Water Aid Blooming Personalities Quiz...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
And Theyre At It Again....
98 Answers
http://
nature of the beast i suppose....oh well...
nature of the beast i suppose....oh well...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
RandyMarsh
A long list of deaths by British police shootings and some survivors of police shootings.
Some were judged unlawful actions by police.Most were not.
I can see one slaying which resulted in the list which did cause rioting in the UK.
Again, "the nature of the beast"
Fatal incidents[edit]
Note: the following does not include killings by police in Northern Ireland.
In June 1980, hostage Gail Kinchin and her unborn baby were killed in crossfire between West Midlands officers and her boyfriend.
On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. The incident produced hostility towards the police over two days after John's death when a policewoman was dragged from her patrol car and beaten by youths. Following the Shorthouse case, West Midlands police abandoned its practice of training rank-and-file officers for firearms duties and formed a specialist squad.[29]
On 24 April 1995 James Brady, 21, was shot dead in an ambush by police officers acting on a tip-off. He and three friends were thought to be about to steal from a club in Westerhope village, near Newcastle. The torch he had been carrying was mistaken for a firearm.
On 28 April 1995 A prisoner on day release, David Ewin, 38, was shot twice in the stomach by a police officer after he was spotted in a stolen sports car in Barnes, west London. He died in hospital three weeks later.
On 23 September 1996 Diarmuid O'Neill, 27, a suspected IRA terrorist was hit and killed by 10 bullets when officers raided his lodgings in Hammersmith, west London. An inquest ruled last year that the unarmed man was lawfully killed.
On 20 November 1996 David Howell, 40, a mental health patient, was shot dead by police marksmen when he ran amok with a knife in a Birmingham shop and took the manager hostage. An inquest jury later returned a verdict of lawful killing.
On 15 January 1998 James Ashley, 39, was shot and killed by Sussex Police while naked and unarmed during a drugs raid at his flat. The officer who fired the shots was cleared of any wrongdoing after a trial at the Old Bailey.[30]
On 26 February 1998 Michael Fitzgerald, 32, was shot in the chest by police in Bedford after a two-hour stand-off. Neighbours had mistaken him for a burglar. It later emerged that he was in his own home and carrying a fake gun.
On 10 April 1999 Devon and Cornwall police fatally shot Antony Kitts in Falmouth. He was reported to have threatened officers with what they thought was a sniper rifle. It turned out to be an air rifle. An inquest in 2000 returned a verdict of lawful killing.[31]
In June 1999 Derek Bateman, 47, of Surrey was shot by a single bullet through the heart after his girlfriend went to a neighbour's house and telephoned the police, telling them he was armed and had been threatening to shoot her. It was later determined that the weapon he had brandished at the police was an air pistol.[32]
On 22 September 1999 Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator, born in Bellshill near Glasgow, was walking home when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers following an erroneous report that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag. The officers challenged Mr Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them they shot him dead at a distance of 5 metres. It later emerged that the plastic bag actually contained a broken table leg that Stanley's brother had just fixed for him. Following numerous enquiries (in November 2004 a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing) both officers were exonerated after 6 years of court cases and inquiries. It was found that neither officer was liable for criminal charges nor would face any disciplinary sanctions. However, the report did make notable recommendations to the police on the post-incident procedure to be followed after a shooting and about challenging members of the public from behind.[33]
On 24 September 2000 Kirk Davies, 30, died after being shot by a West Yorkshire police officer in Wakefiel
A long list of deaths by British police shootings and some survivors of police shootings.
Some were judged unlawful actions by police.Most were not.
I can see one slaying which resulted in the list which did cause rioting in the UK.
Again, "the nature of the beast"
Fatal incidents[edit]
Note: the following does not include killings by police in Northern Ireland.
In June 1980, hostage Gail Kinchin and her unborn baby were killed in crossfire between West Midlands officers and her boyfriend.
On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. The incident produced hostility towards the police over two days after John's death when a policewoman was dragged from her patrol car and beaten by youths. Following the Shorthouse case, West Midlands police abandoned its practice of training rank-and-file officers for firearms duties and formed a specialist squad.[29]
On 24 April 1995 James Brady, 21, was shot dead in an ambush by police officers acting on a tip-off. He and three friends were thought to be about to steal from a club in Westerhope village, near Newcastle. The torch he had been carrying was mistaken for a firearm.
On 28 April 1995 A prisoner on day release, David Ewin, 38, was shot twice in the stomach by a police officer after he was spotted in a stolen sports car in Barnes, west London. He died in hospital three weeks later.
On 23 September 1996 Diarmuid O'Neill, 27, a suspected IRA terrorist was hit and killed by 10 bullets when officers raided his lodgings in Hammersmith, west London. An inquest ruled last year that the unarmed man was lawfully killed.
On 20 November 1996 David Howell, 40, a mental health patient, was shot dead by police marksmen when he ran amok with a knife in a Birmingham shop and took the manager hostage. An inquest jury later returned a verdict of lawful killing.
On 15 January 1998 James Ashley, 39, was shot and killed by Sussex Police while naked and unarmed during a drugs raid at his flat. The officer who fired the shots was cleared of any wrongdoing after a trial at the Old Bailey.[30]
On 26 February 1998 Michael Fitzgerald, 32, was shot in the chest by police in Bedford after a two-hour stand-off. Neighbours had mistaken him for a burglar. It later emerged that he was in his own home and carrying a fake gun.
On 10 April 1999 Devon and Cornwall police fatally shot Antony Kitts in Falmouth. He was reported to have threatened officers with what they thought was a sniper rifle. It turned out to be an air rifle. An inquest in 2000 returned a verdict of lawful killing.[31]
In June 1999 Derek Bateman, 47, of Surrey was shot by a single bullet through the heart after his girlfriend went to a neighbour's house and telephoned the police, telling them he was armed and had been threatening to shoot her. It was later determined that the weapon he had brandished at the police was an air pistol.[32]
On 22 September 1999 Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator, born in Bellshill near Glasgow, was walking home when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers following an erroneous report that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag. The officers challenged Mr Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them they shot him dead at a distance of 5 metres. It later emerged that the plastic bag actually contained a broken table leg that Stanley's brother had just fixed for him. Following numerous enquiries (in November 2004 a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing) both officers were exonerated after 6 years of court cases and inquiries. It was found that neither officer was liable for criminal charges nor would face any disciplinary sanctions. However, the report did make notable recommendations to the police on the post-incident procedure to be followed after a shooting and about challenging members of the public from behind.[33]
On 24 September 2000 Kirk Davies, 30, died after being shot by a West Yorkshire police officer in Wakefiel
Peter Pedant - //Nature of the beast
certain aspects or traits of a person or thing that reveal themselves, either occasionally or on a regular basis.
and I dont doubt that Baz was referring to the regularity with which blacks die in police custody when they er shouldnt ( coz they walk in with no bullet holes and so on)//
That's interesting - I thought it referred to the rioters, so that somewhat vindicates my original query - even though it seems to have upset some posters.
certain aspects or traits of a person or thing that reveal themselves, either occasionally or on a regular basis.
and I dont doubt that Baz was referring to the regularity with which blacks die in police custody when they er shouldnt ( coz they walk in with no bullet holes and so on)//
That's interesting - I thought it referred to the rioters, so that somewhat vindicates my original query - even though it seems to have upset some posters.
If I can step aside from the schoolyard….
…from andy-hughes, //The groups of people involved would not ordinarily be a 'gang' - this is a group of people protesting about what they perceive as an injustice.//
I don’t know which of these people belong to gangs and I've no idea how anyone else claims to know, but they are not protesting – they are rioting and creating a mayhem of wanton destruction - and nothing excuses that.
…from andy-hughes, //The groups of people involved would not ordinarily be a 'gang' - this is a group of people protesting about what they perceive as an injustice.//
I don’t know which of these people belong to gangs and I've no idea how anyone else claims to know, but they are not protesting – they are rioting and creating a mayhem of wanton destruction - and nothing excuses that.
Naomi - //from andy-hughes, //The groups of people involved would not ordinarily be a 'gang' - this is a group of people protesting about what they perceive as an injustice.//
I don’t know which of these people belong to gangs and I've no idea how anyone else claims to know, but they are not protesting – they are rioting and creating a mayhem of wanton destruction - and nothing excuses that. //
No argument there.
I don’t know which of these people belong to gangs and I've no idea how anyone else claims to know, but they are not protesting – they are rioting and creating a mayhem of wanton destruction - and nothing excuses that. //
No argument there.
bazwillrun - //Its plain as day...you were on a fishing trip..unfortunately you got rumbled from the get go.... //
I was not 'fishing' for anything - I was unsure about the meaning of the term you used - as was Peter Pedant.
I am not sure what you mean by 'rumbled' - why do you feel the need to be so defensive?
I was not 'fishing' for anything - I was unsure about the meaning of the term you used - as was Peter Pedant.
I am not sure what you mean by 'rumbled' - why do you feel the need to be so defensive?
Look at the responses you got...you were trying to act dumb...i dont know anybody who hasnt heard of or understand what "nature of the beast" means.
you were the one fishing and trying to as you and others do on here twist and distort things into a 3 day going nowhere debate full of hot air and not much else.
"Ask questions and get real answers from real people. Whether practical or just for fun get answers to your questions"
you got answers but they didnt suit your fishing agenda, it really is that simple...like i said "its the nature of the beast"
you were the one fishing and trying to as you and others do on here twist and distort things into a 3 day going nowhere debate full of hot air and not much else.
"Ask questions and get real answers from real people. Whether practical or just for fun get answers to your questions"
you got answers but they didnt suit your fishing agenda, it really is that simple...like i said "its the nature of the beast"
@retrocop
//RandyMarsh
Bigger Country. Bigger lawless "gangsta" culture.//
Or it could be down to downright lazy, casually racist policing, over there. Maybe they tell white crooks from white law-abiding types by demeanour, or use of language but they find this harder with minorities because they don't mix with the law-abiding ones. They use race as a shorthand for "potentially life-threatening" and identical words or actions lead to a white person getting slumg in a cell while the black one scares them so much they have to be shot on the spot and then stories made up about them in the press, after the event, so as to 'justify' the death.
I thought the 12 year old, playing with his toy gun in the park was bad enough to make all their cops at least a bit more careful but no, they've been racking up more 'accidents' by the week and it is sickening.
So, tell me how sitting at home and quietly mourning the passing of their loved one is going to change this pattern of itchy trigger-fingers and half-senile "pay to play cop" liabilities? You are correct to state that riot is not justified, I just would like to see clarification that protest most certainly is justified.
And I think it is the pattern of events, not the individual incidents, which justifies the protests (although I have no way of knowing this).
Quizmonster - //Well done, Andy. I can see perfectly what question you were asking and so - I feel sure - does almost everyone else who has contributed. Clearly, you have little chance of getting an adequate response from them, but good effort for trying. I should leave it there, if I were you. //
Thank you for your support.
I was, as you can see - merely asking for clarification about the use of the phrase 'nature of the beast' - and whether that referred to the gangs, or the police.
It seems that bazwillrun has chosen to take a hostile stance in response, I really don't know why, but as you say, I am unlikely to get a simple response to a simple question, so I will indeed leave it there.
Thank you for your support.
I was, as you can see - merely asking for clarification about the use of the phrase 'nature of the beast' - and whether that referred to the gangs, or the police.
It seems that bazwillrun has chosen to take a hostile stance in response, I really don't know why, but as you say, I am unlikely to get a simple response to a simple question, so I will indeed leave it there.
Thank you for your support
Why don't you correct quizmonster, Andy?
Well done, Andy. I can see perfectly what question you were asking and so - I feel sure - does almost everyone else who has contributed. Clearly, you have little chance of getting an adequate response from them,
Them? You wanted an answer from the OP, not 'them'
You got it wrong about the gangs but rather than admit it you prefer to go on and on and on an.....
Why don't you correct quizmonster, Andy?
Well done, Andy. I can see perfectly what question you were asking and so - I feel sure - does almost everyone else who has contributed. Clearly, you have little chance of getting an adequate response from them,
Them? You wanted an answer from the OP, not 'them'
You got it wrong about the gangs but rather than admit it you prefer to go on and on and on an.....
bazwillrun - //Look at the responses you got...you were trying to act dumb... //
I was not 'trying to act ...' anything - I asked for clarification on your use of the term, nothing more or less.
// i dont know anybody who hasnt heard of or understand what "nature of the beast" means. //
I am sure there are many people who don't understand the meaning of the phrase - I am not one of them. However, it is not the meaning of the phrase I am asking about - merely your context in using it.
// you were the one fishing and trying to as you and others do on here twist and distort things into a 3 day going nowhere debate full of hot air and not much else. //
I cannot speak for others and their agenda, but I was not 'fishing' (no need to clarify your use of that expression) and I was not trying to twist or distort anything. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I merely asked a question - quite why this has resulted in such defensive vitriol from you and some others I really have no idea.
//Ask questions and get real answers from real people. Whether practical or just for fun get answers to your questions"
// you got answers but they didnt suit your fishing agenda, it really is that simple...like i said "its the nature of the beast" //
I got answers, none of which addressed my question, but that is for you to decline to do, if you wish, although I remain baffled by your hostile defensive attitude to what was merely a question.
I think you are out of your depth making OP's baz, maybe you should stick to merely adding smart remarks and 'Hear Hear's' to the views of others who post first.
It seems that being questioned about a post upsets you - maybe you are on the wrong website?
I was not 'trying to act ...' anything - I asked for clarification on your use of the term, nothing more or less.
// i dont know anybody who hasnt heard of or understand what "nature of the beast" means. //
I am sure there are many people who don't understand the meaning of the phrase - I am not one of them. However, it is not the meaning of the phrase I am asking about - merely your context in using it.
// you were the one fishing and trying to as you and others do on here twist and distort things into a 3 day going nowhere debate full of hot air and not much else. //
I cannot speak for others and their agenda, but I was not 'fishing' (no need to clarify your use of that expression) and I was not trying to twist or distort anything. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I merely asked a question - quite why this has resulted in such defensive vitriol from you and some others I really have no idea.
//Ask questions and get real answers from real people. Whether practical or just for fun get answers to your questions"
// you got answers but they didnt suit your fishing agenda, it really is that simple...like i said "its the nature of the beast" //
I got answers, none of which addressed my question, but that is for you to decline to do, if you wish, although I remain baffled by your hostile defensive attitude to what was merely a question.
I think you are out of your depth making OP's baz, maybe you should stick to merely adding smart remarks and 'Hear Hear's' to the views of others who post first.
It seems that being questioned about a post upsets you - maybe you are on the wrong website?
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News4 mins ago
Cheltenham 2.55 - 2 Fatalities
Sport10 mins ago
