Snoopy: There is only a possibility. Governments change and all the rest of the variables. Known or unknown.

Czuch: I did say about taxes going down, and I did explain our taxation system sufficiently to give you an understanding.

And yet you are still not listening. So I ain't typing and wearing my fingers down any more.

Czuch: me...by just a few 100 or maybe a K.

Czuch, the measures are temporary. Saying tax rates will keep rising is not reality, and if you looked at how politics work and that governments change.. then to be realistic you'd have to say that there is a very good chance this new tax level may drop, or at least stay stable. Statistically in 200 years, anything we do now re taxes will have little effect then.

As for Global warming, I'm not looking 1-200 years in the future, I'm looking at what will my kids inherit as a world? We don't own this world, we are borrowing it from our descendants.

To be a realist, you have to understand, economics and various other subjects.. And I'm afraid, you saying someone will lose £75k when they get to the £150k wages mark says you don't understand, or, at the least, understand our country's taxation system.

.. Or are plain exaggerating

Czuch: You still don't get it do you Wages over £150K are taxed at 50%, anything below that is not taxed at 50% but at the rate for wages under £150K.

Ok,... clear??

As for 100-200 years ahead.. are you that much of a pessimist?

Czuch: The Most important 1%!!! Really.. Mmmmmm So, those who do service jobs like take your rubbish away, keep your hospitals clean, the police, nurses, plumbers, etc. are not just as important?

Without these people, those top 1% earners would not be able to earn that money as the structure of the country is dependent on all services and workers. I mean.. that 1% is reliant on the companies workers to earn money.

And you really don't seem to know accounts, if a company makes 150,000 then that is not the wages the boss makes. All costs, etc are deducted as per Balance sheets and Profit and Loss statements.

And it is normal with good business to put some by to build up a reserve for future expansion, or to aim towards investment in the current business structure.

Snoopy: For a lot of big earners that is not possible. EG Council CEO's. Also as you know there is a clamp down going on over using off shore accounts.

Czuch: Czuch.. that's for pay over £150,000. Which affects about 1% of the population.

Bernice: From his family.

As for your search results... maybe you should try the UK google aka google.co.uk

Bernice: We have the right to demonstrate, that's not "rent a crowd", it's using our democratic right to protest. Millions went to London over the Iraq war.

As for football matches.. of course, people all over the world travel to watch matches abroad in many sports.. Some even go to the Olympics

He was a Millwall fan, he finished work at 7pm. He worked from a stall who his friend as an Evening Standard Vendor ran. He himself was an official vendor, but then went to helping other vendors.around Monument Station.

Read our papers, do a google.. but if you use google, make sure your search parameters are good.

"ian tomlinson route home" is the one I used.

Bernice: Rent a crowd..... We are not known for that, the only time that sort of thing happened was during the old days of secondary picketing. That was made illegal years ago.

If you don't know he was on his way home, then you can't have been following the story very well, as it was stated from day one that the news broke he was on his way home.

Yes, since he split with his wife, he did drink... big deal.. The guy but the man who he worked with that day stated he was sober, happy and looking forward to the next day of work. He was improving himself. He is described as a man "...He was a gentleman and he never hurt anyone," said one colleague. "He was a really nice fella who just minded his own business."
"He was King of the Hill – King of Fish Street Hill." That is my tribute to him," another added.
Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.

Ok?

Czuch: Czuch, perhaps you ought to keep up with the events. He altered his route as his normal route was blocked by police and protesters. The guy is supposed to walk a great extra distance to avoid it all with his known health problems!!

And the footage was taken (or so reported) "....shot by a fund manager from New York who was in London on business.
He told the Guardian: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."

"The newspaper said the video would be handed to the police complaints watchdog as part of a "dossier of evidence" which also includes a collection of witness statements and photographs in the aftermath of the alleged attack."

Photographer Anna Branthwaite, who saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street, said: "A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him. It wasn't just pushing him - he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.

"It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

"So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him - it became an assault."


Sir Paul Stephenson this week ordered a top-level review of riot policing and admitted his concerns over the "clearly disturbing" images to have emerged.

... All from British newspapers.

Czuch: Czuch.... everyone who had a camera was recording the police and their interaction with the crowds. Whether it was a proper cam, or a mobile phone.

Also there were plenty of CCTV camera's catching the action, as well as news teams. It's called modern technology Czuch and the right of people to record events.

