News2 mins 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.
pp
The list I posted in the link did include that numb nuts Waldorf.If You notice the end of the complete list from Wikepedia was cut short.It ended in Wake and I assume was to long to copy and paste.
Was that loony any relation of yours btw.The idiot who thought it would be a hoot to lead old bill a merry dance by deliberately masquerading as a wanted fugitive who had previously shot at police and escaped custody.Shot and pistol whipped in Earls Court Road whilst driving a BLMC mini.Only reason he didn't get one in the head was because the copper had run out of ammo.Yes I remember his hilarious antics very well and boy did they backfire on him.
The list I posted in the link did include that numb nuts Waldorf.If You notice the end of the complete list from Wikepedia was cut short.It ended in Wake and I assume was to long to copy and paste.
Was that loony any relation of yours btw.The idiot who thought it would be a hoot to lead old bill a merry dance by deliberately masquerading as a wanted fugitive who had previously shot at police and escaped custody.Shot and pistol whipped in Earls Court Road whilst driving a BLMC mini.Only reason he didn't get one in the head was because the copper had run out of ammo.Yes I remember his hilarious antics very well and boy did they backfire on him.
pp
Here is the full link from the original. You can follow where it was cut off(not by me).
It includes your hero Stephen Waldorf under "Non-fatal incidents" at 17/01/83.
http://
Here is the full link from the original. You can follow where it was cut off(not by me).
It includes your hero Stephen Waldorf under "Non-fatal incidents" at 17/01/83.
http://
Retrocop, I had to look this up as I don't know the details but wiki has a different interpretation of the events of Steven Waldorf's death to you.
http://
http://
// Was that loony any relation of yours btw? The idiot who thought it would be a hoot to lead old bill a merry dance by deliberately masquerading as a wanted fugitive who had previously shot at police and escaped //
[ steven waldork in case no one recognises the description ].
Was that loony any relation of yours btw? No - I would never drive a yellow mini.
It is odd how one's perceptions can be deceptive.
Your version does ring true with the oral testimony at the time.
The fugitive's girlfriend was somewhere near - SW was asked during the later trial, how they had met. He answered he was in a pub. and she had come in an looked around and it looked like she had selected him, and started talking. The rest as they say is history. The fugitive himself had apparently sashayed out of the flat in drag past the unobservant police. The implication in court was that the girlfriend went out and found a fugitive look-alike.
Your version certainly would be consisten t with attitudes at the time.SW observed later-ish " The thing was no-one ever visited me in hospital and said they were sorry."
He settled for £250k our of court. Policeman was acquitted of attempted murder.
[ steven waldork in case no one recognises the description ].
Was that loony any relation of yours btw? No - I would never drive a yellow mini.
It is odd how one's perceptions can be deceptive.
Your version does ring true with the oral testimony at the time.
The fugitive's girlfriend was somewhere near - SW was asked during the later trial, how they had met. He answered he was in a pub. and she had come in an looked around and it looked like she had selected him, and started talking. The rest as they say is history. The fugitive himself had apparently sashayed out of the flat in drag past the unobservant police. The implication in court was that the girlfriend went out and found a fugitive look-alike.
Your version certainly would be consisten t with attitudes at the time.SW observed later-ish " The thing was no-one ever visited me in hospital and said they were sorry."
He settled for £250k our of court. Policeman was acquitted of attempted murder.
retrocop - //You're so called perceptions do not allow you to ...err... perceive that you are passing the ammunition for others to shoot you down. //
'Shooting' me, or indeed anyone else down, is a choice, it's not compulsory.
So why don't you stop doing it? It's unprovoked, and it's nasty, and there's absolutely no need for it.
'Shooting' me, or indeed anyone else down, is a choice, it's not compulsory.
So why don't you stop doing it? It's unprovoked, and it's nasty, and there's absolutely no need for it.
I agree with naomi24's post, of 13:56 Tue 28th Apr 2015
Unintroduced pronouns, such as "they", are one of my pet hates. As are barbed comments aimed in a vague manner - "the usual contributors", etcetera, such that I can't tell whether it applies to me or not. Name names, if you mean it!
Like Randy Marsh, I also thought "at it again" applied to US police killing ethnic minorites at the point when I chose to click on the thread but, like a deceptively labelled product, it turned out to contain something else.
Although it took andy three pages to clarify that his question was intended to reduce a binary possibility into a singular certainty (since his question wording was equally ambiguous), it is understandable that he had to do so: was bazwillrun -actually- trying to imply that the rioters were beasts?
Yes, "it's just a turn of phrase, dummy" but why not rephrase the question using less loaded words? Better still, why not title the thread with something not as vague as "They"?
Communication: it's a skill.
Unintroduced pronouns, such as "they", are one of my pet hates. As are barbed comments aimed in a vague manner - "the usual contributors", etcetera, such that I can't tell whether it applies to me or not. Name names, if you mean it!
Like Randy Marsh, I also thought "at it again" applied to US police killing ethnic minorites at the point when I chose to click on the thread but, like a deceptively labelled product, it turned out to contain something else.
Although it took andy three pages to clarify that his question was intended to reduce a binary possibility into a singular certainty (since his question wording was equally ambiguous), it is understandable that he had to do so: was bazwillrun -actually- trying to imply that the rioters were beasts?
Yes, "it's just a turn of phrase, dummy" but why not rephrase the question using less loaded words? Better still, why not title the thread with something not as vague as "They"?
Communication: it's a skill.
Hypognosis - //Although it took andy three pages to clarify that his question was intended to reduce a binary possibility into a singular certainty (since his question wording was equally ambiguous), it is understandable that he had to do so: was bazwillrun -actually- trying to imply that the rioters were beasts?
Yes, "it's just a turn of phrase, dummy" but why not rephrase the question using less loaded words? Better still, why not title the thread with something not as vague as "They"? //
Glad it's not just me!
Are the usual suspects lining up to accuse Hyognosis of being a trouble-maker as well?
Yes, "it's just a turn of phrase, dummy" but why not rephrase the question using less loaded words? Better still, why not title the thread with something not as vague as "They"? //
Glad it's not just me!
Are the usual suspects lining up to accuse Hyognosis of being a trouble-maker as well?
Andy - “I never demean, much less take a stance of nasty hostility to anyone who asks for explanation of something I have written - it's not adult, and it's not nice” and “Being snide, accusatory, inflammatory and innaccurate are not understandable or acceptable - maybe some of the above posters would like to think about that next time they query something?”
does not fit well with “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”
Andy, I feel I have to add this because the remark that someone is out of their depth on this site is actually very insulting, it's been said to me before and just stops others from joining in with News threads - it smacks of elitism too.
does not fit well with “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”
Andy, I feel I have to add this because the remark that someone is out of their depth on this site is actually very insulting, it's been said to me before and just stops others from joining in with News threads - it smacks of elitism too.
Prudie - //Andy - “I never demean, much less take a stance of nasty hostility to anyone who asks for explanation of something I have written - it's not adult, and it's not nice” and “Being snide, accusatory, inflammatory and innaccurate are not understandable or acceptable - maybe some of the above posters would like to think about that next time they query something?”
does not fit well with “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”
Andy, I feel I have to add this because the remark that someone is out of their depth on this site is actually very insulting, it's been said to me before and just stops others from joining in with News threads - it smacks of elitism too. //
Don't worry - I was just poking the bear because baz is getting out of hand with his personal (unfounded) personal criticisms - he is more than capable of taking it, which is why I posted it.
I would not be so cavalier with any AB'er I knew less well.
does not fit well with “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”
Andy, I feel I have to add this because the remark that someone is out of their depth on this site is actually very insulting, it's been said to me before and just stops others from joining in with News threads - it smacks of elitism too. //
Don't worry - I was just poking the bear because baz is getting out of hand with his personal (unfounded) personal criticisms - he is more than capable of taking it, which is why I posted it.
I would not be so cavalier with any AB'er I knew less well.
retrocop // RandyMarsh.
Depends which statement you read at the time?//
If there is any URL about your story about Stephen Waldorf ( at present I think yours is a googlewhack ), that he was compliant or even conspiring, I would be more than interested to have it.
It certainly explains Waldorf's " no one ever came and said sorry "
It was I thought one of the early cases where the internal police inquiry said to the shooter: "There there never mind, here's your gun back." which I also thought occurred in little John Shorthouses case - Hair-trigger therefore acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence. Internal inquiry: " good news my boy youre back on the rota "
and just think only a little bit later
we had Hillsborough
where the police were full of rumours they werent short about spreading around to the press.
Depends which statement you read at the time?//
If there is any URL about your story about Stephen Waldorf ( at present I think yours is a googlewhack ), that he was compliant or even conspiring, I would be more than interested to have it.
It certainly explains Waldorf's " no one ever came and said sorry "
It was I thought one of the early cases where the internal police inquiry said to the shooter: "There there never mind, here's your gun back." which I also thought occurred in little John Shorthouses case - Hair-trigger therefore acquitted of manslaughter by gross negligence. Internal inquiry: " good news my boy youre back on the rota "
and just think only a little bit later
we had Hillsborough
where the police were full of rumours they werent short about spreading around to the press.
