A woman was arrested today after standing behind shot PC David Rathband and saying 'Bang, Bang', police said.
The woman, who had red dyed hair and was dressed in blue denim and gold jewellery, apparently pretended to shoot a gun as she did so.But I can't help but compare and contrast this action with the abysmally slow response to the poppy burning Muslims or the pitifully tiny crowd that turns up at each terrorism trial to chant and hurl insults:
The woman was arrested on the 4th-floor concourse inside the court building and led outside in handcuffs by three uniformed police officers.See? It can be done. So why wasn't it then?
What was it about this woman that you felt you could swoop straight away?
15 comments:
"red dyed hair and was dressed in blue denim and gold jewellery,"
Hmm yeah odd isn't it...not being of stereotypical muslim appearance *might* have had something to do with it.
Had she been dressed in a bhurka who knows what would have happened.
Not one of the Peaceful: normal rules apply.
Besides, arresting a single woman is relatively risk-free compared with several bearded blokes with lighter fluid.
Modern policing: if you're an easy target, then you're nicked.
What she did was terrible. But I'm not sure what crime she committed.
Let us agree to disagree, J.
Whilst Richard may have a point, this woman's actions were totally abhorrent and within the depth of our legislative portfolio, police should find themselves embarrassed by a plethora of charging options.
Key word in the above: should.
A more considered response:
As a believer in free speech, I think she should have the right to say what she wants and make whatever gestures she likes. Equally, those around her should be free to express their disagreement by punching her lights out. Police need not be involved at any stage. She could learn to modify her behaviour to fit in with the people she shares the planet with, without the need for expensive judicial and law enforcement systems.
Disproportionate reaction.
You're right James...arresting her simply wasn't enough. She should have had her lights punched out by a member of the public first.
In response to Michael Fowke's question:
S5 Public Order Act would do nicely for starters
"But I'm not sure what crime she committed."
My guess would be a Section 4A Public Order Act one. Or possibly even a Section 4.
xX A woman was arrested today after standing behind shot PC David Rathband and saying 'Bang, Bang', police said.XX
So it is an offence for which there is a power of arrest to say "bang bang" now in Britain?
The place has gone fucking madder than I thought.
Folow ups to...
"...not being of stereotypical muslim appearance *might* have had something to do with it."
It's the obvious conclusion, isn't it?
And so yet another nail is driven into the coffin of public respect for, and confidence in, the police...
"Modern policing: if you're an easy target, then you're nicked."
Spot on!
"What she did was terrible. But I'm not sure what crime she committed."
I'd assume breach of the peace, but I haven't seen any reference to a charge, so maybe she was given a caution and let go?
Marc and Blue Eyes suggest something under the Public Order act, but having read it, I can't see that that wouldn''t cover the poppy burners too....
"So it is an offence for which there is a power of arrest to say "bang bang" now in Britain?
The place has gone fucking madder than I thought."
Oh, I rather doubt we've hit rock bottom. Yet.
There's a cheery thought, eh?
This reminds me of people that gurn at the mentally handicapped in an attempt to demonstrate their mental superiority.
I am sure if PC David Rathband is able to move on with life after being shot at point blank range with a shotgun, then the actions of this woman aren’t going to erk him too much.
"I can't see that that wouldn''t cover the poppy burners too...."
I suspect that is exactly what they were charged with. My guess would be that the reason they weren't arrested there and then is because it might have very quickly turned into a riot.
Post a Comment