Tom Miller really is scum.
TB doesn't lose his temper lightly but posts such as this are a step to far:
"Thursday, April 02, 20o9More G20
Further to yesterday, unconfirmed, but I'm hearing that police have killed a protestor.
Who the hell does this little shit think he is? Yesterday evening after a farcical day, a man died of natural causes, as the newspapers and wires reported. Whenever large amounts of people congregate together at sporting events or concerts etc, statistically someone is more than likely to fall ill and sadly sometimes die. As Tom's beloved
Guardian reported
, it was the protesters who were hurling missiles at the police medics as they tried to resuscitate the dying man. The man had collapsed through natural causes and everything possible in the circumstances was done to try help the man but sadly it was too late.How dare Miller somehow suggest that the big bad police had "killed a protester". This is the lowest of the low, scummy spin and he should hang his head in shame. Lest we forget who Miller is - Dolly's heinous
henchman
at LabourList and a candidate
for the executive of Young Labour.TB thinks the voters of the South East region where Miller is standing might have something to say about the filth and lies he is peddling.
Posts
23 comments:
Jolly Good TB. What an odious little weasel he seems.
Hm, you may need to calm down, little bear. I have no great affection for Tom Miller, but really, there's no need to put an apostrophe in the plural of "post", now, is there? ("Woah! Here comes an s!")
And there *were* tweets around yesterday saying the police had killed the man. Tom probably shouldn't have repeated that allegation, but that hardly makes him a malicious liar, and he does say it's unconfirmed.
Re: protesters, the Guardian has in fact just put out a correctional report with the input of protesters, who say the crowd stopped those at the back (who couldn't see what was going on) from throwing things.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-summit-protester-death
According to an eyewitness interviewed on the BBC the chap in question smelt of alcohol, fell over and hit his head, and the Police medics arrived at the scene within seconds.
But we'll only know the precise details when there's been an inquest - that's what they're there for.
Tom Miller is a twat of the highest order
Truly a henchman of the most heinous proportions Mr Bear...
'What do we want?'
'Considerably less agitators like Tom Miller, deliberately trying to undermine the rule of law (like Hattie) in order to pursue a bigoted, extremist agenda on behalf of their authoritarian party à la the methods of their sister party: The NSDAP.'
'When do we want it?'
'Like yesterday, dude.'
bet he wishes it was true.
i'm sticking with sky as the source of truth. reliable and dont cave to pressure from hippy groups:
they are standing by the missile stuff.
https://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/G20-Protesters-Demand-Death-Inquiry-Man-Died-After-London-Demonstration/Article/200904115254497?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_0&lid=ARTICLE_15254497_G20_Protesters_Demand_Death_Inquiry%3A_Man_Died_After_London_Demonstration
It's quite clear that that's not what I actually said though, isn't it? I didn't suggest that the police killed a protester, if you look at the comments you'll see that I clearly said that it was complete hearsay.
In any event, a complaint has been submitted to the IPCC, so you don't know how he died either.
By the way, I consider your branding of me as a liar libellous.
"It's quite clear that that's not what I actually said though, isn't it?"
did you or did you not in your post say: "I'm hearing that police have killed a protestor"
Sod the comments, it was your post i objected to.
Just do the right thing and remove it before you stir up any more trouble.
TB
The problem with the quote that you just fired at me is that you remembered to cut off the qualification ('uncomfirmed'), but not the other important bit of that clause, i.e. 'I'm hearing'.
Why should I remove something because you say it says something totally different to what it actually says?
If anyone should be removing things, it is your description of me as a liar.
"Racist, homophobic or libellous comment will be deleted instantly"
So how about libellous posts?
Unconfirmed it may be and it still is, but your choice of words would lead people to beleive that you had it on good authority that the police had "killed" someone rather than someone had died. A blatent lie.
And this isn't the first time you have told porkies is it now mr miller, something tells me that "i am not a liar" won't hold up. but we'll save that for another day.
Why would my words lead anyone who wasn't on stupid amounts of halucinogens to believe that my quote was one any kind of authority? Given the chaos of yesterday, why would they think that anyone was clued up enough to be any kind of authority anyway?
Can I suggest a reason? Perhaps the people (sic) who took it that way were people who had persistently sought, without any basis or credibility themselves, to damage my reputation?
If you have an example of me lying, I urge you to publish it, in capitals, if possible.
This particular example is not in any part dishonest unless you maliciously choose whittle my sentence down to a single, meaningless word.
Your post, in contrast, is rank with intentional dishonesty, which fits your track record, doesn't it?
On your last comment, I take issue with this:
"killed" someone rather than someone had died."
Pretty much everyone who gets killed dies at some point. Also, bear in mind (no pun intended) that people can be 'killed' by accident, or negligently.
We really don't know what happened down there, and I have never claimed to myself, as my post makes quite clear.
I was just beginning to enjoy our chat on facebook? what happened there?
Let's get this straight, you have an issue with the police and you were using hear say and rumour to dishonestly sow the seeds doubt in peoples mind that the police in their line of duty had killed someone rather than a man who might have been a protestor or might have been a passer by died coincidently near yesterdays action from a suspected heart attack.
As a labour hack i am sure you have issues with my previous work in exposing their corruption and lies and yes throw all those ridiculous posts from last summer at me but at least defend yourself on your blog rather than going on the instant attack.
It was a cheap shot at "the fucking pigs" as you like to call them who were doing their duty in defending lives and property from scumbag lefties like you and your ridiculous cohorts who were out in force yesterday. Just take it down and we can all get on with our day.
TB, as far as I'm concerned, police are extremely valuable, and the record number of them on the beat is one of the achievements of new Labour which I'm happy to sign up to (I'm just narked that we haven't done enough to cut the social causes of crime, but that's a separate point).
As the post linked to in the one you quote makes clear, I just have a generally contemptuous attitude to violence full stop, and I'm very worried that the new law banning photographers from snapping police will take them out of public scrutiny, particularly in public order situations.
It's a needless law with some ill thought out side effects. In fact, if someone was there with a camera, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
If you disagree with me on that, even as a pretty rightish Tory, I'd still be surprised.
In terms of why I posted, I was simply trying to take advantage of the fact that someone had told me, and I hadn't noticed it being published elsewhere. That might be a little on the rash side, but it is certainly not dishonest, let alone a lie.
One again, why should I take it down? On what basis? I'd rather have what I said (and why) recorded, it's much more honest that way. And given your response, I actually think I come off as relatively rational.
Yes we all have problems with your authortarian party's decisions but more importantly you deny that the police are "fucking pigs"?
Long live the police! If they want to kill some communist protester fuckin' let them!
@miller the bellend
''and the record number of them on the beat''
I think you mean the record number sat on their arses in the station doing paperwork.
To the person who left the last anonymous comment. I'm not publishing those sort of sensitive allegations. Take them to the police complaints authority and for for sake use your own name if you are going to say things like that.
Not sure what that last comment was TB, but are you just censoring stuff now in case it turns out that you're wrong?
Will you be retracting this post and apologising to Miller now that video footage has appeared of the man being repeatedly hit with batons and pushed to the ground by police, despite silently walking past them with his hands in his pockets on the way home from work?
Not a fan of the protest in general but hate to see someone's death falsely reported for political reasons...