fugtifino Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 Thank goodness for the right decision on this one. If the police hadn't been there and intervened, he would have died anyway, obviously. Been a bit overshadowed by the Venebles thing, though I'm sure that's just coincidental. Disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 It was the wrong decision, The crown prosecution services said he was guilty of assault. The Police are upholders of the law, They are not above it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I have my reservations as to what Mr Tomlinson was really doing there. There is no way the PC could be charged with manslaughter. He should have been charged with assault but if the investigating authorities cannot act within 6 months, that is hardly the fault of the police. Such delays would not have been tolerated in 99%of prosecutions prior to the CPS and police complaints board, but now long waits for prosecution seem the norm. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 This "6 months" buisiness seems convienient for the police; why didn't the family start a private civil prosecution at the beginning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I have my reservations as to what Mr Tomlinson was really doing there. First off, let me say as one who derides the endless police haters in this country, I think in this case the video evidence is clearly pretty damning. However likewise, what exactly was thye guy doing there? Making his way home allegedly. What, right through the middle of a demo? Seems a bit unlikely to me. I must admit my sympathy for the family waned slightly when they did their press conference on the steps of the court, and chavvy son #2 reffered to "the old bill". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I do not have a problem with the Police, Traffic Police apart But they are not above the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I do not have a problem with the Police, Traffic Police apart But they are not above the law Agree with all three tenets there, I'm just not convinced it's quite as black and white as is being painted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I suppose we will have to wait to see what internal disciplinary procedures he will go though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 I have my reservations as to what Mr Tomlinson was really doing there. what exactly was thye guy doing there? Well, by all accounts he was on his way home from work, possibly after a drink or two, which isn't against the law. Careful your "reservations" don't lead you to blaming the victim here. Maybe he assumed the police were there to protect innocent passers-by like him eh? Big mistake. Then there's this fella: http://snipurl.com/zuvow He is accused of giving "questionable" verdicts on the causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious. Seems to be a strange silence in the media about this, which only makes me more suspicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 I have my reservations as to what Mr Tomlinson was really doing there. what exactly was thye guy doing there? Well, by all accounts he was on his way home from work, possibly after a drink or two, which isn't against the law. Careful your "reservations" don't lead you to blaming the victim here. Maybe he assumed the police were there to protect innocent passers-by like him eh? Big mistake. Then there's this fella: http://snipurl.com/zuvow He is accused of giving "questionable" verdicts on the causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious. Seems to be a strange silence in the media about this, which only makes me more suspicious. You mean the sort of "strange silence" that saw it reported on all news programmes I saw, and in most (probably all) newspapers, just google his name and up pops the Telegraph & Guardian right at the top of hits, and of course there's the Channel 4 link you posted yourself. That sort of strange silence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 It?s impossible for any of us to know what actually happened however it?s not too hard to imagine what most probably happened. If the police closed off an area due to the protests, most reasonable people would accept the fact and find an alternate way home. Arguing with the police in such circumstances is bound to result in a confrontation, which sadly in this case resulted in a death. This is only my take on events but given the difficult circumstances, I don?t think the actions of the police was either heavy handed or unnecessary. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 That sort of strange silence? Well, google results for "Ian Tomlinson" brings up nothing in the last couple of days, which surprises me for a story of this magnitude, certainly when compared to the Venables thing. It?s impossible for any of us to know what actually happened In case you missed it, Bill, it was all caught on video: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-police-not-charged ...I don?t think the actions of the police was either heavy handed or unnecessary. Glad you're not a copper then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 The result was caught on video, why he was being pushed in the first place is not. As for Tomlinson, you were initially implying that Patel's dodgy pathology verdicts were being ignored, they clearly were not, they were heavily reported, now you're saying Tomlinson is old news, well of course it is, because it's old news, since the verdict, we've had days of other newsworthy events, Venables latest antics coming to the fore days after Tomlinson. You're just seeing reds under the bed where none exist, the media have clearly been on the side of the Tomlinson family from the outset, not at any point have I ever seen anyone question why he was there and managed to get himself in front of the riot police. Surely a valid question, but instead it's all been police bashing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 why he was being pushed in the first place is not Well, it looks to me like he wasn?t moving quick enough for their liking, so he was pushed roughly to so as to maintain public order. you were initially implying that Patel's dodgy pathology verdicts were being ignored No, I was suggesting the CPS bottled it ? even the IPCC had backed a prosecution for manslaughter. This is interesting from the first link though: The CPS lawyer who made the decision was the same one who decided no officer should face charges for the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes by police who mistook him for a terrorist Tomlinson?s death may be old news, that there?s to be no prosecutions is the new stuff here. Venables latest antics coming to the fore days after Tomlinson. Venables hearing was the day after this was reported: one?s still very much in the news, one isn?t. One concerned an innocent man?s death, one didn?t. On the Jeremy Vine show a couple of days ago a bobby called in, he was saying that things like this make his job harder because the police lose credibility with the public. I think this decision was wrong, and I?m not the only one: The Crown Prosecution Service's decision that no charges will be brought in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson has been challenged by lawyers, who argue it shows a disparity in how the criminal justice system treats police officers and members of the public. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-lawyers-cps why he was there... This again? Nobody from the Met or the CPS has asked this question, probably because it's irrelevant. Do you think he was part of the protest? Do you think he was causing trouble? Do you think he deserved to die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 There was never any question that the police pushed him but small clips like that usually doesn?t paint the whole picture. To me, the man?s attitude seems to be totally none compliant with hands in pockets and appearing to be deliberately walking very slowly. Was he obstructing the Police? I don?t know for sure but it looked a bit like it to me and I suspect the police thought so too. As far as I?m concerned, anyone that tries to confront or antagonise the police under riot conditions however innocent they may be deserves all they get. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Well, like I said, Bill, glad you're not in uniform. Just to put this "what was he doing there?" to bed, here's a report shortly after the incident: "Unfortunately Mr Tomlinson's normal route home took him up King William Street and straight past the Bank of England, where last Wednesday night thousands of anti-capitalist protesters were demonstrating against the next day's G20 summit. It appears that Mr Tomlinson was diverted by police, who had "corralled" hundreds of protesters into a pen around the Bank, and found himself a block further north on Cornhill, caught up in another part of the demonstration." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 26, 2010 Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 As far as I?m concerned, anyone that tries to confront or antagonise the police under riot conditions however innocent they may be deserves all they get. Was he antagonising Was he confronting Or was he just trying to get home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 Ooh, it's got a mention: http://tinyurl.com/38akqwf Only to report that the ranks are closing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2010 PC Simon Harwood: "Dressed in a bright yellow reflective jacket, black uniform and helmet, Pc Harwood?s identity number was covered up and he had a scarf across the lower part of his face. " http://tinyurl.com/29rmcoz (Telegraph) Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 It would appear that the policemans secondment to the TSG was a perfect vent for his obvious and proven aggressive behaviour. How he could have still been a copper in light of his previous behaviour is unbelievable..... just about sums up the "close ranks and lie" attitude of the current police forces we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 How he could have still been a copper in light of his previous behaviour is unbelievable..... just about sums up the "close ranks and lie" attitude of the current police forces we have. Completly agree Baz the more that comes out the more the Policeman looks like he should be out of the force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 just about sums up the "close ranks and lie" attitude of the current police forces we have. It's increasingly common that that's the only leg they've got left to stand on. And it's a stinky leg at that. It stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Why hasn't anyone pointed out that if the demonstrators hadn't been there in the first place, none of this would have happened? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Because it's irrelevant. Tomlinson was nothing to do with the demonstration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 28, 2010 Report Share Posted July 28, 2010 Why hasn't anyone pointed out that if the demonstrators hadn't been there in the first place, none of this would have happened? As Fug has said Adam, that is irrelevant. If the Police could ban all demonstrations on the grounds that some of their officers may just happen to inflict fatal injuries on some of the protestors, it becomes a Police state! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.