Commentators

Rain (AM and PM) 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Editor-at-Large: Tomlinson was no saint, but he deserved better

Janet Street-Porter

The circumstances surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests on 1 April are only gradually becoming clearer. What has emerged, however, is that Mr Tomlinson was a troubled man with quite a few problems. I am not trying to diminish his death, and the sad loss felt by his family and friends, but before we put the police in the dock, it might be worth considering what Mr Tomlinson was doing that night, and what state of mind he might have been in.

At first, the police put out a statement which subsequently turned out to be misleading. It said that officers sent two medics to help a man who had stopped breathing, and on arrival at hospital he was pronounced dead. We now know, as more people come forward with pictures of that evening, that events were a great deal more complicated, and that Mr Tomlinson had been involved with the police on several occasions before he collapsed.

Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic who lived in a bail hostel around the corner from me in the City of London. He'd tried and failed to stay away from booze, but I make no judgement about that. How many of us are just an inch from going down that path, where alcohol takes over your life to the point where your family don't want you around? It's all too common. There are dozens of people like Ian Tomlinson in the City every day, hanging around in churchyards, sitting on park benches, selling The Big Issue. They turn up at the AA meetings held in the City every night of the week, where rich and poor talk freely about their struggle to stay sober. By the way, there are plenty of salaried alcoholics holding down good jobs in the City, disguising their addiction.

Mr Tomlinson did not have that opportunity, having started out as a scaffolder and shifting from job to job, to the point where he ended up in a hostel for the homeless in Smithfield. Mr Tomlinson probably sold me a newspaper when he had a pitch outside Blackfriars station for a while and I worked in Fleet Street.

One columnist has said that the "steady drip" of information about his background is designed to denigrate an ordinary man. I disagree. Knowing that he was an alcoholic is critical to understanding his sense of disorientation and his attitude towards the police, which might on first viewing of the video footage, seem a bit stroppy.

Mr Tomlinson was wearing a Millwall shirt, smoking a cigarette, and he'd had a few drinks. He didn't look anything like the people the police had corralled into a confined space around the Bank of England that night. They were mostly younger, middle class, and worlds apart from a working-class bloke whose face seemed older than his years after a life on the street. One perfunctory glance ought to have shown officers that he was completely harmless. Witnesses say Mr Tomlinson appeared to be drunk, he wasn't coherent and couldn't move very well. Over an hour later, footage shows a police officer wearing a balaclava aiming at his legs with a baton, and he falls to the ground.

It had been a long and trying day for the police. Mr Tomlinson wound them up when he didn't get out of the way. But he wasn't a 20-something anarchist with a placard. The fact he didn't swiftly jump to attention when ordered to do so should have been just a mild irritant, not something requiring physical manhandling. The police have been trained to deal with drunks, just as they are trained to deal with demonstrators. This man was not a threat to public order. His life story demonstrates that the only person he ever harmed was himself. I can understand how annoying he might have been, but I can't understand why anyone would want to hit him, especially not an officer who is paid to protect ordinary citizens.

Ian Tomlinson deserved some respect and understanding, and he clearly didn't get any that night.

Golden oldie: Only Caine could make a must-see movie out of dementia

Look out for Michael Caine's next film Is Anybody There?, opening in a couple of weeks' time – he gives a remarkable performance as a retired magician who arrives at a care home and gradually succumbs to dementia. Sounds depressing, but Caine is on top form, supported by excellent performances from fellow veterans Sylvia Syms, Elizabeth Spriggs and Leslie Phillips playing the other residents.

Care homes rarely receive good press, and generally only make news when there's been a death or a fire. To make them the subject for a feature film was a bold choice for writer Peter Harness and director John Crowley. Michael Caine's character befriends Edward, the 10-year-old son of the owners, who is thoroughly fed up at having his home taken over by the deranged and incontinent.

It could be mawkish, but isn't, and Caine's portrayal of a difficult old man is thoroughly unsentimental.

I first met Michael with the tailor Doug Hayward in the 1970s, and at 76, he's still on top form. He always makes me laugh, and certainly doesn't suffer fools.

Have a cabbage. It's five quid

The Home Secretary was embarrassed by revelations that her husband watched adult movies while she toiled in London, but can I suggest something less controversial to help him through those lonely nights? Middle-class households don't bother with X–rated channels, they thumb through the Lakeland catalogue, spending hours drooling over pages of gadgets you never knew you needed, from egg-poaching pouches to deep root trainers for runner beans.

This weekend Lakeland will be packed with shoppers – growing your own fruit and veg has become the fashionable way to pretend to friends you are being sensible in the recession, but guaranteed success requires tools, composts, cloches and gadgets. The notion that this constitutes thrifty living is misplaced. The cost of producing your own beans and potatoes renders them as expensive as those £195 baskets of cherries which Harrods are flogging. My spring cabbages attract every slug in the neighbourhood, and I've already spent £4 on slug pellets. Lakeland offer something called a Plant Guard Electric Slug Fence, a snip at just £29.94, so each cabbage will have cost me approximately £5 before it's even got six leaves. Truly, the caviar of brassicas.

The boat that rocked my career

Perfect bank holiday fare, The Boat That Rocked, Richard Curtis's affectionate portrayal of the golden era of pirate radio has received mixed reviews from critics, but the public likes it. The music is great, and there's a splendid cast, but is it accurate? In 1978, I presented a telly series for young people and we made a documentary about illegal radio stations. Radio Caroline had been closed down once, but was broadcasting from outside British waters in the North Sea. We chartered a trawler out of Ramsgate and set off to find Caroline at 4am in relatively calm seas. The skipper cooked us a massive Full English, but when the weather broke, everyone was sick. All my pieces to camera about the allocation of European broadcasting wavelengths were written on a roll of paper that flew away. I puked over the side, but it blew back, and I had to be hosed down. When I arrived at the pirate boat, British security services hovered overhead in a helicopter and told us we would be breaking the law if I went aboard.

I interviewed a couple of unshaven DJs through a loud hailer, as both boats rose and fell about 20 feet. Not the highlight of my telly career, but I can still recite the terms of the 1948 Strasbourg Agreement, so unnerving was the whole experience. It's all on YouTube.

More from Janet Street-Porter

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
A clear case of assault
[info]nonviolence1 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 02:02 am (UTC)
"He'd tried and failed to stay away from booze, but I make no judgement about that." Oh no, that isn't a statement by someone prejudiced - if you do not realise that it is a loaded statement and "Knowing that he was an alcoholic is critical to understanding his sense of disorientation and his attitude towards the police, which might on first viewing of the video footage, seem a bit stroppy." People like you make me sick - he was assaulted walking in front of a thug (policeman) with his back to the policeman - the police will do just as big a favour to themselves as to the public by getting rid of such thugs from their ranks. Stop smearing when it is clear case of assault, perhaps even of manslaughter.
Misleading drivel from Street-Porter
[info]lemmet wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 03:28 am (UTC)
He didn't live in a "bail hostel" - it was, as you later say, a hostel for the homeless.
The officer was not only masked but was wearing no number and after delivering a baton blow, pushed Mr Tomlinson with both hands, then ran off. He did not try to effect an arrest, it was just an assault. There was no evidence that Mr Tomlinson had "wound up" this officer, who did not recall assaulting him until he saw it on TV, according to Met sources. The police statement also claimed the "medics" were pelted with missiles, when in fact the police present pushed away a medical student attending the scene and refused to speak to the ambulance dispatcher called by a protester.

Why have you wilfully misrepresented this? It's a farrago of lies.
Re: Misleading drivel from Street-Porter
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:08 am (UTC)
Well said.
Re: Misleading drivel from Street-Porter - [info]infangthief - Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Misleading drivel from Street-Porter - [info]nonviolence1 - Monday, 13 April 2009 at 12:38 am (UTC) Expand
Come on JSP, you can do better...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:19 am (UTC)
Is no one going to champion this man's cause? Or is it because he is considered a down and out now, a Millwall supporting nobody that the media are moving onto new pastures...

And still little from the media about the atrocious lies and spin, yet again by the Met. The police within hours of yet another death have been caught LYING through their teeth in what can be only seen as the beginnings of an operation to cover up which says to me the police knew far more than they are admitting.

And please someone tell me what this is about his shirt that seems to strike a chord with some journo's, heck I wear a Millwall shirt, my 13 year old daughter wears a Millwall shirt, bloody Danny Baker wears a Millwall shirt, "Handy Andy" wears a Millwall shirt, even the casino builder in Las Vegas wears a bloody Millwall shirt so quit the inferences to the shirt please and trying to hint that he is some football hooliganesque character, perhaps if he had been wearing a Man Utd shirt or another teams he might have gotten a better reception in the media.
Better journalism in the Mail
[info]lemmet wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:27 am (UTC)
The shocking thing is that there is more compassion & honesty in this article in The Daily Dacre...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1168850/MARTIN-SAMUEL-The-drip-drip-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html
State of mind of victim irrelevant
[info]chuckkw wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:40 am (UTC)
It is only the state of mind and actions of the perpetrator that are relevant in determining whether a homicide occurred.

The actions of the victim are only relevant in that those seen by the perpetrator may affect the perpetrator's state of mind.

Police were horribly tardy in arresting and questioning the perpetrator, a masked armed policeman who should, in my opinion, have been stopped and either arrested or formally cautioned immediately.

Police were negligent in allowing officers to confer and discuss their witness accounts, in violation of the general rules of interrogation of suspects, but which do follow the shameful standard international practices when police are caught on video tape committing serious crime.
It is solely a criminal's decision to commit a crime that makes him a criminal
[info]chuckkw wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 04:48 am (UTC)
It is sad and shameful to see a British newspaper supporting gestapo-like tactics by police. Do Independent "journalists" and managers feel they have to do this to keep their contacts on the force (people they depend on as sources for other stories) cooperative?

Whether a person is a criminal depends solely on their decision to commit a crime. (Convictions in court merely add the adjective "convicted".)

IF this police officer committed a crime, IF his friends and co-workers are shielding him from prosecution by obstructing justice, filing false police reports, or perjuring themselves, they are criminals regardless of whether they are charged and convicted.
Met officer severely injured by criminals yesterday
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 05:27 am (UTC)
An armed Metropolitan police officer received life-threatening head injuries yesterday when he tried to prevent burglars escaping in their car. Although armed, the officer did not open fire on the criminals' car. Instead, he merely shouted 'stop, armed police.' As a result of his restraint, he may lose his life.

I suggest that in no other country would an armed police officer show such restraint.

This incident is not considered worthy of a mention in the online edition of the Indie, doubtless because it would not sit comfortably with the Indie's current overblown reaction to the Tomlinson affair.
Re: Met officer severely injured by criminals yesterday
[info]oldskald wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:54 am (UTC)
This is the tragic thing, really. There are many coppers going around doing a fantastic job, most of the time. And yet... after 20 years of revelations including Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Bridgewater 3, dealing crack cocaine out of the police station around the corner from me (Stoke Newington) when I was living in London, the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad (they committed the crimes), Hillsborough, and numerous other incidents, the trust is eroded. Another poster elsewhere has suggested I have a problem with the police - I don't, and I report crime and give witness statements. I don't want a medal for this, it's my duty. Just as it is the duty of the police not to act like uniformed thugs when they get into a group (I think there is a lot of work to be done investigating "mob mentality" amongst the police on occassions like G20 - if it works with demonstrators, why not those charged with keeping public order?).

And then we need to consider the orders and briefing given to officers on these occassions; were they hyped up by their commanders? Were they told to go in "a bit heavy"? Etc. And are the tactics used in such situations provocative? Do they exacerbate problems and incite violence? These are bigger questions than what happened with one man at one demonstration. But we must recognise that what happened appears to be an assault by a police officer followed by an institutional attempt to suppress the truth.

I think there needs to be a wide ranging investigation into the tactics used by the police, and the briefings given to officers on occassions such as G20. I believe that the police need to learn from their mistakes. And I certainly believe that every police officer, in no uncertain terms, must have it spelled out to them that they are not above the law. Lastly, I believe that the "canteen culture" in the police needs to be tackled - the code of silence that belongs on the playground.

In response to the incident with the armed officer being injured that you mention. I am not in possession of the details, but apparantly you are. Why not write to the Editor, giving details? Your letter may be published thus publicising the bravery of this officer more widely.
Re: Met officer severely injured by criminals yesterday - [info]britfree - Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 11:38 am (UTC) Expand
G20 policing
[info]sweetbriar12 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 05:32 am (UTC)
When the police force of a civilized nation wears balaclavas and behaves arrogantly towards any person they meet, then innocent death is inevitable. Whilst the law these legal terrorists are supposed to defend, can be broken at will and ignored by them, each one of them should bear in mind that they too are mortal. As they near their own death, will their conscience be as malleable?
Re: G20 policing - balaclava and removing numbers
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:08 am (UTC)
Good comment sweetbriar12!

When the IPCC conduct their investigation they should certainly establish whether the police officer involved, now identified because he came forward, wore a balaclava with intent to conceal his face and prevent identification but also whether he removed the ID numbers from his uniform that he should have had on display to allow identification.

Ever since the police force was introduced into the United Kingdom, each police officer was allocated a 'warrant card' which allowed them to make an arrest without a 'warrant'. The unique number has always been used as the basis of uniquely identifying each police officer, as should ALWAYS be displayed, usually on the collar of shoulder, to allow the public to know who they are dealing with.

Removal of these numbers really will lead to 'secret' police!




Mr. Tomlinson
[info]efpe wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 05:44 am (UTC)
Did you really need to blacken his name while allegedly standing up for him? That does not differ much from another sleaze stoty breaking from Downing Street this weekend.
I suspect your story is really a PR job on behalf of the police.
What nonsense
[info]nobby73 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC)
Your comment is scattered with poor attempts to denigrate his character. He lives in a "bail hostel" (not true), he was "wearing a Millwall shirt, smoking a cigarette and had had a few drinks" (was he, did he, had he, I didn't see it myself). Have you ever been around Liverpool Street station on a Friday night? You might expect battalions of armed officers cracking the backs of pissed-up Essex girls staggering to the train.

The point is, nothing you have said has any relevance in the slightest to what has happened.

As a friend of Bill myself, I have learned that alcoholics come in all shapes and sizes and they say the sofa is the park bench of the middle class alcoholic. Of course, you don't get hassled by the police if you are on your sofa. It is clear, you think that alcoholism is a sign of weakness. You seem to believe alcohol was a contributing factor in the man's death, and that may be the case, but it was a policeman who knocked him to the floor and that is all that matters, period.

"It had been a long and trying day for the police. Mr Tomlinson wound them up when he didn't get out of the way." - please tell me what motivated you to become a journalist, you idiot.

[info]bowesy wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:57 am (UTC)
what is the point of this article - space filling perhaps?

you mention his attitude towards the police - fuck me this is london not Berlin in the 60's, this isw meant to be a free country, remember?

it matters not that he was an alcoholic - the facts are simple he was assaulted walking around where he lived by summer jacked up on the moment copper who felt so brave, and was probably the only person he had seen all day on his own.

Prison is the only place for that prat.
"...but before we put the police in the dock" Really?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 07:57 am (UTC)
Nobody is trying to put the police in the dock, but rather to hold them accountable for their actions. 'Policing by consent' involves the police being able to obtain the respect and trust of the general public. Many incidents, some recent and others not, have shown disturbing trends that have,quite rightly, have caused the public to re-assess their faith in the police in the UK.

Rather than wanting to put the police in the dock, the public want to know that the police are acting in an appropriate and responsible manner. A vital element is when potential wrongdoing is exposed, that it is thoroughly investigated and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary action is taken.

Public concern currently involves not only the incidents themselves, but the response by the police authorities and the IPCC. In too many cases, denial and obfuscation have been the immediate response, leading to an atmosphere of mistrust and lack of credibility.
Re: "...but before we put the police in the dock" Really?
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
Once you start exempting people from sections of the law, the trouble will really start, the police must be subject to the same laws as we are, more so as agents and upholders of the law, the punishment must be as severe or more for the public to see state justice, not exemption, whitewash and cover-up for what is the most serious crime on our books.
Bitter Old Janet
[info]brinksman wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:25 am (UTC)
What a sick old, bitter woman Janet is. Surely this sort of crap is best kept for the Sun?
[info]oldskald wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
"It had been a long and trying day for the police. Mr Tomlinson wound them up when he wouldn't get out of the way". Really? Thing is, JSP, if I saw you I might feel "wound up", particularly if you were doing something like spouting off in your usual "look at me! look at me!" manner. Would that justify an assault?

"He was wearing a Millwall shirt", which of course, as we know, is the ultimate crime. In fact, he was asking for it, wasn't he? And then you look at the footage, and frankly, I would know it was a Millwall shirt because you CAN ONLY SEE THE SLEEVES. So the Millwall shirt is irrelevant, why do you mention it?

But my favourite is the headline "Tomlinson was no saint..." So what? Are you, JSP? Is anyone? He could've been bloody Pinochet and in a lawful society he shouldn't be assaulted, by anyone. If he committed a crime, arrest him. But your headline just sows that little bit of doubt, doesn't it? "He wasn't really a good lad, was he? It was inevitable he'd end badly..."; that's what your calculated headline says.

None of this surprises me. JSP used to peddle herself as the voice of "yoof". "Yoof" didn't really buy that. So now JSP peddles herself as the voice of some mythical, uninformed Middle England. And all the time she reveals herself to be just another mediocre hack with a loud voice and b*gger all to actually say...
for or against?
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
there's something a bit squiffy in jsp's comments re the soon to be sainted ( he deserved better)mr tomlinson -is she for or against him?
JUDGEMENTAL AND DISGUSTING - JANITOR STUFF.
[info]theguntz50 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
I repeat JUDGEMENTAL AND DISGUSTING - JANITOR STUFF.

In contrast I would offer THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

http://recycledbogrollblues.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-hello-hello-hello-vanilla.html

What a dishonest
[info]larkspur_14 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
argument. It is disingenuous for Ms Street Porter to claim she is not being judgmental. If that were the case she would not introduce facts about Mr Tomlinson which have nothing at all to do with the incident. Any citizen could have been in his position (and my bet is that many others were assaulted that day who did not suffer so lethally from the aggressive policing strategy employed). Is the "editor-at-large" trying to suggest that only those who are morally pure and upright are entitled to the protection of the law? Are only saints to be allowed to walk the streets freely? Her attempt to blame the victim - for being an alcoholic, it seems - is despicable.
Proportionate force
[info]jj9876 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
Even if the victim was 'awkward', the police are supposed to be trained to be deal with 'awkward' people. The assailant clearly assaulted the victim. All the other policemen held back. If the assailant had not been a policemen he would be facing charges. The Police arrest people for a lot less than what the assailant did. Is provocation an excuse for killing? We, the members of the public, have to use proportionate force in dealing with an attacker, why has this rule been relaxed for the Police? In this case the Police were not even being attacked by the victim.
Defenceless and vulnerable
[info]toprecipes wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
Poor defenceless Mr.Tomlinson stood no chance when he strayed into the path of these vicious thugs. No doubt that the perpetrator will suffer no more than a slapped wrist for his actions, and we will be told that the police were doing a very difficult job in trying circumstances.
It is clear to me however that large elements of the police no longer see that their job involves the protection of the innocent or vulnerable citizen. Their primary function is to uphold the requirements of the New Labour State.
Editor-at-Large: Tomlinson was no saint, but he deserved better
[info]revelstoke wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC)
A couple of things
1-Ian Tomlinson's background is completely irrelevant
2.What right have you,Janet Street Porter to decide whether Ian Tomlinson was a saint or not?That's up to those who really know him.
3-By writing this article you are playing into the hands of the police by being part of their propoganda machine.
4-Were you their when Ian Tomlinson was attacked b the police?So how do you know whether he was stroppy or not?
Please stick to writing what you know about.An ill-informed piece if there ever was one.
New Scotland Yard delenda est.
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC)
Dear Ms Street-Porter, I am fed up of this attitude of "the police may have a few bad apples..." I know of one squatter who, the next day was told by P.C. Plod "One of yours croaked last night". Yet we are to believe that the P.C responsible for Tomlinsons murder "fainted with grief". Poor dear, pass the smelling salts. Cowardly, corrupt, mendacious. The police have never recruited the brightest. You will find it is easier to establish a police state than to dismantle one.
Bank protests
[info]ferdyb wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
So Mr. Tomlinson should have looked obviously harmless to the police, as opposed what?
the placard waving anarchistsand and the young middle class protesters that wound up the officers having a long and trying day?
What planet this woman lives in?
Chris Tomlinson wasn't a saint.
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)
Wasn't he, Janet? You do surprise me.

I've got news for you: No one is a saint.

He didn't live in a bail hostel. That is a slur on him. But even if he did, and even if he was an alcoholic, he didn't deserve to be savagely attacked by the police. His background has got nothing to do with this. He was just a man trying to get home after his day's work. Pure and simple.

Once again we have the victim on trial instead of his attacker. When I was a child I repeatedly read the Fairy Story of Pinnochio and I always amazed when I got to the part where Pinnochio is sent to jail by the judge for 'allowing' himself to be robbed. In my innocence I couldn't believe that the victim of a crime would be on trial and jailed. Surely it was the person who commited the crime who should be put on trial and if found guilty, punished. But there is so much truth in that Fairy Story. So often when a person is attacked it is their charatcer that is put on trial. And here we have it again with Chris Tomlinson.

To state, Janet, that he didn't deserve to die is stating 'the bleeding obvious'. Did you think that the rest of us hadn't realised that without you help?

I hope you publish an apology for saying he lived in a bail hostel. But I doubt you will.
Re: Chris Tomlinson wasn't a saint.
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:06 am (UTC)
My apologies, I meant Ian Tomlinson not Chris.
Daily Dacre
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
Thank you, lemmet.

It's worth pointing out that even the Daily Dacre gets it right occasionally, just as Janet's lack of compassion has got the worst of her on this occasion.

Shame is on you, Janet!
Police officers are only human
[info]peteran wrote:
Sunday, 12 April 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
JSP says: "It had been a long and trying day for the police. Mr Tomlinson wound them up when he didn't get out of the way..."

This is a variation of the 'police officers are only human' argument. But it's nonsense. It's only human to be squeamish about blood, but we select surgeons who are not, and then train them not to faint during operations. It's only human to suffer from vertigo, but we select pilots who do not and then train them not to crash planes.

As importantly, we should select police officers who are not psychopathic, and then train them not to act like thugs. As a society, we give the police special powers and privileges, and in return we should hold them to a higher, not lower, standard.

There is never an excuse for unprovoked violence no matter who the perpetrator is. JSP should be ashamed of herself for attempting to mitigate the indefensible.

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, ‘anger is an energy.

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion