'A Tawdry Lust For Fame' By Ian Tomlinson's Family?

[Kerosene]

http://www.dailymail....awdry-lust-fame-.html

I was roundly condemned by certain posters following my recent thread where I queried whether that his family's grief was genuine - or merely an attempt to garner public support in a quest for monetary compensation?

The above article suggests that it could possibly be the latter?
1: Mr Tomlinson had not shared a home with his 'caring family' for 13 years.
2: His 'grieving widow', Julia, had a total of 9 children, only 4 of whom were Mr Tomlinson's.
3: Mr Tomlinson, a chronic alcoholic, had been living for many years in hostels - NOT with any of his now 'caring & grieving' family with whom he apparently had lost touch.

So, is the columnist correct in labelling them and their public outpourings as a 'tawdry lust for fame'? I know what I think!

[NOX]

Kerosene, I'm not going to revisit the other thread other than to read your last post as there are 4 pages of it and it will take me upwards of an hour to re-read it, however if I recall I called you ' not very bright, narrow and bitter'.
To address the 'narrow' remark you appear to be a bit of a one trick pony, constantly harping on about how your hard earned taxes are being used to fund families who aren't really grieving, how hard the job of the police is, oh no-one understands how we only want to serve our communities, anyone who is not employed, has a stable home and fits the criteria you appear to think makes a decent human being doesn't count etc etc.I think that also covers my ' bitter' remark.
Now for the 'not very bright' comment- please see this very post of yours for a very full explanation of exactly how dim and out of touch with the majority of opinion you really are. Couple that with your arrogant demand that I answer your previous thread before you address this one and you can add 'control freak' to the list as well. I cannot remember in my whole 8 years on the site anyone being that monumentally absurd ( people don't repeatedly check back to see if someone ha answered them always- they have lives to live).
You sir, are one of the most obnoxious individuals that has ever had the misfortune to disgrace this site.You crave and demand respect simply because you used to be in the police whilst giving no-one any incentive to take you seriously at all by your crass and unfounded statements about a family whose loved one was assaulted and subsequently died. To put it bluntly you simply 'don't get it'.

[Kerosene]

sandy,

According to the highest court in the land no one was found guilty of having killed Mr Tomlinson. Just thought I'd enlighten you?

[Kerosene]

NOX,

Just read the first line of your latest post - so be it. Thank you for your contributions.

[sandyRoe]

Juries often return perverse verdicts.

[sir.prize]

We are always reminded by the Ed never to stray from the topic; however, Kerosene, perhaps a visit to your GP would determine the reasons why you have taken to watching paint dry for several hours; somewhat reminiscent of my goldfish who takes an identical stance for no apparent reason. Did you know that, myth or not, fish are reputed to have only a two-second memory.

Any connection between the examples I have mentioned is totally unintentional but coincidentally amusingly similar.

[NOX]

You really do have issues with people opposing you don't you? Bet you were a lovely policeman...

[mike11111]

"Juries often return perverse verdicts."

No they don't. In Ireland perhaps but not in Britain. If they do there are measures to correct this.

[Kerosene]

sandy,

Had you been in Harwood's position you wouldn't be calling the verdict 'perverse', would you? Neither would anyone else - be honest.

We don't have lynch laws or vigilantes in this country, we either have magistrates court or crown court as far as most criminal cases are concerned, and it is those establishments where guilt or innocence is determined.

[NOX]

And here's the other half of the double act... tell me Mike do you really believe your last statement?

[mike11111]

Yes, do you have evidence to contradict me, because I have evidence to the contrary.

[sir.prize]

Nox - that is a fine summing-up. By his own admission he didn't even have the courtesy or guts to read beyond the first line of your comment. He has completely disregarded by ignoring my post at 19.22. Having re-read a number of posts on this thread, it is clearly obvious that the man is sadness personified. Always ready to be confrontational and controversial but backs off like the proverbial 'slithering back under a stone'.

He's not worthy of a sensible debate. I'm done.

[NOX]

What evidence do you have to the contrary Mike? I'd be very interested to see it.

[NOX]

Thanks Sir Prize, I just find it incredibly worrying he was ever a policeman.

[Kerosene]

Mike,

Ignore the agitators - I do, they're only on the wind up.

[sandyRoe]

Mike11111, have you ever heard the phrase: 'You've been lucky with your jury'?
Here's an example

http://www.stagsnet.n...tails.php?newsid=1615

[Kerosene]

mike,

They have no imagination of their own and try to hijack threads unless you, as Maggie Thatcher once famously said, 'starve them of the oxygen of publicity'

[NOX]

Naomi??? Seriously? Naomi and I cross swords regularly, and you'll find I'm nobody's stooge- although Kerosene is right I'm happy to be an agitator on threads with this level of crass ignorance (Kerosene not you Mike), and I imagine unlike Kerosene that you Mike know I'm not ' on the wind up'.

[sir.prize]

A.C.A.B. I never accepted that was true, but now . . . .

[mike11111]

Thank you Kero, for your support. howver, ti is nearly midnight so I must get off line