Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ahh, good argument there.

    And I never claimed I've been to a protest, I mearly said I know what goes on at them.

    Also, the girl in that video, insanely annoying.
    Someone can be annoying and correct?

    You may find her annoying, but that doesn't mean she doesn't point out some truths
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Did you read the evidence on the case? Tomlinson didn't appear to be involved in the protests and was trying to get home. He approach the police with his hands in his pockets and no witness has concluded that he behaved in a manner antagonistic towards the police. Nor does the video suggest such behaviour.
    Once again for the terminally stupid, or those just pushing their own political agenda (delete as applicable):

    The IPCC recommended action against the officer who shoved Tomlinson over.

    However, this doesn't suit the agenda of some people on this board [such as your good self] who try and make out that this incident is representative of police behaviour as a whole.

    It was the CPS who decided (because of conflicting post mortem findings) not to prosecute.

    So any criticism of the police in general, or the IPCC in relation to this incident is unwarranted.


    I even bolded the important parts just for you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Once again for the terminally stupid, or those just pushing their own political agenda (delete as applicable):

    The IPCC recommended action against the officer who shoved Tomlinson over.

    However, this doesn't suit the agenda of some people on this board [such as your good self] who try and make out that this incident is representative of police behaviour as a whole.

    It was the CPS who decided (because of conflicting post mortem findings) not to prosecute.

    So any criticism of the police in general, or the IPCC in relation to this incident is unwarranted.


    I even bolded the important parts just for you.
    Throwing insults is kinda pathetic tbh. I don't call someone stupid, just because I don't agree with them.

    That doesn't change the fact that the police officer behaved violently towards Tomlinson.

    I never said that all police were violent or that police were generally violent, I'm talking about some police officers who used unwarranted violence on people involved with or near protests.

    The conflicting post mortem findings were because the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel made errors in the case (and in several others) and has since been suspended by the GMC - this doesn't excuse police violence.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/31/g20-pathologist-freddy-patel-suspended?INTCMP=SRCH
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Throwing insults is kinda pathetic tbh. I don't say that someone has a political agenda, just because I don't agree with them.

    That doesn't change the fact that the police officer behaved violently towards Tomlinson.

    I never said that all police were violent or that police were generally violent, I'm talking about one or two police officers who used unwarranted violence on people involved with or near protests.

    The conflicting post mortem findings were because the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel made errors in the case (and in several others) and has since been suspended by the GMC - this doesn't excuse a policeman using unwarranted violence.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...ed?INTCMP=SRCH
    There you go, I've corrected it for you. Alterations in red. Important part underlined. See how much more sense it makes now?

    Nevertheless, the policeman was recommended for sanction. If you want to blame someone, you can blame that individual, and if you want, even the CPS too.

    Otherwise you would have us believe that those peaceful protesters should be lumped in with the likes of Edward Woollard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    There you go, I've corrected it for you. Alterations in red. Important part underlined. See how much more sense it makes now?

    .
    What political agenda do I have? Wtf?

    And in any case, what's wrong with people having political agendas?

    I simply said the some police were violent. Why do you have such difficulty understanding this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by No Future)
    Throwing insults is kinda pathetic tbh. I don't call someone stupid, just because I don't agree with them.

    That doesn't change the fact that the police officer behaved violently towards Tomlinson.

    I never said that all police were violent or that police were generally violent, I'm talking about some police officers who used unwarranted violence on people involved with or near protests.

    The conflicting post mortem findings were because the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel made errors in the case (and in several others) and has since been suspended by the GMC - this doesn't excuse police violence.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...ed?INTCMP=SRCH
    Well look there is an ongoing inquiry into that, so hopefully some answers will emerge.. Although I do not put much stock in it due to tomlisons friend suddenly deciding he wants to change his statement about whether or not he was drunk but still.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's wrong to remove someone's right to protest

    But

    These violent protesters should realise that they are not helping anyone but the media who, thanks to groups such as the anarchists, have lots of footage of 'crowds' smashing the city up, which then sabotages the message that the majority (of more peaceful protesters) are trying to put across...

    But again, simply banning a group from protesting is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard - Yes I'm sure the anarchists will go home calmly after the police refuse them entry to the area...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    bold
    Eugh. Can you reply normally next time please? Doing it like that makes it a pain to reply to.

    But anyway. Ian Tomlinson was antagonistic. He repeatedly tried to cross Police lines, despite being told he couldn't. Upon being told to move back, he turned and deliberatley walked very slowly. He acted like a petulant child and I can hardly blame the officer for shoving him.

    And I don't get why you're all trying so hard to misunderstand me. I said I wanted to keep the discussion civil. I.E not call Police 'Pigs' any more than I'd call you or her/him Socialist Scum or the like. Of course there's freedom of speech, but there's also a little thing called common decency.

    And the Police do not go out to harm peqaceful protesters. To say they do is to lie. Sometimes, when protests turn heated, they have to contain everyone. 'Peaceful' and not so peaceful alike. The problems occur when protesters push the boundries. Don't forget the Police are just people to, trying to do a job that is never made easier by the protesters. Like I've said before, the only reason Police are not seriously injured is their protective gear. Otherwise many would have very serious injuries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Eugh. Can you reply normally next time please? Doing it like that makes it a pain to reply to.

    But anyway. Ian Tomlinson was antagonistic. He repeatedly tried to cross Police lines, despite being told he couldn't. Upon being told to move back, he turned and deliberatley walked very slowly. He acted like a petulant child and I can hardly blame the officer for shoving him.

    And I don't get why you're all trying so hard to misunderstand me. I said I wanted to keep the discussion civil. I.E not call Police 'Pigs' any more than I'd call you or her/him Socialist Scum or the like. Of course there's freedom of speech, but there's also a little thing called common decency.

    And the Police do not go out to harm peqaceful protesters. To say they do is to lie. Sometimes, when protests turn heated, they have to contain everyone. 'Peaceful' and not so peaceful alike. The problems occur when protesters push the boundries. Don't forget the Police are just people to, trying to do a job that is never made easier by the protesters. Like I've said before, the only reason Police are not seriously injured is their protective gear. Otherwise many would have very serious injuries.
    The police do set out to harm innocent protesters to scare them into never protesting again. Why do you think they arrested all the innocent protesters from Fortnum and Mason?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    What political agenda do I have? Wtf?

    And in any case, what's wrong with people having political agendas?

    I simply said the some police were violent. Why do you have such difficulty understanding this?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098

    It's called distorting the facts to suit your point of view as regards the attitudes of police.

    Sure, there are some bad apples in every line of life, it is well known that the police and IPCC weren't pleased about the officer concerned in the Tomlinson incident and wanted to throw the book at him, but the CPS blocked it.

    It's odd how this inconvenient little fact is missing from almost everyone's take on the situation when they hold it up as an example of police brutality.

    The Tomlinson incident is, as always, brought out for everyone to see, paraded around for political capital, yet these people never make mention of Edward Woollard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    The police do set out to harm innocent protesters to scare them into never protesting again. Why do you think they arrested all the innocent protesters from Fortnum and Mason?
    Perhaps because they were guilty of aggravated trespass, such as the definition is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It's called distorting the facts to suit your point of view as regards the attitudes of police.

    Sure, there are some bad apples in every line of life, it is well known that the police and IPCC weren't pleased about the officer concerned in the Tomlinson incident and wanted to throw the book at him, but the CPS blocked it.

    It's odd how this inconvenient little fact is missing from almost everyone's take on the situation when they hold it up as an example of police brutality.

    The Tomlinson incident is, as always, brought out for everyone to see, paraded around for political capital, yet these people never make mention of Edward Woollard.
    Yes, Edward Woollard behaved in a stupid and dangerous manner, but he didn't hurt, kill or crack open anyones head.

    Which facts have I distorted?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    The police do set out to harm innocent protesters to scare them into never protesting again. Why do you think they arrested all the innocent protesters from Fortnum and Mason?
    Because they weren't innocent

    Guilty of Trespass, Causing a Public Nuisance and so on. To actually charge them would have been counter productive. But don't mistake that with them being innocent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Perhaps because they were guilty of aggravated trespass, such as the definition is.
    By walking into an open shop?

    Even some of the police present praised the protesters present at F&M for being well behaved, having done nothing wrong and tidying up and making sure nothing was left out of place.

    A person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    By walking into an open shop?

    Even some of the police present praised the protesters present at F&M for being well behaved, having done nothing wrong and tidying up and making sure nothing was left out of place.

    A person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land
    It's aggravated trespass if they refuse to leave when asked, and cause a disruption to lawful activities whilst there. I think its pretty safe to say thats true on both.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Yes, Edward Woollard behaved in a stupid and dangerous manner, but he didn't hurt, kill or crack open anyones head.

    Which facts have I distorted?
    By fortunate luck only. So that's alright then.

    In the same vein, a person is unlucky to die from being shoved.

    Nevertheless, both should be punishable, the first because if you lob a fire extinguisher off a building into a crowd, it can be reasonably expected you are trying to kill or seriously injure someone below. Attempted murder.

    The latter, because even though the police officer almost certainly couldn't have imagined that Tomlinson would suffer any serious ill effects, he died, and it will probably be found that it was a result of his action. Manslaughter at most.

    So, what would you say is more serious? A deliberate action which can be reasonably foreseen that death will result, or a deliberate action which can be reasonably forseen that death will not result?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sonny_J_D)
    simply banning a group from protesting is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard - Yes I'm sure the anarchists will go home calmly after the police refuse them entry to the area...
    Of course they won't... And if they balaclavas, they'll all turn up wearing burkas. :wink2:

    ...Do you see it as 'stupid' simply because it will be an ineffective proposal though?

    Also, I should point out that it is wrong to call all those who were 'violently' protesting 'anarchists'.
    (A lot of anarchists are against violence).

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Because they weren't innocent

    Guilty of Trespass, Causing a Public Nuisance and so on. To actually charge them would have been counter productive. But don't mistake that with them being innocent.
    There is more to the morality of 'innocence' than breaking the law. 'The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules, but by people following the rules. It's people who follow orders that drop bombs and massacre villages'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Of course they won't... And if they balaclavas, they'll all turn up wearing burkas. :wink2:

    ...Do you see it as 'stupid' simply because it will be an ineffective proposal though?

    Also, I should point out that it is wrong to call all those who were 'violently' protesting 'anarchists'.
    (A lot of anarchists are against violence).
    Actually what I meant is that any group of people who have set out to be violent and disruptive would hardly be put off by 'the man' telling them not to...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    Of course they won't... And if they balaclavas, they'll all turn up wearing burkas. :wink2:

    ...Do you see it as 'stupid' simply because it will be an ineffective proposal though?

    Also, I should point out that it is wrong to call all those who were 'violently' protesting 'anarchists'.
    (A lot of anarchists are against violence).



    There is more to the morality of 'innocence' than breaking the law. 'The greatest crimes in the world are not committed by people breaking the rules, but by people following the rules. It's people who follow orders that drop bombs and massacre villages'.
    You knwo what. You are so rifght. Obviously this is a case of serious immorality on the part of the Police. God forbid a business should object to having their premises occupied for a political stunt. And you know, the Police shouldn't enforce a perfectly reasonable law because, hey, some people who follow laws are immoral. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Yes, Edward Woollard behaved in a stupid and dangerous manner, but he didn't hurt, kill or crack open anyones head.

    Which facts have I distorted?
    Wow, how twisted is your logic?

    Pushing someone = Murder if its a Policeman doing the pushing

    Dropping a 20 - 50kg weight off a highrise building into a crowd of people = Fine as long as everyone jumps out of the way

    And for you information not only were 30 Police put in hospital on the TUC march several protesters were put in hospital by other protesters throwing ****.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2011
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.