2 Comments »

1. "offering greater protection for police"

   What kind of protection? Protection from prosecution by their victims or their victims families? Protection from scrutiny?

   Whatever kind of "protection" he is talking about, the fact that anyone needs to consider greater protection for the police (who are already surely amply protected by existing laws) is extremely worrying in itself. It is the general public who need protection from the police but I notice no-one is talking about that, or about dropping the ridiculous shoot-to-kill policy…

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 7 Oct 2005 on 6:47 pm | Link

2. No. This is just a simple typographic error isn’t it? The meeting was actually about protection ‘from’ the police.

   But then again………

   This is just the two Blairs blurring the picture once more. Smoke and mirrors.

   What do the cops want protection ‘from’ for God’s sake. They can already blow people away without sanction, bend all sorts of rules like speeding, petty violence (or is that mindless thuggery?) etc etc. Then they get all sorts of perks. Then they get lots of sick leave, early retirement and so on.

   This is the usual snivelling self-interested garbage from the Old Bill. They are beneath contempt.

   Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 10 Oct 2005 on 2:14 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.