all the facts as I've been at pain to say on several occasions, but nor does anyone here.  Therefore we are speculating, it's what we do, it keeps us  entertained and occasionally I learn something from it.

I'm assuming if they had tried something different there might have been a different outcome, you're assuming there wouldnt or just don't care either way.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Whilst not H.O. approved yet, they have been tested over many years, so please stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



they haven't passed UK tests, therefore they are untested.  I realise you are trying to outdo pickman's in worthless pedantry, but you are still a long way behind him in just the basics.  Just to remind you:  the only peson to have made anything up on this thread is ....you!!

Your insults aren't as good as pickmans' either.  

How does d-b's spunk taste, by the way?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Thing is Spy, if at any point they felt Moat was a danger to the Police he would have ended up full of lead, there is no way they would have bothered with the taser.  DB confirmed as much a lot earlier in the thread.



Circumstances change, whilst he may not been a danger to the police at first, if, as reported, the police had got behind him and up close and Moat had become aware of that, he had become a danger to them - and the use of a high-powered taser could have removed that danger without death.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Considering the use of standard tasers were ruled out on safety grounds, the choice between using live rounds or the less-lethal shotgun taser would seem a no-brainer, well at least to anyone with more than half brain.



You're making the assumption that that was their only choices.  It might well have been, but perhaps they could have tried something different.

I fully expect the IPCC report to absolve the Police of any blame, what would be more interesting to see is the guidelines issued to the police with reference to this weapon and whether they will be amended after this incident.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Simple fact - there is, at present, no evidence that Moat was a danger at that precise point to anyone but himself.





The evidence so far is that a trained police officer thought it necessary to taser him. You are dismissing out of hand that that may have been for a reason. 



> As to whether it was the taser that led to Moat shooting himself, I have never claimed it DID happen, I have said it is a distinct possibility, one which you have dismissed out of hand.



My word you're a liar. Where have I dismissed it? Quote please.



> There is no wriggle at all, you just aren't very bright. It is your fault you think 'responsible' means 'guilty of a crime', no one elses.



 More lies. You're attempting to smokescreen the fact that your comment about responsibility was an attempt to smear the officer that shot him. You're not fooling anyone, you're not clever enough.



> _If_ it is found that it was the taser that led to the shot, there would be an investigation into whether it was a justifiable shooting, and whether it was done in an appropriate manner.



That's the first sensible thing you've posted on this thread. Well done!



> In which case it might be that the cop who authorised use of this untested weapon might face charges ....



Maybe. If it is shown that the action was unjustifiable. That's one massive 'if' given that the bloke was armed and had already shot three people. And you've been posting that there is 'evidence' to show that this is the case NOW. 

However, despite being asked for this evidence several times you've been unable to show it to us beyondsaying "it's all over the news". That's because there is no such evidence and you're lying again.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Circumstances change, whilst he may not been a danger to the police at first, if, as reported, the police had got behind him and up close and Moat had become aware of that, he had become a danger to them - and the use of a high-powered taser could have removed that danger without death.



Hang on, one of the theories doing the rounds is that the electric shock caused his finger to convulse against the trigger.  How could he have been a threat to the police if he was holding the gun to his head?

Anyway if Moat had suddenly become a threat to the police then I really think they should have shot him dead, not mucked around with a new weapon they were trialing.

For me that just doesnt stack up, so I'm making the assumption that at the time he was tasered he was only a threat to himself.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> You're making the assumption that that was their only choices.  It might well have been, but perhaps they could have tried something different.



True, they could have sent Gazza in with his fishing rod, but I am not convinced it would have worked. 

BTW - I see Gazza has booked himself into rehab.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> For me that just doesnt stack up, so I'm making the assumption that at the time he was tasered he was only a threat to himself.



I think that's the fairest assumption to make at the moment.

He was going to shoot himself. Someone tried to stop him. Failed. Good.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The evidence so far is that a trained police officer thought it necessary to taser him. You are dismissing out of hand that that may have been for a reason.


now even for you that is really pathetic.  

Copper shoots, therefore copper deemed it necesary to shoot, therefore it was necessary to shoot.

Doesnt really work.



> My word you're a liar. Where have I dismissed it? Quote please.


the things you have written, including your ludicrous fabricated 'last words' of Moat show clearly you dismiss the notion.



> More lies. You're attempting to smokescreen the fact that your comment about responsibility was an attempt to smear the officer that shot him. You're not fooling anyone, you're not clever enough.


oh dear, you really are rubbish at this aren't you?  You dont understand basic english, so its everyone elses fault.  Your inabilities are your fault dear boy, not mine.  The fact that no one else is backing you up should give you a wee bit of an idea tat no one else agrees with you.



> That's the first sensible thing you've posted on this thread. Well done!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've done more than enough to bnack up my argument, now, until and unless you carry out the experiment I talked of earlier, I think we can all clearly see you have no interest in facts, and merely want to wallow in someone elses blood.  You go for it, you fool no one.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Hang on, one of the theories doing the rounds is that the electric shock caused his finger to convulse against the trigger.  How could he have been a threat to the police if he was holding the gun to his head?.



dont confuse claphamboy with facts!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> True, they could have sent Gazza in with his fishing rod, but I am not convinced it would have worked.



We'll never know 

I do wonder what would have happened if they had sent him in.  Theres old Moaty alone in the pissing rain, hardly eaten for days, paranoid to fuck with police snipers all around and then up pops a pissed-up Gazza.  I reckon Raoul would have thought he had finally fully checked out of sanity hotel.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Hang on, one of the theories doing the rounds is that the electric shock caused his finger to convulse against the trigger.  How could he have been a threat to the police if he was holding the gun to his head?



If there was police in near-range, clearly they would be in more danger, if he was freaked by the sudden realisation they were almost on him he becomes a very real threat as it would only take seconds for him to turn the gun on them, but as you say it's all theories.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> He was going to shoot himself. Someone tried to stop him. Failed. Good.



I guess thats the crux of it, or at least I kinda think 'not good' but I'm hardly going to lose sleep over it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Therefore we are speculating, it's what we do, it keeps us  entertained and occasionally I learn something from it.



Ah well if we're speculating: Gazza did it!



> I'm assuming if they had tried something different there might have been a different outcome, you're assuming there wouldnt or just don't care either way.



I think you're being perfectly reasonable. You're asking the question "could they have done something else?", whereas Belboid and others are asserting that the 'evidence' (so far elusive) suggests that they *could* have.

You're wrong in that I don't care either way. I'm glad Moat is dead, and given the authority would have had him killed sooner.

In Spyworld the whole gig would have lasted about 30 seconds:

"Put the gun down"

"No"

"Put the gun down or we'll shoot you"

"No"

Bang.      



belboid said:


> they haven't passed UK tests, *therefore they are untested.*



Not any more!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> dont confuse claphamboy with facts!



Says the fuckwit that continues to post lie after lie and fails to produce links to back them up when asked to do so.

You and Proper Tidy are a great double act when it comes to making shit up.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ah well if we're speculating: Gazza did it!



With the fishing rod, in the field?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I've done more than enough to bnack up my argument.



No. You really haven't. In fact your 'argument' has been soundly deconstructed. All you've done is lie and wriggle.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Says the fuckwit that continues to post lie after lie and fails to produce links to back them up when asked to do so.
> 
> You and Proper Tidy are a great double act when it comes to making shit up.



the only person to have lied on here is you, and you and everyone else knows it.

(you've got cum dribbling off your chin, btw)


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No. You really haven't. In fact your argument has been soundly deconstructed. All you've done is lie and wriggle.



if that's your opinion, fine. You've done more than enough to show your opinion is worth nowt, so why should I give a flying fuck?

Now, off you go to carry out that experiment


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> the only person to have lied on here is you, and you and everyone else knows it.



Hahaha 

WTF have I lied about?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> the only person to have lied on here is you, and you and everyone else knows it.



You really are deluded. What's he lied about?

You on the other hand have cited 'evidence' that you've been unable to produce, attempted to backpedal when pulled on a point of law, and have generally been a dishonest arse!


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

he made up some bollocks about how the weapons had been approved before backtracking to say they didnt need any such approval.

As I said before, dont blame me cos you cant read.

The two of you should get a room, I daresay d-b's run dry by now.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You really are deluded. What's he lied about?



I am guessing that as he’s Proper Tidy’s yapping lapdog, and is unable to think for himself, that he’s referring to the fact that I posted these tasers were under trial by various police forces. 

PT accused me of making it up, so I posted some links to reports claiming just that, soon after this cunt popped-up accusing me of posting lies, one assumes because he’s too fucking thick to read quotes and their associated links.

He must be such a disappointment to his parents.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

I see d-b taught you the important thing about being a copper - excessive use of the word 'cunt' when all else has failed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> he made up some bollocks about how the weapons had been approved before backtracking to say they didnt need any such approval.



Ah, well, missed that, I've been too busy tying you in knots. Any chance of posting that 'evidence' of yours?



> The two of you should get a room ....



How about it, Clap?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> he made up some bollocks about how the weapons had been approved before backtracking to say they didnt need any such approval.



More fucking lies, I didn't backtrack, they were approved by the most senior police in accordance with the fucking regulations, you thick fucker. 


ETA: The police do not need fucking H.O. approval, the police can take their own decisions, within the rules, they are independent of the H.O.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> (you've got cum dribbling off your chin, btw)



How old are you?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

old enough to understand english, unlike you.

Now, while you two wankers become better acquainted, I'll await the posts of people who can read and make sensible comments.

(oh, and you've still to carry out your test spyboy)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> old enough to understand english...



That's not evidenced by your posts on this thread, old fella!



> Now, while you two wankers become better acquainted ....



No need, Clap's a mate of mine, irl. I haven't wanked him yet though. Not my type, he's a bit of a short arse.

When are you going to pony up that 'evidence' of yours by the way?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No need, Clap's a mate of mine, irl. I haven't wanked him yet though. Not my type, he's a bit of a short arse.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The difference here is that 'not approved' means not approved for general distribution and use by _all_ police forces.
> 
> Northumbria were doing trials on the device so in this case it _could_ be used.



They weren't doing trials though. They bought the new tasers specifically for the Moat case. The OB only had a few hours with which to practise using them. It is in all the news reports you know. And it is Northumberland not Northumbria.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And it is Northumberland not Northumbria.



You should tell Northumbria Police that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They weren't doing trials though. They bought the new tasers specifically for the Moat case.



So what? 

That in no way detracts from the fact that Home Office 'approval' was not, and is not required for the deployment of the weapon. You've been suggesting that its use is somehow 'illegal'.    



> The OB only had a few hours with which to practise using them.



So what?

It's a shotgun cartridge sized device. If you can shoot a shotguns you can shoot the weapon. 



> And it is Northumberland not Northumbria



Wrong.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Whilst not H.O. approved yet, they have been tested over many years, so please stop making shit up.



You're the only one making shit up. Where have you got this 'tested for many years' crap from? They were still undergoing testing in the UK by the HO - that's why they hadn't been approved yet!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So what?
> 
> That in no way detracts from the fact that Home Office 'approval' was not, and is not required for the deployment of the weapon. You've been suggesting that its use is somehow 'illegal'.



It detracts from you claiming they were trialling them though.



> So what?
> 
> It's a shotgun cartridge sized device. If you can shoot a shotguns you can shoot the weapon.



Because the IPCC will be investigating whether they received adequate training.



Spymaster said:


> Wrong.



No, right. Look at a map.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They were still undergoing testing in the UK by the HO - that's why they hadn't been approved yet!



So. Fucking. What?

What is your point?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You should tell Northumbria Police that.



Why don't you do it, plastic plod. You'll get to speak to a real copper and everything! You could even take the opportunity to grass up any friends or neighbours you suspect have been up to no good. You'll enjoy that, tout.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So what?
> 
> That in no way detracts from the fact that Home Office 'approval' was not, and is not required for the deployment of the weapon.
> 
> ...



Does it not strike you as a little strange if not risky that they should choose to use a relatively untested weapon in such a high profile incident?

ETA: Nice to see the thread is back on track.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Because the IPCC will be investigating whether they received adequate training.



And? 



> No, right. Look at a map.



No, wrong. See Clapham's link.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So. Fucking. What?
> 
> What is your point?



That you and the grass keep claiming they were being trialled. They were not. That is my point.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> And?



And they hadn't.





Spymaster said:


> No, wrong. See Clapham's link.



See a map.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Does it not strike you as a little strange if not risky that they should choose to use a relatively untested weapon in such a high profile incident?



No, not really. It's a shotgun sized round that delivers an electric burst like a handheld taser. Only difference is that it continues to deliver the charge until it's discharged, unlike a handheld which stops when the triggers is realeased. 

Once again, I think this was the perfect scenarion in which to 'test' the weapon. If it works, great, if not, <shrug >.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That you and the grass keep claiming they were being trialled. They were not. That is my point.



Ok. If I accept that I was mistaken on this point, again, so what?

It seems like a very hollow victory if you're unable to substantiate the claim that it shouldn't have been used.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm fairly sure they usually test weapons in controlled situations, not in a dark field against an armed lunatic


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. I accept that I was mistaken on this point.
> 
> But again, so what?



No, that was my whole point. Nothing more to it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're the only one making shit up. Where have you got this 'tested for many years' crap from? They were still undergoing testing in the UK by the HO - that's why they hadn't been approved yet!



You sure you and that other bellend aren’t the same person?

It's just difficult to believe that two of the thickest fuckers in the world could be posting on the same thread, on little old urban.   



> You're the only one making shit up. Where have you got this 'tested for many years' crap from?



How about the fact that the American police have been using them for ages, after years of tests.

Or perhaps this report from The Times in *2007* - 



> Finally, there is the wireless X-REP Taser,* under trial by police in Britain*, which has a range of up to 40 metres compared with a few feet for the existing stun guns.
> 
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2510971.ece



You're not very good at this, are you?


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Does it not strike you as a little strange if not risky that they should choose to use a relatively untested weapon in such a high profile incident?
> 
> ETA: Nice to see the thread is back on track.



I think its more that the XRep taser provided the only less-lethal option that was realistically available to them (normal taser would require them getting too close, baton rounds would not really be appropriate given that its unlikely they would stun Moat enough to disarm him), so they were left with negotiating (which cant have been going that well as he still apparently had the gun to his head) and "normal" firearms.  

It also may be significant that both of the officers who fired this round were apparently from the West Yorkshire force.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> See a map.



See. 

Clapham's. 

Link.

I was clearly referring to the police force. There is no such organisation as the Northumberland Police Force. You should read a better paper.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You sure you and that other bellend aren’t the same person?
> 
> It's just difficult to believe that two of the thickest fuckers in the world could be posting on the same thread, on little old urban.
> 
> ...



We're not in America. We're in the UK.





claphamboy said:


> You're not very good at this, are you?



Except the HO has already confirmed they had yet to clear their scientific testing stage and had yet to be trialled by any police force in the UK. As I pointed out yesterday, this has been in multiple news reports.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think its more that the XRep taser provided the only less-lethal option that was realistically available to them (normal taser would require them getting too close, baton rounds would not really be appropriate given that its unlikely they would stun Moat enough to disarm him), so they were left with negotiating (which cant have been going that well as he still apparently had the gun to his head) and "normal" firearms.



As a kinda final throw of the dice thing?  Yeah that would be logical.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> It also may be significant that both of the officers who fired this round were apparently from the West Yorkshire force.



It isn't. Again, this has been in news reports already linked to. Plod dished the tasers out to whichever coppers were about, whether they were their own force or others. That it was West Yorks is entirely coincidental and irrelevant.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It isn't. Again, this has been in news reports already linked to. Plod dished the tasers out to whichever coppers were about, whether they were their own force or others. That it was West Yorks is entirely coincidental and irrelevant.



I'm not understanding where you're coming from on this.

Are you saying that because they weren't approved by the H.O. that they shouldn't have been used? 

Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Except the HO has already confirmed they had yet to clear their scientific testing stage and had *yet to be trialled by any police force in the UK.* As I pointed out yesterday, this has been in multiple news reports.



I have provided several links, including one in the post you have you have just quoted, to reports dating back to 2007 that they were being trialled by police forces in the UK.

I've have not seen a single report that claims otherwise, and over several days you have still not posted a single link to a report claiming otherwise.

You just can't help yourself.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It isn't. Again, this has been in news reports already linked to. Plod dished the tasers out to whichever coppers were about, whether they were their own force or others. That it was West Yorks is entirely coincidental and irrelevant.



Is that another quote from the IPCC?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Are you saying that because they weren't approved by the H.O. that they shouldn't have been used?



He started of claiming that the IPCC said they shouldn't have been used, and despite this being a proven lie, he continues to claim he has been right all along.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I have provided several links, including one in the post you have you have just quoted, to reports dating back to 2007 that they were being trialled by police forces in the UK.
> 
> I've have not seen a single report that claims otherwise, and over several days you have still not posted a single link to a report claiming otherwise.
> 
> You just can't help yourself.



I have posted lots of links. I posted an Indy report about a dozen times that you seemed to miss every single time. The HO has confirmed the weapon was still being tested by the HO scientific development team. This is in almost every news report. I suggest you read them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Is that another quote from the IPCC?



It is from the Indy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not understanding where you're coming from on this.
> 
> Are you saying that because they weren't approved by the H.O. that they shouldn't have been used?
> 
> Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?



I'm saying they were not approved for use by the HO, and that NHP were not trialling them. I'm saying this because it is true and is what has been in almost every news report on the subject.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> It's just difficult to believe that two of the thickest fuckers in the world could be posting on the same thread, on little old urban.



and yet here you and spyboy are.  Both incapable of reading basic english, and getting sexually aroused by people being shot.  

Icky


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It isn't. Again, this has been in news reports already linked to. Plod dished the tasers out to whichever coppers were about, whether they were their own force or others. *That it was West Yorks is entirely coincidental and irrelevant.*



Bolded bit, how do YOU know this?

Can you provide a link to confirm this lastest *FACT* or are you just making shit up again?


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I have provided several links, including one in the post you have you have just quoted, to reports dating back to 2007 that they were being trialled by police forces in the UK.
> 
> I've have not seen a single report that claims otherwise, and over several days you have still not posted a single link to a report claiming otherwise.
> 
> You just can't help yourself.



Actually it is irrelevant whether this device was actually being trialled by any force - as long as it is undergoing testing by a competent body (in this case the HOSDB) and a Chief Officer of Police authorises (and can justify) its deployment then the Home Office guidelines have been followed.  This is of course in addition to the proviso, which has been in nearly all of the articles on the subject (and which has been ignored by the likes of Proper Tidy), that forces can use whatever they need as long as it is proportional and justifiable.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm saying they were not approved for use by the HO, and that NHP were not trialling them. I'm saying this because it is true and is what has been in almost every news report on the subject.



Ok. Why do you feel that this is significant?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Bolded bit, how do YOU know this?
> 
> Can you provide a link to confirm this lastest *FACT* or are you just making shit up again?



Yes. It is the same link I posted about a dozen pages ago, and posted several more times for you. You really should pay closer attention, nark.



> The two police officers who fired at Raoul Moat with stun guns were using weapons that they had received little or no training for and which had not been approved by the Home Office.
> 
> The inquest into the death of Mr Moat heard yesterday how he had been fired at by two firearms officers using XRep Tasers – shotgun-style weapons which can reach further and are more powerful than the standard hand-held Tasers carried by most police forces.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...id-not-have-home-office-approval-2025991.html


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not understanding where you're coming from on this.
> 
> Are you saying that because they weren't approved by the H.O. that they shouldn't have been used?
> 
> Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?



Believe it or not Spy I think a lot of the arguing was about PT reporting what he'd seen on the news and then some people calling bollocks on it and him standing his ground.  It was a 20 page wedge of Urban gold.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Actually it is irrelevant whether this device was actually being trialled by any force - as long as it is undergoing testing by a competent body (in this case the HOSDB) and a Chief Officer of Police authorises (and can justify) its deployment then the Home Office guidelines have been followed.  This is of course in addition to the proviso, which has been in nearly all of the articles on the subject (and which has been ignored by the likes of Proper Tidy), that forces can use whatever they need as long as it is proportional and justifiable.



Quite. 

Why is this aspect of the case under discussion?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. Why do you feel that this is significant?



Because it makes yours and the Grass' argument look like shit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Quite.
> 
> Why is this aspect of the case under discussion?



because someone said something that was on the news, a couple of other people cried bollocks and have been unable to back down about it despite being given evidence. It is quite tiresome


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Quite.
> 
> Why is this aspect of the case under discussion?



You brought it up again and claimed they were trialling it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Believe it or not Spy I think a lot of the arguing was about PT reporting what he'd seen on the news and then some people calling bollocks on it and him standing his ground.  It was a 20 page wedge of Urban gold.



Ahh, I see. 

I haven't read the whole thread but assumed that the acab brigade were suggesting some kind of legal impropriety by the plod for deploying the weapon.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Because it makes yours and the Grass' argument look like shit.



 Why?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ahh, I see.
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but assumed that the acab brigade were suggesting some kind of legal impropriety by the plod for deploying the weapon.



Personally I couldn't give a shit about Roaul Moat. He is no hero of mine. It is more a case of the plastic plods getting sand in their cracks than the 'acab brigade'.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is from the Indy.



Thats somewhat odd then - the XRep taser is a round, not a gun (it can be fired from any twelve-gauge shotgun) and unless the ballistic qualities of the round were massively different to a baton round (which it doesnt appear to have been - both have a similar quoted accurate range of around 20m) its questionable whether they would need to have extra training on it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Why?



Because they weren't trialling the weapons. Do you see how a circle works now?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You brought it up again and claimed they were trialling it.



Ok, I'd read that that was the case. I may have been misinformed. So what? It's irrelevant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats somewhat odd then - the XRep taser is a round, not a gun (it can be fired from any twelve-gauge shotgun) and unless the ballistic qualities of the round were massively different to a baton round (which it doesnt appear to have been - both have a similar quoted accurate range of around 20m) its questionable whether they would need to have extra training on it.



They appear to have special weapons from which to fire the round:


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> because someone said something that was on the news, a couple of other people cried bollocks and have been unable to back down about it despite being given evidence. It is quite tiresome



er - PT has never given any evidence that what he said was the truth (which was a quote from the IPCC saying these taser should not have been used), he has just tried to redefine what he actually meant, and been shown to be even more wrong.  I mean, he has lately been insisting that Northumbria Police is in fact called Northumberland Police.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, I'd read that that was the case. I may have been misinformed. So what? It's irrelevant.



Then why use it as part of your justification if it is irrelevant anyway?

Personally I would say Police officers going around using live weapons that they have not received training for is quite worrying.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes. It is the same link I posted about a dozen pages ago, and posted several more times for you. You really should pay closer attention, nark.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...id-not-have-home-office-approval-2025991.html



It is possible, as I've already pointed out, that the West Yorkshire cops were chosen because they were better trained - there is fuck all in that report that claims the choice of "West Yorks is entirely coincidental and irrelevant", as you are claiming.

This has been your problem all the way along, you take a bit of information that fits what you want to believe, make-up other shit of top of it and post it as fact.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ahh, I see.
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread but assumed that the acab brigade were suggesting some kind of legal impropriety by the plod for deploying the weapon.



Post 1796 on page 72 is where we seemingly got the ball rolling on this one. A lot of the arguing has been about very subtle distinctions and definitions.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They appear to have special weapons from which to fire the round:



Did you even click the link?



> Advanced Features
> • 12-gauge round
> • 18-gram projectile weight
> • 25-gram total round weight
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I mean, he has lately been insisting that Northumbria Police is in fact called Northumberland Police.



No, I have said the county of Northumberland is called Northumberland. You just can't stop lying can you?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Because they weren't trialling the weapons. Do you see how a circle works now?



Ok, this is a shit game. 

How about this: On the currently available evidence, do you believe that the old bill acted incorrectly?

At least there's a discussion to be had there. The trial point is of no practical value.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> This has been your problem all the way along, you take a bit of information that fits what you want to believe, make-up other shit of top of it and post it as fact.



oh the irony


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did you even click the link?



That may be so. It nonetheless remains the case that it appears they use specific weapons for this purpose, rather than just any shotgun. I'm also not sure coppers use shotguns very often, although please do correct me if I'm wrong and the OB often use sawn-offs in their day to day duty.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Believe it or not Spy I think a lot of the arguing was about PT reporting what he'd seen on the news and then some people calling bollocks on it and him standing his ground.  It was a 20 page wedge of Urban gold.



Almost right, trouble is he only listened to part of the report, ignored the more important part, and twisted it to fit what he wanted to believe.

His claims were devoid of facts, yet he thinks it's everyone else making it up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, I have said the county of Northumberland is called Northumberland. You just can't stop lying can you?



Yes, thats why you corrected Spymaster along the same lines even when he was clearly talking about Northumbria Police.  Or did you think that the county of Northumberland was engaged in a trial of this XRep taser?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, this is a shit game.
> 
> How about this: On the currently available evidence, do you believe that the old bill acted incorrectly?
> 
> At least there's a discussion to be had there. The trial point is of no practical value.



is that the actual evidence, or the evidence you make up - like Moats last words?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, this is a shit game.
> 
> How about this: On the currently available evidence, do you believe that the old bill acted incorrectly?
> 
> At least there's a discussion to be had there. The trial point is of no practical value.



I don't know. It appears their decision to allow untrained officers to use an untested and unapproved weapon was dodgy. Would it have made any significant difference? Probably not.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Almost right, trouble is he only listened to part of the report, ignored the more important part, and twisted it to fit what he wanted to believe.
> 
> His claims were devoid of facts, yet he thinks it's everyone else making it up.



Fully and trials, grass, fully and trials.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Then why use it as part of your justification if it is irrelevant anyway?
> 
> Personally I would say Police officers going around using live weapons that they have not received training for is quite worrying.



But, they were fully trained firearms officers, this is a LESS lethal weapon.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That may be so. It nonetheless remains the case that it appears they use specific weapons for this purpose, rather than just any shotgun. I'm also not sure coppers use shotguns very often, although please do correct me if I'm wrong and the OB often use sawn-offs in their day to day duty.



The yellow colour of the gun is a safety feature for less-lethal weapons, it attempts to ensure that a user of the gun can tell the difference between a "real" shotgun and one loaded with another type of round (though often the baton round launcher is a different style of gun altogether).  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_baton_round

edit:  also the "dedicated weapon" theory isnt really relevant - for it (the round) to be fireable from any 12-gauge pump action it (the dedicated gun) would have to be almost identical to a normal 12-gauge anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, I have said the county of Northumberland is called Northumberland.



No you didn't you fibber!

You pulled me for referring to the police force as "Northumbria" by saying "by the way it's Northumberland".

You were wrong. Accept it and move on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> The yellow colour of the gun is a safety feature for less-lethal weapons, it attempts to ensure that a user of the gun can tell the difference between a "real" shotgun and one loaded with another type of round (though often the baton round launcher is a different style of gun altogether).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_baton_round



All very interesting, I'm sure. What does it have to do with anything, though?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> is that the actual evidence, or the evidence you make up - like Moats last words?



I've made up nothing. You know that.

If you believe that I have, quote me and show me to be a liar.

Simple.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You were wrong. Accept it and move on.



IME that is just not going to happen. 

ETA: And ditto with belboid - this is just the history of the last couple days being repeated.

A proper pair of bellends.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> But, they were fully trained firearms officers, this is a LESS lethal weapon.



If a new hand gun came out to replace the existing ones I would fully expect each officer to be trained on the new gun before they started using them.  I see no reason why any other potentially lethal weapon shouldnt be the same.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> All very interesting, I'm sure. What does it have to do with anything, though?





Surely if this round has similar characteristics to rounds that the police are already familiar with (like the baton and Hatton rounds*), and was fired from a gun that they were very familiar with (the twelve-gauge pump action), then your notion that they had no training on it and were just given the guns randomly becomes less and less correct?

* albeit you wouldnt use that in this way, obviously


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> If a new hand gun came out to replace the existing ones I would fully expect each officer to be trained on the new gun before they started using them.  I see no reason why any other potentially lethal weapon shouldnt be the same.



Of course, but that is not going to take very long - load, aim, fire - yep that works. 

* my father used to be a licensed firearms dealer and used to test confiscated weapons on the Met's range, it's not rocket science to pick up and use a new weapon,  when you've undergone that much training.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Surely if this round has similar characteristics to rounds that the police are already familiar with (like the baton and Hatton rounds), and was fired from a gun that they were very familiar with (the twelve-gauge pump action), then your notion that they had no training on it and were just given the guns randomly becomes less and less correct?



No. If it is a new weapon with a new round then you would expect the OB to receive training.

Also, it isn't my notion. It is the view taken by many in the press. I did helpfully post up an article (again) stating this. You should go and read it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I've made up nothing. You know that.
> 
> If you believe that I have, quote me and show me to be a liar.
> 
> Simple.



you're short term memory is fucked is it?  



Spymaster said:


> How do you know that cunt-lugs didn't point the weapon at his head and shout "yippy-kay-ay, motherfuckers" just before getting toasted?




thats you making up his last words, relying up on those words to justify this shooting.  You made them up. Didnt you?

Now, have you carried out that test yet?  If not, we can only assume (using your own logic) it is because you know it would prove your arghument wrng.  So, until you have carried it out, I can only assume that you are admitting your argument is wrong.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> * albeit you wouldnt use that in this way, obviously



Does this mean that they are actually not like the 'baton and Hatton' rounds then?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> But, they were fully trained firearms officers, this is a LESS lethal weapon.



We should apply the same logic to surgeons, it would be a right laugh


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Police should not learn about their weapons out in the field.  They should have training on each weapon, ffs I'd expect this if a new style of handcuffs were issued.

My friend is a copper and his bathroom is practically decorated with certificates for passing all sorts of bizarre and seemingly insignificant training courses, I'd like to think they could find time for one on a new weapon, rather than 'wow, this weapon looks cool, lets give it a whirl on old nutty sat by the river'.  n.b before I get called a cunt I'm not saying this is what happend.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> IME that is just not going to happen.
> 
> ETA: And ditto with belboid - this is just the history of the last couple days being repeated.
> 
> A proper pair of bellends.



yup, you & Spyboy are.  The fact that you are chums makes obvious sense, I now have this horrible image tho of the two of you jerking each other off as you describe more and more revolting ways that you would like to kill murderers/paedo's/smelly people.  Funny how often bitter and utterly powerless do that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Police should not learn about their weapons out in the field.  They should have training on each weapon, ffs I'd expect this if a new style of handcuffs were issued.
> 
> My friend is a copper and is bathroom is practically decorated with certificates for passing all sorts of bizarre and seemingly insignificant training courses, I'd like to think they could find time for one on a new weapon, rather than 'wow, this weapon looks cool, lets give it a whirl on old nutty sat by the river'.  n.b before I get called a cunt I'm not saying this is what happend.



You cunt. Nah, I agree completely. Then again, it just seems like common sense, doesn't it? I'm sure the plastic plods will disagree though.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Police should not learn about their weapons out in the field.  They should have training on each weapon, ffs I'd expect this if a new style of handcuffs were issued.



quite.  that anyone would argue anything else is just bizarre. And that they'd try and claim there is nothing at all unusual in doing so is even weirder.


If it's not explicitly banned, it's all absolutely fine, apparently.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. If it is a new weapon with a new round then you would expect the OB to receive training.



It was not a "new weapon" - its a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, already familiar to many firearms officers (because they already use it).  As for the round, noone here knows whether the ballistic nature of the round is different to, say, a baton round and so whether or not extra training would be vitally important. 




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Also, it isn't my notion. It is the view taken by many in the press. I did helpfully post up an article (again) stating this. You should go and read it.



I did.  Doesnt the Indy refer to these shotguns as "stun guns"?  Do you agree with them?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> It was not a "new weapon" - its a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, already familiar to many firearms officers (because they already use it).  As for the round, noone here knows whether the ballistic nature of the round is different to, say, a baton round and so whether or not extra training would be vitally important.



if that was the case, why wouldnt the HO have approved it already?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Police should not learn about their weapons out in the field.  They should have training on each weapon.



And how would you know they didn't?

There's been no reports I've seen claiming they hadn't trained with them, it's only Proper Tidy making such claims.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> It was not a "new weapon" - its a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, already familiar to many firearms officers (because they already use it).  As for the round, noone here knows whether the ballistic nature of the round is different to, say, a baton round and so whether or not extra training would be vitally important.



So you don't think new training is required?



agricola said:


> I did.  Doesnt the Indy refer to these shotguns as "stun guns"?  Do you agree with them?



Yes. It is a gun that fires ammunition designed to stun. It is perfectly reasonable in laymans terms to refer to it as a stun gun. We don't all wank off to the PolFed magazine you know.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They appear to have special weapons from which to fire the round:



 no thats a normal shotgun with taser rounds on the stock and for some unknown reason a normal taser gun underslung?
 The xep taser is an electric shotgun shell load in shotgun fire at badguy not a massive training course needed  minimum safe distance I imagine at close range might just kill the target, probably need to arm the taser at some point
thats about it.
 Taser may suggest best practice is to use a seperate shotgun with the yellow rail and a normal taser underslung (normal taser has an aiming laser) and taser shells mounted on the stock. so in the excitment/stress of trying to deal with a dangerous nut you don't shoot someobody with a lethal round when you meant to use a taser shell.
 cases in the states where cops have drawn and used pistols when they meant to use a taser oops!
 but the device can be fired from any 12 bore you could even use them to stun pheasants


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> There's been no reports I've seen claiming they hadn't trained with them



fucking genius 

I have seen no reports proving that claphamboy doesnt bum rabbits, therefore he does.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And how would you know they didn't?
> 
> There's been no reports I've seen claiming they hadn't trained with them, it's only Proper Tidy making such claims.



Ah, I see you have somehow yet again managed to miss the article I posted for you. I even underlined the key bits and everything. Perhaps if I wrote it in green crayon you would understand.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

naah, he'd be too busy fucking rabbits


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> As for the round, noone here knows whether the ballistic nature of the round is different to, say, a baton round and so whether or not extra training would be vitally important.



You're right, no one here knows how that weapon would perform compared to a normal shotgun, more pertinently the question should be did the Officer who fired the round that day know how it was going to perform?

I am just amazed that anyone would accept that the Police shouldnt have to be trained on all their weapons if they are _similar_ to ones they already have?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I now have this horrible image tho of the two of you jerking each other off



I don't think this is the place for discussing your perverted sexual fantasies. 

Now put it away, and wipe down your keyboard.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

just as soon as you stop fucking rabbits


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> no thats a normal shotgun with taser rounds on the stock and for some unknown reason a normal taser gun underslung?
> The xep taser is an electric shotgun shell load in shotgun fire at badguy not a massive training course needed  minimum safe distance I imagine at close range might just kill the target, probably need to arm the taser at some point
> thats about it.



Yet it appears NHP ordered new weapons specifically for this round.

Out of interest, any of the plastic plods (not you likesfish although feel free to answer) know how often a firearms officer finds themselves in a position where a shotgun is the best weapon to use? I can't imagine it is all that often.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And how would you know they didn't?
> 
> There's been no reports I've seen claiming they hadn't trained with them, it's only Proper Tidy making such claims.



I don't know, I was making general observations when others were saying that it didnt matter whether they were trained on the gun or not.  I think it does matter and I've explained why.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> you're short term memory is fucked is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And that's me "making stuff up" in your opinion is it?

Well done that man. You have just proven that your faculties of comprehension are as piss poor as your capacity to hold a reasonable argument!!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> if that was the case, why wouldnt the HO have approved it already?



Probably because of the nature of the round itself - specifically the medical implications (its apparently much worse than a "normal" taser) and the questions around whether or not the circumstances would reasonably be expected to come about that someone would be justified in firing one, and a linked discussion about cost.  




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> So you don't think new training is required?



Ideally yes, though if the round was broadly similar to already existing rounds (the gun would have to be because of the rounds interchangeability) then you could understand why people were able to use it very quickly.  




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Yes. It is a gun that fires ammunition designed to stun. It is perfectly reasonable in laymans terms to refer to it as a stun gun.



Here comes the Northumberland Police firearms expert again.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> The xep taser is an electric shotgun shell load in shotgun fire at badguy not a massive training course needed  minimum safe distance I imagine at close range might just kill the target, probably need to arm the taser at some point
> thats about it.



Yeah, not a week long vacational course (I know how much they love those) but at the very least a couple of hours of firing the weapon to see how it performs.  And before anyone jumps down my throat, no I don't know that they didnt recieve that training.  I would, however, like to know.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ah, I see you have somehow yet again managed to miss the article I posted for you. I even underlined the key bits and everything. Perhaps if I wrote it in green crayon you would understand.



You thick cunt, that is one report that says "*little OR *no training", it doesn't just say 'no training', it doesn't define 'little'.

Fully trained firearm experts wouldn't need to start training right from the start again for a weapon, they wouldn't need that much extra training.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Probably because of the nature of the round itself - specifically the medical implications (its apparently much worse than a "normal" taser) and the questions around whether or not the circumstances would reasonably be expected to come about that someone would be justified in firing one, and a linked discussion about cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally yes, though if the round was broadly similar to already existing rounds (the gun would have to be because of the rounds interchangeability) then you could understand why people were able to use it very quickly.



So you agree that a period of training was required.



agricola said:


> Here comes the Northumberland Police firearms expert again.



Yes, referring to myself as a layman means I am implying I am a firearms expert. Lol. You're very good at making a right tit of yourself, aren't you?

It is a gun which stuns. How is stun gun not applicable?


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I am just amazed that anyone would accept that the Police shouldnt have to be trained on all their weapons if they are _similar_ to ones they already have?



This is true, but it does tend to ignore the fact that the whole reason why the XRep was bought and used with such rapidity, before it had been approved and before officers were able to go on full training with it, was because of it probably being the sole option they had to detain Moat alive against his will.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You thick cunt, that is one report that says "*little OR *no training", it doesn't just say 'no training', it doesn't define 'little'.
> 
> Fully trained firearm experts wouldn't need to start training right from the start again for a weapon, they wouldn't need that much extra training.



Yet more blind assertions from the wannabe copper


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

I'll help you out, Bellend.



> *How do you know *that cunt-lugs didn't point the weapon at his head and shout "yippy-kay-ay, motherfuckers" just before getting toasted?






belboid said:


> thats you making up his last words, relying up on those words to justify this shooting.  You made them up. Didnt you?



See those first 4 words (I've highlighted them just for you). They indicate that a question is coming up! Not an assertion or even a suggestion. 

Like this:

Do you understand now, you fucking dullard?

Get it? 

One hundred lines for you. 

"I am a silly boy. A question is not an assertion".


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes, referring to myself as a layman means I am implying I am a firearms expert. Lol. You're very good at making a right tit of yourself, aren't you?
> 
> It is a gun which stuns. How is stun gun not applicable?



the IPCC said should not have been used = not approved by the Home Office
Northumberland Police = Northumbria Police
stun gun = shotgun

you are right, I was a tit for thinking you might ever admit that you were wrong


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

I can see why Cunty S***n and the Grass are good friends.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> the IPCC said should not have been used = not approved by the Home Office
> Northumberland Police = Northumbria Police
> stun gun = shotgun
> 
> you are right, I was a tit for thinking you might ever admit that you were wrong



It is a gun that stuns. How is the Indy wrong for calling it a stun gun. It fires taser rounds. It really is a stun gun.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Probably because of the nature of the round itself - specifically the medical implications (its apparently much worse than a "normal" taser) and the questions around whether or not the circumstances would reasonably be expected to come about that someone would be justified in firing one, and a linked discussion about cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally yes, though if the round was broadly similar to already existing rounds (the gun would have to be because of the rounds interchangeability) then you could understand why people were able to use it very quickly.



So, you would expect them to be trained, but there is no evidence there was such training.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> This is true, but it does tend to ignore the fact that the whole reason why the XRep was bought and used with such rapidity, before it had been approved and before officers were able to go on full training with it, was because of it probably being the sole option they had to detain Moat alive against his will.



Well lets hope the IPCC report clarifies this, because at this stage I'm not sure you can call it a fact.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is a gun which stuns. How is stun gun not applicable?



A Stun Gun is a stun gun, a shotgun is a shotgun whatever it fires.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> So, you would expect them to be trained, but there is no evidence there was such training.



There is evidence of (admittedly hurried) training in the Indy report that Proper Tidy linked to before.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is a gun that stuns. How is the Indy wrong for calling it a stun gun. It fires taser rounds. It really is a stun gun.



I think anyone that wasnt desperately determined never to admit fault would call it a shotgun, especially as the gun itself doesnt stun anyone.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I'll help you out, Bellend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh dear, once again your failure to understand basic english is evident.  I said you made up his last words, which are the ones quoted.  You did make tjhem up, no matter whether that fiction was created when writing a questin or a statement of fact.  they were still words you made up.

AND - which is the important bit - then relied upon (or relied upon similar such words being uttered) to justify your position. 

Got it?  

Tho why I'm bothering as you've already admitted your argument is wrong.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> There is evidence of (admittedly hurried) training in the Indy report that Proper Tidy linked to before.



fair comment - _proper_ training then.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yet more blind assertions from the wannabe copper



Blind assertions?

Did you miss the bit about my old man being a firearms expert, who was used to test weapons for the Met?

He could pick-up almost any weapon and hit his target, maybe taking a little longer to hit the bulls-eye. 

Fuck me, it's a fact of life that if you are that well trained in almost any job, it doesn't normally take very long to train-up with a new tool that's similar to what you are used to using, to do the same job. 

They hit their fucking target, they were trained enough.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> fair comment - _proper_ training then.



Well yes, but as I said to Teaboy above the whole circumstances by which XRep was ordered, deployed and used did tend to ensure that a proper training course did not take place.  

Indeed I would hazard a guess that, but for Moat, XRep would not have been taken up by forces in this country because (without considering Moat) its hard to visualise a situation whereby they would be reasonable to use (compared to the other options available) and justifiable to spend money on.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> the IPCC said should not have been used = not approved by the Home Office
> Northumberland Police = Northumbria Police
> stun gun = shotgun
> 
> you are right, I was a tit for thinking you might ever admit that you were wrong



Incredible isn't it???

It's a whole new level of wriggling.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> fair comment - _proper_ training then.



Go on, as you're such an expert, explain what 'proper training' would be.

This should be good for a laugh.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> the IPCC said should not have been used = not approved by the Home Office
> Northumberland Police = Northumbria Police
> stun gun = shotgun



fucks sake, they are a pathetic level of things to be arguing about, utterly irrelevant.  you're betterr than this, argue the point, not some stupidly pedantic bullshit which doesnt matter in the slightest


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Incredible isn't it???
> 
> It's a whole new level of wriggling.



Both of them are stiff competition for Jazzz in this year's 'facepalm of the year' award.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think anyone that wasnt desperately determined never to admit fault would call it a shotgun, especially as the gun itself doesnt stun anyone.



Back to pedantry again. It is a weapon which stuns its victim. I think the Indy are perfectly entitled to identify this as a stun gun.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Blind assertions?
> 
> Did you miss the bit about my old man being a firearms expert, who was used to test weapons for the Met?
> 
> ...



Sorry, despite your expert witness I don't think thats good enough.  

Years ago I used to work for a maker of power tools called Hilti.  In our range was a shot-fired device, similar to a nail gun but much more powerful.  Part of my job was to train and certify anyone who purchased one because it was a potentially dangerous tool.

Every time the model was upgraded I'd have to go back out and re-train people despite the fact that these guys were professionals and 99.999999999% of them could just pick the new tool up and start using safely.

These are weapons which will be used on the citizens of this country and you are happy to accept that they don't need special training?  Sorry dude, I can't agree with that.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Go on, as you're such an expert, explain what 'proper training' would be.
> 
> This should be good for a laugh.



god you really are thick.

agricola - ie someone who has actual experience in this, unlike a sad wannabe cunt like you - has said, without any problems, that they have only had a minimal amount of training, and that that wasn't 'proper.' Theefore they did not receive proper training,  no need for anyone to demonstrate anything.  tho you have demonstrated again that you are a brain dead fucking idiot.

do yourself and your argument a favour, get off the thread, you're an embarassment.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Both of them are stiff competition for Jazzz in this year's 'facepalm of the year' award.



you are a close runner up (to jazzzzzz, who does at least oput some original research into his arguments, you just c&p what some copper has written.  what a worthless failuire you are)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Blind assertions?
> 
> Did you miss the bit about my old man being a firearms expert, who was used to test weapons for the Met?
> 
> ...



You're not your old man. My old man worked in a steelworks, but that doesn't make me an expert on steel production.

Did you miss this part of the report before?



> The officers had just hours to familiarise themselves with the weapon, which had never been used in a live situation in Britain before.



The 'little' training they may have had would have to be very fucking little, wouldn't it?

Also, their 'target' died, which would suggest the plan didn't really come off.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> So, you would expect them to be trained, but there is no evidence there was such training.







belboid said:


> oh dear, once again your failure to understand basic english is evident.  I said you made up his last words, which are the ones quoted.  You did make tjhem up, no matter whether that fiction was created when writing a questin or a statement of fact.  they were still words you made up.
> 
> AND - which is the important bit - then relied upon (or relied upon similar such words being uttered) to justify your position.





Once again, "how do you know?" is a question. I then elaborated the position with an admittedly tongue-in-cheek reference to _Die Hard_. 

The reason for this was to drive home the point that just because something's not reported in whatever comic you read, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I was not suggesting for a moment that those were 'Moatie's' last words. 

Everyone seemed to grasp that but you!

Do you get it now?

If I say "Belboid is a complete moron", it is a statement of fact that few would deny. However, if I say "Belboid is an intelligent poster", I would be 'making it up' as you put it, or lying as you do.

See?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Can you please stop using so many smilies Cunty Simon. It is very cuntish.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> fucks sake, they are a pathetic level of things to be arguing about, utterly irrelevant.  you're betterr than this, argue the point, not some stupidly pedantic bullshit which doesnt matter in the slightest



They have assumed a level of importance beyond their initial level because of his behaviour.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> They have assumed a level of importance beyond their initial level because of his behaviour.



What does this actually mean?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Sorry, despite your expert witness I don't think thats good enough.
> 
> Years ago I used to work for a maker of power tools called Hilti. In our range was a shot-fired device, similar to a nail gun but much more powerful. Part of my job was to train and certify anyone who purchased one because it was a potentially dangerous tool.
> 
> ...



I get your point, but it’s slightly different, because you are describing something that is 'much more powerful' and therefore more 'potentially dangerous ', here we are talking about something that is less lethal than they are already trained to use.

One small question, how long would you spend training them up? A couple of hours? A couple of days? Weeks?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Go on, as you're such an expert, explain what 'proper training' would be.
> 
> This should be good for a laugh.



It wasnt directed at me but I'll have a go anyway.

I'd expect each officer to know excatly how the weapon works, how to disassemble and re-assemble it, what it's maximum range is and at what range it becomes lethal.  I'd also expect them to know what it's limitations for use are, can it be used inside?  What about in the Rain?  How about next to a River? etc etc

Above all I'd fully expect each officer issued with the weapon to have spent a bit of time on a range, if only 20 minutes or so.

As I mentioned earlier I used to have to do all this for a fucking nail gun.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> do yourself and your argument a favour, get off the thread, you're an embarassment.



 Blimey, if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black .......


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Back to pedantry again. It is a weapon which stuns its victim. I think the Indy are perfectly entitled to identify this as a stun gun.



The weapon - even the dedicated one that Taser market (which is based on a normal twelve gauge and only differs from one because its yellow and has a lock on it that means you cant load a normal round) - doesnt stun anyone.  The round does.  Try to at least pretend you understand this.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What does this actually mean?



Well your hypocrisy for one, as witnessed by the witless Northumberland Police episiode.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> The weapon - even the dedicated one that Taser market (which is based on a normal twelve gauge and only differs from one because its yellow and has a lock on it that means you cant load a normal round) - doesnt stun anyone.  The round does.  Try to at least pretend you understand this.



Like that fucking matters. The end result is the victim gets stunned. The Indy are being perfectly reasonable in employing the term stun gun. Perhaps you should write a letter, Disgusted from Chester.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Can you please stop using so many smilies Cunty Simon. It is very cuntish.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Well your hypocrisy for one, as witnessed by the witless Northumberland Police episiode.



Lol.

Shall we go back to the spuds again Agri?


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol.
> 
> Shall we go back to the spuds again Agri?



_"The IPCC state you should not have eaten the potatoes"_.  Does this mean the same as _"Potatoes should not be eaten except in certain circumstances set out in a Home Office manual"_?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> It wasnt directed at me but I'll have a go anyway.
> 
> I'd expect each officer to know excatly how the weapon works, how to disassemble and re-assemble it, what it's maximum range is and at what range it becomes lethal.  I'd also expect them to know what it's limitations for use are, can it be used inside?  What about in the Rain?  How about next to a River? etc etc
> 
> Above all I'd fully expect each officer issued with the weapon to have spent a bit of time on a range, if only 20 minutes or so.




Ok. But all of that could be imparted in 5 minutes, couldn't it? 

The only relevent point is whether or not the use of the taser round was justifiable.

(Fucking great bit of kit by the way! Wish I could pick up a few rounds, what a laugh!)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> _"The IPCC state you should not have eaten the potatoes"_.  Does this mean the same as _"Potatoes should not be eaten except in certain circumstances set out in a Home Office manual"_?



Nobody has said the latter part though


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I get your point, but it’s slightly different, because you are describing something that is 'much more powerful' and therefore more 'potentially dangerous ', here we are talking about something that is less lethal than they are already trained to use.
> 
> One small question, how long would you spend training them up? A couple of hours? A couple of days? Weeks?



It'd only take an hour at maximum, but then again it is only a power tool. I take your point on less powerful but I do think the fact that these are still potentially deadly weapons should neccesitate proper training.  

Also I'm pretty sure thats the way the Police would have wanted it to happen.  It seems like these guys did have a few hours to get to grips that may have been enough it may not, we shall have to await the report.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody has said the latter part though



No, but that is the reality of the non-potato argument.  In fact noone apart from you has said the first part either (minus its potato reference), least of all the IPCC.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> They have assumed a level of importance beyond their initial level because of his behaviour.



naah, they're things which have taken on an increased importance to avoid discussion of the real issues.  you have tried, uinlike claphappy and spyfool, but you keep letting yourself to be drawn back in.  rise above it all!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> > The officers had just hours to familiarise themselves with the weapon, which had never been used in a live situation in Britain before.
> 
> 
> The 'little' training they may have had would have to be very fucking little, wouldn't it?



It report also says the tasers arrived *days *before, and why would they need more than *hours* to train with them?

TRAINER: Here’s a gun/taser, there’s your target, now can you hit it?

TRAINEE: *fires & hits target* Like that?

TRAINER: Excellent, now do it again, over and over for a couple hours.

TRAINEE: *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target*, *fires & hits target* Is that enough?

TRAINER: That’ll do nicely, off you go and good luck. 



> Also, their 'target' died, which would suggest the plan didn't really come off.



And what has that to do with the level of training?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

lol, I suppose a rabbit fucker might think that was a reasonable level of training.

No wonder he's just a wannabe copper


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> No, but that is the reality of the non-potato argument.



No it isn't. The reality was the difference between the terms 'should not have' and 'not approved', as in 'you are not approved to go within 300 yards of a school or a child under sixteen'.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> It report also says the tasers arrived *days *before, and why would they need more than *hours* to train with them?
> 
> TRAINER: Here’s a gun/taser, there’s your target, now can you hit it?
> 
> ...



Have you ever actually trained somebody, or even participated in training for, use of a firearm? Or does daddy's job automatically make you an oracle on Police training methods?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

It would be "not allowed" though, not "not approved."

completely different instructions.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> It'd only take an hour at maximum, but then again it is only a power tool. I take your point on less powerful but I do think the fact that these are still potentially deadly weapons should neccesitate proper training.
> 
> Also I'm pretty sure thats the way the Police would have wanted it to happen.  It seems like these guys did have a few hours to get to grips that may have been enough it may not, we shall have to await the report.



Well, I reckon it will be proved to be enough, as I've said above the job is to hit the target, that they clearly did; I am not sure what else anyone could expect from additional training.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. But all of that could be imparted in 5 minutes, couldn't it?



Well, probably in an hour or two, depends on how complex the weapon is.  However probably better done in the cold sterile atmosphere of a training course rather than a tense stand off.



> The only relevent point is whether or not the use of the taser round was justifiable.



Maybe, maybe not.  I do think if the Police are going to be issued with weapons then the training should be thorough.



> (Fucking great bit of kit by the way! Wish I could pick up a few rounds, what a laugh!)



Yeah, not sure they're gonna have them in Maplins though.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yet it appears NHP ordered new weapons specifically for this round.
> 
> Out of interest, any of the plastic plods (not you likesfish although feel free to answer) know how often a firearms officer finds themselves in a position where a shotgun is the best weapon to use? I can't imagine it is all that often.



They use shotguns a lot firing a hatton round for blowing locks or disabling cars   (they train more than they use them )
 usually a point blank range not usually as a perferred weapon to shoot people with though. Buckshot seen as poltically unacceptable and tacticly if your going to end up shooting people its usally worst case so you assume there wearing body armour etc.
 firearms officers will be familiar with shotguns though, still the most common firearm in the UK . 
 taser spent money making the x10 ballisticly the same a a shotgun slug more for the US market where cops would be more familiur with shooting shotgun slugs. although under 50 metres  probably not that important.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It would be "not allowed" though, not "not approved."
> 
> completely different instructions.





