Olympic torch don't get to close.

[MJsGhost]

You can tell just from that clip that the bloke is most likely one of those absolute jobsworths.

Really? I know there are a lot of things being read into a short clip (me included), but can you really tell that the bloke is an "absolute jobsworth"?!

What you can see is that after he grabs him, the bike gets underneath their feet, causing them to overbalance and hit the deck. I can't see any aggression, any big attempt to throw the kid over - nothing to suggest the officer was out of control.
It certainly doesn't look like a big enough impact to cause anything more than a bruise and/or graze but obviously it's inconclusive on that front. What I do know is that if the kid had been injured in any serious way, it would be plastered all over the press.

It's a storm in a teacup and no mistake.

 

[Simster]

It's a storm in a teacup and no mistake.

You see, that's how I see it too. Looks like [MENTION=12101]Mellotron[/MENTION] is going to have to wheel out his "what if it was some Old Doris" routine for a FIFTH time. Amazing how some people just will NOT change their opinion and agree with him, despite being called BRAINLESS.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

it's interesting, where's the assumed intent from this young rapscallion?

 

[Mellotron]

I KNOW he didn't. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that he made a MINOR mistake, not a MAJOR one, and you are acting like a drama queen given that no harm seems to have been done. I find it astonishing that you see fit to accuse other people of being THICK for taking this simple difference of opinon. Especially given what you have gone on to write:

4th time? People are probably ignoring you owing to the stupidity of your hypothetic situation. Old people can't move very fast, you see. This is because their bones and muscles are 70, 80 or even 90 years old. Not quite the same as a teenager on a bike who could run into someone for a laugh with his mates.

Not the point. He didn't see who or what it was when he grabbed them, he was clearly acting on instinct. It could've EASILY been an old BIDDY.

But your "no harm has been done" argument is bollocks, it's like saying "well, so what that I was driving 120mph down a 30mph street? no one was harmed, so no big deal." The facts of the matter are that he was incredibly rough with this kid, and threw him infront of an oncoming car.

You are completely guessing that no harm has been done.

 

[Mellotron]

it's interesting, where's the assumed intent from this young rapscallion?

He was committing the crime of "riding his bike".

DEFINITELY no overreaction from the police at all. Definitely.

 

[Simster]

Not the point. He didn't see who or what it was when he grabbed them, he was clearly acting on instinct. It could've EASILY been an old BIDDY.

Yes it IS the point. How many old BIDDIES do you see on a BMX style push-bike?

But your "no harm has been done" argument is bollocks, it's like saying "well, so what that I was driving 120mph down a 30mph street? no one was harmed, so no big deal." The facts of the matter are that he was incredibly rough with this kid, and threw him infront of an oncoming car.

What a ridiculous comparison. If you drive at 120mph down a 30mph street, you are likely to kill someone should you hit them, yet there was little risk of any injury here. I suggest you watch it again. It is quite clear that the only reason they fell to the ground was because the security guy got his foot stuck under the pedal of the bike. He did nothing more than manhandle the kid away from the entourage, his foot got caught and they both fell over in a bundle.

You are completely guessing that no harm has been done.

Yes, oddly enough I am. I am guessing that the BBC might have reported any injury to the cyclist had there been one.

 

[Mellotron]

Just watched the clip again, the bloke quite clearly moves his arms to round the boys' throat to throw him to the ground infront of a moving car, the slip occurs quite late in that procedure.

Still, no harm done eh? The Olympic Torch (sponsored by Sega, AIG and Microsoft) is ok, and that is the main thing.

 

[Mellotron]

Yes, oddly enough I am. I am guessing that the BBC might have reported any injury to the cyclist had there been one.

Seeing as the report refers to the child as simply a "male" - and that it dropped off the main news section sharpish, I think SOMEHOW they're looking to downplay this one, don't you?

 

[Simster]

Seeing as the report refers to the child as simply a "male" - and that it dropped off the main news section sharpish, I think SOMEHOW they're looking to downplay this one, don't you?

Yes, the BBC is downplaying it. What does that prove?

Anyway, my opinion is that he made a MINOR mistake. Yours is that it was a MAJOR one. Sometimes you just have to accept that people don't agree with you, and not necessarily because they are BRAINLESS.

 

[Sheebo]

Really? I know there are a lot of things being read into a short clip (me included), but can you really tell that the bloke is an "absolute jobsworth"?!

What you can see is that after he grabs him, the bike gets underneath their feet, causing them to overbalance and hit the deck. I can't see any aggression, any big attempt to throw the kid over - nothing to suggest the officer was out of control.
It certainly doesn't look like a big enough impact to cause anything more than a bruise and/or graze but obviously it's inconclusive on that front. What I do know is that if the kid had been injured in any serious way, it would be plastered all over the press.

It's a storm in a teacup and no mistake.

No I can't 'really' tell. It's more an opinion and you're right we're reading a lot into the short clip and making assumptions on things we can't be sure of. I would argue your point re aggression tho - look at the arm firmly wrapped round the lads face - no need for it. If that was my lad I'd have been very, very angry...

 

[Mellotron]

Yes, the BBC is downplaying it. What does that prove?

Anyway, my opinion is that he made a MINOR mistake. Yours is that it was a MAJOR one. Sometimes you just have to accept that people don't agree with you, and not necessarily because they are BRAINLESS.

Eh? There's no logic at all in your response there. First you say that you're sure they would embellish the story with any details of injuries, names etc, and then you say "Yes, the BBC is downplaying it" - i.e. very few details, refers to him only as a "male", doesn't give name or age, or refer to any injuries.

Make your mind up.

Because you've never made any comment on this message board (for, y'know, opinions) suggesting that you are in the right, or anything with sentences such as "you'd have to be an idiot not to realise" etc? How many times have I called you BRAINLESS? None? Correct.

 

[Mellotron]

As sheebs has mentioned, if this was your kid, you would be utterly f***ing fuming.

 

[rool]

DEFINITELY no overreaction from the police at all. Definitely.

Can I attempt a bit of humour here and say this quote reminded me of this:-

No offence taken I hope?

 

[Simster]

Eh? There's no logic at all in your response there. First you say that you're sure they would embellish the story with any details of injuries, names etc, and then you say "Yes, the BBC is downplaying it" - i.e. very few details, refers to him only as a "male", doesn't give name or age, or refer to any injuries.

Make your mind up.

Eh? Are you seriously telling me it is one or the other? They are downplaying the fact it was a child (he looks about 13 to me) precisely because no harm came from it. If it had, they would have reported it as that would be construed as news.

Because you've never made any comment on this message board (for, y'know, opinions) suggesting that you are in the right, or anything with sentences such as "you'd have to be an idiot not to realise" etc? How many times have I called you BRAINLESS? None? Correct.

I apologise. I misinterpreted this:

Don't agree. A minor (and completely acceptable) error of judgment was the INITIAL grab. After about 1 second, when ANYONE WITH A BRAIN would've realised that it was very obviously just a SMALL CHILD, he THEN went on to make the massive error of judgment by using way way way too much force for the proceeding 3 or 4 seconds.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

im just going to ignore it

 

[Mellotron]

Can I attempt a bit of humour here and say this quote reminded me of this:-

No offence taken I hope?

Yep I can hear that voice. "Definitely number two, definitely."

 

[Mellotron]

The main thing is the torch is ok.

 

[Acker79]

How on earth can you accidentally cycle into that? The streets are lined with spectators, there's buses and police cars, and security men. You don't accidentally cycle into the bubble. So, was he just a little overexcited, trying to be part of the moment? Or is it part of some challenge to get the torch* (for whatever ends)?

How bad was it, really? I've watched it 4 times, and I'm not sure it isn't made to look worse by the bike being there - what would otherwise be a slight grab and lift looks worse because the bike swings around. Th car wasn't travelling at a speed that endangered them, and there were two men taking care of the kid.

This incident occurred after the other one that was linked, a few days prior to this incident two kids had got into the bubble and grabbed the torch, you don't think the security forces got an earful for letting them get that close? Sure that time it was 'innocent' kids, but next time...? That security team would have had their duties made very clear to them after the early incident.

*So, following on from two kids getting in and grabbing the torch, you have another kid 'breaking the security bubble'. Either the latter was inspired by the former, or perhaps there is some sort of challenge among the kids in the area to get to the torch (maybe to grab it and claim you ran with it, or worse). Maybe a little rough treatment will put others off trying?

If my kid was treated like that? I may be a little concerned, but I think I would suggest to my kid that next time he sees a parade surrounded by a police escort and security team, don't try to get too close.

 

[Doc Lynam]

On my day, 17th July, there are at least ten, yes TEN Germans, two from France, and unbelieveably one runner from Moscow.

As for the Torch going past your house, 80% of the route the torch is carried in like a miner's lamp INSIDE the security van.

For example between Brighton and Crawley, lets say Cuckfield for example, the only chance you will get to see it will be as it speeds past at 60mph on A23!!!

Still if you fancy a laugh, seeing a big bloke dressed as a teletubby as he falls flat on his face and struggles to raise to his feet, I'll see you over in Eastbourne before going to Lewes in the evening for the pre-season friendly.

A friend of mine is doing it through London, given the amount of money he has raised for breast cancer. It is bad that some many people could have been highlighted for years sometimes decades of great work within a community in favour of someone with a wedge of cash from abroad. But good luck have to give us a time you are running so we can watch it online.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I KNOW he didn't. I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is that he made a MINOR mistake, not a MAJOR one, and you are acting like a drama queen given that no harm seems to have been done. I find it astonishing that you see fit to accuse other people of being THICK for taking this simple difference of opinon. Especially given what you have gone on to write:

4th time? People are probably ignoring you owing to the stupidity of your hypothetic situation. Old people can't move very fast, you see. This is because their bones and muscles are 70, 80 or even 90 years old. Not quite the same as a teenager on a bike who could run into someone for a laugh with his mates.

I think for some of us it is clearly the lack humanity involved in the whole situation, to treat a kid like that in favour of a bit of fire!
If someone asked or expected me to treat a child like that to protect an object any object, I would honestly tell them to f*** off. And i would think about the legitimacy of what i was doing, if it involved treating people like that.