Jon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Wasn't Tomlinson (albeit boozed up) just trying to get home? I read that the route he was on was his usual one he took every day after work, but he kept having to double-back on himself due to the police cordons. Plus according to the footage he was walking away from the officers and was posing no threat/resistance whatsoever when Harwood cracked him in the back. Also, Harwood had a track-record of misconduct including a previous incident where he quit the Met before a case for unnecessary force was brought against him (he was on leave and repeatedly tried to arrest another driver he was involved in an accident with). How Harwood then managed to get back into the Met is beyond me, surely they have a vetting process of some kind? 'Zackly. The old "he must've been doing something wrong for them to give him a beating" just doesn't ring true in this instance (and possibly others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 He was repeatedly asked to move away, why he was there in the first place God only knows. Why was he squaring up and arguing with the police who were trying to do a job? He had no business being there in my opinion. As i say, if you dont want trouble, dont go looking for it ie. stay the **** at home. So in answer to your question...yes. Mr. Tomlinson had no reason to be there in the first place. Im not happy with the outcome of what took place that day as its not nice to hear about anyone losing their life, but lets call a spade a spade for a second, he was pissed up interfering with police business of why he had no reason to be there. The police were trying to do a job and he was hindering their progress. A tragic accident imo. **** hell, I've read some misinformed shite in my time, but that takes the prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Wasn't Tomlinson (albeit boozed up) just trying to get home? I read that the route he was on was his usual one he took every day after work, but he kept having to double-back on himself due to the police cordons. Plus according to the footage he was walking away from the officers and was posing no threat/resistance whatsoever when Harwood cracked him in the back. Also, Harwood had a track-record of misconduct including a previous incident where he quit the Met before a case for unnecessary force was brought against him (he was on leave and repeatedly tried to arrest another driver he was involved in an accident with). How Harwood then managed to get back into the Met is beyond me, surely they have a vetting process of some kind? 'Zackly. The old "he must've been doing something wrong for them to give him a beating" just doesn't ring true in this instance (and possibly others). Fair enough lads, i was not in posession of the entire facts and i hold my hands up, im big enough and good looking enough to admit that on this occassion i was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enough Wiggy, big of you to do so, but it's not exactly hard to find out the truth. A quick Google search would have brought up the video and all the facts of the case. Anyway, Harwood's manslaughter charge is due to be heard at the Old Bailey in June next year. Hope he goes down for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enough Wiggy, big of you to do so, but it's not exactly hard to find out the truth. A quick Google search would have brought up the video and all the facts of the case. Im at work, what makes you think ive got time to trawl the interweb looking for videos and facts?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunther Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if they're travellers, why don't they go and travel? If you want to live in a bungalow, just buy a bungalow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if they're travellers, why don't they go and travel? If you want to live in a bungalow, just buy a bungalow. Yeah but wouldn't you need to pay taxes and not steal stuff for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if they're travellers, why don't they go and travel? If you want to live in a bungalow, just buy a bungalow. The point is they are trying to live as a community. If they wanted to live as individual households, whether buying a bungalow or moving round in a campervan, it would be simpler. Moving as a community is pretty difficult when there's a shortage of sites, and opposition to new sites being provided. The leader of Basildon council has claimed there's several other places available for them, but he seems to have failed to tell them where these sites are, as was shown on the news last night. I don't think "traveller" is meant to suggest they want to be in perpetual motion. It's more about moving to look for work (getting on their bikes), and moving between culturally important events like horse fairs. But the casual farm work of previous years is less and less available, and some other traditional forms of work like tinkering have died out. It seems to make sense to buy land to live on, as that gives them more control over their own circumstances and makes them less dependent on councils being willing to provide sites. I don't think that implies they want to live in one place forever, which is perhaps why they are renting part of this owned land. It would probably make sense to look at co-operative land ownership as well. Planning permission will always be a problem, though. 90% of their applications are turned down, compared to 20% of all applications. Other people might succeed in building without planning permission and managing to stay there, for example the local neighbour who is their most vociferous opponent, Mr Len Gridley. His property was developed against planning regulations (including, ironically, siting a residential caravan on green belt land), but enforcement orders were never carried out. I wonder just where people think they should go? Or perhaps they think we should not tolerate people who want to have a way of life different to living in a semi with a mortgage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 It would have been easier if we just sent Gene Hunt in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The travellers (or some of them) have been offered houses by the council in question. That's a fact, I heard an interview with one of the women type things that live there with the local councillor confirming this as true. Her reply was iirc.... "I don't want a house, I want to be able to go where I like and live how I like, when I like" was the basic thrust of her argument. That's fine but the rest of the world don't want to live by them so something has to give. They even turned down a free house effectively stolen from local tax payers who probably deserve it more than them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The problem is they don't do themselves any favours. They have turned down other sites, they have turned down homes. I was listening to 5Live yesterday as they interviewed a traveller who said that her friend Nora had been "beaten" by the Police, was "brutalised" and had "no face left". When the reporter then spoke to Nora, she said that she'd fallen over. I have no problem with them living the lifestyle they want but it MUST be within the bounds of the law, and unfortuantely, this site wasn't. It was not racism or ethnic cleansing (Is "Irish" an ethnic group anyway?) but pure and simple planning enforcement against a group of people who refused to co-operate. If I build a house without planning consent, and then refuse to demolish it if required to do so, I also would expect the Council to do it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enough Wiggy, big of you to do so, but it's not exactly hard to find out the truth. A quick Google search would have brought up the video and all the facts of the case. Anyway, Harwood's manslaughter charge is due to be heard at the Old Bailey in June next year. Hope he goes down for a long time. As a serving plod it would be great if he got 5-7 years, more if it all goes well. Stick the obvious hard man in a proper prison also as a known plod, he will be amazed at just how often people fall over going about their daily business. In reality a Tory government that can give a rioter a few years in prison for nicking a ipod will give a serving plod a couple of years max for killing a normal defenceless person, we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 So do you accept that police should be allowed to use moderate force (pushing & shoving) when required? ie. people who are being asked to move along be refuse to. The police (or anyone else for that matter) should be (and are) allowed to use appropriate, reasonable force in self-defence, lawful arrest, prevention of a crime and so on. Also, if the police do shove Frank the pisshead out of the way, and he keels over and pegs it, your saying that the police should be held responsible even tho they had no idea about his underlying heart complaint? The police and Frank should be held accountable and be responsible for their own actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zak Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The problem is they don't do themselves any favours. They have turned down other sites, they have turned down homes. I was listening to 5Live yesterday as they interviewed a traveller who said that her friend Nora had been "beaten" by the Police, was "brutalised" and had "no face left". When the reporter then spoke to Nora, she said that she'd fallen over. I have no problem with them living the lifestyle they want but it MUST be within the bounds of the law, and unfortuantely, this site wasn't. It was not racism or ethnic cleansing (Is "Irish" an ethnic group anyway?) but pure and simple planning enforcement against a group of people who refused to co-operate. If I build a house without planning consent, and then refuse to demolish it if required to do so, I also would expect the Council to do it for me. I think if anyone was talking about ethnic cleansing or racism it would be reffering "Travellers" and not "Irish" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The problem is they don't do themselves any favours. They have turned down other sites, they have turned down homes. I was listening to 5Live yesterday as they interviewed a traveller who said that her friend Nora had been "beaten" by the Police, was "brutalised" and had "no face left". When the reporter then spoke to Nora, she said that she'd fallen over. I have no problem with them living the lifestyle they want but it MUST be within the bounds of the law, and unfortuantely, this site wasn't. It was not racism or ethnic cleansing (Is "Irish" an ethnic group anyway?) but pure and simple planning enforcement against a group of people who refused to co-operate. If I build a house without planning consent, and then refuse to demolish it if required to do so, I also would expect the Council to do it for me. I think if anyone was talking about ethnic cleansing or racism it would be reffering "Travellers" and not "Irish" But since when did "Travellers" become a separate ethnic group? They are all caucasian surely? I understand the difference between with Roma gypsys but this is not the case here is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 Freeloading theiving bastards who do not pay towards the local services for where they live. I say the same for the rest of the immigrants that come over to the UK with the intention of getting what they can for **** all. They are all the same abusing a system that allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 20, 2011 I wince a little when the term 'ethnic cleansing' comes out in reference to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 But since when did "Travellers" become a separate ethnic group? 2000 - I think that was when the judgement was made that Irish travellers were one according to the Race Relations Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 get channel 4 to buy a site and make it one big reality tv show. sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 20, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted October 20, 2011 But since when did "Travellers" become a separate ethnic group? 2000 - I think that was when the judgement was made that Irish travellers were one according to the Race Relations Act.This is where I draw the line. They ain't. It's a lifestyle choice, not a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts