Police took 21 mins as Reece was dying (From Echo)

My condolances to Mr Lamude's Mother and family.

The Echo doesn't explain any of the facts as to what had happened or as to why Mr Lamude was being restrained.

Perhaps the bouncers were only doing their job in a difficult situation.

If they were just doing their job & realised that he was cyanosed, maybe they could have called an ambulance.

The Police in Southend do seem to have a heavy work load on at the weekends and I'm sure they try to do their best.

Perhaps the mix of circumstances lead to Mr Lamude's unfortunate death.

21 minutes seems normal and doesn't seem excessive for a Police Force to arrive at the scene of the crime. They shouldn't be blamed.

Nobody knew that Mr Lamude was going to die. He was simply being restrained.

I'm sure an ambulance would have been called had the "blue" signs been witnessed by the bouncers.

21 minutes seems normal and doesn't seem excessive for a Police Force to arrive at the scene of the crime. They shouldn't be blamed.

Nobody knew that Mr Lamude was going to die. He was simply being restrained.

I'm sure an ambulance would have been called had the "blue" signs been witnessed by the bouncers.

let's find a scapegoat because the victim's relatives need a scapegoat. how about 47 year old's being tucked up in bed at 3am on a sunday morning instead of causing trouble in a notoriously troublesome nightspot.
my condolencies to the family

The man in question may not have died had the police been quicker.

He may not have died had the door staff have handled him differently.

He probably would have went home safe and sound had he not punched the door staff (as reported in the echo)

Sorry however painful if there was a need for 4 bouncers to control this chap questions should be asked:

1.Why was he being controlled
2.What might have happened if he was not controlled.
3.what alternative did the bouncers have.

The fault cannot possibly be associated with any Police Officer from the patrol on duty officers to the control room dispatch staff.

Perhaps partial blame is that of the Government for recklessly cutting Police budgets without consideration for eventual situations that are likely to occur.

Perhaps personal behaviour or responsibilities were questionable with regard to the deceased.

Wherever the fault lies the truth however painful needs to be made known.

Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

I know enough to know that....

'I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!'

'hush': Sounds like an 'after hours club' for effeminate bouncers!

Justice has not being done. The people who did this are still free.

This is typical of Southend Police ... They will only respond to easy calls & put all their available resources into that ... They are over paid arrogant individuals that focus on revenue rewarding jobs rather than upholding law & order .

petec1664 wrote:
This is typical of Southend Police ... They will only respond to easy calls & put all their available resources into that ... They are over paid arrogant individuals that focus on revenue rewarding jobs rather than upholding law & order .

Idiot!

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

Wasteoftime wrote:
Justice has not being done. The people who did this are still free.

Are you from Liverpool by any chance?

If in doubt blame the Police.

Rather like the way the police are being blamed for the Hillsborough disaster, and the fans painted as whiter than white. Even the drunk ones who were forcing their way into the ground without tickets.

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

"Mr Lamude’s grieving mother Pat Eaton, from Canvey , refused to comment about the police response time, but feels someone should be held accountable for her son’s death."
Well, if he was being a good boy he probably wouldn't have needed bouncers to extract him from the club and he might have still be alive today. Nowhere in the world has unlimited police officers available 24/7

"Mr Lamude’s grieving mother Pat Eaton, from Canvey , refused to comment about the police response time, but feels someone should be held accountable for her son’s death."
Well, if he was being a good boy he probably wouldn't have needed bouncers to extract him from the club and he might have still be alive today. Nowhere in the world has unlimited police officers available 24/7

It seems that bouncers need to be trained, as the police and prison officers are, in how to restrain violent people.
At the moment bouncers rely on size, thuggery and the obligatory headlock. The headlock is highly dangerous. Any hold around the neck can not only suffocate but could also break the neck if enough pressure is asserted or suddend jerks are inflicted.
It could be that one, or all, of these bouncers may have got a little angry with Mr Lamude, for whatever reason. However, had the bouncers been trained correctly and learned how to control anger in high pressure situations this may not have happened. Anybody who has to physically restrain someone in the role of their job needs, also, to be held accountable if they do anything that is not an acceptibale method of restraint, and things go wrong.

