-
Posts
-
Howcome he got past the front desk, with the gun?.. And, yes, why feel the need to ask if he could go see the superintendant?
For all we know, his plan could have been to shoot him?
@woohoo wrote:
Howcome he got past the front desk, with the gun?.. And, yes, why feel the need to ask if he could go see the superintendant?
For all we know, his plan could have been to shoot him?
Yes that’s obviously why he made an appointment. :?
He told them he was coming, not sure why he didn’t tell them that he was bringing a gun in, but I seriously doubt it was to shoot up the police station.
shoot up??????????????? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I’m delighted that my cynicism has struck a chord with so many on here.
The underlying point is that when you read some of these Media stories, at first glance you are invited to experience a sense of ‘outrage’ along the lines of “how stupid can they be” or “how unfair” and so on.
However, a huge number of these ‘stories’ are written with exactly this purpose in mind. They present a heavily slanted or one-sided version of events specifically intended to provoke the reader, rather than to expose the ‘truth’.
If you apply a modicum of common sense to the situation described to you – ask “What would I do in a similar situation” or “Why did they pick on this person apparently ‘out of the blue’ or is there more behind it than meets the eye” …. chances are that you will get somewhere near the ‘truth’.
@forumhostpb wrote:
Well I’m delighted that my cynicism has struck a chord with so many on here.
The underlying point is that when you read some of these Media stories, at first glance you are invited to experience a sense of ‘outrage’ along the lines of “how stupid can they be” or “how unfair” and so on.
However, a huge number of these ‘stories’ are written with exactly this purpose in mind. They present a heavily slanted or one-sided version of events specifically intended to provoke the reader, rather than to expose the ‘truth’.
If you apply a modicum of common sense to the situation described to you – ask “What would I do in a similar situation” or “Why did they pick on this person apparently ‘out of the blue’ or is there more behind it than meets the eye” …. chances are that you will get somewhere near the ‘truth’.
Journalists Motto ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”Never let the facts get in the way of a good story”
My Motto “Never believe all that you read in the papers”
O M G did I just agree with PB?
Common sense PB?
Tut…….this is JC, and you should know thats not allowed [-X :- :mrgreen:
The guy got jailed and rightly so – he’s not a victim of the injustice of British law but a victim of his own vanity. He was just trying to score brownie points rather than do what any person with an ounce of common sense would have done – call the police then and there and let them remove the gun.
To have found Mr Clarke not guilty would not only have been incorrect but would also have set a dangerous precedent in law and render police stop and search powers meaningless in the fight against gun crime and gang gun culture.
Anyone, stopped in the street and found in possession of a gun could just claim that they had “found it” and were on their way to “hand it in at the police station” even if their intention was to blow someone’s brains out. How do you prove what they were really intending to do?
That’s why you are guilty of breaking the law if found to be in possession of a gun, what you intend to do with it is irrelevant and quite rightly so.
wouldnt u just leave it where it was and fone the police, if he didnt know what was in the bag originally he,d of obviously looked in the bag carefully , on seeing a sawn off shot gun i,d of automatically thought this has been dumped after a robbery maybe even a murder , i certainly wouldnt of touched it , then rang the police
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!