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

I should add that my temper is not frayed and I don't suffer from 'red mist mode'. If anything 'not nice' has been posted on this thread, it is the comments about Mr. Tomlinson's family.

Elegran - your remark about alcoholics is so relevant and the same goes for other addicts. Many families try over and over again to support them, but in the end they have to cut them off to protect themselves. This does not mean that they stop loving them, only that sometimes you have to recognise that you cannot help and have to use 'tough love'.
I think it is deplorable to cast aspersions on this family without knowing the circumstances and their possible estrangement in no way validates what this violent bully did.

This man is just a thug in uniform but then hasn't the Met always had a reputation for that. When they were brought up North to sort out the miners that's exactly what they intended to do. A local officer told me that even other police officers was shocked by what they saw and heard. He said Met officers would target shop stewards, charge the crowd to grab him and break his fingers. Any complaints...well fingers are easily broken in scrums.

I know this will be a generalisation and there will be lots of law abiding committed officers in the Met but it shows how the force still needs to put it's house in order.

Well said, Elegran. I agree with all your points.

I totally reject any suggestion that I have been hostile. I simply expressed the view that their opinion of the outcome of this trial was totally wrong. I could not possibly have said anything else, feeling as strongly as I do about this brutal police man and the way he has been allowed to bamboozle his way back into public service.
It would have been strange of me to say 'Welcome' as I did not know they were newcomers until I noticed the coincidence of their posting such similar views and decided to look them up. It would also be insincere of me to pretend that I did not regard their views as repugnant to all right thinking people. If that makes me 'not a nice person', so be it.

It is correct that legally the trial could only have been conducted on what happened at this event. Evidence on the way the policeman had been moved sideways on other occasions after other "incidents" is not relevant.

Bu now that his past history is revealed, it seems to me quite right that we should be horrified that he was allowed back into a position where his "red mist" under stress could cause him to strike out at someone who was just blundering about and getting in the way. The man's alcoholism does not justify knocking him down, if it did, no-one would be safe.

The cotrast of his family's reaction to his death and their treatment of him when he was "thrown out" is interesting, to say the least, but the many relatives of hopeless alcoholics who have been forced to disassociate themselves from them will understand how there comes a point when it is no longer possible to help them. Having them casually killed must still be a shock for them.

AmeliaAnn and AnneMaria are possibly the same person. It won't be the first time someone has joined a forum and taken a 'mate' along as back up in case the natives are hostile which, I think some have been today. It's not easy to jump in when you are a stranger and I also don't think that new posters should feel that they have to announce themselves if they don't want to.

Any right thinking person in or out of the police force surely could not condone hitting out at a man from behind ? We see this brutal approach to control exercised in other countries and roundly (and rightly ) condemn it. Evil flourishes because good people do nothing.

I agree! You didn't make them wellcome.

Wellcome to both of you. We are nice on here honestly, but some times tempers can get frayed!
A bit like ral life actually!

AmeliaAnne

"I think that until any of us have done the job we cannot totally understand."

I have done the job, and I don't understand. The video clip clearly shows an unprovoked push.

No, they can express their views. I repeat, I merely commented on the coincidence of their happening to post within minutes of each other.

beyond measure.

I realise this will not be a popular comment, but does the fact that Amelianne and Annemaria have not posted before somehow disqualify them from expressing their views?

What on earth has reading the Guardian got to do with anything?
I didn't say AA and AM were not welcome - I just commented on what a coincidence it was that they both appeared to make their first post and agree with each other.
As for commenting on the Tomlinson's family relationships, again, what the heck has that got to do with whether or not he should have been unlawfully killed. I think the family want justice and a civil court might give it to them.

Sorry Greatnan, I agree with Am-an & A-m...there is controversy in many cases..I agree with the remark re the relatives..the man apparantly had been kicked out of home years before...do I sense woodwork & compensation here?, also not sure if I like the dig re first time comments & newbies...not all of us are Guardian readers..

After reading this article to-day I just can't understand how this person was allowed to join a section of the Police Force with out being throughly vetted and checked for goodness sake, you can understand if he made a one off error of judgement in his career but he seems to have used his powers to the limit and is just an out and out bully thinking that his position will always get him out of trouble.

Of course they are welcome but what everyone is not saying is are they on here because they have an axe to grind regarding this case. If not, why are they not forthcoming about when they joined.

This is far from the first time the police seem to have got away with things that others would not have. I remember many years ago a pregnant girl (Gail Kinchin) standing at the top of the stairs and shot dead by the police who were after her criminal partner. Or there was the time they shot a young boy lying asleep in bed when they were looking for his father. In neither case was any firearm found. There seems to me to be a different rule for them than for the rest of us.

Oh dear ,first sentence wrong , obviously meant to say "Nobody is saying they are NOT welcome . doh

To be fair, a lot of new members just start off with the odd post or two, then gradually get more confident. I certainly don't see why they should announce that they are new if they don't wish to.

Nobody is saying they are welcome , in fact if they are new posters it may nice to say so , so that people may welcome them

That's not a very nice welcome for ameliaanne or AnneMaria, just because they have a different opinion to some doesn't justify the comments they have been getting. Sorry - but I feel that I have to stand up for them, they are just as welcome on here as any of us

Oh I don't know? Now if it was the git next door!

Apparently the victim appeared to be being awkward and looked at him. When did it become a capital offence or indeed any offence to look at someone or appear to be being awkward.

I doubt the 'red mist' would be a reasonable excuse if I beat someone to death because I thought he was being awkward and looked at me.

Ladies!

No coyness Nonu. It's irrelevant whether it's a first post or a hundredth.