Liverpool FC Forum

by **Number 9** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:47 pm

bavlondon wrote:
Number 9 wrote:Bav please mate?
Was this guy OTT?

If it were me I can see where he took offense to but I agree he was a bit OTT.

Fact is mate people are so worried about PC this and that it's best jyst not to take a chance so he shouldn't even be in that line of work. Imagine if he were in the army how would he wear a helmet? Silly on both parts thats what I say.

Yeah I agree...dont worry Im developing a bombproof turbin mate!

Its also very cool that you kept your head in this thread and did not see it as an attack on any race/religion/community etc etc..Top man Bav..I salute ya! :bowdown

by **tubby** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:53 pm

Number 9 wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Number 9 wrote:Bav please mate?
Was this guy OTT?

If it were me I can see where he took offense to but I agree he was a bit OTT.

Fact is mate people are so worried about PC this and that it's best jyst not to take a chance so he shouldn't even be in that line of work. Imagine if he were in the army how would he wear a helmet? Silly on both parts thats what I say.

Yeah I agree...dont worry Im developing a bombproof turbin mate!

Its also very cool that you kept your head in this thread and did not see it as an attack on any race/religion/community etc etc..Top man Bav..I salute ya!

At the end of the day mate I was born here so I can basically see if from both angles. Some people just want to take the pis.s and look for an easy payout. The force should make these things clear from the start of the recruitment process to cover their backs from this kind of rubbish.

Anyway I am not exactly a strong practicing sikh by any means. Infact I break almost every rule in the book, I shave, am a skin head and don't wear the traditional threads or carry the sword ect... so im one to talk.

by **Ciggy** » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:09 pm

dawson99 wrote:Wonder how much she'll be sued for???

Prosecutors defend 'poke' charge

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has defended taking legal action against a disabled pensioner from Lancashire who poked a teenager in the chest.

Renate Bowling, 71, admitted assaulting the 17-year-old boy because he had been throwing stones at her windows.

The CPS said she refused to stop prodding him when an officer arrived.

The grandmother, who had confronted the teenager outside her home in Thornton Cleveleys, was given a conditional discharge at Blackpool Magistrates.

"In deciding to charge Renate Bowling with common assault we considered all the available evidence from witnesses.

"Mrs Bowling had emerged from her house and was seen by the officer to be shouting loudly at the 17-year-old boy and using abusive language.

"The officer then saw her assault the boy by prodding him in the chest and grabbing hold of his clothing," a CPS spokeswoman added.

Mrs Bowling, however, said that she was a widow living on her own and the actions of this boy had scared her.

"I feel like the victim in all of this - this boy was not injured, I had just reached the end of my tether.

"I have been called a German whore in the street, and my windows are always getting pelted with stones."

The widow, who has three children who served in the Army, suffers from osteoporosis, curvature of the spine and diabetes.

She escaped war-torn German in 1945 and brought her family up in Lancashire.

A CPS spokeswoman added: "As Mrs Bowling did not admit the offence initially, it was not possible to caution her for the matter.

"There was no criticism from magistrates about the decision to prosecute."

This country makes me f*cking sick.

And today them pair of tw@ts that murderded their baby from Runcorn he got 6 years and the mother was set free, England has gone to the dogs, is it ok to kill babies now?

But not be able to poke some horrible gobsh!te ferel ASBO rat.

by **Dazzer** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:11 am

Ciggy wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Wonder how much she'll be sued for???

Prosecutors defend 'poke' charge

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has defended taking legal action against a disabled pensioner from Lancashire who poked a teenager in the chest.

Renate Bowling, 71, admitted assaulting the 17-year-old boy because he had been throwing stones at her windows.

The CPS said she refused to stop prodding him when an officer arrived.

The grandmother, who had confronted the teenager outside her home in Thornton Cleveleys, was given a conditional discharge at Blackpool Magistrates.

"In deciding to charge Renate Bowling with common assault we considered all the available evidence from witnesses.

"Mrs Bowling had emerged from her house and was seen by the officer to be shouting loudly at the 17-year-old boy and using abusive language.

"The officer then saw her assault the boy by prodding him in the chest and grabbing hold of his clothing," a CPS spokeswoman added.

Mrs Bowling, however, said that she was a widow living on her own and the actions of this boy had scared her.

"I feel like the victim in all of this - this boy was not injured, I had just reached the end of my tether.

"I have been called a German whore in the street, and my windows are always getting pelted with stones."

The widow, who has three children who served in the Army, suffers from osteoporosis, curvature of the spine and diabetes.

She escaped war-torn German in 1945 and brought her family up in Lancashire.

A CPS spokeswoman added: "As Mrs Bowling did not admit the offence initially, it was not possible to caution her for the matter.

"There was no criticism from magistrates about the decision to prosecute."

This country makes me f*cking sick.

And today them pair of tw@ts that murderded their baby from Runcorn he got 6 years and the mother was set free, England has gone to the dogs, is it ok to kill babies now?

But not be able to poke some horrible gobsh!te ferel ASBO rat.

Not much better overseas the whole world is fu.cked if you ask me I hope one day say 100 years from now we all get wiped out and some other life form gets a chance.

That guy that kidnapped that girl for 18 years and had 2 kids was put in prison 7 years earlier was meant to do 50 and was let out after 10 and they knew by his profile he would reoffend.He was put in prison for multiple rapes go figure.

The world is bloody garbage !

There is already to many people on planet lets start killing some of these sick fu.cks for christ sake.In fact I would do the job if needed or at least chip in on the work load.

by **Kharhaz** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:38 am

Out of the officer's 15 grievances, two were ruled in his favour: Harassment from a superior and "indirect discrimination" because the rules around the riot training lacked "clarity".

A lesson for everyone here. If you are going to sue a company for an inane thing, have a shed load of reasons for doing so. One of them will come good !

by **Kharhaz** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:12 am

I should sue the jobcenter. I decided earlier to get p!ssed instead of angry. Heres why.

A good friend of mine used to work with me in a hotel. He also plays guitar and plays in a band. His music kicked off better then his bartending skills and I got talking to him last week. He plays with his band in many pubs and knows who needs what and why, it helps him get free drinks to be friendly and bring in customers which also helps.

He put in an excellent word for me saying I was the best Cellarman he has ever worked with. 4 bars to look after and never a problem.This place he got me an interview with had only 2 bars. Easy as soap on skin. The landlord agreed to see me before he actually advertised for the job.

Now a friday is an agreed jobsearch day that I look for work. The arrangement I have with the jobcenter is I turn up every friday to look for work, yesterday I had a job interview. I phone up the jobcenter explaining my interview I get no leeway whatsoever. Its agreed I turn up so I have to. Apparently, looking for work is more importent than actually finding it. I tried to delay my interview for a better time but its a no go.

I now look like an incompetent tool, who talks a good game. I now officially give up. Its tiresome, it really is. Stories like what this topic has raised have more meaning, what chance do I have? I cant sue, im white and british. Off the record though, my missus didnt half give to some woman at the jobcenter !

by **Lando_Griffin** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:36 am

It would serve this prat right if the Police put up a blanket ban on all Sikhs joining the riot squad in future, to save this sh*t.

But as we all know, that would be racist...

by **fivecups** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:33 am

bavlondon wrote:
Number 9 wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Number 9 wrote:Bav please mate?
Was this guy OTT?

If it were me I can see where he took offense to but I agree he was a bit OTT.

Fact is mate people are so worried about PC this and that it's best jyst not to take a chance so he shouldn't even be in that line of work. Imagine if he were in the army how would he wear a helmet? Silly on both parts thats what I say.

Yeah I agree...dont worry Im developing a bombproof turbin mate!

Its also very cool that you kept your head in this thread and did not see it as an attack on any race/religion/community etc etc..Top man Bav..I salute ya!

At the end of the day mate I was born here so I can basically see if from both angles. Some people just want to take the pis.s and look for an easy payout. The force should make these things clear from the start of the recruitment process to cover their backs from this kind of rubbish.

Anyway I am not exactly a strong practicing sikh by any means. Infact I break almost every rule in the book, I shave, am a skin head and don't wear the traditional threads or carry the sword ect... so im one to talk.

Bav:

There must be times with Sikhs need to wear head protection, in the army, motorcycles etc. What do they do then? Surely there have been Sikh riot police in the past?

by **tubby** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:23 pm

Im sure there have mate but im assuming they have just ended up cutting their hair.

by **woof woof !** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:08 pm

There must be times with Sikhs need to wear head protection, in the army, motorcycles etc. What do they do then? Surely there have been Sikh riot police in the past?

Sikhs in the british army never wore helmets, they were allowed to conduct their service wearing turbans.
As mentioned elswhere in this thread in the uk Sikhs are not required to wear motor cycle helmets.

I don't think many people have a real issue with the Sikh policeman insisting on wearing his turban, what winds most people up is his decision to sue the police for discrimination.

What next ? in order to properly observe their religion, Muslim police that insist on stopping and praying five times a day ? Orthodox jewish policeman insisting on fridays they have to finish work before it gets dark ?

People constanly playing the race/discrimination card in order to milk the system, makes me sick and even sicker that our courts let them get away with it. :angry:

by **Dazzer** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:19 pm

I don't see problem get them to sign a consent form if they go into a riot and there heads get bashed in because there gear wasn't on then its there fault no problem.

by **dawson99** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:22 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
There must be times with Sikhs need to wear head protection, in the army, motorcycles etc. What do they do then? Surely there have been Sikh riot police in the past?

Sikhs in the british army never wore helmets, they were allowed to conduct their service wearing turbans.
As mentioned elswhere in this thread in the uk Sikhs are not required to wear motor cycle helmets.

I don't think many people have a real issue with the Sikh policeman insisting on wearing his turban, what winds most people up is his decision to sue the police for discrimination.

What next ? in order to properly observe their religion, Muslim police that insist on stopping and praying five times a day ? Orthodox jewish policeman insisting on fridays they have to finish work before it gets dark ?

People constanly playing the race/discrimination card in order to milk the system, makes me sick and even sicker that our courts let them get away with it.

and i bet if he was in a riot and got bashed on the head hed sue for that as well!!!

by **Ben Patrick** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:27 pm

Dazzer wrote:I don't see problem get them to sign a consent form if they go into a riot and there heads get bashed in because there gear wasn't on then its there fault no problem.

Well i agree with that an extent mate, the person is less likely to be able to control the riot and do the job properly if they are smashed in the head that is not protected and knocked out.

Liverpool FC Forum

Lets just sue... - Madness

Who is online