truman Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 No you would not, if he did not have his hands in his pockets he would have been able to block the attack from the copper , or at least break his own fall. The guy was hit from behind.....never saw it coming....or should he have expected a bobby to clout him for doing nothing wrong..is that we've come to..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 These are allegations, not facts and surely everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Don't believe everything you read. No,this would appear to be more than an allegation.. "The pathologist was disciplined by the General Medical Council in 1999 after he discussed the medical history of Roger Sylvester, a 30-year-old who died in police custody...." You said not to believe everything you read yet you seem quite happy with the first PM.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcspb1 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 I am not sticking up for the man, the copper told him to move and he didnt. Why did he have his hands in his pockets anyway? Hardly the time to have your hands in your pockets leaving you defenseless is it? He could have had a weapon in there. Like a carton of Orange juice - or a camera perhaps.....? Walking along with hands in pockets is defensive - what if he had his hands out of his pockets, and was making gestures - that would be seen as offensive For me, the Policeman should have been prosecuted, not because I have a hatred for the Police, quite the opposite, but with such clear footage, together with witness statements, I feel there really was a case for the Police to answer. That the prosecution never came to be, is yet another example of the closure of ranks - smacks the same as a few other cases: Jean Charles De Menezes etc. The Policeman acted wrongly at G20, and is free to do it again, that is what for me is the most criminal of things, that punishment was never brought, Policeman or not, he is still governed by the same laws - or not, as the case proves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 The guy was hit from behind.....never saw it coming....or should he have expected a bobby to clout him for doing nothing wrong.? So, what's new ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeeeeeeeek Posted July 27, 2010 Author Share Posted July 27, 2010 Your naivety amazes me. A postmortem commissioned by a group who are desperate to claim Tomlinson was unlawfully killed is bound to come up with exactly the conclusions it wants. I'll stick with the impartial evidence of the first post mortem. And yes I know that The Guardian is desperately trying to smear the pathologist who did it, but that just proves what low tactics they employ. Listen to yourself! It's not the Guardian that has 26 on going investigations for substandard work and negligence of the man who did the first post Morten, though I bet you wish it was. It's you that is deluded, the rest of the world can see that the second and third post mortem are considerably more credible than the first one, I am sure that if the investigation was the other way with 2 claiming he died from natural causes and one saying it was due to trauma you would then be bigging up the majority view and calling the one pathologist a bloody leftie liberal etc etc. You accuse everyone on here or looking for the conclusions that match their prefered outcome, they don't need to as the evidence does that. You are the one picking and choosing the inconsistent results that fit your agenda. Grow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worjackie Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 The Policeman acted wrongly at G20, and is free to do it again, that is what for me is the most criminal of things, that punishment was never brought, Policeman or not, he is still governed by the same laws - or not, as the case proves He isn't free to do it again, he remains suspended from the force and may be charged internally with misconduct. The poor guy is also having his name dragged through the mud by the left wing press, is probably at risk of being attacked by anarchists hellbent on revenge and must be going through hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 He isn't free to do it again, he remains suspended from the force and may be charged internally with misconduct. The poor guy is also having his name dragged through the mud by the left wing press, is probably at risk of being attacked by anarchists hellbent on revenge and must be going through hell. Mud? You mean media. And for good reason. He is an animal! A thug and a bully!! Given the chane id give him a back hander and see how he likes it. Of course id be arrested and charged and rightfully so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeeeeeeeek Posted July 27, 2010 Author Share Posted July 27, 2010 He isn't free to do it again, he remains suspended from the force and may be charged internally with misconduct. The poor guy is also having his name dragged through the mud by the left wing press, is probably at risk of being attacked by anarchists hellbent on revenge and must be going through hell. Don't worry, I am sure he can quit on medical grounds then join a different force. Just like the last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Just like the last time. Excuse me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worjackie Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 You accuse everyone on here or looking for the conclusions that match their prefered outcome, they don't need to as the evidence does that. You are the one picking and choosing the inconsistent results that fit your agenda. Grow up! You really can't see the irony in your own post? As for evidence, how about this? http://www.lettersfromatory.com/2009/04/10/cowardly-left-wing-bloggers-ignore-new-ian-tomlinson-evidence/ This proves that Tomlinson was not an innocent man accidentally caught up in the protest, nor was he walking away from the police when the alleged assault happened - he was deliberately antagonising them. Don't let me stop you believing what you want to believe though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.