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

I did raise that point myself earlier on this thread, nannym, and I'll repeat it here:
She may have been driven by motives we know nothing about - maybe she wasn't considering our reaction.

But how can you tell if someone is being deliberately controversial? Just because their point of view is the opposite of yours doesn't mean that it's not an honestly held opinion.

pammygran this personal attack is totally unfair and uncalled for, surely.
As said, this is a public Forum and we all have to learn to disagree without descending to 'attacks' of this kind. How sad.

On another Forum I was castigated for saying that it was not appropriate for several policemen to kick to the ground a young man after the police asked him to stop and get off his bike, which he did, without any threats. He was repeatedly kicked by several policemen when in the ground, and this was filmed by someone and put on u-tube.

I have great respect for the police, especially in the UK where they are normally unarmed and trained in diffusing, rather than enflaming, potentially difficult situations. To actually side with the policeman in this tragic case is very harmful to the police- who are generally excellent. Bad apples should be clearly condemned to protect the great majority of good ones.

I do wish that if someone wants to insult me they would have the courage to come out and say it. I prefer pammygran's blatant rudeness and breach of forum etiquette to snide remarks which are obviously aimed at me. (Now I will get 'If the cap fits....')
I could not have been so successful in my teaching career had I not been a 'nice' person and plenty of members here know that I have frequently shown empathy when they talked about their problems. And as for not having problems of my own.............. However, if somebody says something that is clearly meant to be controversial I really don't see how I am supposed to respond 'gently'. Different contexts require different treatment.
I am not sure what is meant by being gentler in debate - are we supposed to avoid difficult concepts, or use simpler language? Now that I would consider patronising and condescending. I would never correct any other member's spelling or grammar and I presume that if they join in a debate they are sufficiently mature and confident to be treated as adults
Some of our members sometimes use words with which I am not familiar, or bits of Latin that I have forgotten. I don't complain that they being patronising - I just look it up on google. That way, I learn something new.
If I wanted to join a debate about astrophysics, I wouldn't expect other contributors to talk down to me by simplifying their language. I might just listen and not try to contribute if I was not confident that I had understood.
I am not going to descend to personal insult and invective and I will continue to post my honest opinions in spite of knowing that a small group will react with hostility to anything I say.

soop I don't think you should change I far prefer nice people to anyone else.

I suppose if you are a hard person, one with no feelings or someone who has never been hurt then perhaps you would be unaware that your comments could be deemed to be hurtful, patronising and in some cases sycophantic. Perhaps those who are so sure they are never like this are completely unaware of how others see them.

Uncalled for pammygran - that is definitely a personal attack. How are we supposed to have a mature debate if you resort to this kind of thing?

Very interesting Greatnan that you admit to being a "loony leftie","dogooder" & a Guardian reader..I worked that one out by your postings, even my dog could have worked that one out...I wonder if you were also the alpha female in the ape group before being reincarnated!..Sorry not PC to mention apes!..The really sad thing is a "newbie" would be put off joining by this blatent example of the equivelent of male testosterone!

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

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!

Heavens forbid

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

Yes, you are quite right, bags.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!!!