The ArgusFather drowns fleeing from police (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Father drowns fleeing from police

The Argus: Father drowns fleeing from police Father drowns fleeing from police

A YOUNG father drowned in a lake while running from police who had just pepper- sprayed him.

Witnesses said officers watched as father-of-three Leon Stent ran into a lake at a holiday park but did not dive in after him.

His body was recovered from the water at Coghurst Holiday Park in Ivyhouse Lane, Hastings more than 15 hours later.

Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers.

Mr Stent, 30, is believed to have been in the holiday park’s bar on Saturday when police were called at 11pm to reports of a man being drunk and abusive.

Witnesses said Mr Stent tried to attack a police officer who was attempting to handcuff him before he was pepper-sprayed.

They also described how he ran from the bar’s beer garden straight into the fishing lake.

One resident who witnessed the incident said: “Everyone was out by the water watching what was going on.

“I sat on the bank with his father and brother on Sunday while they waited for the police to pull his body out.

“It was heartbreaking.”

Residents said the lake was never used for swimming and was full of reeds.

Another witness, who lives at the park, said: “After the police pepper-sprayed him he was running around, probably trying to get it out of his eyes.

“He ran into the water but they didn’t follow him.

“One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties.

“Officers used boats to get on to the lake but could not find any trace of him.

“A large-scale search of the lake and the surrounding area was launched by officers with other members of the emergency services. Sadly, at around 3pm on Sunday a body was found by divers from Sussex Police’s Specialist Search Unit.

“Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this tragic time.”

The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water.

A spokesman said: “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake.

“When he disappeared, officers used boats to try and locate him but the lake is very deep and it was dark, which hampered rescue attempts.”

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said the incident had been referred to them.

Comments (80)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:50am Tue 20 May 14

rogerthefish says...

Don't run the from the Police, RIP
Don't run the from the Police, RIP rogerthefish
  • Score: 49

8:08am Tue 20 May 14

tykemison says...

rogerthefish wrote:
Don't run the from the Police, RIP
He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Don't run the from the Police, RIP[/p][/quote]He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges. tykemison
  • Score: -75

9:04am Tue 20 May 14

Withdean-er says...

tykemison wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Don't run the from the Police, RIP
He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.
The lessons are:
Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation
Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed
Don't resist arrest

Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.
[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Don't run the from the Police, RIP[/p][/quote]He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.[/p][/quote]The lessons are: Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed Don't resist arrest Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities. Withdean-er
  • Score: 85

9:10am Tue 20 May 14

NickBrt says...

One less yob to terrorise us.
One less yob to terrorise us. NickBrt
  • Score: 41

10:05am Tue 20 May 14

tykemison says...

Oooooh, look here at the perfect people who have never misbehaved when drunk, God pray this kind of incident does not hapoen to any of your loved ones.
Oooooh, look here at the perfect people who have never misbehaved when drunk, God pray this kind of incident does not hapoen to any of your loved ones. tykemison
  • Score: -44

10:20am Tue 20 May 14

clubrob6 says...

I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame. clubrob6
  • Score: 45

11:04am Tue 20 May 14

Robin48gx says...

Withdean-er wrote:
tykemison wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Don't run the from the Police, RIP
He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.
The lessons are:
Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation
Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed
Don't resist arrest

Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.
However, someone who has been peppersprayed is unlikely to be able to see, and may be alot of pain and panicing.
I'd have at least looked for a rope or rubber ring to throw for him.
Even a strong swimmer would be in great danger under those circumstances
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Don't run the from the Police, RIP[/p][/quote]He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.[/p][/quote]The lessons are: Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed Don't resist arrest Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.[/p][/quote]However, someone who has been peppersprayed is unlikely to be able to see, and may be alot of pain and panicing. I'd have at least looked for a rope or rubber ring to throw for him. Even a strong swimmer would be in great danger under those circumstances Robin48gx
  • Score: 4

11:08am Tue 20 May 14

Mr chock says...

clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
would the story have bene different if the police had gone in in darkness and been eaten by the " same killer lake monsters ?"
The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. ~~ wow silly questioning reporters .
its like when the riots started all the police are now trained to do its control and observe "the days of excessive force are over as seen in mining riots days " that might seem like a silly thing to do
drunk man with pepper spray in his eyes has attacked police and now his dead ..
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]would the story have bene different if the police had gone in in darkness and been eaten by the " same killer lake monsters ?" The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. ~~ wow silly questioning reporters . its like when the riots started all the police are now trained to do its control and observe "the days of excessive force are over as seen in mining riots days " that might seem like a silly thing to do drunk man with pepper spray in his eyes has attacked police and now his dead .. Mr chock
  • Score: -15

11:25am Tue 20 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here.

That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic.
What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here. That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: -39

12:29pm Tue 20 May 14

Grenog says...

Why is everyone so quick to blame the police? Why was a young man who was neither a resident nor a holiday maker at the park allowed to consume alcohol unchecked? Why are the Park operators not commenting? This person chose to resist arrest and really sadly it turned into a tragic accident. The lake is far too dangerous for police or anyone to access without a boat, more lives could have been lost if they had. Give the police a break their jobs are hard enough as it is.
Why is everyone so quick to blame the police? Why was a young man who was neither a resident nor a holiday maker at the park allowed to consume alcohol unchecked? Why are the Park operators not commenting? This person chose to resist arrest and really sadly it turned into a tragic accident. The lake is far too dangerous for police or anyone to access without a boat, more lives could have been lost if they had. Give the police a break their jobs are hard enough as it is. Grenog
  • Score: 40

12:55pm Tue 20 May 14

Fight_Back says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here.

That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic.
Has someone hacked your account Valerie or have you been drinking ?

Pepper spray was issued to police officers so they had a better chance of detaining a suspect without injuring themselves in the process. You seem to think every officer is given SAS training allowing them to be Bruce Lee. A drunk hitting out is dangerous to anyone nearby - the police included.

While it's sad a man died you might want to consider that a number of families saw their loved one return from a shift unscathed and alive - thanks to pepper spray.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here. That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic.[/p][/quote]Has someone hacked your account Valerie or have you been drinking ? Pepper spray was issued to police officers so they had a better chance of detaining a suspect without injuring themselves in the process. You seem to think every officer is given SAS training allowing them to be Bruce Lee. A drunk hitting out is dangerous to anyone nearby - the police included. While it's sad a man died you might want to consider that a number of families saw their loved one return from a shift unscathed and alive - thanks to pepper spray. Fight_Back
  • Score: 23

1:07pm Tue 20 May 14

lindaf says...

Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends.
Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends. lindaf
  • Score: -2

1:38pm Tue 20 May 14

Withdean-er says...

lindaf wrote:
Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends.
What a 'great' example as a father to those now heartbroken kids.
[quote][p][bold]lindaf[/bold] wrote: Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends.[/p][/quote]What a 'great' example as a father to those now heartbroken kids. Withdean-er
  • Score: 10

2:35pm Tue 20 May 14

lindaf says...

Withdean-er wrote:
lindaf wrote:
Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends.
What a 'great' example as a father to those now heartbroken kids.
I wasn't saying he was a good example to his kids, I was commenting on what horrible remarks people were putting on here..doh!!
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lindaf[/bold] wrote: Wow, what evil comments...a young father died!!! R.I.P. and thought go to his family and friends.[/p][/quote]What a 'great' example as a father to those now heartbroken kids.[/p][/quote]I wasn't saying he was a good example to his kids, I was commenting on what horrible remarks people were putting on here..doh!! lindaf
  • Score: 2

2:49pm Tue 20 May 14

sharonlu says...

We were in the bar.

FACT he was in the bar. he had been drinking. His friend told us he agreed for police to be called as he would benefit from sobering up may be in a cell overnight. His friend told us he did go underneath the caravan then came out with his hands offered to police to be cuffed. Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this.

IN MANY OPINION the police did not handle this situation well at all, SHOCKING TRAGIC SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
We were in the bar. FACT he was in the bar. he had been drinking. His friend told us he agreed for police to be called as he would benefit from sobering up may be in a cell overnight. His friend told us he did go underneath the caravan then came out with his hands offered to police to be cuffed. Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. IN MANY OPINION the police did not handle this situation well at all, SHOCKING TRAGIC SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. sharonlu
  • Score: -11

5:14pm Tue 20 May 14

Grenog says...

sharonlu wrote:
We were in the bar.

