SIGN UP

Effective Firing Squad?

Avatar Image
EdmundD | 15:00 Fri 11th Jun 2021 | News
59 Answers

Answers

41 to 59 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by EdmundD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Edmund - // My objection was to the use of the term "effective firing squad". British armed police are not firing squads and I thought use of the term was irresponsible and potentially inflammatory (IMO) as (IMO) it conveyed a misleading impression of how the armed police approach a situation.

The Police Federation of England and Wales lodged a formal complaint about the wording with ITV News today who then subsequently amended the wording but with no apology. //

Fine - but as I pointed out, you made no mention of ITV News in your OP - you simply linked the report.

If you don't tell people you object to the phrasing, and crucially, where yo saw it, no-one is going to know what you are talking about.
Question Author
"no-one is going to know what you are talking about."
.....that happens to me quite a lot.
// "no-one is going to know what you are talking about.//

o god pretty normal fare for anyone who uses more than four words in a sentence. A usual suspect I am assured, has been known to gasp: "Look ! a main verb!" at infrequent intervals
The link Edmund posted did have the words “effective firing squad”, but I see those words are no longer there (merely as a ‘by the way’ I had no idea a posted link could be changed), so perhaps this is the confusion.

The words were there, at least when I opened the link, because I saw them, but they no longer are.
Agreed DD, the words were there, not at all surprised they were changed at the request of the Police Federation.
The words were not in the link when I saw it - hence my posts about the confusion of the OP.

If Edmund had advised that, it would have saved a lot of time all round, but never mind, all clear now.
-- answer removed --
Atheist, // The people here who sound off about 'the b***d deserved to die' are in the wrong, because they are calling for summary execution without trial,//

I disagree. No trial necessary. He was a *** and he did deserve to die. Your self-righteous attitude aligns with that of those who, in their dubious wisdom, allowed him the opportunity to do what he did. Doubtless once again 'lessons will be learnt'', but when?


It's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from Bob :-)

Oops, more tired than i thought :-(
Atheist, // The people here who sound off about 'the b***d deserved to die' are in the wrong, because they are calling for summary execution without trial,//

Oddly people in the uk prefer to see terrorists with a suicide vest strapped to themselves summarily executed before the device is activated
Or would Athesist prefer it to be used thereby leaving everyone in no doubt as to the wearers intentions ?
There are instances where a 'Shoot To Kill' policy is more than justified. Being faced with someone wearing a suicide vest (real or not) is one of those instances, imho.
would have been even better if was never allowed into the country
and similar ilk murderers.
fender - // would have been even better if was never allowed into the country
and similar ilk murderers. //

Indeed - but as criminal history confirms, it's not actually possible to identify a ciminal of any sort until they actually commit a crime.
He was born in Stoke-on-Trent.
//as criminal history confirms, it's not actually possible to identify a ciminal of any sort until they actually commit a crime.//

Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions.

... and identification in this case is surplus to requirements. He was a convicted criminal.
naomi - // //as criminal history confirms, it's not actually possible to identify a ciminal of any sort until they actually commit a crime.//

Not so. Immigrants to this country are required to divulge criminal convictions. //

That does not negate my point.

If someone is convicted of a crime, then they are a convicted criminal, with a criminal record.

But no-one becomes a criminal until they are tried and convicted - first, you have to be caught.
He was.
He certainly was a criminal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57282068

41 to 59 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Effective Firing Squad?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.