They should just frack off..


Watching the news about the ‘festival atmosphere’ at the ‘peaceful friendly’ demonstration made my blood pressure rise to dangerous numbers…

All I could see was a bunch of hippy dossers that wanted a fight with the police…

I watched as a WPC tried the ‘5-step appeal’ on an idiot that later turned out to be an MP!

Then another idiot getting a pressure point ‘simulated’ (not doing terribly well either) before being arrested along with his MP mum…

Then I watched a few minutes of news from Egypt …

…and it all seemed so trivial…

I reflected on how wonderful our police actually are (present company excluded of course)…and how unbelievably lucky the fraking protesters are…

Stay safe all those on duty at the fraking cap…

Advertisements

38 responses to “They should just frack off..

  1. I was amazed at those crusty swampies moaning about the heavy handed police tactics. Really!

    Maybe they should go and protest in Egypt, see how they get in out there.

  2. WTF is wrong with you? If you like fracking so much, go and live next door to one. Then you’ll understand the validity of the protest, and the unacceptable behaviour of the police. Sometimes you seem to forget that the police work for us, the people, and not the wealthy business overlords.

    • I don’t serve you or the people you brain dead clown. I took an oath to serve the Queen. I have nothing against protest, as long as its legal. As soon as protesters break the law then they get dealt with. If they refuse to comply then force gets used. If you think the tactics used are heavy handed then you are a complete idiot. If you don’t like the laws of the country then move.

      • Oh yes at least you recognise that the police work. I wonder how many of those protesters work.

      • Brief Encounter

        I think that by taking that oath you accepted that you would be serving the people as well. Her role is delegated to parliament in the guise of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Either way it doesn’t help to accuse others of being brain dead clowns.

        • By taking that Oath I agreed to serve the Queen and police the public, this includes protecting them. I do not work for the public. I am also a member of the public and I have and always will expect to be policed. I never have and never will hold the view that the police are there to “serve” the public.

          It might not help calling people brain dead clowns but I really am passed the point of giving a sh1t.

          • Brief Encounter

            Yes I rather thought that intellectual debate had passed you by.

            Like it or not the public pays your wages.

            • I am the public. I pay lots of tax. They/we also pay yours but at least my job is to put bad guys away and not try to free them.

              In my experience its only complete twats who spout “we pay your wages”. Looks like you’re part of that group.
              Try not to throw your teddies out of the pram and stomp off again.

            • Course by that logic a Special Constable, not being paid by the public or otherwise, presumably doesn’t work for the public and therefore transcends this nonsense and can do whatever (s)he wants?

              Nope.

          • Brief Encounter

            Oh I love a cheap jibe! My job is to prevent miscarriages of justice which I do by robustly testing the evidence and putting my client’s case. The system only works when both sides actively do their jobs. Not storming out either that had a certain charm but its a bit boring now. Of course I do prosecute as well and I do that with the same degree of commitment. Though I am a Solicitor of the Supreme Court I do ultimately work for the public as do you and if you think otherwise then perhaps you are in the wrong job.

            • You have to believe in the system…and the system is that evidence is tested…rigorously…

              I think we are a little too focused on procedure here instead of what actually happened..

            • Cheap jibe you say. I have been doing this job for just over 13 years now and I have never had a not guilty verdict. In fact the vast majority of my cases have seen the defendant plead out prior to trial. The reason for that is because I have gathered overwhelming evidence against them. What do the defence do in these circumstances? they try to attack the procedure or look for the slightest mistake but in my case fail because I am very efficient at what I do. However it is vey easy to overlook or breach a simple procedure and for a defendant to get off on that technicality is just wrong. Don’t give me that crap you are there to prevent miscarriages of justice. If you can you will get a client off who you know damn well is guilty because you want the money.
              You prosecute as well you say. Good for you but you still try to get people whom you know to be guilty off.

              I will concede to some degree that I serve (not work) for the public. I serve them by protecting them.. I do this by locking up bad people and I do this by policing the public with or without their consent. Sometimes this required me putting my own safety on the line (not anymore). That bellend who I acknowledged at the start of the post stated that the police work for the public. People like that brain dead clown believe that the police are there to do whatever the public want. That is not the case as the public in general do not know the law or the procedures we have to follow. That is why I told the cretin I did not work for him or the public. If you can not see that or are not willing to accept it then I guess you were in the wrong job for 30 years.

              Cut the crap that we “work” for the public and that the public pay our wages. They don’t have a choice because if our wages are not paid then who is going to police?

          • Brief Encounter

            Well I congratulate you for preparing your cases to a high standard. Just before I retired I said to a training day that I liked a challenge and asked my colleagues to do their best so that I couldn’t get my foot into the door. The thing is that if you were in trouble and I was defending you, you would expect me to do my best. If I won on what some call a technicality (I call it the law as in Codes of Practice etc) then I doubt that you would shout foul and demand to be convicted. It sounds like you are doing your job well and I wish that you could influence others. The thing is that even if you personally deny that you are serving the public, that is exactly what you are doing. They have the power via the ballot box to change the law but for the time being the law is what is enacted by Parliament on behalf of the people. Of course you say that you don’t give a sh1t but I suspect that you do but you weaken your position by being rude about those whom you disagree with. At this particular time the Police need all the support that they can muster – think about it.

            • You wouldn’t have to defend me as I’d never do anything criminally wrong to end up in court.
              If a guilty person is found not guilty because of a technicality then that is wrong, the system is broke and defence solicitors make money out of it. Some even enjoy it.
              I have seen codes of practice etc breached over the years because the officers involved have done it for what they feel is a genuine reason. It would not be right for a guilty person to get off on this.

              I conceded that we serve the public but by policing and protecting them. The half wit I was rude to implied that we worked for the public. There is a difference. People like that expect the police to do whatever they want because they have this foolish notion we work for them. So when they want their own way, even if it means them breaking the law they expect the police to be on their side. That idiot made reference to the unacceptable behaviour of the police. What upholding the law and using reasonable force to do so. Absolutely shocking.
              I am sick and tired of people like that, I have no intention of being polite or civil to them because they want the moon on a stick and we will never have their support so I don’t care if I am rude to them.

            • Brief encounter

              You worry me Taff Taff, the fact that you think that it is okay to be rude to people who you deride as being half wits when they are the very people that you should be protecting and giving them more protection than the people who you think are not half wits. Trouble is I doubt that you see anyone as being full witted unless they agree with you. But again I find myself congratulating you as being the only person who has not exceeded the speed limit or made a private call on duty or taken a pen home etc etc.

            • BE, you don’t agree with me and I wouldn’t call you a half wit. There are many who disagree with me and I accept that. I refer to that person as a half wit because of this idea they have the police work for them and therefore should not deal with them when breaking the law. Also they suggest I like fracking, didn’t say that once.
              Been done for speeding in the past. Didn’t seek legal help because I was in the wrong and held my hands up. You know very well what I mean about not committing a criminal offence which would result in me going to trial.

              If you want to talk about being rude to people just look at how you deal with Lance on here. I have no issue with what goes in between him and Cor! but you’ve also jumped on the bandwagon. Although you don’t use derogatory terms towards him you are still rude. People in glass houses and that.

            • Brief Encounter

              I again congratulate you. Firstly for the candid admission that the you have committed a criminal offence and secondly that you have demonstrated compassion. I think though that Lance is capable of looking after himself on here and he does add interest I will now concede having considered the meaning of the word Police circa 1970, that it is all about preserving the Queen’s Peace and ensuring that citizens obey the law. No mention of working for the people although without the people there would have been no Queen and no Law. The nature of annonymity is such that we cannot meet, but if that was to happen, I would be very happy to buy you a drink.

            • BE we obviously have different views on a wide range of matters especially in how we address people. I don’t suffer fools easily and I have a tendency to run my mouth off but I just feel some people need telling and sometimes being a little rude tends to focus their mind. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

              I see you congratulated me in showing compassion. Trust me I’m not some sort of grumpy ogre. I display a lot of compassion in the course of my duties and this has been reflected by the gratitude victims have shown.

