Commenting on social, political, economic and general topics

Archive for September 2012

G20: Ian Tomlinson’s Death Whitewashed?

with one comment

How can you be sacked for gross misconduct AND keep your pension? No doubt he’ll have little difficulty finding alternative lucrative employment from some other public or private right wing employer who likes to see us plebs knocked about when we get a bit ‘uppity’.

“If he had known then what he now knows about the circumstances, everybody’s movements and Mr Tomlinson’s health, he would have used no force,…”; from what I remember, Mr. Tomlinson was not doing anything that required the use of ANY force; he was not a threat to the office, so that force was ‘unreasonable’ and therefore an assault- which resulted in his death ergo… do I need to say it? Not knowing about his health is no excuse; if there was a threat and reasonable force was used, then any pre-existing health condition becomes irrelevant. Because this was unreasonable force, then the resulting death, whether due to a pre-existing health condition or remains irrelevant- because UNREASONABLE force was used.

“However, the officer did not admit his actions caused or contributed to Mr Tomlinson’s death.” How can you possibly admit you hit someone, pushed them to the ground, then they die- not some time afterwards but minutes later- and say your actions did not contribute to the death? And an inquest said he had been unlawfully killed- what, by the pavement he fell on?

“The panel decided it was not necessary to consider this allegation because the threshold of gross misconduct had been reached.”

Here’s the good old BBC’s impartiality- let’s slip this one in to make it look like he might not deserve quite so much sympathy- and PC Harwood might not be so nasty, after all-

“Father-of-nine Mr Tomlinson – a heavy drinker who had slept rough for a number of years – walked 75 yards before he collapsed and died near the Royal Exchange Buildings.” What relevance does his family have; what relevance do his drinking habits have; what relevance does a walk of 75 yards have? He was an innocent bystander, on his way home from work (a nice fact omitted by the BBC) struck and pushed unnecessarily by a police officer who clearly would not have died had the unprovoked attack not happened.

“In July, PC Harwood denied manslaughter on the grounds that he used reasonable force, and was found not guilty following a trial.” How can any use of force on an innocent bystander possibly be construed as reasonable?

“IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said: “This situation may never have arisen had concerns about PC Harwood’s previous conduct been dealt with properly, by his superiors and those who re-employed him.”

“This should never happen again.”

But I suspect it will, and be dealt with in the same manner- with a large brush and bucket.


Written by Smiling Carcass

30/09/2012 at 5:33 PM

Posted in Police

Tagged with , , , ,

Atos and the DWP – Murderers

leave a comment »

Atos and the DWP – Murderers.

Written by Smiling Carcass

01/09/2012 at 6:15 PM

Posted in Uncategorized


with 3 comments

I went round to see a friend of mine this evening. He is 71 and a pensioner. His wife is younger, and not yet of pensionable age. Although he has been told consistently, the housing benefit changes will not affect pensioners, this week he discovered, that in fact it will. He lives in a 4 bedroomed house, where he has raised a family, who have gone on to raise their own and has several grandchildren, who often come to stay with him. He has now been told that because his wife is not a pensioner, he will have to pay the ‘bedroom Tax’ or move to smaller, more suitable accommodation.

I did some checking and found this-

From October 2013, when Universal Credit is introduced, if either member in a couple is under the qualifying age for pension credit then the couple will be treated as working age. This means they would be expected to claim Universal Credit, and would therefore be subject to the size criteria and benefit cap.

And this-

Note also that while the government says that pensioners are not affected, if their partner is not a pensioner and so they have to claim UC rather than pension credit, they could be affected unless they are excepted from the general rule.

So much for the government’s claim it won’t affect pensioners; question is, will this apply if you are a pensioner and have a son or daughter- or even lodger or carer of working age living with you?

Written by Smiling Carcass

01/09/2012 at 12:10 AM

%d bloggers like this: