Festive Drinks Quiz - 5 January
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
'A Tawdry Lust For Fame' By Ian Tomlinson's Family?
http://
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!
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!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kerosene. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Sqad - Yes. Dr. Patel was on the board of Home Office Approved Pathologists. Shocking really - claims of mistakes, errors and incompetence go back a long way, to at least 2002. In at least 5 of 7 cases reviewed by the NPIA i think it was, there was found a catalogue of procedural error and mistakes.
It also appears he lied about his status, and concealed facts about his practice that meant he should not have been qualified to be on the register back in 2006, which rather begs the question of why no one thought to remove him before the Tomlinson case in question. In 2004, Scotland Yard complained to the Home Office about 4 different cases in which he was involved.Given his background, and given what was inevitably going to be a high profile investigation, I find it surprising that the then coroner appointed Dr. Patel.
It also appears he lied about his status, and concealed facts about his practice that meant he should not have been qualified to be on the register back in 2006, which rather begs the question of why no one thought to remove him before the Tomlinson case in question. In 2004, Scotland Yard complained to the Home Office about 4 different cases in which he was involved.Given his background, and given what was inevitably going to be a high profile investigation, I find it surprising that the then coroner appointed Dr. Patel.
<points made from my own extensive experience in the Police.>
Yes kero ...
that's what is worrying so many of us; your insistence on 'closing ranks' in this matter and trying to shift blame onto the victims is deeply disturbing and does decent police officers no favours at all.
<<your mere suggestion that so many Officers not only colluded - following the full glare of public awareness - but by your very inference, did so deliberately, is not only a gross insult ...(yada yada)>>
Err ... were you awake last week when the Hillsborough Enquiry published statements (was it 116 of them?) showing whole sections that had been edited to remove any parts that might reflect badly on Police or Emergency Services?
If so, your outrage that such things might happen is laughable.
Here, you are using an old article to try and smokescreen this case with a smear of Tomlonson's family.
As I suggested earlier, when are you going to take a few other tips from your South Yorkshire ex-colleagues and start with the 'Tomlinson was drunk/violent/picking-pockets/didn't have a ticket/pissing on officers giving cpr etc'?
It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern.
Yes kero ...
that's what is worrying so many of us; your insistence on 'closing ranks' in this matter and trying to shift blame onto the victims is deeply disturbing and does decent police officers no favours at all.
<<your mere suggestion that so many Officers not only colluded - following the full glare of public awareness - but by your very inference, did so deliberately, is not only a gross insult ...(yada yada)>>
Err ... were you awake last week when the Hillsborough Enquiry published statements (was it 116 of them?) showing whole sections that had been edited to remove any parts that might reflect badly on Police or Emergency Services?
If so, your outrage that such things might happen is laughable.
Here, you are using an old article to try and smokescreen this case with a smear of Tomlonson's family.
As I suggested earlier, when are you going to take a few other tips from your South Yorkshire ex-colleagues and start with the 'Tomlinson was drunk/violent/picking-pockets/didn't have a ticket/pissing on officers giving cpr etc'?
It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern.
Zeuhl,
"..shift blame onto the victims..." Which 'victims'?
"..whole sections that had been edited to remove any parts that might reflect badly on Police or Emergency Services"
First of all, you make breathtaking assumptions insinuating that I might somehow condone any wrongdoing at Hillsborough? Please let me invite you to revisit those threads to find where I have defended any alleged misdemeanours by the Police? I strongly resent such a slur.
I said completely and categorically that any wrongdoing by the Police ought to be punished accordingly. I said so, totally and unequivocally.
"Here, you are using an old article.." blah, blah, blah. Well, if you really want to be childish, it's far more recent than Hillsborough(1989).
"It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern" Example(s), please? Show me just one thread to which I've contributed where you could even begin to justify such a scurrilous accusation? I will not hold my breath.
"..shift blame onto the victims..." Which 'victims'?
"..whole sections that had been edited to remove any parts that might reflect badly on Police or Emergency Services"
First of all, you make breathtaking assumptions insinuating that I might somehow condone any wrongdoing at Hillsborough? Please let me invite you to revisit those threads to find where I have defended any alleged misdemeanours by the Police? I strongly resent such a slur.
I said completely and categorically that any wrongdoing by the Police ought to be punished accordingly. I said so, totally and unequivocally.
"Here, you are using an old article.." blah, blah, blah. Well, if you really want to be childish, it's far more recent than Hillsborough(1989).
"It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern" Example(s), please? Show me just one thread to which I've contributed where you could even begin to justify such a scurrilous accusation? I will not hold my breath.
<<I will not hold my breath>>
perhaps you should - it may help you think more clearly
<. ..shift blame onto the victims..." Which 'victims'?>
In the Tomlinson case; his bereaved children in particular.
Earlier in the thread you complained that their pursuit of the truth in this case had cost much public money as though it was their fault.
<Please let me invite you to revisit those threads to find where I have defended any alleged misdemeanours by the Police? I strongly resent such a slur.>
Fine. So why are you so appalled and incredulous that officers around PC Harwood might have colluded to protect him?
I said completely and categorically that any wrongdoing by the Police ought to be punished accordingly. I said so, totally and unequivocally.
<"Here, you are using an old article.." blah, blah, blah. Well, if you really want to be childish, it's far more recent than Hillsborough(1989)>
No it's not. The Report and its findings that we have been citing pertaining to Hillsborough was published only last week.
<It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern" Example(s), please?>
Sure. I thought it was obvious but if you need it explaining...
Hillsborough - police collude to conceal their own shortcomings and immediately try to highlight anything that puts victims in poor light
This thread - Tomlinson's attacker admits wrongdoing and is dismissed - so your OP tries to smear family and calls into question their motivations
That isn't <scurrilous> it's poor.
perhaps you should - it may help you think more clearly
<. ..shift blame onto the victims..." Which 'victims'?>
In the Tomlinson case; his bereaved children in particular.
Earlier in the thread you complained that their pursuit of the truth in this case had cost much public money as though it was their fault.
<Please let me invite you to revisit those threads to find where I have defended any alleged misdemeanours by the Police? I strongly resent such a slur.>
Fine. So why are you so appalled and incredulous that officers around PC Harwood might have colluded to protect him?
I said completely and categorically that any wrongdoing by the Police ought to be punished accordingly. I said so, totally and unequivocally.
<"Here, you are using an old article.." blah, blah, blah. Well, if you really want to be childish, it's far more recent than Hillsborough(1989)>
No it's not. The Report and its findings that we have been citing pertaining to Hillsborough was published only last week.
<It all seems to fit a familiar and unedifying pattern" Example(s), please?>
Sure. I thought it was obvious but if you need it explaining...
Hillsborough - police collude to conceal their own shortcomings and immediately try to highlight anything that puts victims in poor light
This thread - Tomlinson's attacker admits wrongdoing and is dismissed - so your OP tries to smear family and calls into question their motivations
That isn't <scurrilous> it's poor.
Kerosene - Yesterday you were branding those who disagreed with you as 'agitators'. Today you are still pursuing a stupid personal campaign to defend the police in the Harwood/Tomlinson issue. You currently have three threads discussing the same topic.
This one, plus two more
http://
http://
On each thread where people voice opposing views to yours, you 'kick off'. You then abandon that thread and start another.
What is your problem? Are you really so bitter towards people because of your time apparently wasted in the force? Or is the real problem the fact that you are indeed an 'agitator' yourself and are trying to recruit sensible people to share your idiotic ideas and beliefs.
Kerosene you have conclusively proven what you are; merely a rambling ranter who has never and will never ever admit he is wrong.
Now it appears that you are exploiting the sad events in Manchester in an effort to further agitate the users of this forum.
This one, plus two more
http://
http://
On each thread where people voice opposing views to yours, you 'kick off'. You then abandon that thread and start another.
What is your problem? Are you really so bitter towards people because of your time apparently wasted in the force? Or is the real problem the fact that you are indeed an 'agitator' yourself and are trying to recruit sensible people to share your idiotic ideas and beliefs.
Kerosene you have conclusively proven what you are; merely a rambling ranter who has never and will never ever admit he is wrong.
Now it appears that you are exploiting the sad events in Manchester in an effort to further agitate the users of this forum.
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.