# The Tomlinson case



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

No winners in this one, but no wonder the Police service is being alienated from the general public, whilst respecting the verdict of a jury, personally I think this stinks

Just read the bottom of this report and make your own mind up about this guys character

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, I am not on a Police witch-hunt


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

Which, as far as I'm concerned, is why a jury should be made aware of a defendants past record. The guys a fuckin thug in uniform and has gotten away with it, AGAIN :evil:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

it's a shame that one bad apple will set the force back over 10 years in how it is perceived by the public. all info MUST be made available to a court and jury for them to make a correct judgement on a defendent. although i am sure somebody will be along to sing about possible misscariages of justice.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Oh dear that does not make good reading at all.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

jamman said:


> Oh dear that does not make good reading at all.


oh god james you as a Mod??? i would be on a perm bloody ban or gagged!!!


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

My comment made to my wife on hearing the verdict and before hearing his history was, "He's nothing but a thug and no better than Stephen Lawrence's murderers, how on earth could someone like that manage to remain in the police force".


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

YoungOldUn said:


> My comment made to my wife on hearing the verdict and before hearing his history was, "He's nothing but a thug and no better than Stephen Lawrence's murderers, how on earth could someone like that manage to remain in the police force".


I also wondered, how on earth anyone like that could get into the police force in the first place; probably need to look at the mental assessment policy.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

BrianR said:


> YoungOldUn said:
> 
> 
> > My comment made to my wife on hearing the verdict and before hearing his history was, "He's nothing but a thug and no better than Stephen Lawrence's murderers, how on earth could someone like that manage to remain in the police force".
> ...


probably why i wasn't police or fire brigade material Brian.........too bloody volatile at times.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > YoungOldUn said:
> ...


And is deffo why you or I are not in the police mate, because like this officer it would be wrong to be. The guy should be placed in care homes, looking after the aged and taught a little humility.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

BrianR said:


> The guy should be placed in care homes, looking after the aged and taught a little humility.


Whoa, I don't agree with this statement Brian. Once a thug always a thug to my way of thinking and I would not like anyone like him 'looking' after any relative of mine.

There is only one place he belongs and that is prison. (I know he was found not guilty of the charges brought against him, but surely that is due to our lenient justice system).


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

YoungOldUn said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > The guy should be placed in care homes, looking after the aged and taught a little humility.
> ...


Yes, what was I thinking about expecting this guy to be able to learn humility, its probably beyond him; you are right and I wouldn't want him looking after mine either.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

YoungOldUn said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > The guy should be placed in care homes, looking after the aged and taught a little humility.
> ...


hold on Jim, i got rejected for both the cops and fire brigade as being a ticking time bomb as my ex colour seargent told my father after two weeks in the forces. however i have never had any problems with violence with the gen public and even catching a guy thieving in my own street didn't act bud as i wanted too.

i think this case is a stand alone case as yes i have met cops who will be very forcefull in dealings with disruptive gen pop guys. however i think this guy just got through the barrier and back into the force by mistake.. yes i agree that it should never have happened and yes it was extreme times in britain............for a copper that should never have been back in the force as he clearly could not keep a clear head in a crisis i think. hmm have me deep in thought on this one m8ee....which is good


----------



## 1sttt (Nov 6, 2011)

Looking at the video and doing a threat assement the guy clearly had his back toward this copper which decreases the threat by about ninety present . Then copper then takes a few steps toward the deceased and strikes him with his batten then pushes him forward . The whole time the deceased had his back toward the copper. No threat at all . This copper wanted a fight and he got what he wanted. To get a not guilty after all that the people on the jury should be ashamed of them selves.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

1sttt said:


> Looking at the video and doing a threat assement the guy clearly had his back toward this copper which decreases the threat by about ninety present . Then copper then takes a few steps toward the deceased and strikes him with his batten then pushes him forward . The whole time the deceased had his back toward the copper. No threat at all . This copper wanted a fight and he got what he wanted. To get a not guilty after all that the people on the jury should be ashamed of them selves.


 hmmm do you actually believe what you posted??

so he was giving the cop a preset of 90%
so the deceased is on the floor..........i assume as it is only zombie films thay are still walking.
so even after the deceased (means he is firking dead) was walking away and got struck again by the coppers baton!
this is how crap starts in life b it a riot or just a protest march...........someone gives out the wrong facts and week willed nobs jump on the ACAB brigade once again.
i know plenty of plod as they are family and friends personaly to me and my family. (didnt help me in a speeding case mind lol) but any decent cop i know and yakked too will willingly tell you a copper of bad blood is not wanted on the force as he/she just makes life hard for the rest of them tbh.
one of two ways...........all firking hard and take no shit or as we have it now??? i would prefer the tough approach tbh


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

You cannot judge a man for what he may have done only for what he has done. Thats the law folks.


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

Yeah but it's not for what he MAY have done, it's for what he DID do. If it's on record the jury should be made aware of it, otherwise they're not passing judgement on the real person, just the person presented to them by the defense.


----------



## neilc (Aug 8, 2011)

SteviedTT said:


> Yeah but it's not for what he MAY have done, it's for what he DID do. If it's on record the jury should be made aware of it, otherwise they're not passing judgement on the real person, just the person presented to them by the defense.


They are there to judge that incident and nothing more. What has happened or not in the past must never be used as evidence because its not and would be unfair to the officer.


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

Which is exactly why the law is a farce. If someone has a string of offences and the jury aren't allowed to know about it, how the hell is that fair. I don't agree with calling the twat an officer either, he's nothing but a low life scum bag and should be referred to as such.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

SteviedTT said:


> Which is exactly why the law is a farce. If someone has a string of offences and the jury aren't allowed to know about it, how the hell is that fair. I don't agree with calling the twat an officer either, he's nothing but a low life scum bag and should be referred to as such.


+1

And I still stick by what I have said previously -


YoungOldUn said:


> Once a thug always a thug to my way of thinking and I would not like anyone like him 'looking' after any relative of mine.
> 
> There is only one place he belongs and that is prison. (I know he was found not guilty of the charges brought against him, but surely that is due to our lenient justice system).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

SteviedTT said:


> Which is exactly why the law is a farce. If someone has a string of offences and the jury aren't allowed to know about it, how the hell is that fair. I don't agree with calling the twat an officer either, he's nothing but a low life scum bag and should be referred to as such.


So all the people who've commited speeding offences In the past would think it was ok for a judge to say "the camera in the police car wasn't calibrated properly, but because you were caught speeding a year ago, we're going to assume you probably did it this time too"?

The law works the way it does for good reasons. You can't just throw fairness and equality out the window in order to get the result you want.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> SteviedTT said:
> 
> 
> > Which is exactly why the law is a farce. If someone has a string of offences and the jury aren't allowed to know about it, how the hell is that fair. I don't agree with calling the twat an officer either, he's nothing but a low life scum bag and should be referred to as such.
> ...


you are talking about one offence spandy..........however too many times in the past have we seen burgulars plead guilty with 300 other offenses taken into consideration as it clears the route for the future. in this case he was an officer of the law and must be held accountable for his actions as should his superiors for taking a problematic officer back into the ranks. i deal with the police regularly as friends and working for them.......not one has held a tiny bit of sympathy for him and feel he should have been found guilty. a thug is a thug but if it is an officer of the law that we feel is actually there to protect us from harm! could we trust him or anyone supporting him in the future.
he should be thrown out of the force in disgrace and sign on as a security guard for a local supermarket to dish out the crap to the shoplifters that keep prices higher for us all.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

neilc said:


> SteviedTT said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but it's not for what he MAY have done, it's for what he DID do. If it's on record the jury should be made aware of it, otherwise they're not passing judgement on the real person, just the person presented to them by the defense.
> ...


Neil did you see yesterdays paper, the pedo that told a court after grooming a ten year old girl to gain her trust that she held him down and thrust her tongue into his mouth?

ok so he is the adult and is innocent until proven guilty correct? so the ten year old girl that is clearly underage and possibly unable to give clear or precise evidence to a court. if the child is unable to clearly show he was abusing her as to her it was being friendly.........he will dispute everything of course......so he should walk free?

justice cannot be black and white it has to be a common sense approach on merit for each case.


----------



## 1sttt (Nov 6, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> 1sttt said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the video and doing a threat assement the guy clearly had his back toward this copper which decreases the threat by about ninety present . Then copper then takes a few steps toward the deceased and strikes him with his batten then pushes him forward . The whole time the deceased had his back toward the copper. No threat at all . This copper wanted a fight and he got what he wanted. To get a not guilty after all that the people on the jury should be ashamed of them selves.
> ...


Ur read my post again . The treat toward this copper had decreased by 90% because the deceased was not facing him . :roll:
I was using deceased to name Tomlinson ,not meaning he was dead at that point in time.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> you are talking about one offence spandy..........however too many times in the past have we seen burgulars plead guilty with 300 other offenses taken into consideration as it clears the route for the future. in this case he was an officer of the law and must be held accountable for his actions as should his superiors for taking a problematic officer back into the ranks. i deal with the police regularly as friends and working for them.......not one has held a tiny bit of sympathy for him and feel he should have been found guilty. a thug is a thug but if it is an officer of the law that we feel is actually there to protect us from harm! could we trust him or anyone supporting him in the future.
> he should be thrown out of the force in disgrace and sign on as a security guard for a local supermarket to dish out the crap to the shoplifters that keep prices higher for us all.


Oh, so how many offences does it take before you're not allowed a fair, unbiased trial? Three? Ten? Twenty? Or is it just as as many as it take for you to get the judgement you want?

You're looking at this case with blinkers on. You want to change the rules so that this officer would go to prison, without thinking about how those rules would affect other cases. What about all the people with criminal pasts who've been accused of a crime the *didn't commit*? Do they also deserve an unfair trial?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> Neil did you see yesterdays paper, the pedo that told a court after grooming a ten year old girl to gain her trust that she held him down and thrust her tongue into his mouth?
> 
> ok so he is the adult and is innocent until proven guilty correct? so the ten year old girl that is clearly underage and possibly unable to give clear or precise evidence to a court. if the child is unable to clearly show he was abusing her as to her it was being friendly.........he will dispute everything of course......so he should walk free?
> 
> justice cannot be black and white it has to be a common sense approach on merit for each case.


Yet again, you're deciding what result you want in the court and then saying we should just do whatever it takes to get that result. Not enough evidence? Oh well, it's 'common sense' that he did it. Convict him anyway.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

The law does allow evidence of previous convictions to be presented to the jury in certain cases. But that is *convictions* - not accusations, rumour, innuendo, back-stabbing, malicious complaint . . . just convictions.

It seems those kicking off about this verdict are doing so simply because it has been revealed the defendant had previously been accused of an assault. Well, frankly there's barely a frontline police officer in the country who hasn't been accused of an assault. I certainly have. There are some criminals who every single time they are arrested will file a complaint of assault against the arresting officer. It's simply part and parcel of the job - especially for those working in large, metropolitan forces - and I would have been astounded if it had been revealed that this officer had never previously been subject to a complaint.

It says he was 'allowed to retire' through ill health whilst this complaint was outstanding. The press of course try and make it out to appear as though he has only 'retired' to avoid getting sacked because of the complaint. Where's the substance in that? I'm not saying it can't be true but it most certainly seems to be nothing more than supposition.

