Re: WTF? Olympics spectator handcuffed and whisked away to London police station for not smiling
You forgot to mention that he was sitting near protesters with a lot of people around him and the racers were approaching. There was concern that he might blow himself up along with a lot of citizens and racers.
You also forgot to mention this:
Selective editing? It's not quite the same story you portrayed.
RE: "You forgot to mention that he was sitting near protesters with a lot of people around him and the racers were approaching."
You forgot to mention there was no need for redundancy, since JUBbers would be reading the details in the story a few seconds after reading my post. And don't you think simple common sense conveys the London police wouldn't arrest someone lacking a smiley face unless there were some kind of extenuating circumstances involved?
Butt I don't care if the Queen of England was approaching. There's no justification to handcuff someone and haul them off to a police station merely because he's not smiling in a "sensitive" location. Hell, his glum face could have been due to his hamster dying that morning for all the cops knew.
RE: "There was concern that he might blow himself up along with a lot of citizens and racers."
So what! That concern is rampant in countless situations everyday, all across the globe. That doesn't give cops the right to handcuff you and haul you away to a police station for not having a smiley face. Simple common sense dictates their concern could have been resolved within a few seconds on the scene, via the following steps:
1) Plainclothes cop approaches him to see if he has anything in his hands that could be used as a triggering device.
2) Two uniformed cops then approach him from behind and discreetly grab onto his wrists, locking them in place.
3) The plainclothes cop then tells him he's being detained momentarily because he left his smiley face at home, and he doesn't have a sign around his neck explaining why.
4) The man then explains why he's unable to smile.
5) The cop says, "Oh, sorry mate, that hadn't occurred to me. You don't mind if I discretely frisk you for a suicide vest real quick, do you?"
6) The man says, "Help yourself, butt please don't tickle me."
7) After frisking him, the cop politely says, "Okay, sorry for the inconvenience, and you have a good day."
The whole thing could have been over with in 20 seconds or less. Butt instead, highly trained cops were required to waste their time hauling him to a police station, when they could have been utilized much more effectively there at the event.
As well, the widespread publicity this draconian arrest received has resulted in one less valuable tool for the police to use in spotting potential suicide bombers. As you can bet they'll all have a clown type smile on their face from now on before pressing the button.
RE: "You also forgot to mention this: Selective editing?"
In your haste to jump at any chance to pick apart what I say and find some way to post misleading, deceptive criticisms of it, you forgot to mention this from the article: "
said he wants a "letter of exoneration" from Surrey police, claiming their treatment of him was disproportionate." Selective editing?
As well, I didn't forget to mention anything. As it's not my job to commit copyright infringement by reposting the whole article. Although I normally post a few quoted excerpts from an article under the fair use clause of copyright law, it wasn't necessary in this case since the headline was sufficient to let people know what the topic pertains to. And if they're interested in it, they'll click on the link to find out the details.
RE: "It's not quite the same story you portrayed."
Oh give me a freaking break. Exactly what "story" did I "portray?" You're trying to make it sound like I was speaking for the "victim" in this abuse of power case, when anyone with an iota of common sense can see it's just my personal rant. And everything I said in my opening post is 100% factual.
And now you are trollish. There's a lot of things you say that I don't like, butt you don't see me popping up in one of your threads like a
in the box, baiting you with an insult. Why? Because I'm not suffering from delusions of grandeur, in which I think I'm qualified to judge what other JUBbers choose to post.
And your criticism of the clown pic makes batshit sense to me. Because how could you possibly expect me to report a creepy clown story, in which a creepy clown ordered spectators to be arrested for not smiling, without using a pic of a creepy clown to appropriately illustrate the creepiness of the situation? Again, there were no clowns handing out balloon animals, so how creepy is it to arrest someone for not smiling?
I agree.
IT! 
................
- - - Updated - - -
What kind of BS news is that? I never heard so much BS
It's just a good example of what can happen when a power happy clown is put in charge of the police...clownish, totalitarian shit.
I was going to use this one--> 
