upinwath Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So we have a man, commonly drunk, in the middle of a protest that was pushed (may have also been hit on the leg) who died of either a heart attack (May have been worsened by liver disease from his drinking problem) or internal injuries but no one seems to be sure. He was well enough to stand up an swear at the cops before going away and dying of whatever unknown reason a while later. That, in the eyes of lefty idiots, is enough to have the cop charged with murder. It's odd really when you consider an affiliated anarchist group in Grease burnt down a bank, killing several people but blamed the bosses of the bank because they let workers in the building when the anarchists were planning to fire bomb it. Spot the daft gits. We have to remember what a bunch of murderous pigs the anarchist are. They're happy to condone murder but blame the cops for pushing a bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The pathologist criticised over his investigations into the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest was suspended today over another case. Dr Freddy Patel was found guilty of 29 counts of misconduct in the case of murder victim Sally White, who he failed to examine properly during three post-mortems. Today the General Medical Council ruled he would be suspended for four months due to his "dishonest" and "deficient professional performance". http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23937063-g20-pathologist-freddy-patel-to-learn-gmc-sanctions.do More bad news for the cops, their tame pathologist guaranteed to return a helpful verdict gets caught! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 He had been working and his way home was blocked off by police, so he was looking for alternative ways home but kept finding himself blocked by police. quite a few alcoholics go to work under the influence of alcohol i didnt say he was in the wrong, i just said maybe he was being annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So we have a man, commonly drunk, in the middle of a protest that was pushed (may have also been hit on the leg) who died of either a heart attack (May have been worsened by liver disease from his drinking problem) or internal injuries but no one seems to be sure. He was well enough to stand up an swear at the cops before going away and dying of whatever unknown reason a while later. That, in the eyes of lefty idiots, is enough to have the cop charged with murder. It's odd really when you consider an affiliated anarchist group in Grease burnt down a bank, killing several people but blamed the bosses of the bank because they let workers in the building when the anarchists were planning to fire bomb it. Spot the daft gits. We have to remember what a bunch of murderous pigs the anarchist are. They're happy to condone murder but blame the cops for pushing a bloke. According to Christopher La Jaunie, who was witness to the assault said at the inquest today that Mr Tomlinson was not confrontational at all to PC Harwood before the constable shoved him to the ground. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/31/ian-tomlinson-not-confrontational-inquest Mr Tomlinson was not an anarchist, but someone who got caught up in the days events and died shortly after being violently shoved to the ground by a police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 According to Christopher La Jaunie, who was witness to the assault said at the inquest today that Mr Tomlinson was not confrontational at all to PC Harwood before the constable shoved him to the ground. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/31/ian-tomlinson-not-confrontational-inquest Mr Tomlinson was not an anarchist, but someone who got caught up in the days events and died shortly after being violently shoved to the ground by a police officer. His behaviour (in the videos I have seen) does not look violent or confrontational, we don't know what he said to the officer or to other officers, he could have insulted them, said something offensive, we do not know ... Whatever he said it was not right for the officer to do what he did but if he did say something to them it might explain the officer's actions, although it would not excuse them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Wow! You try to express an opinion and out come the left wing attack dogs, parroting whatever the Guardian has told them to think. It's well known that the Guardian and the BBc absolutely hate the police and will do anything in their power to try and blacken the name of any copper who makes an error of judgement when on duty. This incident occurred in the middle of violent anarchist protests similar to the ones we saw last weekend. How would you react if you were confronted by a baying mob of thugs smashing up everything in their way? How would you try and maintain control and protect the public? A lot of the left wing press's stories about Tomlinson don't add up either. They say he just happened to be walking home from work and yet they also say he was homeless, so how can you be walking home if you have no home to go to? We also know he was an alcoholic and was drunk when he obstructed the police, so how can they be blamed for trying to move him on. They claim he wasn’t part of the protest, didn’t even know it was on and just happened to be passing that way? Yeah, right…… If you left wingers want to use this sad case as a way of police bashing to feel better about yourselves, that’s up to you. I just think it’s disgusting that a decent police officer has been crucified by the left wing press for trying to do his job and protect the public from the anarchists who want to harm us. It seems 'decent' police constable Harwood has form for being aggressive: He had to leave his post at the Met. due to an incident of road rage, then several years later was accused of using "excessive force" whist employed by Surrey constabulary. The Daily Mail (not exactly a 'left wing attack dog', as you claim of other publications) on the 23 July 2010 published an image of PC Harwood on the day of the riots with his shoulder badge missing (so that if an incident did occur then the officer could be identified). As others on here have said, the way the subsequent enquiry has been handled stinks. Incidentally with regards to his status as homeless, I understand from the BBC website that he was homeless for a number of years - though at the time of death he wasn't homeless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 His behaviour (in the videos I have seen) does not look violent or confrontational, we don't know what he said to the officer or to other officers, he could have insulted them, said something offensive, we do not know ... Whatever he said it was not right for the officer to do what he did but if he did say something to them it might explain the officer's actions, although it would not excuse them The video is pretty clear. It shows a man, unable to walk properly, blocking the advance of the police (Deliberate or otherwise). What we can't hear is what he may have been saying. He could easily have been telling the cops he hoped they get their flipping heads kicked in. All this spouting against the police is lefty inspired rubbish. They see a chance to blame the whole of the violence on a single face, thus distracting from the real problem of left wing mob violence on the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gularscute Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 There is no reasonable excuse for Harwood to behave the way he did. He's employed to serve members of the public not to kill them. It's obvious from the footage and his history that he's the worst kind of vicious hooligan, one that hides behind a uniform and believes himself to be unaccountable. It doesn't matter whether Ian Tomlinson was drunk or not, he wasn't posing a threat of any kind. It's good that handheld video technology exists otherwise Harwood would most likely have denied his actions and got away with it. It's highly unlikely that he'll get the long custodial sentence he deserves but at least the evidence is there to damn him in the eyes of the more rational members of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 There is no reasonable excuse for Harwood to behave the way he did. He's employed to serve members of the public not to kill them. It's obvious from the footage and his history that he's the worst kind of vicious hooligan, one that hides behind a uniform and believes himself to be unaccountable. It doesn't matter whether Ian Tomlinson was drunk or not, he wasn't posing a threat of any kind. It's good that handheld video technology exists otherwise Harwood would most likely have denied his actions and got away with it. It's highly unlikely that he'll get the long custodial sentence he deserves but at least the evidence is there to damn him in the eyes of the more rational members of the public. Excellent post. And all this 'you're not allowed to take footage of coppers, malarkey' in the name of anti-terrorism, yeah, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 All this spouting against the police is lefty inspired rubbish. They see a chance to blame the whole of the violence on a single face, thus distracting from the real problem of left wing mob violence on the streets. And that about sums up your conclusion to the Tomlinson death. Firstly, his wife didn't leave him because he drank, if you read the news article you'd have known this. Secondly everyone has the right to travel, you spout about a drunk blocking the police line, when reality shows the police blocking Ian Tomlinsons routes home. Thirdly the family of Ian Tomlinson have the right to seek justice, this isn't some left wing blah blah bull, it's a family of an assaulted man who later died seeking justice. Fourthly you seem to be implying that Ian Tomlinson was a drunk anarchist that deserved to die because he wanted to get passed the police line and about his own business. Trying to sum it up as anything other than what really occurred are just the delusional rantings of an ignorant mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.