[Closed] The alleged hacking of Millie Dowler's phone

so whats your point ernie? If anything that confirms my point rather than contradicts it

It's a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything with you Berm Bandit.

Yeah alright, have it your way - a copper with a criminal record for theft is no different than a plumber with a criminal record for theft.

A copper who can't keep within the law, is like a plumber who can't tell the difference between a copper pipe and a cucumber, both not fit for the job they do.

it's a shame on the whole profession of journolism in the UK that not one red top had the decency to run with this as a front page story. They are an utter disgrace.

It's a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything with you Berm Bandit

I suspect that may well be a case of people living in glass houses!

You live in a greenhouse? You must have been bloody roasting over the weekend? It was 30 degrees outside!!

in really hot weather people in glass houses should throw stones, if only to increase the ventilation.

I suspect that may well be a case of people living in glass houses!

How's that then? Your counter to ernie's point is wildly wide of the mark, your ascertions regarding ian tomlinson plainly incorrect and yet you think your a winner because someone thinks its pointless to argue with you?

How old are you?

Your counter to ernie's point is wildly wide of the mark,

your ascertions regarding ian tomlinson plainly incorrect

and yet you think your a winner because someone thinks its pointless to argue with you?

I'm not sure I've ever mentioned winning or losing in the context of this thread. Just pointed out the irony in Ernie suggesting that its a waste of time arguing with anyone over anything, partly because he does more of it than most and partly because of his own intransigence when he believes himself to be right, which to be fair is pretty much all the time.

Berm Bandit wasn't your point that you can expect a broadly similar incidence of criminal behavior from those who are police officers as will be found in the general population ? Not that criminal behavior from police officers should be tolerated?

If so i agree with you.

But not about G20 (though the officers who stood next to Harwood did the second best thing and raised concerns quickly.)

Really? and what evidence to do you have to support your ascertion? mine is mainly bound up in the actual facts of the case whioch are a matter of public record as opposed to wild and unproven accusations on an MTB website.

[url] http://www.fi****ch.org.uk/2011/05/09/fit-cops-cover-up-attack-on-ian-tomlinson/ [/url]
[url] http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back?cat=uk&type=article [/url]

As for the issue of conduct in public office, where do we start? Honestly where?? Of course there will be dishonest police, I don't think the % should be expected to match society in general. Why would it? Surely you should expect fewer criminals in the police force, I cannot forsee why or how you would not expect that.

But not about G20 (though the officers who stood next to Harwood did the second best thing and raised concerns quickly.)

Who raised concerns quickly? No officers IIRC.

cheers crankboy. For a while there I thought the ability to read had mystically been replaced by the pre existing ability to post drivel..

Regarding tomilinson, my point is broadly similar, not that it didn't happen or that it wasn't totally wrong. Self evidently that wasn't the case. The point I'm disputing and which is being made again in respect of this thread and on those about Tomilinson is one of a Police conspiracy where unassociated officers are linked to the Police hive mind and automatically cover stuff up. That may have been the case 20 years or more ago in the days of the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, but its not now. With Tomlinson the initial issue was that Freddie Patel found that Tomlinson died of things that could not be related to the baton strike or the push. So in terms of legal action against the copper concerned there was nowhere to go. I've said on here all along, that before people start pointing fingers and spouting off about conspiracies they should wait for the outcome, because there are checks and balances in the system nowadays which make it incredibly hard to cover things up. The eventual outcome is the proof of that point, and frankly I don't actually need to provide any more evidence of the correctness of my position than that. Happy to be persuadedd otherwise, but that would take rational argument backed up with facts rather than whats is posted above.

Just pointed out the irony in Ernie suggesting that its a waste of time arguing.....

I didn't say anything at all about "arguing", read my post.

I've said on here all along, that before people start pointing fingers and spouting off about conspiracies they should wait for the outcome, because there are checks and balances in the system nowadays which make it incredibly hard to cover things up.

The only reason it came to light at all is the video from a member of the public though. No officers reported him and only one even logged it as an incident. This is the fundamental point you seem to be missing.

That may have been the case 20 years or more ago in the days of the West Midland Serious Crime Squad, but its not now

erm... just out of interest BB, which planet are you actually presently living on? Two foreigny words for you with an ickle one in the middle:

Charles de Menezes

Things have certainly chnged since the Birmingham Six. They were denied their liberty for most of their adult lives. On reflection, probably better than 7 bullets to the head though. The resulting 70's style closing ranks and cover-up had a somewhat familiar ring to it, don't you think?

BermBandit - and why was Freddie Patel given the PM to do - he should not have been if procedures were followed properly. All part of the cover up

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson

So in terms of legal action against the copper concerned there was nowhere to go

grum from the guardian
"Two days after Ian Tomlinson died, three Metropolitan police constables said they had seen a colleague strike him with a baton and push him to the ground. Senior officers at City of London Police are now under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for not passing this information on to the police watchdog, coroner or family. These are the key questions that have yet to be answered"
The officers were named and two? gave evidence at the inquest and quite damming evidence too. I do believe that the Tomlinson case provides a strong example of police cover up particularly in regard to the initial press statements re no cctv, no contact with officers and the infamous suggestion that protesters threw bottles at the medics treating Tomlinson hampering his treatment. It also shows some very poor training and procedures.
However at the time i also criticised the adjacent officers for not stepping in either before or after and for not coming forward. It appears they did come forward but their management sought to tell them they were wrong and did not pass their information on.

[img] [/img]

wunhundred!

crankboy - From the BBC, seems contradictory

The police watchdog has said it is concerned that only one officer who saw Ian Tomlinson pushed over at the G20 protests wrote it up in a log.

A report by the IPCC also said it was "reckless" that an officer incorrectly told a pathologist the newspaper seller fell in front of a police van.

TJ it does not count as 100 as the thread has branched off course.

So then berm bandit.....

Yossarian: Fi****ch?? Fi****ch????? Better with the guardian, albeit it does support my point in that 3 separate officers reported Harewood. And that is not the same as a general Police cover up. What it actually suggests is that what cover up there might have been was by the City of London police, i.e. one tiny unit. That apart it may come as a shock to you that just because you can find something o nthe internet it does not automatically mean its true, most especially a news paper article.

Grum Refer to Yossarians Guardian article it fairly conclusively blows you out of the water with the 3 officers reporting the incident before the video was released.

TJ: I have no idea why Patel was appointed, but I would quote you from your Guardian article where they state

Last night a second post mortem examination, intitiated by Tomlinson's family and the IPCC, was being carried out by Dr Nat Cary.

Junkyard :

If there were no legal avenues left why has the copper now been charged?

So then Yossarian ...

Edit: Oh and Ernie a few defintions of the word argue

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.

Apologies: You are quite right, no argument!

The statement you made about there being nowhere to go was just factaully incorrect as shown by the fact it went somewhere resulting in him being charged.

Idiot! 🙄

Britain's police watchdog today reversed its decision to allow police to investigate the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London last week[b] after watching Guardian video footage[/b] of a baton-wielding officer attacking him.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will appoint its own investigators to conduct a full criminal inquiry into whether Tomlinson was assaulted by police and whether that attack contributed to his death.

The IPCC has ordered a second postmortem examination, which aims to provide medical evidence as to what caused the death of the newspaper seller. The first attributed his death to natural causes.

Tonight, Tomlinson's family released a statement through their lawyer which said that they wanted "to thank the media for bringing crucial evidence about Ian's death to light".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-video-inquiry-ipcc

Yossarian: Fi****ch?? Fi****ch????? Better with the guardian, albeit it does support my point in that 3 separate officers reported Harewood. And that is not the same as a general Police cover up. What it actually suggests is that what cover up there might have been was by the City of London police, i.e. one tiny unit. That apart it may come as a shock to you that just because you can find something o nthe internet it does not automatically mean its true, most especially a news paper article.

Ah now this is interesting. I linked to FI****ch for a reason. Why do you prefer the guardian? Part of the mainstream 'trusted' press. How ironic, given the thread don't you think. Besides the FI****ch report was drawn directly from the IPCC report. There is no doubt that the police initially denied all knowledge, failed to disclose what they knew in a timely manner and attempted to delay and subvert the autopsy process. You may not want to accept it but it's there.

It either had no where to go or it did have somehwere to go. These outcomes are mutually exclusive. Given it went somewhere the statement [ nowhere to go ]is wrong

Calling me names wont change this.

Calling me names wont change this.

yossarian: Try reading what I post FFS... I'll help you this one time
[b]You:[/b]

Why do you prefer the guardian?

it may come as a shock to you that just because you can find something on the internet it does not automatically mean its true, most especially a news paper article.

Now now don't get het up. I was commenting on why you preferred my guardian link to my fi****ch one. Sorry, why is that again? Secondly I'm fully aware of the perils of believing everything you read. I'm also aware if the perils of believing 'independent' reports without reading the detail in them, or understanding their remit, or their owners, or motives...

Can you please now provide a convincing argument against collusion and cover up within the police service given the plethora of information provided?

Factually they remain mutually exclusive.
Factually it went somewhere
Factually you are wrong
There is no defence

You are as wrong as wrong can be and have resulted to name calling and "saving face". The result is you have just added arrogance to your stupidity and rudeness.
What a win 🙄

Oh and Ernie a few defintions of the word argue

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.

Apologies: You are quite right, no argument!

So you accept that 'arguing' is your word and not mine then ? Excellent.

You'd make a pisspoor lawyer btw.

Please don't tell me you're a lawyer.

resulted to name calling and "saving face".

I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit, but all points raised in your latest post have already been addressed by my prior ones try looking.

So you accept that 'arguing' is your word and not mine then ? Excellent.

Never in debate ernie, not for that matter particularly relevant. As above the point is already answered.... try looking.

BermBandit - it has clearly been established that the initial police investigation was cursory at best and in most sensible peoples opinion actually lacking in rigour.

The appointment of Freddy Patel to do the PM was clearly to get the outcome the police wanted. He was a safe pair of hands and doing this would destroy the chance of a proper PM giving conclusive findings

The IPCC did not push for a rigorous investigation until the press had shown the videos that showed the various policeman's statements were incorrect.

so yes - in the tomlinson case there was an attempt to cover up the incident.

Never in debate ernie

So why did you say : [i]"Ernie suggesting that its a waste of time arguing with anyone over anything"[/i] then - when I clearly never said that ?

Do you just make stuff up ?

I hope you're not a copper.

💡 Do you work for one of the tabloids ?

Much of the above is an excellent example of why people don't get involved in STW as much as we all say that we'd like.

A bunch of cyclists arguing over the definition of the word 'argue'. Brilliant, just brilliant.

A bunch of cyclists arguing over the definition of the word 'argue'.

😕 Hey, I'm not [i]"arguing over the definition of the word 'argue'"[/i]. I'm arguing that I didn't say anything at all about "arguing"

Get your facts right.

[img] [/img]

Any way back to topic, Ford have pulled their advertising from NOTW.

If someone's already posted this my apologies but thoguht I'd point it out in case people want to ign....... http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch-deal-petition#petition