badgerx16 Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 So the filthy pikey was "caught up in the middle of it"? He was just wandering down the street minding his own business when all of a sudden he was surrounded by crowds of other filthy pikeys hell bent on causing trouble. What a load of b*llocks. Those would be the 'filthy pikeys' with the flourescent jackets, crash helmets, riot shields, and attack dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Some very disturbing witness accounts here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COMEONYOUREDS Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I've just seen the video on bbc news, and that is totally ****ing disgraceful actions by the OB. The guy clearly posed no threat whatsoever and the copper just waded in on him for no reason. As for this Smyth idiot, it makes you wonder whether he's even bothered to watch it. Its pretty clear to me that the guy was doing nothing wrong and you wonder why he has to come out and try to defend the pc responsible. It's clearly indefensible. IMO they should throw the book at him, but as we all know he'll probably get away with it and keep his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You're a Policeman, youve been given an overview of what to expect today; various scenarios of what could happen. You are on high alert, after all 20 of the worlds leaders are to convene on London this week. You know that later today you will be in the middle of a large crowd of people. Some will be protesters, some will be journalists, some will be by-standers, some will be plain clothed Police, some may be terrorists, some will be anarchists, some will be "up for a fight". You don't know who is going to be who, there are thousands of people there. You've been briefed that everyone that does not comply with what you are asking them to do should be considered "aggravating" and dealt with in manner that is legal and protective to the others around you (be them Police officers or public). You are caught in the middle of a situation. You are with 10 or so of your fellow officers. You know that scuffles have broken out round the City. You've also heard rumours of missiles being thrown and Police being assualted. A person near you, not a Police Officer, is away from the main crowd. You dont know what he is doing there, he looks normal enough but you know that you cannot judge anything by look alone in these times. You, as a group, move towards him and ask him to move away back to the main crowd. He ignores you and continues to drift. Worried about public safety, you ask him to remove his hands from his pockets. Again he refuses. The situation intensifies as he continues to walk away from the main crowd, is he going towards an unknown target? You dont know, you cant take that risk. You have asked him to move back to where he can be under crontrol, you've asked him to put his hands where you cna see them. He has failed to listen and respond to the instructions of the Metropolitan Police Officer during a roudy protest on the street of London. Are you telling me you wouldn't have tackled him to the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You're a Policeman, youve been given an overview of what to expect today; various scenarios of what could happen. You are on high alert, after all 20 of the worlds leaders are to convene on London this week. You know that later today you will be in the middle of a large crowd of people. Some will be protesters, some will be journalists, some will be by-standers, some will be plain clothed Police, some may be terrorists, some will be anarchists, some will be "up for a fight". You don't know who is going to be who, there are thousands of people there. You've been briefed that everyone that does not comply with what you are asking them to do should be considered "aggravating" and dealt with in manner that is legal and protective to the others around you (be them Police officers or public). You are caught in the middle of a situation. You are with 10 or so of your fellow officers. You know that scuffles have broken out round the City. You've also heard rumours of missiles being thrown and Police being assualted. A person near you, not a Police Officer, is away from the main crowd. You dont know what he is doing there, he looks normal enough but you know that you cannot judge anything by look alone in these times. You, as a group, move towards him and ask him to move away back to the main crowd. He ignores you and continues to drift. Worried about public safety, you ask him to remove his hands from his pockets. Again he refuses. The situation intensifies as he continues to walk away from the main crowd, is he going towards an unknown target? You dont know, you cant take that risk. You have asked him to move back to where he can be under crontrol, you've asked him to put his hands where you cna see them. He has failed to listen and respond to the instructions of the Metropolitan Police Officer during a roudy protest on the street of London. Are you telling me you wouldn't have tackled him to the ground? Thank goodness they weren't armed. I mean, transpose that situation to a tube train. Just imagine what would happen in THAT scenario if the police were armed. Oh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You're a Policeman, youve been given an overview of what to expect today; various scenarios of what could happen. You are on high alert, after all 20 of the worlds leaders are to convene on London this week. You know that later today you will be in the middle of a large crowd of people. Some will be protesters, some will be journalists, some will be by-standers, some will be plain clothed Police, some may be terrorists, some will be anarchists, some will be "up for a fight". You don't know who is going to be who, there are thousands of people there. You've been briefed that everyone that does not comply with what you are asking them to do should be considered "aggravating" and dealt with in manner that is legal and protective to the others around you (be them Police officers or public). You are caught in the middle of a situation. You are with 10 or so of your fellow officers. You know that scuffles have broken out round the City. You've also heard rumours of missiles being thrown and Police being assualted. A person near you, not a Police Officer, is away from the main crowd. You dont know what he is doing there, he looks normal enough but you know that you cannot judge anything by look alone in these times. You, as a group, move towards him and ask him to move away back to the main crowd. He ignores you and continues to drift. Worried about public safety, you ask him to remove his hands from his pockets. Again he refuses. The situation intensifies as he continues to walk away from the main crowd, is he going towards an unknown target? You dont know, you cant take that risk. You have asked him to move back to where he can be under crontrol, you've asked him to put his hands where you cna see them. He has failed to listen and respond to the instructions of the Metropolitan Police Officer during a roudy protest on the street of London. Are you telling me you wouldn't have tackled him to the ground? What a load of complete b*ll*cks. This country is going to the dogs because people are prepared to accept police attacking innocent bystanders. The video shows what a total disgrace this was. The Met should be ashamed and officers should be fired. But they will claim that beating people up is part of their job, and you are there to back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Thank goodness they weren't armed. I mean, transpose that situation to a tube train. Just imagine what would happen in THAT scenario if the police were armed. Oh.... Thats a bit like trying to compare the Administration of SLH PLC to Salisbury FC being sold for a quid. Whilst the basic principles are the same, the conditions, environment and history are not taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You're a Policeman, youve been given an overview of what to expect today; various scenarios of what could happen. You are on high alert, after all 20 of the worlds leaders are to convene on London this week. You know that later today you will be in the middle of a large crowd of people. Some will be protesters, some will be journalists, some will be by-standers, some will be plain clothed Police, some may be terrorists, some will be anarchists, some will be "up for a fight". You don't know who is going to be who, there are thousands of people there. You've been briefed that everyone that does not comply with what you are asking them to do should be considered "aggravating" and dealt with in manner that is legal and protective to the others around you (be them Police officers or public). You are caught in the middle of a situation. You are with 10 or so of your fellow officers. You know that scuffles have broken out round the City. You've also heard rumours of missiles being thrown and Police being assualted. A person near you, not a Police Officer, is away from the main crowd. You dont know what he is doing there, he looks normal enough but you know that you cannot judge anything by look alone in these times. You, as a group, move towards him and ask him to move away back to the main crowd. He ignores you and continues to drift. Worried about public safety, you ask him to remove his hands from his pockets. Again he refuses. The situation intensifies as he continues to walk away from the main crowd, is he going towards an unknown target? You dont know, you cant take that risk. You have asked him to move back to where he can be under crontrol, you've asked him to put his hands where you cna see them. He has failed to listen and respond to the instructions of the Metropolitan Police Officer during a roudy protest on the street of London. Are you telling me you wouldn't have tackled him to the ground? Basic principles of Law in this country ~: Innocent until PROVEN guilty Force must be justifiable and PROPORTIONATE .............................. What if he was wearing a 'padded jacket with wires hanging out of it', just like JC DeMenezes ? Another case in which the Met's ( completely fabricated ) version of events was swiftly spread to a favourable and sensationalist media to skew opinion in advance of the facts coming to light. Throwing him to the ground in that manner was an assault, pure and simple. In these situations they are given free rein, knowing there is little chance of any enforceable comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 What a load of complete b*ll*cks. This country is going to the dogs because people are prepared to accept police attacking innocent bystanders. The video shows what a total disgrace this was. The Met should be ashamed and officers should be fired. But they will claim that beating people up is part of their job, and you are there to back them up. So you can say that you KNOW he was 100% innocent; and you can say for sure that Police on the scene knew he was 100% innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Pushing someone over, from behind, when they have their hands in their pockets is pretty cowardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 So you can say that you KNOW he was 100% innocent; and you can say for sure that Police on the scene knew he was 100% innocent? No, but equally no-one could say he was guilty (of what, I don't know - just being there?) The marvellous thing about this country is that innocence is assumed until guilt is proven - or it should be. However, these days, the Met seems to be judge, jury and executioner. That's scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 No, but equally no-one could say he was guilty (of what, I don't know - just being there?) The marvellous thing about this country is that innocence is assumed until guilt is proven - or it should be. However, these days, the Met seems to be judge, jury and executioner. That's scary. You have to consider who is looked to the Officers on duty. He was, from all accounts, ignoring what they had asked him to do. If there is a risk to public safety, the Mets FIRST obligation is to protect the masses and uphold the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You have to consider who is looked to the Officers on duty. He was, from all accounts, ignoring what they had asked him to do. If there is a risk to public safety, the Mets FIRST obligation is to protect the masses and uphold the law. Maybe he didn't hear them? After all, he wasn't a protestor - he was, quite simply, going home after work. De Menezez also didn't do what he was 'asked' to do. If you're innocent, you don't really expect the police to shout instructions at you, do you? The Met's first obligation is to protect the individual, whether on his/her own or in a crowd. And uphold the law? What law were they upholding, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublesaint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 So as well as the new crime of 'Being In London' we can add 'Having hands in pockets and walking in a different direction'???????? Yes the police had a difficult job to control a crowd of protesters made up ofboth peaceful protests and those hell bent on just having a ruck, but that is why the police are or at leat are supposed to I would have thought,have specialist training for these type of events. In any case, the most important fact is not the push, which in itself is not proven to have caused the condition, it is more the misleading of the media again that is the important issue at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You have to consider who is looked to the Officers on duty. He was, from all accounts, ignoring what they had asked him to do. If there is a risk to public safety, the Mets FIRST obligation is to protect the masses and uphold the law. By all accounts of whom? The Met? LOL. I had a friend in court recently, trial was abandoned after the police lied or at least stretched the truth on oath! 3 officers gave evidence, defence lawyer asked them where they got this "information" from, my notebook was the reply. The defence laywer produces photo copies of the notebooks taken 3 days after the "event" which did not tally with their testimony. So 3 of Hampshires finest have colluded. A disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenevaSaint Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Added to that, I had a friend in the Met, who had colleagues looking forward to Euro 96 as they could wield their batons. I bet some of the mentalities of the police last week would have been similar. Always a lunatic fringe in all walks of life, we have a similary problem with a small element of SFCs support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You have to consider who is looked to the Officers on duty. He was, from all accounts, ignoring what they had asked him to do. If there is a risk to public safety, the Mets FIRST obligation is to protect the masses and uphold the law. Would they have considered that he might have been hard of hearing; ( or even wearing an MP3 player, or a BlueTooth adapter, that affected his ability to pick up any request / order from the Police). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Maybe he didn't hear them? After all, he wasn't a protestor - he was, quite simply, going home after work. That a load of bull**** to make out him as poor mister innocent bloke. People walking home from work do not find themselves in the front line of a potential riot situation. He would have to walk through hundreds of people, many aggresive , to get to the position he was in. Not saying he was a threat or rioter but he was being a stubborn sod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Not saying he was a threat or rioter but he was being a stubborn sod. And now he's a dead 'stubborn sod'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 That a load of bull**** to make out him as poor mister innocent bloke. People walking home from work do not find themselves in the front line of a potential riot situation. He would have to walk through hundreds of people, many aggresive , to get to the position he was in. Not saying he was a threat or rioter but he was being a stubborn sod. And you've now judged him to be not innocent eh? Without knowing any facts (as opposed to conjecture)? I always thought it was a basic right in this country to walk home from work by whichever route you fancied. I didn't realise that you might die doing that. I think it's significant that the enquiry has been taken out of police hands and I'm also pleased about that. Another post mortem has been requested too. Maybe we'll get the truth this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 You've been briefed that everyone that does not comply with what you are asking them to do should be considered "aggravating" and dealt with in manner that is legal and protective to the others around you I'm not entirely sure you were serious with this post, pancake, but others seem to have thought so.. I would question my orders somewhat rather than just be told what is aggravating and what is not. Being told to treat everyone people who don't bow and scrape to the old bill when they're innocent of any crime as 'aggravating' is nothing short of retarded. Any one of us here would feel aggrieved for being persecuted by the police, and it's only because the moron-wing find anyone vaguely liberal even more irrationaly loathsome than even the police that there is this argument. As for the last bit - how was that legal, or anything short of an illegal act?!? I'm not sure it could be said to have been specifically protecting those around them, either... You dont know what he is doing there, he looks normal enough but you know that you cannot judge anything by look alone in these times. Yes, he could've been a muslim. Or a paedo. Under every rock, people of this great empire. Every rock. Empire. Flags. Churchill. Thatcher. Rivers of blood. Etc. That a load of bull**** to make out him as poor mister innocent bloke. Woud have expected better of you hatch - if the guy was interested enough