The defensiveness is because it was implied that people like myself who were stating that those who were intending on being violent should be met which similar measures were wishing for someone to die which is totally incorrect and it has struck a nerve thanks as it is tragic and certainy not wished for regardless of whether it was a steel- bar-wielding anarchist or a guy going about his business as in this case.
..........
Nope, as you well know there were plenty of calls here for violence to be met with violence...and when violence is met with violence you have to be prepared for the law of unintended consequences, whatever you got your wish, now stop re-writing history.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Not seen any footage but is this not what some wanted?
There were many calls on here for the Police for "give them a good kicking" and hopes that"they get their heads kicked in" etc etc
RIP Ian
That's a pretty disgusting allegation to imply that some people on here wanted to see someone die. A tragedy regardless of who it was whether a protestor or not.
As one of the posters i take it you are referring to perhaps, take a minute to step down from your ivory tower of smugness and read back through the thread and you will see that (when the comments weren't tongue in cheek) they were stating that those being violent and intimadating against any one innocent should expect to met with the same treatment.
Absolutely nothing was implied about wishing death on anyone regardless of whether they were involved or not and it is wrong to allude to that. An absolute tradegy and not one that should be used for petty point scoring on an internet forum.
Glad you got the point that it was you I was referring to.
Who was living in their smug Ivory tower when you thought that "Hope they get a good hiding/kicking" or words to that effect was ha ha, tongue in cheek, just a joke, not going to happen.
Never said you wished anyone dead but you did wish for violence to be handed out to people. One possible consequence of that violence is that people get hurt. I said at the time that wishing violence was wrong so no hindsight there.
maybe next time think about what you are saying first and don't hide behind "Your ivory tower of smugness" when you get it wrong.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The defensiveness is because it was implied that people like myself who were stating that those who were intending on being violent should be met which similar measures were wishing for someone to die which is totally incorrect and it has struck a nerve thanks as it is tragic and certainy not wished for regardless of whether it was a steel- bar-wielding anarchist or a guy going about his business as in this case.
..........
Nope, as you well know there were plenty of calls here for violence to be met with violence...and when violence is met with violence you have to be prepared for the law of unintended consequences, whatever you got your wish, now stop re-writing history.
Right ok we have different opionions on it and at the end of the day im not gonna argue and trivialise it.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Not seen any footage but is this not what some wanted?
There were many calls on here for the Police for "give them a good kicking" and hopes that"they get their heads kicked in" etc etc
RIP Ian
That's a pretty disgusting allegation to imply that some people on here wanted to see someone die. A tragedy regardless of who it was whether a protestor or not.
As one of the posters i take it you are referring to perhaps, take a minute to step down from your ivory tower of smugness and read back through the thread and you will see that (when the comments weren't tongue in cheek) they were stating that those being violent and intimadating against any one innocent should expect to met with the same treatment.
Absolutely nothing was implied about wishing death on anyone regardless of whether they were involved or not and it is wrong to allude to that. An absolute tradegy and not one that should be used for petty point scoring on an internet forum.
Glad you got the point that it was you I was referring to.
Who was living in their smug Ivory tower when you thought that "Hope they get a good hiding/kicking" or words to that effect was ha ha, tongue in cheek, just a joke, not going to happen.
Never said you wished anyone dead but you did wish for violence to be handed out to people. One possible consequence of that violence is that people get hurt. I said at the time that wishing violence was wrong so no hindsight there.
maybe next time think about what you are saying first and don't hide behind "Your ivory tower of smugness" when you get it wrong.
Would have been more straight forward to direct the comment towards me then surely rather than referring to some.
Yup ok, as i said i merely stated that if "protestors" got violent then surely they could expect it back.
Totally unrelated as the poor guy was not being violent at all yet your implication suggested otherwise. Anyway as i said its not worth arguing the points as it is trivialising a tradgedy.
Right ok we have different opionions on it and at the end of the day im not gonna argue and trivialise it.
...........
Hey you got your wish, the police dealt out a beating to someone, I accept that you didn't want anyone to die but as I say above, that's the law of unintended consequences at work.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Right ok we have different opionions on it and at the end of the day im not gonna argue and trivialise it.
...........
Hey you got your wish, the police dealt out a beating to someone, I accept that you didn't want anyone to die but as I say above, that's the law of unintended consequences at work.
No BFR I didnt want the police to dish out a beating to someone...i said that if someone was being violent or intimidating against innocent people then they should be treated likewise...a very big difference between that and what you are twisting it to be.
If the police officers wanted Mr Tomlinson to move away, and to move away quickly, then I ca't see ho whacking with a baton on the back of the legs, and then pushing him over, is going to achieve what they want. Maybe the officers were hyped up (lets face it, the build up to the demo was pretty hysterical), and annoyed by what appeared to be a lairy and casual, maybe even belligerent, attitude by Mr Tomlinson (didn't he work nearby, and could have simply been going about his business) so as a result of the situation one officer who was particularly on edge went too far with tragic consequences. On the Stockwell shooting, if officers shout a warning, what if the person is deaf, or doesn't speak English, or is listening to loud music on the headphones? Shouting warnings doesn't seem to be the best answer these days....is there an alternative?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]i said that if someone was being violent or intimidating against innocent people then they should be treated likewise
.......
So you did want the police to use violence then?
No I didnt want there to be a need for them to use it at all but if there were people being violent against innocent people ie city workers for the mere fact they work in a bank or wear a suit etc then they should be treated the same however. And even then i would not wish death on anyone for that reason.
My point is totally unrelated to the tragedy that happened if you actually go back and read my original posts rather than using carefully selected soundbites to manipulate the discussion.
Now please can we cease arguing about this because it is pretty silly in the bigger scheme of things and in light of what has happened..
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]As someone that knows the area very well, that little passage is on either side of main roads and with a main junction just 100yds away.
Given what was going on in the 7 hours in the immediate area leading up to it, it is purely my belief that no one would have found thesmselves at that point for any other reason for a. wanting to get caught up in the aggro, or b. not wanting to get involved, but with a voyouristic approach wanting to get 'close to the action' and have a look at what is going on.
Yes, he has his back to the police, hands in pockets and is walking away. However, to be at that exact spot, at that time, and as it appears on the video, have complete no knowledge that there is a row of riot police 5 yards away trying to move people back, that just doesn't ring true to me. I can't believe that a grown man, let alone a millwall bloke who has seen it all through the years and would be pretty streetwise, would be that naive.
So in summary, i don't think he did anything wrong other than he want to have a scan of a bit bother, and in the process be a little bit obtrusive to the police. The fact he could die from such an incident is both saddening and sickening, and i hope his family get full justice. But i don't believe he was just simply 'on his way home from work', though that is a irrelevent now.
I was on my way home from work and, like I've said, took exactly that route an hour before the incident. I certainly wasnt a) or b) as you mention above - was just taking my usual route from the office to the station...
I see in todays papers there's new footage of Ian Tomlinson having another altercation with riot police over an hour before the incident in which he was knocked over. Stumbling about drunk, refusing to move out of the way of riot police and seemingly not 'on his way home from work'.
Still doesn't excuse what happened to him, but my first thoughts that he was certainly not having a leisurely stroll home from work have proved to be true.
Why don't people wait until all sides of a story are given. Whatever the outcome turns out to be, the Liberal MP's, Ken Livingstone, Chakrabarti and her Human rights Mob and a few people on here may wish to have waited a bit longer before commenting.
The initial images don't look good on that copper but we don't know what was said leading up to the incident (although the new images in today's papers give a few clues).
That doesn't excuse any unlawful behaviour by anyone, including the old bill, but as AFKA says, in a Public Order type of scenario surely it's the old bill's job to keep the streets clear.
Strange how after recent major Public disturbances there ends up an enquiry into the behaviour of Police (Kingsnorth is the latest) yet hardly any perpetrators are jailed.
Perhaps at the next one no Police should attend, let the Swampy's do their stuff and clear up afterwards.
Why don't people wait until all sides of a story are given. Whatever the outcome turns out to be, the Liberal MP's, Ken Livingstone, Chakrabarti and her Human rights Mob and a few people on here may wish to have waited a bit longer before commenting.
.........
Why? From the footage he was posing no physical threat to the policeman, therefore there was no reason for the latter to respond with violence.
I agree not all cops are bad........ notice how they formed a protective ring round the poor guy as they tried to resuscitate him so that the other helmeted thugs could not get to him to finish the job off
I find it ironic that his son wants answers and is accusing the police of lying even though he said that "his father left work selling the Evening Standard at Monument Station at about 7pm"
So why was he filmed arguing with riot police whilst drunk at 6.07pm?
I'm a law abiding citizen (see the halo) If i ever have the misfortune of finding myself in the dock. I sincerely hope none of you are members of the jury.
I didn't like what i saw on video. I'm saddened the man is dead. I'm sure there are bad coppers. But wait for the facts!
Not got involved in this post for various reasons but interested to hear peoples views now the pictures of this fella messing about with the OB at 6pm in the same place over an hour before he tragically died.
Seems he wasn't just walking home - regardless it's wrong what's happened but I don't think this fella was just strolling past as it's been reported.
Now the Old Bill have been forced to suspend the officer involved by the IPCC, it will be very interesting to see what happens to him now, I doubt he'll get sacked but will face some sort of censure which, to be fair, is probably reasonable given that he could not have known that his actions would have those consequences.
However, it really does not matter if the deceased should have been there or not, he was not acting violently or in an aggressive manner and therefore there was absolutely no need for him to be violently shoved to the ground by the officer concerned.
The biggest thing about having a position of power is knowing when and how to exercise that power, the officer involved in this case clearly did not.
The other thing that concerns me is that on this occasion and on the De Mendezes incident the Police have been caught blatantly LYING about the details of the incidents to try and turn the story their way.
It has only been video footage on both occasions that has exposed their lies, if these events had not been taped then the cases might well have progressed to a Court and seen the Police - well known for their sticking together - lie under oath in order to get themselves out of trouble.
Its ironic really that the Old Bill and the authorities in general LOVE to use surveillance cameras to keep watch on us but are increasingly finding the tables turned on them.
God, there are some pretentious twats on this board. They never seem to miss an opportunity to pick up on anything to score points and try to make themselves look good.
[cite]Posted By: Off_it[/cite]God, there are some pretentious twats on this board. They never seem to miss an opportunity to pick up on anything to score points and try to make themselves look good.
Got news for you fellas, you just look pathetic.
Agreed. Question is why are they like it and are they aware ? I think they're aware. You know who you are.
While we're in the mood for bumping old threads, my turn!
I saw on the news last night that there's now another enquiry because of that copper giving the crustyette a whack with his truncheon. Broadly, it seemed to me that what happened was as follows:
Crusty is in the copper's face shouting. He tells her to move away.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. He gives her a backhander.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. So he gives her a whack with the truncheon.
I know this will drive the PC brigade bonkers but I can't really see what's wrong here... when is there going to be a public enquiry (complete with comments from lawyers enjoying 5 minutes of fame on the TV) about them putting graffitti everywhere - walls, monuments etc?!
[cite]Posted By: Heath Hero[/cite]While we're in the mood for bumping old threads, my turn!
I saw on the news last night that there's now another enquiry because of that copper giving the crustyette a whack with his truncheon. Broadly, it seemed to me that what happened was as follows:
Crusty is in the copper's face shouting. He tells her to move away.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. He gives her a backhander.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. So he gives her a whack with the truncheon.
The backhander was a terrible thing for the policeman to do. Watch old footage of the nazis in Poland. This copper should be charged with assault imho
I know this will drive the PC brigade bonkers but I can't really see what's wrong here... when is there going to be a public enquiry (complete with comments from lawyers enjoying 5 minutes of fame on the TV) about them putting graffitti everywhere - walls, monuments etc?!
Comments
..........
Nope, as you well know there were plenty of calls here for violence to be met with violence...and when violence is met with violence you have to be prepared for the law of unintended consequences, whatever you got your wish, now stop re-writing history.
Glad you got the point that it was you I was referring to.
Who was living in their smug Ivory tower when you thought that "Hope they get a good hiding/kicking" or words to that effect was ha ha, tongue in cheek, just a joke, not going to happen.
Never said you wished anyone dead but you did wish for violence to be handed out to people. One possible consequence of that violence is that people get hurt. I said at the time that wishing violence was wrong so no hindsight there.
maybe next time think about what you are saying first and don't hide behind "Your ivory tower of smugness" when you get it wrong.
Right ok we have different opionions on it and at the end of the day im not gonna argue and trivialise it.
Would have been more straight forward to direct the comment towards me then surely rather than referring to some.
Yup ok, as i said i merely stated that if "protestors" got violent then surely they could expect it back.
Totally unrelated as the poor guy was not being violent at all yet your implication suggested otherwise. Anyway as i said its not worth arguing the points as it is trivialising a tradgedy.
...........
Hey you got your wish, the police dealt out a beating to someone, I accept that you didn't want anyone to die but as I say above, that's the law of unintended consequences at work.
No BFR I didnt want the police to dish out a beating to someone...i said that if someone was being violent or intimidating against innocent people then they should be treated likewise...a very big difference between that and what you are twisting it to be.
On the Stockwell shooting, if officers shout a warning, what if the person is deaf, or doesn't speak English, or is listening to loud music on the headphones? Shouting warnings doesn't seem to be the best answer these days....is there an alternative?
.......
So you did want the police to use violence then?
No I didnt want there to be a need for them to use it at all but if there were people being violent against innocent people ie city workers for the mere fact they work in a bank or wear a suit etc then they should be treated the same however. And even then i would not wish death on anyone for that reason.
My point is totally unrelated to the tragedy that happened if you actually go back and read my original posts rather than using carefully selected soundbites to manipulate the discussion.
Now please can we cease arguing about this because it is pretty silly in the bigger scheme of things and in light of what has happened..
I was on my way home from work and, like I've said, took exactly that route an hour before the incident. I certainly wasnt a) or b) as you mention above - was just taking my usual route from the office to the station...
What we looking for?
Still doesn't excuse what happened to him, but my first thoughts that he was certainly not having a leisurely stroll home from work have proved to be true.
The initial images don't look good on that copper but we don't know what was said leading up to the incident (although the new images in today's papers give a few clues).
That doesn't excuse any unlawful behaviour by anyone, including the old bill, but as AFKA says, in a Public Order type of scenario surely it's the old bill's job to keep the streets clear.
Strange how after recent major Public disturbances there ends up an enquiry into the behaviour of Police (Kingsnorth is the latest) yet hardly any perpetrators are jailed.
Perhaps at the next one no Police should attend, let the Swampy's do their stuff and clear up afterwards.
.........
Why? From the footage he was posing no physical threat to the policeman, therefore there was no reason for the latter to respond with violence.
So why was he filmed arguing with riot police whilst drunk at 6.07pm?
Dixon of Dock Green was fiction . They get away with murder and have .
I didn't like what i saw on video. I'm saddened the man is dead. I'm sure there are bad coppers. But wait for the facts!
Seems he wasn't just walking home - regardless it's wrong what's happened but I don't think this fella was just strolling past as it's been reported.
However, it really does not matter if the deceased should have been there or not, he was not acting violently or in an aggressive manner and therefore there was absolutely no need for him to be violently shoved to the ground by the officer concerned.
The biggest thing about having a position of power is knowing when and how to exercise that power, the officer involved in this case clearly did not.
The other thing that concerns me is that on this occasion and on the De Mendezes incident the Police have been caught blatantly LYING about the details of the incidents to try and turn the story their way.
It has only been video footage on both occasions that has exposed their lies, if these events had not been taped then the cases might well have progressed to a Court and seen the Police - well known for their sticking together - lie under oath in order to get themselves out of trouble.
Its ironic really that the Old Bill and the authorities in general LOVE to use surveillance cameras to keep watch on us but are increasingly finding the tables turned on them.
Got news for you fellas, you just look pathetic.
Agreed. Question is why are they like it and are they aware ? I think they're aware. You know who you are.
I saw on the news last night that there's now another enquiry because of that copper giving the crustyette a whack with his truncheon. Broadly, it seemed to me that what happened was as follows:
Crusty is in the copper's face shouting. He tells her to move away.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. He gives her a backhander.
Crusty carries on shouting in the copper's face. So he gives her a whack with the truncheon.
I know this will drive the PC brigade bonkers but I can't really see what's wrong here... when is there going to be a public enquiry (complete with comments from lawyers enjoying 5 minutes of fame on the TV) about them putting graffitti everywhere - walls, monuments etc?!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm