donkey Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You seem prone to making mistakes, that is not what I was agreeing with at all, I embolded and enlarged the text on the part I was agreeing with Thus Originally Posted by Worjackie 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. Originally posted by Jongo Thats exactly what he was doing! Now if you want to carry on quoting people I suggest you do it properly. You are making yourself look very silly indeed. You mean with the approriate sections in shaded boxes indicating who said what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 To be honest I've not read the whole thread jongo, and wouldn't agree with the gratuitous slagging off of police officers, my experiences with them have always been positive, although ironically the one unhappy encounter I've had was with a couple of PCs from the City of London, about 25 years ago. I genuinely believe there is a case that needs to be answered here, police officers should demonstrate the highest standards of behaviour, above that expected of Joe Public. Bear in mind that this was in a public place with photographers and unconnected members of the public watching, it makes one wonder what some of them are capable of behind closed doors when they're not subject to scrutiny-it doesn't breed confidence. You seem to have summed it up with your last paragraph, it was in full view and it was in the open. There was an investigation and the CPS decided there was no case to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You seem to have summed it up with your last paragraph, it was in full view and it was in the open. There was an investigation and the CPS decided there was no case to answer. Have you noticed the earlier and complete not edited footage that was shown just after the incident seem to have dissappeared, the footage I saw showed Tomlinson to be confronting the police well before the final incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 There was an investigation and the CPS decided there was no case to answer. I know, but I don't believe that was the correct outcome on this occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Why did the CPS decide not to prosecute the P.C. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Have you noticed the earlier and complete not edited footage that was shown just after the incident seem to have dissappeared, the footage I saw showed Tomlinson to be confronting the police well before the final incident. He was blocking the way for a police van to get through and was asked to move on numerous occasions prior to the events on the video. Not bad for a man on his way home and nothing to do with the protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I know, but I don't believe that was the correct outcome on this occasion. Do you honestly think they will do a U turn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Why did the CPS decide not to prosecute the P.C. ? Because the coroners reports suggested that he died from cirrhosis of the liver along with internal bleeding brought on by falling on his elbow and nothing to do with any strikes from any weapons, so they couldnt prove conclusively that the PC was to blame, in a nut shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You seem to have summed it up with your last paragraph, it was in full view and it was in the open. There was an investigation and the CPS decided there was no case to answer. They decided there was no case to answer because the case had not been brought within 6 months.... that is an admission not just of the fact that the CPS were in the wrong but also that there was a case to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Because the coroners reports suggested that he died from cirrhosis of the liver along with internal bruising brought on by falling on his elbow and nothing to do with any strikes from any weapons, so they couldnt prove conclusively that the PC was to blame, in a nut shell. And that internal bruising was brought about by the fall we can all see caused by a shove in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.