to have a walk through, why the hell should he be considered at all culpable? If a copper tells anyone here to do something unreasonable most of us would refuse or tell them where to go, and rightly so. We all advocate reponsible use of the law and policing powers, no-one likes to be opressed. He was walking away, and even if he had refused 'orders' to take hands out of pockets etc, fair play to him. If a police officer tells me to take my hands out of my pockets for no good reason, I'd refuse as well. Not just being stubborn, but standing up for my rights as an innocent individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 he was, quite simply, going home after work. Have you seen what he was wearing? No way did that guy have a (proper) job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I'm not entirely sure you were serious with this post, pancake, but others seem to have thought so.. I would question my orders somewhat rather than just be told what is aggravating and what is not. Being told to treat everyone people who don't bow and scrape to the old bill when they're innocent of any crime as 'aggravating' is nothing short of retarded. Any one of us here would feel aggrieved for being persecuted by the police, and it's only because the moron-wing find anyone vaguely liberal even more irrationaly loathsome than even the police that there is this argument. Cmon Rob, where did I say that the Police were told to treat poeple "who don't bow and scrape to the old bill" as aggravating. What the Met were briefed were that ALL protesters were potential threats to the public and that anyone that didnt heed the "advice" of the Police was to be taken care of. You seem to think Im some sort of BNP right-wing loon; which is totally incorrect. The info above was cribbed from talking to my BiL who is a Met Plice officer who was on duty everyday last week. Im not saying I agree with it either, all Im doing is letting you guys know that its not as simple as "Me Police Man, Me Bash mr Walking By Chappie..oooh ooohhh". All Police Officer are obeying orders from above, orders that they work to rightly or wrongly. The Officers you can see in the video were instructed, I have no doubt, to take the guy out as he was ignoring a Police request to move to a contained area. I was brough up to repect the Police and always pay attention to what they ask you to do... and it surely goes without saying that in a high pressure environment like a national protest in London you would, if you wanted a easy life, do what you were told (The caveat being as long as what they asked you to do was legal and didnt breach your rights, obviously). I would also feel agreived if I was persecucted by the Police. I, like most, have had run ins with them during my growing up. 99% of the time I had either done something wrong or I was not listening to an Officer of the Law and ignoring their requests. Yes, he could've been a muslim. Or a paedo. Under every rock, people of this great empire. Every rock. Empire. Flags. Churchill. Thatcher. Rivers of blood. Etc. Ho hum, yes thats right... because I dare to go against the Guardian reading public, Im automatically a Neo-Nazi Muslim-Hater Empire-loving curmudgeon. FFS Rob, that is just pathetic to be honest and I really expected better form you. You know nothing about me or my family, because if you did you would know how bloody wrong you were. The insinuation was NOT that he could have been a Muslim or a peadophile; but he could have been working to endanger the public - be that via terrorism or simple acts of voilence. but never mind, you have your hissy fit when anyone dares of be even slightly central in their political views and not actually pay attention to what they are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I'm not going to generalise, but I have no doubt that some officers get a kick out of violence and let this override their common sense. I'm not going to generalise because one of my best mates is an officer in the Met. I would be shocked to the core if he'd reacted in the way that those officers did because he's a strong but gentle man. There are violent thugs in all walks of society, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 The only way that push could've been more cowardly is if the copper had pushed him from in front whilst one of his colleagues knelt behind the man's legs. It was unnecessary in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Bridge, i agree 100% and that was kind of my point. We dont know he the Police were hell bent on violence just as the Police didnt know if this chap was. And yet all on here are quick to jump on the "Police are thugs" bandwagon and them say the Police cant assume members of the public are thugs. Im not sure if thats true irony or not, but it is bloody hypocritical in my book. If it turns out that the Officer were at fault, i agree that the cool should be thrown at them, at we dont know yet, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Bridge, i agree 100% and that was kind of my point. We dont know he the Police were hell bent on violence just as the Police didnt know if this chap was. And yet all on here are quick to jump on the "Police are thugs" bandwagon and them say the Police cant assume members of the public are thugs. Im not sure if thats true irony or not, but it is bloody hypocritical in my book. If it turns out that the Officer were at fault, i agree that the cool should be thrown at them, at we dont know yet, do we? Predictive text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Bridge, i agree 100% and that was kind of my point. We dont know he the Police were hell bent on violence just as the Police didnt know if this chap was. And yet all on here are quick to jump on the "Police are thugs" bandwagon and them say the Police cant assume members of the public are thugs. Im not sure if thats true irony or not, but it is bloody hypocritical in my book. If it turns out that the Officer were at fault, i agree that the cool should be thrown at them, at we dont know yet, do we? There is a difference though. Police officers are supposed to uphold law and order. They are supposed to NOT use unreasonable force in the execution of their duties. They are supposed to NOT judge people unless there is clear evidence that those people have committed a crime. They are supposed to NOT carry out punishment. They failed in their duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 Pancake, I was actually mostly kidding and making comment for the benefit of the loons who don't see things both sides. I did say I thought some f your points may have been joking.. so.. yus. Chastised, but needlessly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 April, 2009 Share Posted 8 April, 2009 I would like to see all the footage not just the bits realeased by the guardian. In one frame it shows a police dog and the handler next to the bystander in the forefront of the picture with motorbikes parked immediatley to the rear of the dog handler. Then the next shot use see this copper pushing the bystander from behind but there is no sign in the footage showing either the dog and handler or motor bikes. It would appear that a good few seconds have elapsed before this poor sod has been pushed. Something is not quite right. Having said that an individaul is dead and if the PC is found to have broken marshalling orders then he should be dealt with. I suspect theres a lot more to this story than has been released by the trendy lefty guardian. Time will tell I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 9 April, 2009 Share Posted 9 April, 2009 ......He ignores you and continues to drift. Worried about public safety, you ask him to remove his hands from his pockets. Again he refuses. From now on I will never put my hands in my pockets in public just in case anyone worries that I might be a menace to society, or worse still a hero copper decides to take me out from behind. Just what could he have in those trouser pockets? an AK-47 perhaps? a bazooka? a ballistic missile? The situation intensifies as he continues to walk away from the main crowd, is he going towards an unknown target? You dont know, you cant take that risk. Oh stop being a drama queen. The area was choc-a-bloc with police and how can you tell what was behind the camera in the direction he was walking? How do you know he was walking away from the main crowd? Oooooh a lone middle-aged man in light clothing is strolling along with his hands in his pockets away from the police. I bet they were ****ting themselves that something major was going to kick-off. You have asked him to move back to where he can be under crontrol, you've asked him to put his hands where you cna see them. How do you know they asked him that? Why should he move to be under control? Nothing in the picture suggests that he is out of control in the first place. He has failed to listen and respond to the instructions of the Metropolitan Police Officer during a roudy protest on the street of London. Are you telling me you wouldn't have tackled him to the ground? "tackled"? I didn't see a "tackle". For the record I wouldn't have tackled him nor would I have have attacked him from behind with a truncheon to the back of the legs and then a double handed shove in his back. Utterly cowardly from a bloke backed up by a group of colleagues with dogs, wearing body armour, ski mask and wielding a 2 ft trucheon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 I would like to see all the footage not just the bits realeased by the guardian. We'll probably find that the CCTV cameras in the area weren't working properly and that the police footage of the incident will go "missing". Not that I'm cynical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 From now on I will never put my hands in my pockets in public just in case anyone worries that I might be a menace to society Good news, please spread the word. He did look like a gyppo though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 I suspect theres a lot more to this story than has been released by the trendy lefty guardian. Time will tell I guess I was surprised (and rather heartened tbh) that conservative newspapers are unanimously strongly criticising the actions of the officers in question and questioning the methods of the police. Martin Samuel (fat f*ck though he generally is) wrote an excellent column on the matter in today's Mail, of all papers. Sad though this incident is, I am quite proud to live in a country where this sort of sh*t causes an outcry. There's many places where no-one would bat an eyelid at this incident, including rich developed nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 10 April, 2009 Share Posted 10 April, 2009 Also I apologise for my clumsy over-use of the word "incident". I hate people who are too lazy to think of more than one synonym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Turns out that the new autopsy performed by the Doctor on the victims payroll has found out that the Police viciously beat him to death as he happened to be wandering through London blissfully unaware that there was even a protest going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 17 April, 2009 Share Posted 17 April, 2009 Turns out that the new autopsy performed by the Doctor on the victims payroll has found out that the Police viciously beat him to death as he happened to be wandering through London blissfully unaware that there was even a protest going on. So the police discover that the 'big brother' society, beit the mirriad of CCTV cameras or the extensive use of camera phones, cuts both ways. I'm delighted the guy in question is now facing manslaugter charges, but lets not see the lowely ploice officers face the whole blame if they were following orders from on high. And hopefully everyone involved in the disgraceful attempt to cover-up what happened will also be brought to justice. Shame on the media that gathered around the couple of idiots smashing windows and somehow missed the acts of police brutality, thank god for the members of the public for capturing these images on