'The thug in police uniform'. (Daily Mail today)

Ameliaanne didn't actually threaten never to post on Gransnet again. She just said she would not be rushing to post on here again in a hurry. I hold no truck with her views on the subject of this thread, but I do think that certain posts could have been construed as confrontational.

Anagram - do you not think she knew quite well that her support of Harwood would cause a strong reaction?

She may have been driven by motives we know nothing about - maybe she wasn't considering our reaction.

Please folks! All calm down!!

When riots happen, it's a riot!
Common sense departs on all sides!

Ok. I personally think the previous record should have been considered, but that was a matter of judgement for the judge!

Since I'm posting this late. I think it won't be read!

Everybody is entitled to their view!

I do want to give heartfelt wellcome to our newcomers and assure them that this is not the usual wellcome we give!

Join us and enjoy!

I think Greatnan and I were perfectly calm, jeni!
I do appreciate your sentiments, though.

Please don't apologise on my behalf, jeni - I feel perfectly calm and stand by everything I have said. It is not unwelcoming to disagree strongly with a point of view. And, of course, I had no way of knowing the posters with whom I disagreed were new members.

I suspect I have come into this too late, but I had hoped that our police force, like our armed forces were professional people who do the job set. Yes there is vioence at demos/riots and no-one is suggesting the the forces of law should allow themselves to be sitting ducks, but their training must include identifying the rent-a-mob thugs, not losing self-control and hitting out at "soft" targets. In this case there is clear evidence that the officer was in the wrong. Whether Mr Tomlinson died as a direct result of his being pushed violently and beaten would appear likely, but I am assuming that is the grey area which has led to an acquittal. Any innocent bystander could get caught up in a similar situation and where would we be in similar circumstances?
Wellington was said once to comment at the sight of the British army, "I don't know what they'll do to the enemy, but by God, they frighten me".
That is not the police force I want or deserve.
I know the police are only human, but they are also in a privileged position and charged with keeping law and order - not taking the law into their own hands.

Having looked back at all these posts I am puzzled as to why two people who have a similar opinion and happen to post within minutes of each other should have their actions regarded as strangely coincidental? It happens all the time!!!

Just caught up on this heated thread. I am not in favour of trial by journalist. Our justice system does not always convict. it is set up to only convict when the jury is not in doubt. There may well have been doubt here - the original pathology report was mishandled wasn't it. And maybe the DPP brought the wrong charge - to prove murder in court is not easy. And then there is the tricky issue of cause of death. If someone has, say, a badly blocked coronary artery, right at the limit, with a nice little clot forming ready to break loose and block it and then I jump out from behind a bush, frighten them and they have fatal heart attack - have I murdered them?
The idea of not bringing in "previous" as evidence was designed to make trials fairer - if someone is presented to the jury as a "known burglar" for instance, will their judgement be unimpaired - of course not.
I am no apologist for the police. I have been in a demonstration where they forced us against a wall , linked arms and kept pushing, and then later picked on individuals at random with some violence and charged them with assaulting the police. They have improved since then, a lot, but they are not perfect and still have things to learn about crowds and riots. But jeni while rioters do "lose it" police are paid and trained not to. There is no place for "red mists" in the police force.
Should the officer involved have been sacked via the police disciplinary route - almost certainly. But anyone who has ever sat on a disciplinary panel, knowing that if you dismiss then it is the end of a career, will know it is not easy. I have done it twice - as a governor and dismissed both times. Harder when you are a colleague I am sure. So there is an argument for serious police disciplinaries to be done by non-police maybe.
Should the relatives let it rest, now that they have had their trial. Yes. Action in civil court can now only have one aim and 'compensation' in my mind should only be paid when children have been deprived of a parent and need money for their upbringing.

I think sometimes people post on GN without realising how much the way they say things can sound patronising or upsetting. I choose to assume that this is not intended although sometimes it certainly feels as if it is.

I felt it when, as a new GN, I posted something which was not the popular opinion but I found the strength to keep going because I had so many PMs supporting me so I do understand how a new poster might feel.

Coincidence that they are talking about bullying on the radio right now!

We all need to be a bit more careful online as you are missing the non verbal elements of communication. "go for the ball, not the player" is a good rule in debate.

The more I think about it the more unfair it gets, given that the man who died was judged personally whereas the policeman was a blank canvas as far as the jury were concerned. Also, as my partner pointed out, the whole thing would have been brushed under the carpet if someone hadn't've taken a photo at that moment. To the defence of the police [but not this particular policeman and not wishing to go into any detail] the things they see on a regular basis would possibly tip a lot of us over the edge if we witnessed just one such incident in our lives. But that is irrelevant in this case.

Is it possible to disagree with any post without being accused of bullying? If you post something which is bound to be controversial, surely you should expect some disagreement.

I think the problem, greatnan, is that very few people have been trained (or have trained themselves) or have much practice in robust argument. Even with that, it's easy, with only print and no facial expressions in front of you, to get the wrong (or a mistaken) impression.

Yes, you are quite right, bags.

But some people are irritated/angry/confrontative when they post and it comes across. Surely that's a good thing, otherwise we might become what someone (deserving I think) referred to as 'little old ladies all agreeing with each other.

JessM There certainly is a case for a truly independent disciplinary panel for the police and, for that matter, a truly independent way of dealing with complaints. The police always back each other up. Following the incident with Mr Tomlinson, they reported that they tried to get to him to help after he collapsed but were prevented by rioting protesters who also made it difficult for an ambulance to get through. The video evidence shows this to be a complete fabrication. This whole affair is deeply distressing and worrying. I, for one, have been saying for a long time that the Met has got too big for its boots and this is just one more example.

But Bags and Greatnan if you are aware of so many people not being trained or practised in robust argument wouldn't it be kinder to be a little more gentle? Empathy is a good thing surely? I do try to ensure I have softened some of my stronger feelings and know I am not alone in this.

Indeed, Alison. That's what I was trying to say. Badly, it would seem.

As Jess so rightly said, go for the ball, not the player. I hope I have never descended into using 'ad hominem' strategies. I may disagree profoundly with what somebody says, but I don't think I have ever been personally insulting about a member.
I don't actually get genuinely angry or upset about anything anybody posts on any forum - I do get very angry about such things as corruption or police brutality. Some of this righteous indignation might come out if another poster appears to be supporting or denying such abuse, but that does not mean that I don't think they are entitled to hold that opinion - just that I think they are wrong and I am happy to give my reasons!
In the past I have been called 'a loonie leftie', 'a dogooder', 'a Guardian reader' - to all of which I plead guilty, except the 'loonie' bit. I used to be a Socialist, but of course that option is no longer open as Blair destroyed the party. I do not admit to being either a bully or patronising.

I agree, absent and jess, that a disciplinary board to deal with complaints about police should be completely separate from the police force itself. I've felt this for a long time. Internal investigations cannot be fair.

All this "Let's be nice to each other and good friends" is getting on my nerves. Of course, I am not advocating discourtesy or abuse, but could we get back to the subject under discussion?

Heavens forbid

That was in teonse to an earlier post about being nice old ladies! I got distracted by dgd insisting square pegs went in round holes!

It's in my nature to try to be "nice" to others. Too long in the tooth to try to change. Hey ho!!!