General Chat

Until people have actually found themselves in a potentially life or death situation, under direct attack, and with a threat to the safety of others,, and YOU are the person who has to stand and protect others or defend yourself... then I do wish they wouldn't set themselves up as judge jury and executioner!!

I once had to snarl (yes, seriously) at a young person who was ambling obliviously and just not hearing my cries for him to stay put, and into the direct path of another young person hell bent on hurting someone, anyone would do!! I actually hurled the *innocent* forcibly to the floor and rolled him out of the way, before going to redirect the angry young man. I was quite badly injured myself.

To an onlooker, it might have looked totally different and altogether more sinister, I know that... as it happens, the parents of both youngsters were there, and witnessed the events, so knew exactly what had happened.

Actually, I have met many policemen, and one or two have been bad eggs.... but the vast majority have been highly dedicated and compassionate, caring people.

Just try waliking a mile in their shoes... most of us will be back to comfy slippers within inches, we wouldn't manage a mile!

With regard to snarling -a life and possibly death situation excuses many things. It wasn't a play-acting scenario and he had shot one PC already and had threatened to shoot others.

Re London - I have reservations on what the man was really doing there in the first place. The PC involved should have been charged with assault but on the face of the pictures there is no way he could have been convicted of manslaughter.

Happy days

It says in my "indie" today that the officer in the Tomlinson case had left the police after being investigated for a road rage incident and then rejoined. Maybe he should no have been allowed back in.
I understand that the officer filmed hitting the young lady in an unprovoked attack around the same time has also had charges dropped.

if indeed the policeman WAS 'snarling' , after all I am sure most of us have photos showing expressions that just weren't what they appear to be? ( I've just looked at the photo of the 'snarling' btw...he has exactly the same 'mouth expression' as the young actor on Eastenders last night... who was not snarling)

To me he was concentrating, possibly giving out an order through clenched teeth , I mean, he was doubtless wet through, crouched in an uncomfortable position, waiting for a madman with a gun to make a move. ... but tbh I read into it nothing... other than the usual attempt by the media to 'prove a point' to their own ends.

Maybe a look at this photo might remind people WHY that officer MIGHT have been "snarling" anyway...Its not that I don't have any sympathy for Moat, I did and do.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/pictures/photos-10377/pictures-raoul-moat-manhunt/1

However I agree that the policeman in the Tomlinson case should be charged with assault.

Regarding the taser case. It could very well be that he was snarling for the photographers to get out of the way. Perhaps they weren't meant to be there, perhaps they were in danger of being shot or hindering negotiations? I thought the photo shouldn't have been shown anyway as puts that particular officer in danger and all those with him. It's very easy to judge when the newspapers are manipulating us by being very selective and not explaining the context.

One rule for us and another for the law... And they wonder why we have no respect for them.

Yes Liz I saw that picture ... disgusting creature I wouldn't trust him.

Gill

Hi Elizabeth

If this had happened to a member of my family, I would be livid that the policeman who did the pushing etc wasn't charged with assault, at the very least. It's a disgrace that he can continue to be employed and get away with such a blatant attack on someone who was not doing wrong. If it had happened the opposite way round and someone had shoved a policeman to the ground and then he was found collapsed a little while later, that person would be hounded by the police and charged with everything under the sun.
As often happens, one rule for public, one rule for police.

It must be so hard for Ian Tomlinson's family to cope with this news.

I have known several members of the Police force over the years and some of them aren't fit to be in uniform, they are just thugs and bullies.
I would always support the Police if I felt they were doing their job properly, but this kind of thing gets my goat.
Did others notice the snarl on the face of one of those aiming at the chap Raoul Moat just before he took his life? After the first few pictures were shown, it was made fuzzy so you couldn't see the expression.

Lizx

Edited, I forgot to say I have also known some darn good cops.

Dear All

Hello

A police officer who was filmed pushing a man to the ground during the G20 protests will not face charges over his death.

Ian Tomlinson, 47, died after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April 2009 in the City of London.

Mr Tomlinson, a newspaper seller who was not involved in the protests, was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration.


Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no prospect of conviction because experts could not agree on how Mr Tomlinson died.

Mr Tomlinson's son Paul King described the decision as "outrageous".

The officer who was filmed pushing Mr Tomlinson has been named as Pc Simon Harwood from the Metropolitan Police territorial support group.

Mr Starmer said there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.

The video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and then pushed to the ground.

He was seen moving away after the incident but was found collapsed 100 metres away in Cornhill.

Setting out the details of the decision, Mr Starmer said: "After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the CPS (the Crown Prosecution Service) has decided that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him.

YET AGAIN., NO JUSTICE.
WHY NOT?

Take gentle care
Very best wishes
xx