FACT he was in the bar. he had been drinking. His friend told us he agreed for police to be called as he would benefit from sobering up may be in a cell overnight. His friend told us he did go underneath the caravan then came out with his hands offered to police to be cuffed. Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this.

IN MANY OPINION the police did not handle this situation well at all, SHOCKING TRAGIC SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.
We were also there this weekend and have heard many conflicting reports but this is the first time I have heard this version and like the rest have no reason to disbelieve it anymore than the others.

I do know he was in the bar and in a very drunken state.

The questions I have is why was he onsite drinking un-checked when he was neither a holiday maker or resident?

Why does the park operators not have an emergency plan in the event of someone going into the lake?

I know one policeman did try to jump in after him but was stopped by a resident as it was too dangerous. Boats were sent out in a rescue attempt, but it was dark and a long way out and sadly we all know this was unsuccessful.

I think the police have a hard enough job and are liable to be prosecuted themselves if they are considered to deliberately put themselves in danger. Police helicopters were out all night trying to find him and a the park was full of officers all through the night and the next day. In my opinion there was nothing further that could have been done in terms of trying to help him out.

With regards to the attempted arrest and the events leading up to him going into the lake I cannot comment, and it's for the IPCC to investigate and if it is found he was sprayed even once with pepper spray unprovoked with his hands in the air I will probably loose all faith in the police service.

I agree this never should have happened and none of this will help his family come to terms with their loss.
[quote][p][bold]sharonlu[/bold] wrote: We were in the bar. FACT he was in the bar. he had been drinking. His friend told us he agreed for police to be called as he would benefit from sobering up may be in a cell overnight. His friend told us he did go underneath the caravan then came out with his hands offered to police to be cuffed. Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. IN MANY OPINION the police did not handle this situation well at all, SHOCKING TRAGIC SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.[/p][/quote]We were also there this weekend and have heard many conflicting reports but this is the first time I have heard this version and like the rest have no reason to disbelieve it anymore than the others. I do know he was in the bar and in a very drunken state. The questions I have is why was he onsite drinking un-checked when he was neither a holiday maker or resident? Why does the park operators not have an emergency plan in the event of someone going into the lake? I know one policeman did try to jump in after him but was stopped by a resident as it was too dangerous. Boats were sent out in a rescue attempt, but it was dark and a long way out and sadly we all know this was unsuccessful. I think the police have a hard enough job and are liable to be prosecuted themselves if they are considered to deliberately put themselves in danger. Police helicopters were out all night trying to find him and a the park was full of officers all through the night and the next day. In my opinion there was nothing further that could have been done in terms of trying to help him out. With regards to the attempted arrest and the events leading up to him going into the lake I cannot comment, and it's for the IPCC to investigate and if it is found he was sprayed even once with pepper spray unprovoked with his hands in the air I will probably loose all faith in the police service. I agree this never should have happened and none of this will help his family come to terms with their loss. Grenog
  • Score: 12

5:40pm Tue 20 May 14

NathanAdler says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here.

That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic.
You are a very ignorant person.

What would you prefer? Being hit by a Victorian style truncheon (let alone a modern day baton) which can and does easily break bones or be sprayed by an organic pepper spray that will ease off after about 15 minutes with no lasting side effects?

I am an ex-front line infantry soldier who has been in more contact hands on fights that you can shake a stick at. As well as being highly trained and very, very strong, I can assure you that if some drunken thug wants to fight, it can take three maybe four of me to bring him down. One, he will not feel pain like a sober person and 2 he will be fearless due to the drink, And I haven't even meant the bravado of drunkards.

So before you use the term wimp, I suggest you go and fight a drunk man and see how you get on. The sots don't give up!!!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: What lazy wimp softies to resort to pepper spray in that situation instead of using their training. Our police were once famous for being able to cope without weapons. They have the training to disable without resort to weaponry like pepper spray or worse. I'm saddened by the yobbish, violence-accepting and abusive comments posted here. That man would not be dead had he not been pepper sprayed and those police officers so inept at physically disabling him before or after so they could handcuff him. Senior officers should be questioning their skillset and suggesting retraining. RIP that drunken abusive man too. Tragic.[/p][/quote]You are a very ignorant person. What would you prefer? Being hit by a Victorian style truncheon (let alone a modern day baton) which can and does easily break bones or be sprayed by an organic pepper spray that will ease off after about 15 minutes with no lasting side effects? I am an ex-front line infantry soldier who has been in more contact hands on fights that you can shake a stick at. As well as being highly trained and very, very strong, I can assure you that if some drunken thug wants to fight, it can take three maybe four of me to bring him down. One, he will not feel pain like a sober person and 2 he will be fearless due to the drink, And I haven't even meant the bravado of drunkards. So before you use the term wimp, I suggest you go and fight a drunk man and see how you get on. The sots don't give up!!! NathanAdler
  • Score: 22

6:03pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

So why:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

????????


If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too.

Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.
"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " So why: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” ???????? If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too. Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -13

6:37pm Tue 20 May 14

Withdean-er says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

So why:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

????????


If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too.

Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.
Such objectivity.

My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " So why: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” ???????? If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too. Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.[/p][/quote]Such objectivity. My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder. Withdean-er
  • Score: 14

6:47pm Tue 20 May 14

MDavison says...

Very sad story', that does not deserve any levity. But as a former editor I think the Argus has a classic front page headline howler here:

'Father drowned fleeing police'.

However did that ever get through!
Very sad story', that does not deserve any levity. But as a former editor I think the Argus has a classic front page headline howler here: 'Father drowned fleeing police'. However did that ever get through! MDavison
  • Score: 8

7:09pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Such objectivity.

My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder."

Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?
"Such objectivity. My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder." Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -8

7:16pm Tue 20 May 14

matlock says...

My thoughts are with Sussex Police who now have to endure an IPCC investigation.
My thoughts are with Sussex Police who now have to endure an IPCC investigation. matlock
  • Score: 4

7:19pm Tue 20 May 14

fredaj says...

tykemison wrote:
Oooooh, look here at the perfect people who have never misbehaved when drunk, God pray this kind of incident does not hapoen to any of your loved ones.
Being drunk is not an excuse for bad behaviour and if you choose to drink more than you can handle you have to live, and die, with the consequences.

Getting boozed up is not a necessary activity, let alone a compulsory one.
[quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: Oooooh, look here at the perfect people who have never misbehaved when drunk, God pray this kind of incident does not hapoen to any of your loved ones.[/p][/quote]Being drunk is not an excuse for bad behaviour and if you choose to drink more than you can handle you have to live, and die, with the consequences. Getting boozed up is not a necessary activity, let alone a compulsory one. fredaj
  • Score: 7

7:44pm Tue 20 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 7

7:54pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
[quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -4

8:15pm Tue 20 May 14

mjlf says...

Why the hell didn't the police save him - that's what we pay them for.
Why the hell didn't the police save him - that's what we pay them for. mjlf
  • Score: -12

8:15pm Tue 20 May 14

matlock says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming matlock
  • Score: 2

8:21pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
[quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -6

8:44pm Tue 20 May 14

Mr chock says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

So why:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

????????


If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too.

Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.
i have witnessed a failed suicide attempt where the victim was stuck on a ledge of a cliff , the police were not present and it became clear that in the falling darkness the best thing would be for one of us to quickly go up the sloping cliff face to try and rescue them ,, sadly the police arrived one guy in very full police clothing big heavy boots and a bit chunky around the waist arrived and started to take over telling the gathering crowd to back away as his going to attempt the rescue " it soon became clear as he was 20% of the way up he was also stuck and had radioed for support not long after the coast guard helicopter arrived and had to winch them both to safety many many onlookers were pleased it ended with no deaths but i can confirm the police do not wish to put himself in danger . does it sound a bit jobs worth to say " police matters are not rescue drunks from lakes ? " " i do also see peoples comments on this guy was a parent and that is another story... now who is wondering how that kitty cat is doing in the other breaking news story the argus is running tonight ..
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " So why: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” ???????? If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too. Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.[/p][/quote]i have witnessed a failed suicide attempt where the victim was stuck on a ledge of a cliff , the police were not present and it became clear that in the falling darkness the best thing would be for one of us to quickly go up the sloping cliff face to try and rescue them ,, sadly the police arrived one guy in very full police clothing big heavy boots and a bit chunky around the waist arrived and started to take over telling the gathering crowd to back away as his going to attempt the rescue " it soon became clear as he was 20% of the way up he was also stuck and had radioed for support not long after the coast guard helicopter arrived and had to winch them both to safety many many onlookers were pleased it ended with no deaths but i can confirm the police do not wish to put himself in danger . does it sound a bit jobs worth to say " police matters are not rescue drunks from lakes ? " " i do also see peoples comments on this guy was a parent and that is another story... now who is wondering how that kitty cat is doing in the other breaking news story the argus is running tonight .. Mr chock
  • Score: -3

9:01pm Tue 20 May 14

fredaj says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
Google "Darwin Awards".
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?[/p][/quote]Google "Darwin Awards". fredaj
  • Score: 1

9:06pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

fredaj wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
Google "Darwin Awards".
Let's wait for him to explain his own post.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?[/p][/quote]Google "Darwin Awards".[/p][/quote]Let's wait for him to explain his own post. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

9:16pm Tue 20 May 14

Withdean-er says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Such objectivity.

My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder."

Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?
You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Such objectivity. My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder." Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?[/p][/quote]You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views. Withdean-er
  • Score: 5

9:23pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Withdean-er wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Such objectivity.

My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder."

Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?
You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views.
My comments can be commented on, obviously.....that's one of the reasons I post them.

You chose to comment upon ME.....see the difference?

I posted contradictory statements made by people who claimed to be present. When a contradiction occurs, ONE of the statements is false and clearly a lie. I clearly stated why I believed that the police were lying, because they said that he wasn't in trouble and yet they also stated that a member of the public clearly thought he was. The fact that he died shows that the member of the public was proven correct.

I don't have an anti-police stance. My comments on the MFE threads showed nothing but praise for them. But even if I WERE anti-police, my comments on this thread would still be relevant.

You've admitted that the statements conflict....shouldn'
t that have alerted you to the fact that SOMEONE is lying about this incident?
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Such objectivity. My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder." Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?[/p][/quote]You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views.[/p][/quote]My comments can be commented on, obviously.....that's one of the reasons I post them. You chose to comment upon ME.....see the difference? I posted contradictory statements made by people who claimed to be present. When a contradiction occurs, ONE of the statements is false and clearly a lie. I clearly stated why I believed that the police were lying, because they said that he wasn't in trouble and yet they also stated that a member of the public clearly thought he was. The fact that he died shows that the member of the public was proven correct. I don't have an anti-police stance. My comments on the MFE threads showed nothing but praise for them. But even if I WERE anti-police, my comments on this thread would still be relevant. You've admitted that the statements conflict....shouldn' t that have alerted you to the fact that SOMEONE is lying about this incident? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

9:37pm Tue 20 May 14

Withdean-er says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Such objectivity.

My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder."

Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?
You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views.
My comments can be commented on, obviously.....that's one of the reasons I post them.

You chose to comment upon ME.....see the difference?

I posted contradictory statements made by people who claimed to be present. When a contradiction occurs, ONE of the statements is false and clearly a lie. I clearly stated why I believed that the police were lying, because they said that he wasn't in trouble and yet they also stated that a member of the public clearly thought he was. The fact that he died shows that the member of the public was proven correct.

I don't have an anti-police stance. My comments on the MFE threads showed nothing but praise for them. But even if I WERE anti-police, my comments on this thread would still be relevant.

You've admitted that the statements conflict....shouldn'

t that have alerted you to the fact that SOMEONE is lying about this incident?
Different reports do not absolutely mean that someone is lying, and they were all second hand through the Argus. Followed by the puerile assertion "my money is on the police". That doesn't come across as a balanced and mature assessment at this early stage.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Such objectivity. My money is on you having had some brushes with the law in your time, justifiably so, but unable to accept that, you carry an anti-Police chip on your shoulder." Instead of commenting about others, why do you have a go at explaining the contradictory comments which I quoted?[/p][/quote]You didn't systematically dissect the contradictory reports and reach a fair, at this stage, inclusive conclusion. Instead you stated someone is lying and that your money is on the police. So from your keyboard, with a clear anti-police stance, turned conflicting early reports into lies from the Police. And yes, hard lines, but your comments can be commented upon. With free speech, that's just the way it is - others can openly disagree with your views.[/p][/quote]My comments can be commented on, obviously.....that's one of the reasons I post them. You chose to comment upon ME.....see the difference? I posted contradictory statements made by people who claimed to be present. When a contradiction occurs, ONE of the statements is false and clearly a lie. I clearly stated why I believed that the police were lying, because they said that he wasn't in trouble and yet they also stated that a member of the public clearly thought he was. The fact that he died shows that the member of the public was proven correct. I don't have an anti-police stance. My comments on the MFE threads showed nothing but praise for them. But even if I WERE anti-police, my comments on this thread would still be relevant. You've admitted that the statements conflict....shouldn' t that have alerted you to the fact that SOMEONE is lying about this incident?[/p][/quote]Different reports do not absolutely mean that someone is lying, and they were all second hand through the Argus. Followed by the puerile assertion "my money is on the police". That doesn't come across as a balanced and mature assessment at this early stage. Withdean-er
  • Score: 4

9:45pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Different reports do not absolutely mean that someone is lying, and they were all second hand through the Argus."

So The Argus falsely recorded these two conflicting statements from the police?

"Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. "

AND

"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm really looking forward to your next post.
"Different reports do not absolutely mean that someone is lying, and they were all second hand through the Argus." So The Argus falsely recorded these two conflicting statements from the police? "Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. " AND "Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " I never thought I'd say this, but I'm really looking forward to your next post. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

10:08pm Tue 20 May 14

SimonS says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

So why:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

????????


If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too.

Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.
Well, obviously, if one person is drowning it is probably best not to allow a have-a-go hero to dive in and also drown. How often do we see news stories about people drowning saving their kids, dogs, friends etc?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " Sussex Police also stated: " “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " So why: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” ???????? If that woman could see he was in trouble, surely the officers preventing her from going to help him could see that, too. Someone is lying about this, and my money is that it is the police.[/p][/quote]Well, obviously, if one person is drowning it is probably best not to allow a have-a-go hero to dive in and also drown. How often do we see news stories about people drowning saving their kids, dogs, friends etc? SimonS
  • Score: 2

10:15pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Well, obviously, if one person is drowning it is probably best not to allow a have-a-go hero to dive in and also drown. "

The report clearly states:

"Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

It was pitch-black at that time, yet he was never far away enough to not be seen by a member of the public, who saw that the man was in trouble.

And if he had 'swum away', why were people sitting around waiting for the man's body to be recovered? He had plainly drowned feet away from the water's edge, as his body was clearly visible.

The actions and lies by the police officers present show that they were responsible for him being allowed to drown.
"Well, obviously, if one person is drowning it is probably best not to allow a have-a-go hero to dive in and also drown. " The report clearly states: "Sussex Police said the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " It was pitch-black at that time, yet he was never far away enough to not be seen by a member of the public, who saw that the man was in trouble. And if he had 'swum away', why were people sitting around waiting for the man's body to be recovered? He had plainly drowned feet away from the water's edge, as his body was clearly visible. The actions and lies by the police officers present show that they were responsible for him being allowed to drown. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -8

10:35pm Tue 20 May 14

matlock says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
Google "Darwin Awards".
Let's wait for him to explain his own post.
Something tells me you're not getting any at the moment
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?[/p][/quote]Google "Darwin Awards".[/p][/quote]Let's wait for him to explain his own post.[/p][/quote]Something tells me you're not getting any at the moment matlock
  • Score: 1

10:46pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
fredaj wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote:
You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
Google "Darwin Awards".
Let's wait for him to explain his own post.
Something tells me you're not getting any at the moment
The police are plainly lying about the death of this man, ans all you're concerned about is the sex-life of another poster.

