Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2010 8:55:25 GMT -5
A lie is a lie however hard you try to pretend otherwise.
It is abundantly clear that your view of what constitutes 'truth' is as myopic as that of the late and unlamented Goebbels and Beria.
You have been caught out in a blatant LIE and you don't even have the courage to ADMIT that you were wrong.
Philosophy is far from being my only card.
However, if you prefer irrationality and falsehood to reason and facts then you really are an utterly hopeless case.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 21, 2010 9:36:38 GMT -5
A lie is a lie however hard you try to pretend otherwise. It is abundantly clear that your view of what constitutes 'truth' is as myopic as that of the late and unlamented Goebbels and Beria. You have been caught out in a blatant LIE and you don't even have the courage to ADMIT that you were wrong. Philosophy is far from being my only card. However, if you prefer irrationality and falsehood to reason and facts then you really are an utterly hopeless case. So its lies now instead of truth. Have you proof I have lied? If so, share it do. Will Kant be joining you for breakfast?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2010 10:49:42 GMT -5
Truth is a mighty big elephant. Everybody has a price and a weakness. Experience is an excellent teacher. how is it that you have had experience with every single police officer in the met?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 21, 2010 11:46:01 GMT -5
Truth is a mighty big elephant. Everybody has a price and a weakness. Experience is an excellent teacher. how is it that you have had experience with every single police officer in the met? I've often wondered how it is that you know that everybody accused of murder is guilty and should be executed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2010 17:34:28 GMT -5
The simple FACT is that ONLY if you personally know that EVERY officer in the Met - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - behaves in the way you claim they do would your case be valid.
Since it is NOT the case that you DO know every single officer
It is NOT the case that every officer DOES behave in the way that you claim
There are ONLY three POSSIBLE conclusions.
1 You are on the same level of delusional invulnerability to facts as a Flat-Earthist
2 You are deliberately LYING
3 You are too arrogant or cowardly to admit that you are wrong
Which is the correct explanation, please?
There simply is NO other possible explanation for your ridiculous statement!
Or
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 22, 2010 2:37:58 GMT -5
The simple FACT is that ONLY if you personally know that EVERY officer in the Met - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - behaves in the way you claim they do would your case be valid. Since it is NOT the case that you DO know every single officer It is NOT the case that every officer DOES behave in the way that you claim There are ONLY three POSSIBLE conclusions. 1 You are on the same level of delusional invulnerability to facts as a Flat-Earthist 2 You are deliberately LYING 3 You are too arrogant or cowardly to admit that you are wrong Which is the correct explanation, please? There simply is NO other possible explanation for your ridiculous statement! Or My case is valid, no matter how much that irks you. And it clearly does. Having friends in the plod explains the ridiculous amount of trust you place in them.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2010 10:38:21 GMT -5
how is it that you have had experience with every single police officer in the met? I've often wondered how it is that you know that everybody accused of murder is guilty and should be executed. sorry laddie, you lose, again. not one time, hell, in my entire life, have i EVER said that everyone accused of murder is guilty and should be executed. you however, HAVE said, a couple of times, that you know every single police officer in the met. big difference sorry 'bout your luck.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2010 10:40:23 GMT -5
The simple FACT is that ONLY if you personally know that EVERY officer in the Met - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - behaves in the way you claim they do would your case be valid. Since it is NOT the case that you DO know every single officer It is NOT the case that every officer DOES behave in the way that you claim There are ONLY three POSSIBLE conclusions. 1 You are on the same level of delusional invulnerability to facts as a Flat-Earthist 2 You are deliberately LYING 3 You are too arrogant or cowardly to admit that you are wrong Which is the correct explanation, please? There simply is NO other possible explanation for your ridiculous statement! Or My case is valid, no matter how much that irks you. And it clearly does. Having friends in the plod explains the ridiculous amount of trust you place in them. your notion that because a couple of doctors are incompetent, EVERY doctor is a crook, is ridiculous on its face
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2010 15:41:21 GMT -5
The simple FACT is that ONLY if you personally know that EVERY officer in the Met - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - behaves in the way you claim they do would your case be valid. Since it is NOT the case that you DO know every single officer It is NOT the case that every officer DOES behave in the way that you claim There are ONLY three POSSIBLE conclusions. 1 You are on the same level of delusional invulnerability to facts as a Flat-Earthist 2 You are deliberately LYING 3 You are too arrogant or cowardly to admit that you are wrong Which is the correct explanation, please? There simply is NO other possible explanation for your ridiculous statement! Or My case is valid, no matter how much that irks you. And it clearly does. Having friends in the plod explains the ridiculous amount of trust you place in them. Your case is NEITHER logically NOR factually valid. It does NOT correspond with the facts. It is also logically invalid. As such, it fails on BOTH counts and is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. You either inhabit a delusional universe like Scientologists and those with similar kinds of brainwashed propaganda instead of an open, enquiring, sceptical and rational mind OR You know full well that your 'argument' is nothing more than the cheap prejudicial superstitions of the lunatic fringe of the Marxists and neo-Trotskyists and you are consciously LYING OR You are too cowardly to admit that you are mistaken and that you allowed your prejudices to carry you away. As for your absurd suggestion that having friends in the Met makes me naively trusting of the police, it is purely an argumentem ad hominem which, as even you must be aware, is NOT a valid argument. It is on the same level of stupidity as those people who suggest that because my wife tries to help prisoners that therefore she must be soft on crime. Good grief, she wants to execute people, to castrate rapists and paedophiles, to bring back corporal punishment for crimes of violence. How is THAT being soft on crime? In the same way, how does suggesting that not ALL officers in the Met are corrupt, brutal and all the rest of your vague and scattergun abuse of them make me TRUSTING of the police? If you actually bothered to READ my posts you would see that I quite clearly stated that the police ARE the arm of the power structure and the establishment and that their duties COMPEL them at times to act in inappropriate ways. That is a LONG way from saying that: a) ALL of them behave in that manner; b) ALL of them consistently violate the existing criminal laws. Do try to get some kind of grip on reality, dear chap. You are becoming as irrational in your thought processes as RV on climate change or Erasmus on feminism! Delusional universes are best left to the inhabitants of secure mental units rather than being propagated as if they bore some vague relationship to facts.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 22, 2010 16:38:27 GMT -5
My case is valid, no matter how much that irks you. And it clearly does. Having friends in the plod explains the ridiculous amount of trust you place in them. Your case is NEITHER logically NOR factually valid. It does NOT correspond with the facts. It is also logically invalid. As such, it fails on BOTH counts and is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. You either inhabit a delusional universe like Scientologists and those with similar kinds of brainwashed propaganda instead of an open, enquiring, sceptical and rational mind OR You know full well that your 'argument' is nothing more than the cheap prejudicial superstitions of the lunatic fringe of the Marxists and neo-Trotskyists and you are consciously LYING OR You are too cowardly to admit that you are mistaken and that you allowed your prejudices to carry you away. As for your absurd suggestion that having friends in the Met makes me naively trusting of the police, it is purely an argumentem ad hominem which, as even you must be aware, is NOT a valid argument. It is on the same level of stupidity as those people who suggest that because my wife tries to help prisoners that therefore she must be soft on crime. Good grief, she wants to execute people, to castrate rapists and paedophiles, to bring back corporal punishment for crimes of violence. How is THAT being soft on crime? In the same way, how does suggesting that not ALL officers in the Met are corrupt, brutal and all the rest of your vague and scattergun abuse of them make me TRUSTING of the police? If you actually bothered to READ my posts you would see that I quite clearly stated that the police ARE the arm of the power structure and the establishment and that their duties COMPEL them at times to act in inappropriate ways. That is a LONG way from saying that: a) ALL of them behave in that manner; b) ALL of them consistently violate the existing criminal laws. Do try to get some kind of grip on reality, dear chap. You are becoming as irrational in your thought processes as RV on climate change or Erasmus on feminism! Delusional universes are best left to the inhabitants of secure mental units rather than being propagated as if they bore some vague relationship to facts. It more than corresponds with the facts, we have already established that you need to get out and mix with the NON-FRIEND lower ranks. People aren't logical, all the inductive logic you would like to toss around won't change that. Prejudice? Given the friends you keep that is an entirely predictable barb. Cowardly? Are you trying to tell me you're brave, LOL. What has your wife and the death penalty to do with it? Spare me the waffle and the red herrings. As you are so well connected, you'll doubtless remember Operation Countryman. You'll also recall that Countryman faced massive obstruction from both the management hierarchy and the rank-and-file of the police force it was investigating. Under Leonard Burt the investigation team refused to pass any evidence it had received against Metropolitan Police officers to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. No doubt you can tell us why that was. After six years, and at a cost of over £4 million, Operation Countryman presented its findings to the Home Office and the Commissioner. Not surprisingly, no officer was ever charged with a criminal offence as a result of the investigation. Questions asked in Parliament have, on several occasions, called on the Home Secretary to publicly release the findings of Operation Countryman, but such requests have been refused as these are protected by public interest immunity. Geddit
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Jun 22, 2010 18:08:41 GMT -5
Ok.......an example of what women are capable of........my husband and one of his officers were serving papers on a woman. She was being evicted. She wasn't happy about it.....she grabbed the officers arm and latched on with her teeth. They ended up carrying her out by her hair and her feet. The neighbors were upset by this. Here's a pic of the officer's arm. He had to be tested for HIV and several other diseases and get a court order to get her tested to see what he may have been exposed to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2010 18:37:31 GMT -5
Fret, you are obviously stark raving mad. The utter bullshit you have posted instead of attempting to offer some kind of rational defence makes the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' look like a work of sober realism.
What on earth makes you assume that I have NOT had dealings with corrupt or brutal cops?
As I said, if you'd bothered to actually READ my posts you would find several examples of my dealings with them on a highly confrontational basis.
Brave? That is for others to judge.
I have survived being physically, mentally and emotionally abused by my mother.
I survived two attempts by her to kill me.
I survived being raped by three homosexual men when I was a teenager.
I have fought off knife-wielding muggers when I lived in Hackney (and once when I lived in Tooting.)
I don't think physical cowardice is the only important type - MORAL and INTELLECTUAL cowardice are equally reprehensible.
Since you appear to be determined to talk out of your arse, I will simply regard you as an utter crackpot on the same level as a Flat Earthist.
Rational argument is clearly NOT a tool you enjoy using.
And you claim to be a scientist!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2010 18:40:36 GMT -5
For what it is worth, I have CONSISTENTLY argued that the police are compelled to be part of the power structure and the establishment.
Individual police officers are as human or inhuman as individual civilians.
On the whole, most of them do their best.
I have nothing but contempt for bad cops and not a vast degree of respect for the good ones as long as their priorities are defending the ESTABLISHMENT rather than the CITIZENS.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 23, 2010 3:03:23 GMT -5
Fret, you are obviously stark raving mad. The utter bullshoot you have posted instead of attempting to offer some kind of rational defence makes the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' look like a work of sober realism. What on earth makes you assume that I have NOT had dealings with corrupt or brutal cops? As I said, if you'd bothered to actually READ my posts you would find several examples of my dealings with them on a highly confrontational basis. Brave? That is for others to judge. I have survived being physically, mentally and emotionally abused by my mother. I survived two attempts by her to kill me. I survived being raped by three homosexual men when I was a teenager. I have fought off knife-wielding muggers when I lived in Hackney (and once when I lived in Tooting.) I don't think physical cowardice is the only important type - MORAL and INTELLECTUAL cowardice are equally reprehensible. Since you appear to be determined to talk out of your arse, I will simply regard you as an utter crackpot on the same level as a Flat Earthist. Rational argument is clearly NOT a tool you enjoy using. And you claim to be a scientist! Coming from you that can only be a compliment - you might need to think about that one a little. You haven't come up with anything to prove I'm lying or anything else. All we hear about is Sadie's husband, your friends, your wife etc etc Nothing to say on Countryman, now there's a total non-surprise. Who's next up your granny?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 10:15:21 GMT -5
There is a fundamental difference between an opinion and a fact.
It is a FACT that the Metropolitan Police Force is the body responsible for policing London and parts of the Home Counties.
It is an OPINION that its officers are uniformly corrupt.
Operation Countryman took place during the 1970s and things have improved considerably in the force since those days.
I will start a new thread soon on how policing COULD and SHOULD be in the hands of the PEOPLE rather than their oppressors as is currently the case.
All I require from you, dear chap, is a simple acknowledgement that you WERE expressing an OPINION rather than a FACT.
|
|