oafc0000 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 The israelis were miles on the wrong side of the border - which i think is the point the demonstrators were making... Thankfully i think that bit by bit american opinion is coming round to realising that supporting them at all costs and whatever they do is counter to their own interests. I do agree that not many of the players there are exactly lovely but there is only one that claims to have the same standards as civilised countries. Blanket support for either side is highly unhelpful... Totally with you there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You can and I will... Its all the use of force to protect your own interests... Just different shades of grey... While the Palestinians choose to elect the ever so liberal Hamas as their representative... Like I said, they are all wankers and cherry picking villains seems silly... Specially using it to have a pop at Bob who lives and breaths the chance of being blown up by people who won't even entertain the right for his country to exist.. They are all wrong and they are all right... As I said before, I hold no torch for either side but I had some a few years when they tried to work for peace. I am having a little "pop" at Bob because he is very good at lighting blue touchpapers on contentious subjects (such as this one and also freeing Biggs comes to mind) and then hides in his little Tel Aviv bunker. AND his jokes are crap!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Not guilty of manslaughter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484#TWEET175296 'eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentlats Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Er because it wasn't manslaughter, should never have got this far!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You're right it shouldn't have got that far. Harwood should never have been employed by the Met. He should've been nowhere near that protest. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentlats Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah! I'll remind of what it was like to be in London at the time of the riots and may day protests! You carry on in your ivory tower!!! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 It's not me saying Harwood shouldn't have been in the Met - it's the Met! The protest wasn't in the same public disorder league as the riots anyway. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Q: Since 1990, there've been 1,400 deaths in custody or deaths following contact (for example, of baton on skull) with police. How many police were convicted of manslaughter or murder? A: Zero. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 24hours and kents are both right. It should have never gone to trial. It's not manslaughter as it is quite likely that the internal bleeding had already started by the time of the shove- possibly related to his alcohol history. However, it's quite clear that the copper should have never been there and someone with his employment history ought to struggle to get a job with the police. The Met and Surrey forces messed up they didn't check their records properly before allowing him to return to being a police officer and he shouldn't have been in a job like tactical support. It often happens (and I can think of at least one case in my profession) where previous history hadn't been taken into account properly before allowing someone to work in a particular way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentlats Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Deaths in custody or deaths following contact (for example, of baton on skull) with police. How many police were convicted of manslaughter or murder? A: Zero. Quite probably because they shouldn't have been, if I was a hopeless alcoholic with massive medical conditions and you haver a shove because I was an annoying :censored: woIuld you expect to be standing trial for murder or manslaughter?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 All 1,400? Seriously? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentlats Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 A death in police custody is anyone who has been in contact with the police and dies within 24 hours, nothing to do with being hit with baton or even being in a cell, literally if a rozzer talks to you and you croak it 23 hours later that is classed as a death in custody! Go figure politician boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I hadn't seen that about his previous within the police http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9404721/Ian-Tomlinson-what-jury-didnt-know-about-Pc-Simon-Harwood.html I know from my own business that all sorts of allegations get made against people enforcing the law, so I do believe there can be smoke without fire. It's a bit worse when your own colleagues are backing the claims up. I can say with surety that if he had been a CEO (aka traffic warden) who was found to have been fiddling his notebook to cover up an allegation of misconduct towards a member of the public, he would have walked, and not into a desk job either. I don't know if the charge should have been manslaughter, but he had no right to hit and push that man over, therefore he did commit some crime. A sad story all round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentlats Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 When all is said and done the worst he should have been 'done' with is common assault, or battery as with common assault no pyhisical contact needs to have taken place, take note LL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) When all is said and done the worst he should have been 'done' with is common assault, or battery as with common assault no pyhisical contact needs to have taken place, take note LL! I reckon if a copper spotted me hitting a hobo with a stick and throwing him to the ground he would have a word with me! Unless it as near end of shift of course ;) Much as it pains me to agree with Citizen Tulsehill though, but he should not have been in a Police job having been allowed to leave to avoid a gross misconduct charge. Editted to add, no doubt on a tasty compensation package Edited July 19, 2012 by leeslover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 He didn't 'leave'. He 'retired'. Retired! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Not all those 1,400 people merely helped the police with their inquiries. You know that as well as I do. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Quite probably because they shouldn't have been, if I was a hopeless alcoholic with massive medical conditions and you haver a shove because I was an annoying :censored: woIuld you expect to be standing trial for murder or manslaughter?????? You're moving well away from the point here. His alcoholism and medical conditions are only relevant if they were the cause of his death. Also being 'hopeless' or 'an annoying :censored:' is not justification for assaulting somebody; if it was, I'd be assaulting colleagues on a daily basis. The point is whether the jury could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Harwood's actions caused the bleed, which the experts did not feel confident about (but note, they did not dismiss the idea). Even if a medical condition made him more vulnerable to a massive bleed, if Harwood's actions had been the cause (through the use of unreasonable force) then he would have been guilty of manslaughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Here are the stats... http://www.inquest.org.uk/ Edited July 20, 2012 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I wonder what the outcome would have been had the annoying :censored: shoved an alchie copper, who then proceeded to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I wonder what the outcome would have been had the annoying :censored: shoved an alchie copper, who then proceeded to die. Deth in custody, I imagine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Sean Rigg. Discuss. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/sean-rigg-police-used-unnecessary-force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Sean Rigg. Discuss. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/sean-rigg-police-used-unnecessary-force That is the NHS's fault a lot more than the police, a person with paranoid Schizophrenia needs better care than he received. I'm not surprised it was a top London trust that messed up his care either. Yes the cops were in the wrong, but the treatment of the mentally unwell population is bad by the police force, and a lot of that is probably due to lack of education and knowledge which stems back to the NHS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 That is the NHS's fault a lot more than the police, a person with paranoid Schizophrenia needs better care than he received. I'm not surprised it was a top London trust that messed up his care either. Yes the cops were in the wrong, but the treatment of the mentally unwell population is bad by the police force, and a lot of that is probably due to lack of education and knowledge which stems back to the NHS. I'm not having that, on the ground that it's never the Met's fault when someone dies in their custody. The Met and the IPCC are in collusion, which is another way of saying bent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Very sad case indeed. Community care turned into care in chaos, for some. and not just the patients i can tell ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.