              I do care but I feel I have hit a brick wall and I’ve become very defensive when people have an unjustified or irrational pop at the police and that is exactly what that person whom I was rude to was doing.

              I to would have no issue with buying you a pint. I’m sure we could keep it civil.

            • Brief Encounter

              In fairness to you, I cast my mind back to when I had 13 yrs in that was 1988. I did not like Solicitors then, I saw them as interfering with my role as a thief taker. I did not understand then that the system depended on both the defence and the prosecution doing their very best. I thought that firms who were always called by the certain suspects were bent. Now of course I know that firms that do a thorough job for their clients will be preferred over others. I do want police to do their best as long as like me they do it within the rules.

            • Brief Encounter

              Oh and I forgot to mention what if despite your assurance that you won’t need my services, you find yourself accused of something which you didn’t do? You may have unwittingly placed yourself in a situation where you might appear to be guilty. You may find that your friends turn against you. In your heart you know you are innocent. If that happens you will need a lawyer.

            • It’s not that I’m completely against defence solicitors I’m just against some of the tactics they use. Most I have dealt with have been fine but I have dealt with many who have some questionable tactics. I know for a fact certain solicitors have coached their clients what to say during their consultation stage after their client has admitted their guilt. They have basically told then how to lie and that is totally unacceptable.
              I am also amazed when solicitors start spouting in court how well their clients are doing (looking for work, child on way, drug or anger management courses etc) when it’s complete bollocks. Saying that I never see the prosecution challenge this and if the defence are acting on behalf of thier client and the system allows it then maybe it’s a fault of the system.

              I still finding it shocking how guilty people can walk because evidence is ruled
              inadmissible due to a technicality. These days there are so many procedures that need to be adhered to especially with COP it is very easy for them to be breached but for a genuine reason. In such circumstances I despair when evidence is thrown out and guilty people walk (not my cases but others I am aware of) but then again that is the system we have which I feel is flawed. I may have been a bit harsh in my earlier comments about your profession but I just don’t understand clearly guilty people being represented in certain ways. Maybe my attitude will change some day. At least you make up for it by prosecuting as well so you might still have a soul
              🙂

            • I hated the way Billy scrote was all scared and worried before consultation…then calm, informed and with a plausible alibi after… grrr

            • Brief Encounter

              The guilty should be convicted and the innocent should go free. You might be surprised by the number of times that I advise clients to plead guilty. But if they won’t and they persist in their innocence then I must do my best. If they tell me that they are guilty then I will advise them to sack me and get someone else the alternative if that I am limited to putting the Crown to strict proof without putting my clients defence. I often cringe when I see how poor a case has been put together, I have offered to help on training days etc. there isn’t much more that I can do to help. As far as souls are concerned eventually we may both meet in the hot place!

    • Nothing wrong with me…(I hope) I’ve policed lots of demos…EDL even… shouting and changing I can deal with..but deliberate obstruction of a road is illegal… I don’t like fracking either…but…without the rule of law we have chaos…

    • Brief Encounter

      Well yes and no. There is a drilling site near Corfe Castle in Dorset, few people knew that it was there. A protest is valid but not one which involves breaking the law. Break the law and accept the consequences.

  3. No, the police work for the Crown.

  4. “I, #### ####### ########## of ####### do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

  5. Brief Encounter

    What is grossly unfair is that Sussex Constabulary have to foot the bill for this demonstration and that it will inevitably mean that cuts will have to be made elsewhere in the service which they provide in their county. Where the truth lies in relation to ‘fracking’ is something else. It seems that many wild claims are being made by both the promoters and detractors. The government are apparently saying that it will lead to cheaper fuel bills, will it?
    Some are showing pictures of flames at water taps. Of those present at Balcome it would be interesting to know how many of them are existing on state benefits. What we need is proper information about the process.

    • BE, If the flames coming out of a tap is the same one I’m thinking of, it was discovered to be as a result of a methane leak from a firm totally unrelated to fracking – a real Al Gore allegation! Most of the people at Balcombe are not even protesting about fracking. They are ‘professional protestors and agitators’ who seem to believe their raison d’etre is to protest about something. It’s also interesting to note how many offspring of the famous and talented are becoming involved. It’s shame that the DWP doesn’t send a team down there to discover how many are claiming job seekers allowance.

      • Brief Encounter

        Yes I agree with you, the DWP should do that as any who are on jobseekers allowance are clearly not jobseeking.

  6. As far as I am aware (as MOP) police are fully entitled to take names and addresses of all people at any sort of public disorder or similar. Why then can’t they do that in this case and then have DWP (or whoever) check details to see the answer to the above question. (How many on benefits etc. and what other “protests” they have been involved with).

  7. Brief Encounter

    There is no general power to demand a person’s name and address. But one might imagine that the DWP would have photographs of claimants on file. In my experience DWP prosecutions are extremely well prepared so they may actually be doing this.

  8. One Time Special

    ‘Bout time I entered the joust on this one, declaring an interest in that I was for 30 years a geologist working in oil and gas exploration and production, now retired.

    A few facts.
    1 Oil and gas are found in reservoirs usually sandstone or limestone. Reservoirs are porous and (generally) permeable enough for the hydrocarbons to flow out into the wellbore
    2 Oil and gas are generated from source beds, which are often shale and mudstones but may be coal beds etc.
    3 Whether a source bed produces oil or gas depends on the composition of the organic matter in the source bed and the temperature and pressure to which they have been subjected.
    4 Fracking is not new, it has been done for a lot of years and is a standard technique in oil and gas field operations, so the technology of fracking (actually it is fraccing from fracturing) is not new.
    5 Previously and still, it has been/is used to enhance the permeability of a reservoir (for example so called tight sands) so that the oil/gas may flow into the well.thus increasing recovery of the oil/gas.
    6 what is new is the application of fraccing to shales/mudstones. These, if they are source beds, have high concentrations of oil/gas but have v little permeablility so they have not been an economic source of oil/gas.

    Application of fraccing to suich gas-bearing shales opens up systems of fractures,so that the gas can drain out into the wellbore and be produced to surface. In the US a far-seeing individual started applying the technique to gas-bearing shales and demonstrated the economics of the method.

    Fraccing in its earlier incarnation is used in mainstream oil and gas fields and so far as I know there have not been any unwanted side effects.

    I am not “au courant” with fraccing for shale gas in the US although I do know that there are many allegations that there are unwanted environmental side effects etc. However, I have seen respectable scientific opinion apparrently debunking many of the wilder allegations…….

    Despite spending my working life in the business but been retired c 10 years, I do not care to venture a decided opinion on the application of fraccing to the UK situation. I would merely opine that in many of the more heated scientific debates I have witnessed the “truth” as eventually decided turned out to be somewhere between the two sides.

    However, fraccing., because it is new, is science, occurs underground and is done by those dastardly folks in the oil industry, is ripe for being taken over by the conspiracy theorists,the anti-science lobby and rent-a -demo.
    The average citizen has not got the scientific background to come to a genuine opinion of their own……………….I pity the good people of Balcombe with this going on outside their front doors. Also as I understand it the drilling being done at Balcombe is exploring for oil…….

    Obstructing the highway? take them away, breaking the peace ditto, peacefully protesting in a lawful way at a proper place/time, leave them alone. …….but that is what Sussex are doing so more power to their elbow.

    Sorry for the epistle, but facts are in short supply on this one

  9. Brief Encounter

    Very helpful.
    The thing is we should be looking beyond fossil fuels and in my opinion the answer lies in nuclear energy. Everything which we have ever done to create a heat source has had implications for the environment. I was involved in a campaign against land based wind turbines, my views about nuclear energy didn’t find favour with the more liberal minded. The trouble is that every alternative seems to upset one group or another although solar panels don’t seem to cause too much fuss.

  10. Brief Encounter

    They should though, I’d be happy to have one near me.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s