Anti-terror police threaten child with being shot.

Post Reply New Topic

Schoolboy threatened by Anti-terror police.

This is a 12 year old boy, and other children of a similar age, planning a perfectly legal peaceful protest outside the Prime Ministers Constituency Office. And Thames Valley ANTI TERROR officers have implied that if there are any problems he might BE SHOT. David Cameron's bodyguards may SHOOT CHILDREN if they misbehave. Its a Dave New World and we are all screwed.

If they are being a$$holes then why not. (I am kidding) Odds are someone said something like we will burn it down or similary stupid. Whenever you do a peaceful protest there is always a small band of malcontents who use the protest as a chance to run amok ruining the true meaning of the protest. Its usually the peaceful protestors who catch the blame because the police have an easier time identifiying them. Not to mention they do not put up as much fight as the trouble makers.

They hadn't at the time DONE the protest, and its truly ridiculous. After all, the Royal Protection Squad completely failed to shoot a single person when the heir to the throne was attacked by an angry mob. Are we to believe that David Cameron's personal bouncers are unable to demonstrate the same restraint when they get shouted at by 12 year olds?

Besides which, we have the right to peaceful protest in this nation, and so far most of the violence against people I have witnessed has been initiated or caused by the Police.

Well, that's why I always say that anti-anything is the same thing. Kind of how in Germany, they have anti-Nazi legislation, and if you are a Nazi, you go to jail. But what about Jewish Nazis? Do they go to jail? Anti-terror police use terrorist tactics to achieve their means. And they are here to help stop terrorism, because fighting fire with fire doesn't create more fire!

Are you talking about that bunch of spoiled brats, whipped up into a frenzy by a hardcore of far-left crackpots, the citizens of London had to put up with the other day? I reckon the police were far too soft on them (as is often the case with troublemakers on the left). If I had my way I'd have gone in with rubber bullets, then taken the ringleaders to a quiet corner and beaten the hell out of them so they were in no fit state to protest for the next few months.

As for 12 year olds protesting, are you serious? Most don't have the capacity to understand the issues that are involved. Again, it's just a load of crazy-leftists (many of them NUT members who in their pot-addled minds still live in some quasi-Marxist 1970s world of Jack Jones and Arthur Scargill) who like to abuse impressionable young minds with their squalid class-war propaganda and to whom these youngsters are just, figuratively speaking, cannon-fodder.

If I was prince Charles I would be packing some kind of firearm since his bodyguards are not very effective. I hope they are all sacked and replaced with SAS troops or Gurkhas. I am sure the terrorists have been taking notes on that it is easy to get close to royalty without their guards firing a shot.

Read the article. The children were protesting the closure of their local youth centre under austerity budget cuts. Its just coincidence that Cameron is their local MP. That's got nothing to do with "leftists" or anything of the sort. Its kids having a useful and constructive local service removed, attempting to lobby their local MP, who sadly for them is the same person making the cuts. Because obviously having kids on the streets all the time is a brilliant way to make Big Society work out...

Seems you've been taken right in by the media bias of reporting, where a few violent protesters drew all the camera time away from the large queues of perfectly peaceful protesters who were just waiting to go home. You also appear to be falling for the belief that all protests and all protesters are "the left" kicking off. Couldn't be large numbers of people who value the concept of a fair chance at education for everyone, not just the uber-poor and the ridiculously rich. Couldn't possibly be that people resent losing out in cut after cut when the very people who CAUSED all this mess just carry on as they always did. Certainly isn't resentment that the people making the cuts all got their education under the older, cheaper system. Not a chance at all that the Police initiate more violence than they manage to stop.

Nice to see that you have such a democratic and fair-minded view of the legal right to protest. I'm sure you'll enjoy yourself in a Police State where "evidence", "guilt" and "justice" are merely
footnotes in history, and all the Police require to beat someone to death is "felt like it." Maybe you would like our police to start cross-training exchange visits with the Chinese State Security, so they can REALLY learn how to oppress citizens?

Or maybe we should just wait until the government make a move YOU disagree with, then take you into a dark corner and stamp on your face a bit just for daring to disagree...that would be jolly good fun, don't you think?

I'm sorry, where exactly was the threat to shoot the kid?