boom wrote:
"Mr Lamude’s grieving mother Pat Eaton, from Canvey , refused to comment about the police response time, but feels someone should be held accountable for her son’s death."
Well, if he was being a good boy he probably wouldn't have needed bouncers to extract him from the club and he might have still be alive today. Nowhere in the world has unlimited police officers available 24/7

The US seems to do a very good job at providing a high police presence. In downtown LA, for example, I do not think I went two or three minutes without seeing a patrol car, either cruising the streets or parked up on some corner, at all times of the day and night. OK, so LA is in a different league to Southend but proportioantely we have far fewer police than a lot of places I have visited around the world. Even cities in Australia have a relatively high police presence. I have spent a lot of time in Australia and I would not consider that country to be enormously high on crime.
Even though the response time with regards to this incident not good at all, I do not think it would have saved the life of Mr Lamude. However, it all goes to show that we are on a slippery slope and there is a growing realisation that our once highly regarded police force is becoming the laughing stock of the world.

petec1664 wrote:
This is typical of Southend Police ... They will only respond to easy calls & put all their available resources into that ... They are over paid arrogant individuals that focus on revenue rewarding jobs rather than upholding law & order .

You do have a point. Alot of them probably think twice if they are called to a serious 999 call, and wish another officer was going to it instead. Most of them would rather be shooting down speeding motorists, so they can gain extra revenue for the government, and earn themselves a few 'police rewards'.

I know this is off the story line, but look at the London riots. They didnt do a good job there!

Brunning999 wrote:
Sorry however painful if there was a need for 4 bouncers to control this chap questions should be asked:

1.Why was he being controlled
2.What might have happened if he was not controlled.
3.what alternative did the bouncers have.

The fault cannot possibly be associated with any Police Officer from the patrol on duty officers to the control room dispatch staff.

Perhaps partial blame is that of the Government for recklessly cutting Police budgets without consideration for eventual situations that are likely to occur.

Perhaps personal behaviour or responsibilities were questionable with regard to the deceased.

Wherever the fault lies the truth however painful needs to be made known.

you appear to have taken the lead from vitriol in the vicinity as chippiest poster on this website.

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

sorry el cabbie. wrong quote.
you have taken the outright lead as chippiest poster here and that's no mean feat.
the bouncers' were cleared. what piece of additional information do you have that the court was not made aware of and why weren't you the prosecution's star witness?

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

sorry el cabbie. wrong quote.
you have taken the outright lead as chippiest poster here and that's no mean feat.
the bouncers' were cleared. what piece of additional information do you have that the court was not made aware of and why weren't you the prosecution's star witness?

What more evidence do I need? The 'facts' speak for themselves. We have a dead man with a broken neck who's had his last breath squeezed out of him by the bully-boys on the door. Seems quite straightforward to me!

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

sorry el cabbie. wrong quote.
you have taken the outright lead as chippiest poster here and that's no mean feat.
the bouncers' were cleared. what piece of additional information do you have that the court was not made aware of and why weren't you the prosecution's star witness?

What more evidence do I need? The 'facts' speak for themselves. We have a dead man with a broken neck who's had his last breath squeezed out of him by the bully-boys on the door. Seems quite straightforward to me!

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

sorry el cabbie. wrong quote.
you have taken the outright lead as chippiest poster here and that's no mean feat.
the bouncers' were cleared. what piece of additional information do you have that the court was not made aware of and why weren't you the prosecution's star witness?

What more evidence do I need? The 'facts' speak for themselves. We have a dead man with a broken neck who's had his last breath squeezed out of him by the bully-boys on the door. Seems quite straightforward to me!

you call an echo report "facts" - lol. believe it or not, they were cleared by the court - i realise it's difficult for your anti-establishment, chippiness to grasp. for you there is only blame of the establishment and zero accountability of the individual. in a nutshell that's why the country's gone to the dogs.

if i were the bouncers i would be considering pursuing you (through the legal channels) for defamation of character.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

Brunning999 wrote:

captain mannering wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding why/how Four 'trained' doorman couldn't restrain/control this chap without managing to break bones in his neck and suffocate him!

you dont even know the full story so hush

You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.

It is eay to lay them clean out but our laws say quite simple 'as much force as is required'.

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick sht house.

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

'You obviously have no idea how hard it is to restrain a person going ballistic.'

And you 'obviously' have no idea of what I know or don't.

'It is easy (sic!) to lay them clean out'

Is it?

Everyone is scared stiff to go over the top so instead of taking one punch to knock em cold it now takes anything up to 6 people to restrain someone.

I've never seen a bouncer knock someone out with one punch. Have you?

Alternatively, I have seen (many times!) bouncers taking utter liberties with 'harmless drunks' whilst 'firm-handed'.

'Try doing that in Belfast with a drunken Irishman built like a brick **** house.'

If four burly 'trained' bouncers can't manage to control one man without killing him they are in the wrong job.

sorry el cabbie. wrong quote.
you have taken the outright lead as chippiest poster here and that's no mean feat.
the bouncers' were cleared. what piece of additional information do you have that the court was not made aware of and why weren't you the prosecution's star witness?

What more evidence do I need? The 'facts' speak for themselves. We have a dead man with a broken neck who's had his last breath squeezed out of him by the bully-boys on the door. Seems quite straightforward to me!

you call an echo report "facts" - lol. believe it or not, they were cleared by the court - i realise it's difficult for your anti-establishment, chippiness to grasp. for you there is only blame of the establishment and zero accountability of the individual. in a nutshell that's why the country's gone to the dogs.

'you call an echo report "facts"'

No I don't. The facts which are not disputed are that he did end up with a broken neck. He did 'turn blue' (and eventually died) as a result of being starved of oxygen.

'for you there is only blame of the establishment and zero accountability of the individual'

Since when did bouncers become part of the establishment? LOL!

'zero accountability of the individual'

Exactly. Especially the four individuals involved.

'if i were the bouncers i would be considering pursuing you (through the legal channels) for defamation of character.'

Well you're not - so you cant. Whereas, they can but they won't!

keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

If Mr Lamude's mother is looking for someone to be held accountable for this tragic situation, surely she should look at her son's actions a little harder.
Four bouncers do not restrain anyone who walks away, doesn't threaten them, or threaten anyone else.
As sorry as I feel for Mrs Eaton, this really was an easily avoidable incident that was manufactured by the one man who paid the ultimate price.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

well as noted you completely cherry pick the facts to suit your own hard done by agenda. you omit all events leading up to the tragic incident plus the most material fact that a court of law has cleared all of the accused.
tbh i didn't realise you'd asked any sensible questions. the bouncers have been held accountable in a court of law...obviously not in your distorted view of events.

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

well as noted you completely cherry pick the facts to suit your own hard done by agenda. you omit all events leading up to the tragic incident plus the most material fact that a court of law has cleared all of the accused.
tbh i didn't realise you'd asked any sensible questions. the bouncers have been held accountable in a court of law...obviously not in your distorted view of events.

'cherry pick the facts'?

No matter what occurred *before* the fatal conclusion on the pavement is irrelevant. Or perhaps you can give me an example of the type of 'bad behavior' that might warrant such an ending.

'a court of law has cleared all of the accused.'

So what. Guilty people are probably cleared more often than 'Innocents' are convicted, but it happens on a regular basis - both ways - all the time.

NOTHING that man done that night gave anyone the right to take his life.

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

well as noted you completely cherry pick the facts to suit your own hard done by agenda. you omit all events leading up to the tragic incident plus the most material fact that a court of law has cleared all of the accused.
tbh i didn't realise you'd asked any sensible questions. the bouncers have been held accountable in a court of law...obviously not in your distorted view of events.

'cherry pick the facts'?

No matter what occurred *before* the fatal conclusion on the pavement is irrelevant. Or perhaps you can give me an example of the type of 'bad behavior' that might warrant such an ending.

'a court of law has cleared all of the accused.'

So what. Guilty people are probably cleared more often than 'Innocents' are convicted, but it happens on a regular basis - both ways - all the time.

NOTHING that man done that night gave anyone the right to take his life.

maybe your chippy axe to grind is why you'll never be allowed anywhere near a court room - except when you're sat in the dock. at least then you might be able to make an informed opinion on the justice system

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

well as noted you completely cherry pick the facts to suit your own hard done by agenda. you omit all events leading up to the tragic incident plus the most material fact that a court of law has cleared all of the accused.
tbh i didn't realise you'd asked any sensible questions. the bouncers have been held accountable in a court of law...obviously not in your distorted view of events.

'cherry pick the facts'?

No matter what occurred *before* the fatal conclusion on the pavement is irrelevant. Or perhaps you can give me an example of the type of 'bad behavior' that might warrant such an ending.

'a court of law has cleared all of the accused.'

So what. Guilty people are probably cleared more often than 'Innocents' are convicted, but it happens on a regular basis - both ways - all the time.

NOTHING that man done that night gave anyone the right to take his life.

maybe your chippy axe to grind is why you'll never be allowed anywhere near a court room - except when you're sat in the dock. at least then you might be able to make an informed opinion on the justice system

You make such a meal of saying so little.

With no disrespect to Mrs Pat Eaton, the Mother, I tend to go along with the feeling of ChampKind.

It would appear as though there was a genuine case for restraining her son, for whatever reason. We don't have the facts.
On the other hand, an excessive amount of alcohol may have played it's role towards this unforseeable fate.

Alec Cikes wrote:
With no disrespect to Mrs Pat Eaton, the Mother, I tend to go along with the feeling of ChampKind.

It would appear as though there was a genuine case for restraining her son, for whatever reason. We don't have the facts.
On the other hand, an excessive amount of alcohol may have played it's role towards this unforseeable fate.

the court had the facts - cctv, witness statements and a cross examination of the accused.

I really feel as though the title of this Echo headline: "Police took 21 minutes as Reece was dying", is of little relevance.

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

beyond the valley of the asbos wrote:
keep cherry picking the facts to suit your bleeding heart liberal agenda. now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.

I note you neatly swerve my questions to regale me with scintillating gems like:

'now, i can hear dogs barking....you better go and join them.'

Even in my 'madness' I recognize that verbal pugilism is an art!

well as noted you completely cherry pick the facts to suit your own hard done by agenda. you omit all events leading up to the tragic incident plus the most material fact that a court of law has cleared all of the accused.
tbh i didn't realise you'd asked any sensible questions. the bouncers have been held accountable in a court of law...obviously not in your distorted view of events.

'cherry pick the facts'?

No matter what occurred *before* the fatal conclusion on the pavement is irrelevant. Or perhaps you can give me an example of the type of 'bad behavior' that might warrant such an ending.

'a court of law has cleared all of the accused.'

So what. Guilty people are probably cleared more often than 'Innocents' are convicted, but it happens on a regular basis - both ways - all the time.

NOTHING that man done that night gave anyone the right to take his life.

maybe your chippy axe to grind is why you'll never be allowed anywhere near a court room - except when you're sat in the dock. at least then you might be able to make an informed opinion on the justice system

You make such a meal of saying so little.

aren't you running late for your self-flagellation for dummies class?

You don't really need to say anymore than four heavy bouncers sitting on one man. I am sure we have all been held down and couldn't get up at some point in our life.

He struggled until he couldn't no more.....

If people behave correctly in the first place, then there would be no need for bouncers to sit on anyone.

Perhaps the man in question should have shown a more amenable behaviour towards his entourage.

Yeah you are right, but when is it okay to restrain someone until they die.........

A court with all the facts, CCTV and witness statements has found the doormen not guilty.

Why they had to restrain the deceased is not known, we can only guess that he wasn't behaving appropriately and was posing a risk to others (again, I stress this is only a guess).

From pictures I've seen, Mr Lamude looks like quite a big bloke, in a confined space with lots of people around, containing him wouldn't have been particularly easy, whether it was doorman or the police or anyone else for that matter.

"Knowing" how to retain someone and doing it in the heat of the moment are two different things, there seems to be an abundence of armchair experts on the matter who I'm sure would have done a superb job..........

For argument's sake, let's say Mr Lamude had drunk way too much and completely flipped out, if the doormen had done nothing and other people had been injured or worse, everyone would have said "why didn't the doormen do anything about it?"

It's a tragedy and my condolencies go out to Mr Lamude's friends and family.

Sometimes there is no single point of blame. In hindsight the doormen may have done things differently, the police may have got there quicker, Mr Lamude may have gone home an hour earler.

One thing that does concern me about one specific point contained in this article is this!

Quote: An Essex Police spokesperson said: “An incident of this nature would attract a target response time of 15 minutes.

“Unfortunately, due to it being exceptionally busy that night, the response took 21 minutes.

“Given the delay, Essex Police did refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which referred it back to the force.

“An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.”

Hmm! I have a few questions if someone could enlighten me please?

1/ This incident took place around 2am on a Sunday morning, in other words towards the end of a Saturday night out. Why then should it take 15 minutes for the police to respond to a serious incident which is taking place right slap bang in the middle of the main Southend Town High Street at that time on what is the busiest night of the week for people out socialising? The Police Station is only 5 minutes drive away at the most!

2/ How many units are now patrolling our streets on the busiest night of the week? Because surely not EVERY available Policeman was too busy elsewhere? Where were the foot patrols that are normally around the High Street area?

3/ Why did the Independent Police Complaints Commission refer the matter BACK to the same Police force who took FAR TOO LONG to attend a SERIOUS INCIDENT?

4/ Of course!! “An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.” LOOK WHAT HAPPENED AT HILLSBOROUGH!!!

It seems pretty obvious to me that yet again the POLICE have got away with MURDER!! In my opinion (and I am entitled to one!) the Police force it seems appear to be partly responsible for a man losing his life, I'm sure that had they arrived (within the 15 minutes response time) Reece Lamude would still be alive today, as from what I have read, he was having to be restrained by the Doormen, for an excessive amount of time, whilst he was going berserk, who were also trying at the same time to protect other peoples for their safety.

Alec Cikes wrote:
21 minutes seems normal and doesn't seem excessive for a Police Force to arrive at the scene of the crime. They shouldn't be blamed.

Nobody knew that Mr Lamude was going to die. He was simply being restrained.

I'm sure an ambulance would have been called had the "blue" signs been witnessed by the bouncers.

So are you saying Alec that you would be happy to wait for 21 minutes for the police to arrive should you personally be in the unfortunate position as to have someone break into your home armed with a knife and threaten you? It does happen you know!

APR wrote:
If in doubt blame the Police.

Rather like the way the police are being blamed for the Hillsborough disaster, and the fans painted as whiter than white. Even the drunk ones who were forcing their way into the ground without tickets.

The Police altered the facts on OVER 100 statements made by THEIR OWN OFFICERS to COVER UP THE TRUE FACTS which would have made them responsible for FAILING TO ACT in time to SAVE LIVES!!

So you don't think the Police should be blamed for that? You IDIOT!!

collectables wrote:

APR wrote:
If in doubt blame the Police.

Rather like the way the police are being blamed for the Hillsborough disaster, and the fans painted as whiter than white. Even the drunk ones who were forcing their way into the ground without tickets.

The Police altered the facts on OVER 100 statements made by THEIR OWN OFFICERS to COVER UP THE TRUE FACTS which would have made them responsible for FAILING TO ACT in time to SAVE LIVES!!

So you don't think the Police should be blamed for that? You IDIOT!!

Are you OLD BILL by any chance APR? Lol

collectables wrote:
One thing that does concern me about one specific point contained in this article is this!

Quote: An Essex Police spokesperson said: “An incident of this nature would attract a target response time of 15 minutes.

“Unfortunately, due to it being exceptionally busy that night, the response took 21 minutes.

“Given the delay, Essex Police did refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which referred it back to the force.

“An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.”

Hmm! I have a few questions if someone could enlighten me please?

1/ This incident took place around 2am on a Sunday morning, in other words towards the end of a Saturday night out. Why then should it take 15 minutes for the police to respond to a serious incident which is taking place right slap bang in the middle of the main Southend Town High Street at that time on what is the busiest night of the week for people out socialising? The Police Station is only 5 minutes drive away at the most!

2/ How many units are now patrolling our streets on the busiest night of the week? Because surely not EVERY available Policeman was too busy elsewhere? Where were the foot patrols that are normally around the High Street area?

3/ Why did the Independent Police Complaints Commission refer the matter BACK to the same Police force who took FAR TOO LONG to attend a SERIOUS INCIDENT?

4/ Of course!! “An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.” LOOK WHAT HAPPENED AT HILLSBOROUGH!!!

It seems pretty obvious to me that yet again the POLICE have got away with MURDER!! In my opinion (and I am entitled to one!) the Police force it seems appear to be partly responsible for a man losing his life, I'm sure that had they arrived (within the 15 minutes response time) Reece Lamude would still be alive today, as from what I have read, he was having to be restrained by the Doormen, for an excessive amount of time, whilst he was going berserk, who were also trying at the same time to protect other peoples for their safety.

How can you say the police have got away with murder ? How many people commenting on here or know of people who go out, have a good time, drinking etc and end up having to be restrained by door-men ? Unfortunately Mr Lamude was behaving violently and was restrained to prevent injury to others. The only person to blame in my view is Mr Lamude himself.

Murdered by peanut brained bouncers.

The name 'reece' tells me all I need to know about this man and his background and it is no surprise to me that the doormen were cleared.

EcoPatriot wrote:
Murdered by peanut brained bouncers.

Nice libelous statement there.

I would laugh heartily if the doormen in question read it and took you court.

collectables wrote:
One thing that does concern me about one specific point contained in this article is this!

Quote: An Essex Police spokesperson said: “An incident of this nature would attract a target response time of 15 minutes.

“Unfortunately, due to it being exceptionally busy that night, the response took 21 minutes.

“Given the delay, Essex Police did refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which referred it back to the force.

“An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.”

Hmm! I have a few questions if someone could enlighten me please?

1/ This incident took place around 2am on a Sunday morning, in other words towards the end of a Saturday night out. Why then should it take 15 minutes for the police to respond to a serious incident which is taking place right slap bang in the middle of the main Southend Town High Street at that time on what is the busiest night of the week for people out socialising? The Police Station is only 5 minutes drive away at the most!

2/ How many units are now patrolling our streets on the busiest night of the week? Because surely not EVERY available Policeman was too busy elsewhere? Where were the foot patrols that are normally around the High Street area?

3/ Why did the Independent Police Complaints Commission refer the matter BACK to the same Police force who took FAR TOO LONG to attend a SERIOUS INCIDENT?

4/ Of course!! “An internal investigation did not find any misconduct in respect of officers’ actions.” LOOK WHAT HAPPENED AT HILLSBOROUGH!!!

It seems pretty obvious to me that yet again the POLICE have got away with MURDER!! In my opinion (and I am entitled to one!) the Police force it seems appear to be partly responsible for a man losing his life, I'm sure that had they arrived (within the 15 minutes response time) Reece Lamude would still be alive today, as from what I have read, he was having to be restrained by the Doormen, for an excessive amount of time, whilst he was going berserk, who were also trying at the same time to protect other peoples for their safety.

Sorry but as you called someone else on here an idiot I think you had better have a closer read at what you have written numbskull, starting with the legal definition of murder, or is that 'MURDER'

Also your fury at the Police may well be better aimed at your local MP to voice your concerns over why all Emergency Services are being cut and why that is going to further affect response times-especially in serious incidents - if there isn't a unit to send then there is potentially serious consequences as seen above.

Sorry Collectables, I won't respond to any unneccesary provocation. I hope you understand the score.

If anyone is confronted with any dilemma, be it 5-25 mins, a few seconds can be too long.
We cannot just click our fingers when the Police are on duty in a town full of problems & just expect them to be there in a few minutes.

We should all try to behave ourselves & also become more tolerant.

Where have all the old values gone of accepting our responsabilities & taking it on the chin?

If we create problems, one can only expect problems in return.

Unfortunately, this poor guy died, but ego & booze should perhaps have been taken out of the equation.