articles 2, 3, 10 & 11 and thats the thing...Sure he was drunk, sure he was antagonistic, but he was safe until the police assaulted him. And the reason they assaulted him was for no other reason than his (legal) antics pissed them off
Article 2 is the right to life, the guys right to life was not being deprived by standing in front of an emergency services vehicle, infact it almost something you would do to end it. Article 3 is the prohibitation of torture, he wasn't tortured which again dosn't allow you to stand in the way of a moving emergency vehicle. Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression but carries with it responsibilites to keep it lawful, standing in front of an emergency vehicle is not lawful. Article 11 is the right to freedom of assembly and association, again there is the condition that is it lawful, democratic and does not endanger public safety, standing in front of an emergency vehicle means by moving him your not contravening his human rights. Please understand the articles of the human rights act and it does not allow you to do what you want when you want before you bring it up.
Did you read my post? I apologise as it was quite long but if your going to trying and claim I was wrong, please show you actually read what was written - Instead of reading the first line and jumping to a conclusion. Me being in the wrong is questionable, We blocked them in to make a statement and raise the issue because we werent standing for the bullying any more. If I were in the wrong, I would have been arrested but quite the opposite happened - I had them apologising to us for the inconvience; can anyone say "Abuse of power" And they damn well knew it. @ Nexxo I respect your opinions Nexxo but I must disagree with you on this. My concern is nexxo, that if we cant even protest without fear of getting attacked - how are we in a democracy? The government trying to silence Damien Green over the leaks on their failings by having the police arrest him, the government and their expenses issue (granted its from all party's, they are all just as bad) and now the Met police blatently trying to cover this manslaughter. Peoples right to protest should always be allowed, the police shouldnt aggrivate the situation and as mentioned - If he was such a problem for the police, he could easily have been arrested. I just cant fathom how pushing someone from behind that hard is justifyable. Never mind the cover up. ? Were not asking for detailed reports of every crowd person they encountered - We are asking for the one where something serious actually happened - I for one remember people quite well and I would think with all those policemen there, at least one single person would remember him - Hell attack victims can pick people out of a lineup at the police station just fine despite seeing them for seconds - Yet trained police officers cant remember a man they saw get knocked to the ground and then have a heart attack a few moments later? Not a single officer recalled it?... I dont understand how anyone could say that not a single officer would have realised its the same chap that had a heart attack - So why did they claim not to have any confrontations with him then? That was a blatent lie then I take it? Then the defense becomes "oh how can we remember everyone we were in contact with" - So im guessing their claim of not having contact was simply a automated responce to the inquiry without fully knowing? Which then shows their lack of credibility...
Big ****ing deal Nexxo, he didn't deserve being smacked, end of, it's not an excuse to smack someone with a bloody baton, if he stopped that van 30 times at the protest he still didn't deserve the smack and push, and he was also drunk on his way home, and when you are pissed, you don't think straight (you already know this), and everything is a bit of a "what is happening?", I'm sure being pissed and having 30 coppers behind you is something we will never, ever, know the feeling of. If he was such a bloody problem, it would take one or two coppers with riot gear to cuff him up and put him in the back of the police van, and they should of done this anyway because he wasn't a part of the riot. Actually, they should of let him go home his usual way, but police like being dicks sometimes. Stop protecting the police in this incident, please, you are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make sense, and so many people are disagreeing with you.
Agreed, but then again...the incident with the emergency vehicle isn't the incident in question here, is it? It was the incident where he was attacked while observing those rights.... If he was involved in an incident with an emergency vehicle that endangered public safety 5 minutes prior then he should have been arrested - then maybe he wouldn't have died. So no matter how you look at it - The police didn't do their job.
Any dead person becomes a martyr however simply due to their martyr status this doesn't mean their "martyrdom" is anyless true than someone who didnt die from their action. You concede innocent people were assaulted during the protest, Tomlinson couldn't be more innocent, he was a by-passer in the protests who acted in the most human way imaginable to someone saying "no you can't walk home". Should he have blocked a police van? Of course not however he was drunk and irritated at the entire situation, the police have no right, none whatsoever, to meet his very acceptable passive annoyance with a heightened level of aggression, this heightened level which directly caused the man's death. edit: And as mentioned above, the assault on him have absolutely nothing to do with blocking a police van, the incident truely has to be viewed as unrelated
Just to point something out with out going to far off subject why does everyone keep harping on that we live in a democracy. We don't if you like it or not theres a reason we are named as subjects and not citizens. We live in a Monarchy.
Actually we're a constitutional monarchy slightly different as we have an elected government. Is anybody here old enough to remember the miners strike? The first time that the police were issued with riot gear? The mass transport of police to control the miners and the violence that ensued? An acquaintance of mine is a retired police officer, he loved the miners strike, got lots of extra pay and got "have a go" his words not mine. Now there was a lot of provocation from the miners and a hell of a lot of people were hurt, including the ambulance men trying to get the injured away. Everybody was fair game. Because of these events, and a few others in the 80's, the way police were told to react to "protest and confrontation" was changed. What I'm trying to get to is the G20 protests were a completely different beast, Tomlinson, if he was drunk and belligerent, he could simply have been arrested and hauled off to the cells. The officers response was disproportionate given the nature of the protests. There were sufficient officers around to subdue, restrain and remove him without anybody receiving anything more than cuts and scrapes. Like all officers in the UK the Met officers swear and oath As far as I can see the officer failed in his obligations and assaulted a man that because of said assault died. Every time we go through something like this the police are forced to (re)learn that they are guardians of the law and not above it and that they are ordinary people and must be responsible for their actions.
I remember the miners strikes very well, and I remember the police steaming into crowds where there were women and children present, swinging truncheons willy nilly, and sometimes even goading the miners. I come from Doncaster, and some of the villages in my town were hit hard by the pit closures. South Yorkshire Police earned a shameful reputation during the strikes, as one of the most vicious forces in the UK. There have been quite a few documentarys on the subject since the events and many ex police officers have gone on record stating that they were practically given carte blanche to 'deal' with the miners and protesters however they wanted. The message from up above was that the gloves were off, and they were to strike hard, first and fast. Even now after so many years there are people who still have grudges with the police because of what happened during the strikes. I for one don't blame them either, after seeing first hand what the police were capable of during those times.
Oh come on not this old police state line, yes I'm not happy with some of the current laws and the ways they are enforced, but we're far, far, far from a police state and that'll change now that the medias perception of the police has changed. During the miners strike they used to hold back football supporters in car parks for 2-3 hours and pull people over going to football games and question them to see if they were joining pickets as it happend with my dad a few times. Its just now general public opinion and the public opnion of the middle classes has changed since the Poll tax riots because that was there first contact with the police in a demonstration, before that it was all lower and working classes. I genuinely believe politicians had nothing to do with Damien Green it was over enthusiastic civil servants, trying to please the powers that be and not being politically savy enough to see the consequences. Same could be said in the US where in recent notes about NSA observation of communications, one person asked to bug a congressman while on a trip to the middle east which was rightly declined once his supperiors heard of it. Most people are not politically savy enough to spot things like that and thats when things take place. Its just the odd over zealous policeman who asks people to delete photos from there cameras that makes the news and the reason for that is, its the exception rather than the rule. So in the middle of a large scale protest being asked to police thousands of people, moving from location to location, multiple incidents, constant orders, you expect him to remember where he was at that time exactly, what he was doing and every face he saw. You mention you'd remember an attackers face from seeing them for a few seconds, thats one person who your mind would be concentrating on, with no other incidents seen during the day, not in the conditions the officer was working in. How do we know what he was asked after the protest? Was he shown a new photo of the man? An old photo? Did he just get the mans name? Lets see what the investigation says shall we, this to me doesn't smell of a cover up. Sorry but your whole argument makes no sense, you want to take the approach of Judge Dredd, police, judge and executioner, theres an independent investigation going on, lets wait to see the results of it shall we. If he did stand in front of the van then imo he did deserve a smack or a push, just when he was right in front of the van not later, I dont care if he was drunk or not hes responsible for his actions, I hate it when I see drunk people on nights out standing in front of emergency vehicles being plebs. From what we know there was multiple incidents and encounters, when there is police usually lose patience, which they have a right to if someone continues not to follow orders. btw he was hit on the leg with a baton and pushed, he had abdominal heamoraging lets see what the results of the investigation are before any of us jump to conclusions, because as much as we'd like to think we know, we don't know it all. Next you'll be saying Nicola Fisher didn't deserve a smack, I personally can't see why that officer has been suspended, he was surrounded at the time with protesters behind and in front of him, she was shouting foul and abusive language at the police which has been confirmed by people who were stood near her, goading them which I've seen in other videos then sells her story to the Daily Fail. Nexxo was saying where in the human rights act does it say he could, funnily enough Nexxo was right because it doesn't say you can. I'm sure the police had better things to do, but even when he was hit, it didn't contravene any of the articles you raised, he wasn't beaten to death, he wasn't tortured, he wasn't expressing anything other than he was drunk and was being asked to move on and finally police have a duty to protecting property and theres 2 ways to do that kettling, which I dont agree with or snatch squads and while kettling is bad, snatch squads are much worse. All people see when snatch squads are used are groups of police in riot gear forcing there way through crowds and grabbing what others around them may consider innocent people because they haven't seen the activities the person being taken away was engaged in, which leads to trouble and voilence when the crowd turns on the police. The police were allowing assembly but trying to control it in a manor which wouldn't cause public disorder. Well it shows a continued ignorance of police orders after being asked multiple times to move, as such I'd say they constitute the same incident continued over a period of time. Same as I would class a drunk guy getting chucked out of a pub then 5 mins later being arrested while shouting abuse after being told to go home. Well we have a monarchy purely for ceremonial processes, they have no impact on the democratic processes of elections or policy decision making processes. Don't remember the miners strike myself but was told alot by my dad and other relatives some invovled and the G20 is no where near as bad, used to get cockney met officers coming up in vans holding £10 and £20 notes on windows shouting you cant feed you kids, then they'd get out and batter everyone just for a laugh. I mean lets face it alot worse went on and was alot more widespread but you never heard of it, not like the miners were innocent attacking picket breakers. The reason why its in the news is because it simply doesn't happen anymore which is right, I'm not condoning the officer for hitting the man as imo he shouldn't have but lets just wait and see what happens from the investigation shall we before we jump to conclusions. Sorry for the massive post, but do I win for longest post with quotes in this thread? lol
Well according to that technicially I can mug, stab or murder any tourist I like because the oath the officer swears is to protect the persons and properties of her Majesty's subjects. Seeing as tourist's are not her Majesty's subjects they are not protected and are fair game or am I reading it wrong?
Not quite, if you look in the front of a passport it asks that the country being visited to extend the same protection to the visitors that it extends to it's own people, obviously depending on how that country treats its own!
Blocking an emergency vehicle out of drunken belligerence is not a protest. He collapsed a few minutes later. There's a difference. Drunkeness does not mitigate misbehaviour. That's why drunken drivers still get arrested for driving offences. Oh, and: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" --Anatole France Well, actually he could have. He could have not blocked the van. I'm not sure about that. It defined his mindset. He had one run-in with the police, which predisposed him to the next one where he was hit. Any sensible human being then steers clear but he did not. I'm tired of arguing this. I'm trying to point out that if one person to be fully responsible for his actions, then so is the other for his. If the officer is 100% culpable for hitting Tomlinson, then Tomlinson is 100% culpable for blocking a police van and the ensuing confrontation with the police. A bit later, having had two altercations with the police already, he is perhaps just a little bit responsible for putting himself at risk for sauntering within striking range of a marching police cordon on a volatile scene. That does not exonorate the police officer from manslaughter (if that is what the evidence proves), but it does not fully exonorate him either.
Meh, there is no point in having debates on the net anymore, seriously, there isn't. It's Einstein vs Einstein vs Einstein vs Einstein.... Just state your opinion, then leave it, whatever someone thinks is not going to change by someone elses opinion, so it's pointless writing up pages of stuff because it's not going to change a single thing. State opinon -> Kthxbye
So it would appear that everyone agrees that the officer invovled in this incident is at fault - He didn't use reasonable force. The only thing in question seems to be whether or not the attack was provoked, and understandable given the circumstances. Honestly I think it's a moot discussion because the question at it's heart is - Is it ok for a policeman to have a natural, understandable and very human reaction to a volatile situation? I believe the answer is "No". The law is cold and impersonal. It has to be; The law cannot be privy to tempremental emotions otherwise it wouldn't be fair and impartial. By extension the enforcers of the law must also be held to these (arguably impossible) standards...because the law is only as good as it's practical enforcement. On one side, I can see the logic of playing an impartial and mediative role between two people caught up in a situation such as this....but this isn't a situation between two people - It is between one person and a construct (the law). It must be considered as such because if it isn't then the law has no meaning, as it as only as good as the individual enforcing it. If you begin to consider "the law" to be no more than the emotions of the individual acting on its behalf then it's simply no more than anarchy.
I fully agree, but that is not the question at heart. The question at heart is: if a man knowingly puts himself in a situation where he risks becoming the victim of unreasonable force, is he partially responsible?
