The jury (made up of ordinary members of the public - just like on CL) have sat through a long and complex trial and, unlike anyone on this site, have heard all the evidence. I am sure that the members of the jury will now deliver a verdict in accordance with that evidence and the oath each took. Whatever verdict the jury reaches, that is 'justice', regardless of posters personal views.
You emit to note that a worringly large % of the Great British public appear to be pig ignorant thickos and it is questionable whether they should be given the responsibility of presiding over the making of a cup of tea let alone deciding the fate of people in courts up and down the land.
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
I've worked tough, 14 hour days, killed very few people in the course of them though.
The vast majority of police officers are fine. However, even of your experience of them extends only to watching Charlton away you'll know there are a good few who are wronguns and are well up for a fight.
RCT I'm not sure why I should have noted 'that 'that a large worrying % of the Great British public appear to be pig ignorant thickos' as that is not my view (but seems to be yours.) So given that this is your view, how should issues of guilt or innocence be decided? Clearly we couldn't indulge in 'vox pop' as that would include the same 'pig ignorant thickos' you would exclude! Apart from having a legally qualified judge or judges (and even then nobody seemed happy with the decision of the Senior District Judge in the Terry case) don't we have to rely on members of the public? Are you going to suggest an IQ test for prospective jurors???
This is the system we have and has stood the test of time. It isn't perfect but it's the best we can come up with.
RCT I'm not sure why I should have noted 'that 'that a large worrying % of the Great British public appear to be pig ignorant thickos' as that is not my view (but seems to be yours.) So given that this is your view, how should issues of guilt or innocence be decided? Clearly we couldn't indulge in 'vox pop' as that would include the same 'pig ignorant thickos' you would exclude! Apart from having a legally qualified judge or judges (and even then nobody seemed happy with the decision of the Senior District Judge in the Terry case) don't we have to rely on members of the public? Are you going to suggest an IQ test for prospective jurors???
This is the system we have and has stood the test of time. It isn't perfect but it's the best we can come up with.
I have no idea what your talking about or who that was aimed at so I can not answer. Try simplifying your point as it becomes to tangled up and difficult to take the individual points your making.
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
I've worked tough, 14 hour days, killed very few people in the course of them though.
The vast majority of police officers are fine. However, even of your experience of them extends only to watching Charlton away you'll know there are a good few who are wronguns and are well up for a fight.
I appreciate what your saying and I'm not expecting you to understand the type of environment these officers are put in throughout these huge protests.
It's difficult to try and defend every officer because I can't and I'm not trying for a second to defend what happened, police always get a bad press and sometimes it's easy just to base facts on what you read, my point is simply that the events were not simply what we read in the paper, there was a lots of things that happene prior to it.
I don't want to have a slanging match with anyone who disagrees etc just putting across another angle on things.
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
Hilarious.
I don't believe much in certain papers any more, certainly not since we found out that half of News Corp. was working in the Metropolitan Police press office and doing cozy deals with their former colleagues.
You know, little things like lying their arse off about what happened to Jean Charles Menezes and getting it faithfully written up by all of their mates at The Sun.
Remind me again, how many folks at Scotland Yard had to resign over their links with. News Corp?
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
Hilarious.
I don't believe much in certain papers any more, certainly not since we found out that half of News Corp. was working in the Metropolitan Police press office and doing cozy deals with their former colleagues.
You know, little things like lying their arse off about what happened to Jean Charles Menezes and getting it faithfully written up by all of their mates at The Sun.
Remind me again, how many folks at Scotland Yard had to resign over their links with. News Corp?
Your post nearly made me laugh, then I remembered where you got all that information about the Menezes shooting and what the truth is on all the stories you mentioned, your MR KNOW IT ALL.
Remind me, where you got all the information about the corruption? Menezes shooting? And corruption within the police?
You should really think before you type because you clearly don't really know what happened. Basing your interuptation of what happened from the news/internet can not all be 100% true.
