NUS thugs must be arrested and thrown out of their unis

and 'involves' as well!

"I suspect your disdain of the police will rapidly disappear if you ever need them."

I am afraid this is the trite defence of most police officers, or uncritical supporters of them, that is rolled out. Of course people need protecting from thugs, and need police to report a burglary to from time to time, or even to ask the time from.

I know that the public's experience of policing isn't summarised by controversial items, such as this event, or Blair Peach, or actions in the miners strike 84-85, or in the case of Chales deMenezes (where he was shot 7 times in the head on a tube train on the way to work), or in any number of incidents that DON'T get a national report because it is too local and mundane. But they erode confidence in 'community policing'. Isee our local bobby a few times every month, and I like her. ( we did dancing classes together a few years ago!). But the instiution of 'the police force' is a tangible problem and should be so in any democracy.

Shifting point a bit, it is unsettling to witness army officers expressing views on the Spending Review...there's is not the role to do this.

To accuse newwave of political tribalism invites the same accusation of any 'defender' of police forces. Policing in this country is very political - it invilves the state, power, money and civil rights.

Toe the line, meaning in this case someone who is one the establishment side of the line.

"As I say, I believe the officer in the Tomlinson case was excessive but as explained this wasn't a typical policing duty. It was unfortunate all round but the law supports the officer. That's all there is to it."

Of course the law supports the officer, from day one I knew the officer would get away with it and he did. In this and most cases of Police wrongdoing the law investigates the law and finds the law innocent.

"No. Offices are allowed to use the minimum amount of force in order to carry out their duties. But you know this - please stop these strawman arguments."

He used what in the end was "lethal force" an accident probably but a deliberate push to the ground nontheless.

Your definition of "strawman" is someone who does not have your viewpoint.

I actually suspect there's very little point in continuing this.

Someone else on another thread accused you of political tribalism and I fear that's accurate. You're not interested in debate - seemingly just simple strawmen.

Pity.

"LookTo, So the Police can assault people leading to their deaths with impunity, sorry i did not realise that, then again maybe I should have bearing in mind the amount of "deaths in custody"."

No. Offices are allowed to use the minimum amount of force in order to carry out their duties. But you know this - please stop these strawman arguments.

As I say, I believe the officer in the Tomlinson case was excessive but as explained this wasn't a typical policing duty. It was unfortunate all round but the law supports the officer. That's all there is to it.

I suspect your disdain of the police will rapidly disappear if you ever need them.

And the idiom is to "toe" the line - it refers to placing ones feet behind an arbitrary line.

Dooh "Tow"

LookTo, So the Police can assault people leading to their deaths with impunity, sorry i did not realise that, then again maybe I should have bearing in mind the amount of "deaths in custody".

I see you toe the establishment line sad really.

If any Police are hurt/killed in any demos they have only themselves to blame, shame is it will probably be one of the decent ones that suffer. No doubt the perpretators will be pleased to receive "words of advice". I would also add the investigation will be a dammed site quicker and more thorough than it was in the Tomlinson and for that matter the Peach cases.

"LookTo, Bullshit, if i pushed a "thug in uniform" to the floor in an "overly aggressive" manner I would be charged with either:"

You're not an officer of the crown involved with executing that authority - there's no comparison.

It is arguable whether the officer had a case to answer and a court has decided - after looking at the circumstances - that there is no case to answer.

If the officer had of been one of my staff he would have received words of advice but as I say, the officer was clearing a street while policing a protest with a largely belligerent crowd. The power of a police officer - especially when policing an event such as this - is largely established by his authority and yes aggression is part of this.

Sometimes "excuse me please sir" isn't a suitable method of policing.

LookTo, Bullshit, if i pushed a "thug in uniform" to the floor in an "overly aggressive" manner I would be charged with either:

An assault on a Police officer

GBH, ABH or manslaughter if he died due to the push

Murder if I did it with the premeditated intention to cause harm.

It was not an accident although I doubt if he meant to kill him, his actions lead to his death, poor health or not.

For the life of me I cannot see how you can defend the officers actions or to deny a criminal offence occured.

As always a whitewash/cover up has occured, you dont seem stupid so how can you not see it.

Everytime the Police break the law this happens, the same as happened at the peace camps.

It will all kick off when the cuts fully bite and if Police officers are hurt then it will only be self defence as you cannot expect the authorities to hold the Police to account for their actions.

I havent been on a demo since my student days in the 1960's but I fully support the students and anyone else affected by the cuts. This i say as someone who will not be affected financialy by the cuts (except the VAT) just remember who caused the reccession (Bankers) and who is expected to pay for it (everyone else but the bankers).

THE TORIES PUUTING THE N INTO CUTS

Sorry for rambling.

Yes, criminal damage IS unacceptable, however, the penalty should be being charged with criminal damage NOT thrown out of university -why should a person stop studying a subject they love because of a criminal record?

It is the stupid, moronic attitude of people who have not got a f clue what university education is for who think they should be thrown out. University should be dependent upon a person's ability to study a subject- that is it and nowt all else.

Also, throwing them out of university will decrease their life chances (usually does) and make them more susceptible to criminal behaviour. Stupid opening post.

I think its fair to say there was a mixture of people involved in both the peaceful protest and the direct action, the majority of whom were students because it was a student march. Is it such a leap of faith, however, to believe that there are other groups who both support the students in their protest against cuts and are willing to come out on the day of protest to show that support? Not everyone is interested in playing the 'I'm alright, Jack' game the tories are so keen on.

Tomlinson was pushed to the ground by an overly aggressive officer involved with clearing a street while policing a large protest .

Tomlinsons death was a result of his general poor health and the confrontation with the officer causing a heart attack. Ultimately it was an unfortunate accident.

There are many lessons to be learnt and the officer in question certainly needs words of advice but it wasn't murder, manslaughter or anything else.

Jean Charles De Mendes was, well I'm just glad I wasn't the ops commander that day.

If the thug in uniform had kept his hands to himself Tomlinson would still be alive. Just another cover up/whitewash. The Brazilian on the tube was murdered as well.

Tomlinson wasn't murdered - not even close. The two aren't even remotely comparable.

LFN, your comment regarding demonstraters attempting to murder the Police, all I can say is what goes around comes around, Tomlinson anyone

"It will be very hard to prove he intended to kill; he was being stupid and reckless (can you tell I'm a criminal law lecturer?)"

It would be argued that the act of deliberately throwing a heavy metal object from a tall building in to a crowd is sufficiently reckless that the perpetrator would have known that it stood a good chance of killing someone - even if he wasn't aiming it for anyone in particular.

There doesn't necessarily have to be an "intent" for it to be murder.

He probably won't be charged with attempted murder - though he definitely should.

Hello longfingernails! Other people have made the point really, but the fire extinguisher boy/man...
is most unlikely to be proved to have attempted murder.

No jury in the country would see his stupid deed as anything other than the unthinking action of someone who is young, adrenalin-pumped and who lost his head.

He won't get off scot-free, though. What he did was just too stupid.

I'm 99.9% certain he must now be feeling, 'oh, shit...' and is very, very embarrassed and ashamed.

ah! I seeee..it's LFN again. Ok.

alle - are you really a lecturer in criminal law? It doesn't read that way. You read incredibly ill-informed.

The reduction in imprisonment, as a result of spending restrictions, will be acheived at the expense of short prison sentencing i.e les than 12 months. The rate of recidivism for this group is at 75%.

The other notable thing is that women tend to spend no more than 7 weeks in custody, on average at our local priosn. Magistrates need to grasp the stupidity of their sentencing practices.

btw, why are we talking about manslaughter, or attemted murder??

nb the 14 years is the usual 'life' sentence. usually the recommendation is 'at least 10 years' in prison- for actual murder.

attempted murder sentences are usually less than life (which as you should know is 14 years). The most this guy will get is manslaughter. It will be very hard to prove he intended to kill; he was being stupid and reckless (can you tell I'm a criminal law lecturer?)

he will get less than 10 years believe me. And be out in a lot less.

If you think they're just cutting short sentences you are direly wrong. This government don't actually give a shit about justice, protection of the public, anything whatever except the unacceptable size of Vodafone's tax bill.

Ain't going to happen, Longfingernails.