xenia Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 why shouldny he he has not been found guilty of anything I can not find out if the police man is able to continue his job in the riot squad ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just in case there are people who haven't seen the vide footage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-cps-ruling Without this video there wouldn't even have been an investigation, remember. Note that the police officer (who has previous) has his badge removed and his face covered. Note that Mr Tomlinson is just walking away with his back to them Note also that his is bitten by a dog and hit with a baton before being pushed violently to the ground from behind. Remember that he died very shortly afterwards and that the two pathologists who haven't been suspended agree that he died from internal bleeding, and that one of those pathologists did a post mortem on behalf of the police officer. Wonder, if you will, what the outcome would have been if Mr Tomlinson had pushed the police officer from behind with no provocation and that the police officer had died. Note also that Tomlinson was stood opposite the protesters at the start of the video, wonder what he was doing, wonder why the cameraman focused on him, wonder why he was stood there if he was supposed to be on his way home, wonder if he was there to make a point, wonder why he didnt explain to the police that he was on his way home and then walk away with a little more speed like most other people would do in that situation. The police were wearing uniform issued to them, nothing sinister about that, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I never suggested it *showed* his innocence, I just stated that he was an innocent man, which from all accounts appears to be the case. I should have qualified with "by all accounts". You did state that it showed an innocent man being attacked How do you know he was innocent ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that a video can't prove or disprove innocence/guilt of a thought, but it can of an action? Can you guide us all as to where Tomlinson was breaking a law?.Can you be specific? I can show you an action by the police officer that he was breaking the law, and that's even before he raised his baton. As mutewitness has suggested he had his face covered (not illegal in itself although I may be wrong on that) and wore no identification. The head protection he was wearing also consisted of the covering of his face showing only the eyes, bit dodgy you think? Makes you think why we get ourselves all in a tizzy over the Burkha when in actual fact we have our very own home grown thugs ready to don the facemask in the name of upholding the law. No, I can't, same as you can't prove that he was only on his way home and he had nothing to do with the protest, You only have the word of his friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that a video can't prove or disprove innocence/guilt of a thought, but it can of an action? Can you guide us all as to where Tomlinson was breaking a law?.Can you be specific? I can show you an action by the police officer that he was breaking the law, and that's even before he raised his baton. As mutewitness has suggested he had his face covered (not illegal in itself although I may be wrong on that) and wore no identification. The head protection he was wearing also consisted of the covering of his face showing only the eyes, bit dodgy you think? Makes you think why we get ourselves all in a tizzy over the Burkha when in actual fact we have our very own home grown thugs ready to don the facemask in the name of upholding the law. If this is so, then he would have been prosecuted As it is, he hasnt That tells me that he hasnt broken any laws and also as he was wearing the uniform provided to him, I dont see anything sinister about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sadly there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about this case by the usual lefties, and their bible The Guardian, a paper with a pathological hatred of the police. Ian Tomlinson has been portrayed as some kind of saint when in reality he was a homeless alcoholic who fathered 9 children and could have chosen to avoid the rioting protestors on his way home, but deliberately chose to walk right into it and refused to comply with police police requests to move on. Also he did not die as a result of being pushed, he died as a result of a heart attack. As he was a heavy smoker and alcoholic, it’s likely his lifestyle that killed him. The most shocking aspect is that this poor police officer has been put through hell for the last 18 months, not knowing if he was going to be prosecuted for simply doing his job, protecting the rest of us from these violent protestors. It’s him we should have sympathy for, not Tomlinson. Thats exactly what he was doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You did state that it showed an innocent man being attacked How do you know he was innocent ? No, I can't, same as you can't prove that he was only on his way home and he had nothing to do with the protest, You only have the word of his friends. If this is so, then he would have been prosecuted As it is, he hasnt That tells me that he hasnt broken any laws and also as he was wearing the uniform provided to him, I dont see anything sinister about that. Out of interest, why do you use different criteria for determining innocence / guilt for a police officer and a member of the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Out of interest, why do you use different criteria for determining innocence / guilt for a police officer and a member of the public? The police officer was doing his job. I have never said that Mr.Tomlinson was guilty of anything, I have said that from the footage we dont know whether he is innocent or guilty of anything, as with all these video's they only seem to start filming when the police are showing a heavy hand, they never seem to show the police when they control matters without being heavy handed, I wonder why that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 as long as protestors carry ID cards I agree. There is no legal requirement to carry id as a citizen, however... Two officers have been suspended over alleged assaults against Ian Tomlinson, who died of a heart attack on April 1, and a woman who attended a vigil in his memory the next day. Sir Paul admitted that video footage of the incidents was "clearly disturbing" and has also been angered that the officers involved were not wearing their identification numbers at the time in a clear breach of official guidelines. (My bold) Oh, and it's from the righty media: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5159607/Sir-Paul-Stephenson-orders-review-of-riot-police-tactics-following-G20-protests.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 There is no legal requirement to carry id as a citizen, however... (My bold) Oh, and it's from the righty media: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5159607/Sir-Paul-Stephenson-orders-review-of-riot-police-tactics-following-G20-protests.html Guidelines Thats all they are, guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.