I bolded it in the OP. Its quite clear. The officer states that Cameron's ARMED security will be present, so if anything out of line happens.... (ominous unfinished sentence implying that said firearms could easily go off.) The very fact that he felt the need to mention that Dave's security are packing is designed to imply that they might decide to shoot people.

Its an implied threat. And before anyone tries to claim that its not there, I suggest you try saying things like that to a police officer and see how they interpret it. *

*Except don't actually do that, because they WILL bust you for threatening behaviour.

No, he was simply stating that if they attacked the PM, he would be protected. There may have been implied that attacking the PM would be a bad idea (duh), but there was absolutely no threat to shoot anyone. The British police are also armed with batons and tasers and tear gas if the worst came to the worst (and it would need to be pretty bad to raise arms against a 12 year old- that'd just be bad PR).

Fine. Say it to the next pig you come across and see what it gets you. "Anything out of line" is not "attacking the PM", and contrast this with what happens when you actually attack the heir to the throne. (You DON'T get shot.) He was not simply stating the PM would be protected, and at no point was any threat EVER made against the PM by this child. Telling him that he would be arrested (incorrectly) if things went badly is one thing, but telling him distinctly that ARMED officers will be present was both a threat, and an implication that he might get shot. As the only targets for firearms present would be kids... What else do you think ARMED officers do that is distinct from UNARMED ones?

"Officers will be present. If things get out of line....." I am implying that you will be arrested. That is the ultimate legal sanction of an unarmed officer.
"ARMED Officers will be present, If things get out of line..." It isn't rocket science to finish that sentence. That's how implied threats work. The ultimate sanction available to an ARMED officer is to SHOOT you.

Granted, its highly unlikely that a protection officer would shoot a child, but how is a child to know this? And given some of the things that armed officers do with their weapons to people who often don't need shooting...

oh yeah yr a real hardman. Sat behind your keyboard getting angry.

Some people will argue just to have thread space...anyway..this is horrible that he threatened a child like that for thinking he had the right to peaceful protest. I thought it just was us Americans that were having a major problem with "thinking" we have rights when they were pretty much gutted in the post 9/11 patriot act. Hopefully with the PR about this, the kid will get to protest without bullets flying. I used to wonder what our country is coming to, now I wonder what this world is coming to. I think it is the rise of the stealth nazi's...what do you think??

This is a disgrace. The way they went out of their way to intimidate a kid and took him out of class without having his parents present is just... so low and cowardly. Soon enough, they'll have a whole generation distrusting and hating the police and authorities.

And people wonder why the Tea Party formed in the United States. I could see this happening under Obama, in fact I could see them not even bother with the warning.

It almost certainly has. I doubt a bunch of 12 year olds decided to get together and protest of their own volition. It's probably the case that some disgruntled leftist teacher put them up to it. Anyway, you've only the word of a 12 year old that the police said what they did, and to be honest even if they did then within the right context it seems a reasonable thing to say. If parents are going to allow their kids to do adult things, then even if those parents are too lazy to inform them of possible consequences, then it's good that the police do. The PM does go around with armed protection, and if you do anything they perceive as a serious threat to the PM you may in extreme circumstances be shot whether you're 12 years old or 42 years old. Moreover if the kid was encouraging this protest and things did go wrong, he would obviously be arrested and questioned: 12 year old kids aren't completely beyond the law.


The trouble and criminal damage was widespread. How much do you think it cost to fix the damage to the road surface from those fires they started everywhere?


Nobody has a God-given right to university education, and nobody should expect the rest of us to pay for it. The people who caused this mess are politicians who use education as a carrot at election time and dupe the naive masses into believing that any dim-wit should get a university education and can finish up on £60k a year. Why the hell should I have to finance that charade out of the tax I pay? Why should i have to pay for some 18 year old media studies student to spend 10 hours a week in lectures, and the rest of the time off their head on the latest chemical creation for three years? If you want to perpetuate this crazy system then paying back a loan as suggested by the current government seems the best way of doing it. However, I realise that burdening people with dept like this is not good, but in recognising that politicians have no wish to admit the deception they've contrived it becomes a lesser of evils.


I do. But not of violent disorder. And how about the right of people who work in the area to go about their business unmolested? I'm no fan of the British police, but I recognise they do have a difficult job in these circumstances. Personally, I'd rather they went in heavy handed and controlled the situation than allow innocent people to be assaulted by a bunch of vicious hooligans.