Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Ian Tomlinson: Final Justice?

  1. #61
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaceylacey View Post
    How have I done that.....this particular family claim to be grief stricken....why....he never saw them from one year to the next.
    That isn't necessarily true jacey. He was in contact with his family right until the end, but he was moving further and further away from them due to his constant drinking. I don't think from that Guardian article there was any bad-feeling or significant breach in the relationship, and perhaps that's what is wrong with it. They are only seeing the good-times and the happy memories, when undoubtedly there were terrible times that affected every member of that family. In reality it seems Ian took it upon himself to leave the family, perhaps because he considered he was the cause of all their problems?
    Last edited by eatmywords; 08-03-2012 at 10:44 AM.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    An intensive 30 officer investigation into whether Andrew Mitchell actually said the word "pleb", and a murdering policeman walks free.

    Just shows you doesn't it.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eatmywords View Post
    An intensive 30 officer investigation into whether Andrew Mitchell actually said the word "pleb", and a murdering policeman walks free.

    Just shows you doesn't it.
    To be fair, if police officers are telling lies to smear a senior politician (of whatever party), then that is a pretty serious allegation which must be investigated seriously. In this case, they are perhaps doing the right thing, if only because the government is leaning on them.

    The police were never interested in revealing the truth about Ian Tomlinson, but rather closed ranks behind his killer Simon Harwood. The result being of course that the killer got off without a conviction, although he has since been sacked by the Metropolitan police - a rare result. What makes my blood boil, however, is that this thug will receive his full (and exceedingly generous) police pension. Perhaps he should be forced to pay back the salary he was paid during his period of suspension?

  4. #64
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I do agree, it has got a lot more serious, but who is smearing who. There's so much conjecture involved with this I don't think anyone is going to get to the truth, or believe it. And besides, I thought the Police Officers that guard Downing Street were specially trained officers. I just think it a disparity that if this officer loses his job over whether or not he used a term, and a police officer walks free from murder, where are our priorities in the defence of Law and the people?
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    None of it is new though is it? All of my life ,solicitors, barristers, and defendents have been blighted by so called totally uncorruptable police officers fabricating and altering daming evidence, and in all my life nothing has ever changed. After a whole raft of mis-carriages of justice, such as the Birmingham so called bombers, and recently the exposure of malpractice in the Hillsborough, disaster, we still cling to the forlorn hope that our police are actually much better than anybody elses, and that this is not endemic. Well when a cabinet minister and a so called specially trained officer can have a row at the bottom of Downing St, and end up accusing each other of down right lies, it becomes pretty clear that all those who for years were blighted by this kind of behaviour were not imagining it.
    As far as Mitchell, is concerned, he is nit picking, he admits that he swore at this officer, he could have been charged he is lucky he was,nt, you and I probably would have been. If he used the word, "Pleb," who cares? Only David Cameron, it seems. And my view is that ,that is who Mitchell and his cohoots are really after.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    As far as Mitchell, is concerned, he is nit picking, he admits that he swore at this officer, he could have been charged he is lucky he was,nt, you and I probably would have been. If he used the word, "Pleb," who cares? Only David Cameron, it seems.
    I don't particularly like Mitchell, and regard him as a liability to the Tories, but at the end of the day the guy lost his job because he allegedly used the word "pleb". Hardly nit picking. I can't help wondering if you and Eatmy would have a different attitude if it was a Labour politician who had been allegedly smeared by the police?

  7. #67
    Super Moderator eatmywords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kingston upon Hull
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    I thought I was defending Mitchell in the fact there is nothing to this palava. Whether the word was said or not, and apology should have been sufficient.
    Faced with certain disaster, defiance is the only answer.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northumbrian View Post
    I don't particularly like Mitchell, and regard him as a liability to the Tories, but at the end of the day the guy lost his job because he allegedly used the word "pleb". Hardly nit picking. I can't help wondering if you and Eatmy would have a different attitude if it was a Labour politician who had been allegedly smeared by the police?
    Yes he lost his job. So who sacked him? David Cameron. Why did he sack him? The answer should be because he swore at a police officer, that was an offence in law, foul and abusive language. Pleb! Just a newspaper headliner. All the same watch out Cameron.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •