24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
No Winner on the most recent was there.
Little really hard facts but my 2p was She was the type who likes to string along Men to use as free Handymen, Drivers or whatever and he was an obsessive weirdo.
Also, Copper didn't know how burst photos work on smart phones. "He's taken 84 pictures of you" and I was thinking, yeah, but my daughter took more than 200 of her feet the other day by holding down the 'button' on my phone.
I think perhaps C4 should have spread out the episodes a bit better, we started on such a 'high' with the bent Copper and the Body in the Garden.
Little really hard facts but my 2p was She was the type who likes to string along Men to use as free Handymen, Drivers or whatever and he was an obsessive weirdo.
Also, Copper didn't know how burst photos work on smart phones. "He's taken 84 pictures of you" and I was thinking, yeah, but my daughter took more than 200 of her feet the other day by holding down the 'button' on my phone.
I think perhaps C4 should have spread out the episodes a bit better, we started on such a 'high' with the bent Copper and the Body in the Garden.
P-Jay said:
my 2p was She was the type who likes to string along Men to use as free Handymen, Drivers or whatever and he was an obsessive weirdo.
This was my view, she seemed the flirty type that has always gotten her own way by fluttering her eye lashes and then cried fowl when he being a weirdo wouldn't accept no.Mind you i'd be a bit pissed off being put in cuffs and dragged out of my house in front of my family and neighbours over an allegation like this with such sketchy evidence, I'd have thought the police could have made an appointment for him to come to the station.
king spell checkersSheets Tabuer said:
P-Jay said:
my 2p was She was the type who likes to string along Men to use as free Handymen, Drivers or whatever and he was an obsessive weirdo.
This was my view, she seemed the flirty type that has always gotten her own way by fluttering her eye lashes and then cried fowl when he being a weirdo wouldn't accept no.Mind you i'd be a bit pissed off being put in cuffs and dragged out of my house in front of my family and neighbours over an allegation like this with such sketchy evidence, I'd have thought the police could have made an appointment for him to come to the station.
Overall, the two cops came across as, at best inexperienced, over-keen and inept, and at worst biased and open to accusations of racism/victimisation.
First the apparently unneccessary arrest with cuffs in public.
Then they download his phone data, and lo and behold, he's not calling her and they have no phone evidence.
But that doesn't seem to undermine the case of the caped crusaders determined to ride to the rescue of a damsel in no distress.
No, they don't go back to the complainant and say, we don't think you're being straight with us - why not?
Then the man's inept mate gives them footage which they gleefully pounce on as a breach of bail regardless of his side of the story - that woman and mate set out to cause the breach of bail. How easy would it be for people to cause others to breach their bail by pursuing them and then photographing the meeting.
Anyway, despite them trying to fit the lad up for scratching the woman's dad's car - no evidence but chuck some more mud around, why not?
The CPS utterly unsurprisingly chucked the charge out. I could have chucked it out - it was so obviously stretching the evidence. PC says it's the first time he's been knocked back by CPS! How often has he done this? He seemed way too green and keen for me.
They then couldn't let it go and proceeded to pursue the lad until they eventually, boy it must have been bugging them, eventually another breach of bail is contrived but which again didn't pass muster with a magistrate. Surprise, surprise!
I hope those two boys learnt something from that about pushing the evidence too far.
They looked like they were determined to fit him up. Racist? In thrall to an older woman? Over-enthusiasm?
It was wrong. They both needed a lot more supervision of their work. Neither was capable of forming a reasoned judgement of the facts in front of them and their sergeant wasn't overseeing them critically enough - what was going on there at all?
Thankfully, in this instance the courts system prevented them from getting away with what they wanted.
It does illustrate the dangers of getting on the wrong side of coppers with more power than sense - because none of that should have gone beyond stern words for both the woman and the man.
Was it a PR stunt cooked-up between the police and channel 4 - on a quiet day with a camera crew and a couple of new-starters hanging about? Something that should have been resolved but got out of hand and turned into vindictiveness in an attempt to show that the police care about stalking and women's issues?
I hope it was only a PR stunt that went too far and ruined a man's life for months - because otherwise it looked like something rotten. Something very rotten indeed.
Edited by irememberyou on Friday 30th March 09:56
Fort Jefferson said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So if I don't fancy, or want to $hag black women, I'm racist? you're having a laugh.And if I don't want to $hag black men, am I homophobic?
To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
youngsyr said:
Was just flicking through this thread after catching up with the last episode and couldn't let this comment go.
To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
If someone happens to prefer blondes, that doesn't mean they think brunettes possess characteristics which make them inferior, it's just an expression of personal preference as to what they find attractive.To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
The fact that I'm a heterosexual man doesn't mean I think men are inferior.
Dr Jekyll said:
youngsyr said:
Was just flicking through this thread after catching up with the last episode and couldn't let this comment go.
To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
If someone happens to prefer blondes, that doesn't mean they think brunettes possess characteristics which make them inferior, it's just an expression of personal preference as to what they find attractive.To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
The fact that I'm a heterosexual man doesn't mean I think men are inferior.
Preferring blondes isn't the same thing as saying you would never sleep with any brunette.
Likewise, saying you're heterosexual is not the same thing as saying you would never sleep with women of a certain race, or that you would never sleep with a man, but only because of their race.
I don't know how much simpler to put it - if you discriminate against an entire race, you're racist.
youngsyr said:
Dr Jekyll said:
youngsyr said:
Was just flicking through this thread after catching up with the last episode and couldn't let this comment go.
To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
If someone happens to prefer blondes, that doesn't mean they think brunettes possess characteristics which make them inferior, it's just an expression of personal preference as to what they find attractive.To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
The fact that I'm a heterosexual man doesn't mean I think men are inferior.
Preferring blondes isn't the same thing as saying you would never sleep with any brunette.
Likewise, saying you're heterosexual is not the same thing as saying you would never sleep with women of a certain race, or that you would never sleep with a man, but only because of their race.
I don't know how much simpler to put it - if you discriminate against an entire race, you're racist.
andymc said:
youngsyr said:
Dr Jekyll said:
youngsyr said:
Was just flicking through this thread after catching up with the last episode and couldn't let this comment go.
To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
If someone happens to prefer blondes, that doesn't mean they think brunettes possess characteristics which make them inferior, it's just an expression of personal preference as to what they find attractive.To answer your rhetorical question, if you categorically state that you would shag white men, but wouldn't "do black or asian men" (as she put it), then yes, you are racist.
Probably the easiest way to explain is this:
If you are willing to categorically state that you would not have sex with billions of people without having met or even seen any of them, purely based on the colour of their skin, then you are racist.
As one definition of racism is:
"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
The fact that I'm a heterosexual man doesn't mean I think men are inferior.
Preferring blondes isn't the same thing as saying you would never sleep with any brunette.
Likewise, saying you're heterosexual is not the same thing as saying you would never sleep with women of a certain race, or that you would never sleep with a man, but only because of their race.
I don't know how much simpler to put it - if you discriminate against an entire race, you're racist.
If you mean: "[In my experience], I'm not attracted to black girls" that is a statement of a preference borne out of the experience of the particular black girls you've seen and you aren't implying that you wouldn't find any black girl attractive ever.
However, if you mean: "I would never even consider being romantically involved with a black girl" then arguably that is racist, as you are pre-judging every single black girl on the planet purely on the colour of their skin and it's an opinion borne out of prejudice - how can you know that you won't ever find a single black girl that is attractive to you?
So, as above, if you discriminate against an entire race based on racial characteristics, you're racist. It's the very definition of it.
youngsyr said:
andymc said:
so if you're not attracted to black girls then you're racist?
Were my two explanations above not clear enough for you?Here, I'll try again:
IF.YOU.DISCRIMINATE.AGAINST.AN.ENTIRE.RACE.OF.PEOPLE.BASED.ON.RACIAL.CHARACTERISTICS.THEN.YOU.ARE.RACIST
I guess most of us are racists at some time anyway. So what ?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff