London SE1 community website

Anti-capitalism demo

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 7 of 15
Wednesday 8 April 2009 8.47am
Sorry ADT, I can see my statement was ambiguous and you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

It should be understood as:

In order for the police officer to be held liable, a causal link between the police officer's action and the heart attack must be demonstrated.

I didn't mean to imply that there was in fact a causal link. Actually, I would have thought that this would be extremely difficult to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A civil action might be more successful.
Wednesday 8 April 2009 8.53am
Zoe wrote:
markadams99 wrote:
Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers.

What nonsense are you talking about?
There's a difference in method here. One makes a reasoned, civil comment and gets back an irrational reply along the lines of 'fascist' or 'What nonsense are you talking about?', that's it. To which I might reply 'What nonsense are you talking about, have you been living abroad?' or ' Here's the images from the demo's, now retract your invective.' But those who vent their spleen in lieu of reason aren't likely to revert to civility or reason, so the incentive to reason with them is weak. Too bad for discussion.
ADT
Wednesday 8 April 2009 11.41am
James Johnston wrote:
Sorry ADT, I can see my statement was ambiguous and you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

I did misunderstand - thanks for clarifying. As you might have guessed, I agree a causal link would be difficult to show. The media and the Lib Dems seem to be coming to conclusions that are a little hard to justify based on the short and shaky video footage. I have a feeling that the poor man's death is going to be exploited by various parties for their own ends.

I really don't think these protests achieved anything positive.
Wednesday 8 April 2009 12.10pm
In what sense is "Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers" a "reasoned, civil comment"? To begin with, it is not a comment, but a wish. Additionally, it is couched in language scarcely less emotive than that of the response "What nonsense are you talking about?"

On a different note, I have to concur with ADT's "I really don't think these protests achieved anything positive."
Zoe
Wednesday 8 April 2009 12.49pm
I don't think I was being emotive, what nonsense is he talking about?
Wednesday 8 April 2009 2.04pm
longlaner wrote:
In what sense is "Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers" a "reasoned, civil comment"? To begin with, it is not a comment, but a wish. Additionally, it is couched in language scarcely less emotive than that of the response "What nonsense are you talking about?"
Then our differences extend to reading comprehension. That's all.
Wednesday 8 April 2009 2.43pm
Assuming Zoe's question to be genuine, is this what is being referred to:?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/two-arrested-army-protest-luton
Zoe
Wednesday 8 April 2009 7.46pm
Thanks Andy, though it doesn't seem to be about the same thing, I can't really see the link, maybe it's a reading comprehension issue :-)
Wednesday 8 April 2009 7.50pm
There is a principle in English law known as the egg shell skull rule, that is you must take your victim as you find him, on this basis I certainly think there is the potential to charge the uniformed thug who attacked Mr Tomlinson with manslaughter (see para A1.26 of Blackstone's Criminal Practice for those who doubt me). Aside from this he certainly appears to have been the subject of a brutal and completely unprovoked assault. Unfortunately this is normal procedure for the sadists and bullies of the modern Met.

Other than those with a vested interest and the terminally deluded and gullible is there anyone with half a brain that doesn't recognise that we are living in a police state where the police are inevitably a bunch of thugs?

Maybe I'm being a bit intemperate, but seeing those we allegedly pay to protect us brutalise and kill my fellow citizens, then lie about and no doubt eventually get away with it really does upset me.
Wednesday 8 April 2009 7.54pm
Yes, AndyABC. It's not clear whether the 'nonsense' in Zoe's mind is the wish that the police should show the same assertiveness in that case or the proposition that placards calling British soldiers terrorists and butchers is incitement to murder in the context of actual plots to murder British soldiers and placards at related demo's like 'behead those who insult Islam' and so on. Those demonstrations are handled with kid gloves despite being obvious breaches of the law. Zoe's riposte is opaque as well as uncivil, so it's hard to know what's bugging her.

As an aside threads like this are usually roped off in 'Chatter'.
Current: 7 of 15

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions