Bassman62 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 e died from the blunt force trauma of being pushed over and landing on his elbow. Well that makes a change from being beaten with a baton caused his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Well that sure doesn't fit the description of a man going about his business more like a drunken plonker. even drunken plonkers can go about their business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 ooh so now YOU and only YOU seem to have seen some special full video that nobody else has seen nor knows where it is cos its magically vanished? See this then http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2368505.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 See this then http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2368505.ece 1: it doesnt work 2: so you base ALL your evidence on what the red tops print? (even tho you slag anybody off for posting one item that might be dared to be printed in the guardian or similer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 even drunken plonkers can go about their business?Does going about their business means interfering with the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 See this then http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2368505.ece Your link doesn't work. If it is to the Sun article I posted earlier, then your evidence again shows you to be wrong. Why are you making up stuff about him being abusive? what do you think blatant lying will gain you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Does going about their business means interfering with the police. The article doesn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 1: it doesnt work 2: so you base ALL your evidence on what the red tops print? (even tho you slag anybody off for posting one item that might be dared to be printed in the guardian or similer) Go to Wildcats post #517 and use the link you'll see the dick refusing to move for the police.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Does going about their business means interfering with the police. no, what i mean is.......just because somebody may or may not be drunk doesnt veto any life they may have, or a right to go around doing theyre business you seem to be pushing some kind of agenda now that 1: mr tomlinson was drunk 2: and if he was drunk he doesnt get the same rights or allowences to go about his business, even if hes innocent of any wrong doing thats how your posts are seeming to look to me now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 Go to Wildcats post #517 and use the link you'll see the dick refusing to move for the police.. if somebody feels they have a right to be somewhere and arent doing anything wrong then why should they move? does that give the right for police to brutalise somebody? no, if the officer really thought he was a threat or in the wrong, they arrest em, after all thats what the police are for and if he was in the wrong why are we only talking about ONE officer taking the law into his own hands, after all there was far more than 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.