Vandalism: A group of travellers wrecked Surrey's only police
helicopter (pictured). Worth £5million, it was being used to spy on
their site
Posted on 05/14/2009 6:54:16 AM PDT by yankeedame
A group of travellers wrecked a multi-million pound police helicopter...
...after they leapt over a 4ft wall surrounding Surrey Police force’s helipad...
After threatening staff working in the operations room, they set about wrecking the helicopter, smashing six of its windows and causing tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage.
Vandalism: A group of travellers wrecked Surrey's only police
helicopter (pictured). Worth £5million, it was being used to spy on
their site
The incident happened at 10pm yesterday after weeks of aerial surveillance on the travellers’ site, where detectives believe stolen goods have been hidden.
Officers were getting ready to raid the site after collecting evidence they had filmed from the air. A police source said last night: '...no one expected this level of violence...'
The helicopter...is expected to be out of action for another two weeks while repairs are made....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
> hahahaha! oh god, i know guys like you.
I doubt it. Guys like me don’t hang around with Liberals like you.
This is no different than municipalities who fly over neighborhoods looking for plain sight illegal home additions here in the USA.
It only becomes a 4th amendment issue if you use technology to look inside the house.
> You’re awfully quick to take the side of a bunch of criminals and celebrate their vandalism in a situation where we clearly don’t have the whole story.
Yup, that I am. That is what “Innocent until proven Guilty” is all about. It’s a concept that my forefathers fought and died for. Yours, too, probably. I wouldn’t know, but perhaps you have defended that right in service to your country — if so, thankyou.
It is a legal principle that is so precious I feel obligated to take that side by default.
Law & Order is fine, and Law Enforcement is also fine: I believe in and support both concepts. But the state has all of the power and might in its corner: up to and including the deployment of the military if need be (eg the capture of Manuel Noriega). The accused doesn’t. So the presumption of innocence is both reasonable and essential, otherwise it just isn’t a fair fight.
And so it was, when I first read this article, I developed an immediate view, based on what we were told. And as this thread has progressed, nothing really has been said that has shifted that view.
Whether or not they're guilty of the theft--and no one convicted them without a trial, so I don't know why you keep spouting that phrase like it's a trump card for your position--they're clearly guilty of vandalism here, and so are by definition criminals. And given that they would engage in vandalism like this, it seems all the more likely that they are in fact guilty of the thefts they were accused of too. Basically, they sound like scum.
It's bizarre that someone claiming to be a conservative, especially someone who at least claims to be concerned enough about crime to found a chapter of the Guardian Angels, would be so quick to defend an attack on the police. Curtis Sliwa would be disgusted with you.
BTW, don't try to call your position conservative. It's as liberal as anything the Warren Court of the '60s tried to impose, and such decisions were rightly scaled back when later courts took a more balanced approach to the issue.
> they’re clearly guilty of vandalism here,
They are innocent until proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty, they have not even been tried. They haven’t even been arrested or even charged. Not with vandalism, not with anything.
You just don’t get it, do you? From the article:
> A Surrey Police spokesman said the identity of the mob members was ‘unknown’.
“Dunno who the mob members were.” That’s what the police spokesperson said, in essence. For all you know the mob could have comprised off-duty cops. Or members of the Salvation Army. Or the local women’s rugby club. Or anybody. Maybe they were Gypsies, maybe not.
And yet, in your view, the Gypsies are “clearly guilty of vandalism”. How is your view different to Lynch Law, anyway? What part of “due process” does it comply with?
> and so are by definition criminals.
Once convicted they are criminals. They have not been convicted. They haven’t been charged or even arrested. Or even positively identified, for that matter.
> And given that they would engage in vandalism like this, it seems all the more likely that they are in fact guilty of the thefts they were accused of too. Basically, they sound like scum.
So it doesn’t bother you that the police may well have overstepped the bounds of their authority? In what way is your attitude not Statist? It seems to me that the Second Amendment is wasted on you.
> It’s bizarre that someone claiming to be a conservative
Conservatives are not Statist, and they are certainly not mesmerized by Law Enforcement. I am not Statist, and I am not mesmerized by Law Enforcement either — tho’ as a Law Abiding Citizen my sympathies are often tho’ not always with the police.
I am a Law-Abiding Citizen first and a Conservative second. I have no brief nor desire to enforce the law, but rather to uphold it and to ensure that others do, too.
> especially someone who at least claims to be concerned enough about crime to found a chapter of the Guardian Angels,
As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I post on the FRee Republic as a private citizen. That said, I do try to uphold the ideals of the Guardian Angels at all times. And for the record, I’ve founded four Chapters, not one.
> would be so quick to defend an attack on the police.
Let’s be really clear on that, then: if the police are in the wrong, I am not going to support them. I believe that, according to this story, they are clearly in the wrong. And their helicopter suffered rough justice at the hands of the aggrieved mob. Naturally, I’d prefer that didn’t happen, but a helicopter is not a person, violence was not done to any human beings, so I’m not that exercised about what happened to the helicopter. Oh well. Maybe next time the police will be more careful when they play with their toys.
I do not have a brief to protect property. I will if I feel like it, but my only real interest is in keeping people safe. Not property. People.
> Curtis Sliwa would be disgusted with you.
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. Maybe I’ll ask him next time we talk.
> BTW, don’t try to call your position conservative.
I just did, because it is Conservative. However, your position is Statist, bordering on Fascist. And it is about to get a really good workout with Obama at the helm. You may enjoy that.
> It’s as liberal as anything the Warren Court of the ‘60s tried to impose, and such decisions were rightly scaled back when later courts took a more balanced approach to the issue.
If the Warren Court believed in the Magna Carta principle of “Innocent until proven Guilty” then you might be right.
Look you POME twit. What makes it so great for you to parade around in red satin tights (and I mean tight, maybe lose a few pounds before the next big foot chase huh?) and harass people on the street playing Crimson Avenger and it’s wrong for the Police to use a licensed vehicle to surveil a camp that they already have enough evidence on to plan a raid.
Now go eat another twinkee and ponder that.
Retarded. If I shoot you, I'm guilty of murder. It doesn't matter whether anyone sees me do it, I'm still guilty. I can't be punished by the government until they've convicted me, but I'm still guilty and a criminal. And these gypsies are obviously guilty, given that the helicopter is clearly sitting there damaged.
> Look you POME twit.
WTF??? What’s a POME? Is that you Noddy? I thought I asked you nicely to p*ss off.
> What makes it so great for you to parade around in red satin tights (and I mean tight, maybe lose a few pounds before the next big foot chase huh?) and harass people on the street playing Crimson Avenger and it’s wrong for the Police to use a licensed vehicle to surveil a camp that they already have enough evidence on to plan a raid.
I’m sure you have a point in there somewhere. Maybe if you comb your hair carefully nobody will notice it.
> Now go eat another twinkee and ponder that.
Some things are just too ponderous to ponder... now go away Noddy and play with matches like a good little delinquent...
> And these gypsies are obviously guilty, given that the helicopter is clearly sitting there damaged by party or parties unknown. Could be anybody, even the local Rhythmic Gymnastics Club. No matter, the Gypsies are obviously guilty.
There. Fixed it. Do you understand now?
> If I shoot you, I'm guilty of murder. It doesn't matter whether anyone sees me do it, I'm still guilty. I can't be punished by the government until they've convicted me, but I'm still guilty and a criminal.
Nuh-uh. Not in any legal sense you aren't. If you shoot me, you are not necessarily guilty of murder. It could be manslaughter. It could be justifiable homicide due to self defense. The whole purpose of a trial is to establish whether you are guilty, and if so what, and given that what if any punishment you should get.
There. I've tried my best. I've enjoyed our discussion -- you at least have kept it reasonably civil -- but it might be that we have to agree to disagree.
Answer my question you silly nit.
Why is it okay for you to run around the streets stopping violent crime on your own and yet you dislike the police for stopping crime?
Did they turn you down? Did they laugh at you and hurt your little feelings?
Interesting that you’ve convicted the police of abuse of their power without giving them anything close to the same benefit of the doubt.
Scotland was not part of any English empire.
Wales(1284)& Ireland (1607) were by conquest part of the English Empire prior to 1707, when Scotland joined the United Kingdom by choice.
Nor were the Shetlands and Orkneys ever English, they were Scots also in 1707, having passed to us from Norwegian ownership in 1468 and 1472. The Shetlands were also originally Pictish anyway, having been conquered by the Vikings. And the Hebrides has been Scottish since 1266. And again, previously Norwegian, not English.
The Orkneys were occupied by clearly Celtic people when they were conquered by King Frosti from Finland (who, BTW, was not leading an Indo-European group at the time, but folks who were clearly Fenno-Scandian).
So, yes, the English empire of their equivalent of the "near abroad". That's why folks there still speak English.
The Enclosure Acts created severe social conditions that resulted in what are called "social pathologies", e.g. rebellion, riot, war, gangs, etc.
Good thing UK had access to North America else they'd been eating each other.
Really enjoyed reading this discussion.
This is what a forum like this is all about.
Thank you guys.
Thanks for reply.
However, I would greatly question your opening assertion regarding the Picts. In fact the evidence shows the Picts were there both in Argyll and the North of Scotland inc the Orkneys. And that neither the Vikings nor Dalriadic Celts from Ireland destroyed them completely, as popular myth might have it.
I would be interested to see what evidence you are quoting to support your assertion that they simply werent there.
The Dalriadic Scots did not completely displace or destroy the Picts, that is an exaggeration only in recent times being reevaluated.
As the great Scots historian Nigel Tranter pointed out years ago, seemingly singularly at the time, the evidence for numbers suggests that the Picts may have outnumbered them from 5 to 1 to 15 to 1. Certainly the Dalriadics were excellent military men, and inflicted heavy losses on the Picts in the many wars between the two groups, but the notion of a complete destruction of the Picts cannot anymore be held seriously.
What happened was that over time, the Picts and Dalriadic Celts intermarried, which we see most notably in the ascension and reign of Kenneth McAlpin in 843.
There is also incresing archeological evidence from both Western Scotland and NI that the huge influx of Scotti from NI to Argyllshire, the men and women who supposedly came in large numbers with King Fergus in the 500’s, simply didnt happen in anywhere near the numbers most of us were taught.
There was certainly an emigration by the Scotti, but the recent archeological evidence uncovered in Argyllshire seems to suggest that many of the ‘Scotti’ (ie the Irish) were in fact other Celtic tribes that were already living there, and had done for sometime. And that the influx was small.
As to no Picts in the North, the Historia Norvegiae itself states that the Vikings met the Picts in the Orkneys. And the Annals of Ulster also state that the Picts were there when Ulster raiders and warlords attacked the Islands in the 7th and 8th centuries. And there is no evidence that the Picts were missing from great tracks of the Highlands either.
With all due respect, there is no evidence for what you are asserting. If there is, I’d like to see it.
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/articles/scotsirish.htm
http://www.gla.ac.uk/archaeology/aboutus/staff/drecampbell/
It's not beyond belief that the Picts died out in the Plague of Justinian. Different groups have different degrees of natural resistance to that disease and others.
Cultural similarities don't count for much if you're not part of the genepool.
Regarding the Irish, that concept is one of culture and not genes, but there are undoubtedly "DNA markers" that can be used to differentiate the tribes. What happens in Scotland is that you have two major sources for cultural Irish. The first source are Irish warrior societies who invaded Alba at an early period. The second source are Scandinavian slaves seized earlier in Ireland. They were taken to Alba by the proto-Vikings.
You also have to deal with the issue of King Frosti ~ he was not a Viking. His daughter, Skjalf Frostaddotter was born about 0428 in Finland. The Vikings came along about 400 years later once they'd acquired the advanced design boathull developed by the Sa'ami and the Finns for use on the Arctic and in the rivers that drain into the Arctic.
A copy of the Orkneyinga Saga was preserved in Iceland which is why any of us know these things.
BTW, there's also a King Frosti from 60 BC ~ to wit: Frosti Karasson, the father of Jokull Frostasson, b. ca. 040 BC in Kvenland. Jokull has a Sa'ami, not an Indo-European forname. Hmmm.
If there were Picts in the Orkneys in 40 BC these are the guys who had them over for dinner!
Sorry, but that simply isnt true.
From what I have read, Pictish DNA has and is turning up.
And the Picts were a physically strong race, who wouldnt have totally succumbed to any plague. A plague which there is no evidence happended in what is today Scotland at all, either Pictland, Dalriada, Strathclyde or even the celtic kingdom in Galloway, which faces the north of Ireland, sitting as it does in the far south-west of Scotland.
Also the Plague was in the mid 6th century. And the Pictish kingdom in Scotland existed until the mid 9th century, when Pictland and Dalriada became joined under the rule of King Kenneth McAlpine in 843, a king whose ascension was due to the matrilinear Pictish line.
Far from disappearing in 541 or so, the Picts were a strong and thriving ancient kingdom for another 300 years!.
Re the Irish Celts, I again refer you to the remarks and evidence I last posted, which shows that the Dalradic (Irish) influx is now believed, through the latest archeology in Argyllshire and Western Scotland, allied to evidence uncovered in N Ireland, to have been much smaller than believed.
Re the Irish slaves, the heaviest concentration of ‘Norse Gael’ or Norse DNA in Scotland will of course be in the areas that we know were invaded and partly-colonised (either by force or peaceful intermarriage), such as Galloway in the S/W, the West Coast of Scotland from the Southern Highlands northward, areas of the North and North East, areas in the far S/E where Bernicia existed, now the Eastern Borders.
There were huge areas however where the Vikings did not successfully plant their DNA and failed to successfully invade: the kingdom of Strathclyde (modern day north west of Glasgow to South Ayrshire & Lanarkshire, the Western and Central Borders)and of course most of Pictland (which was most of the Highlands).
Re Indo-European:
I can remember being taught in my ‘Higher’ History class at secondary school (your senior High School) that four European languages were not I-E: Basque, Pictish, Finnish and Hungarian.
During the plague in the 1300s it was noted by many that as it moved North the death rate dropped, and by the time it got to Northern Scandinavia it was down to 10%.
The Plague of Justinian was not reported to have moderated, and although news reports from that time are few and far between, it was entirely possible that it simply killed off everybody it could infect ~ leaving behind a population remarkably immune to the plague.
I know there's this "need" many feel for the Picts to have made it through the Dark Ages, but they may not have made it TO the Dark Ages.
There was a reason for Scotland to be so open and attractive to newcomers ~ there was no one home!
There's another non IE language you need to know about. It's called Estonian. It really is different from Hungarian and Finnish ~ at least its speakers say so.
The closest ancient language cognate to the Sa'ami languages is called Sumerian, and it, in turn appears to have originated among the Dravidians. Lots of history in that one just now being discovered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.