Fuck off citizen.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> naah, they're things which have taken on an increased importance to avoid discussion of the real issues.  you have tried, uinlike claphappy and spyfool, but you keep letting yourself to be drawn back in.  rise above it all!



"Spyfool" is right though, all this comes down to is whether Northumbria were justified in ordering, deploying and using this system without full training and without full Home Office approval against Moat.  

That PT has tried to fib his way into saying the IPCC had stated they shouldnt have is of course of relevance, as have been his attempts to ignore large parts of the evidence (including stuff he has relied on) in order to continue his troll. B Had he actually admitted that he got it wrong many pages ago - as he clearly did - then the thread would not have been derailed in the way it has been.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have you ever actually trained somebody, or even participated in training for, use of a firearm? Or does daddy's job automatically make you an oracle on Police training methods?



Come on then, explain to us, old wise one, what else is expected over and above hitting the target?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> They use shotguns a lot firing a hatton round for blowing locks or disabling cars   (they train more than they use them )
> usually a point blank range not usually as a perferred weapon to shoot people with though. Buckshot seen as poltically unacceptable and tacticly if your going to end up shooting people its usally worst case so you assume there wearing body armour etc.
> firearms officers will be familiar with shotguns though, still the most common firearm in the UK .
> taser spent money making the x10 ballisticly the same a a shotgun slug more for the US market where cops would be more familiur with shooting shotgun slugs. although under 50 metres  probably not that important.



Cheers, nice to get some actual knowledge beyond CB's fantasies.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No it isn't. The reality was the difference between the terms 'should not have' and 'not approved', as in 'you are not approved to go within 300 yards of a school or a child under sixteen'.



Ah yes, the reality of you saying the IPCC said they shouldnt have used it is once again ignored by yourself.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> "Spyfool" is right though, all this comes down to is whether Northumbria were justified in ordering, deploying and using this system without full training and without full Home Office approval against Moat.
> 
> That PT has tried to fib his way into saying the IPCC had stated they shouldnt have is of course of relevance, as have been his attempts to ignore large parts of the evidence (including stuff he has relied on) in order to continue his troll. B Had he actually admitted that he got it wrong many pages ago - as he clearly did - then the thread would not have been derailed in the way it has been.



Why am I a troll?

What stuff have I ignored?

Isn't this just a case of you standing up for your own kind?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Well, I reckon it will be proved to be enough, as I've said above the job is to hit the target, that they clearly did; I am not sure what else anyone could expect from additional training.



It's a principle though.  If you are happy for the police to use weapons for which they've had little or no specific training for then fair enough, I am not.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Come on then, explain to us, old wise one, what else is expected over and above hitting the target?



Presumably they used the tasers to prevent him taking his own life. They failed.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why am I a troll?
> 
> What stuff have I ignored?
> 
> Isn't this just a case of you standing up for your own kind?



Havent you actually read this thread?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have you ever actually trained somebody, or even participated in training for, use of a firearm?



And yes, used to target shot and used to [illegally] shoot rabbbits in the field behind us, from the bathroom window, using live .22 rounds from a rifle fitted with a telescopic lens - great fun.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> It report also says the tasers arrived *days *before, and why would they need more than *hours* to train with them?
> 
> TRAINER: Here’s a gun/taser, there’s your target, now can you hit it?
> 
> ...



I've already explained what training I would expect as bare minimum so I'm not quite sure what this is all about.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Fuck off citizen.



I meant in PT's example.

You are not approved to go near a school. Like ? 

Nobody would word a ban like that.

You are banned from urban75 and are not approved to come back...

e2a: I'm agreeing with him.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, not sure they're gonna have them in Maplins though.



a Maplins version would probably be made by Smiff & Weston and would fire every second shot in completely the wrong direction tho.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And yes, used to target shot and used to [illegally] shoot rabbbits in the field behind us, from the bathroom window, using live .22 rounds from a rifle fitted with a telescopic lens - great fun.



Yeah big man, hiding behind your gun 

Bet you're not man enough to go toe to paw with a bunny unarmed............


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Havent you actually read this thread?



I have. I've read the various posts in which you, Grass and Cunty Simon have claimed they were on trial, when they weren't. I've read Grass trying to invent new meanings for the word fully. I've read you squirming for several pages trying to find a way out of providing any actual literal difference between 'you are not approved to' and 'you should not'. I've read Cunty Simon make up fantasies about Moat's final moments and offer us his vision of a hang 'em and flog 'em future. I've read Clapham Boy's continued attempts to pass himself off as an oracle because daddy was a plod. I've seen more smilies than I care to remember. What have I missed?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> "Spyfool" is right though, all this comes down to is whether Northumbria were justified in ordering, deploying and using this system without full training and without full Home Office approval against Moat.



actually he's just arguing that because it was legally allowed, it must therefore be perfectly okay.

Given the result, I'd be minded to think they were serious failings in their decision making process.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And yes, used to target shot and used to [illegally] shoot rabbbits in the field behind us, from the bathroom window, using live .22 rounds from a rifle fitted with a telescopic lens - great fun.



Wooo. A .22, you Rambo you. I can't imagine anybody else has ever pissed about with a .22 in their lives.

Watch out for CB. He's got a gat gun in his pocket.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

But anyway...


*3 fucking days????*


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I have. I've read the various posts in which you, Grass and Cunty Simon have claimed they were on trial, when they weren't. I've read Grass trying to invent new meanings for the word fully. I've read you squirming for several pages trying to find a way out of providing any actual literal difference between 'you are not approved to' and 'you should not'. I've read Cunty Simon make up fantasies about Moat's final moments and offer us his vision of a hang 'em and flog 'em future. I've read Clapham Boy's continued attempts to pass himself off as an oracle because daddy was a plod. I've seen more smilies than I care to remember. What have I missed?



On that reading, everything - but especially the "literal difference" part, which is so fuckwitted as to be a definate troll.  

As you still fail to acknowledge, the IPCC have not said that the Police should not have used the XRep.  This is not the same as "not approved", because as you were repeatedly told (and linked to) there are clear circumstances in the Home Office guidelines where non-approved weapons can be used, and nearly every source you quoted went on to include a Home Office proviso which said that approval was not required.  The IPCC know this, which is why they didnt say it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I've already explained what training I would expect as bare minimum so I'm not quite sure what this is all about.



That was in reply to PT, hadn't caught up on your posts whilst I was typing it.

I am of the view that only a few hours top would be required to get to grips with this taser, how long would you expect?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm really confused as to whose argument is what now.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> But anyway...
> 
> 
> *3 fucking days????*



This thread has had it all accept Garf turning up and calling everyone a racist or Cheesy somehow managing to divert the thread onto a personal crisis.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wooo. A .22, you Rambo you. I can't imagine anybody else has ever pissed about with a .22 in their lives.
> 
> Watch out for CB. He's got a gat gun in his pocket.



Are you talking about air-rifles?

Because I am not.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm really confused as to whose argument is what now.



You're wrong.   

ETA - Although I think I may be winning the sub-argument of wether or not the Police should have been properly trained before using the weapon.  I wonder what I get if I do win?  Maybe I'll get my day back


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> On that reading, everything - but especially the "literal difference" part, which is so fuckwitted as to be a definate troll.
> 
> As you still fail to acknowledge, the IPCC have not said that the Police should not have used the XRep.  This is not the same as "not approved", because as you were repeatedly told (and linked to) there are clear circumstances in the Home Office guidelines where non-approved weapons can be used, and nearly every source you quoted went on to include a Home Office proviso which said that approval was not required.  The IPCC know this, which is why they didnt say it.



What have I failed to acknowledge? That I used one set of words to say exactly the same thing as another set of words, and that you and only you seems to think this case of uber-pedantry is at all relevant or indeed interesting?

Fuck off. You can't make a coherent argument, so all the way along you've picked up pedantry points - you're the fucking troll sunshine. Back to the walled city for you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Are you talking about air-rifles?
> 
> Because I am not.



You must be a real tough guy. A .22, I'm in awe of you.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> That was in reply to PT, hadn't caught up on your posts whilst I was typing it.
> 
> I am of the view that only a few hours top would be required to get to grips with this taser, how long would you expect?



Without knowing the complexity of the device I don't know, but as I said before I'd like to think this was done in a calm dispassionate way, rather than in the pissing rain at a tense standoff with a guy who had just attempted to murder one of their colleagues.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What have I failed to acknowledge? That I used one set of words to say exactly the same thing as another set of words, and that you and only you seems to think this case of uber-pedantry is at all relevant or indeed interesting?
> 
> Fuck off. You can't make a coherent argument, so all the way along you've picked up pedantry points - you're the fucking troll sunshine. Back to the walled city for you.



I think the point is that the two phrases do not mean "exactly the same thing", you cretin - as would be obvious to an honest person who had read this thread.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Clapham Boy's continued attempts to pass himself off as an oracle because daddy was a plod.



And there you go making shit up again, where have I said my old man was plod?



> What have I missed?



Just about everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think anyone that wasnt desperately determined never to admit fault would call it a shotgun, especially as the gun itself doesnt stun anyone.


if you whacked someone with its butt i think that would stun most people.

it's like a rifle doesn't shoot someone, it's the person who pulls the trigger. just the sort of tedious argument i expect from you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I think the point is that the two phrases do not mean "exactly the same thing", you cretin - as would be obvious to an honest person who had read this thread.



And back here again.

Please explain the literal difference between 'not approved to' and 'not allowed to'.

Or if you prefer 'should not have' which of course means exactly the same fucking thing as 'not allowed to' or indeed 'not approved to'.

Do I need to whack my spuds out again?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And there you go making shit up again, where have I said my old man was plod?
> 
> 
> 
> Just about everything.



Okay, your old man was a failed plod who instead took up training real plod instead. Happy now?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Without knowing the complexity of the device I don't know, but as I said before I'd like to think this was done in a calm dispassionate way, rather than in the pissing rain at a tense standoff with a guy who had just attempted to murder one of their colleagues.



But, even the report from Indy says they had training before the standoff.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> But, even the report from Indy says they had training before the standoff.



No it doesn't. It says they had 'liitle or no' training, and mere hours in which this could have taken place.

I think it is called 'covering one's arse'.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And back here again.
> 
> Please explain the literal difference between 'not approved to' and 'not allowed to'.
> 
> ...



By all means.  Before you do though, do you understand that the Police can, according to the relevant Home Office manual linked to earlier and the statement from the Home Office in the reports you linked to, use weapons which have not been approved by the home office?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> But, even the report from Indy says they had training before the standoff.



A few hours to familiarise themselves doesnt sound like formal training.  Though as I said before though, they may well have had all the training they need, it is just a question worth asking.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> By all means.  Before you do though, do you understand that the Police can, according to the relevant Home Office manual linked to earlier and the statement from the Home Office you linked to, use weapons which have not been approved by the home office?



No, I don't. I understand the Police have not theoretically committed an offence merely by using a non-standard weapon. That is not quite the same thing, a distinction you have proved yourself keen to miss.

Are you going to finally answer the great literal/potato debate?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Okay, you're old man was a failed plod who instead took up training real plod instead. Happy now?



No, he didn't train the pold - yet more made-up shit. 

As I said he was a firearms expert and licensed firearms dealer, not that that was his full-time job, who was used occasionally to test confiscated firearms. 

You do seriously have problems with reading, understanding and reasoning - you should seek help for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> But, even the report from Indy says they had training before the standoff.


i had training last week about project management, all of two and a half hours. am i now able to supervise a major project? i think not. so, just cos someone's received a spot of 'training' on something doesn't mean they're au fait with the subject of the training. see, for example, the copper who searched me last week under the misuse of drugs act, but only stopped searching me when i pointed out to her that it's only in exceptional circumstances that women search men: and with three male cops standing round like skittles the occasion didn't fall into that category


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No, he didn't train the pold - yet more made-up shit.
> 
> As I said he was a firearms expert and licensed firearms dealer, not that that was his full-time job, who was used occasionally to test confiscated firearms.
> 
> You do seriously have problems with reading, understanding and reasoning - you should seek help for that.



He sold guns to people then


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> By all means.  Before you do though, do you understand that the Police can, according to the relevant Home Office manual linked to earlier and the statement from the Home Office in the reports you linked to, use weapons which have not been approved by the home office?



Not that I doubt it for a second but I still find it surprising.  It kind of implies that they can use any weapon they want if they feel it's justified.  RPG's ftw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> By all means.  Before you do though, do you understand that the Police can, according to the relevant Home Office manual linked to earlier and the statement from the Home Office in the reports you linked to, use weapons which have not been approved by the home office?


historically they have: i refer you to the implements employed by the spg in southall.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Well, probably in an hour or two, depends on how complex the weapon is.



It's a shotgun. I own two shotguns, they both work pretty much the same way. 

The thing is, this all misses the point. That is, were the police justified in firing a taser round at Raoul Moat? 

Bellend says that there is evidence that they were not. I dispute that, and so far Bellend has been unable to pony up that 'evidence'. That's because he's lying and no such evidence exists.

They may not have had reasonable justification to fry him, however nothing that has been reported currently supports this. It's just a Bellend and Tidy and fantasy because you just know that it's what they WANT to be the case.   



Proper Tidy said:


> Presumably they used the tasers to prevent him taking his own life. They failed.



Again, if someone is intent on shooting themselves and have a loaded weapon, it's going to be pretty difficult to stop them. The best bet seems to me, to be to shoot them with a taser and hope for the best. Oh, hang on ..... 



belboid said:


> actually he's just arguing that because it was legally allowed, it must therefore be perfectly okay.



Once again, Bellend, you miss comprehend. On purpose, evidently. 

I'm arguing nothing in the statement to which you refer. Simply stating what is and is not pertinent to the investigation that will take place.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, I don't. I understand the Police have not theoretically committed an offence merely by using a non-standard weapon. That is not quite the same thing, a distinction you have proved yourself keen to miss.



Obviously you dont, I mean its not as if it was made abundantly clear to you then and now.  I will make another attempt:




			
				Home Office said:
			
		

> But the Home Office stressed police could use any weapon they saw fit as long as its use was "lawful, reasonable and proportionate".



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hv3TpkrzVvM1fOdXZ1rSr9bWNPGQ




			
				Home Office said:
			
		

> 4.4.1 Chief officers of police may also have available for special authorisation weapons undergoing trial or evaluation as part of the national approval process provided for at section 4.3 above. In such cases, Chief Officers of designated trial forces may authorise deployment of such weapons in accordance with any related guidance, for use as weapons requiring special authorisation.



http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug/uk-police-less-lethal-cop.pdf

Now, given that "not approved" does not mean "should not use" in light of the above, will you finally admit you are mistaken?  

Oh, and I am not from Chester either.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> He sold guns to people then



Yes, and so?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Again, if someone is intent on shooting themselves and have a loaded weapon, it's going to be pretty difficult to stop them. The best bet seems to me, to be to shoot them with a taser and hope for the best. Oh, hang on .....



But Grassing Boy asked how they could have done better. They could have not ended up with a dead suspect.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, and so?



Nothing. It's a noble job, selling guns to people.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i had training last week about project management, all of two and a half hours. am i now able to supervise a major project? i think not.



These are already fully trained firearms officers.

Are you fully trained in major project management?

No? So, what's your fucking point?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What have I failed to acknowledge? That I used one set of words to say exactly the same thing as another set of words ....



How does "the IPCC said they should not have used..." and "not approved" mean "exactly the same thing", you fucking idiot?

Have another one of these .


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Obviously you dont, I mean its not as if it was made abundantly clear to you then and now.  I will make another attempt:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But nobody has cited any special authorisation for the taser. You are jumping to conclusions. So far, all that has been cited is a reference to the coppers not having automatically committed an offence.

You seem very keen to bring in my hometown yet reluctant to offer any reason as to why. I can only presume it is because you are a cestrian.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> How does "the IPCC said they should not have used..." and "not approved" mean "exactly the same thing", you fucking idiot?
> 
> Have another one of these .



Please see my spuds.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Not that I doubt it for a second but I still find it surprising.  It kind of implies that they can use any weapon they want if they feel it's justified.  RPG's ftw.



Indeed.  This is a separate debate, but the way firearms legislation has been implemented in this country does mean that, provided the Home Secretary / Defence Council approves of it, any of the weapons on the Section 5 lists could be carried by anyone who they have authorised.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> It's a shotgun. I own two shotguns, they both work pretty much the same way.
> 
> The thing is, this all misses the point. That is, were the police justified in firing a taser round at Raoul Moat?



It doesnt miss my point, my point was that police should be trained to use their weapons.

On the subject of was it justified, I don't know, I'm not sure how you've come to such strong conclusions, perhaps you're letting your hatred of villians to influence you 

I'm not even sure he was intent on shooting himself, if he was why did he hide in a ditch for 6 days and then have a 6 hour standoff?  He had the gun all along, why didn't he go through with it or at least try and take a few coppers with him?

It is a reasonable question to ask that if the police had acted differently could a life have been saved?

And on that note, I'm off to have my tea.  Ta ra all.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But nobody has cited any special authorisation for the taser. You are jumping to conclusions. So far, all that has been cited is a reference to the coppers not having automatically committed an offence.



Yes, that is exactly what the two quotes above say, you fucking muppet.






			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> You seem very keen to bring in my hometown yet reluctant to offer any reason as to why. I can only presume it is because you are a cestrian.



Ah, so once again I was right and you were wrong.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Bellend says that there is evidence that they were not.



I've never said that.  Are you deliberately lying, or just proving beyond any shadow of a doubt everything I have been saying about your inability to understand basic english?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But nobody has cited any special authorisation for the taser. You are jumping to conclusions. So far, all that has been cited is a reference to the coppers not having automatically committed an offence



You seriously think the senior officer in charged hadn't approved the use of the taser and these two West Yorks guys just turned-up and had a go off their own back? 

You're even more fucking mad than I thought you were.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Please explain the literal difference between 'not approved to' and 'not allowed to'.



"Not approved to" means the gun not currently on a list of approved weapons. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, senior officers can authorise the use of unapproved firearms. 

Therefore _unapproved_ firearms are in some cases, *allowed* to be used at the discretion of a senior plod. 

Even you and Bellend must understand this.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Yes, that is exactly what the two quotes above say, you fucking muppet.



But the second quote isn't relevant to the first. Nobody has mentioned any special authorisations. They have merely been keen to stress that an offence hasn't automatically been committed. You are speculating about the grounds for this claim.





agricola said:


> Ah, so once again I was right and you were wrong.



Who knows. Until you spill the beans, we can but guess. And I guess you're from Tarporley and your real name is Tarquin.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You seriously think the senior officer in charged hadn't approved the use of the taser and these two West Yorks guys just turned-up and had a go off their own back?
> 
> You're even more fucking mad than I thought you were.



I have no idea. Neither do you.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> "Not approved to" means the gun not currently on a list of approved weapons. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, senior officers can authorise the use of unapproved firearms.
> 
> Therefore _unapproved_ firearms are in some cases, *allowed* to be used at the discretion of a senior plod.
> 
> Even you and Bellend must understand this.



Actually given what we dont know about the specifics of what was used, it could be that the gun was on the approved list but the round wasnt.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> "Not approved to" means the gun not currently on a list of approved weapons. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, senior officers can authorise the use of unapproved firearms.
> 
> Therefore _unapproved_ firearms are in some cases, *allowed* to be used at the discretion of a senior plod.
> 
> Even you and Bellend must understand this.



Yes I do. That isn't the point of it though - the point is that Agricola claims I lied by paraphrasing an early ITN report as saying 'should not have used' instead of 'not approved'. I didn't lie, I paraphrased using layman's terms that were entirely reasonable. For some reason, Agricola thinks this is equivalent to eating babies or something.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I have no idea. Neither do you.



I think it's a fair bet that a senior officer approved the purchase, importation and use.

I don't think a couple of wallabies got them off fucking e-bay.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> "Not approved to" means the gun not currently on a list of approved weapons. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, senior officers can authorise the use of unapproved firearms.
> 
> Therefore _unapproved_ firearms are in some cases, *allowed* to be used at the discretion of a senior plod.
> 
> Even you and Bellend must understand this.



I've always said that - you have just been too fucking thick/too blinded by your bloodlust to read properly.

Now where's this quote of mine you just made up? (see post 2424)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I think it's a fair bet that a senior officer approved the purchase, importation and use.
> 
> I don't think a couple of wallabies got them off fucking e-bay.



But a 'fair bet' is still you just mouthing off speculation, isn't it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes I do. That isn't the point of it though - the point is that Agricola claims I lied by paraphrasing an early ITN report as saying 'should not have used' instead of 'not approved'. I didn't lie, I paraphrased using layman's terms that were entirely reasonable. For some reason, Agricola thinks this is equivalent to eating babies or something.



Lies again.

The report said - they were not fully approved, however they can still be used under certain circumstances.

Your paraphrasing of that was - they shouldn't be used. 

ETA: Sorry, your paraphrasing of that was - the IPCC said they shouldn't be used.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But the second quote isn't relevant to the first. Nobody has mentioned any special authorisations. They have merely been keen to stress that an offence hasn't automatically been committed. You are speculating about the grounds for this claim.



Surely if you are claiming (or rather, you are claiming that the IPCC are claiming) that they should not have been used because they arent approved then direct evidence that non-approved weapons can be used with special authorisation is relevant?  

I dont know whether authorization was given (though it must have been somewhere along the line since as that Indy article says they actually went out and bought them, and then went on to limited training and tactical deployment of them as part of a plan), but the fact that it can be given, in addition to the first quote, means that to say "should not be used" does not mean the same as "not approved of".  That much is obvious.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Who knows. Until you spill the beans, we can but guess. And I guess you're from Tarporley and your real name is Tarquin.



and you would be wrong.  Again.  Shamefully I am from the same town you are, but now live in South London.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was _possibly_ the only choice they had - but in any event, it failed.

Is that fair?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I've never said that.



Yes you did you lying tosser. You've repeatedly said that the final minutes have been "widely reported", suggested that we know what went on, and that the taser round was inappropriate.

So show us this "widely reported" evidence that the shooting was inappropriate. 

Put up or shut up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was _possibly_ the only choice they had - but in any event, it failed.
> 
> Is that fair?



I would add "was possibly the only less-lethal option to forcibly disarm Moat" rather than "only choice", but the rest of it is pretty correct.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Surely if you are claiming (or rather, you are claiming that the IPCC are claiming) that they should not have been used because they arent approved then direct evidence that non-approved weapons can be used with special authorisation is relevant?



No. You are jumping from A to C. Nobody has mentioned special authorisation. It is just as plausible that they are referring to another point of regulation. You are speculating.



> I dont know whether authorization was given (though it must have been somewhere along the line since as that Indy article says they actually went out and bought them, and then went on to limited training and tactical deployment of them as part of a plan), but the fact that it can be given, in addition to the first quote, means that to say "should not be used" does not mean the same as "not approved of".  That much is obvious.



You are right, you don't know. I again ask you to point out the difference between 'not allowed to' and 'not approved to'.



agricola said:


> and you would be wrong.  Again.  Shamefully I am from the same town you are, but now live in South London.



Ah. You don't go by the name of Wrexy on another forum, do you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was _possibly_ the only choice they had - but in any event, it failed.
> 
> Is that fair?



Yes.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I would add "was possibly the only less-lethal option to forcibly disarm Moat" rather than "only choice", but the rest of it is pretty correct.



OK

So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was possibly the only less-lethal option to forcibly disarm Moat they had - but in any event, it failed.

Everyone happy with that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> These are already fully trained firearms officers.
> 
> Are you fully trained in major project management?
> 
> No? So, what's your fucking point?


you wouldn't expect a firearms officer to be immediately familiar with a flintlock, or a heavy machine gun. equally, this taser quite possibly has a range of differences from the normal taser - the trigger pressure required to shoot may be different. there are, you know, reasons why people receive training in new equipment of this sort, why weapons are evaluated. if there's a situation in which someone unfamiliar with a new weapon under the supervision of an officer whose never handled them it is quite possible for things to go wrong. as far as i'm concerned there are question marks over the behaviour of "fully trained" firearms officers anyway - their actions in a number of cases in london don't really fill me with confidence in their abilities. you seem to be taking the line "the police right or wrong" in this case - which doesn't surprise me - and the fact the ipcc will be examining the use of this weapon suggests they have questions about the deployment and the preparation for it too.


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was _possibly_ the only choice they had - but in any event, it failed.
> 
> Is that fair?



Shut up you, with your rational non-hysterical non-beef post.  My popcorn's going cold.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes I do. That isn't the point of it though - the point is that Agricola claims I lied by paraphrasing an early ITN report as saying 'should not have used' instead of 'not approved'. I didn't lie, I paraphrased using layman's terms that were entirely reasonable. For some reason, Agricola thinks this is equivalent to eating babies or something.



Well if one's going to paraphrase, it's important that in doing so, one doesn't change the meaning of what is being said. That's what you did.



cesare said:


> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was _possibly_ the only choice they had - but in any event, it failed.
> 
> Is that fair?



Perfectly, if it was an attempt to prevent him killing himself.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Well if one's going to paraphrase, it's important that in doing so, one doesn't change the meaning of what is being said. That's what you did.



It still doesn't equal lying though.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No. You are jumping from A to C. Nobody has mentioned special authorisation. It is just as plausible that they are referring to another point of regulation. You are speculating.



It is just as plausible to suggest that the part that says _"Availability of weapons under development or on trial"_ and which goes on to describe how they can be deployed in fact points to something other than that?  Are you really that stupid?




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> You are right, you don't know. I again ask you to point out the difference between 'not allowed to' and 'not approved to'.



This again.  As has been _repeatedly_ said, in these circumstances the difference is that Police *are* allowed to use non-approved weapons providing certain circumstances are met.  _"Not allowed to"_ does not mean the same as _"not approved to"_ in this case, but of course that is not what you initially claimed the IPCC had said.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> Ah. You don't go by the name of Wrexy on another forum, do you?



Nope.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> OK
> 
> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was possibly the only less-lethal option to forcibly disarm Moat they had - but in any event, it failed.
> 
> Everyone happy with that?



That is fair, and whats even more amazing is that Proper Tidy agrees with it despite arguing for two days that cops "arent approved" to use them, and therefore shouldnt have.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Corax said:


> Shut up you, with your rational non-hysterical non-beef post.  My popcorn's going cold.



I think you'll find that I'll be as much use as the United Nations peacekeeping force.

I'm interested to know more of the ins and outs of tasers and guns and handling stand-offs etc.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

the only other non lethal option would have been some form of baton round but considering raoul was a brick shithouse the only poosible effective ones would have been the extreme high power ones which the police would'nt have had access to not sure the army does anymore as they were extremely dangerous


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> That is fair, and whats even more amazing is that Proper Tidy agrees with it despite arguing for two days that cops "arent approved" to use them.



Stoppit!


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2010)

Point of order: Is CB a PCSO then?


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Stoppit!



You tell 'em.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Stoppit!


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

likesfish said:


> the only other non lethal option would have been some form of baton round but considering raoul was a brick shithouse the only poosible effective ones would have been the extreme high power ones which the police would'nt have had access to not sure the army does anymore as they were extremely dangerous




Brick shithouse, but weakened after 6 days of not eating much etc. Would that make a difference?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It still doesn't equal lying though.



It's certainly dishonest. The implication of what you said is that the IPCC said the police acted illegally, when they actually said quite the opposite.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> It is just as plausible to suggest that the part that says _"Availability of weapons under development or on trial"_ and which goes on to describe how they can be deployed in fact points to something other than that?  Are you really that stupid?



Plausible or not, you are still speculating. There is no foundation for your claim. You do not know. I am not being stupid for pointing this out. I am being rational.





agricola said:


> This again.  As has been _repeatedly_ said, in these circumstances the difference is that Police *are* allowed to use non-approved weapons providing certain circumstances are met.  _"Not allowed to"_ does not mean the same as _"not approved to"_ in this case, but of course that is not what you initially claimed the IPCC had said.



That still doesn't equate to lying though. You have repeatedly called me a liar, and I have asked for you to demonstrate that I lied, as opposed to naturally re-phrasing something. You have been unable to demonstrate anything of the sort yet you continue to accuse me of lying. Do you see the problem here?





agricola said:


> Nope.



You must be. There can't be two cunts just like you from here. We're not that sort of town.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> It's certainly dishonest. The implication of what you said is that the IPCC said the police acted illegally, when they actually said quite the opposite.



No it isn't. The implication of what I said is that they should not have used them. The issue of legality was not touched upon. You re the one being deceitful.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm going to assume there's an element of catching up with the thread going on here


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you wouldn't expect a firearms officer to be immediately familiar with a flintlock, or a heavy machine gun. equally, this taser quite possibly has a range of differences from the normal taser - the trigger pressure required to shoot may be different. there are, you know, reasons why people receive training in new equipment of this sort, why weapons are evaluated. if there's a situation in which someone unfamiliar with a new weapon under the supervision of an officer whose never handled them it is quite possible for things to go wrong. as far as i'm concerned there are question marks over the behaviour of "fully trained" firearms officers anyway - their actions in a number of cases in london don't really fill me with confidence in their abilities.



I think we are in agreement there, cock-ups happen and things can go wrong no matter how much training is involved.

Not that there's any evidence that lack of training played a part in this, as they did what was expected and hit the target.



> and the fact the ipcc will be examining the use of this weapon suggests they have questions about the deployment and the preparation for it too.



The IPCC would be examining the use of any weapon, proper firearms or H.O. approved tasers, in a situation like this - that is their job.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes you did you lying tosser. You've repeatedly said that the final minutes have been "widely reported", suggested that we know what went on, and that the taser round was inappropriate.



I said that the final minutes have been widely reported, and they were completely different to your fictional version. I made no comment on whether that meant police action was justified or not.

You fibbing fibber you.  Or can you just not read?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Corax said:


> Point of order: Is CB a PCSO then?



 

No, that was just more made-up stuff from those proper bellends.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Brick shithouse, but weakened after 6 days of not eating much etc. Would that make a difference?



Probably not.  The issue about the baton round is that its very questionable whether it would have any stun effect on Moat (even in ideal circumstances, dont forget he was lying on the ground / sat down for parts of it according to reports as well), or at least enough of an effect for officers to approach and disarm him before he shot himself / them.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

To be fair to the OB *gasp, amazes self* it was also the first live use ... and besides the point of the first live use failing, it was always going to be put under a microscope I suppose.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> They tasered him and within 1 sec he shot himself.


Please link to the evidence* of that being the sequence of events

(* that's _evidence_, not idle speculation)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I made no comment on whether that meant police action was justified or not.






			
				belboid said:
			
		

> I am suggesting they fucked up by using a poor choice of weapon.



Whoops !


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No, that was just more made-up stuff from those proper bellends.



Thank fuck for that.  You've never appeared to be _that_ much of a dick.  

PCSOs rank alongside teachers as failed human beings.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Corax said:


> Point of order: Is CB a PCSO then?



no, he's too thick even for them.  Which is really saying something


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Whoops !



Thank you.  You have jsut proved beyond shadow of a doubt you dont understand the most basic english.

Now fuck off back to primary school


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> ...but in that situation should it have been used? No


I didn't realise that you were a fully trained Firearms Tactical Advisor ... 

What the _fuck_ is it with the internet (and this site especially) that makes every thicko numbnuts believe they are a fucking expert on everything ...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No it isn't. The implication of what I said is that they should not have used them.



No. The implication of what you said is that *the IPCC said they should not have used them  *.

They didn't say anything of the sort.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That still doesn't equate to lying though. You have repeatedly called me a liar, and I have asked for you to demonstrate that I lied, as opposed to naturally re-phrasing something. You have been unable to demonstrate anything of the sort yet you continue to accuse me of lying. Do you see the problem here?



You claimed the IPCC said something which they have not said.  You then claim that you "rephrased" the IPCC statement, albeit you have done it to such a point that it has a meaning which the IPCC would never have given it because they - unlike you (although you agreed with cesare, who actually said the police were allowed to use it) - actually understand the issues at hand.  This is either a mistake, or a lie, and given that you have repeatedly defended it suggests that it was not a mistake.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> You must be. There can't be two cunts just like you from here. We're not that sort of town.



Wrong again.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Probably not.  The issue about the baton round is that its very questionable whether it would have any stun effect on Moat (even in ideal circumstances, dont forget he was lying on the ground / sat down for parts of it according to reports as well), or at least enough of an effect for officers to approach and disarm him before he shot himself / them.



Ta. Did they realistically have any other (non-lethal) options do you think? Waiting for exhaustion to set in etc?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What the _fuck_ is it with the internet (and this site especially) that makes every thicko numbnuts believe they are a fucking expert on everything ...


yeh i've wondered the same thing every time i read your posts.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> To be fair to the OB *gasp, amazes self* it was also the first live use ... and besides the point of the first live use failing, it was always going to be put under a microscope I suppose.



quite.  All in all doesn't seem to have been a very wise decision.  Maybe later evidence will show otherwise.  But not a good start.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I didn't realise that you were a fully trained Firearms Tactical Advisor ...
> 
> What the _fuck_ is it with the internet (and this site especially) that makes every thicko numbnuts believe they are a fucking expert on everything ...



It's not so different from real life


----------



## Corax (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I didn't realise that you were a fully trained Firearms Tactical Advisor ...
> 
> What the _fuck_ is it with the internet (and this site especially) that makes every thicko numbnuts believe they are a fucking expert on everything ...



DB, meet Foxy.  Random fact: Her boyfriend intends to instill hatred of teh gayz in their children.  Which is nice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Thank you.  You have jsut proved beyond shadow of a doubt you dont understand the most basic english.
> 
> Now fuck off back to primary school





Keep it up!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I didn't realise that you were a fully trained Firearms Tactical Advisor ...
> 
> What the _fuck_ is it with the internet (and this site especially) that makes every thicko numbnuts believe they are a fucking expert on everything ...



I blame wikipedia. It makes intellectual titans out of mere men.

Regardless of all this 'should they have used the untried tazer  or not and was it legal etc' it was only ever going to go this way.

He shot a copper, which is notoriously bad for the gunmans health. Plus he had proper lost it and gone spree. These people seem to always turn it on themselves after offing a few people. While I am sure it has gone differently on some occasions thy mostly seem to shoot themselves once the rage has past and the despair sets in. Surrounded by OB or not.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Keep it up!



I will. You dont understand basic english.  Perhaps you let your prejudices and assumptions get in the way of everything you read.  Or perhaps you are just a brain dead moron.  Who knows?

Now, how's that trial of yours coming along?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I appreciate you are rather distracted by having claphamboy sucking your cock, but i'd have thought you might still have noticed that the weapons used were oft referred to as Taser rifles, which might reasonably be abbreviated to 'rifles.'


Only by thick cunts like you who don't know what they are talking about.

Rifles and shotguns are _very_ different weapons, particularly in terms of effective / accurate range.

What the XREP is is a Taser shotgun round.

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERXREP.aspx

You (and other prejudiced / thick pricks can call it whatever you like - rifle, mortar, intercontinental ballistic fucking missile) but it's still a fucking shotgun ...

Now are you going to accept that you have been wrong to refer to it as a rifle and apologise or are you going to start a defying belief campaign that you are right like the other cunts? (My money's on the latter by the way ...)


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Only by thick cunts like you who don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Rifles and shotguns are _very_ different weapons, particularly in terms of effective / accurate range.
> 
> ...



irrelevant wank from an irrelevant wanker


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Ta. Did they realistically have any other (non-lethal) options do you think? Waiting for exhaustion to set in etc?



It would probably have been either this XRep thing, or continued / varied negotiations with him, or shooting him.   Certainly one would imagine the IPCC will look at whether (if as some reports claim) it was necessary to sneak up on him as part of a plan to stun him, if that is what happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Only by thick cunts like you who don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Rifles and shotguns are _very_ different weapons, particularly in terms of effective / accurate range.
> 
> ...


yes. so what you mean is it is less accurate than something fired from a rifle.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> OK
> 
> So, in summary: The cops that fired the taser rounds were using an unapproved weapon (which they're allowed to do) with "little or no" training (might be a bit, might be none, might have been all that was required, might not have been) and that it was possibly the only less-lethal option to forcibly disarm Moat they had - but in any event, it failed.



I suspect it might have had a smaller propensity for failure if the guy wasn't holding an armed shotgun to his head.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> an armed rifle


----------



## free spirit (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> *thicko numbnuts*


that's not fair












...I sooo want that for my tagline, but you said it to foxy so it'd not be right for me to steal it


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> quite.  All in all doesn't seem to have been a very wise decision.  Maybe later evidence will show otherwise.  But not a good start.



I s'pose that if they knew that the first live use would have been scrutinised anyway, it was probably better to do it on Moat than at a demo or something.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Ta. Did they realistically have any other (non-lethal) options do you think? Waiting for exhaustion to set in etc?



I think thats what they were trying to do but after 6 hours he was either going to give himself up or decided to end it and the police thought the taser might save him.
 I doubt they though cool we've got this new toy lets see how it works then
 which squaddies are apt to do hence the rapid removal of an anti dog spray in ulster


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> He shot a copper, which is notoriously bad for the gunmans health. Plus he had proper lost it and gone spree. These people seem to always turn it on themselves after offing a few people. While I am sure it has gone differently on some occasions thy mostly seem to shoot themselves once the rage has past and the despair sets in. Surrounded by OB or not.



he seemed to have stopped his spree by then,but I'd basically agree with ya. 

_If_ the weapon is found to be the probable direct cause of him shooting himself there'll be many more questions to answer tho


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I s'pose that if they knew that the first live use would have been scrutinised anyway, it was probably better to do it on Moat than at a demo or something.



As I said earlier I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway - the circumstances where you would use one (as opposed to a normal taser, a normal firearm or a baton round) are so rare as to not be worth spending money on.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I suspect it might have had a smaller propensity for failure if the guy wasn't holding an armed shotgun to his head.



It could have been a cunning stunt decision. If it was all going to go horribly wrong anyway, why not get the first live use factored in.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Something which the sane (ex) copper here admits is highly unusual.


If you actually engaged in sensible fucking discussion instead of stating prejudiced shite and made up bollocks then you'd probably find that this ex-copper would say that the use of the weapon was unusual / risky (on an organisational level) but quite possibly justifiable in the situation they found themselves (effectively being the _only_ longer range less-lethal alternative capable of use outside the range of Moat's known weapons and in the light of his crystal clear (and substantiated) threats against police).  But as you continue to imply that some individual officer brought in some entirely unauthorised weapon, entirely of his own volition it's a waste of fucking time even trying to engage in sensible discussion with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually engaged in sensible fucking discussion instead of stating prejudiced shite and made up bollocks then you'd probably find that this ex-copper would say that the use of the weapon was unusual / risky (on an organisational level) but quite possibly justifiable in the situation they found themselves (effectively being the _only_ longer range less-lethal alternative capable of use outside the range of Moat's known weapons and in the light of his crystal clear (and substantiated) threats against police).  But as you continue to imply that some individual officer brought in some entirely unauthorised weapon, entirely of his own volition it's a waste of fucking time even trying to engage in sensible discussion with you.


it would be a surprise if you tried to engage in sensible discussion, full stop.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting they _fucked up_ by using a poor choice of weapon.


So pray tell what weapon you would have fucking used then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> It could have been a cunning stunt decision. If it was all going to go horribly wrong anyway, why not get the first live use factored in.



Possibly. I just don't see how the police are getting the blame for accidentally killing him when he had a gun to his head. He had two choices. Die or go to prison. He hadn't chosen the latter in the proceeding six hours so it may well just be that he chose the former. And was going to choose that any way.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I will. You dont understand basic english.  Perhaps you let your prejudices and assumptions get in the way of everything you read.  Or perhaps you are just a brain dead moron.  Who knows?



Wriggle wriggle wriggle!

Come on Bellend, show us this "widely reported" evidence that the taser round was inappropriate. 

And stop lying.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> As I said earlier I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway - the circumstances where you would use one (as opposed to a normal taser, a normal firearm or a baton round) are so rare as to not be worth spending money on.



Sorry, I missed where you said that  (but in my defence, there's been 2 days of posts where anything new might have got lost).

Can the HO designate weapons that can't be used then?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I s'pose that if they knew that the first live use would have been scrutinised anyway, it was probably better to do it on Moat than at a demo or something.



you'd have thought they could come up with a decent testing scenario for 'if we shoot this at someone with a gun in their hand, might it make them pull the trigger?'

I mean, _if_ the shot was taken cos Moat was pointing at himself, and it was an attempt to stop him killing himself, then we can reasonably assume that such a shot would also have been taken if Moat was pointing the gun at someone else.  And if it is then found that it _was_ the taser that caused him to actually pull the trigger, then the consequences are rather more serious than 'one dead twat'


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Standard practice I believe when someone has died when the police are involved.


Yes it is.

But ACAB twats can't bring themselves to accept that any routine accountability arrangements ever exist ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So pray tell what weapon you would have fucking used then?



one of those tranquiliser rifles


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Wriggle wriggle wriggle!
> 
> Come on Bellend, show us this "widely reported" evidence that the taser round was inappropriate.
> 
> And stop lying.



I never said that.  You are clearly lying.  Which is why only your chummy claphamboy is defending you.  You cant read, and you make shit up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Sorry, I missed where you said that  (but in my defence, there's been 2 days of posts where anything new might have got lost).
> 
> Can the HO designate weapons that can't be used then?



Apologies, that should have been worded better.  What I meant was that the Home Office would not have put the weapon on the approved list, which would normally mean that forces would not purchase it.  

They would still be able to (as they appear to have done here) go out and buy it / use it in specific circumstances that they could justify.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> But ACAB twats can't bring themselves to accept that any routine accountability arrangements ever exist ...



There's loads of accountability arrangements in place. And they always find the police absolved of any blame so do the job as intended.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> But ACAB twats can't bring themselves to accept that any routine accountability arrangements ever exist ...



I wonder why you quote teaboy and not me saying the exact same thing.  Hmmm, could it be because it would show the rest of your post up as the rambling of a hate filled ignorant moron?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> That is the law sunshine.


No.  It isn't.  You simplistic thick cunt.

No why don't you concentrate on posting about things you actually know about ...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. so what you mean is it is less accurate than something fired from a rifle.



It wouldn't make much difference at close range. The round only has to hit the bastard and it certainly seem like that happened!


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> It would probably have been either this XRep thing, or continued / varied negotiations with him, or shooting him.   Certainly one would imagine the IPCC will look at whether (if as some reports claim) it was necessary to sneak up on him as part of a plan to stun him, if that is what happened.



Yep I imagine it ain't that wise to attempt sneaking up on a wired, exhausted, perhaps desperate armed person whilst negotiations are going on. Wouldn't inspire much trust and confidence from Moat (if that's what happened).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> It wouldn't make much difference at close range. The round only has to hit the bastard and it certainly seem like that happened!


before or after he died?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I never said that.



You never said that they used the wrong weapon?


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> one of those tranquiliser rifles



Yep I said that a few days ago. I think someone said that tranquilisers aren't fast acting enough to prevent him pulling trigger on self/cops, but they seem to work fast on charging wildlife


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

Na, you'd feel the dart hit and have a few moments to make some irrational decisions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Na, you'd feel the dart hit and have a few moments to make some irrational decisions.


the voice of experience


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> It wouldn't make much difference at close range. The round only has to hit the bastard and it certainly seem like that happened!



Did they though?  Given the (according to the reports) lack of injuries mentioned at autopsy, and this , its questionable whether they did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

top fully trained firearms officers


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yep I said that a few days ago. I think someone said that tranquilisers aren't fast acting enough to prevent him pulling trigger on self/cops, but they seem to work fast on charging wildlife



Charging wildlife still is not as quick as a bullet. Feel sting, pull trigger, pass out.

Plus tranq darts are done on average weight- if they had overdone moat they'd have been in the shit unlike with an animal where if it dies from tranq everyone makes a sad face and moves on.

Not to mention how fucked his endocrine system must have been from the roids. How do you get the right dose for a meathead roider?


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Apologies, that should have been worded better.  What I meant was that the Home Office would not have put the weapon on the approved list, which would normally mean that forces would not purchase it.
> 
> They would still be able to (as they appear to have done here) go out and buy it / use it in specific circumstances that they could justify.



So they could _potentially_ have a stock of unapproved weapons 'just in case'? We know they're allowed to use any weapon/implement etc, but is it common practice to lay in stocks/make swift purchases from arms dealers?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> How do you get the right dose for a meathead roider?


assess it for a detective and you'd be about right.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No why don't you concentrate on posting about things you actually know about ...



Because he wouldn't be able to post anything.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> So they could _potentially_ have a stock of unapproved weapons 'just in case'? We know they're allowed to use any weapon/implement etc, but is it common practice to lay in stocks/make swift purchases from arms dealers?



I doubt they would have a stock of non-approved weapons - the potential legal implications from buying/using them anyway would be quite serious - though as was said it is perhaps more justifiable for them to purchase them from dealers on an as-needed basis.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Possibly. I just don't see how the police are getting the blame for accidentally killing him when he had a gun to his head. He had two choices. Die or go to prison. He hadn't chosen the latter in the proceeding six hours so it may well just be that he chose the former. And was going to choose that any way.



Did they accidentally kill him though? I was of the impression (maybe wrong) that he killed himself - and what was to be looked into was whether the handling of the last few minutes incl firing of new taser things contributed to that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did they though?  Given the (according to the reports) lack of injuries mentioned at autopsy, and this , its questionable whether they did.



Ah, yes, good point. That really would piss on Bellend's bonfire wouldn't it????


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Did they accidentally kill him though? I was of the impression (maybe wrong) that he killed himself - and what was to be looked into was whether the handling of the last few minutes incl firing of new taser things contributed to that.



that's one of the things being investigated now isnt it.  Whether or not the taser was responsible for him pulling thr trigger.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the voice of experience



Well I know from experience that electricity is instant. But yeah, haven't experienced darts, fair enough.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Did they accidentally kill him though? I was of the impression (maybe wrong) that he killed himself - and what was to be looked into was whether the handling of the last few minutes incl firing of new taser things contributed to that.



Well if it contributed to it (by involuntary muscle spasms) then they accidentally killed him!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> I see d-b taught you the important thing about being a copper - excessive use of the word 'cunt' when all else has failed.


You're a cunt.  I call you a cunt.  I thought you approved of the concept of cops / ex-cops telling the truth, something you calim doesn't often happen ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You're a cunt.  I call you a cunt.  I thought you approved of the concept of cops / ex-cops telling the truth, something you calim doesn't often happen ...


i approve of the concept but it *is* more honoured in the breach than the observance.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Charging wildlife still is not as quick as a bullet. Feel sting, pull trigger, pass out.
> 
> Plus tranq darts are done on average weight- if they had overdone moat they'd have been in the shit unlike with an animal where if it dies from tranq everyone makes a sad face and moves on.
> 
> Not to mention how fucked his endocrine system must have been from the roids. How do you get the right dose for a meathead roider?



I suppose that some good tests would be to see if new taser thingy was more effective than tranq when fired on Moat type individual. They could pay people to take part in tests. There's some crazy pharma tests that people line up for, for cash. I bet there wouldn't be any lack of willing participants.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You're a cunt.  I call you a cunt.  I thought you approved of the concept of cops / ex-cops telling the truth, something you calim doesn't often happen ...



Why do you persist with this 'cunt' business? I'm happy for a gay man to stop using 'cunt' in a derogatory sense if you're happy to reallow the use of 'drama queen' without getting equally as upset/offended. Does that sound fair?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

fucking hell, we're on for a long night if d-b is gonna go through every post to retort with some dull, deeply repetitive, insult every time


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I suppose that some good tests would be to see if new taser thingy was more effective than tranq when fired on Moat type individual.



Effective at what though? I doubt there's a tranquiliser dart in existence that could take effect fast enough to stop a bloke with a shotgun in his mouth and his finger on the trigger from blowing his head off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> fucking hell, we're on for a long night if d-b is gonna go through every post to retort with some dull, deeply repetitive, insult every time


d-b might as well stand for dull bore.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I doubt they would have a stock of non-approved weapons - the potential legal implications from buying/using them anyway would be quite serious - though as was said it is perhaps more justifiable for them to purchase them from dealers on an as-needed basis.



How serious though? They're allowed to use whatever weapons/implements they like as long as the need justifies it (if I've understood it correctly).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> How serious though? They're allowed to use whatever weapons/implements they like as long as the need justifies it (if I've understood it correctly).


you left out the caveat - and they can get away with it.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> We should apply the same logic to surgeons, it would be a right laugh


_Exactly_ the same logic is applied to surgeons you fuckwit.

New kit / technique / drug developed ... tested in lab / scientific / non-operational situation ... if no obvious dangers / issues arise it moves on to be tested on real people in real operational situations on a trial basis (usually in a restricted area / for a restricted time) ... effectiveness is assessed closely and performance is evaluated ... if everything appears OK it is released for general use by all.

(And, at the earlier stages, if another surgeon is faced with an unusual situation where standard techniques, etc. are not going to work they sometimes give it a go with the new one, even if it's not yet made it's way all the way through the process)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> They're allowed to use whatever weapons/implements they like as long as the need justifies it (if I've understood it correctly).



Common sense would suggest that there is a set of rules within which they must operate. I doubt that they could sign off on a mini-gun, an AK47 or land mines.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

Did guns prove to have any dangers?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Out of interest, any of the plastic plods (not you likesfish although feel free to answer) know how often a firearms officer finds themselves in a position where a shotgun is the best weapon to use?


Yes thank you.  I know (not that I'm a "plastic plod", but speaking as a former police Firearms Tactical Advisor and Silver Commander).  And if you had given the slightest indication of having an IQ above that of an amoeba I'd happily tell you.  But you don't.  So I won't.  You'll only (a) ignore it if it doesn't fit your prejudices or (b) distort it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (And, at the earlier stages, if another surgeon is faced with an unusual situation where standard techniques, etc. are not going to work they sometimes give it a go with the new one, even if it's not yet made it's way all the way through the process)


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Well if it contributed to it (by involuntary muscle spasms) then they accidentally killed him!



Yeah that's the big IF innit.



Spymaster said:


> Effective at what though? I doubt there's a tranquiliser dart in existence that could take effect fast enough to stop a bloke with a shotgun in his mouth and his finger on the trigger from blowing his head off.



Ah now that's another bit I'm not clear on. Was it in his mouth?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Ah now that's another bit I'm not clear on. Was it in his mouth?



Not to my knowledge. Just making the point that if a chap is about to shoot himself, it's unlikely that a tranquiliser would take effect quickly enough to stop him.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you left out the caveat - and they can get away with it.



The IPCC makes sure there's no 'getting away with it'. 

*runs*


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Effective at what though? I doubt there's a tranquiliser dart in existence that could take effect fast enough to stop a bloke with a shotgun in his mouth and his finger on the trigger from blowing his head off.



But a new taser can?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

This is all a bit ill-tempered considering the questions mostly being argued are a bit academic:

i) Was the particular taser used technically 'a bit naughty' (legal/regulatory point)

ii) Did the police poo it up a bit (evidence yet to be released)

About the first I basically don't care and re: the second I think it's too early to call - what we know so far could support either conclusion depending how you fill in the gaps.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Common sense would suggest that there is a set of rules within which they must operate. I doubt that they could sign off on a mini-gun, an AK47 or land mines.



Common sense would suggest it, yes.

Are there any such rules, written or unwritten agricola/d-b?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> But a new taser can?



I think it's a case of it 'could', where's unlikely a tranquiliser dart would act nearly quick enough and live rounds would more likely result in death, hence the taser being considered the better option.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> But a new taser can?



Well I believe that they are immediately incapacitating, perhaps DB or Agricola can advise. So assuming that the perp isn't pointing it at himself with his finger on the trigger, and further assuming that it's use wouldn't create a spasm that caused the weapon to discharge, then yes, I'd guess it would be more effective than a tranquilser.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> And back here again.
> 
> Please explain the literal difference between 'not approved to' and 'not allowed to'.
> 
> ...



I explained it ages ago you fuckwit.  But you have simply ignored it (probably because you realise that it shows you up to be the pig-shit thick cunt that you are) ... but, for the sake of completion, here it is again ...



detective-boy said:


> The _NEED_ for fucking approval you pig-shit thick cunt.
> 
> If there is a NEED for approval, and it is NOT approved then it "should not be used" (i.e. it is being used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority).
> 
> If (as in this case) there is NO need for approval, the fact that it is not approved (fully or partially) is fucking irrelevant as it can be used regardless and so you cannot say it "should not be used" as there is no requirement for any authorisation and so it has NOT been used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I think it's a case of it 'could', where's unlikely a tranquiliser dart would act nearly quick enough and live rounds would more likely result in death, hence the taser being considered the better option.



But it'd be useful to know if these new taser things were faster acting and more effective than tranqs?



Spymaster said:


> Well I believe that they are immediately incapacitating, perhaps DB or Agricola can advise. So assuming that the perp isn't pointing it at himself with his finger on the trigger, and further assuming that it's use wouldn't create a spasm that caused the weapon to discharge, then yes, I'd guess it would be more effective than a tranquilser.



Yes, it'd be interesting to know if they are indeed immediately incapacitating. As you say, probably d-b or agricola will know.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> But it'd be useful to know if these new taser things were faster acting and more effective than tranqs?



They look like it from the videos.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> They look like it from the videos.



There was a video comparing their effect to tranqs? I missed that   I'm getting slow in ma old age, link me up if you have a mo.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Waiting for exhaustion to set in etc?


