sickening police violence

Just logged back into this thread after being away from it for a while and can't actually BELIEVE it is still going?
What is left to argue here?
The Police have lied from day one about this and if it had not been for the video evidence an innocent man would be dead and a heart attack would have been the cause of death.
Do any of these ring any bells:
'The Metropolitan Police release a statement saying officers had been forced to move him as they were being hit with missiles including bottles.'

'City of London Police release a statement saying a post mortem has established Mr Tomlinson suffered a heart attack.
A statement reads: "A post-mortem examination found he died of natural causes.
"[He] suffered a sudden heart attack while on his way home from work."
A second post-mortem examination finds Ian Tomlinson died of abdominal haemorrhage, not a heart attack.
A Metropolitan police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter, the IPCC says.

Good grief, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson himself said: "I have already expressed my concern that the video footage of some police actions are clearly disturbing and should be thoroughly investigated."


There is STILL a cover up going on as we speak although thankfully new footage which the IPCC were trying to get stopped WILL now be broadcast on Channel Four tomorrow (Wednesday). This footage will apparently show the moments leading up to the death of Ian Tomlinson. I assume it will cause more problems for the few on here actually STILL trying to defend the police actions.
Newbiejim - you were right. Anyone else - you were wrong.
Now, what about religion ..............
 
soapboxstuart said:
Newbiejim - you were right. Anyone else - you were wrong.
.
Click to expand...

No he's not.
Newbiejim claims it was a violent push that was meant to violently throw him to the ground but it wasn't, it was a push to get him away.
I concede that the push although very rare, could have caused the bleed but the push wasn't meant to make him fall over.
Anybody who thinks that is wrong.
 
dmpoole said:
No he's not.
Newbiejim claims it was a violent push that was meant to violently throw him to the ground but it wasn't, it was a push to get him away.
I concede that the push although very rare, could have caused the bleed but the push wasn't meant to make him fall over.
Anybody who thinks that is wrong.
Click to expand...

But how can that be? Because i think that, and i'm right.

Strange that.:rolleyes:
 
FAO Von and Andy,

How many people in the course of your duty (more than likely outside nightclubs) have you pushed and they have fell over?
Take into account some of these people would be very drunk also.
What about on a frontline like G20 - how many have fell over with a push away?

(I'm trying to prove myself wrong btw)
 
dmpoole said:
First it was the metatarsal and now it's going to be the abdominal haemorrhage - we're going to have footballers going down like flies if that's all it takes to get one.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what on earth this means?

Furthermore are you ACTUALLY suggesting that the push to the ground, oh and don't forget the hit with the baton was warranted, AND that this has had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the death of this man?
If so then virtually everyone serving for manslaughter should be let out now.
You clearly know very little about the legal system in this country. Read some books and get back to us.
 
i-bert said:
No, its definitely aimed at you.
Click to expand...

If you quote somebody you should read what they quoted.
he is claiming everybody else is wrong who doesn't agree with him, I sarcastically did the same so the joke is on you.
It is etiquette and and would stop you quoting the wrong person :)
 
dmpoole said:
No he's not.
Newbiejim claims it was a violent push that was meant to violently throw him to the ground but it wasn't, it was a push to get him away.
I concede that the push although very rare, could have caused the bleed but the push wasn't meant to make him fall over.
Anybody who thinks that is wrong.
Click to expand...


No it WAS a violent push, I didnt say EVER that it was MEANT to push him violently to the ground, I cant tell what the policeman was thinking. It is my opinion though that he was WAY out of order.
 
soapboxstuart said:
Can you explain what on earth this means?

Furthermore are you ACTUALLY suggesting that the push to the ground, oh and don't forget the hit with the baton was warranted, AND that this has had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the death of this man?
If so then virtually everyone serving for manslaughter should be let out now.
You clearly know very little about the legal system in this country. Read some books and get back to us.
Click to expand...

All true. Just because it was a 'harmless' push according to dmpoole doesn't mean that the officer in question won't get charged if it turns out that the push caused Ian Tomlinson's death.
 
Dmpoole

Watch the video again please. At 21s an officer gives him a HARMLESS push to move him on. When the other officer strikes him and then shoves him, it is with violent force. You can see by the officers stance after he did it that some power was used. And he did this to a man who had his back to him and was causing no threat.
Please look up the word if you're having trouble understanding the meaning of it.:)
 
Chimerical said:
All true. Just because it was a 'harmless' push according to dmpoole doesn't mean that the officer in question won't get charged if it turns out that the push caused Ian Tomlinson's death.
Click to expand...

+1

I also look forward to apologist explanations of how it still wasn't a violent push, now a high res vid of his head banging the floor from the push is in the open.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/new-ian-tomlinson-g20-video

Nice of the IPCC to try and help out the Met, yet again, by trying to ban the video being published even though they told parliament that videos wouldn't prejudice the criminal investigation.
 
The police are going to be so scared now about being heavy handed that future events will be out of control. My personal opinion is that they should be able to do whatever necessary within reason to control things. Like if somebody hits them they whack back. In america they don't take any crap. The UK force is going to turn into a mess.
 
ANYONE watching that cannot fail to be shocked by it. The guy is just standing there.
Is this the footage that Channel Four are showing tonight that the IPCC tried to stop?
Oh and bye bye DMPoole - it's over.
 
ringo747 said:
The police are going to be so scared now about being heavy handed that future events will be out of control. My personal opinion is that they should be able to do whatever necessary within reason to control things. Like if somebody hits them they whack back. In america they don't take any crap. The UK force is going to turn into a mess.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because overtly heavy-handed policing really works wonders in America doesn't it. :rolleyes:

In reality, all that achieves is even more hatred and distrust of the police. America is a terrible, terrible example to use as their crime rates are much higher than ours per 100,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom