Gordon R Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) The comedian wouldn't have been Ken Dodd - would it? I could see his dilemma - chances of any one of the Jurors finding him funny - bit remote. :lol: kdubya - there are a few bullies in the force, but they are far outweighed by a heck of a lot of brave officers. Edited May 24, 2011 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 oh dear yes Ive had smack or two when younger , I grew out of it, eternal bullies join the force? KW Ah, yes. I see. Bullied as a child. That explains it. Like the Armed Forces thread the other day; It takes a certain type to put their own safety on the line to protect yours. But of course some people can never appreciate that. You sleep safe in your bed tonight while all those corrupt coppers are beating up the drunks and taking bribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ah, yes. I see. Bullied as a child. That explains it. Like the Armed Forces thread the other day; It takes a certain type to put their own safety on the line to protect yours. But of course some people can never appreciate that. You sleep safe in your bed tonight while all those corrupt coppers are beating up the drunks and taking bribes. I will night night peeps mwah! seems you have read about operation lancet then KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Harnser - this case won't be a Mags trial - definitely Crown Court. Charge is too serious for Mags. Gordan ,it will indeed be a crown court trial ,but he will have to appear before a magistrate to give his plea and to ask for bail . Harnser . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) Harnser - no problem with that. He will appear at the Mags. However, they won't ask for a plea. They will decline jurisdiction. Edited May 24, 2011 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good shot? Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) he will go down, he has already been tried by jury and on the same terms (beyond reasonable doubt) he has admitted lying under oath he has been seen knocking others including a bbc camera man to the ground, and he has been reported by colleagues ( most of which never came out straight away) a decent barrister will bury him and quite rightly so. KW Agree with your comments. He deserves to go down.No earthly reason for his actions at all. One more power mad officers actions bringing down every officers reputation. I do not believe there would be any chance of a conviction if officers actions WAS NOT caught on the dreaded CCTV more than once. Or is that me being cynical Also the lifestyle of the victim has nothing to do with the case,he was posing no threat.Just did not respond quick enough for this officers overly macho image of himself. Edited May 25, 2011 by Good shot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) hear hear. I'm curious as to why you think an alcoholic deserves less protection than any other member of society? The problem with Highlanders viewpoint is that he says he can't judge the PC because he doesn't know him. Yet he doesn't afford the same protection to to Ian Tomlinson who I guess he doesn't know either. An alcoholic, just like a thug, can be rehabilitated...... Edited May 25, 2011 by Laird Lugton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Well then to follow your reasoning we should get the Germans to re-open Dachau and Auschwitz for these people...... Ouch...actually no I'd reserve that sort of punishment for kiddy fiddlers and serial killers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I'm curious as to why you think an alcoholic deserves less protection than any other member of society? The problem with Highlanders viewpoint is that he says he can't judge the PC because he doesn't know him. Yet he doesn't afford the same protection to to Ian Tomlinson who I guess he doesn't know either. An alcoholic, just like a thug, can be rehabilitated...... I was simply trying to make the point that Tomlinson was a waster and in all likelyhood was not going to be rehabilitated (and why should we spend taxpayers money doing so when his ailment was self inflicted). PC Tomlinson was/is a working man pulling his weight and doing his bit for society. It may well be that he’s found to be a lout (according to kdubya who claims to have proof/read that somewhere he’s already been proved to be so) and will get his just deserts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 realistically they don't put you on the front line in riots unless you can stand up for yourself a bit. Tomlinson wasn't likely to be rehabilitated as he was going to die pretty soon anyway, his body was a time bomb waiting to go hence a move killed him that wouldn't kill a normal healthy person. What bugs me is the DPP has decided not to prosecute once and now changed its mind and in the meantime its been over this pc's head for 2 years. Medical evidence has been disagreed with and changed and a lot of speculation has been made, if this was one of us we wouldn't be being tried for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Regardless of the fact tomlinson was a waster alcoholic and a fool, the copper was WAY too heavy handed and playing the big man from what i have seen, as soon as someone has trurned their back and is moving away they are zero threat, there is no rule on how quickly you have to move away... there are plenty of neds/####'s etc around the globe that I feel are wasters but the simple fact of the matter is i cannot attack them because it suits my mood.... officer haywood descided he could attack the guy and due to those actions the guy died, regardless of his state of health, the blow looks to have been proven to have caused death therefore the guy shou;d be done for manslaughter....simple as....it will help the police to get this thug off the streets...bet if tomlinson had been 6' 7" with a muscular build Haywood wouldn't have been half as keen to batton him! I don't agree with the restrictions on police but at the moment they are still in place and need to be adheared to, simple as that, if they don't like the restrictions they need to get them changed through the correct channels, not just disobey the rules. Regards, Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) realistically they don't put you on the front line in riots unless you can stand up for yourself a bit. Tomlinson wasn't likely to be rehabilitated as he was going to die pretty soon anyway, his body was a time bomb waiting to go hence a move killed him that wouldn't kill a normal healthy person. What bugs me is the DPP has decided not to prosecute once and now changed its mind and in the meantime its been over this pc's head for 2 years. Medical evidence has been disagreed with and changed and a lot of speculation has been made, if this was one of us we wouldn't be being tried for it. er he wasn't put on the front line, he was supposed to be looking after the vans,(wonder why ) he CHOOSE to join in no doubt for a bit of a ruckus, now I know you don't like facts to get in the way, but did you ever consider that a copper fully trained in dealing with rioters, could actually spot a rioter from a shambling drunk caught up in a mele,interesting to note also that, as more and more concealed evidence and statements come out, it would appear that the IPCC felt back in 2010 that the case warranted a charge of manslaughter, the DPP turned it away, hopefully the person who made that decision will also be sacked. Also your attidude of who cares about a drunk who is according to you on his last legs, is frankly shamefull. KW Edited May 25, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 here's your thug at work BEFORE he attacks thomlinson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8 KW Same question you haven't answered, do you really think that video adds to the case against him? Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 where did I say who cares, I simply said his body was about to give up on its own which if you look at the various post mortem results is the one thing they all have in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Same question you haven't answered, do you really think that video adds to the case against him? Nial. YES clear enough> he said in court I collided with him, then admitted that he agreed with the cameramans account that he was thrown to the floor? so again a liar to boot. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 where did I say who cares, I simply said his body was about to give up on its own which if you look at the various post mortem results is the one thing they all have in common. As far as the law is concerned that is entirely immaterial, or are you saying ninety year old ladies deserve no legal protection as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 YES clear enough> he said in court I collided with him, then admitted that he agreed with the cameramans account that he was thrown to the floor? so again a liar to boot. KW That's odd because the video footage doesn't show him throwing him to the floor, he swings him away and the guy stumbles and trips backwards. He approached him from behind so there's a good chance he didn't see the camera and thought he was a protester. He immediately takes up a defensive position with his baton raised, the group of policemen are obviously in a pretty stressful position. It looks like they have just been rucking with the protesters. How many bumps and pushes do you think you would remember at the end of the day? If a barrister put it to you that you might have pulled someone to the ground could you deny it? I'm not defending what happened later in the day but as before I don't think this clip adds anything to the case. Nial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) That's odd because the video footage doesn't show him throwing him to the floor, he swings him away and the guy stumbles and trips backwards. He approached him from behind so there's a good chance he didn't see the camera and thought he was a protester. Nial sorry he throws him back look at how far he travels on his back with his feet in the air, he did not stumble he was pulled to the ground (admitted by pc thug) and if you think a bloody great camera high up on mans shoulder is hard to spot, best get to specsavers they are doing some good deals at the minute. KW Edited May 25, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 sorry he throws him back look at how far he travels on his back with his feet in the air, If you look at the slo-mo from ~15s he didn't go anywhere with his feet in the air, he stumbled backwards and fell to the ground. he did not stumble he was pulled to the ground (admitted by pc thug) As before, after a day of argy bargy could you explicitly deny it? Also if you look at the footage the cameraman is in close filming a couple of the policemen fighting with the protestors. I don't think it was out of order to get him out of the was as quickly as possible to get in and assist. Still not defending what happened later. KW I know it's pointless trying to get you to consider a different point of view and I have too much work to be done so that's my last post on this for today. Nial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 Well ,ladies and gentlemen of the jury you have seen the evidence before you in the court so what is your verdict . I say guilty as charged . Harnser . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 After all that all I know is I wouldn't want to face 12 PW jurors on any charge...thank the lord they've banned hanging in the UK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glensman Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I don't see how it's relevant that the man was over the DD limit. He wasn't driving, a man is entitled to go out and get drunk and walk home- I've done it Many times. I'm with Harnser. Thug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintime Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 The truth will never come out because the silks named such because there slippery ******** and the police who are just as devious wont let it simplesss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted May 25, 2011 Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 so the only one to get off was the police dog that bit him earlier when he had a scuffle with that It was with some other thug officers, what surprises me is people can throw bricks, fire extinguishers etc etc at the police with impunity and make them stand and take it with no defence. Yet a police officer pushes a man out of their way and the PW massive would have him for murder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZ550Kevlar Posted May 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 I stand by my original thought when i started this thread, sense has prevailed and he has been charged based on the evidence against him which they deem good enough to go to trial with, which is a choice they don`t take lightly, they like winning cases. I hope they find him guilty. 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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.