Something that would in and of itself bring additional risks of either him topping himself (realising that he would be nicked if he fell asleep ... which eventually he wouldn't be able to avoid) or attempting to escape (e.g. diving into river ... which would present dangers and difficulties in responding - the containment was _not_ 100% secure as he had the river at his back) or (and given his threats, perhaps the most likely) deciding to come forward as aggressively as possible to kill / injure as many cops as possible before dying in a blaze of bullets. 

When we eventually find out what actually happened in the last five minutes it will be interesting to see what precipitated the end - there _could_ be lots of combinations of circumstances.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i've wondered the same thing every time i read your posts.


But you see I _do_ know what I'm talking about, no matter what cunts like you think.  It is an indication of your prejudice / stupidity that you make it a matter of pride that you discount anything I say.  If you actually accepted that you don't know everything and listened to things said by others with different knowledge and experience from you you might actually learn something instead of remaining the ignorant cunt that you are.  But you won't.  So you can fuck off and die as you are quite simply a waste of breath.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> There was a video comparing their effect to tranqs? I missed that   I'm getting slow in ma old age, link me up if you have a mo.



No not a video comparision, it just showed that tasers are immediate and fairly safe. 

Whereas tranquiliser darts are not.

ETA: Here you go:



> Tranquilizer darts are not generally included in military or police less-than-lethal arsenals because no drug is yet known that would be quickly and reliably effective on humans without the risks of side effects or an overdose. This as effective use requires an estimate of weight to be able to determine how many darts (if any) can be fired on the human target. Shooting too few would result in no effect whatsoever, while too many can kill the target.[6]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilliser_gun


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But you see I _do_ know what I'm talking about, no matter what cunts like you think.  It is an indication of your prejudice / stupidity that you make it a matter of pride that you discount anything I say.


all too often it's a matter of fact more than a matter of pride.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> irrelevant wank from an irrelevant wanker


This post sums up exactly why _anything_ you post is simply a waste of bandwidth.  You are an ignorant cunt who thinks they know everything when, in fact, they know fuck all.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> He was going to shoot himself. Someone tried to stop him. Failed. Good.



Why is it "good" that he died?  Why do you (and others) have to rave on, calling him "bastard," "cunt" and so forth?

It makes you _just as bad _as him.

This was a tragic situation, involving a mentally ill man who committed terrible acts.  Nothing is achieved by calling him vile names or glorying in his death--except a further brutalization of public discourse of precisely the kind that makes events like these conceivable.

You should be ashamed of yourself talking like this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> But a new taser can?



I'd say so, yes. But if it causes the muscles to spasm and thus causing the trigger to be pulled it renders it a bit pointless. 

I've been trying to find out if it could have caused the trigger to be pulled. It is current that causes muscles to contract and it is more likely to occur using direct current. From what I've read of tasers, they use alternating current and although they are very high voltage, it doesn't say what the current is. Although it won't be massively high as it's current that kills you and can kill instantly at high levels. I'm also not sure if a charge across your chest would cause your finger muscle to contract. Seems a bit unlikely to me.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> one of those tranquiliser rifles


What, those instantaneous ones you mean - the ones that leave absolutely no opportunity for the target to do _anything_ once they hit ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This post sums up exactly why _anything_ you post is simply a waste of bandwidth.  You are an ignorant cunt who thinks they know everything when, in fact, they know fuck all.


michael curtiz put it better.





> My favourite story in Bring On The Empty Horses concerns Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian-born director of Casablanca. Curtiz, whose grasp of English was less than perfect, was an irascible bully, a veritable tyrant on the film set. One day, annoyed at some minor critical comment of Niven's about his directing, he turned on the actor in front of the assembled cast and roared, "You think you know fuck everything and I know fuck nothing. Well, I tell you, I know fuck all!"



http://pundyhouse.blogspot.com/2006/10/fuck-nothing.html


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> ... but they seem to work fast on charging wildlife


No.  They don 't.  Go watch some Attenborough.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something that would in and of itself bring additional risks of either him topping himself (realising that he would be nicked if he fell asleep ... which eventually he wouldn't be able to avoid) or attempting to escape (e.g. diving into river ... which would present dangers and difficulties in responding - the containment was _not_ 100% secure as he had the river at his back) or (and given his threats, perhaps the most likely) deciding to come forward as aggressively as possible to kill / injure as many cops as possible before dying in a blaze of bullets.
> 
> When we eventually find out what actually happened in the last five minutes it will be interesting to see what precipitated the end - there _could_ be lots of combinations of circumstances.



Yep, the last few minutes would be interesting to know.

If the approach had been to properly contain but within a larger area/out of gunshot range & not closing in on him (if that's what happened) ... do you think that the negotiation would have been more effective?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What, those instantaneous ones you mean - the ones that leave absolutely no opportunity for the target to do _anything_ once they hit ...


& i suppose you think the tasers led to a better result.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2010)

By the way, has there been any discussion here about the point of several MPs and newspapers very vocally demanding that Facebook ban groups and posters saying "Raoul Was Right" etc?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Because he wouldn't be able to post anything.


Good point, well made.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something that would in and of itself bring additional risks of either him topping himself (realising that he would be nicked if he fell asleep ... which eventually he wouldn't be able to avoid)



You think he'd be likely to top himself because he was nodding off?



detective-boy said:


> or attempting to escape (e.g. diving into river ... which would present dangers and difficulties in responding - the containment was _not_ 100% secure as he had the river at his back)



Diving into a river with a shotgun?  Seems he'd soon cease to be a threat if he did that and they coud just go and get him . . .



detective-boy said:


> or (and given his threats, perhaps the most likely) deciding to come forward as aggressively as possible to kill / injure as many cops as possible before dying in a blaze of bullets.



He had a very short range weapon and they were armed with much longer range higher-velocity weapons.  If he'd got a shot off it's not likely he'd have injured a copper unless they were stationed way too close.  

I can only think they would have tasered him on purpose if he'd actually made some kind of move.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Cameron gets it right shock horror!
> 
> Mind you, you'd have to be a complete numpty to disagree with him on this occasion.



Wrong.  Very wrong.

Such declarations that the violent mentally ill are "evil" and undeserving of sympathy fuels the law'n'order fanaticism that all good people should be opposing.

You won't be so confident when this kind of discourse is turned against you--and you can be sure that it will be.

Let's call these events what they obviously were: a tragedy.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, has there been any discussion here about the point of several MPs and newspapers very vocally demanding that Facebook ban groups and posters saying "Raoul Was Right" etc?



Yeah.  General consensus seems to on the side of free speech.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No not a video comparision, it just showed that tasers are immediate and fairly safe.
> 
> Whereas tranquiliser darts are not.
> 
> ETA: Here you go:



All tasers?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> All tasers?



all tasers


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sure, Moat was a nasty piece of work, a serial committer of domestic violence for whom i have absolutely fuck all sympathy.



Your proud lack of sympathy for an obviously tormented man makes you look utterly pathetic.

Sorry--you presumably hoped it made you look hard or tough?

It doesn't.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> Yeah.  General consensus seems to on the side of free speech.



Ah. I was assuming that that might be a topic of more general interest, given how it has broader implications for censorship on the basis of public outrage etc. Oh well, back to "wrong type of taser" then I suppose.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, has there been any discussion here about the point of several MPs and newspapers very vocally demanding that Facebook ban groups and posters saying "Raoul Was Right" etc?



Heavens no. It's been circular over semantics for days now. I'm sure we'll get there eventually though.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, has there been any discussion here about the point of several MPs and newspapers very vocally demanding that Facebook ban groups and posters saying "Raoul Was Right" etc?



Yeah I think there was but it kinda got lost in the 2 day beef. 

Dotty iirc said that Cameron trying to direct his sympathy would pretty much have the opposite effect, and I said similar adding veils in France example. I think the upshot was mostly lost in the 2 day beef, but mainly wtf with trying to ban people saying what they think, whether informed or not.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> All tasers?



Well I've seen both the normal and these new tasers demonstrated and they both seem to be immediate, which is, of course, what they are designed to be.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> All tasers?



Electricity in general acts instantly.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yeah I think there was but it kinda got lost in the 2 day beef.



3 days of beef.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

It is interesting to note that his previous mental health issues are being touted as 'why was nothing done' rather than what as recently as five years ago would have been held up as 'ah he was a nutter anyway'

Baby steps.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I've been trying to find out if it could have caused the trigger to be pulled. It is current that causes muscles to contract and it is more likely to occur using direct current. From what I've read of tasers, they use alternating current and although they are very high voltage, it doesn't say what the current is. Although it won't be massively high as it's current that kills you and can kill instantly at high levels. I'm also not sure if a charge across your chest would cause your finger muscle to contract. Seems a bit unlikely to me.



The current is very low and set to oscillate at a rate that paralyses the nervous system.  They're designed to minimise convulsions (though convulsions after the charge is switched off are common) and cause rigidity in the muscles.  

When you hear of people being tasered you often hear about them being carted off in an ambulance afterwards - most of the serious injuries people get are actually due to them falling over and hitting the floor while their body is still rigid.

I think this particular taser would have been chosen for its range and accuracy rather than being less likely to cause a spasm.  I don't know of any tasers specifically geared for dealing with people who have taken themselves hostage.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Well I believe that they are immediately incapacitating, perhaps DB or Agricola can advise.


I would not expect a Taser to stop someone having an opportunity to squeeze a trigger if their finger was on it.  I would expect it to be _possible_ that the Taser would cause an involuntary muscle contraction resulting in the trigger being pulled.  I would _never_ use a Taser on someone with a gun in hand, finger on trigger if they were pointing it at someone else as I could not guarantee that it would stop the threat (and it _may_ increase it).  I would use pairs of shots to the trunk (and even then there may be a discharge of their firearm as a result of their reaction to being hit).

If they were pointing it at their own head I would only use Taser if (a) I could justify using it to intervene to bring the situation to an end and potentially killing the person / causing them to kill themselves or (b) I was satisfied they were in the process of pulling the trigger and shooting themselves and I believed the Taser _may_ prevent them from doing so (but in the clear knowledge that it may not succeed but having no other alternative to even try and prevent them doing so).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I would not expect a Taser to stop someone having an opportunity to squeeze a trigger if their finger was on it.  I would expect it to be _possible_ that the Taser would cause an involuntary muscle contraction resulting in the trigger being pulled.  I would _never_ use a Taser on someone with a gun in hand, finger on trigger if they were pointing it at someone else as I could not guarantee that it would stop the threat (and it _may_ increase it).  I would use pairs of shots to the trunk (and even then there may be a discharge of their firearm as a result of their reaction to being hit).
> 
> If they were pointing it at their own head I would only use Taser if (a) I could justify using it to intervene to bring the situation to an end and potentially killing the person / causing them to kill themselves or (b) I was satisfied they were in the process of pulling the trigger and shooting themselves and I believed the Taser _may_ prevent them from doing so (but in the clear knowledge that it may not succeed but having no other alternative to even try and prevent them doing so).


but we'll never find out.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> But it'd be useful to know if these new taser things were faster acting and more effective than tranqs?


Yes, once into the body they are instantaneous - electricity moves through the body and affects muscles, etc. at the speed of, well, electricity.  There is a very, very limited lead time (measured in fractions of a second, probably a tiny bit more than the incapacitation brought about by a pair of shots to the trunk ... which is _still_ significant, hence the new tactic of using multiple shots to the brain stem in suicide bomber cases which, according to doctors, etc. is the only tactic which _may_ result in immediate incapacitation.

Tranquillisers have to enter the blood stream and move through it to the area of effect (brain or whatever) where they then render the target unconscious.  There is a very significant lead time, measured in seconds or even minutes depending on the actual drug used.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Electricity in general acts instantly.



Depends on distance, where zapped, power etc?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> When you hear of people being tasered you often hear about them being carted off in an ambulance afterwards - most of the serious injuries people get are actually due to them falling over and hitting the floor while their body is still rigid.



Somewhere among all the reports on taser use I've read, it was stated the rules are that anyone tasered in the UK should be examined by a doctor afterwards, which could explain some of the 'being carted off in an ambulance' cases.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 15, 2010)

How appalling it is that public reaction to this case seems to be divided between two equally disgusting extremes:

A. "He is a legend, ACAB etc."

B. "He was scum, how nice it is that he's dead etc."

Revolting.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

so, even d-b seems to be veering towards the idea that it was a daft weapon to use.

i bet whoever authorised it is praying it was merely useless in this case, rather than a specific cause of Moats death!


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It is interesting to note that his previous mental health issues are being touted as 'why was nothing done' rather than what as recently as five years ago would have been held up as 'ah he was a nutter anyway'
> 
> Baby steps.



I'm still a bit confused about the steroid effect. He ws only recently released, right? So how come he was still (allegedly) all roided up?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> If the approach had been to properly contain but within a larger area/out of gunshot range & not closing in on him (if that's what happened) ... do you think that the negotiation would have been more effective?


Negotiatoion was what they were doing.  If they decided to intervene they will have to be able to justify that for some reason (I have mentioned several possibilities).  Perhaps the most likely is that the negotiation was falling apart and his mental state was degenerating and the negotiatiors and any psychologists, etc. advising them advised that intervention had now become a more likely option to result in a non-fatal end.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Why is it "good" that he died?  Why do you (and others) have to rave on, calling him "bastard," "cunt" and so forth?



Well given that my preference would have been for him to hang after due process, I see this as simply shortening the the procedure which is good, imo.

There also seems to be little doubt that Moat was a right nasty bastard before the shootings. Hence "cunt".



> It makes you _just as bad _as him.



I disagree that wishing him death makes me as bad as a man who murdered a man and maimed two other people, assaulted children and abused women, but if it does, I'll live with it. 



> You should be ashamed of yourself talking like this



I'll live with that too.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

ime being in a low cat jail is no impediment to getting your drugs of choice. Understandably speed was never on the menu cos who the fuck wants to bounce of cell walls for 22 hours.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> General consensus seems to on the side of free speech.


If they stopped cunts posting shite on the internet it'd be curtains for Urban ...


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> but we'll never find out.



I suspect you're right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If they stopped cunts posting shite on the internet it'd be curtains for Urban ...


we'd be short one ex-cop straightaway


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If they stopped drama queens posting shite on the internet it'd be curtains for Urban ...


.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I'm still a bit confused about the steroid effect. He ws only recently released, right? So how come he was still (allegedly) all roided up?



Easy enough to get the stuff on the inside.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Somewhere among all the reports on taser use I've read, it was stated the rules are that anyone tasered in the UK should be examined by a doctor afterwards, which could explain some of the 'being carted off in an ambulance' cases.



Yes, they're still monitoring the effects.  My point was that injuries are very common though and they are often down to falling rather than anything to do with the electric shock applied.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Well given that my preference would have been for him to hang after due process,...



oh dont get the eejit started, he's just baiting for a trolling, and we already have you & the rabbit fucker for that.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> so, even d-b seems to be veering towards the idea that it was a daft weapon to use.



Selected reading again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Selected reading again.


select*ive* reading, i think you'll find


----------



## likesfish (Jul 15, 2010)

think cops were out of options if they just watched him top himself everybody would be on there case.
 anathesia is actually quite hard thats why they pay docs big wages   other wise cops would just be shooting people with syringes of morphine

 would make life so much easier for all concerned mow down a demo with a smack machine gun whos going to complain


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> so, even d-b seems to be veering towards the idea that it was a daft weapon to use.


You just can't help yourself lying and misrepresenting can you?  

I have made _no_ comment on whether it's use was appropriate or not - like you lot I have nowhere near enough information to know but, unlike you lot, I refuse to guess / assume / pander to my prejudices.  What I have acknowledged is that it's use, in the situation as we know it to be, had risks.  Those risks _may_ or _may not_ have been justifiable.  There would have been a very limited set of alternatives - basically do nothing or shoot him with real bullets.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Selected reading again.



do tell me why?  Note what was _actually_ written - ie not just what your febrile imagination saw.  Also, look up the meaning of the word 'veering' before commenting.

Or dont bother, as nothing you have said on this thread has been of any value.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You just can't help yourself lying and misrepresenting can you?
> 
> I have made _no_ comment on whether it's use was appropriate or not - like you lot I have nowhere near enough information to know but, unlike you lot, I refuse to guess / assume / pander to my prejudices.  What I have acknowledged is that it's use, in the situation as we know it to be, had risks.  Those risks _may_ or _may not_ have been justifiable.  There would have been a very limited set of alternatives - basically do nothing or shoot him with real bullets.



Another dumbo who can't read through his mist of hatred.  

See post to the rabbit fucker


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Negotiatoion was what they were doing.  If they decided to intervene they will have to be able to justify that for some reason (I have mentioned several possibilities).  Perhaps the most likely is that the negotiation was falling apart and his mental state was degenerating and the negotiatiors and any psychologists, etc. advising them advised that intervention had now become a more likely option to result in a non-fatal end.



I'm just curious about the intervention aspect. If the negotiation aspect was falling apart, why intervene at all? As opposed to drawing back, closing off possible escape routes, and leaving him some food/water so he wasn't entirely driven to suicide/suicide+taking out others.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yeah I think there was but it kinda got lost in the 2 day beef.
> 
> Dotty iirc said that Cameron trying to direct his sympathy would pretty much have the opposite effect, and I said similar adding veils in France example. I think the upshot was mostly lost in the 2 day beef, but mainly wtf with trying to ban people saying what they think, whether informed or not.



It's just that it seems to be pretty significant. We have not only MPs saying publicly that it should be taken down - not giving any legal reasons, just because - but also a lot of media coverage implying that Facebook is being somehow really controversial by not doing so and that there is some question they need to address (e.g.). Much as I hate Facebook, mostly because I have to work with their API, their response was perfectly reasonable:


> "People are entitled to express their views on Facebook as long as their comments do not violate our terms."
> 
> "In this case, although the page and its contents are clearly distasteful to some, users are expressing how they feel about a public figure, or in the comments relating to the police, a public institution, so it is within the terms of use of the site as it is an expression of personal opinion."


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Depends on distance, where zapped, power etc?



Well it would have to be some distance and some lack of power to notice a difference. As in it would be out of range before distance became an issue and if power was an issue it would be a design flaw.

But a well padded person would be harder to zap for sure.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> do tell me why?  Note what was _actually_ written - ie not just what your febrile imagination saw.  Also, look up the meaning of the word 'veering' before commenting.
> 
> Or dont bother, as nothing you have said on this thread has been of any value.



See post 2600, twat.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't know what a good weapon to use is when someone has a gun to their head and seems to be about to shoot but I'd guess a taser might be the only thing with even an outside chance of stopping them non-lethally.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> so, even d-b seems to be veering towards the idea that it was a daft weapon to use.



Really? Where did he say that then you fucking liar?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> See post 2600, twat.



yet more proof of what I have been saying


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2010)

8ball said:


> I don't know what a good weapon to use is when someone has a gun to their head and seems to be about to shoot but I'd guess a taser might be the only thing with even an outside chance of stopping them non-lethally.



A big canister of genetically-engineered bees, with stings that can paralyse within fractions of a second.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really? Where did he say that then you fucking liar?



three out of three


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A big canister of genetically-engineered bees, with stings that can paralyse within fractions of a second.



And genetically engineered bees obv.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> How serious though? They're allowed to use whatever weapons/implements they like as long as the need justifies it (if I've understood it correctly).



They are, but it would be hard to justify financially or legally why a force has a stock of non-approved weapons hanging about the place - anyone who was injured with one (which is at least as likely to be a cop messing about in training) would have quite strong grounds to question why non-approved weapons or equipment are being stockpiled, especially if they have gone all the way through the evaulation process.  

One imagines there would be more justification if something that was not approved was used in a specific incident, especially if (as with this) it offered a capability that was not otherwise available to the police, and if it could lead to a safer outcome.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You just can't help yourself lying and misrepresenting can you?
> 
> I have made _no_ comment on whether it's use was appropriate or not - like you lot I have nowhere near enough information to know .....



No, no, Bellend knows exactly what happened. It's been "widely reported" you see!


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A big canister of genetically-engineered bees, with stings that can paralyse within fractions of a second.



no, a naked woman running past, Benny Hill style, and someone with big saucepan sneaking up behind him


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 15, 2010)

Tasering is something to be done only if they were confident they could incapacitate and control the guy.

Otherwise surely the longer the standoff went on, the more likely that he would give himself up? I find this puzzling.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Easy enough to get the stuff on the inside.



Yes, I realise that. So they had a roided individual, having written a 49ish page letter of threats and just waved him off? I find that hard to accept as being sensible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yes, I realise that. So they had a roided individual, having written a 49ish page letter of threats and just waved him off? I find that hard to accept as being sensible.


it _was_ the police. so it is a bit more understandable.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Tasering is something to be done only if they were confident they could incapacitate and control the guy.
> 
> Otherwise surely the longer the standoff went on, the more likely that he would give himself up? I find this puzzling.



Why would he be more likely to give himself up? 

He had 6 days to do that.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 15, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> . . .  surely the longer the standoff went on, the more likely that he would give himself up? I find this puzzling.



I think so too.  



Jazzz said:


> Tasering is something to be done only if they were confident they could incapacitate and control the guy.



Unless it was either a really last-ditch thing or done in self-defence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Why would he be more likely to give himself up?
> 
> He had 6 days to do that.


the previous six days he wasn't surrounded by a load of cops, though, was he?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Why would he be more likely to give himself up?
> 
> He had 6 days to do that.



he wasnt surrounded with no chance of escape for six days was he?


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's just that it seems to be pretty significant. We have not only MPs saying publicly that it should be taken down - not giving any legal reasons, just because - but also a lot of media coverage implying that Facebook is being somehow really controversial by not doing so and that there is some question they need to address (e.g.). Much as I hate Facebook, mostly because I have to work with their API, their response was perfectly reasonable:



It's a vote thing, I suppose. I presume that the politicos and media are attempting to appeal to those folk that still buy hard copies of newspapers and vote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> he wasnt surrounded with no chance of escape for six days was he?



little sir echo


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Otherwise surely the longer the standoff went on, the more likely that he would give himself up?



That doesn't necessary follow at all.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> little sir echo



pardon?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> pardon?



you're welcome


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

OK, he had 6 hours to give himself up, he didn't.

The reports are his state of mind was getting worst, he had stated time and again he wouldn't be taken, the odds are the police acted on advice from experts far better trained then any of us.

If they didn't that's another matter, but I don't think you can assume that any more time would have resulted in him giving himself up.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> They are, but it would be hard to justify financially or legally why a force has a stock of non-approved weapons hanging about the place - anyone who was injured with one (which is at least as likely to be a cop messing about in training) would have quite strong grounds to question why non-approved weapons or equipment are being stockpiled, especially if they have gone all the way through the evaulation process.
> 
> One imagines there would be more justification if something that was not approved was used in a specific incident, especially if (as with this) it offered a capability that was not otherwise available to the police, and if it could lead to a safer outcome.



So this goes back to my q of written/unwritten rules? The unwritten rule is that for unapproved weapons (like this one) there's no stockpiling but a fastrack supply established?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> OK, he had 6 hours to give himself up, he didn't.
> 
> The reports are his state of mind was getting worst, he had stated time and again he wouldn't be taken, the odds are the police acted on advice from experts far better trained then any of us.
> 
> If they didn't that's another matter, but I don't think you can assume that any more time would have resulted in him giving himself up.


yeh cos once someone's not given themselves up after six hours they deserve to be tasered, isn't it. 

wasn't the man in the hackney xmas siege negotiated with for somewhat longer?


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it _was_ the police. so it is a bit more understandable.



Well it was the screws in the first instance?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A big canister of genetically-engineered bees, with stings that can paralyse within fractions of a second.



i was thinking drop a net over him but gazza should really be involved so drop gazza on him


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos once someone's not given themselves up after six hours they deserve to be tasered, isn't it.
> 
> wasn't the man in the hackney xmas siege negotiated with for somewhat longer?



You could always try to read the rest of my post.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> So this goes back to my q of written/unwritten rules? The unwritten rule is that for unapproved weapons (like this one) there's no stockpiling but a fastrack supply established?



I would imagine so, yes.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> OK, he had 6 hours to give himself up, he didn't.
> 
> The reports are his state of mind was getting worst, he had stated time and again he wouldn't be taken, the odds are the police acted on advice from experts far better trained then any of us.
> 
> If they didn't that's another matter, but I don't think you can assume that any more time would have resulted in him giving himself up.



I don't think you can assume he wouldn't have done, either.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

Look people. Raoul Moat is dead and gone and no amount of bickering about stun guns is ever going to bring him back.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> I would imagine so, yes.



That can be both disconcerting and reassuring, depending on the weaponry.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I don't think you can assume he wouldn't have done, either.



Err, I am not.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Look people. Raoul Moat is dead and gone and no amount of bickering about stun guns is ever going to bring him back.


I don't have much interest in Raoul as an individual. But I've lots of interest in how screws, cops, cop suppliers and cop regulators work. For good or for bad.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Err, I am not.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos once someone's not given themselves up after six hours they deserve to be tasered, isn't it.



Anyone who's shot three people killing one and maiming two deserves to be tasered and a lot more besides!

But this is a ridiculous viewpoint. We have no idea for certain if he was tasered, why he was tasered, or if the tasering contributed to him shooting himself. Apart from Bellend that is, cause it's been widely reported you see. 

I think the most likely scenario is that something happened to escalate the threat he posed to himself or others so the decision was taken to whack him. I may be wrong but it's my position until evidence is presented to the the contrary.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> Another dumbo who can't read through his mist of hatred.


So now you're telling me that *YOU* know what I posted better than *I* know what I posted ... 

And you claim that _I_ can't read through my mist of hatred ...  

(But thank you for reminding me of why I gave up on this place last time ...)


----------



## ajk (Jul 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh cos once someone's not given themselves up after six hours they deserve to be tasered, isn't it.
> 
> wasn't the man in the hackney xmas siege negotiated with for somewhat longer?



Probably something to do with Moat being surrounded and in a field, whereas Hall was, you know, inside a building.  Difficult to taser through a wall.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So now you're telling me that *YOU* know what I posted better than *I* know what I posted ...



I was going to post that.


----------



## ajk (Jul 15, 2010)

Also, regarding the "deserve to be tasered", I'd say an armed man who has already shot three people probably does deserve to be tasered, horrible fascist that I am.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I'm just curious about the intervention aspect. If the negotiation aspect was falling apart, why intervene at all? As opposed to drawing back, closing off possible escape routes, and leaving him some food/water so he wasn't entirely driven to suicide/suicide+taking out others.


As I said there _may_ have been issues about the security of the containment (due to the river at his back), and pulling back the cordon would certainly reduce the ability to maintain the containment.

But, as I said, the main issue would be that at some point he would inevitably realise he would fall asleep and they police would take him alive (which I suspect he would find very difficult to justify to his mates in view of his "I'm going out in a blaze of glory" bullshit) ... and so something bad (him killing himself or attempting to kill / injure police officers) would be increasingly likely.  Allowing the situation to go in those directions would lead to problems.  Standing by and allowing himself to kill himself when there was an opportunity (however slight) to prevent him from doing so would be likely to lead to criticism (and possible legal action - Art 2 Human Rights Act gives police a duty to do all that is practicable to try and protect life as well as not to take it unless justifiable - the positive duty of the HRA which operates alongside the negative duty) indefensible.  Allowing the situation to develop to the point where he went for it would be a breach of health and safety legislation and if any officers were injured would undoubtedly lead to criticism and a claim for damages.  If it resulted in his being shot dead it could also be argued to have been a negative breach of his Art.2 rights (by permitting the stuation to develop to the point where he had to be killed).

Attempting intervention _could_ be a justifiable option.  It remains to be seen whether that is what happened and, if so, on what basis it was decided upon.  And it will be for the IPCC / CPS / Court / Inquest to decide whether or not criticism or criminal proceedings are justified against either the individual officers or those in command of the operational strategy or both.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> You claimed the IPCC said something which they have not said.  You then claim that you "rephrased" the IPCC statement, albeit you have done it to such a point that it has a meaning which the IPCC would never have given it because they - unlike you (although you agreed with cesare, who actually said the police were allowed to use it) - actually understand the issues at hand.  This is either a mistake, or a lie, and given that you have repeatedly defended it suggests that it was not a mistake.



You're either being very dishonest or very silly. The Police appear to be allowed to use them for exactly the same reason they could have used bricks lying about the place - if they can justify the use and if the force was reasonable. You continually conflate this with a specific direction that they were allowed to use these tasers specifically. There is no evidence for this claim of yours.





agricola said:


> Wrong again.



South London has clearly turned you into a right cunt then. I bet you don't even support Wrexham.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So now you're telling me that *YOU* know what I posted better than *I* know what I posted ...
> 
> And you claim that _I_ can't read through my mist of hatred ...
> 
> (But thank you for reminding me of why I gave up on this place last time ...)



yup, thats right.  You ruled out use of such a weapon in a significant number of instances, and stated very clearly that there were only a limited number of instances in which you would use it.  Now, none of us knows the precise circumstances in those final seconds yet (despite what the inverterate liar spyfool above claims) but, given the very limited number of circumstances in which you would have used the weapon you _appear_ to be _veering_ towards the view that it was dubious in this instance. Shouldnt be controversial to anyone with more than a thirteenth of a brain.

But please do feel free to fuck off again.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I was going to post that.



Liar


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> As I said earlier I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway



They didn't. The HO didn't give any direction allowing the use of the taser in this specific case. By your own argument, they didn't. The DCC (or ACC, grass seemed to get a bit confused) took the decision.

It is ironic that you attempt to jump on every minor point with others yet you keep peddling the most blatant half-truths and made-up shit.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> _Exactly_ the same logic is applied to surgeons you fuckwit.
> 
> New kit / technique / drug developed ... tested in lab / scientific / non-operational situation ... if no obvious dangers / issues arise it moves on to be tested on real people in real operational situations on a trial basis (usually in a restricted area / for a restricted time) ... effectiveness is assessed closely and performance is evaluated ... if everything appears OK it is released for general use by all.
> 
> (And, at the earlier stages, if another surgeon is faced with an unusual situation where standard techniques, etc. are not going to work they sometimes give it a go with the new one, even if it's not yet made it's way all the way through the process)



Fuck off.

Are you a surgeon now too?

Surgeons have to go through thousands of hours of additional training on every change, modification or new surgery technique before they can use them on patients. I know; I bothered to check with a surgeon.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 15, 2010)

did they close the facebook group? 

anyone know?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes thank you.  I know (not that I'm a "plastic plod", but speaking as a former police Firearms Tactical Advisor and Silver Commander).  And if you had given the slightest indication of having an IQ above that of an amoeba I'd happily tell you.  But you don't.  So I won't.  You'll only (a) ignore it if it doesn't fit your prejudices or (b) distort it.



Aha - you were a silver commander? Lol. I had to go to a number of meetings with a silver commander a year or so back, about a demo. He was a right clueless cunt too. I hope it was you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> You ruled out use of such a weapon in a significant number of instances, and stated very clearly that there were only a limited number of instances in which you would use it. Now, none of us knows the precise circumstances in those final seconds yet ...... but, given the very limited number of circumstances in which you would have used the weapon *you appear to be veering towards the view that it was dubious in this instance.*


 

Only to a to a total fucking moron. 

The instances that he ruled out still leave many in which he *would* have used the device. 

You thick cunt.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Old Christ, Zippy and Bungle are back. 



B0B2oo9 said:


> did they close the facebook group?
> 
> anyone know?



It was the person that set it up that took it down, rather than Facebook, not sure of the reasoning.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> did they close the facebook group?
> 
> anyone know?



Apparently the founder closed it down, Facebook didn't. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/15/raoul-moat-facebook-page-deleted


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> did they close the facebook group?
> 
> anyone know?



the woman who set it up has shut it down, tho 'she may put it back up again'


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I explained it ages ago you fuckwit.  But you have simply ignored it (probably because you realise that it shows you up to be the pig-shit thick cunt that you are) ... but, for the sake of completion, here it is again ...



Spectacularly missing the point again.

Have you only just discovered the word cunt by any chance? You cunt.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Only to a to a total fucking moron.
> 
> The instances that he ruled out still leave many in which he *would* have used the device.
> 
> You thick cunt.



he specified those circumstances, there were very few of them.  as you would haved been able to tell if you could actually read


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 15, 2010)

Cheers


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> ... but, given the very limited number of circumstances in which you would have used the weapon you _appear_ to be _veering_ towards the view that it was dubious in this instance. Shouldnt be controversial to anyone with more than a thirteenth of a brain.


I can't believe that anyone with even as much fucking brain as an amoeba would try and argue that their perception of what someone posted was more accurate than what that person explained that they meant ...  

This place has got infinitely fucking worse for up-their-own-arses, know-it-all twats ...


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I said there _may_ have been issues about the security of the containment (due to the river at his back), and pulling back the cordon would certainly reduce the ability to maintain the containment.
> 
> But, as I said, the main issue would be that at some point he would inevitably realise he would fall asleep and they police would take him alive (which I suspect he would find very difficult to justify to his mates in view of his "I'm going out in a blaze of glory" bullshit) ... and so something bad (him killing himself or attempting to kill / injure police officers) would be increasingly likely.  Allowing the situation to go in those directions would lead to problems.  Standing by and allowing himself to kill himself when there was an opportunity (however slight) to prevent him from doing so would be likely to lead to criticism (and possible legal action - Art 2 Human Rights Act gives police a duty to do all that is practicable to try and protect life as well as not to take it unless justifiable - the positive duty of the HRA which operates alongside the negative duty) indefensible.  Allowing the situation to develop to the point where he went for it would be a breach of health and safety legislation and if any officers were injured would undoubtedly lead to criticism and a claim for damages.  If it resulted in his being shot dead it could also be argued to have been a negative breach of his Art.2 rights (by permitting the stuation to develop to the point where he had to be killed).
> 
> Attempting intervention _could_ be a justifiable option.  It remains to be seen whether that is what happened and, if so, on what basis it was decided upon.  And it will be for the IPCC / CPS / Court / Inquest to decide whether or not criticism or criminal proceedings are justified against either the individual officers or those in command of the operational strategy or both.



Well it might sound a bit harsh, but I can't really muster up any real grief about the outcome (sorry phil, that's not saying that I don't have any sympathy for his plight) but the issue for me is about how the prison/cops thing works. 

I perceive it as a downfall in in the prison/screws handover to the outside world with no-one there to take the ball. Then his spree, ending up in him dying, then loads of fluster about how he met his death.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> he specified those circumstances, there were very few of them.  as you would haved been able to tell if you could actually read



So, how comes only you has come to this conclusion, Zippy?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I know; I bothered to check with a surgeon.


Seeing as you've clearly got time on your hands perhaps you'd like to address the point you've been ignoring for ages ...

It's over here look ...



detective-boy said:


> I explained it ages ago you fuckwit.  But you have simply ignored it (probably because you realise that it shows you up to be the pig-shit thick cunt that you are) ... but, for the sake of completion, here it is again ...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

belboid said:


> he specified those circumstances, there were very few of them.



He also said that he didn't know if one of them applied in this case, which means he hasn't 'veered' anywhere. Unlike you he's making no assumptions, given the lack of available evidence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can't believe that anyone with even as much fucking brain as an amoeba would try and argue that their perception of what someone posted was more accurate than what that person explained that they meant ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Seeing as you've clearly got time on your hands perhaps you'd like to address the point you've been ignoring for ages ...



What point is that copper?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Seeing as you've clearly got time on your hands perhaps you'd like to address the point you've been ignoring for ages ...
> 
> It's over here look ...



There's no point there at all. Just a load of pig shit thick, cunt, blah blah.

That you managed to rise through the ranks to the dizzy heights of silver commander (lol) for demos or whatever tells us everything we need to know about the calibre of the OB.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


>



I'm going to beat you around the head with one of those irritating fucking smilies one day, cunty simon


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He was a right clueless cunt too. I hope it was you.


Clearly nowhere near as clueless as you ... 

Silver commander is a command role.  It applies in a wide range of contexts.  We are talking about the command of a firearms operation.  You would have been talking about a public order operation.  They are different.

And I left eight years ago .. so it was hardly likely to be me is it?  

Clueless ... you ... with your reputation ... surely not!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm going to beat you around the head with one of those irritating fucking smilies one day, cunty simon



The job's yours if you want it!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm going to beat you around the head with one of those irritating fucking smilies one day, cunty simon



I doubt you'll be able to reach his head, Bungle.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Clearly nowhere near as clueless as you ...
> 
> Silver commander is a command role.  It applies in a wide range of contexts.  We are talking about the command of a firearms operation.  You would have been talking about a public order operation.  They are different.
> 
> ...



Did they give you a silver star?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Have you only just discovered the word cunt by any chance? You cunt.


No.  I've used it to spectacular effect for years. It is particularly impactive on cunts who, deep down, actually know they are cunts.  Like you, it would appear!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I doubt you'll be able to reach his head, Bungle.



I should imagine I would be able to reach his head, being 6.4 and all.

Never mind eh.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  I've used it to spectacular effect for years. It is particularly impactive on cunts who, deep down, actually know they are cunts.  Like you, it would appear!



Silver commander lol.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> I perceive it as a downfall in in the prison/screws handover to the outside world with no-one there to take the ball.


The issue there is exactly what was in the prison information.  Was it something specific and new?  Or was it simply something along the lines of "There's a risk he'll attack his missus again" (in which case they'd hardly be telling the police anything they didn't already know).

And then asking what (if anything) could be done about that information.  It is not possible to simply keep someone inside - once the committment warrant runs out they are let out, end of.  It may or may not be possible to put in place some form of restriction on movements ... but whether he would take any notice of it would be debatable.  It may be appropriate to warn her ... but it sounds like she knew perfectly well that he was _some_ risk anyway.  It would probably not be possible to put in place any physical protection, even if she was willing to accept it.

Unless there was _specific_ information about a threat to kill, about a threat to obtain / use firearms or anything in similar vein, it is likely that absolutely no action would be merited by the prison information.  

The fact that it appears to have been sent out as a matter of routine (arriving with the police a day or two after his release) suggests to me that it was an entirely routine communication.  Hundreds, probably thousands, of such communications are received by the police every week (from other agencies as well as prisons).


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Hi Ho Silver Commander


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They didn't. The HO didn't give any direction allowing the use of the taser in this specific case. By your own argument, they didn't. The DCC (or ACC, grass seemed to get a bit confused) took the decision.



Do you actually read this shite before you post it?  

You do understand that there is an evaluation process going on at the HOSDB in respect of this piece of equipment?  That this process may or may not result in it being approved of for police use by the Home Office?  Everyone else seems to have managed to understand this....


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> There's no point there at all.


Yes, there is.

This one:




			
				detectve-boy fucking ages ago ... said:
			
		

> If there is a NEED for approval, and it is NOT approved then it "should not be used" (i.e. it is being used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority).
> 
> If (as in this case) there is NO need for approval, the fact that it is not approved (fully or partially) is fucking irrelevant as it can be used regardless and so you cannot say it "should not be used" as there is no requirement for any authorisation and so it has NOT been used wrongly / unlawfully / in excess of authority.



The one which you _cannot_ answer without accepting you're a 24 carat prick and which you are therefore ignoring ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm going to beat you around the head with one of those irritating fucking smilies one day, cunty simon


* Reports threat to police immediately *

* Complains to IPCC that police haven't already detained the prick and / or provided 24-7 armed protection for "cunty simon" *

(what was that about pissing about with usernames in the FAQ again ...)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Do you actually read this shite before you post it?
> 
> You do understand that there is an evaluation process going on at the HOSDB in respect of this piece of equipment?  That this process may or may not result in it being approved of for police use by the Home Office?  Everyone else seems to have managed to understand this....



But that doesn't change the fact that there was no specific direction given by the HO to NHP with regard to the taser. Yet you posted this:



> As I said earlier I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway



The HO didn't 'allow' forces to use it, for Moat or for anybody else.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The one which you _cannot_ answer without accepting you're a 24 carat prick and which you are therefore ignoring ...



Well yes, but he has admitted it in his reply to Cesare's summing-up a few pages back.  Fuck knows why he is arguing the point still.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> ... being 6.4 and all.


I must admit to being surprised ... I'd have thought your IQ would be significantly lower than that ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The HO didn't 'allow' forces to use it, for Moat or for anybody else.



You are an absolute idiot.  Please read the post again, understand that it refers to the ongoing evaluation into the XRep taser (edit: and whether it would have been approved if the Moat incident had not taken place), and then fuck off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes, there is.
> 
> This one:
> 
> ...



Not the one you originally quoted then, which was this:



> I explained it ages ago you fuckwit. But you have simply ignored it (probably because you realise that it shows you up to be the pig-shit thick cunt that you are) ... but, for the sake of completion, here it is again ...



Which evidently lacks any point whatsoever.

You are still (willfully) missing the point, btw.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Silver commander lol.


Yeah mate.  Let's rip the piss about anyone actually having any knowledge or experience about anything.  Ignorance is king!  

Fucking loser.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah mate.  Let's rip the piss about anyone actually having any knowledge or experience about anything.  Ignorance is king!
> 
> Fucking loser.



Silver commander lol.

Did you get them to call you The Commander?

I bet you played Ride of the Valkyries in your car on the way in to work.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You are still (willfully) missing the point, btw.


Fuck off with the wriggling.  Just answer the fucking point, eh?  And apologise for talking shite for about a million fucking pages.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Silver commander lol.


You've done that one before ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> You are an absolute idiot.  Please read the post again, understand that it refers to the ongoing evaluation into the XRep taser (edit: and whether it would have been approved if the Moat incident had not taken place), and then fuck off.



I've read it again. Here it is:



> As I said earlier I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway



They didn't allow forces to use it for Moat. The testing predates Moat by a long way. So either you are:

a) claiming the HO gave a specific direction allowing NHP to use it against Moat (they didn't), or

b) unable to actually articulate what the fuck you mean


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You've done that one before ...



Silver commander lol.

Was the Gold Commander gentle with you?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Silver commander lol.
> 
> Was the Gold Commander gentle with you?



Bit of a homophobe, eh? Twat.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fuck off with the wriggling.  Just answer the fucking point, eh?  And apologise for talking shite for about a million fucking pages.



I still don't get the point you are trying to make tbh.

It comes down to this - I paraphrased 'not approved' to 'not allowed'. Agricola accused me of lying. For this claim to hold any water, Agricola will need to demonstrate that to a layman there is any significant literal difference between the two terms. He hasn't been able to, mainly because there is no literal difference. I'm still awaiting his apology, btw.

Did they let you keep the armband, Mr Commander Sir?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Bit of a homophobe, eh? Twat.



Fuck off you knob. You're reading something into it that really wasn't there.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off you knob. You're reading something into it that really wasn't there.



What exactly did you mean by your comment then? Sounded a bit homophobic to me. Explain yourself now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> What exactly did you mean by your comment then? Sounded a bit homophobic to me. Explain yourself now.



The Gold Commander controls the op from a central base. Work it out for yourself you thick shite.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The Gold Commander controls the op from a central base. Work it out for yourself you thick shite.



Not convinced. Still, you could be just projecting so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. This time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It comes down to this - I paraphrased 'not approved' to 'not allowed'. Agricola accused me of lying. For this claim to hold any water, Agricola will need to demonstrate that to a layman there is any significant literal difference between the two terms. He hasn't been able to ....



He has. So has DB, so have I and so have others.

Why are you persisting with this?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Not convinced. Still, you could be just projecting so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. This time.



Look, the gold commander is the boss. The silver commander is the boss on the ground but still answers to the gold commander. Ergo, an incompetent like DB as silver commander would have to answer to his boss when he inevitably fucked up. It was nothing more than that. Fuck knows what you read into it. Who knew the word gentle had such homophobic connotations.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> He has. So has DB, so have I and so have others.
> 
> Why are you persisting with this?



No, he hasn't, and you haven't. You have talked at end about specific procedures that a layman would not know about. None of that proves any dishonesty in my words.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The issue there is exactly what was in the prison information.  Was it something specific and new?  Or was it simply something along the lines of "There's a risk he'll attack his missus again" (in which case they'd hardly be telling the police anything they didn't already know).
> 
> And then asking what (if anything) could be done about that information.  It is not possible to simply keep someone inside - once the committment warrant runs out they are let out, end of.  It may or may not be possible to put in place some form of restriction on movements ... but whether he would take any notice of it would be debatable.  It may be appropriate to warn her ... but it sounds like she knew perfectly well that he was _some_ risk anyway.  It would probably not be possible to put in place any physical protection, even if she was willing to accept it.
> 
> ...



It's allegedly a fairly long letter though? I'm not sure how frequent/usual big letters are ... do they get read? (To the best of your knowledge).


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've read it again.



Another lie, or at least you have managed to ignore as much of it as is required to continue peddling your wilful ignorance.  I will break it down in as easy a way as possible, though given your trolling / fuckwittedness so far it almost certainly will not be enough:




			
				agricola said:
			
		

> As I said earlier



This refers to Post #2334.  You might want to read it.




			
				agricola said:
			
		

> I would be amazed if, but for Moat, the Home Office would have allowed forces to use it anyway



This part clearly says, however you want to paraphrase / reinterpret it, that if the Moat incident had not happened then the Home Office would not have allowed police forces to use it.  Admittedly, I should have said _"once it had completed its evaluation process"_ before _"anyway"_, but that is error was down to me once again making the mistake of believing that one poster here was not a lying twat who has made a habit of rephrasing whatever he wants to in order to make a point.




			
				Proper Tidy said:
			
		

> a) claiming the HO gave a specific direction allowing NHP to use it against Moat (they didn't), or



More rephrasing is going on, it seems.  Noone who read that sentence would have assumed that it meant Northumbria (sorry, _Northumberland_) Police got a specific direction allowing them to use it.  Indeed, noone who has actually read the relevant parts of this thread would assume that, because they would know that Northumbria (sorry again) would not need a specific direction from them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, he hasn't, and you haven't. You have talked at end about specific procedures that a layman would not know about. None of that proves any dishonesty in my words.



Ok. You said that the IPCC said that the use of the weapon was not allowed. 

Can we agree on this?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> It's allegedly a fairly long letter though? I'm not sure how frequent/usual big letters are ... do they get read? (To the best of your knowledge).



Wasn't the long letter written, or at least discovered, after the shootings?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Another lie, or at least you have managed to ignore as much of it as is required to continue peddling your wilful ignorance.  I will break it down in as easy a way as possible, though given your trolling / fuckwittedness so far it almost certainly will not be enough:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That still makes no sense.

This bit:



> This part clearly says, however you want to paraphrase / reinterpret it, that if the Moat incident had not happened then the Home Office would not have allowed police forces to use it.



But the HO didn't allow the Police to use it for Moat, either. Indeed, it has been a central tenet of your case that they didn't need HO approval. The HO's position hasn't changed - the new taser is still undergoing scientific testing and is therefore not HO approved - and this would be the same with or without Moat.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I still don't get the point you are trying to make tbh.
> 
> It comes down to this - I paraphrased 'not approved' to 'not allowed'. Agricola accused me of lying. For this claim to hold any water, Agricola will need to demonstrate that to a layman there is any significant literal difference between the two terms. He hasn't been able to, mainly because there is no literal difference. I'm still awaiting his apology, btw.
> 
> Did they let you keep the armband, Mr Commander Sir?



The mad thing is that this post itself is a lie.  You did not paraphrase "not approved" to "not allowed".  You said:



> Btw, your link says nothing about it being trialled by Northumberland Police specifically, and the IPCC are saying it should not have been used.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. You said that the IPCC said that the use of the weapon was not allowed.
> 
> Can we agree on this?



Yes. My words are in black and white for all to see. I don't deny that this isn't correct in the context; I dispute, however, that this was dishonest on my part. It wasn't, it was a perfectly understandable and reasonable re-interpretation in layman's terms. Yet Agricola continually called me a liar for it. It quite clearly was not a lie.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> The mad thing is that this post itself is a lie.  You did not paraphrase "not approved" to "not allowed".  You said:



So what is the difference between 'should not have been used' and 'not allowed'?

There isn't a difference, is there? You pedantic chester bastard.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That still makes no sense.



The only person it makes no sense to is you.  I would suggest that the fault lies there, especially given the lack of comprehension you have displayed over the past ten or twenty pages of what has become a very annoying thread.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Yes. My words are in black and white for all to see. I don't deny that this isn't correct in the context; I dispute, however, that this was dishonest on my part. It wasn't, it was a perfectly understandable and reasonable re-interpretation in layman's terms. Yet Agricola continually called me a liar for it. It quite clearly was not a lie.



Thats the worst apology I have ever read on these forums.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> The only person it makes no sense to is you.  I would suggest that the fault lies there, especially given the lack of comprehension you have displayed over the past ten or twenty pages of what has become a very annoying thread.



No, it just doesn't make any sense. You are quite clearly saying that _if it were not for Moat_ then the HO would not have approved it for use. But they didn't approve it for use, and whether it gets approved or not will not have anything to do with the Moat case.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats the worst apology I have ever read on these forums.



That is because it isn't an apology. When you want to apologise for calling me a liar, feel free.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> .... it was a perfectly understandable and reasonable re-interpretation in layman's terms .....



But it wasn't. It was an interpretation that altered the meaning to the complete opposite of what was the case. 

You said they said it wasn't allowed when what they actually said, very clearly, was that it was allowed.

Do you not see how this could be viewed as dishonest?


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, it just doesn't make any sense. You are quite clearly saying that _if it were not for Moat_ then the HO would not have approved it for use. But they didn't approve it for use, and whether it gets approved or not will not have anything to do with the Moat case.



Keep lying, by all means.  The posts, both of them, are clear enough for everyone else to understand.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> But it wasn't. It was an interpretation that altered the meaning to the complete opposite of what was the case.
> 
> You said they said it wasn't allowed when what they actually said, very clearly, was that it was allowed.
> 
> Do you not see how this could be viewed as dishonest?



Well yes, and as was pointed out above he has already accepted that the Police are allowed to use weapons which do not have Home Office approval.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> That still makes no sense.



That’s because you’re so fucking thick, clear evidence that Wrexham men shouldn’t mate with sheep.


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> That’s because you’re so fucking thick, clear evidence that Wrexham men shouldn’t mate with sheep.



you can fuck off with that as well


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> you can fuck off with that as well



Don't tell me you're from Wrexham. 

Not that it would matter; I am not suggesting generally speaking people from Wrexham nor Wales are the result of mating with sheep, just that PT having the brain of a sheep would explain why he’s so fucking thick.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Wasn't the long letter written, or at least discovered, after the shootings?



Who knows when he wrote it and where it was sent. Another qmark for the investigators.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Who knows when he wrote it and where it was sent. Another qmark for the investigators.



If you’re talking about the 49-page letter,it was after the shootings;



> FUGITIVE gunman Raoul Moat scrawled a 49-page confession to his rampage - and vowed to "keep killing police until I'm dead".
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3042583/Confession-of-shotgun-killer-Raoul-Moat.html



Sorry for the source link.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

Another 2 or 3 days of beef then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2010)

it isn't even good beef, just one side saying 'you are a liar' and the other saying 'you cannot read'

On a beef scale this is scraping it out of MacDonalds bins. There is no kobe here. Not even a Safeways special offer rump steak.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> If you’re talking about the 49-page letter,it was after the shootings;
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the source link.



Just to be clear, you're saying that he wrote this letter after release, yes?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> Just to be clear, you're saying that he wrote this letter after release, yes?



I have no idea if it was all written after his release, just the it didn't form part of whatever information was passed to the police by the prison.

ETA - at least some of it must have been written after his release, because it included the 'confession to his rampage'.


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I have no idea, just the it didn't form part of whatever information was passed to the police by the prison.



What was passed to the police by the prison?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 15, 2010)

Galloway reckons Moat is just the tip of the iceberg and lots of those nutters expressing sympathy on facebook are potential gun-toting maniacs, ready to explode at any moment. God help us.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> What was passed to the police by the prison?



No idea, but not this long letter.

BTW - see edit to my last post.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I still don't get the point you are trying to make tbh.


That's because you _are_ a pig-shit thick cunt then.  I'm sorry, I don;t know any words with less syllables to spell it out for you ....


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

cesare said:


> It's allegedly a fairly long letter though? I'm not sure how frequent/usual big letters are ... do they get read? (To the best of your knowledge).


It wouldn't be a "letter", it'd be a standard form.  And it would be as long as it needed to be - they vary from a few lines to pages depending on what there is to report.  Where did you get the fact that it was "fairly long"?  (ETA: It seems you may have been referring to the 49 page letter - that most deinitely _wasn't_ what the prison sent, that was written by Moat and sent to the police after the shootings).

As for whether they get read ... most of them, eventually ... but like everything else if you make it an obligatory step to send a report over every case, regardless of whether there is any genuine identified high risk / useful intelligence, just to try and make sure that nothing is ever missed ... all you succeed in doing is building a haystack in which to hide the needles you're actually interested in ...


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don;t know any words with less syllables



*fewer*


----------



## agricola (Jul 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It wouldn't be a "letter", it'd be a standard form.  And it would be as long as it needed to be - they vary from a few lines to pages depending on what there is to report.  Where did you get the fact that it was "fairly long"?
> 
> As for whether they get read ... most of them, eventually ... but like everything else if you make it an obligatory step to send a report over every case, regardless of whether there is any genuine identified high risk / useful intelligence, just to try and make sure that nothing is ever missed ... all you succeed in doing is building a haystack in which to hide the needles you're actually interested in ...



Given the way these things usually transpire it was either an email to a prison intelligence officer who had gone home / was on annual leave, or a fax that arrived after everyone else had left work on a Friday night.  

Or a detailed report about how Roald Most was going to kill his girlfriend.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

laptop said:


> *fewer*


You are Lynne Truss and I claim my £5 ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 15, 2010)

agricola said:


> Given the way these things usually transpire it was either an email to a prison intelligence officer who had gone home / was on annual leave, or a fax that arrived after everyone else had left work on a Friday night.
> 
> Or a detailed report about how Roald Most was going to kill his girlfriend.


Can I have a fiver on the former please ...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You are Lynne Truss and I claim my £5 ...


you are a massive cunt. i'll waive my five pounds, after all, it is stating the obvious.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 16, 2010)

i feel massively let down by raoul. considering he promised 'war', the results were pitiful.

i joined the facebook group but that was only to annoy david cameron.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2010)

intersesting that you use #trunk' DB
de-humanising inti! is it the manual?
pah an meh

i is drunk ai but still see u


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

ddraig said:


> intersesting that you use #trunk' DB




You are aware that 'trunk' in this context is simply another word for torso?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You are aware that 'trunk' in this context is simply another word for torso?



why dotn he say that then
we all know what tosor means!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

ddraig said:


> why dotn he say that then
> we all know what tosor means!



Well most of us also know what trunk means.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2010)

crAP EXuse lickspit


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2010)

> Galloway reckons Moat is just the tip of the iceberg and lots of those nutters expressing sympathy on facebook are potential gun-toting maniacs, ready to explode at any moment. God help us.



Actually while I am no fan of Galloway, his view was much more complex than that: he observed that there is a sizeable chunk of the white working class which feels totally abandoned and alienated and is basically a timebomb ready to go off, most likely when the welfare cuts kick in, I tend to agree with him to a point, NL were no friend to the poor, etc.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2010)

anuway
trunk is bum not kin troso


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

ddraig said:


> anuway
> trunk is bum not kin troso



Then you are a drunken trunk!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 16, 2010)

too fukin guevara motherfukA KA KAKAKA


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It wouldn't be a "letter", it'd be a standard form.  And it would be as long as it needed to be - they vary from a few lines to pages depending on what there is to report.  Where did you get the fact that it was "fairly long"?  (ETA: It seems you may have been referring to the 49 page letter - that most deinitely _wasn't_ what the prison sent, that was written by Moat and sent to the police after the shootings).
> 
> As for whether they get read ... most of them, eventually ... but like everything else if you make it an obligatory step to send a report over every case, regardless of whether there is any genuine identified high risk / useful intelligence, just to try and make sure that nothing is ever missed ... all you succeed in doing is building a haystack in which to hide the needles you're actually interested in ...



So....even though you acknowledge that you have missed the point, misunderstood the statement...you carry on to make your excuses for the police not acting on the prison report....that's what I'm assuming anyway.

We pretty much only have you around when the police are in the news...eh.


----------



## agricola (Jul 16, 2010)

treelover said:


> Actually while I am no fan of Galloway, his view was much more complex than that: he observed that there is a sizeable chunk of the white working class which feels totally abandoned and alienated and is basically a timebomb ready to go off, most likely when the welfare cuts kick in, I tend to agree with him to a point, NL were no friend to the poor, etc.



Indeed.  The current social situation in some parts of that level of society does worry me, especially with the likes of the EDL and BNP already in a semi-prominent position, the cult of celebrity, of getting-rich-quick and the already high level of utterly needless violence in some places.  Its almost as if Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown have managed to actually create the underclass that the papers pretended to exist up until this point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You could always try to read the rest of my post.


the invisible bit you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Anyone who's shot three people killing one and maiming two deserves to be tasered and a lot more besides!


our brave boys in afghanistan deserve to be tasered and a lot more besides? would you apply this to veterans as well, i expect you would.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (But thank you for reminding me of why I gave up on this place last time ...)


but perhaps the next time you depart it won't be at your own volition.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> our brave boys in afghanistan deserve to be tasered and a lot more besides? would you apply this to veterans as well, i expect you would.



Our boys in Afghanistan deserve medals, pay hikes and bigger guns. And yes, I'd apply the medals to veterans too.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

ddraig said:


> we all know what tosor means!


We do now ... 

(Drink makes your Freudian.  Fact.)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> ....that's what I'm assuming anyway.


That's because you are prejudiced.  If you weren't you'd _ask_, not _assume_.

The fact that I responded on the basis of the reference being to the information received from the prison when it may have been referring to something else makes no difference to what my response is about the, er, information received from the prison ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> but perhaps the next time you depart it won't be at your own volition.


If they let trolling cunts like you, who _never_ post _anything_ of any informative value to anyone about anything remain here I'm going to have to raise my fucking game a bit to get permabanned ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the invisible bit you mean?



It's funny I never had you down as being as thick as the two tag team twats.

Still you learn something new everyday, job done for today, I can relax now.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> We pretty much only have you around when the police are in the news...eh.





detective-boy said:


> That's because you are prejudiced....


Sorry son...a quick look at your recent post history easily shows that you're only here to defend the police on this one subject - a quick look at my recent history shows posts on France, personal issues, Afghanistan, circumcision, films and smelly cars.

I'm not prejudiced, I discuss my feelings and points of view in a generally civil manner.   You're entitled to do the same but you don't...you escalate.



> The fact that I responded on the basis of the reference being to the information received from the prison when it may have been referring to something else makes no difference to what my response...



A normal person would just say 'sorry...misunderstood you'.   You're the fonz though...you don't say sorry.  (and you have issues with woman, like to be in control and probably have a leather fetish....heeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy!)


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 16, 2010)

You guys still going on about this for fuck's sake? (Iassume you're all guys, women are rarely this obsessive and bone-headed). Moat was just a bad nightmare we had a week ago, it's time to forget him. 

Someone needs to corner this thread by a river and fire tasers at it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Our boys in Afghanistan deserve medals, pay hikes and bigger guns. And yes, I'd apply the medals to veterans too.



If you feel so strongly about it why aren't you out there with them on the front line?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 16, 2010)

bourgeois don't do front line. They sit in bunkers with the other officers pushing pens and yearning for the days where you could shoot the infantry if they pissed you off.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> ...a quick look at your recent post history easily shows that you're only here to defend the police on this one subject ...
> 
> I'm not prejudiced....


But you are though.

Your quote proves that.  I have not "defended" the police on this subject and nor do I on any other unless and until evidence is available in the public domain which justifies that defence.  All I have done is explain what may or may not have been the situation and, as a result, what may or may not have been the risk assessment / decision making process that they may or may not have followed.  That is EXPLANATION, not defence.

You, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to conclude (based on no evidence at all of what actually happened and most definitely without hearing the officers account of what they did and why they did it) that the police fucked up.  That is PREJUDICE (the word arises from the concept of pre-judgment - making a decision prior to actually having the information needed to justify it).

Live with it.  You ARE a prejudiced cunt.



> A normal person would just say 'sorry...misunderstood you'.


And thick as fuck too if you cannot see that the misunderstanding made no difference to what I posted.



> You're the fonz though...you don't say sorry.  (and you have issues with woman, like to be in control and probably have a leather fetish....heeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyy!)


More posting based simply on prejudice.  How the fuck can you be so arrogant as to state such things on the basis of a few posts.  Twat.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Someone needs to corner this thread the obsessive, trolling, thick-as-shit internet-warrior fuckwits by a river and fire tasers at it them.


Corrected for you ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to conclude (based on no evidence at all of what actually happened and most definitely without hearing the officers account of what they did and why they did it) that the police fucked up.  That is PREJUDICE (the word arises from the concept of pre-judgment - making a decision prior to actually having the information needed to justify it).
> 
> Live with it.  You ARE a prejudiced cunt.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry....please show me any place where I've posted such accusations of police fuck-upery.  I've made none, son.   I've made no posts like that that I'm aware of.



> That is PREJUDICE (the word arises from the concept of pre-judgment - making a decision prior to actually having the information needed to justify it).



You have made a decision prior to actually having the information needed to justify it.   Twat, cunt, etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If you feel so strongly about it why aren't you out there with them on the front line?



Too old. And I'm happy to pass on the responsibility to those who choose to accept it. There are many things that I feel strongly about yet have no direct involvement in. I'm sure you're the same. 

I've plenty of mates there though. One of them was killed two weeks ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Our boys in Afghanistan deserve medals, pay hikes and bigger guns. And yes, I'd apply the medals to veterans too.



the only conclusion is that your standards can best be described as double.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

Come on, dibble.   Show me my prejudiced posts or apologise.   15 minutes is plenty to go through my history.   Only takes one to go through yours. 

/stands straight, adjusts tie and collar in expectation of mature apology and retraction.....whistles...shuffles feet...looks at watch...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the only conclusion is that your standards can best be described as double.



Only if you equate cold-blooded murder with soldiers doing a job which sometimes involves killing people. 

I don't but I'm sure you do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Anyone who's shot three people killing one and maiming two deserves to be tasered and a lot more besides!


sounds fairly unequivocal to me: and nothing there about "cold-blooded murder" or only following orders.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> sounds fairly unequivocal to me: and nothing there about "cold-blooded murder" or only following orders.



Context is everything, Pickers old boy. 

You knew precisely what I meant.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm sorry....please show me any place where I've posted such accusations of police fuck-upery.  I've made none, son.   I've made no posts like that that I'm aware of.


I'm so sorry.  My mistake.  I assumed you had an ounce of common sense and were capable of the most basic logic and thus when you slagged me off for "defending" the police you must therefore consider that they had done something meriting "defence" ...

I do apologise.  I was so wrong.  You have no common sense and the mysteries of logic are clearly way beyond you.  I am so sorry for any confusion which may have arisen.  I now accept that you had a massive pop at me for absolutely no reason whatsoever ...


----------



## dylans (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm so sorry.  My mistake.  I assumed you had an ounce of common sense and were capable of the most basic logic and thus when you slagged me off for "defending" the police you must therefore consider that they had done something meriting "defence" ...
> 
> I do apologise.  I was so wrong.  You have no common sense and the mysteries of logic are clearly way beyond you.  I am so sorry for any confusion which may have arisen.  I now accept that you had a massive pop at me for absolutely no reason whatsoever ...



Welcome back. I for one have missed you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Context is everything, Pickers old boy.
> 
> You knew precisely what I meant.


yes, that anyone who shot people deserved a nasty end [tasering and worse]. i didn't notice the small print hedging the sentiment about with caveats.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, that anyone who shot people deserved a nasty end [tasering and worse]. i didn't notice the small print hedging the sentiment about with caveats.



Forgive me. 

I assumed that in the context of a thread about a specific individual who has shot 3 people in cold-blood, murdering one and maiming another, anyone of reasonable intelligence reading my mention of "anyone who shoots 3 people...", would assume that that's what I meant. 

I'll be more careful in future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

mind you are


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> Welcome back. I for one have missed you.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> it isn't even good beef, just one side saying 'you are a liar' and the other saying 'you cannot read'



do you mind.  some of us have pointed out that _they_ are liars AND cannot read.

Still considering who _they_ are, its hardly worth continuing with - a bunch of wannabe/failed pig cunts with a fetish for wanking over death. They'll soon catch a nasty disease that way anyhows.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> Welcome back. I for one have missed you.



He isn't back, apparently...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> mind you are



Will do!!!!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Come on, dibble.   Show me my prejudiced posts or apologise.   ...





detective-boy said:


> I'm so sorry.  My mistake.  I assumed you had an ounce of common sense and were capable of the most basic logic and thus when you slagged me off for "defending" the police you must therefore consider that they had done something meriting "defence" ...
> 
> I do apologise.  I was so wrong.  You have no common sense and the mysteries of logic are clearly way beyond you.  I am so sorry for any confusion which may have arisen.  I now accept that you had a massive pop at me for absolutely no reason whatsoever ...


You can tell a lot about a man in the way he apologises when he's wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You can tell a lot about a man in the way he apologises when he's wrong.


none of it redounds to his credit.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You can tell a lot about a man in the way he apologises when he's wrong.


Not as much as you can tell from the shite they post in the fucking first place ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ..thus when you slagged me off for "defending" the police you must therefore consider that they had done something meriting "defence" ...


That's why you're here, isn't it?  

The only reason you're here posting on this thread is to defend the police...whether it's in response to posts or to pre-emptively defend them doesn't matter.  

You only appear when the police are in the news, swaggering in with a rule book and an attitude - talking to people you don't know shit about, making instant judgements. 

You (fucking *always!*) complain about the way people debate with you and yet you refuse to accept that your own communication skills, point of view and reasoning can ever be at fault.

You're incapable of apologising when you are wrong.

You're a blue troll.  

You don't understand the concept of relating to others - you only see it as a communication of your own thoughts and opinions - there are no other people in your concepts.   There is no development or increase in knowledge, empathy or understanding in any involvement with you. You offer nothing but a rule book and a large bag of contempt.

You're a temporary annoyance - a robot with nothing else to offer.   A flickering blue light seen once every few months.   I could probably hold my breath long enough for you to disappear again. 

It's obvious you don't like coming here.   Sucks to be you.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2010)

What I like about this thread is that everytime it seems to be fading away, someone new pops up and starts an argument.  It really delivers on that front.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> That's why you're here, isn't it?


No you prejudice blinded prick.

I'm here to try and explain what the police can / should do, how they approach different situations, the things that need to be taken into account, how things look from their perspective, etc. so that people* can be better informed about what the police do and whether or not it is the best way of doing things.

(* people with open minds, willing to learn from the experience of others, capable of empathising with other viewpoints, etc., not closed minded prejudiced cunts like you, obv ...)   

(I've posted this is so many words numerous times in the past ... but you won't have seen it through the mist of froth and bile that you involuntarily produce whenever you see my name ...)



> It's obvious you don't like coming here.


With cunts like you and the rest of the usual suspects who infest the place is that any wonder ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 16, 2010)

belboid said:


> do you mind.  some of us have pointed out that _they_ are liars AND cannot read.
> 
> Still considering who _they_ are, its hardly worth continuing with - a bunch of wannabe/failed pig cunts with a fetish for wanking over death. They'll soon catch a nasty disease that way anyhows.



Still making a twat of yourself?

Jolly good, keep up the good work.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No you prejudice blinded prick.
> 
> I'm here to try and explain what the police can / should do, how they approach different situations, the things that need to be taken into account, how things look from their perspective, etc. so that people* can be better informed about what the police do and whether or not it is the best way of doing things.
> 
> ...



You are the biggest bellend in the world, and just about the worst advert for the OB possible. Keep it up. That is all.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 16, 2010)

He's dead.

It's over.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

Diamond said:


> He's dead.



Not dead enough !


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fuck off cunt.





detective-boy said:


> The _NEED_ for fucking approval you pig-shit thick cunt.





detective-boy said:


> No.  It isn't.  You simplistic thick cunt.
> 
> No why don't you concentrate on posting about things you actually know about ...





detective-boy said:


> You're a cunt.  I call you a cunt.  I thought you approved of the concept of cops / ex-cops telling the truth, something you calim doesn't often happen ...





detective-boy said:


> I explained it ages ago you fuckwit.  But you have simply ignored it (probably because you realise that it shows you up to be the pig-shit thick cunt that you are) ... but, for the sake of completion, here it is again ...





detective-boy said:


> But you see I _do_ know what I'm talking about, no matter what cunts like you think.  It is an indication of your prejudice / stupidity that you make it a matter of pride that you discount anything I say.  If you actually accepted that you don't know everything and listened to things said by others with different knowledge and experience from you you might actually learn something instead of remaining the ignorant cunt that you are.  But you won't.  So you can fuck off and die as you are quite simply a waste of breath.





detective-boy said:


> This post sums up exactly why _anything_ you post is simply a waste of bandwidth.  You are an ignorant cunt who thinks they know everything when, in fact, they know fuck all.





detective-boy said:


> That's because you _are_ a pig-shit thick cunt then.  I'm sorry, I don;t know any words with less syllables to spell it out for you ....





detective-boy said:


> Live with it.  You ARE a prejudiced cunt.





detective-boy said:


> No you prejudice blinded prick.
> 
> I'm here to try and explain what the police can / should do, how they approach different situations, the things that need to be taken into account, how things look from their perspective, etc. so that people* can be better informed about what the police do and whether or not it is the best way of doing things.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

Perhaps he practices his monologues in the mirror and forgets to edit out the invective.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

He sounds like the little girl on the exorcist when she is possesed by some force.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

Only he is possesed by THE force.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 16, 2010)

The votes are piling up, and so far it's looking like a 3-horse race for Twat Of The Thread.  Belboid has just about got his nose in front of Prickmans, but Claphamboy is charging fast down the inside track.  Stay tuned as our trio of buffoons head for the home stretch sometime next month...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 16, 2010)

There's still some life left in this tired old rag yet...


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Only he is possesed by THE force.



The Force is strong in this beef.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> The votes are piling up, and so far it's looking like a 3-horse race for Twat Of The Thread.  Belboid has just about got his nose in front of Prickmans, but Claphamboy is charging fast down the inside track.  Stay tuned as our trio of buffoons head for the home stretch sometime next month...


Really?   You and Spymaster together?

meh - had to happen, no biggy.   btw 'prickmans'....gratuitous swearing is something you must be picking up from your friend in blue.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 16, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> The votes are piling up, and so far it's looking like a 3-horse race for Twat Of The Thread.  Belboid has just about got his nose in front of Prickmans, but Claphamboy is charging fast down the inside track.  Stay tuned as our trio of buffoons head for the home stretch sometime next month...



Not you and PM again. Take a week off.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You and Spymaster together?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2010)

Shut it you.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No you prejudice blinded prick.
> 
> I'm here to try and explain what the police can / should do, how they approach different situations, the things that need to be taken into account, how things look from their perspective, etc. so that people* can be better informed about what the police do and whether or not it is the best way of doing things.
> 
> ...



Why do you hang about then you stupid fat pig cunt?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 16, 2010)

if you listen to d boy hes btdt and got the t-shirt.
 you don't have to like what he tells you but he happens to have experienced similar situations.

although if the metro is true if they had the clowns who used 4 shotguns shells and a load of rifle shots to take down a cow


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2010)

likesfish said:


> if you listen to d boy hes btdt and got the t-shirt.
> you don't have to like what he tells you but he happens to have experienced similar situations.



I agree. He's one of a few genuinely worthwhile posters on here, but sometimes he doesn't help himself with the invective.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

likesfish said:


> if you listen to d boy hes btdt and got the t-shirt.


 is that like tourettes?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 17, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I agree. He's one of a few genuinely worthwhile posters on here, but sometimes he doesn't help himself with the invective.


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2010)

'bourgeois don't do front line. They sit in bunkers with the other officers pushing pens and yearning for the days where you could shoot the infantry if they pissed you off. '


not all the time...

'A major commanding a company of Gurkha soldiers was among three servicemen killed on their base in southern Afghanistan by a renegade Afghan soldier, officials in London said Wednesday. Major James Joshua Bowman, 34, was killed early Tuesday as he slept in the base in Nahr-e-Saraj, Helmand province, the Ministry of Defence said in a statement.'


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


>



Not really, but generally speaking I think they do a shit job reasonably well. 

In the context of this thread if I *had* to have half a dozen coppers pointing guns at me, I'd far rather they were of the highly trained British specialist variety, than a bunch of nobodys who've passed a quick weapon familiarisation course, fired a few rounds down the range, and are armed as a matter of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Not really, but generally speaking I think they do a shit job reasonably well.
> 
> In the context of this thread if I *had* to have half a dozen coppers pointing guns at me, I'd far rather they were of the highly trained British specialist variety, than a bunch of nobodys who've passed a quick weapon familiarisation course, fired a few rounds down the range, and are armed as a matter of course.


in that event i would be happy to lend you a chair leg.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in that event i would be happy to lend you a chair leg.



Well the comment means absolutely nothing unless you're going to put it into context, i.e. number of incorrect shootings v number of correct shootings/containments. 

Whenever this comes up, chair-leg man gets a mention along with JCDM. Two undoubted tragedies, but how many thousands of firearms incidents have ended successfully? How do UK firearms incidents compare to other nations? Without digging up a load of stats, intuitively, I'd say favourably because a) we don't arm every copper, and b) those we do are highly trained specialists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

jonathan shorthouse
cherry groce
diarmuid o'neill
stephen waldorf

all four shot by police, when none of them were armed.

what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots a 5 year old?

what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots someone complying with police?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> jonathan shorthouse
> cherry groce
> diarmuid o'neill
> 
> all three shot by police, when none of them were armed.



Again Pickers, for this to have any meaning you'll have to contextualise it. Of course there are going to be fuck-ups. You can name unarmed-shot-people all day long, I'm sure there are more, but how many? over what period? what was the total number of firearms incidents over the same period? how many unarmed coppers have been injured by armed crims? .... etc ... etc. 

Between us we've named 5 unarmed people shot by police officers. What conclusion do you want to draw from this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> jonathan shorthouse
> cherry groce
> diarmuid o'neill
> stephen waldorf



James Ashley
Jean Charles de Menezes
Abdul Kahar

And of course, Harry Stanley.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> jonathan shorthouse
> cherry groce
> diarmuid o'neill
> stephen waldorf
> ...



what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots someone who has a house full of explosives, rifles and who was planning to blow up a lot of.... oh

edit:  sorry, lockup full of explosives, rifles etc


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

So with the addition of C66's Ashley and Kahar, that's about 7 over 27 years as far as I can tell. Any more?

That's an incredibly low number of fuck-ups. The odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (3 people/year in the UK or *20 million to one*) are massively greater than being wrongfully shot dead by a copper.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots a 5 year old?
> 
> what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots someone complying with police?



One's that screw-up. 

Thankfully such occurences are *extremely* rare in the UK. 

Swap those acab goggles for a bit of perspective.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 17, 2010)

there human and humans fuck up.
 If your tools include firearms fuck ups tend to be very bad. IF you do high stress stuff like forced entrys chase people who you are told are sucide bombers etc and these go wrong people die.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 17, 2010)

likesfish said:


> there human and humans fuck up.



Well yes, of course.

But some people are accountable for their fuck-ups, whilst others aren't in the slightest.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 17, 2010)

I remember those highly trained professionals tasering an 89 year old confused chap on the run from the care home, not far from here. I'm sure he deserved it. Oh, and them sheep on the A55. The wooly villains.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> what sort of 'highly trained specialist' shoots someone who has a house full of explosives, rifles and who was planning to blow up a lot of.... oh
> 
> edit:  sorry, lockup full of explosives, rifles etc


and then drags an injured man down steps and denies him medical treatment?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Why do you hang about then you stupid fat pig cunt?



lol


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I remember those highly trained professionals tasering an 89 year old confused chap on the run from the care home, not far from here.



What's your point? That very, very occasionally a firearms officer fucks-up? I've said that several times. It's absolutely inevitable in any society where cops are compelled to be armed (that'll be all of them).

What do you want done about it? An enquiry? Have the idiot charged and if found guilty of negligence or worse, punished? .... me too.

You seem to be rebutting a position that nobody holds.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I remember those highly trained professionals tasering an 89 year old confused chap on the run from the care home, not far from here. I'm sure he deserved it. Oh, and them sheep on the A55. The wooly villains.


 
That would be this old man, yes?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mentally-frail-man-89-shot-with-taser-1333457.html


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> That would be this old man, yes?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mentally-frail-man-89-shot-with-taser-1333457.html



So the tasering was to prevent him slashing his throat and may well have prevented him committing suicide?

FFS, Tidy, you really _are_ a dishonest fellow aren't you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> That would be this old man, yes?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mentally-frail-man-89-shot-with-taser-1333457.html


 


Spymaster said:


> So the tasering was to prevent him slashing his throat and may well have prevented him committing suicide?
> 
> FFS, Tidy, you really _are_ a dishonest fellow aren't you?


 
Not at all. Was a big controversy up this neck of the woods. His family were very angry, they pursued a complaint.

He was basically just a very confused old chap - suspected Alzheimer's. This is what his family had to say:



> His sister-in-law said: "It's diabolical what they did to an old man. I've told officers 'how would you like it to happen to your old dad?' "I'm lodging an official complaint. It's terrible, they should have done better and talked to him. They didn't try hard enough."
> 
> His nephew, a Llandudno engineer, said: "We thought he was at the onset of Alzheimer's and he went into a residential care home about three weeks ago.
> 
> ...



I suppose the handcuffs were necessary for the old timer's safety too.

How very dishonest of me...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So the tasering was to prevent him slashing his throat and may well have prevented him committing suicide?
> 
> FFS, Tidy, you really _are_ a dishonest fellow aren't you?


 
in what way dishonest?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in what way dishonest?



Insofar as Tidy presented the scenario out of context, which we have to assume he was aware of. That's dishonest.

'89 year old, confused chap tasered by cops', reads very differently to '89 year old's suicide attempt prevented by taser', no?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 17, 2010)

Here's the IPCC view..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8191347.stm



> *Police right to use Taser on OAP*
> 
> A police decision to use a Taser gun on an 89-year-old man who was threatening to cut his own throat has been upheld by a watchdog.
> The Independent Police Complaints Commission(IPCC) said North Wales Police officers were protecting the public and the man's life.
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Insofar as Tidy presented the scenario without context which we have to assume he was aware of.
> 
> '89 year old, confused chap tasered by cops' reads very differently to '89 year old's suicide attempt prevented by taser', no?


 
1. there was a confused 89 year old

2. he was tasered

3. nothing says what prompted him to grasp the glass: but i wouldn't be surprised if the people who 'saved' him were the people who made him agitated in the first place. 

none of what proper tidy posted has been disproved by that link, but like any other series of events he has drawn one conclusion from it and you another.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 17, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Insofar as Tidy presented the scenario out of context, which we have to assume he was aware of. That's dishonest.
> 
> '89 year old, confused chap tasered by cops' reads very differently to '89 year old's suicide attempt prevented by taser', no?


 
I said:



> I remember those highly trained professionals tasering an 89 year old confused chap on the run from the care home, not far from here.



And that is what actually happened, isn't it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 17, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> Here's the IPCC view..
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8191347.stm


 
IPCC Say Police Were Right Shock.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> 1. there was a confused 89 year old
> 
> 2. he was tasered
> 
> ...


 
Actually Pickmans if you read the Indy link, or the newer BBC report about the IPCC investigation, you might find that he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called.  They then turned up, found him threatening to cut his own throat with the piece of glass and ended up tasering him.  The only injuries he sustained were minor cuts from the smashed glass.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> Actually Pickmans if you read the Indy link, or the newer BBC report about the IPCC investigation, you might find that he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called.  They then turned up, found him threatening to cut his own throat with the piece of glass and ended up tasering him.  The only injuries he sustained were minor cuts from the smashed glass.


you might. but it's not mentioned in the independent:





> A mentally disturbed 89-year-old man who escaped from his care home was blasted by police with a 50,000 volt Taser when he threatened to kill himself.
> 
> Officers took the step when the pensioner produced a shard of glass and claimed he was going to cut his throat.
> 
> ...


where exactly does that say "he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called"?

i seem to recall you mentioning something about honesty earlier in the thread. you hypocritical tosser.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you might. but it's not mentioned in the independent:where exactly does that say "he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called"?



Er - it says he was suicidal prior to Police being called in the Indy report ("_... recieved a report expressing concern for the safety of an elderly man who had absconded from a care home in Llandudno.  He was believed to be suicidal._"), and the other bit is on the BBC report?



> He smashed a window and ran off clutching a piece of glass.



Come on Pickmans, even you can do better than this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> Actually Pickmans if you read the Indy link, or


what does this say? does it say if you put the two bits together? i think not.

it seems you're not prepared to hold yourself to the same standards you demand of other people, which is quite clearly hypocritical.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> what does this say? does it say if you put the two bits together? i think not.
> 
> either/or is not and.


 
Sorry, I should have said "and" instead of "or" when discussing two articles that had been posted within the last two pages.  This massive dishonesty is of course much worse than removing the majority of the context from the very same incident in order to make it look much worse than it was, or for that matter making up a comment from the IPCC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> Sorry, I should have said "and" instead of "or" when discussing two articles that had been posted within the last two pages.  This massive dishonesty is of course much worse than removing the majority of the context from the incident in order to make it look much worse than it was, or for that matter making up a comment from the IPCC.


 
no, you had a pop at me for only quoting a portion of an article. whereas you've said that one article said something, which it didn't. sadly you got caught out.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickers, you're getting roasted.

Leave the dipshit stuff to Tidy.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> This massive dishonesty is of course much worse than removing the majority of the context from the very same incident in order to make it look much worse than it was, or for that matter making up a comment from the IPCC.


 


Spymaster said:


> Leave the dipshit stuff to Tidy.


 
Is this not what happened then?



> I remember those highly trained professionals tasering an 89 year old confused chap on the run from the care home, not far from here.



Oh, no, wait. It is.

The only people who could possibly think 'Pickers is getting roasted' are the Three Cuntigos.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you had a pop at me for only quoting a portion of an article. whereas you've said that one article said something, which it didn't. sadly you got caught out.


 
Both articles were mentioned, and one of the things you claimed wasnt in the Indy article was actually in it.  In any case, the post also mentioned the BBC article, which did contain the other two things.  Though I again apologise for the grand deception of mistakenly using "or" when, in retrospect, "and" was more correct.  Kudos to you!


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh, no, wait. It is.
> 
> The only people who could possibly think 'Pickers is getting roasted' are the Three Cuntigos.


 
And next on BBC PT - a trailer for


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 17, 2010)

agricola said:


> And next on BBC PT - a trailer for


 
Oh a Downfall parody. How original.

You funny funny man you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2010)

this is worth reading and should be food for thought for the vengeful judgmental wanker brigade led by the rather creepy and disturbing spymaster : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/17/raoul-moat-brother-angus-moat


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> .... the Three Cuntigos.



 Best thing you've posted!

I'm a bit too pissed to respond now, and we've been having a bit of a bash here tonight. 

One of my mates, "Dave", has just been caught sucking-off his boyfriend on my fire escape. Even bigger laughs to be had there than here, so forgive me if I don't reply till tomorrow!


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> this is worth reading and should be food for thought for the vengeful judgmental wanker brigade led by the rather creepy and disturbing spymaster : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/17/raoul-moat-brother-angus-moat


 
if anything, that article makes the reasons why police did not use him as a negotiating option a bit more understandable.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2010)

for sure, he's an understandably angry person, but i thought the article was good at highlighting that raoul moat wasn't just a one-dimensional monster nor was he a hero.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 18, 2010)

Interesting to hear callers on 'Any Answers' this afternoon saying that the majority of the 40,000 (?) that joined the facebbook page set up to support Moat only did so that they could condemn those who were showing their support. (You have to sign up if you want to comment). One caller said 90% of the comments on there condemned the site, another said 50%. Is this true? Did anyone here sign up?


----------



## IC3D (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> for sure, he's an understandably angry person, but i thought the article was good at highlighting that raoul moat wasn't just a one-dimensional monster nor was he a hero.


I think that is it really. There are a lot of facets of his life people can relate to I don't find it at all hard to see why he has become a romantic figure maybe an iconoclastic figure of our culture like a voice to a collective silent scream.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 18, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> One of my mates, "Dave", has just been caught sucking-off his boyfriend on my fire escape. Even bigger laughs to be had there than here, so forgive me if I don't reply till tomorrow!



lol


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jul 18, 2010)

Are any of these posts gonna make the slightest difference... Change happens with a roar not a petty squabble....


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 18, 2010)

people do seem to  have a sort of affection  for  some  strange  people


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2010)

<Delete>


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> this is worth reading and should be food for thought for the vengeful judgmental wanker brigade led by the rather creepy and disturbing spymaster : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/17/raoul-moat-brother-angus-moat


Many thanks for posting that link. It helps me make sense of this more than two-dozen dumb tabloid articles.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Interesting to hear callers on 'Any Answers' this afternoon saying that the majority of the 40,000 (?) that joined the facebbook page set up to support Moat only did so that they could condemn those who were showing their support. (You have to sign up if you want to comment). One caller said 90% of the comments on there condemned the site, another said 50%. Is this true? Did anyone here sign up?


 
i signed up and didn't see any. i saw a few complaining about people signing up to have a moan but to be honest, i didn't read very much at all. i only signed up to annoy cameron.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't suppose Cameron would have been particularly annoyed with you. Not so sure about Moat's victims though......


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Interesting to hear callers on 'Any Answers' this afternoon saying that the majority of the 40,000 (?) that joined the facebbook page set up to support Moat only did so that they could condemn those who were showing their support. (You have to sign up if you want to comment). One caller said 90% of the comments on there condemned the site, another said 50%. Is this true? Did anyone here sign up?



It's a bit like when a few of us here temporarily jumped onto the fox news page to gloat. Taken out of context the sudden rise in numbers could be viewed as a rise in popularity for fox news. But we ripped the piss mercilessly before getting bored and carrying on with our lives. I don't doubt that a lot of people joined that page to slag the numpties and out of curiosity. Or at least I'd like to think so.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't suppose Cameron would have been particularly annoyed with you. Not so sure about Moat's victims though......


 
I reckon the dead one and the blind one probably didn't notice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Both articles were mentioned, and one of the things you claimed wasnt in the Indy article was actually in it.  In any case, the post also mentioned the BBC article, which did contain the other two things.  Though I again apologise for the grand deception of mistakenly using "or" when, in retrospect, "and" was more correct.  Kudos to you!


you claimed that what you said was in both articles (along the lines of 'the indy article, or the bbc one'), and that  the independent article said "he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called". it doesn't say anything about which window was smashed. it doesn't mention him taking glass with him. it doesn't mention him threatening to harm himself prior to the arrival of the police. in fact it doesn't say anything you claimed it did.

you're not merely a hypocrite, you're a lying hypocrite. and you have to gall to pretend you're in the right.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you claimed that what you said was in both articles (along the lines of 'the indy article, or the bbc one'), and that  the independent article said "he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called". it doesn't say anything about which window was smashed. it doesn't mention him taking glass with him. it doesn't mention him threatening to harm himself prior to the arrival of the police. in fact it doesn't say anything you claimed it did.
> 
> you're not merely a hypocrite, you're a lying hypocrite. and you have to gall to pretend you're in the right.



Pickmans, even for a cretin like yourself this is a spectacularly daft post.  For a start, all of the information was contained in both articles, and yes I should have used "and" instead of "or" when pointing you in their direction.  All of the information within my post was in at least one of the two articles, and both were already linked to on this thread.  But the worst bit of all is your repeated insistence that the Indy article did not mention that he had threatened himself prior to police being called - despite the fact that the article states:




			
				Independent said:
			
		

> "Shortly before 6.30am on Saturday morning North Wales Police received a report expressing concern for the safety of an elderly man who had absconded from a care home in Llandudno.
> 
> "He was believed to be suicidal.
> 
> "Officers were dispatched to search for the 89-year-old.



Do you want me to explain what the word "suicidal" means?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Is this not what happened then?
> 
> Oh, no, wait. It is.



It’s a shame that removing context and twisting information to suit your own agenda isn’t an Olympic sport, otherwise you’d be a gold medallist. 



> Three Cuntigos.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> It’s a shame that removing context and twisting information to suit your own agenda isn’t an Olympic sport, otherwise you’d be a gold medallist.


 
I didn't twist anything. I said a confused old fella legging it from his nursing home got tasered. He did. It isn't even out of context.

Mind you, Brunstrom was a big fan of the taser so not surprising his officers were so keep to employ it:


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I didn't twist anything. I said a confused old fella legging it from his nursing home got tasered. He did. It isn't even out of context.


 
Removing the context that he had a shard of glass and claimed he was going to cut his throat, is dishonest. 

But, that is your style.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Pickmans, even for a cretin like yourself this is a spectacularly daft post.  For a start, all of the information was contained in both articles, and yes I should have used "and" instead of "or" when pointing you in their direction.  All of the information within my post was in at least one of the two articles, and both were already linked to on this thread.  But the worst bit of all is your repeated insistence that the Indy article did not mention that he had threatened himself prior to police being called - despite the fact that the article states:


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...g-Facebook?p=10888620&viewfull=1#post10888620

can you show me where in that article your claims are substantiated? simple question, i hope to get a simple answer. someone who is 'believed' to be something is not 'known' to be anything - and your comment 





> Do you want me to explain what the word "suicidal" means?


suggests you want it to mean something that supports your pov. which is doesn't.: 

* involving, indicating, or tending towards suicide;
* liable to result in suicide;
* liable to destroy one's own interests.

it is however moderated by the 'believed'.

you are believed to be thick as pigshit; you have demonstrated yourself to be a liar. the first is a statement of opinion, the second is a statement of fact.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Removing the context that he had a shard of glass and claimed he was going to cut his throat, is dishonest.


 
It really isn't.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...g-Facebook?p=10888620&viewfull=1#post10888620
> 
> can you show me where in that article your claims are substantiated? simple question, i hope to get a simple answer. someone who is 'believed' to be something is not 'known' to be anything - and your comment suggests you want it to mean something that supports your pov. which is doesn't.:



Oh for fucks sake Pickmans.  As you well know, the claims are substantiated here, in this BBC report, which was also mentioned in the post which has caused you to suffer this massive episode of fuckwittedness.  Had I used the word "and" instead of "or", you would (presumably, I mean this latest argument of yours is stunningly foolish) have understood it and would not have posted these last few, mind-alteringly idiotic, posts in which you accuse me of lying despite the original post being evidenced by the two separate articles, and (most hypocritical of all) despite your own insistence that omitting all mention of the suicidal comments or the old man being armed with a shard of broken glass is not dishonest!




			
				Pickmans model said:
			
		

> * involving, indicating, or tending towards suicide;
> * liable to result in suicide;
> * liable to destroy one's own interests.
> 
> ...



Of course it is.  Me pointing out to you that the Independent article you claimed doesnt mention something, does in fact mention it, of course makes *me* the liar.  Give it up Pickmans, please - if for your own mental health.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Oh for fucks sake Pickmans.  As you well know, the claims are substantiated here, in this BBC report, which was also mentioned in the post which has caused you to suffer this massive episode of fuckwittedness.  Had I used the word "and" instead of "or", you would (presumably, I mean this latest argument of yours is stunningly foolish) have understood it and would not have posted these last few, mind-alteringly idiotic, posts in which you accuse me of lying despite the original post being evidenced by the two separate articles, and despite your own insistence that omitting all mention of the suicidal comments or the old man being armed with a shard of broken glass is not dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.  Me pointing out to you that the Independent article you claimed doesnt mention something, does in fact mention it, of course makes *me* the liar.  Give it up Pickmans, please - if for your own mental health.


i'll take that as a mealy-mouthed admission that you can't quote the passage in the independent article saying what you claimed.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take that as a mealy-mouthed admission that you can't quote the passage in the independent article saying what you claimed.


 
Mealy-mouthed?  Pickmans your argument is based solely on the word "or" being used instead of "and", I think the desperate one here is you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola

i don't give a flying fuck about the bbc article. i have been talking solely about the independent article: which 

* does not state that he smashed a window at the care home;

* does not state that he took glass with him.

you're basing your rebuttal on a claim that you 'mistyped'. yes, if you'd phrased yourself differently we wouldn't be having this discussion. but you didn't and i suppose you were in your right mind at the time, you just don't like being caught out lying.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I didn't twist anything. I said a confused old fella legging it from his nursing home got tasered. He did. It isn't even out of context.
> 
> Mind you, Brunstrom was a big fan of the taser so not surprising his officers were so keep to employ it:



I haven't looked for it, but there was a test carried out using pepper spray on a senior police officer which was broadcast somewhere? He appeared to nearly choke to death. CS gas sprayed in my face recently had the same result.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> agricola
> 
> i don't give a flying fuck about the bbc article. i have been talking solely about the independent article.


 
Clearly, though one has to wonder why someone, even someone as brainless as you have been on this thread lately, could not have understood that the post also mentioned the BBC report which *does* contain the two facts (I notice its two now rather than the original three, you must have actually read the Independent report).  My post stated that he smashed a window at the care home and took the glass with him.  He did, according to the BBC report (which is not contradicted by the Independent report - they just dont mention the window and dont say where he got the glass from), do this.  

Actually, seeing as it took you so long to discover what was actually in the Independent's report, you do actually understand that there was a reference in the original post which has got you all hot and bothered to the BBC article which had just been linked to in it, yes?




			
				Pickmans model said:
			
		

> you're basing your rebuttal on a claim that you 'mistyped'. yes, if you'd phrased yourself differently we wouldn't be having this discussion. but you didn't and i suppose you were in your right mind at the time, you just don't like being caught out lying.



No, I am basing my rebuttal a claim that you are an idiot, something which your recent arguments on this thread would strongly suggest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Clearly, though one has to wonder why someone, even someone as brainless as you have been on this thread lately, could not have understood that the post also mentioned the BBC report which *does* contain the two facts (I notice its two now rather than the original three, you must have actually read the Independent report).  My post stated that he smashed a window at the care home and took the glass with him.  He did, according to the BBC report (which is not contradicted by the Independent report - they just dont mention the window and dont say where he got the glass from), do this.
> 
> Actually, seeing as it took you so long to discover what was actually in the Independent's report, you do actually understand that there was a reference in the original post which has got you all hot and bothered to the BBC article which had just been linked to in it, yes?
> 
> No, I am basing my rebuttal a claim that you are an idiot, something which your recent arguments on this thread would strongly suggest.





agricola said:


> Actually Pickmans if you read the Indy link, [...] you might find that he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called.  They then turned up, found him threatening to cut his own throat with the piece of glass and ended up tasering him.  The only injuries he sustained were minor cuts from the smashed glass.


yes, and i suppose you can show me where in the independent report the window and taking the glass were mentioned.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, and i suppose you can show me where in the independent report the window and taking the glass were mentioned.



I see what you did there, Pickmans.  I appreciate everyone else is probably sick of you making a complete twat of yourself, but perhaps they would like to see how the second post actually appeared:




			
				agricola said:
			
		

> Actually Pickmans if you read the Indy link, *or the newer BBC report about the IPCC investigation*, you might find that he smashed a window at the care home, took part of the smashed glass with him and appears to have threatened to harm himself prior to the Police being called. They then turned up, found him threatening to cut his own throat with the piece of glass and ended up tasering him. The only injuries he sustained were minor cuts from the smashed glass.



Why, one wonders, did you remove the emboldened part from the quote?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> I see what you did there, Pickmans.  I appreciate everyone else is probably sick of you making a complete twat of yourself, but perhaps they would like to see how the second post actually appeared:
> 
> 
> 
> Why, one wonders, did you remove the emboldened part from the quote?


 it's irrelevant. you say that your claims appear in the independent article, and for the umpteenth time i'm saying that it's not quite as you say.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it's irrelevant. you say that your claims appear in the independent article, and for the umpteenth time i'm saying that it's not quite as you say.



Actually if you read the original post, instead of dishonestly editing it in a vain attempt to make your argument seem less ludicrous than it is in fact is, I make no claims about what piece of information is in which particular article - for instance, the BBC report doesnt contain the information that Police were told he was believed to be suicidal, nor does it mention the minor glass injuries.  This is why I should, on reflection (and as already has been said), I should have used "and" instead of "or", which would have suggested that the information following was in fact an amalgam of the two articles.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Actually if you read the original post, instead of dishonestly editing it in a vain attempt to make your argument seem less ludicrous than it is in fact is, I make no claims about what piece of information is in which particular article - for instance, the BBC report doesnt contain the information that Police were told he was believed to be suicidal, nor does it mention the minor glass injuries.  This is why I should, on reflection (and as already has been said), I should have used "and" instead of "or", which would have suggested that the information following was in fact an amalgam of the two articles.


thank you for admitting you were wrong.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> thank you for admitting you were wrong.


 
I did that nearly forty posts ago.  Please, either keep up or stop these ludicrous arguments.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Oh the irony


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

you guys are fucking boring


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh the irony


 
quite. shall we go for a third time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you guys are fucking boring


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> quite. shall we go for a third time?


 
I reckon so


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh the irony


 
Its Mr. Context, here to support his chum.  How nice.  

Oh, and by all means please continue with your nonsense.  Dont let the great victory of "And instead of Or" be in vain!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Its Mr. Context, here to support his chum.  How nice.
> 
> Oh, and by all means please continue with your nonsense.  Dont let the great victory of "And instead of Or" be in vain!


 
no one likes a sore loser, you know


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no one likes a sore loser, you know


 
self-loathing is it now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> self-loathing is it now?


 
now you're projecting


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> now you're projecting


 
Not really, I wasnt the one who went on some nearly two-page rant over the mistaken use of the word "or", despite none of the actual facts of the issue at hand being in question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Not really, I wasnt the one who went on some nearly two-page rant over the mistaken use of the word "or", despite none of the actual facts of the issue at hand being in question.


 
if you want to continue this i'm happy enough to oblige, but given your previous comments i thought you'd like to leave it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> if you want to continue this i'm happy enough to oblige, but given your previous comments i thought you'd like to leave it.


 
Continue with what?  are you going to miss even more of what was in the Independent report?  Will you actually read the BBC one?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2010)

get a fucking room - you are arguing about some tiny point that only the two of you give a shit about and have come far far away from the original point. this is a terrible affliction that the left never seems to be able to shake off


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Continue with what?  are you going to miss even more of what was in the Independent report?  Will you actually read the BBC one?


 
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Continue with what?  are you going to miss even more of what was in the Independent report?  Will you actually read the BBC one?


 
we've established your dishonesty, i think my work here is done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> get a fucking room - you are arguing about some tiny point that only the two of you give a shit about and have come far far away from the original point. this is a terrible affliction that the left never seems to be able to shake off


 
yeh cos you've never been part to a digression on a thread.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> we've established your dishonesty, i think my work here is done.


 
trans: _"I will call you a liar, with a big lie of my own"_

you really are a cretin, pickmans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> trans: _"I will call you a liar, with a big lie of my own"_
> 
> you really are a cretin, pickmans.


let's see.

you claimed an article said something which it didn't, and you've admitted as much. which makes you the liar here, i think you'll find.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> let's see.
> 
> you claimed an article said something which it didn't, and you've admitted as much. which makes you the liar here, i think you'll find.


 
Did you even read the post?  Any of them? I mean actually read them, instead of editing one of the most important parts of one of the posts out so it fitted your argument better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> Did you even read the post?  Any of them? I mean actually read them, instead of editing one of the most important parts of one of the posts out so it fitted your argument better.


you really are a shitfer wanker, aren't you? do i need to quote every fucking post of yours in full every fucking time i quote it, which i did in post 2830. what a piece of vermin you are.

if it was such a very important part of the post, you wouldn't have whacked it between commas. you were saying that two articles contained the same pieces of information. we have established they differed. when i am talking about the independent article, why the bloody fuck should i fuss about a bbc article not germane to the point i'm making? you fucking wankstain.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you claimed an article said something which it didn't, and you've admitted as much. which makes you the liar here, i think you'll find.



This is absolutely desperate stuff. 

We've got Tidy dishonestly knocking the context out of statements, and you scratching around trying to salvage a bit of honour (and failing miserably) based on the difference between 'or' and 'and'. 

Totally graceless. The pair of you should be scarlet with embarrassment over your performances on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

> agricola

in fact, you've said above i was wasting my time with the last forty or so posts as you had conceded the point. however, now you're making out that a minor edit - where words were taken out as irrelevant - is so very fucking important that you're intent on continuing this farce. fucking make your mind up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> This is absolutely desperate stuff.
> 
> We've got Tidy dishonestly knocking the context out of statements, and you scratching around trying to salvage a bit of honour (and failing miserably) based on the difference between 'or' and 'and'.
> 
> Totally graceless. The pair of you should be scarlet with embarrassment over your performances on this thread.


fuck off. it's not like you've covered yourself in glory on this thread.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you really are a shitfer wanker, aren't you? do i need to quote every fucking post of yours in full every fucking time i quote it, which i did in post 2830. what a piece of vermin you are.
> 
> if it was such a very important part of the post, you wouldn't have whacked it between commas. you were saying that two articles contained the same pieces of information. we have established they differed. when i am talking about the independent article, why the bloody fuck should i fuss about a bbc article not germane to the point i'm making? you fucking wankstain.



"Not germane"?  The BBC report was talking about exactly the same incident and was the other source for the post that followed it.  Both of them were mentioned in the original post before the information about what had happened to the old man, information which was drawn from both articles - and an acknowledgement of what tiny error (again, "or" was used instead of "and") that was present in the post was made immediately after you pointed it out.  That you have gone on for more than forty posts worth of this thread about it, throwing allegations of dishonesty and hypocrisy about (despite acting dishonestly yourself in editing mention of the BBC report out, and defending dishonesty elsewhere) says a lot about what a massive twat you have acted on this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck off. it's not like you've covered yourself in glory on this thread.


 
I cover myself in glory on every thread. I am a self-glory-coverer.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> > agricola
> 
> in fact, you've said above i was wasting my time with the last forty or so posts as you had conceded the point. however, now you're making out that a minor edit - where words were taken out as irrelevant - is so very fucking important that you're intent on continuing this farce. fucking make your mind up.


 
I am coming increasingly to the conclusion that this thread reads remarkably different to you than it does to everyone else.  The "conceding of the point" was pretty much the same as post #2833, around forty posts ago at the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> "Not germane"?  The BBC report was talking about exactly the same incident and was the other source for the post that followed it.  Both of them were mentioned in the original post before the information about what had happened to the old man, information which was drawn from both articles - and an acknowledgement of what tiny error (again, "or" was used instead of "and") that was present in the post was made immediately after you pointed it out.  That you have gone on for more than forty posts worth of this thread about it, throwing allegations of dishonesty and hypocrisy about (despite acting dishonestly yourself in editing mention of the BBC report out, and defending dishonesty elsewhere) says a lot about what a massive twat you have acted on this thread.


first off, i quoted the post in full at 2830. secondly, i indicated that there was part removed in the edited one some posts later. third there was a link to the original post. fourth, i have made it explicit throughout this little exchange that i have been talking solely about the independent article. as i've said, you have conceded you made a mistake. you, on the other hand, have claimed to have mistyped, when it is very clear from the form of words you used that the information on which you were relying was, you indicated, in *both* the bbc and independent reports. it's like you're a labour cabinet minister, saying how you've been misunderstood. you were caught telling porkies, i've shown that what you alleged was in the independent report was in fact not to be found there, and you seem to want to run over this again.

fuck off.


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2010)

This now has to be one of the most pointless threads of the year. Across the entire board.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 18, 2010)

These two are like a couple of selfish kids. This is an interesting...if surreal...subject but they've turned it into something about themselves and their inability to back down and lose face. A bit like Moat really. Do they think anyone else is even going to bother reading what they post any more? Can't they just pm each other?


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> first off, i quoted the post in full at 2830. secondly, i indicated that there was part removed in the edited one some posts later. third there was a link to the original post. fourth, i have made it explicit throughout this little exchange that i have been talking solely about the independent article. as i've said, you have conceded you made a mistake. you, on the other hand, have claimed to have mistyped, when it is very clear from the form of words you used that the information on which you were relying was, you indicated, in *both* the bbc and independent reports. it's like you're a labour cabinet minister, saying how you've been misunderstood. you were caught telling porkies, i've shown that what you alleged was in the independent report was in fact not to be found there, and you seem to want to run over this again.
> 
> fuck off.


 
So basically the entirity of your argument was that some of the information (was it two or three examples you cited?  I seem to recall you dropping one after you realised that it was actually in the Indy story) was not actually in the _Independent_ article, something which was confirmed to you by me way back in Post 2831 (ie:  the post after your 2830).  So thats around fifty posts now, two pages of thread, a dishonest edit from yourself and vast amounts of tedium inflicted on everyone else, spent on the mistaken use of "or" when "and" should have been used when discussing an amalgam of two articles (which was acknowledged very shortly after it happened), of which none of the facts that are actually in those articles are apparently in question.

And you have the nerve to tell me to fuck off?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> This is absolutely desperate stuff.
> 
> We've got Tidy dishonestly knocking the context out of statements, and you scratching around trying to salvage a bit of honour (and failing miserably) based on the difference between 'or' and 'and'.
> 
> Totally graceless. The pair of you should be scarlet with embarrassment over your performances on this thread.


 
Are you insane? You and the other two little piggies have made right cocks of yourselves here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

agricola said:


> That you have gone on for more than forty posts worth of this thread about it, throwing allegations of dishonesty and hypocrisy about (despite acting dishonestly yourself in editing mention of the BBC report out, and defending dishonesty elsewhere) says a lot about what a massive twat you have acted on this thread.



Super lol


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you insane? You and the other two little piggies have made right cocks of yourselves here.



You and Pickers are _reading_ a different thread to everyone else, but _posting_ on this one! 

I often disagree with Pickmans, but frequently find him an intelligent and worthwhile read. I can't say the same for you, but you've *both* lost the fucking plot here!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You and Pickers are _reading_ a different thread to everyone else, but _posting_ on this one!
> 
> I often disagree with Pickmans, but frequently find him an intelligent and worthwhile read. I can't say the same for you, but you've *both* lost the fucking plot here!


 
A critique from the poster known as cunty simon. Rich pickings.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> A critique from the poster known as cunty simon. Rich pickings.



That's better. Stick to calling people names.

It's where your intelligence peaks!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 18, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> That's better. Stick to calling people names.
> 
> It's where your intelligence peaks!


 
I think you mean quoting, not calling.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 18, 2010)

Bloody hell. I'm closing this thread.


----------

