ricgem2002 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Why? He was on the job so his union covered it from members contributions. you still havent got it have you :hihi: the members contributions paying the union come from(have you guessed it yet) the taxpayer who pays their wages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well you're in very good company Mr Prime because the famous and much revered commentator Amanda Platell pretty much said the same. As reported in today's Guardian: One of the most hurtful and unjustifiable characterisations of the family came from the columnist Amanda Platell, who just 10 days after his death said Tomlinson's alcoholism and homelessness "must lead one to question the depth of [the family's] grief". Instead, she suggested the family were seeking "15 minutes of fame" and "a small fortune in compensation". Three years later, the family have received no financial compensation. They have also remained dignified and resolute in their refusal of dozens of financial offers to sell their story to the media. Fine, I'd rather be wrong than right but they do not appear saintly to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Fine, I'd rather be wrong than right but they do not appear saintly to me. Perhaps you should call the police to visit them and shove them down the stairs then ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Fine, I'd rather be wrong than right but they do not appear saintly to me. whats your thoughts on david cameron ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Fine, I'd rather be wrong than right but they do not appear saintly to me. Not the sort of people you'd want as neighbours in Fulwood then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 So, Mr Prime, it's ok for a policeman to push another person to the ground from behind, whilst they are doing no harm and they've got their hands in their pockets if you don't like the cut of man's jib. I do hope you're in the right job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Fine, I'd rather be wrong than right but they do not appear saintly to me. No you wouldn't, you love to win an argument:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Your point is that he has been protected by 'the establishment'. He has not, he has been protected by a jury of ordinary men and women following normal legal procedure. The 'establishment' failed to bring assault charges within the designated time, and allowed a person with with questions over his temperament to be in a position of trust where he could do harm and indeed did. As a taxpayer, and a citizen, I'm not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m^rk Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 And people wonder why the Police force is hated by so many morons like Simon Harwood do no good for their image either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 You know why, he was dawdling like a fool right in front of a crowd of police. The majority o of the population would have stayed away but not him. He could have been acting like that because he may have already been bleeding internally which could cause disorientation and confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.