I appreciate what your saying and I'm not expecting you to understand the type of environment these officers are put in throughout these huge protests.
It's difficult to try and defend every officer because I can't and I'm not trying for a second to defend what happened, police always get a bad press and sometimes it's easy just to base facts on what you read, my point is simply that the events were not simply what we read in the paper, there was a lots of things that happene prior to it.
I don't want to have a slanging match with anyone who disagrees etc just putting across another angle on things.
so stressed out you leap towards someome baton attack and push them,but the other policeman are able to not do this? nasty little thug with crocodile tears in court.
What I meant is the police asked him to move on which he done incredible slowly so one copper for whatever reason just pushed him unfortunately for both the Copper and Ian it was fatal. I have seen the same thing happen across Europe with police and civilians, let's just see what the verdict is.
I think the media petrayed it slightly different from the actual truth in terms of him walking past @nolly However the video footage is not good. No more posts from me on this subject.
The jury will make there decision on what they have put in front of them.
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
Hilarious.
I don't believe much in certain papers any more, certainly not since we found out that half of News Corp. was working in the Metropolitan Police press office and doing cozy deals with their former colleagues.
You know, little things like lying their arse off about what happened to Jean Charles Menezes and getting it faithfully written up by all of their mates at The Sun.
Remind me again, how many folks at Scotland Yard had to resign over their links with. News Corp?
Your post nearly made me laugh, then I remembered where you got all that information about the Menezes shooting and what the truth is on all the stories you mentioned, your MR KNOW IT ALL.
Remind me, where you got all the information about the corruption? Menezes shooting? And corruption within the police?
You should really think before you type because you clearly don't really know what happened. Basing your interuptation of what happened from the news/internet can not all be 100% true.
But you believe what you want.
Let me guess, you have a copper in the family, right?
I don't know if you have read the papers much recently but there has been this thing going on called the Leveson Inquiry?
Turns out that thanks to the tireless work of a couple of non News Corp. journalists - particularly Nick Davies at The Guardian - and some MP's - that News Corp. and The Metropolitan Police have been in bed for much of the last decade scratching each others backs.
Do the names John Yates and Andy Hayman mean much to you?
Apparently though, reading the papers and being aware of the disgraceful conduct of News Corp. and the TAXPAYER FUNDED Metropolitan Poilce makes one a "know all" - last time I heard that was in Primary School.
Luckily your taxes in Australia would never go to benefit Rupert Murdoch, who runs, er Newscorp as well as ensuring Gough Whitlam was elected, then turned against PM Rudd etc etc
I know Simon Harwood personally I coach his kids cricket also he used to manage a colts side last season I have to admit his attidue with the kids is quite how should I put this forceful he doesn't take no for an answer with the kids ! But on a personal level he is not a nasty bloke, I know what he did to Ian Tominison was terrible but I think that one incident should not reflect Simon's character.
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
Hilarious.
I don't believe much in certain papers any more, certainly not since we found out that half of News Corp. was working in the Metropolitan Police press office and doing cozy deals with their former colleagues.
You know, little things like lying their arse off about what happened to Jean Charles Menezes and getting it faithfully written up by all of their mates at The Sun.
Remind me again, how many folks at Scotland Yard had to resign over their links with. News Corp?
Your post nearly made me laugh, then I remembered where you got all that information about the Menezes shooting and what the truth is on all the stories you mentioned, your MR KNOW IT ALL.
Remind me, where you got all the information about the corruption? Menezes shooting? And corruption within the police?
You should really think before you type because you clearly don't really know what happened. Basing your interuptation of what happened from the news/internet can not all be 100% true.
But you believe what you want.
Let me guess, you have a copper in the family, right?
I don't know if you have read the papers much recently but there has been this thing going on called the Leveson Inquiry?
Turns out that thanks to the tireless work of a couple of non News Corp. journalists - particularly Nick Davies at The Guardian - and some MP's - that News Corp. and The Metropolitan Police have been in bed for much of the last decade scratching each others backs.
Do the names John Yates and Andy Hayman mean much to you?
Apparently though, reading the papers and being aware of the disgraceful conduct of News Corp. and the TAXPAYER FUNDED Metropolitan Poilce makes one a "know all" - last time I heard that was in Primary School.
Thanks for the post. No family who work for the Met but a narrow minded guess I suppose.
Oh so you attended the Leverson enquiry did you? Or where you involved with the initial investigation?
Sadly again your basing your information on very little knowledge. "In bed" remind me how you got all this information? A few employees of the Met counts towards the entire organisation does it?
Oh and again your insight into the Menezes was clearly no more than a few pages read in the guardian.
All the best with your interuptation of the truth.
Luckily your taxes in Australia would never go to benefit Rupert Murdoch, who runs, er Newscorp as well as ensuring Gough Whitlam was elected, then turned against PM Rudd etc etc
Floyd, I no longer bother responding to any of your posts as its pretty clear we will agree on very little.
In the interests of the board it might be an idea if you did the same.
you don’t need to have been there. leverson enquiry was live on lbc news. also it has an official site where you can read up on the whole thing.
you have given no clue as to what happened prior to the incident. So I will go with the law (as i know it) that if you attack someone and they die from injuries sustained by that attack you have committed manslaughter. Don’t see what other sentenced you can give. if he was provoked I still don’t see any other sentenced. the guy died from the attack. the policeman didn’t mean it, and probably would never of guessed that his actions would lead to the mans death. He might have had a hard day, what with long hours, stress and maybe (not mentioned yet) a personal difficulty in his life, still none of this excuse any of us especially a policeman from killing a man. even if it wasn't intentional.
you don’t need to have been there. leverson enquiry was live on lbc news. also it has an official site where you can read up on the whole thing.
you have given no clue as to what happened prior to the incident. So I will go with the law (as i know it) that if you attack someone and they die from injuries sustained by that attack you have committed manslaughter. Don’t see what other sentenced you can give. if he was provoked I still don’t see any other sentenced. the guy died from the attack. the policeman didn’t mean it, and probably would never of guessed that his actions would lead to the death of the man. He might have had a hard day, what with long hours, stress and maybe (not mentioned yet) a personal difficulty in his life, still none of this excuse any of us especially a policeman from what he did.
Hope I don't shove someone in the queue for a burger at the valley and then they die of a heart attack. This was a member of the public being a bloody nuisance when the police were under stress from the fact this is a free country and anyone can cause mayhem and rioting in the name of freedom. Watch the police programmes on TV now, too much bloody freedom in this country. Those of us who are law abiding have no problem with the poliuce. I respect them and at times need their help and assistance. They have a lot to put up with and I cannot believe the stick some people on here have given them. Mugs !
I agree - I must be because I am without doubt in the minority on this forum. That said, anyone who calls someone a naughty c word ( and this is a word I rarely use ) because they disagree with ntheir opinion, is without doubt a complete one !
Hope I don't shove someone in the queue for a burger at the valley and then they die of a heart attack. This was a member of the public being a bloody nuisance when the police were under stress from the fact this is a free country and anyone can cause mayhem and rioting in the name of freedom. Watch the police programmes on TV now, too much bloody freedom in this country. Those of us who are law abiding have no problem with the poliuce. I respect them and at times need their help and assistance. They have a lot to put up with and I cannot believe the stick some people on here have given them. Mugs !
Hope I don't shove someone in the queue for a burger at the valley and then they die of a heart attack. This was a member of the public being a bloody nuisance when the police were under stress from the fact this is a free country and anyone can cause mayhem and rioting in the name of freedom. Watch the police programmes on TV now, too much bloody freedom in this country. Those of us who are law abiding have no problem with the poliuce. I respect them and at times need their help and assistance. They have a lot to put up with and I cannot believe the stick some people on here have given them. Mugs !
Comments
But those officers were on duty for over 14 hours, had members of the public in there face throughout, I won't go on..but
Don't believe what you read in the media.. As they say...
It is a terrible tragedy though.
The vast majority of police officers are fine. However, even of your experience of them extends only to watching Charlton away you'll know there are a good few who are wronguns and are well up for a fight.
I'm not sure why I should have noted 'that 'that a large worrying % of the Great British public appear to be pig ignorant thickos' as that is not my view (but seems to be yours.) So given that this is your view, how should issues of guilt or innocence be decided? Clearly we couldn't indulge in 'vox pop' as that would include the same 'pig ignorant thickos' you would exclude! Apart from having a legally qualified judge or judges (and even then nobody seemed happy with the decision of the Senior District Judge in the Terry case) don't we have to rely on members of the public? Are you going to suggest an IQ test for prospective jurors???
This is the system we have and has stood the test of time. It isn't perfect but it's the best we can come up with.
I appreciate what your saying and I'm not expecting you to understand the type of environment these officers are put in throughout these huge protests.
It's difficult to try and defend every officer because I can't and I'm not trying for a second to defend what happened, police always get a bad press and sometimes it's easy just to base facts on what you read, my point is simply that the events were not simply what we read in the paper, there was a lots of things that happene prior to it.
I don't want to have a slanging match with anyone who disagrees etc just putting across another angle on things.
I don't believe much in certain papers any more, certainly not since we found out that half of News Corp. was working in the Metropolitan Police press office and doing cozy deals with their former colleagues.
You know, little things like lying their arse off about what happened to Jean Charles Menezes and getting it faithfully written up by all of their mates at The Sun.
Remind me again, how many folks at Scotland Yard had to resign over their links with. News Corp?
Your post nearly made me laugh, then I remembered where you got all that information about the Menezes shooting and what the truth is on all the stories you mentioned, your MR KNOW IT ALL.
Remind me, where you got all the information about the corruption? Menezes shooting? And corruption within the police?
You should really think before you type because you clearly don't really know what happened. Basing your interuptation of what happened from the news/internet can not all be 100% true.
But you believe what you want.
Regardless of provocation or hours worked or the stress people were under
However i dont think anyone on here knows what happend unless they were there or if they are on the jury
As for john charles if he stopped he would be alive might not be right or morale but he didnt help himself
The jury will make there decision on what they have put in front of them.
I don't know if you have read the papers much recently but there has been this thing going on called the Leveson Inquiry?
Turns out that thanks to the tireless work of a couple of non News Corp. journalists - particularly Nick Davies at The Guardian - and some MP's - that News Corp. and The Metropolitan Police have been in bed for much of the last decade scratching each others backs.
Do the names John Yates and Andy Hayman mean much to you?
Apparently though, reading the papers and being aware of the disgraceful conduct of News Corp. and the TAXPAYER FUNDED Metropolitan Poilce makes one a "know all" - last time I heard that was in Primary School.
Oh so you attended the Leverson enquiry did you? Or where you involved with the initial investigation?
Sadly again your basing your information on very little knowledge. "In bed" remind me how you got all this information? A few employees of the Met counts towards the entire organisation does it?
Oh and again your insight into the Menezes was clearly no more than a few pages read in the guardian.
All the best with your interuptation of the truth.
Good night.
In the interests of the board it might be an idea if you did the same.
you have given no clue as to what happened prior to the incident. So I will go with the law (as i know it) that if you attack someone and they die from injuries sustained by that attack you have committed manslaughter. Don’t see what other sentenced you can give. if he was provoked I still don’t see any other sentenced. the guy died from the attack. the policeman didn’t mean it, and probably would never of guessed that his actions would lead to the mans death. He might have had a hard day, what with long hours, stress and maybe (not mentioned yet) a personal difficulty in his life, still none of this excuse any of us especially a policeman from killing a man. even if it wasn't intentional.