Pathetic.
[quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?[/p][/quote]Google "Darwin Awards".[/p][/quote]Let's wait for him to explain his own post.[/p][/quote]Something tells me you're not getting any at the moment[/p][/quote]The police are plainly lying about the death of this man, ans all you're concerned about is the sex-life of another poster. Pathetic. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -7

11:30pm Tue 20 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Very sad for all concerned.
Sounds like a troubled young life ended horribly and many others will have to live with so much pain and anguish. Showing some respect might make some of those commenting make eye-contact in the mirror a tad easier tomorrow.

Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation.

If anything is to be gained then it would be from all of us instead noting concern for the child left fatherless and the committed and dedicated police and emergency workers that deal with such sorrow as part of their job.
Very sad for all concerned. Sounds like a troubled young life ended horribly and many others will have to live with so much pain and anguish. Showing some respect might make some of those commenting make eye-contact in the mirror a tad easier tomorrow. Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation. If anything is to be gained then it would be from all of us instead noting concern for the child left fatherless and the committed and dedicated police and emergency workers that deal with such sorrow as part of their job. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 7

11:46pm Tue 20 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation. "

So impossible that they were unable to get their stories straight?

You know, if the police had stated that they had chased the guy after being assaulted by him as he resisted arrest, saw him leap into the water and were happy to see him struggle and drown without wishing to lift a finger to help him, I'd have been impressed with their honesty if nothing else.

The fact is that they saw him jump in, they saw that he was in difficulties almost immediately, and that they not only failed to attempt a rescue but that they prevented others from helping, with the result that he died yards from the edge in full view of onlookers. It was then that they decided to lie about what had happened.

I cannot believe that people commenting upon this are more interested in 'agendas' and how much sex people are getting than on what THEIR police force is doing with regard to protecting the public.
"Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation. " So impossible that they were unable to get their stories straight? You know, if the police had stated that they had chased the guy after being assaulted by him as he resisted arrest, saw him leap into the water and were happy to see him struggle and drown without wishing to lift a finger to help him, I'd have been impressed with their honesty if nothing else. The fact is that they saw him jump in, they saw that he was in difficulties almost immediately, and that they not only failed to attempt a rescue but that they prevented others from helping, with the result that he died yards from the edge in full view of onlookers. It was then that they decided to lie about what had happened. I cannot believe that people commenting upon this are more interested in 'agendas' and how much sex people are getting than on what THEIR police force is doing with regard to protecting the public. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -6

12:55am Wed 21 May 14

HovePunter says...

Withdean-er wrote:
tykemison wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Don't run the from the Police, RIP
He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.
The lessons are:
Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation
Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed
Don't resist arrest

Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.
Sanctimonious ****.
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Don't run the from the Police, RIP[/p][/quote]He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.[/p][/quote]The lessons are: Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed Don't resist arrest Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.[/p][/quote]Sanctimonious ****. HovePunter
  • Score: -5

7:04am Wed 21 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
matlock wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
We love Red Billy wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.
The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?
At the point where he stopped swimming
That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?
Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matlock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: You can run but you can't swim. Darwin time again.[/p][/quote]The report states that he swam away.....how was Darwin involved?[/p][/quote]At the point where he stopped swimming[/p][/quote]That doesn't explain HOW Darwin was involved.....care to try again?[/p][/quote]Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 1

8:14am Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation. "

So impossible that they were unable to get their stories straight?

You know, if the police had stated that they had chased the guy after being assaulted by him as he resisted arrest, saw him leap into the water and were happy to see him struggle and drown without wishing to lift a finger to help him, I'd have been impressed with their honesty if nothing else.

The fact is that they saw him jump in, they saw that he was in difficulties almost immediately, and that they not only failed to attempt a rescue but that they prevented others from helping, with the result that he died yards from the edge in full view of onlookers. It was then that they decided to lie about what had happened.

I cannot believe that people commenting upon this are more interested in 'agendas' and how much sex people are getting than on what THEIR police force is doing with regard to protecting the public.
It amazes me how these facts get twisted. The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this.

The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake.

The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot.

The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents.

The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out.

The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Sounds like the police and other emergency services were, unfortunately, placed in an impossible situation. " So impossible that they were unable to get their stories straight? You know, if the police had stated that they had chased the guy after being assaulted by him as he resisted arrest, saw him leap into the water and were happy to see him struggle and drown without wishing to lift a finger to help him, I'd have been impressed with their honesty if nothing else. The fact is that they saw him jump in, they saw that he was in difficulties almost immediately, and that they not only failed to attempt a rescue but that they prevented others from helping, with the result that he died yards from the edge in full view of onlookers. It was then that they decided to lie about what had happened. I cannot believe that people commenting upon this are more interested in 'agendas' and how much sex people are getting than on what THEIR police force is doing with regard to protecting the public.[/p][/quote]It amazes me how these facts get twisted. The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this. The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake. The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot. The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents. The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out. The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake. Grenog
  • Score: 4

8:29am Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule."

Exceptions disprove rules.

Shame that had to be pointed out.
"Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule." Exceptions disprove rules. Shame that had to be pointed out. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -4

9:11am Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

In response to Grenog's post.

1) "It amazes me how these facts get twisted.

Who is twisting words, the Argus, the police, the witnesses, or the readers commenting upon the Argus report?

2) "The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this."

So the section of the report that states:

"Witnesses said officers watched as father-of-three Leon Stent ran into a lake ....."

was fabricated by The Argus. I seeeee........

3) "The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake."

There is a complete absence of a comment relating to a pontoon in the report,, mainly because The Argus has no idea what the man's intentions were AND the fact that the fish pond doesn't have a pontoon.

4) "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

The report contains two sections indicating that the man was never out of sight:

"One resident who witnessed the incident said: “Everyone was out by the water watching what was going on. " "

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

And if the police claimed that he had 'swum away', the officer either had complete vision of him until such time that the man had made good his escape OR the officer was lying.

5) "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

The report makes no mention of that, so it's not a fact, just a figment of your imagination. The report DOES state that a member of the public was prevented by a police officer from entering the water:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

So, the report states that the only person who tried to save a man who the police claimed had swum to safety was a member of the public.

6) "..... a police officer tried to go in....."

No, he didn't, otherwise The Argus would not have stated:

"The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. "

and the police would not have responded with:

“He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

7) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out."

Why did the police do that if they had earlier claimed :

"the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

???

8) "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake."

Blimey!

OK, I look forward to your explanation as to how people on the far side of the lake knew that an incident was occurring, how they could see "that man in difficulties " despite your claim (even though you weren't present) and yet " nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty", lol. You made contradictory claims about people who you claim are present and yet they are somehow ignored by The Argus.

And if one of those people on the far side of the lake ( the only ones seeing the man in difficulties, according to you and you alone) was prevented by a police officer from rescuing him, can you explain how that police officer had got around the lake so fast? Don't forget, The Argus makes no mention of any activity on the far side of the lake, and the only people it mentions and quotes are those who were on the nearside of the lake close to where the bar is.

9) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out."

If the police were 'unsure', why was one of them quoted as stating:

....."it was dark, which hampered rescue attempts......"

???

At that point, surely, it was still a case of trying to arrest a fleeing suspect, right? After all, the police had stated that he had merely evaded capture.

The report also stated:

"Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. "

So he got into difficulties in full view of those officers, one of whom prevented a woman from diving in to rescue him.

Sorry, what was that about people 'twisting words'?
In response to Grenog's post. 1) "It amazes me how these facts get twisted. Who is twisting words, the Argus, the police, the witnesses, or the readers commenting upon the Argus report? 2) "The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this." So the section of the report that states: "Witnesses said officers watched as father-of-three Leon Stent ran into a lake ....." was fabricated by The Argus. I seeeee........ 3) "The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake." There is a complete absence of a comment relating to a pontoon in the report,, mainly because The Argus has no idea what the man's intentions were AND the fact that the fish pond doesn't have a pontoon. 4) "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." The report contains two sections indicating that the man was never out of sight: "One resident who witnessed the incident said: “Everyone was out by the water watching what was going on. " " “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” And if the police claimed that he had 'swum away', the officer either had complete vision of him until such time that the man had made good his escape OR the officer was lying. 5) "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." The report makes no mention of that, so it's not a fact, just a figment of your imagination. The report DOES state that a member of the public was prevented by a police officer from entering the water: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” So, the report states that the only person who tried to save a man who the police claimed had swum to safety was a member of the public. 6) "..... a police officer tried to go in....." No, he didn't, otherwise The Argus would not have stated: "The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. " and the police would not have responded with: “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " 7) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out." Why did the police do that if they had earlier claimed : "the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " ??? 8) "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake." Blimey! OK, I look forward to your explanation as to how people on the far side of the lake knew that an incident was occurring, how they could see "that man in difficulties " despite your claim (even though you weren't present) and yet " nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty", lol. You made contradictory claims about people who you claim are present and yet they are somehow ignored by The Argus. And if one of those people on the far side of the lake ( the only ones seeing the man in difficulties, according to you and you alone) was prevented by a police officer from rescuing him, can you explain how that police officer had got around the lake so fast? Don't forget, The Argus makes no mention of any activity on the far side of the lake, and the only people it mentions and quotes are those who were on the nearside of the lake close to where the bar is. 9) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out." If the police were 'unsure', why was one of them quoted as stating: ....."it was dark, which hampered rescue attempts......" ??? At that point, surely, it was still a case of trying to arrest a fleeing suspect, right? After all, the police had stated that he had merely evaded capture. The report also stated: "Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. " So he got into difficulties in full view of those officers, one of whom prevented a woman from diving in to rescue him. Sorry, what was that about people 'twisting words'? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

9:31am Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
In response to Grenog's post.

1) "It amazes me how these facts get twisted.

Who is twisting words, the Argus, the police, the witnesses, or the readers commenting upon the Argus report?

2) "The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this."

So the section of the report that states:

"Witnesses said officers watched as father-of-three Leon Stent ran into a lake ....."

was fabricated by The Argus. I seeeee........

3) "The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake."

There is a complete absence of a comment relating to a pontoon in the report,, mainly because The Argus has no idea what the man's intentions were AND the fact that the fish pond doesn't have a pontoon.

4) "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

The report contains two sections indicating that the man was never out of sight:

"One resident who witnessed the incident said: “Everyone was out by the water watching what was going on. " "

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

And if the police claimed that he had 'swum away', the officer either had complete vision of him until such time that the man had made good his escape OR the officer was lying.

5) "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

The report makes no mention of that, so it's not a fact, just a figment of your imagination. The report DOES state that a member of the public was prevented by a police officer from entering the water:

" “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her.

“She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.”

So, the report states that the only person who tried to save a man who the police claimed had swum to safety was a member of the public.

6) "..... a police officer tried to go in....."

No, he didn't, otherwise The Argus would not have stated:

"The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. "

and the police would not have responded with:

“He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. "

7) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out."

Why did the police do that if they had earlier claimed :

"the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. "

???

8) "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake."

Blimey!

OK, I look forward to your explanation as to how people on the far side of the lake knew that an incident was occurring, how they could see "that man in difficulties " despite your claim (even though you weren't present) and yet " nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty", lol. You made contradictory claims about people who you claim are present and yet they are somehow ignored by The Argus.

And if one of those people on the far side of the lake ( the only ones seeing the man in difficulties, according to you and you alone) was prevented by a police officer from rescuing him, can you explain how that police officer had got around the lake so fast? Don't forget, The Argus makes no mention of any activity on the far side of the lake, and the only people it mentions and quotes are those who were on the nearside of the lake close to where the bar is.

9) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out."

If the police were 'unsure', why was one of them quoted as stating:

....."it was dark, which hampered rescue attempts......"

???

At that point, surely, it was still a case of trying to arrest a fleeing suspect, right? After all, the police had stated that he had merely evaded capture.

The report also stated:

"Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. "

So he got into difficulties in full view of those officers, one of whom prevented a woman from diving in to rescue him.

Sorry, what was that about people 'twisting words'?
Oh dear! Where you there too?

Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong.

The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people.

Thanks for putting me straight
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: In response to Grenog's post. 1) "It amazes me how these facts get twisted. Who is twisting words, the Argus, the police, the witnesses, or the readers commenting upon the Argus report? 2) "The fact is this poor man went into the water, the facts surrounding this are unclear as to why or how or as to whether the police witnessed this." So the section of the report that states: "Witnesses said officers watched as father-of-three Leon Stent ran into a lake ....." was fabricated by The Argus. I seeeee........ 3) "The facts are he swam away from the police to try to reach a pontoon on the other side of the lake." There is a complete absence of a comment relating to a pontoon in the report,, mainly because The Argus has no idea what the man's intentions were AND the fact that the fish pond doesn't have a pontoon. 4) "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." The report contains two sections indicating that the man was never out of sight: "One resident who witnessed the incident said: “Everyone was out by the water watching what was going on. " " “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” And if the police claimed that he had 'swum away', the officer either had complete vision of him until such time that the man had made good his escape OR the officer was lying. 5) "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." The report makes no mention of that, so it's not a fact, just a figment of your imagination. The report DOES state that a member of the public was prevented by a police officer from entering the water: " “One woman – I don’t know if she knew him or not – tried to go in after him but they stopped her. “She was trying to save him but they wouldn’t let her go in.” So, the report states that the only person who tried to save a man who the police claimed had swum to safety was a member of the public. 6) "..... a police officer tried to go in....." No, he didn't, otherwise The Argus would not have stated: "The Argus asked Sussex Police why officers did not enter the water. " and the police would not have responded with: “He did not call out for help or appear in distress and swam away further across the lake. " 7) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out." Why did the police do that if they had earlier claimed : "the man had not appeared to be in difficulties and swam across the lake away from officers. " ??? 8) "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in. This man did not drown yards in front of people nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty, the fear was he was drunk and had entered a very dangerous lake." Blimey! OK, I look forward to your explanation as to how people on the far side of the lake knew that an incident was occurring, how they could see "that man in difficulties " despite your claim (even though you weren't present) and yet " nor was it apparent to anyone there he was in difficulty", lol. You made contradictory claims about people who you claim are present and yet they are somehow ignored by The Argus. And if one of those people on the far side of the lake ( the only ones seeing the man in difficulties, according to you and you alone) was prevented by a police officer from rescuing him, can you explain how that police officer had got around the lake so fast? Don't forget, The Argus makes no mention of any activity on the far side of the lake, and the only people it mentions and quotes are those who were on the nearside of the lake close to where the bar is. 9) "The facts are they got the boats out and searched through the night for him, despite being unsure if he had drowned or if he had somehow got out." If the police were 'unsure', why was one of them quoted as stating: ....."it was dark, which hampered rescue attempts......" ??? At that point, surely, it was still a case of trying to arrest a fleeing suspect, right? After all, the police had stated that he had merely evaded capture. The report also stated: "Rother district policing commander, Chief Inspector Warren Franklin, said: “Officers and friends of the man encouraged him to come out of the water but before he could do so he got into difficulties. " So he got into difficulties in full view of those officers, one of whom prevented a woman from diving in to rescue him. Sorry, what was that about people 'twisting words'?[/p][/quote]Oh dear! Where you there too? Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong. The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people. Thanks for putting me straight Grenog
  • Score: 5

9:44am Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

1) "Oh dear! Where you there too?"

Clearly not. I've quoted The Argus report.

2) "Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong."

Which 'other' reports?

3) "The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people."

The police have contradicted themselves, as I've previously pointed out.

Contradictions mean that they have lied.

HTH
1) "Oh dear! Where you there too?" Clearly not. I've quoted The Argus report. 2) "Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong." Which 'other' reports? 3) "The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people." The police have contradicted themselves, as I've previously pointed out. Contradictions mean that they have lied. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -4

10:09am Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
1) "Oh dear! Where you there too?"

Clearly not. I've quoted The Argus report.

2) "Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong."

Which 'other' reports?

3) "The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people."

The police have contradicted themselves, as I've previously pointed out.

Contradictions mean that they have lied.

HTH
Contradictions do not mean the police have lied anymore than the witnesses. Contradiction, according to the Oxford dictionary, is "A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another"

This is a reported story, written by a reporter obtaining information from unsubstantiated witnesses, not a statement of facts. Given that I was there, I may be in a position where I have more facts than you.