It's not uncommon for officers doing certain roles to almost permanently be subject to complaint investigations. If you work in the Tactical Aid units (those regularly deployed at demonstrations) then it's a permanent hazard. You work in a team of at least 7 people - sometimes 22. If someone makes a complaint about the behaviour of just one of those team members then it is common practice for _every_ member of the team present on that job to be put under investigation. Added to that working these demonstrations is a job highly likely to attract malicious complaints. There are people at these demonstrations whose sole purpose for being there is to create havoc for the police - work a demonstration and regardless of what you do there *will* be a complaint. So, given that some officers are prone to be under investigation all the time regardless of how professional they are how do you implement a rule that says no officer can ever be retired (either through choice or ill health) with an outstanding complaint?

One answer is to take them off active duty until all complaints are cleared up, but sadly these things can often take years to resolve. So what do you do? Put an ill officer on sick leave with full pay for a year or two? Is that value for the tax payer?

I expect whatever the complaint was it would have been looked at to see whether there was likely to be anything in it that would come to a prosecution. An initial assessment may have shown it was unlikely and so the officer was allowed to retire through ill health. That in itself might suggest there wasn't much in the complaint (people do make them up, you know!).

It is unusual for officers to retire ill and then come back - but it certainly isn't unique. The pension is only paid for as long as the officer remains unfit for duty - it's not a case of you being awarded it and then that's it for the rest of your life. If he has recovered from whatever illness or injury he had then he will have lost his pension and would need to be looking for work. As a former police officer he would have been limited in options and it isn't surprising that he would have sought employment with the police service and got himself a civilian support role. I don't doubt he has probably had to work hard to get himself back to fitness in order to get back into uniform. And we are holding all this against him.

I often respond to these kind of threads and invariably my response takes the same line. You can't just take a simple headline in the press and from that condemn someone. Sadly all too often that headline contains very little of the truth if any of it at all. Invariably there is far more to the story than is being reported and very often matters are grossly misreported or misinterpreted simply for the sake of the headline itself. As often as not there's a very simple and straightforward explanation for something that has been made to look in some way sinister - it's just a case of knowing what you're talking about to be able to see through the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

The truth was there for all to see in the video. He visciously assaulted that guy, who was not a threat to him, from behind. An assault that ultimately led to the poor guys death. How much more "open and shut" do the authorities need FFS? Obviously a hell of a lot more when the scum bag is one of their own :evil:


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

as you all know im in the job but i agree there was not a lot of controled aggresion shown here from said police officer and he obviously was not listening on his psp course/refresher when they mentioned the phrase "witness perception " it did look out of order what he did but in all fairness i was not there so do not know all the facts .

as far as his previous form in the job, i have been both a member of the support group and arvs, both in your face jobs . i have had numerous complaints for assault , unlawfull arrest, witness intimidation, perverting the course of justice and fabricating evidence .

all were shown to be either sour grape complaints or were from serial complainers, remember the police service is one of the few jobs where you can complain and someone has to record it .

my complaints were rubbish and shown to be, i have recently been given a written warning [lasts for 12 months] for a questionable check, i went on my discipline and ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES was found quilty, they could not prove it but the burden of proof is lower in police discipline cases [to be honest it was a kangaroo court in my opinion].

does this mean i am not fit to do my job ? on the plus side i have 7 commendations and a judges commendation.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> It seems those kicking off about this verdict are doing so simply because it has been revealed the defendant had previously been accused of an assault.


No Mark, it's on video. That's why people are kicking off.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

rustyintegrale said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > It seems those kicking off about this verdict are doing so simply because it has been revealed the defendant had previously been accused of an assault.
> ...


+1 brutality is brutality, I don't care how you frame it or how articulate your argument may be, the video speaks for itself, anyone remember Rodney King, what's the difference, number of officers involved IMHO, that's all.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

merlin c said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Mark Davies said:
> ...


The Tomlinson case is worlds apart from the Rodney King incident. They both involved unprovoked (or, at least, completely disproportionate) Police attacks, but that's about the only similarity.

The issue here isn't the attack itself (which, lets face it, would have left most of us with a couple of bruises at worst) but the fact that it was completely unnecessary.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

they were both unnessesary in my view...........however the officer in this case showed a complete lack of judgment in his attitude towardsthe guy. he was under no threat at all, but still struck this guy and pushed him to the floor. i fail to see why you are defending him, unless it is the sheer lack of conversation at hom so you feel you must post against the grain to get some retort.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't believe I have defended him. But thanks for your attempt at reading comprehension. Entertainingly poor as always.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> I don't believe I have defended him. But thanks for your attempt at reading comprehension. Entertainingly poor as always.


i try bud........it was early and i was also boshing through work mails....so didn't pay full attention.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

The point, as in all these cases where a verdict doesn't match what you believe should have happened, is that it is a decision made by a jury. Not by the police, or a judge, or the system or the establishment, but by 12 randomly selected people just like you and I.

Except they are not exactly like you and I. The great material difference between them and us is that they have seen and heard *all* the evidence - not just the video or the snippets of stuff that the media want to pass to you. They know all the facts that we don't and on the basis of that knowledge have come to a decision. Now they are people just like us so I've no reason to doubt that if I was in the same position as they, with all the facts and evidence to hand, then I may very well have come to the same conclusion.

It's just a case of having enough sense and humility to appreciate that we don't know everything and just maybe other people know better. You don't have all the facts and what you do have is just what the media gave you - which means it's what they wanted you to know (and they do have an agenda) or as likely as not it's not massively accurate. Sure a video speaks for itself, you could say, but it needs context in which to decide whether the actions were justifiable and just maybe the jury had a far clearer idea of that than we do.

You'll make your own minds up but unless someone can make an argument about why this particular jury can't be trusted I don't see how we are in any position other than to accept their verdict.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> You'll make your own minds up but unless someone can make an argument about why this particular jury can't be trusted I don't see how we are in any position other than to accept their verdict.


I don't think anyone doubts the jury Mark. As you say they have to make judgement based on the evidence put before them - however complete or incomplete that may be.

But what I can't understand is why that policeman lashed out. He was the only one in the whole bunch that did. He was then the only one to lunge at the victim afterwards. He was clearly angry and I don't think anyone could argue that the decision to do this was his own. He wasn't under any orders to 'hurry the victim along' or I would assume the other policemen would've reacted in a similar fashion.

I do take your point about media influence though. Nothing is more important than a good story - not even the truth.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> But what I can't understand is why that policeman lashed out.


We don't understand it precisely because we don't have all the facts. As I said, we probably don't have all the context.

From an 'insiders' point of view, all police officers have their own way of doing things. I am patient and tolerant and would much rather spend a lot of time speaking with people than resorting to physical force. That's just me playing to my strengths because I'm good at persuading people and not all that accomplished at having a scrap. Other officers will work to their own strengths and do things differently. That means I will regularly see colleagues doing things in a manner that I wouldn't personally have done them, but that's not to say I would presume what they had done was wrong. My way isn't always the best way - there are going to be circumstances when you simply cannot afford the time to endlessly keep repeating requests and instructions and just have to resort to physically moving people on. I've been there and I've done that.

We've been shown some short clips taken on mobile phones that last a few seconds. We don't know what was going on for the 10 or 15 minutes before that. Perhaps if we did (and presumably the jury had a better idea of it) then we'd find the actions a little more understandable. I genuinely don't know what happened in this case, but at these demonstrations or indeed any event involving crowd control you get many people who will be absolutely bloody-minded and who simply will not comply with any request, regardless of how reasonable it is.

For instance they could be in extreme danger and you could be trying to save their life but they won't do what you ask them simply because it is the police making the request. I was in exactly that position when trying to clear the centre of Manchester from the bomb in 1996 - literally within 100 yards of that truck and having to physically grab people and throw them out of a pizza restaurant because they flatly refused to leave their tables. There's simply no accounting for how stupid and difficult some members of the public can be. Those people were not only putting their lives at risk but mine too. I couldn't in all conscience leave them there but I'd be buggered if I was going to get blown up simply because of their stupid stubbornness, so if I'd had to resort to getting a baton out to make them move I would have done. Understandable? Well perhaps - but I bet a 10 second clip from a mobile phone wouldn't have looked any better than this particular case.

It's all about the context.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> I genuinely don't know what happened in this case, but at these demonstrations or indeed any event involving crowd control you get many people who will be absolutely bloody-minded and who simply will not comply with any request, regardless of how reasonable it is.


Yeah I've seen that first-hand on many occasions. Nobody wants to be first out but when the shit hits the fan they all do.

Oh well, I'll guess the truth will come out eventually - it always does.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Interesting view points on here, I can completely understand that officers face a litany of unfounded complaints from people who will look for any angle to get themselves of the hook, and also accept that were are not party to what the jury heard in totality, but the character of this PC is definately open to question, with even his own colleagues raising complaints against him. You get bad apples everywhere, maybe we have one here. On his actions that night, at the wrong time they could have caused a full scale disturbance, then no doubt we would have been discussing something else, but it's just these incidents that can colour peoples views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/2 ... intcmp=239


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Mark
You made the point of saying it was the jury, not the judge or the police, that is not true. The judge in his directions before sending the jury to deliberate has a massive influence on any case, I was involved many years ago in a crown court case at Worcester where the judge gave directions that I and others disagreed with, after two days we finally returned a guilty verdict that the judge was clearly not impressed with but had to abide by, so to say judges have no say or influence is incorrect. We would have returned the verdict much quicker if other jurors had not been intimidated by the judges instructions which meant we had to show the evidence was not conducive with his instructions.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

I do take your point about media influence though. Nothing is more important than a good story - not even the truth.[/quote]"the only thing you can believe in the press is the date on the top of the page and sometimes even that is wrong" On the face of things this guy is a complete knuckle dragging neanderthal thug, but I understand Marks views that with context maybe the
story is different and a void of information exists. i would love to hear the whole story in full if only we had a newspaper worth its salt and in the true meaning of the word rather than the rags we have to put up with.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

merlin c said:


> Mark
> You made the point of saying it was the jury, not the judge or the police, that is not true. The judge in his directions before sending the jury to deliberate has a massive influence on any case, I was involved many years ago in a crown court case at Worcester where the judge gave directions that I and others disagreed with, after two days we finally returned a guilty verdict that the judge was clearly not impressed with but had to abide by, so to say judges have no say or influence is incorrect. We would have returned the verdict much quicker if other jurors had not been intimidated by the judges instructions which meant we had to show the evidence was not conducive with his instructions.


You counter my point that it is a jury that has made this decision by saying that judges have a huge influence and then tell us a personal story of how the jury you were involved in gave a verdict quite contrary to the directions of the judge, and therefore proving my point.

Judges can and do give guidance and direction and that is designed to help a jury of lay-persons negotiate the complexities of fine legal argument and evidence and in some measure try and prevent someone being acquitted or convicted on the basis of simple prejudice rather than the facts of the case. But at the end of the day, as you proved, it's the jury and only the jury that makes the final decision.

In criticising the judge you presume your verdict was the correct one. What if it wasn't? From someone else's point of view you and a few others bullied the rest of the jury into the verdict _you_ wanted despite clear short-comings in the evidence, as indicated by a very experienced and learned judge. Nobody reading this is ever going to know the difference so it's a bit of an empty argument.

All it does prove is that sometimes our jury-based legal system can be a bit of a lottery and odd decisions do come out, and this Tomlinson case may well be one of those. But in my experience on the whole juries do tend to get it right.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Mark Davies said:


> merlin c said:
> 
> 
> > Mark
> ...


Mark I was in that jury room and no one was bullied, as I said we went through the evidence thouroghly and contrary to the judges directions we found the accused guilty, yes some jurors were presented with the evidence and then asked to justify their stance and they said "but the judge yada yada" all we did was point out the evidence and whilst this is a good natured debate be careful throwing accusations about bullying when you were not there and are behaving in such a way as to be presumptious and bordering on arrogance. When his previous convictions were read out after the judgement not one juror felt we made the wrong decision.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

bring back hanging and stop fucking about is my view


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> bring back hanging and stop fucking about is my view


Yeah and chop their f#cking hands off if they are caught stealing and as Alf Garnet said, brand em 'hooligan' on the forehead so we know who they are and when we see them we can throw things at them and kick the sh#t out of them :lol: :lol:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

BrianR said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > bring back hanging and stop fucking about is my view
> ...


any cheap tattoo kit on ebay going lol


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > Gazzer said:
> ...


A branding iron would be better Gaz :lol:


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

merlin c said:


> Mark I was in that jury room and no one was bullied, as I said we went through the evidence thouroghly and contrary to the judges directions we found the accused guilty, yes some jurors were presented with the evidence and then asked to justify their stance and they said "but the judge yada yada" all we did was point out the evidence and whilst this is a good natured debate be careful throwing accusations about bullying when you were not there and are behaving in such a way as to be presumptious and bordering on arrogance. When his previous convictions were read out after the judgement not one juror felt we made the wrong decision.


I wasn't accusing you of anything - you've simply failed to understand the track of my argument.

I was simply putting forward a possible hypothetical point of view to the situation that was an alternative to your own, and by doing so illustrating how your argument was based entirely on your own subjective belief that the guilty verdict was the right one. You were supporting your view that judges' recommendations are a flaw in the system simply because a guilty verdict was reached contrary to his directions. Well we don't know the evidence so cannot possibly make a judgement on whether your verdict was right or not, and so consequently whether the judge's directions were misplaced or not. For all we know your verdict was an absolute travesty and a miscarriage of justice. Now I'm not saying it was, so we don't need to instigate a massive debate about your case - I'm just pointing out that given that it's always a possibility it renders your argument somewhat empty (as I said).

Essentially, without knowing the absolute truth of whether your defendant did the crime (and perhaps he's the only person in the world who really knows) the simple fact you came up with a verdict different from what the judge apparently wanted doesn't in itself mean anything, does it? All you've brought to the argument was that your jury ultimately disagreed with the judge. Full stop. We don't know who was right or wrong so can't possibly form a view on whether judges should give direction or not. And as I said, all you did bring was a perfect example of the point I was making - that it's juries and only juries who decide on a verdict.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Your right, I did fail to understand your accusations.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Whatever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?

If there's any doubt at all it should always fall as not guilty shouldn't it? Isn't that UK law?


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

The problem, I think, is that they charged the officer with the wrong offence. They couldn't PROVE that his assaulting the man who died actually caused his death and therefore the prosecution could not prove manslaughter.

However you'd struggle to see how he couldn't have been convicted of some form of assault charge, some of which would have put him in prison for a very lengthy period. Maybe the family pressed the CPS for the manslaughter charge over an assault charge, who knows? In the end he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter, but you cannot deny that he struck the man who died.

The guy had to go to work, or he wouldn't have had money to live on. He got caught up in the now discredited "kettling" of protesters, a technique that seemed to exist to make a round up of the usual suspects that bit easier and to keep law-abiding citizens away from their normal, law-abiding lives. He just wanted to go home, and some big blokes in big armour with big sticks wouldn't let him.

Ultimately, I don't like seeing the police in that much armour (i have no issue with stab vests), wielding batons and carrying shields. I don't like any form of paramilitary force at all and I certainly don't like armed police. I'm afraid I have pretty much lost faith in the police to PREVENT crime, which I believe is what they are primarily supposed to do, rather these days they do seem to be the strong arm of the state. Possibly it's the enforcement of bad legislation I REALLY have the issue with, but watching an unarmed man being beaten by an armoured man while other supposedly "good" armoured men look on, I think that tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the guys in the body armour. They probably would have done nothing and closed ranks had it not been on video. In fact, they only got "worried" about the officer's history when it came out and embarrassed the Metropolitan Police.

I have no doubt there are good police officers out there. Probably most of them are, but history shows they have a very poor record of weeding out the bad ones or coming clean when they get caught. Clean up the police service and people might start giving some respect out of respect, rather than fear.


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

the armour is issued for a reason, because when they do start lobbing stuff at you it usually hurts and injures people [health and safety]

have we forgoten about said student throwing the fire extinguisher off the roof and landing at the feet of the psu , what would have happened if they had not been kitted up ?


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

If the fire extinguisher had hit someone the body armour wouldn't have been any use at all. Most of the purpose for wearing it appears to be intimidation. There is no requirement for that level of PPE to be so routinely deployed.

I did a training session with an ex-MET officer recently and he was quite happy to tell us why many policemen routinely carry a magic marker and many other subtle ways to torment those unlucky enough to fall into the hands of the police. Now, I promise you, when people like me have written the police off as the new Gestapo, something has gone seriously wrong in the UK.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

wja96 said:


> If the fire extinguisher had hit someone the body armour wouldn't have been any use at all. Most of the purpose for wearing it appears to be intimidation. There is no requirement for that level of PPE to be so routinely deployed.
> 
> I did a training session with an ex-MET officer recently and he was quite happy to tell us why many policemen routinely carry a magic marker and many other subtle ways to torment those unlucky enough to fall into the hands of the police. Now, I promise you, when people like me have written the police off as the new Gestapo, something has gone seriously wrong in the UK.


so you met one bad cop and tar the rest with the same brush??? take shit 7 days a week fronm prats and tell me you wouldn't find your own way to deal with life. sorry m8 but i personally think you are wrong gestapo???? wtf lol.......your wife daughter or auntie gets attacked stabbed or sexually assaulted......who do you ring? isn't the bloody samaritans is it. yes of course they have problems as with any emergency service.........that is on a tight budget and getting tighter. the ones that keep going do so as to them it is a calling to do the job despite being abused daily and having threats of death against them the family and kids.

i argue with mark regularly over things about the police.........but he knows what it is i am trying to set up on a regular basis with my locals, it doesn't mean he is right or wrong and the police are right or wrong its a discussion of views.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

wja96 said:


> . . . many policemen routinely carry a magic marker . . .


Funny how after nearly 20 years and meeting and working with dozens and dozens of police officers I don't know a single one who carries a marker pen. Really wouldn't know what would be done with it either.

The more I read threads on here the more I'm coming to realise that all these years I must have been policing in an alternative reality. Clearly with all your statements of absolute truth you guys are intimately familiar with a police force that I simply don't recognise. I'm obviously policing in some kind of fantasy.

I really must get out more.


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

i didnt know you were a police tactics advisor

as far as a magic marker 28 years in the job never heard of one , how long did your ex met friend do in the job and would be interesting to know why he left

as far as gestapo think you need to choose your words carefully no comparison


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

to be honest mark fed up with this one now

knows more than us about the job


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

wja96 said:


> If the fire extinguisher had hit someone the body armour wouldn't have been any use at all. Most of the purpose for wearing it appears to be intimidation. There is no requirement for that level of PPE to be so routinely deployed.
> 
> yes it would have killed them
> 
> as far as no req for amount of kit its not dixon of dock green any more


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

blackpoolfc said:


> wja96 said:
> 
> 
> > If the fire extinguisher had hit someone the body armour wouldn't have been any use at all. Most of the purpose for wearing it appears to be intimidation. There is no requirement for that level of PPE to be so routinely deployed.
> ...


bud dont get stroppy.........don't forget he pays you wages aslso :lol: :lol: :lol: and yes that is a pi55 take comment lol


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

Gazzer said:


> blackpoolfc said:
> 
> 
> > wja96 said:
> ...


get back on the naughty step


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

This thread is just getting ridiculous now. I thought we were all reasonably intelligent and prepared to debate?

I can joke as much as the next man but FFS let's be serious when the subject demands it.

Thanks.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Not talking about justice now just the police, the best compliment I can give them is, ' I would not do your job for all the tea in China' Its very rare you get thanked and I may disagree with certain angles on your posts but I thank you for doing a difficult job sometimes in the face of extreme provocation, however, my admiration does not extend to many of your senior officers who continue to look incompetent.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Gazzer said:


> wja96 said:
> 
> 
> > If the fire extinguisher had hit someone the body armour wouldn't have been any use at all. Most of the purpose for wearing it appears to be intimidation. There is no requirement for that level of PPE to be so routinely deployed.
> ...


I don't doubt that many police are saintly individuals who really do have a calling, or that their resources are being cut. But round ere in semi-rural Norfolk you may as well call Ghostbusters if any trouble kicks off after 9pm. They have to send a car from Watton, about 15 miles away.

The last lot of issues we had here in Thetford (kids smashing up cars in the street and basically victimising a couple of people who tried to stop them) was sorted out by what I can only describe as vigilantes because the police were ineffective. Do I approve? No. Do I appreciate it? Yes.

And why are quite so many coppers bad? The ex-officer retired because he'd done his requisite number of years. He hadn't been drummed out or anything. And he didn't seem to think he had done anything wrong. Indeed, despite the appalled silence he just kept on telling us stories of police brutality. Very much like the officer who struck the man with his back to him. I'm sure he thought he had a calling to keep the world safe from rioters but somewhere along the line he (and his colleagues who didn't stop him) got a bit mixed up and beat up on an unarmed old man with his back turned. I'm the first to praise an unarmed officer who tackles someone with a weapon. That's heroic. And I think you have to say that police officers who beat up on suspects and those in custody are anything but.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

blackpoolfc said:


> to be honest mark fed up with this one now
> 
> knows more than us about the job


Really? I don't see I ever said that. I said that I didn't believe that amount of armour needed to be on show so much of the time. And that I now find the police intimidating and that because of the way they are used by government they are losing the support of a large chunk of the population.

I also queried why the officer at the centre of the case in question was charged with manslaughter rather than a simpler to prove assault charge and why the other officers present apparently did nothing until it was apparent it had all gone a bit too far and why they have not been held accountable?

I think people forget who the Gestapo were. They were policemen. And their role was to keep the masses in line through fear and intimidation. And yes, I do see some elements of modern policing in that light.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Mark Davies said:


> I really must get out more.


Maybe you should. I suspect most of your closest friends and acquaintances are also in or ex-law enforcement.

It's extremely difficult to have a normal chat with a police officer because almost none of us are completely innocent. And I rather doubt that non-police people ever really give you their honest opinion. Partly because they are concerned about upsetting you and partly because they are too polite. Most people have a "jobs worth" story about the police, far more than would have a positive story about when the police helped them. Now, that's possibly because the police are a double edged sword. We want to be protected from bad people, but we don't want to get caught when we're naughty ourselves eg. Speeding. That's not the case with the fire service or the ambulance service. They just help you.

Please don't think I'm anti-police. I'm not. I wouldn't do it, and by and large I'm glad someone does do it. I'm just expressing concern at what I see as the militarisation of the police service and the way that police service is used by the government and finally, how that police service controls itself.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

wja96 said:


> I think people forget who the Gestapo were. They were policemen. And their role was to keep the masses in line through fear and intimidation. And yes, I do see so elements of modern policing in that light.


Ouch! But you know what? I see your point. And 10 Downing Street is the Reich Chancellory...

The UK is becoming a police state and that might be for reasons other than terrorism...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

wja96 said:


> Please don't think I'm anti-police. I'm not. I wouldn't do it, and by and large I'm glad someone does do it. I'm just expressing concern at what I see as the militarisation of the police service and the way that police service is used by the government and finally, how that police service controls itself.


Hear, hear.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

sorry i completely disagree, i know plenty of plod and they are just normal guys outside of work..........when in work they are on duty and have a job to do. ok i'll shut up now lol


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

wja96 said:


> That's heroic. And I think you have to say that police officers who beat up on suspects and those in custody are anything but.


You do realise that Life On Mars was fiction and not a documentary, don't you?

This is the problem the police have. It makes not the slightest bit of difference what we _actually_ do or what the reality is - people will just believe what they want to and are more than happy to voice utter rubbish like this as if it were absolute fact.

And where on earth do you get this idea of a police state? Have you not noticed the police service is currently in a hugely bitter dispute with a Government that's utterly intent on dismantling the service as it currently is? If we are just the strong arm of government why would they be doing that? In fact they are trying to destroy us precisely because the opposite is true - because we won't simply carry out their will and instead insist on exercising our duties impartially, without grace or favour and with no political agenda. That's why they want to replace the police with private firms like G4S who will do what they are told - because they know we won't!

And protective equipment has got nothing to do with 'militarisation' - it's about an employer exercising their legal duty of care to their staff and providing them with appropriate protective equipment for the reasonably foreseeable hazards of their employment. I presume you wouldn't propose sending fire fighters into a burning building without breathing apparatus because it looks a bit impersonal to be wearing a face mask? So then what kind of fool would suggest sending police officers into a riot where they are getting bricks, street furniture, scaffolding poles, petrol bombs, concrete paving slabs and sharpened fence poles hurled at them in nothing more than a woollen tunic?

We are human beings with families - not some cheap, disposable fodder that you can just throw at a violent situation and whose lives can be expended with utter disdain simply to ensure we die looking non-confrontational! And you have the audacity of accusing us of an authoritarian attitude.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm sorry if I've offended you. Or anyone else. None of my comments were meant to be taken as anything other than my opinion, which is quite frequently at odds with the opinions of other people.

The police state issue is based on several things that I have found very disturbing, especially since September 2001 when the government radically curbed people's right to protest (for example, outside the Houses of Parliament), and then smaller, insidious things that just make me uneasy, like the fact they turn off the traffic cameras in London whenever there is a demonstation on. Not close the feed to the public and record it for the police, they turn it off. Why? It's not the police officers I have an issue with, it's the laws they are being asked to enforce (which I mentioned in my original post).

And I'm obviously not being clear enough in my dislike of the body armour. OK, you need to wear body armour. But why is it matt black. OK, you need protection from fire, but the black balaclavas mean you can only see your eyes and that's intimidating. And from the limited experience I've had, the police don't deploy normal uniformed officers on demonstrations, they just deploy the riot-gear clad officers. There is another thread where someone else makes a similar point about the officers being on duty to protect the law-abiding, peaceful, protestors from the ones out to make trouble (and I get that and I appreciate that) so why do they look like something out of 1984?

Now, if you accept that I'm not police-bashing and you accept that I'm more upset by what I see as the curtailment of my civil liberties than by the police who enforce that reduction in my civil liberties, then perhaps you can start to see where I'm coming from with the police-state and Gestapo references.

The Gestapo were basically a branch of the German police CID who had special responsibility for rooting out terrorists. Can you see the resemblance now? I'm sure they had families and were denied an opinion but they did what they did. The Syrian Army and Air Force are currently pounding Aleppo with heavy artillery and airborne bombardment. I'm sure they also have families. I'm not remotely equating the Syrian Army with the way the police police demonstrations, but the Nazi's slipped into power very quietly with the unwitting agreement of the German people.

I do appreciate that the world we live in now isn't Dixon of Dock Green, but that's basically what I want from the police service.

That's almost certainly unrealistic, but I think we can get closer than what we currently have.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

wja96 said:


> And from the limited experience I've had, the police don't deploy normal uniformed officers on demonstrations, they just deploy the riot-gear clad officers.


Another comment that quite simply isn't true - though I accept your qualification about your limited experience. In fact the vast majority of officers deployed at demonstrations, marches, football matches and the like will just be wearing normal day uniform - a fluorescent jacket and traditional custodian helmet. In my force (a major metropolitan force policing these sort of events several times a week) less than 10% of officers are actually trained or issued with the riot gear you describe. At the majority of events you won't see this gear in evidence at all - our senior commanders will only ever deploy it when there is a serious risk of violence, and so reluctant are they that usually means where a police officer has already been injured. That's the reality, but of course peaceful protests and public events never make the news. As an indication there are actually dozens of these events policed around the country _every single day of the week_ but how long is it since you saw one of these on the news? You only ever see the tiny minority where there is trouble so come away with the impression that that's all we ever do. It's simply not true - and yet you believe it to be so and have developed a negative view of the police based on a perception with no resemblance to reality.

I appreciate you can only speak as you find and I do understand you don't intend to offend, but for police officers it's not only frustrating but deeply demoralising to be constantly faced with barrages of criticism that are mostly based on misinformation and misunderstanding, founded on myth, rumour and innuendo and with little or no actual evidence to back it up. It's difficult to answer criticism based on what people are determined to believe you are than what you actually are and when you try to point out that people are getting it wrong you're just accused of being out of touch with public opinion.

It's the inescapable truth of policing - it makes not the least bit of difference what you actually do. People who don't understand the first thing about it and wouldn't do it themselves for all the money in the world still think they could do a better job and will always complain. Consequently whatever we do, we can never get it right for many people.

I just wish people would take a moment to contemplate their complete lack of understanding of the subject and ask themselves, "What do I really know about this?" before forming their opinion.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

A powerful message in that last post Mark and brilliantly written. I think I said in a much earlier post in this topic that the age old issue of the police becoming more integrated in the community, talking to and educating people on the real facts is the key to changing opinion. Over the years much has been done it seems via community policing, schools and the like, but it appears that there is still a gap between the reality and the belief and I wonder if this will ever fully be bridged, to the satisfaction of the police and the public; So that people speak as they find and how they find actaully resembles the reality. What we all want is a fully integrated police system with enough men to do the job, fully independent of the politics , that we can be proud of (I have seen policing all over the world , resembles th wild west in some countries and I recognise that we do have one of the most professional ; but just like everywhere else their will be a minority who find the news and steal the thunder of those doing a good job.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

if the police over here had those lovely rubber battons the spanish have i can guarantee town centre on a week end evenings wouldn't be such a bloody scary place for the elderly. and if a lot more adults and parents taught there offspring to respect the police i am pretty sure more crime would be solved quicker instead of wasting time doing a job the parent is supposed to have done until the little scrote is old enough to legally leave home. it all starts in the home and school and that is the crux of the matter!!! they have no respect or fear of what will happen if they tell a copper to coff and the father gets told.


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

wja96 said:


> Most people have a "jobs worth" story about the police, far more than would have a positive story about when the police helped them. Now, that's possibly because the police are a double edged sword. We want to be protected from bad people, but we don't want to get caught when we're naughty ourselves eg. Speeding. That's not the case with the fire service or the ambulance service. They just help you.


My experience of the police is at complete odds with what you describe.

Over the years whenever I have had to call the police or had any dealings with them, I have always found them to be very helpful and courteous and never had a problem dealing with them. I have also been 'let off' an offence which if the situation had been reversed and I had been the policeman, I would not not have let the offender off.

I have nothing but admiration for them and the job which they do.

Use of the word 'Gestapo' has very dark undertones to most people no matter how the actual Gestapo were originally formed or used and I would consider it an insult if I was a police officer.


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

YoungOldUn said:


> My experience of the police is at complete odds with what you describe.


OK, all that means is you're not "most people". It doesn't mean my experience (or yours) is any less valid.



YoungOldUn said:


> Over the years whenever I have had to call the police or had any dealings with them, I have always found them to be very helpful and courteous and never had a problem dealing with them. I have also been 'let off' an offence which if the situation had been reversed and I had been the policeman, I would not not have let the offender off.


Again, I don't don't doubt this is your experience. I'm sure there are cynics who might posit that you were let off because it was the end of a shift, or they had met some quota etc. however as it was pointed out already, they do have a certain level of discretion about how the laws are enforced.



YoungOldUn said:


> I have nothing but admiration for them and the job which they do.


Indeed. I don't have so much of an issue with the police as some of the laws they enforce. This is REALLY getting off topic now, but look at the question of speed limits on Motorways. The police want it to be 80mph. You can roll past a marked car on the motorway at an indicated 80mph and they won't do anything, as long as the conditions are good. ACPO guidelines (supposedly) say don't prosecute for less than 10%+2mph (79mph). So we have a situation where you and I don't really know what the situation is. You could be prosecuted for 71mph, but probably not. 75mph? You may get prosecuted. 80mph, you can certainly expect to get pulled over and a stern talking to, but if you are polite and contrite, you may even get away with that.

There has to be an easier way.



YoungOldUn said:


> Use of the word 'Gestapo' has very dark undertones to most people no matter how the actual Gestapo were originally formed or used and I would consider it an insult if I was a police officer.


Yes, and they should consider it as something undesirable to be compared with the Gestapo. But I absolutely hold in my opinion that the way the laws are being framed and implemented since 2001 is drifting in the same direction as Nazi Germany in the 1930's. We are told that being strip-searched at airports is essential to our safety. We were told we'd be over-run by terrorists if we couldn't lock people up without charging them for anything up to 90 days (and in the any event the current powers (21 days?) are almost ever used) and there are people who have never been charged or convicted of anything who are effectively in permanent incarceration because they are so dangerous apparently. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Now, they want to be able to read all my e-mails without a court-order. Why? My civil liberties have been far more restricted by the state over the last 11 years than the actual terror threat justifies. In the 1970's and 1980's we had the IRA exploding bombs and murdering people week-in, week-out and we didn't have this level of intrusion.

Police officers do not make the law, they enforce it. The Gestapo didn't wake up one morning and think "hey, let's round up all the enemies of the state and imprison them." That was the German government, but you know what, once the law was passed, it was ENFORCED. Right now, "terrorists" are the enemies of the state. And they are being rounded up and imprisoned. Who's next? That's what scares me. And it ought to scare you too.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Police officers do not make the law, they enforce it. The Gestapo didn't wake up one morning and think "hey, let's round up all the enemies of the state and imprison them." That was the German government, but you know what, once the law was passed, it was ENFORCED. Right now, "terrorists" are the enemies of the state. And they are being rounded up and imprisoned. Who's next? That's what scares me. And it ought to scare you too.[/quote]

Brilliantly written piece; Yes, quite and we should never forget the past and should definately be alert to what is happening today and weary of that if need be (I am aware that those terrorists being rounded up see officials operating on a war footing, where the safety of the mass public is more important than the civil liberties of one individual - at least the individual will have the opportunity for recourse if they want that).

The laws are made by the politicians who are elected by the people (well some of the people anyway) and so the laws we get can be interpretted as the laws we deserve? None of this though has a bearing on the actions of one police officer of the many there that day, who has subsequently been found not guilty, by people who are not police officers. I don't agree with the decision based upon my limited knowledge of the case, but doesn't the process of the law being followed in a democracy mean that I have no choice but to accept that? Lets face it in a number of countries a trial as we understand it wouldnt even take place; we would be guilty with a requirement to prove innocence and so whilst we are not perfect here, we are a lot better than it could be.I am not suggesting that perfection should not be an aim, as a so called civilised society improvement is something constantly on the agenda.


----------