The bloke had to go a different route to his norm because of the protests. That has been explained Czuch... Don't you remember??

Czuch: Like he did??????? It is assault... I don't think you know the law very well if you don't think it is. Police still have to follow a code of conduct and rules regarding the force they can use in situations.

EG.. In the USA if a Cop shoots a man doesn't he have to justify the shooting?

Czuch: And your evidence of this is......?????

and we are not talking about a thousand people, ie a hypothetical situation.. we are talking about one man getting home to watch football.

He was just a member of Joe Public, not an idiot. And the policeman I doubt will get back to duty. Assault over here is still a crime, and regardless of duty a policeman is expected to uphold the law and not break it.

Another item that has come up today is regarding the Hillsborough disaster where many football people died. The Home Secretary is releasing the files on the matter 10 years early due to the families of 96 dead people wanting to know what happened 20 years ago.

..... developments in the past indicate that there was much the police did not reveal their role in the disaster, and have been hiding stuff.

The families want justice and to know what happened to cause the deaths.

You can understand that can't you?

Czuch: I find your support for police brutality very strange.

Czuch: The thing though that has come to light is that if the police had been more professional about the protests (as the whole police activity during the G20 protests is being looked into) .. there would have been less arrests. I'm not saying there would have been no arrests, but some of the troubles seem to be (according to the reports and the gist of what the IPCC are saying) would have been avoided, hence less arrests.

And Czuch... guns are a rarity in this country, this is not the USA.

And that you approve of police brutality rather goes against your call for less government.. looks like you are a closet more government person. And by the looks of it, you like the idea of dictatorships aka BIG BROTHER.

But one thing you don't consider, is the need for the police to be respected by Joe Public.. without Joe Public's support a lot of crimes in the UK would never be solved. And the death of Mr Tomlinson as well as all the other reported crimes by the police during the protests have eroded the trust that is essential for the police to work efficiently.

Bernice: 122 arrests out of an estimated (by the police) 35,000 people considering the tensions is damn good.

No way near a Brixton riot.

Artful Dodger: Exactly why the man has been interviewed under caution of suspicion of manslaughter.

The words of that of a family member.. you would expect him to be peeved.

Bernice: I'm not hyping, there is an obvious case of the policeman attacking the guy from behind. THAT IS BEYOND DISPUTE. The only matter now is what he gets charged with.

Artful Dodger: His route home took him past the Bank of England, I guess the guy thought not being a protester that he was in no danger from the police.

Snoopy: I'll take that as a no, it is not acceptable to shove a man like that from behind.

And at the mo, it's upto the IPCC and the CPS.

And we are all entitled to an opinion.. just like the Family is...

.....Paul King, Mr Tomlinson's step-son, said "First we were told that there had been no contact with the police, then we were told that he died of a heart attack.

"Now we know that he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding. As time goes on we hope that the full truth about how Ian died will be made known."

Jules Carey of Tuckers, the family's solicitor, said the family had known about the results of the second post-mortem for the past week - but had reluctantly agreed to remain silent while the IPCC continued its investigations.

"The findings of Dr Nat Cary significantly increase the likelihood that the officer will now face the more serious charge of manslaughter," said Mr Carey.

"The IPCC opposed the disclosure of Dr Cary's findings until they satisfied themselves that it would not prejudice their investigation of the officer.

"It is of some comfort to the family that the record is now being put straight, but they hope that the IPCC investigation will be expedited and thorough, and that there will be a prompt referral to the CPS for charge," he added.

Artful Dodger: I knew you would.

Snoopy: So.. even if it was not manslaughter, you are saying it's ok for a policeman to shove a man from behind to the ground and that is a perfectly ok thing for a policeman to do?

A yes or no answer is all I need.

Artful Dodger: The IPCC chief said that the police are our SERVANTS, not our masters.

It would be at least manslaughter under British law, depending on the circumstances.. maybe murder. I mean.. Bikers are supposed to be able to take insults.. if not.. why are they Bikers? Priesthood might be a better calling for them.

Snoopy: Yes.. and? The film shows that no matter what he committed a crime, the only question is the magnitude of the crime.

Snoopy: I give up!! I've explained the law. Read it, look up sites on it.

I'm having my dinner

Snoopy: Because this is a free country and I'm allowed to. We all have feelings and opinions on this, and as a free person I am allowed to have an opinion.

Bernice: of course not.

Artful Dodger: That is still being investigated, hence the two charges being possible... assault or manslaughter.

Snoopy: No, I'm saying that no matter what the policeman committed a criminal offence. There is no justification to shove a man from behind by a policeman, especially as the man was not showing any physical signs of attempting to physically harm the police.

This is the law. British law.

All that is to be decided now re the forensics is what charge the policeman is to be charged with.

And apparently there are 10 serious assaults by the police being passed over to MP's to look in the G20 protests.

Bernice: Excuse me!! Telling me what the law is illegal!!

And stop trying to flame me, it's getting old.

Snoopy: What facts are there that you think justify shoving a person over from behind who has both his hands in his pockets?

If it were you or me we'd be charged with GBH or similar.

As to the law...

Page 1
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Manslaughter by
Reason of Provocation
Sentencing Guidelines Council
FOREWORD
In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issues this guideline as a definitive guideline. By virtue of section 172 of the Act, every court must have regard to a relevant guideline. This guideline applies to offenders convicted of manslaughter by reason of provocation who are sentenced after 28 November 2005.
This guideline stems from a reference from the Home Secretary for consideration of the issue of sentencing where provocation is argued in cases of homicide, and, in particular, domestic violence homicides. For the purpose of describing “domestic violence”, the Home Secretary adopted the Crown Prosecution Service definition.
1
The guideline applies to sentencing of an adult offender for this offence in whatever circumstances it occurs. It identifies the widely varying features of both the provocation and the act of retaliation and sets out the approach to be adopted in deciding both the sentencing range and the starting point within that range.
This guideline is for use where the conviction for manslaughter is clearly
founded on provocation alone. There will be additional, different and more
complicated matters to be taken into account where the other main partial
defence, diminished responsibility, is a factor.
The Council’s Guideline New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 recognised the potentially more demanding nature of custodial sentences of 12 months or longer imposed under the new framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Consequently the sentencing ranges and starting points in this guideline take that principle into account.
Guidelines are created following extensive consultation. The Sentencing Advisory Panel first consults widely on the basis of a thoroughly researched consultation paper, then provides the Council with advice. Having considered the advice, the Council prepares a draft guideline on which there is further consultation with Parliament, with the Home Secretary and with Ministers of other relevant Government Departments. This guideline is the culmination of that process.
The Council has appreciated greatly the work of the Sentencing Advisory Panel in preparing the advice on which this guideline has been based and for those who have responded so thoughtfully to the consultation of both the Panel and the Council.

1 “Any criminal offence arising out of physical, sexual, psychological, emotional or financial abuse by one
person against a current or former partner in a close relationship, or against a current or former family
member.” A new definition of domestic violence was agreed in 2004 (and appears in the CPS Policy on
Prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence, 2005) “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse
[psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional] between adults who are or have been intimate
partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.”
Page 4
The advice and this guideline are available on www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk
or from the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat at 85 Buckingham Gate, London
SW1E 6PD. A summary of the responses to the Council’s consultation also appears
on the website.
Chairman of the Council
November 2005

Statutory Provision

Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
Factors Influencing Sentence
The degree of provocation as shown by its nature and duration
The extent and timing of the retaliation
Post-offence behaviour
Use of a weapon
Sentence Ranges and Starting Points
Identifying sentence ranges
Factors to take into consideration

Sentencing Guidelines Council

MANSLAUGHTER BY REASON OF PROVOCATION
A. Statutory Provision
1.1
Murder and manslaughter are common law offences and there is no complete
statutory definition of either. ‘Provocation’ is one of the partial defences by which an offence
that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter.
1.2
Before the issue of provocation can be considered, the Crown must have proved
beyond reasonable doubt that all the elements of murder were present, including the
necessary intent (i.e. the offender must have intended either to kill the victim or to cause
grievous bodily harm). The court must then consider section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957,
which provides:
Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the
person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both
together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to
make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in
determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said
according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.
B. Establishing the Basis for Sentencing
2.1
The Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos. 74, 95 and 118 of 2002)
(Suratan and others),
2
set out a number of assumptions that a judge must make in favour of
an offender found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. The assumptions are required in order to be faithful to the verdict and should be applied equally in all cases whether conviction follows a trial or whether the Crown has accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter by reason of provocation:
❏ first, that the offender had, at the time of the killing, lost self-control; mere loss of temper or jealous rage is not sufficient
❏ second, that the offender was caused to lose self-control by things said or done, normally by the person killed
❏ third, that the offender’s loss of control was reasonable in all the circumstances, even bearing in mind that people are expected to exercise reasonable control over their emotions and that, as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control.

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

This is the law.

Snoopy: I know so, that ... or the police inspector friend I was talking to earlier was wrong... and I doubt that very much with his experience.

Snoopy: The only difference in the end is what the policeman is charged with. Even if it is not manslaughter it is still assault. So he'll end up in jail and/or dismissed from the force no matter what the forensics say.

Snoopy: No, I don't.. But after a recent talk with a POLICE INSPECTOR who is friendly with us about the matter, I know that even if it was an accident it is still manslaughter if the forensic shows the shove killed him.

I was talking with him on the phone today about it!!

Snoopy: I'm sorry, but even if the bloke said anything, the reaction of the policeman (and this the law) is still liable to be charged and convicted of manslaughter. Even if the bloke had called him some very nasty names it does not matter, the charge under UK LAW is still manslaughter if and this is the only if in the matter... the forensics comes back and shows it was that shove that caused the man to die or not.

Even if it wasn't the cause, the police officer broke the law. PERIOD.

You can argue about this all you want, but I am going by the law as laid down by the courts and our government.

Argue with them if you want... but they will tell you the same.

Snoopy: We had the police version... They tried blaming it on the protesters before this video evidence came up. IMHO innocent police don't go blaming others, it's only those with something to hide that try and hide their mistakes.

Snoopy: As I said... If he had said something that broke the law before hand, then he'd been arrested .. period.

Snoopy: Not in this case, no hype. I'm going by what I've seen, the video was quite clear. And that there are other cases being brought forward and the IPCC are now looking into what happened and the G20 protests due to the amount of video footage taken by people and from CCTV images. The IPCC head man is also concerned that a number of policeman had removed their ID number to avoid being recognised easily and that frontline supervisors did not stop this!!

I'm not judging all the police. But from what I've seen there needs to be change so that officers act with the respect they are supposed to, and that the police force as a whole does not lose respect due to a few bad apples.

Czuch: Proof being??? I'm still waiting.

about 3 hours left for you to find something, otherwise you are just (being blunt) waffling on.

Pedro Martínez: Neither do I, a guy died under suspicious circumstances.... That's not funny.

Czuch: I'm sure the family have a different view from you. And I've still yet to see you provide that he did anything to provoke them.

4 hours left to find something to prove you are right Czuch.

Where is your evidence?

Bernice: ?? Ahhh right. sure??!!?? You just implied that I had experience of Bali 'ladyboys'... I just told you know I didn't... clearly.

Is that ok with you?

Czuch: Czuch.... do your research on the SPG.

And to clarify some info, the metropolitan police are not the SPG, they were a unit off the metro.. well known for being violent beyond what is needed, and as the jokes were of the day.. bigoted thugs, and that you could not join unless you were a bigoted thug.

Bernice: No Bernice, never been caught out by a trans gender, you might know someone who has being closer to the area, but I don't.

Bernice: The first was an initial post mortem, after the video evidence they did a second more detailed examination, and now they are doing an even more detailed examination of the body.

Artful Dodger: No, he was on his way home. Again, you are not in full knowledge of the facts and jumping to a false conclusion. These were not regular police officers.

Maybe you should look up the SPG.

He was walking away and no breakage of the law by the man has been stated.

I'll give you 20 hours also.

Oh, btw.. there are two other cases of assualt by the 'SPG' being investigated.. one involving a back slap and a baton accross the little womans legs.. just for being mouthy over who they were being treated.

And that they denied protesters basic rights (water, food and the loo) is also being investigated.

The police are not above the law.. period. Thankfully those days are over... mostly.

Czuch: but you don't know. So you cannot say he did. You are just assuming.

20 hours left...

Czuch: You know he broke the law... please show me where he broke the law? Any evidence of non compliance?? Nothing has come up in the news. In fact they tried blaming it on the protesters....

I'll give ya 24 hours to find anything

Czuch: That's illegal Czuch, to use force such as used against a non-violent person.... And as said he was not arrested, the police were hardly busy at the point of the incident.

Regardless of being charged for manslaughter, he still committed a criminal offence and will probably be given the boot. The police have had enough press over bad apples and stupid police doing stupid things.

They are supposed to uphold the law, not break it!!