nqboy said:Please enlighten me as to how that says that I said the police did nothing wrong.
nqboy said:I just don't see that the police have done anything wrong
marshall stalin said:There should be a curfew in any case with only those going to or coming home from work allowed to be out after 12am. With the urgent need to introduce compulsory military and national service(3 years for 18 to 40 year olds and 2 weeks a year after that including 2 weeks for 41 to 70 year olds) one of the roles of these people would be to patrol the suburbs/towns/cities/infrastructure/businesses etc and enforce law and order in association with the police.
Too many people are out at night who don't need to be out and one has to feel that they are upto no good.
In the Soviet Union we were too tired after work /study/sport etc to be out late at night in any case.
Dodger said:The bottom line, for those who don't understand - there is no legal requirement which says a member of the general public is required to show identification.
The race stuff is a whole different kettle of fish which I don't like and don't want to see.
nqboy said:And FTR, you still have shown nothing to convince me. It might convince others that share your feeble intellect
The prosecution rests m'lud.mattyg said:keep trying rabbitoh-bronco-nqboy
False. What I said, in your terms, is that the only thing that incriminates them is the untested statements of the two blokes making the complaint. I also said that if a proper investigation demonstrates to me that the complaint is justified, I would expect the police to apologise. Now, what if a proper investigation demonstrates that the police did nothing wrong, would you expect El Masri and his lawyer mate to apologise?Game_Breaker said:C'mon nqboy, you think the police did nothing wrong based on your opinion that nothing incriminates them. Is that statement true or false?
We don't know that yet asthe findings of a proper investigation has not been publicised yet (and probably won't be). I'm not suggesting he did anything wrong, I fully recognise that if the coppers did not have the right to "require" (Qld term - NSW would have an equivalent) them to state their names, they were within their rights to decline when asked.Game_Breaker said:That exact same logic can apply to El Masri. Based on your logic he did nothing wrong either, since nothing incriminated them.
nqboy said:False. What I said, in your terms, is that the only thing that incriminates them is the untested statements of the two blokes making the complaint.
I also said that if a proper investigation demonstrates to me that the complaint is justified, I would expect the police to apologise. Now, what if a proper investigation demonstrates that the police did nothing wrong, would you expect El Masri and his lawyer mate to apologise?
I fully recognise that if the coppers did not have the right to "require" (Qld term - NSW would have an equivalent) them to state their names, they were within their rights to decline when asked.
However, there is no law against police asking them their names, they just can't require them to state their names, except in certain limited circumstances. This is what so many in this thread have failed to understand.
It all comes down to whether police asked/requested their names or required/demanded their names (under threat of sanction for non-compliance).