ChatterBank4 mins ago
Are Ian Tomlinson's Family Just After Money?
http://
Despite the cynical tone of my question, it does bear some consideration given the fact that by all accounts the tragic Mr Tomlinson not only lived by himself but was not in touch with any family members prior to his death.
Since when of course quite a few of his estranged family members suddenly materialised demanding justice for Mr Tomlinson. We've now had loads of public money spent trying to get to the bottom of this tragic incident, including 3 post mortems, an Independent Police Complaint Commission enquiry culminating in a Crown Court trial of now ex PC Simon Harwood (acquitted of manslaughter), and of course yesterday's dismissal of him by the Met Police.
Mr Tomlinson's relatives are still dissatisfied and have referred to the process as 'a whitewash', 'diabolical', 'showboating', and 'no justice'.
And of course the ubiquitous solicitors, the only real winners in all of this, are still stoking the fires, declaring that the family had been 'cheated of an opportunity', and 'the family want a judgement in the civil court".
Hasn't enough of the public purse been used already? Sounds to me like the just want money. Anyone care to dispute that?
Despite the cynical tone of my question, it does bear some consideration given the fact that by all accounts the tragic Mr Tomlinson not only lived by himself but was not in touch with any family members prior to his death.
Since when of course quite a few of his estranged family members suddenly materialised demanding justice for Mr Tomlinson. We've now had loads of public money spent trying to get to the bottom of this tragic incident, including 3 post mortems, an Independent Police Complaint Commission enquiry culminating in a Crown Court trial of now ex PC Simon Harwood (acquitted of manslaughter), and of course yesterday's dismissal of him by the Met Police.
Mr Tomlinson's relatives are still dissatisfied and have referred to the process as 'a whitewash', 'diabolical', 'showboating', and 'no justice'.
And of course the ubiquitous solicitors, the only real winners in all of this, are still stoking the fires, declaring that the family had been 'cheated of an opportunity', and 'the family want a judgement in the civil court".
Hasn't enough of the public purse been used already? Sounds to me like the just want money. Anyone care to dispute that?
Answers
Yes I do believe you could be right Kero. It has been said that his family did not want anything to do with him when he was alive, but have now appeared on the scene with '£' signs in their eyes.
The police have a very difficult job to carry out and like our soldiers they are hampered by political correctness, who knows what happened that day, what prior trouble...
The police have a very difficult job to carry out and like our soldiers they are hampered by political correctness, who knows what happened that day, what prior trouble...
11:43 Tue 18th Sep 2012
@Kerosene.
You agree with people who post agreeing with you. Quelle surprise! ;)
Your OP and subsequent defence is chock full of speculation - vicious and cynical speculation at that - presented as fact, because you "know all about human motivation."
The family of this man are entitled to seek redress in the courts should they wish. The initial inquest recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. Harwood walked away "not guilty" from a manslaughter charge, due in large part to the contradictory post mortem results. The initial post mortem carried out by Dr Patel was flawed with 68 errors, no evidence found of heart attack as originally claimed, and with evidence thrown out. The Met then sack Harwood, who retains his pension.
The end result? - A man dead, post mortem evidence suggestive that the actions of a police officer contributed to that death, but no one is held accountable. Any family might feel aggrieved at such a result, and they are perfectly entitle to seek redress in the courts should they wish.
You agree with people who post agreeing with you. Quelle surprise! ;)
Your OP and subsequent defence is chock full of speculation - vicious and cynical speculation at that - presented as fact, because you "know all about human motivation."
The family of this man are entitled to seek redress in the courts should they wish. The initial inquest recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. Harwood walked away "not guilty" from a manslaughter charge, due in large part to the contradictory post mortem results. The initial post mortem carried out by Dr Patel was flawed with 68 errors, no evidence found of heart attack as originally claimed, and with evidence thrown out. The Met then sack Harwood, who retains his pension.
The end result? - A man dead, post mortem evidence suggestive that the actions of a police officer contributed to that death, but no one is held accountable. Any family might feel aggrieved at such a result, and they are perfectly entitle to seek redress in the courts should they wish.
Zeuhl
/// Isn't 'compo' largely based on loss of earnings? ///
Maybe if he was 'off work' for a few weeks, or was so incapacitated that he could no longer work etc. etc.
But this poor guy is DEAD, so compensation in this case is nothing to do with loss of earnings, get real why don't you?
But if you posted in jest, I am afraid that your jest is in very poor taste.
/// Isn't 'compo' largely based on loss of earnings? ///
Maybe if he was 'off work' for a few weeks, or was so incapacitated that he could no longer work etc. etc.
But this poor guy is DEAD, so compensation in this case is nothing to do with loss of earnings, get real why don't you?
But if you posted in jest, I am afraid that your jest is in very poor taste.
Old Git
Is there is no limit to your lack of knowledge?
I think you'd find that death definitely means one can <no longer work>
FYI
When someone is killed and compensation awarded, the court calculates what income their dependents will have lost based on their current and projected incomes.
My point was that as Mr Tomlinson was not a high-earner, his family would be unlikely to be motivated by the enormous size of a likely settlement.
Is that 'real' enough for you?
Is there is no limit to your lack of knowledge?
I think you'd find that death definitely means one can <no longer work>
FYI
When someone is killed and compensation awarded, the court calculates what income their dependents will have lost based on their current and projected incomes.
My point was that as Mr Tomlinson was not a high-earner, his family would be unlikely to be motivated by the enormous size of a likely settlement.
Is that 'real' enough for you?
-- answer removed --
Well...here it is in a nutshell as seen by sqad.
A dead onlooker.
Post mortems which were a shambles and a disgrace to the medical profession.
Cause of death..... amazing at worse, questionable at best.
Accused found ...NOT GUILTY of manslaughter.
Independent investigation..........the accused found guilty of unprofessional behavior and dismissed from the force.
People never mentioned previously....seeking "compensation.
Does anybody watch Silent Witness on TV?
A dead onlooker.
Post mortems which were a shambles and a disgrace to the medical profession.
Cause of death..... amazing at worse, questionable at best.
Accused found ...NOT GUILTY of manslaughter.
Independent investigation..........the accused found guilty of unprofessional behavior and dismissed from the force.
People never mentioned previously....seeking "compensation.
Does anybody watch Silent Witness on TV?
-- answer removed --
trigger
http://
What would AB do without it's links?
It's in there somewhere.
http://
What would AB do without it's links?
It's in there somewhere.
Zeuhl
/// Is there is no limit to your lack of knowledge? ///
Typical always ready to come out with the insults when you are losing the argument eh?
/// My point was that as Mr Tomlinson was not a high-earner, his family would be unlikely to be motivated by the enormous size of a likely settlement. ///
I repeat the man is dead, due to (some still say) the actions of the police, if his family can prove that by taking out a civil action, then yes no matter what his occupation, they would be in line for a hefty size pay out.
/// Is there is no limit to your lack of knowledge? ///
Typical always ready to come out with the insults when you are losing the argument eh?
/// My point was that as Mr Tomlinson was not a high-earner, his family would be unlikely to be motivated by the enormous size of a likely settlement. ///
I repeat the man is dead, due to (some still say) the actions of the police, if his family can prove that by taking out a civil action, then yes no matter what his occupation, they would be in line for a hefty size pay out.
-- answer removed --
<Old Git: no limit to your lack of knowledge?>
Not an insult - just an observation.
<losing the argument>
What The Funicular? there is no argument - you just failed to understand the point - and apparently still do ...
<no matter what his occupation, they would be in line for a hefty size pay out>
But it would include calculations based on projected earnings so your earlier post
<this poor guy is DEAD, so compensation in this case is nothing to do with loss of earnings> is plain WRONG
And in that light, the tone of your accompanying comment <get real why don't you?> was uncalled for
so don't start whingeing: 'personal insults when losing an argument' is your recurring speciality isn't it?
Not an insult - just an observation.
<losing the argument>
What The Funicular? there is no argument - you just failed to understand the point - and apparently still do ...
<no matter what his occupation, they would be in line for a hefty size pay out>
But it would include calculations based on projected earnings so your earlier post
<this poor guy is DEAD, so compensation in this case is nothing to do with loss of earnings> is plain WRONG
And in that light, the tone of your accompanying comment <get real why don't you?> was uncalled for
so don't start whingeing: 'personal insults when losing an argument' is your recurring speciality isn't it?
sp1814
/// Please explain what you mean when you refer to 'political correctness'. ///
The meaning of the word 'Political Correctness' can be easily looked up, just as I have looked up the piece of information to answer your second question.
/// Also, can you tell me how you know he was estranged from his family? ///
Ian Tomlinson was not only an alcoholic but a very sick man; estranged from his family, he was living in a hostel for homeless men
/// Please explain what you mean when you refer to 'political correctness'. ///
The meaning of the word 'Political Correctness' can be easily looked up, just as I have looked up the piece of information to answer your second question.
/// Also, can you tell me how you know he was estranged from his family? ///
Ian Tomlinson was not only an alcoholic but a very sick man; estranged from his family, he was living in a hostel for homeless men
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Motoring41 mins ago
Film, Media & TV43 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.