|
U-Know! Forum » Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
stray 2057 posts |
May 05, 2011, 09:15
|
||
|
"However the IPCC ruling went against the desires of Harwood and eleven other police witnesses, some of whom expressed concern over the impact that giving evidence in an open forum would have on their private lives." Oh I doubt that. However, it's the loyalty and covering for each other that allows them to behave as badly as they do, letting the public directly see this through the nature and wording of their 'evidence' may actually force some changes to be made. It may even end up in some charges/investigations of those giving evidence (assuming its in Harwoods defence).
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 05, 2011, 09:52
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: How his colleagues don't react at all, indicating they had all done similar things dozens of times that day. Somewhat tenuous logic it seems IMHO - like saying that other football fans that stand by when small hooligan groups kick off must have "all done similar things"? And before I get shot down - yes I know there's no 'bond of employment' betwwen football fans but (again IMO) the analogy still has relevance - as the actions of a few idiots can have the result of tarring all a club's support and image by association I'd go so far as to say that their standing by does constitute a tacit (and obviously unacceptable) acknowledgement that certain individuals within their ranks would almost inevitably act this way under these conditions? Don't get me wrong - I think my earlier posts make it clear I'm no apologist for wankers like PC Harwood - but the claim that a lack of reaction from his colleagues mean "they had all done similar things" seems sonething of a stretch....
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 05, 2011, 10:43
|
||
well it certainly suggests a culture where it wasn't out of the ordinary and he didn't need pulling up about it. Which kind of suggests the same mindset.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 05, 2011, 13:18
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Somewhat tenuous logic it seems IMHO Yes, you're right. I was tired and didn't express myself well, and the logic as stated is indeed very shonky. What I was trying to say was that attacking someone from behind who posed no threat to anyone is clearly excessive force. It is not only unlawful and a breach of duty to do it, it is a breach of duty not to report an officer for doing it. Yet instead of pulling him back or taking him aside, the colleagues carry on. This strongly implies they are familiarised with it. He was not reported by fellow officers later on. This implies that either they were covering up, or that the event was so unremarkable that they didn't think it worthy of reporting. Yet this is not a heated moment under a hail of bricks. This is a group of armoured officers faced with a man standing around with his hands in his pockets. Do you think this is the only time that Harwood behaved like that? Do you think the colleagues didn't do the same thing elsewhere? When these officers reached the crowd, what do you think they did? My leap was made in part because I was there on the day and saw hundreds and hundreds of attacks like Harwood's. It came not just from individual ones like that, but repeatedly en masse as a clear order from above. This was not Harwood being 'one bad apple', this was the modus operandi of the police on that operation.Harwood was simply unlucky to have had one of his attackees die shortly after the assault, and be caught on film. At the end of that day, before news of Tomlinson's death came out, the police were saying it had been relatively quiet, and the media were parroting it. And I agree, the police have been a lot more violent in similar situations before.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 05, 2011, 13:22
|
||
|
For anyone who's not seen it, here's the video of the assault on Tomlinson http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/07/g20-police-assault-video Here's the police wading in to a stationary crowd with their hands in the air chanting 'this is not a riot' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJRi7YR1bU Later in the evening that crowd was kettled then attacked (from the other end to the attack in the video) with batons, dogs and shields. Two weeks a go this was found to have been unlawful. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/14/kettling-g20-protesters-police-illegal
|
|||
|
Wychburylass 28 posts |
May 06, 2011, 13:33
|
||
I rarely post here, but I was really pleased to hear the verdict. The fact that is family has had to endure so much is downright outrageous. I just hope that the police authorities are unable to construct a valid convoluted excuse to stop charges being made.
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 06, 2011, 16:30
|
||
|
Hi Merrick No problem with tired/shoddy expression - I've got two small children so know I'm guilty of this on a regular basis! Please don't think I'm not (broadly) on what I perceive as your side of the arguement - I'm just slightly wary of intelligent debate on the subject(in which I'd include yours**) being buried under the ineviatble "ACAB* - well they just hate the police" status quo retort? Apologies if this occasionally strays into the realms of pedantry! Good weekend y'all *ACAB - All Cops are Bastards ** No patronisation whatsoever intended as evidenced by your posts standards of eloquence over mine!
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
May 06, 2011, 18:08
|
||
|
Oh that's all fair enough matey. But my point is that we can be confident that not one officer arrested a colleague that day despite witnessing repeated criminal assaults. Hundreds of officers, thousands of crimes, no charges brought. This means that they all breached their sworn duty and a huge proportion of them committed crimes themselves. All but one were lucky enough not to kill someone and have it caught on film that went to a lefty media outlet. What happened to Tomlinson was no aberration but was part of a strategy of excessive force and assault ordered from their commanders and obediently enacted. Certainly marks them all down as bastards in my book.
|
|||
Myers 151 posts |
May 09, 2011, 10:09
|
||
|
Turns out the officers on the day did complain about Ian Tomlinson being pushed and killed. The met covered it up, not the officers. Not always so black and white
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 09, 2011, 11:22
|
||
|
No, that's a bit wrong. the officers who reported it were from the Met. And the Met then reported it to the City of London police. But it was the City of London police that didn't hand the information onto the investigators or the pathologist or anyone else. So not the Met covering it up, more the city of london police. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
