(V): and has i said on many occasions and i say it again
you twist things round to suit yourself

Snoopy: That was 8 months ago.. I'm not a politician!!

Czuch: Czuch... the guy had his hands in his pockets and was hit and pushed from behind. Plenty of police around to just arrest him without that kind of attack.

As such, the whole of the handling of the G20 protests by the SPG is under review.

(V): because it shows where your contridicting yourself now

Snoopy: Why go back to April?

(V): Not to misuse violence. Not to hit someone then push them to the floor if the person is not causing or in the way of a greater harm.


That is all true.... BUT, the video tape does not tell you anything about that, the video does not tell you if the police thought he was concealing a weapon, or if he was a known suspect, or if he was told to take his hands out of his pockets and move away,.. my instincts tell me that with all the other stuff the police needed to tend to that day, he was obstructing justice, he was the negligent one, who caused his own death because he neglected to follow the direct orders of the police, and if he was still alive, he should be charged with manslaughter for his own death

(V): no it isnt
but you only have to go back and read all your posts in April on this subject to see
simple really

Artful Dodger: Really?

Snoopy: Is every time I come up with a point now twisting to you?

Czuch: Not to misuse violence. Not to hit someone then push them to the floor if the person is not causing or in the way of a greater harm.

And it's manslaughter they policeman is possibly facing, not murder, just as I said in the posts I posted when the story first hit the news.

Czuch: whats the point in arguing with Jules
cause whatever one says he twists it round to suit himself has per normal

(V): And the video did show a man with his hands in his pockets being hit and pushed from behind.... since when has that been legal?

Its legal if during a riot, the police command you to show your hands, and to move out of the way.... as far as i know, it is ilegal to disobay any command from a police officer, and they always have a right to force you to comply.

Now if, during this procedure, you have a heart attack, or you bang your head and end up dead, then that is not murder, and it is your own fault you are dead, or it is a coincidence, and you would have died of a heart attack anyway.

I am NOT saying this is what happened, but it is possible that a video doesnt tell the whole story, and like Snoopy said, if it was all as clear, cut and dry, as it appears n the video, then this investigation would have ended long ago, so the length of time it is taking tells me that your first assumption, that it was clearly murder, is WRONG

Snoopy: And here we are several years down the line on Iraq and Afghanistan.. yet most people have an opinion about that.. even though the inquiry has just started officially.

And the IPCC have to do a full inestigation.. you want any crimes to go unpunished because procedure wasn't followed?
People have opinions... it's not a crime.

(V): and here we are nearly 9 months down the line and
still nothing new to report
but i will say if it was has straight forward has you claimed on that day
surely the policeman invovled would of been charged by now
instead we have nothing so has i said in the start lets wait until the enquiry has finished

Snoopy: I did not know disagreeing with someone was putting someone down. And the video did show a man with his hands in his pockets being hit and pushed from behind.... since when has that been legal?

Artful Dodger: thats exactly what i was trying to tell V that day
wait and see we dont know all the facts
but if i remember correctly he kept putting me down saying the video evidence is fact enough

Artful Dodger: And if they correct? Many police detectives have strong hunches on 'who dunnit' on a crime... They just have to gather enough evidence to get it to court.

And instincts can be very useful.. I mean it use to earn me a free pint and a few quid just knowing which fruit machine was in the mood to pay out in a pub.

Czuch: Not just my opinion, many others in the UK have the same opinion..

... based on what has been seen in video recordings of the event, and based on other info released of the event..

"you didnt say that you would like to see an investigation into the incident, "

Why should I need to? It's the law over here that it will be investigated and I stated as such.

"If you Brits were so into investigations, you would have called for an investigation,"

There is one. Like there is regarding MJ and his doctor.. has that finished yet?

Universal Eyes: well in our country, if the jury says guilty then you are guilty , but you can appeal.

Artful Dodger: How about if his gut instincts are innocent and the jury says guilty.

Artful Dodger: it would be serious as you state...but judges have been known to be crooked in the past...

Czuch: you have hit the nail on the head............

you must remember that most of his ramblings seem to be his personal opinion, so it is wise to take it with a grain of salt until he can prove what he ways.

(V): Gut feeling... instinct. Knowing that something ain't right, or that the police were not telling the truth.

You never said that it was only your opinion that it was murder, you said that it was the police who murdered this poor bloke.... you didnt say that you would like to see an investigation into the incident, because it seemed like a murder to you.... you said it was a clear cut murder,

If you Brits were so into investigations, you would have called for an investigation, but instead, you called it a murder the day it happened

Übergeek 바둑이: Politicians like to be squeaky clean (or claim to be) while the other side is dirty so and so's .... they are human. One French minister once commentated that in France they would be sacked for not having a mistress at the time of a big scandal in the UK.

or ... "I smoked weed but didn't inhale" .... but the person is alcohol dependent...

.. "It was within the rules" ... but not moral though...


.... I'd rather have a genuine politician then a squeaky clean one any day of the week.

(V):

> If the Conservative element in the USA want to have the next president.. better they learn to tell the truth

People have a very short memory. If previous wrongdoings had any bearing, Ronald Regan would not have been elected on account of Richard's Nixon's Watergate scandal. Then George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would not have been elected on account of not only Nixon's mistakes but also the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bill Clinton would never have been re-elected on account of his womanizing. Arnold Schwarzenegger would never have been elected governor on account of having sexually harassed several women. Politics is a dirty business. The winners are not the best people, but rather those who lie the best with a straight face and those who can get the most money from the rich and powerful corporate elites.

Artful Dodger: Like Saddam and his WMD's.... a year before the invasion it was already decided there was to be a war.

In retrospect.. it sounds like the right wing conservative element in the USA had lost the plot. As some of those in the UK inquiry have said.. It'd been easy and much better to just let Saddam die of old age and just contain him.

If the Conservative element in the USA want to have the next president.. better they learn to tell the truth

Czuch: Gut feeling... instinct. Knowing that something ain't right, or that the police were not telling the truth.

You've heard of such feelings over events haven't you?

It's like when Miss Rice was trying to make out Saddam was the Big Bad Wolf, when your generals at the UN were trying to say he had WMD's.. you could see he was not comfortable with what he was saying...... Or do you just believe anything the anyone says in authority without questioning??

I know you don't.. or you'd be supporting your current President and what he's trying to achieve.

Artful Dodger:

> His number keep going down, down, down.

As I recall, George W. Bush had the same problem, and so did Bill Clinton before him, and George H.W. Bush before Clinton. History repeats itself!

> It will take a few years but the Democratic reign in the US is dismantling fast.

It will take about as long as the Republican reign of the Bush administration took to dismantle. That is about 8 years!

Czuch: didn't you know??? (Z) has an uncanny insight into these things

(V): Well, how could you call it murder the day happened, if you are so interested in investigations?

... A year at least before GWII, it was known that there would be military action against Iraq regardless of the UN, yet no proper plan was made by either the USA or UK agencies responsible for redevelopment programs!!

It's not as if reconstruction hasn't been done before hand!!

Snoopy: Well the police still do like to protect their own and be rather.... relative with the actions that took place.

(V): yep we wait and wait and still get it so wrong

this case will always spring to mind

Jean Charles de Menezes

Czuch: *sigh* Us in the UK tend to like to do things properly when it comes to investigations of death, especially by police. The IPCC had several complaints of the police behaviour from that protest march, and are investigating all of them.

Look this one of the guy having his hands in his pockets is like the one of the 3 IRA guys who were shot.... The armed units mistook having hands above the head as a signal to "please shoot me".

If you want a faster investigation, I suggest you start a fund for the IPCC to allocate more resources.

Otherwise.. wait for the FULL investigation to come out in the coroners court, oh impatient one!!

Bwild: hahahha.....agreed

Czuch: jules wrong???

(V): Thats my point.... it was so clear cut murder, with not much investigation needed, was your attitude when it first happened!

If that was the case indeed, it wouldnt take 4 years to sort it out.... my guess is you were wrong

Czuch: Still waiting on that one. But, a bloke who was killed by armed police who thought he was another person (a terrorist) has come to conclusion. The police have apologised for the mistake and the family have received compensation.

The death occurred 4 years ago... full investigations over here take time. It's not CSI all sorted in one hour jobs in real life dude!!

(V): Hey, what about the police who murdered the guy for no reason on the streets????
So cut and dry, should be cleared up by now???

Heard an interesting fact the other day....

Since 1945 all produced steel is radioactive.. small level contamination from the nuclear bombs exploded, as steel production involves large amounts of air.

Any steel used in detecting radiation levels has to be gained from steel made before 1945, as such scuppered ships and U-boats from WWII which do not get categorised as war graves.

Bwild: Seen something like the old Chinese version in a old Jackie Chan film. Something like it has become popular these days as one of those street football skills.

Funny that the Chinese were making paper from 8000BC and didn't tell the rest of the world how!!

Bwildoh my Gawd....don't start him on soccer LOL...with a bit of luck he doesn;'t follow it haha...:

(V): http://www.soccer-fans-info.com/the-history-of-soccer.html

Artful Dodger: Really.... mmmmmm

95% of the raw data is available for scrutiny from a global climate website. That the sun can effect our weather is nothing new.. it's not a 'new' idea, I learnt about it 20 odd years ago at school. I've read about the 'leaked' data... and that it was taken out of context..

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
It's the university website.

That we have an impact on the world.. nothing new. I don't know if you know about the times before clean coal was only allowed to be burnt in London. Heavy fogs mixed with the fumes of coal fires could kill. We polluted the Thames river so much that swimming in it could be deadly.

So.. that 5% read the university website.

Artful Dodger: "So that puts everything into question." And not just about global warming, but almost everything that "scientific studies" report.Global warming might be real, and air pollution and destruction of rain forests and dumping pollutants in the water is obviously bad, but these jackasses have done real harm. Harm to all the legitimate causes. The end cause doesn't justify the means. Reminds me of Nixon and his boys

Bwild: Mmmmm I better not go on about how polo balls use to be *cough* gathered!!

(V): I think the aztecs my have a little more forsight than the computer geeks.
their clock is more acurate and they invented basketball!

Artful Dodger:
> But don't expect the government to do the job right. The government is incapable of such a task.

I think this is where the problem lies. When it came to pollution, western governments didn't even try to do a job in the first place. Smog in big cities and air pollution have been here since the start of the industrial revolution. 200 years later we are still trying to stop the problem and our governments have failed completely because they have put the profits of companies above clean air or environmental protection.

If the government is unable to tackle the problem, who should fix it then? Private industry? They are the ones who have no interest in reducing emmissions because doing so will cost them money.

I don't agree with universal carbon footprint taxation. I prefer a targetted taxation. Tax those industries that cause most of the pollution: Oil, natural gas, tar sands, utilities, car manufacturing, etc. Then give tax breaks to companies that adopt clean techonologies. Those that make no effort to change can keep paying more taxes until they realize that changing their production methods and their products will be more profitable in the long run. One thing is certain. There will be inflation because switching to new technologies will ultimately be paid for by consumers. Somewhere in this we have to find a balance because failing to act means that our grandchildren will deal with a dirty atmosphere and the environmental and human health problems that come with that.

Bwild: Is 2012 going to be another 1975 - Y2K thing?

Artful Dodger: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/projections/

"Climate projections

Because we can’t know the future for certain, our climate change scientists use computer-based climate models to project plausible scenarios, or projections, for coming centuries.

It is important to be aware that projections from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different projections."

**************************

Climategate and Iraqgate..... ???