digital cameras. Let us be in no doubt that without these clips, and facilities like youtube, none of this would have come to light. And finally, lets not forget that the new law that now bans people from photographing police officers was brought in to prevent exactly this happening. The police are at a fork in the road, they can either use this to change how they police big protests and carry themselves in general, or make sure that absolutely no footage like this ever sees the light of day, which is what happened during the social unrest in Burma. One way leads to a civilised society, the other to a facistic police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 Just heard that on the radio that the woman who was hit on the legs 'Feared for her life' Lol of course she did, as soon as Max Clifford took her under his wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 So the police discover that the 'big brother' society, beit the mirriad of CCTV cameras or the extensive use of camera phones, cuts both ways. I'm delighted the guy in question is now facing manslaugter charges, but lets not see the lowely ploice officers face the whole blame if they were following orders from on high. And hopefully everyone involved in the disgraceful attempt to cover-up what happened will also be brought to justice. Shame on the media that gathered around the couple of idiots smashing windows and somehow missed the acts of police brutality, thank god for the members of the public for capturing these images on digital cameras. Let us be in no doubt that without these clips, and facilities like youtube, none of this would have come to light. And finally, lets not forget that the new law that now bans people from photographing police officers was brought in to prevent exactly this happening. The police are at a fork in the road, they can either use this to change how they police big protests and carry themselves in general, or make sure that absolutely no footage like this ever sees the light of day, which is what happened during the social unrest in Burma. One way leads to a civilised society, the other to a facistic police state. i can sympathise with a lot you say, but without a doubt had the police not doen what they had there would have been a lot more destruction on the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 "He could have just politely asked me to move" whilst she was screaming and jumping in his face. Obviously she would have done so without hesitation. Re Clifford: "It's not about the money, I needed help", i.e. money. F*cking pikey sl*g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombletomble Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 fair play to the police. G20 lot are nothing but scum and just want to cause a nuisance and get their kick of fame. Kick more of them in The G20 lot. Nice to see someone talk so highly of our head of government and 19 other heads of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff leopard Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 the g20 lot. Nice to see someone talk so highly of our head of government and 19 other heads of state. He shoots, he scores! :smt005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 Just heard that on the radio that the woman who was hit on the legs 'Feared for her life' Lol of course she did, as soon as Max Clifford took her under his wing. Is this the same woman who admitted pushing the copper first before he struck back, but only admitting after selling her story to the Star, this from a tree hugger who lives on benefits. This same woman claimed 'it was like I'd been whipped by the Taliban' I'm assuming she has been whipped by the Taliban before to compare it. I wonder how much she got from the Afghanistan media for her story if that's the case. I'm also assuming the Taliban have been punished for the incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 18 April, 2009 Share Posted 18 April, 2009 I see that the IPCC is to investigate a third incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I see that the IPCC is to investigate a third incident. I wonder how many incidents against the police are being investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 All future 'protests' will just be full of people looking to make a fast buck. Tree Hugger 1 'Right stand here and video this with your phone' Tree Hugger 2 ' OK , i'm ready when you are' Tree Hugger 1 approaches policeman and spits in his face and throws beer on him Tree Hugger 2 presses record on his phone Policeman pushes TH1 away and uses force when TH1 refuses to back off. TH 2 stops recording TH2 now uses phone as a phone 'Hello, Is that Max Clifford, I have something for you' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 I wonder how many incidents against the police are being investigated. Hopefully every single last one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 Saint Warwick I also thought about the following 'it was like I'd been whipped by the Taliban' I'm assuming she has been whipped by the Taliban before to compare it. I assume she has been over to to ****stan and attended a taliban trg camp to enjoy such punnishment. Given the talibans take on women and punnishment , she would not have been whipped but a bullett would have been put in her head. Also now max clifford is her media advisor, I notice she's now gone from being a would be anarchist to a glam model, Judging by her media interviews. Super hairstyle. Makeup makeover , glam clothes and to think she was there protesting about capitalism amongst other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 19 April, 2009 Share Posted 19 April, 2009 This seems to have become a black and white issue. Either the police are all bullying thugs, or the protesters are all layabout troublemakers. I suspect the truth is a little more like there was a minority of bad eggs on either side. The cowardly copper who pushed over that man who died should be banged up, as should the vandalising protesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now