My comments were based on my observation of this report, why are we so quick to blame the police? From what I witnessed and the facts I have I'm not sure there was any more that could have been done.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: 1) "Oh dear! Where you there too?" Clearly not. I've quoted The Argus report. 2) "Yes clearly you are right and this one report in the Argus was gospel and other reports are wrong." Which 'other' reports? 3) "The police clearly wanted an innocent man to die in front of hundreds of people." The police have contradicted themselves, as I've previously pointed out. Contradictions mean that they have lied. HTH[/p][/quote]Contradictions do not mean the police have lied anymore than the witnesses. Contradiction, according to the Oxford dictionary, is "A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another" This is a reported story, written by a reporter obtaining information from unsubstantiated witnesses, not a statement of facts. Given that I was there, I may be in a position where I have more facts than you. My comments were based on my observation of this report, why are we so quick to blame the police? From what I witnessed and the facts I have I'm not sure there was any more that could have been done. Grenog
  • Score: 3

10:33am Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another"

Correct.

The police are having trouble squaring their comments among each other and with the reports from witnesses. They claimed the man had swum away from them when he clearly had done nothing of the sort.

And why did you lie about the people who were allegedly watching this from the other side of the lake?
"A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another" Correct. The police are having trouble squaring their comments among each other and with the reports from witnesses. They claimed the man had swum away from them when he clearly had done nothing of the sort. And why did you lie about the people who were allegedly watching this from the other side of the lake? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -7

10:45am Wed 21 May 14

Geoffrey Madden says...

According to a European Parliament scientific report, "The effects of pepper spray temporary blindness which lasts from 15–30 minutes, a burning sensation of the skin which lasts from 45 to 60 minutes, upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable coughing making it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 to 15 minutes."
According to a European Parliament scientific report, "The effects of pepper spray [include] temporary blindness which lasts from 15–30 minutes, a burning sensation of the skin which lasts from 45 to 60 minutes, upper body spasms which force a person to bend forward and uncontrollable coughing making it difficult to breathe or speak for between 3 to 15 minutes." Geoffrey Madden
  • Score: 0

10:46am Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another"

Correct.

The police are having trouble squaring their comments among each other and with the reports from witnesses. They claimed the man had swum away from them when he clearly had done nothing of the sort.

And why did you lie about the people who were allegedly watching this from the other side of the lake?
Lie? where has that come from?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "A combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another" Correct. The police are having trouble squaring their comments among each other and with the reports from witnesses. They claimed the man had swum away from them when he clearly had done nothing of the sort. And why did you lie about the people who were allegedly watching this from the other side of the lake?[/p][/quote]Lie? where has that come from? Grenog
  • Score: 0

10:47am Wed 21 May 14

Innocentbystander65 says...

Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool.
Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool. Innocentbystander65
  • Score: 8

10:47am Wed 21 May 14

Geoffrey Madden says...

In my comment, the word "include" should have appeared in square brackets after the word "spray".
In my comment, the word "include" should have appeared in square brackets after the word "spray". Geoffrey Madden
  • Score: 0

11:40am Wed 21 May 14

Elgabalus says...

MDavison wrote:
Very sad story', that does not deserve any levity. But as a former editor I think the Argus has a classic front page headline howler here:

'Father drowned fleeing police'.

However did that ever get through!
The original one was "Man drowns after beeing pepper srayed by Police" It had me wondering...Just how much pepper spray they used!
[quote][p][bold]MDavison[/bold] wrote: Very sad story', that does not deserve any levity. But as a former editor I think the Argus has a classic front page headline howler here: 'Father drowned fleeing police'. However did that ever get through![/p][/quote]The original one was "Man drowns after beeing pepper srayed by Police" It had me wondering...Just how much pepper spray they used! Elgabalus
  • Score: 2

12:26pm Wed 21 May 14

Withdean-er says...

HovePunter wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
tykemison wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Don't run the from the Police, RIP
He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.
The lessons are:
Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation
Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed
Don't resist arrest

Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.
Sanctimonious ****.
Aside from the ill tempered outburst of ****, no, not of superior morals to others. Just part of the vast law abiding majority of the population, who are neither attacking or thieving off anyone or the state, and appreciative of the emergency services for the work they do in making the UK a safer place.
[quote][p][bold]HovePunter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tykemison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Don't run the from the Police, RIP[/p][/quote]He was not, he was swimming.Something sounds off about this, a man who has been"pepper sprayed"being allowed AND watched by the police to die drowning, but not to fret the IPPC have been called up to ensure no Officer faces charges.[/p][/quote]The lessons are: Don't abuse others in a bar or any situation Don't attack police (per witnesses if you read it) or you might get sprayed Don't resist arrest Easy isn't - the vast majority of the population are able to go about their daily lives not getting involved in feral activities.[/p][/quote]Sanctimonious ****.[/p][/quote]Aside from the ill tempered outburst of ****, no, not of superior morals to others. Just part of the vast law abiding majority of the population, who are neither attacking or thieving off anyone or the state, and appreciative of the emergency services for the work they do in making the UK a safer place. Withdean-er
  • Score: 5

3:05pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

3:13pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Innocentbystander65 wrote:
Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool.
First of all, I do hope his family and loved ones don't trace you after expressing your delight that he died too late.

Second, I have referred to the contents of a report containing conflicting statements made by the police. I am always concerned when police officers not only fail to do their job properly (the botched arrest) but lie about their actions when someone has died as a result.

Whether you were present or not is totally irrelevant, although I suspect that you weren't anywhere near. The fact remains that the police claimed that the man swam away from them and disappeared from view on a night that was 'very dark'. That was patently a lie, because the witnesses claimed that they could see him get into trouble and that the police stopped one person from jumping in to save him. And if it wasn't a lie, why did the police also state they they were unsure what had happened to him?
[quote][p][bold]Innocentbystander65[/bold] wrote: Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool.[/p][/quote]First of all, I do hope his family and loved ones don't trace you after expressing your delight that he died too late. Second, I have referred to the contents of a report containing conflicting statements made by the police. I am always concerned when police officers not only fail to do their job properly (the botched arrest) but lie about their actions when someone has died as a result. Whether you were present or not is totally irrelevant, although I suspect that you weren't anywhere near. The fact remains that the police claimed that the man swam away from them and disappeared from view on a night that was 'very dark'. That was patently a lie, because the witnesses claimed that they could see him get into trouble and that the police stopped one person from jumping in to save him. And if it wasn't a lie, why did the police also state they they were unsure what had happened to him? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -6

3:18pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel. Grenog
  • Score: 1

3:25pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

3:34pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Innocentbystander65 wrote:
Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool.
First of all, I do hope his family and loved ones don't trace you after expressing your delight that he died too late.

Second, I have referred to the contents of a report containing conflicting statements made by the police. I am always concerned when police officers not only fail to do their job properly (the botched arrest) but lie about their actions when someone has died as a result.

Whether you were present or not is totally irrelevant, although I suspect that you weren't anywhere near. The fact remains that the police claimed that the man swam away from them and disappeared from view on a night that was 'very dark'. That was patently a lie, because the witnesses claimed that they could see him get into trouble and that the police stopped one person from jumping in to save him. And if it wasn't a lie, why did the police also state they they were unsure what had happened to him?
And now Innocentbystander65 is a liar? So that's the police, him and me? all of whom were at the site and know the area rather than reading one rather biased online report? What exactly is your problem with the police and it seems anyone in society who holds opinions different to you own? These forums are to be used for discussion and debate rather than personal attacks on people expressing their views.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Innocentbystander65[/bold] wrote: Zeegee, ffs just shut the f**k up you sanctimonious tw@t. I have first hand knowledge of what happened and this man made a dumb decision whilst under the influence of a significant amount of alcohol. The lake drops to >20' within a yard of the edge ANYBODY trying to rescue this man without suitable ppe would most probably have drowned. It is not the job of the police to risk their lives in situations when there is little chance of being successful. Any rescue attempt in this situation would have been unexceptably dangerous and futile...... Just to wind up the liberals out there.... The saddest thing about this is the man had reproduced before he could remove himself from the gene pool.[/p][/quote]First of all, I do hope his family and loved ones don't trace you after expressing your delight that he died too late. Second, I have referred to the contents of a report containing conflicting statements made by the police. I am always concerned when police officers not only fail to do their job properly (the botched arrest) but lie about their actions when someone has died as a result. Whether you were present or not is totally irrelevant, although I suspect that you weren't anywhere near. The fact remains that the police claimed that the man swam away from them and disappeared from view on a night that was 'very dark'. That was patently a lie, because the witnesses claimed that they could see him get into trouble and that the police stopped one person from jumping in to save him. And if it wasn't a lie, why did the police also state they they were unsure what had happened to him?[/p][/quote]And now Innocentbystander65 is a liar? So that's the police, him and me? all of whom were at the site and know the area rather than reading one rather biased online report? What exactly is your problem with the police and it seems anyone in society who holds opinions different to you own? These forums are to be used for discussion and debate rather than personal attacks on people expressing their views. Grenog
  • Score: 3

3:35pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life! Grenog
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

3:50pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up! Grenog
  • Score: 4

6:17pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right?

Permit me to prove that you're lying.

You stated:

"The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating:

"The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

You also stated:

"The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in."

That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated.

So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up![/p][/quote]So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right? Permit me to prove that you're lying. You stated: "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating: "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." You also stated: "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in." That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated. So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

6:47pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right?

Permit me to prove that you're lying.

You stated:

"The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating:

"The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

You also stated:

"The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in."

That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated.

So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.
Get a life!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up![/p][/quote]So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right? Permit me to prove that you're lying. You stated: "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating: "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." You also stated: "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in." That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated. So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.[/p][/quote]Get a life! Grenog
  • Score: 2

7:49pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right?

Permit me to prove that you're lying.

You stated:

"The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating:

"The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

You also stated:

"The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in."

That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated.

So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.
Get a life!
"Get a life!"

So you have no response to the fact that I've exposed you lying.
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up![/p][/quote]So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right? Permit me to prove that you're lying. You stated: "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating: "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." You also stated: "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in." That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated. So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.[/p][/quote]Get a life![/p][/quote]"Get a life!" So you have no response to the fact that I've exposed you lying. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

8:11pm Wed 21 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"And now Innocentbystander65 is a liar?"

Says who??
"And now Innocentbystander65 is a liar?" Says who?? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

9:20pm Wed 21 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right?

Permit me to prove that you're lying.

You stated:

"The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents."

This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating:

"The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot."

You also stated:

"The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in."

That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated.

So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.
Get a life!
"Get a life!"

So you have no response to the fact that I've exposed you lying.
My response?

Yes, you are right, I am an habitual Liar, I get so confused in my web of lies that I have completely lost track of where I "stated" where I was on the evening in question? or where I "stated" where all the witnesses were? Or where I "stated I knew the circumstances of him entering the lake?

Thank you for pointing out what a liar I am, without your insights to the truth of this matter I doubt I would have realised how the entire world is full of liars.

I am so sorry to have wasted your entire day by having to decrypt and decode every report and statement, thank you for putting me straight.

I hope your life continues to be as fulfilling as it has been today.

Good luck with your future fights for justice in the world it must be very difficult with the challenges you have to face daily.

Many thanks again for your insights
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up![/p][/quote]So you were on the opposite side of the lake at the precise moment the man entered the water, right? Permit me to prove that you're lying. You stated: "The facts are both a member of the public and a police officer tried to go in after him but were stopped by residents." This means that the guy entered the lake on the opposite side to you following the route taken by him. How did you manage to see that action if (as the reports all state) the place was in total darkness? I take it you remember stating: "The facts are it was dark and he would have been very hard to spot." You also stated: "The witnesses who saw that man in difficulties where mainly residents situated on the other side of the lake not people on the bank where he went in." That clearly isn't the case, as one person at the opposite side of the lake from you had ALSO seen him get into difficulties, as you've already stated. So you've contradicted yourself. You were either at the side of the lake that he entered or you were at the opposite side. You cannot be at both. If he had reached your side after swimming all that way, he was clearly in no danger of drowning. The truth is that he got nowhere near the opposite side of the lake, and the likelihood is he jumped blindly into the water to cool his eyes down.[/p][/quote]Get a life![/p][/quote]"Get a life!" So you have no response to the fact that I've exposed you lying.[/p][/quote]My response? Yes, you are right, I am an habitual Liar, I get so confused in my web of lies that I have completely lost track of where I "stated" where I was on the evening in question? or where I "stated" where all the witnesses were? Or where I "stated I knew the circumstances of him entering the lake? Thank you for pointing out what a liar I am, without your insights to the truth of this matter I doubt I would have realised how the entire world is full of liars. I am so sorry to have wasted your entire day by having to decrypt and decode every report and statement, thank you for putting me straight. I hope your life continues to be as fulfilling as it has been today. Good luck with your future fights for justice in the world it must be very difficult with the challenges you have to face daily. Many thanks again for your insights Grenog
  • Score: 2

3:45am Thu 22 May 14

Mr chock says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog asked:

"Lie? where has that come from?"

From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.
So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.
Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?
YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life!
How do you know they were there?
Because I was there! Now shut up!
ohh wow the I WAS THERE .. thing .. .. ok now then have you been a witness you will have a crime ref number.. " please all that was there tell me what colour was the policemans helmet .. ...
someone comment on they pay the police to save people ?
mjlf says...

Why the hell didn't the police save him - that's what we pay them for. ....
not really sure if your on the same planet as me but when do you pay the police to save drunks from lakes ? ..
please look again at a policemans duties .. THE POLICE FORCE clearly has guidlines ..
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Grenog asked: "Lie? where has that come from?" From your comment about the people on the other side of the lake, remember? There is no mention of anyone being there.[/p][/quote]So if you don't agree with people you make it personal and accuse them of lying? Stop taking news paper reports as gospel.[/p][/quote]Did you or did you not state that there were people on the far side of the lake who saw him in difficulties?[/p][/quote]YES I did and yes they did! That's what actually happened in real life![/p][/quote]How do you know they were there?[/p][/quote]Because I was there! Now shut up![/p][/quote]ohh wow the I WAS THERE .. thing .. .. ok now then have you been a witness you will have a crime ref number.. " please all that was there tell me what colour was the policemans helmet .. ... someone comment on they pay the police to save people ? mjlf says... Why the hell didn't the police save him - that's what we pay them for. .... not really sure if your on the same planet as me but when do you pay the police to save drunks from lakes ? .. please look again at a policemans duties .. THE POLICE FORCE clearly has guidlines .. Mr chock
  • Score: 0

11:50am Thu 22 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"Many thanks again for your insights"

You're welcome.....it was fun!
"Many thanks again for your insights" You're welcome.....it was fun! ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Thu 22 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Thu 22 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.
For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2633905/Father-three
-30-drowned-holiday-
park-fishing-lake-po
lice-pepper-sprayed-
drunken-altercation.
html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe

Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray.
Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed.
Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake.
'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty.
'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam.
'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.'
According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.[/p][/quote]For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2633905/Father-three -30-drowned-holiday- park-fishing-lake-po lice-pepper-sprayed- drunken-altercation. html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray. Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed. Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake. 'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty. 'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam. 'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.' According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am. Grenog
  • Score: 0

8:01am Fri 23 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule."

Exceptions disprove rules.

Shame that had to be pointed out.
Its an ironic phrase Sorry for having to point that one out. Next time I'll write it in crayon for you. Chuckle
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule." Exceptions disprove rules. Shame that had to be pointed out.[/p][/quote]Its an ironic phrase Sorry for having to point that one out. Next time I'll write it in crayon for you. Chuckle We love Red Billy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Fri 23 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

We love Red Billy wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule."

Exceptions disprove rules.

Shame that had to be pointed out.
Its an ironic phrase Sorry for having to point that one out. Next time I'll write it in crayon for you. Chuckle
So you're allowed crayons?

I'm so pleased for you.
[quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "Oh dear, you would seem to be the exception that proves the rule." Exceptions disprove rules. Shame that had to be pointed out.[/p][/quote]Its an ironic phrase Sorry for having to point that one out. Next time I'll write it in crayon for you. Chuckle[/p][/quote]So you're allowed crayons? I'm so pleased for you. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Fri 23 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.
For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2633905/Father-three

-30-drowned-holiday-

park-fishing-lake-po

lice-pepper-sprayed-

drunken-altercation.

html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe

Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray.
Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed.
Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake.
'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty.
'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam.
'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.'
According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.
You're the one who lied about being there, right?

Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier:

" Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. "

See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself.

Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them.
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.[/p][/quote]For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2633905/Father-three -30-drowned-holiday- park-fishing-lake-po lice-pepper-sprayed- drunken-altercation. html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray. Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed. Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake. 'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty. 'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam. 'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.' According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.[/p][/quote]You're the one who lied about being there, right? Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier: " Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. " See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself. Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Sat 24 May 14

Grenog says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.
For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail


.co.uk/news/article-


2633905/Father-three


-30-drowned-holiday-


park-fishing-lake-po


lice-pepper-sprayed-


drunken-altercation.


html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe

Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray.
Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed.
Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake.
'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty.
'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam.
'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.'
According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.
You're the one who lied about being there, right?

Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier:

" Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. "

See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself.

Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them.
Riiiiiiight!

So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories?

Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar?

You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him?

Wow!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.[/p][/quote]For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2633905/Father-three -30-drowned-holiday- park-fishing-lake-po lice-pepper-sprayed- drunken-altercation. html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray. Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed. Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake. 'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty. 'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam. 'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.' According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.[/p][/quote]You're the one who lied about being there, right? Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier: " Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. " See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself. Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them.[/p][/quote]Riiiiiiight! So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories? Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar? You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him? Wow! Grenog
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Sat 24 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Grenog wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.
I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.
For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail



.co.uk/news/article-



2633905/Father-three



-30-drowned-holiday-



park-fishing-lake-po



lice-pepper-sprayed-



drunken-altercation.



html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe

Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray.
Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed.
Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake.
'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty.
'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam.
'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.'
According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.
You're the one who lied about being there, right?

Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier:

" Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. "

See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself.

Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them.
Riiiiiiight!

So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories?

Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar?

You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him?

Wow!
" So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories?"

I haven't stated that any reports are correct in their entirety. I've pointed out the wealth of discrepancies in each one AND the contradictions between them.

Obviously my comments are way too advanced for some to comprehend.

"Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar? "

A person who contradicts themself is lying.

One witness claimed he clearly heard the shouts coming from the other bank, yet also claimed that he was unaware that there was anything going on until his fishing alarms alerted him. Those statements cannot both be true, so his credibility is compromised. Further he claimed he saw the guy disappear into the water, which is at odds with the witnesses on the opposite bank who also saw he was in difficulties.

" You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him? "

Correct.

It's not my job

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grenog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: I certainly would not go in after him especially when he had already been abusive,although a sad ending the police are not to blame.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have lifted a finger either, but his family and loved ones had a perfect right to try and save him. One person was restrained by the police, and the guy drowned right there in front of them. All this nonsense about him swimming away was a lie by the police officer who made that claim.[/p][/quote]For those of you interested there are other reports on this. This quote is from The Daily Mail, though there are plenty more. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2633905/Father-three -30-drowned-holiday- park-fishing-lake-po lice-pepper-sprayed- drunken-altercation. html#ixzz32Ta5cwQe Shortly after 11pm on Saturday night officers approached Mr Stent in a bid to pacify him. However, it was claimed by police that he then struck out at one of the officers before they decided to 'incapacitate' him by using pepper spray. Mr Stent then ran away from officers towards the nearby lake which has clear signs advising that swimming is not allowed. Having jumped into the water shortly after 11.20pm he tried to swim some 70 metres to reach a small wooden jetty on the other side of the lake. 'Police and his friends were all shouting at him to come back to the shore but he was swearing at them,' said the eye-witness whose home is near the jetty. 'I was alerted that something was going on because I had three night fishing rods out on the lake and I heard the bite detector alarms going off. He must have touched the fishing lines as he swam. 'I was on my chalet balcony and saw him clearly on the lily pads for about thirty seconds and then he went limp and he was gone.' According to residents police and firefighters searched for Mr Stent using lights and at least three boats until around 4am.[/p][/quote]You're the one who lied about being there, right? Odd, isn't it, how the Daily Mail's version is at odds with this from earlier: " Then he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he then ran to the lake, he swam to middle then called out 'isn't someone going to help me ' he bobbed up and down several times. the last sighting by a lady was his hand going down and disappeared. Many people witnessed this. " See the discrepancies? He either reached the middle where he shouted for help, or he almost reached the far bank whilst shouting abuse at those behind him. The Mail's witness seems confused as to what actually alerted him to there being a situation. he claims he heard the shouts coming from the other bank, but he also claimed that he nothing until the guy triggered his alarms. One of those claims is false. Equally, no-one can possibly claim to know what the guy's intentions were, especially as he probably didn't even know himself. Finally, I do hope we are told how a drunk can be close enough to swing at a police officer and receive a faceful of pepper spray and STILL outrun at least two of them.[/p][/quote]Riiiiiiight! So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories? Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar? You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him? Wow![/p][/quote]" So two differing news reports and the only one that is correct is the one that supports your theories?" I haven't stated that any reports are correct in their entirety. I've pointed out the wealth of discrepancies in each one AND the contradictions between them. Obviously my comments are way too advanced for some to comprehend. "Two witness reports and and the one that contradicts your theories is discounted as a liar? " A person who contradicts themself is lying. One witness claimed he clearly heard the shouts coming from the other bank, yet also claimed that he was unaware that there was anything going on until his fishing alarms alerted him. Those statements cannot both be true, so his credibility is compromised. Further he claimed he saw the guy disappear into the water, which is at odds with the witnesses on the opposite bank who also saw he was in difficulties. " You attack the police for not risking their lives to save him but say you personally wouldn't have lived a finger to help him? " Correct. It's not my job HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:57am Sun 1 Jun 14

imjustme86 says...

has everyone finished???? a young man, father, son, brother, lover and friend to many people has died. yes he may have been drunk and abusive but he didn't deserve this. would you all react this way if it had been your loved one and jump on the bad mouthing bandwagon?? no-one knows what circumstances led Leon to behave in the way he did. How dare any of you judge him when you did not know him. Spare a thought for his family who are suffering enough at loosing their son, brother and best friend. most of all show some **** respect for the dead. R.I.P Leon
has everyone finished???? a young man, father, son, brother, lover and friend to many people has died. yes he may have been drunk and abusive but he didn't deserve this. would you all react this way if it had been your loved one and jump on the bad mouthing bandwagon?? no-one knows what circumstances led Leon to behave in the way he did. How dare any of you judge him when you did not know him. Spare a thought for his family who are suffering enough at loosing their son, brother and best friend. most of all show some **** respect for the dead. R.I.P Leon imjustme86
  • Score: 1

10:28pm Sun 1 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

imjustme86 wrote:
has everyone finished???? a young man, father, son, brother, lover and friend to many people has died. yes he may have been drunk and abusive but he didn't deserve this. would you all react this way if it had been your loved one and jump on the bad mouthing bandwagon?? no-one knows what circumstances led Leon to behave in the way he did. How dare any of you judge him when you did not know him. Spare a thought for his family who are suffering enough at loosing their son, brother and best friend. most of all show some **** respect for the dead. R.I.P Leon
The circumstances were caused by his inability to behave himself when drunk, and his refusal to be calmed down even when the police confronted him.

The police behaved poorly, but the the guy was totally to blame for his presence in the lake.
[quote][p][bold]imjustme86[/bold] wrote: has everyone finished???? a young man, father, son, brother, lover and friend to many people has died. yes he may have been drunk and abusive but he didn't deserve this. would you all react this way if it had been your loved one and jump on the bad mouthing bandwagon?? no-one knows what circumstances led Leon to behave in the way he did. How dare any of you judge him when you did not know him. Spare a thought for his family who are suffering enough at loosing their son, brother and best friend. most of all show some **** respect for the dead. R.I.P Leon[/p][/quote]The circumstances were caused by his inability to behave himself when drunk, and his refusal to be calmed down even when the police confronted him. The police behaved poorly, but the the guy was totally to blame for his presence in the lake. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree