Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
You can't tell me the mainstream media isn't run by and written by the mid to upper bourgeoisie with certain interests at heart- that doesn't mean we are powerless. Just that our voices aren't the ones given prominence. Even its workers berate it (see Flat Earth News) as a useless vehicle for hysteria and vested interests.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I don't want to tell you that, i've no interest in telling you that. Why are people obsessed by this? There is no single discourse - people take and make what they want from all sorts of places. They turn what the mirror says into what they think the mirror says (it's a great left wing 1945 paper) - there is no discourse that people buy into or don't. Forget this media bollocks - if you buy into that you buy into the idea that we're all thick and are told what to do. Which you know is wrong.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Would i simply be informing you of the relevant facts if i told you why my view was law for you and everyone for ever you worthless cunts - or offering a view on how someone might take hqt time to reach that conclusion?
The timing is interesting.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
it isn't that we are thick and do what we are told, it is that they write the fucking news and they make the orthodox take on history. I'm still having to correct people over the smears n jeers wrt the Tomlinson debacle today simply because some folks think the big sheets are worthy sources. Now that isn't calling people thick, it is pointing out that some give undue prominence to what the papers say because the discourse of public life is so often 'helped' along by these journos.
Despite the helthy 'newspapers are full of shit' attitudes I encounter the debates are framed by the articles and it is only once the bollocks has ben dismissed that we get to the meat of the issues. Every fucking time I talk shop with mates or randoms we get the 'joy' of moving past the media angle first. As I said, they frame the debate.
Despite the helthy 'newspapers are full of shit' attitudes I encounter the debates are framed by the articles and it is only once the bollocks has ben dismissed that we get to the meat of the issues. Every fucking time I talk shop with mates or randoms we get the 'joy' of moving past the media angle first. As I said, they frame the debate.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That only works if you think people are thick and believe what they see on the news, No fucker even watches the news. That twat up in the ne should have cured you of this idea if not real life.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
"Curiouser and curiouser!" "I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it" "You're nothing but a pack of cards!" <<< As you know, quotes from Alice Through The Looking Glass.
There is that weird Alice-type feeling of distortion about this. I've watched and rewatched the footage of him being batoned and violently shoved for no apparent reason. The IPCC managed to get their investigation done relatively smartish. Then nothing seems to happen for a year ... Keir, you're a QC and Director For Public Prosecutions. Is this normal? How long do the CPS usually take to manage high profile IPCC investigated cases?
Is it not time we asked do we need The Police? For myself the death of Ian Mr Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009, will never be forgotten, we can never seek justice from such a rotten corrupt system there seems little if no point in asking, as Anarchist and activist we need to over come our own apathy and act, not only in support for The family Mr Ian Tomlinson, but also for those who have been MURDERD BEATEN BATERD by The Metropolitan Police force over the years let not our anger fade this time round, the winter of discontent is only a petrel bomb, stones throw away are we prepared to take now or stay the same?
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
Who's going to ask that? You and three other people I expect.
When are you going to realise that this sort of rhetoric helps no one and that literally no one listens to it? Are we prepared to take what now? The state? Don't make me laugh, you can have these wank fantasies all you like but they aint gonna come true without public support and you aint gonna get public support by talking about throwing petrol bombs all over the place and banging on about your 'anarchist' credentials. By the way fuck you and your 'apathy' bollocks, people are angry about this, me included, but speaking in rhetoric that's older than you are isn't going to help matters is it? Or maybe you really think it will?
Proper Tidy
Arsed
It's time for a wevolution
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Just watched his family on TV. The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution. This is the end of the matter because they are not rich. That says everything about this case. I am not surprised but I am disgusted.
Either is that anger unless you do something with it, you know re wank fantasies for some your right, but fact is you know fuck all about myself and where i would stand on The Barricades far far far more than just some fucking wank fantasist and just as a by the way one is 45 years old been active from the age of 15 see here for the full rant..
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Looking more like a CPS stitch up than IPCC atm, then. That is interesting.
"It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is." - absolutely. d-b didn't respond on that point several pages ago.
"It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is." - absolutely. d-b didn't respond on that point several pages ago.
Had the slight feel of a planted Q&A. I hope the ubiquitous 'wealthy individual who wishes to remain anonymous' does pipe up because they really deserve and need their day in court.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
They've launched a Campaign Fighting Fund: http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/2010/07/launch-of-campaign-fighting-fund.html
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
No they attempt to limit the available discourses; but you are evidence of our ability to resist, subvert and escape those limits. Discourses can determine but not as forcefully or as much as I used to think; which is a good thing.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I think iirc that the cameras were not turned on that day.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh. 'nothing to see here' sort of thing
teqniq
DisMembered
I'm really not surprised by any of this, disgusted but not surprised. The establishment pretty much always looks after it's own. They also probably calculate that they'll need all the mindless muscle they can get if the shit really does hit the fan with all the spending cuts and suchlike. Best not alienate the police eh?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
After a quick look it would appear that the CCTV in this area was working and they do have footage (although im sure i remember reading that due to some legal ruling or other they would have to be turned off?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7987616.stm
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the ones that had to be off were in westminster
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Justice for Ian Tomlinson, sign the petition now: http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/justice-ian-tomlinson
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's taken you enough time to start to catch up with what other people have been saying for years.
The point is the video did not show the 30 secs / 100yds prior to the use of force - it started pretty much with it. So NONE of us know what happened. I am not saying that any particular thing happened in that 30 secs / 100yds we haven't seen / heard about, I am simply pointing out that things could have happened that may have amounted to justification for some use of force (in response to someone (you I think) specifically asking me what possible justification could there be ...). And I have repeatedly said that the plain comment by the CPS to the effect that the use of force amounted to an assault (and thus was not in their view lawful) very strongly suggests that there was nothing in that period that did amount to justification for the level of force we saw used (albeit it doesn't necessarily mean that they believed there was no justification for any use of force. The situation is not simplistic and clear cut. The video clip, starting only a second or two prior to the use of force does NOT provide the entire story (any more than the video of someone punching someone really hard would show the whole story if it didn't include the pushes and threats of use of a weapon which preceded it ...).
That's because I'm not a lawyer. I know enough to know that the issue would arise. I do not know enough to provide a legal opinion on what the outcome of consideration of it would be. Entirely new facts coming to light subsequently would enable alternative charges to be laid (e.g. there are cases in which an ABH charge led to a conviction and when the victim died a few weeks later manslaughter or murder was proceeded with successfully) ... but I am not at all sure there are any significant new facts which were not known at the six month stage.
How so? Surely it would be in the interests of the establishment to prosecute the riff-raff no matter how long after the event it was?
I have never said I do. (Unlike you who quite happily speculates that things you don't know are actually what you would like them to be). I have explained at length how the opinions of the second and third pathologist would inevitably be reliant on some of the findings of the first and, hence, how it would be inevitable that the first would be called and, hence, how the jury would be presented with the disagreement in findings and, hence, would be far less likely to be able to reach a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
I may not be a medical expert but I am an expert at putting together the evidence (including medical evidence in cases where pathologists disagree) for a criminal prosecution. Perhaps you would like to share the details of YOUR experience that gives you the confidence to tell me I am talking bollocks.
Having dealt with the CPS since they were invented I believe that the absolute opposite would be the case - they would have been absolutely thorough in ensuring that if there was a hope of reaching their threshold they would do so. But the fact that it is an administrative decision, made behind closed doors means that people will never believe that and will perceive it as an establishment cover-up ... which is why I suggest we need a Grand Jury style hearing at which such decisions can be tested in open court, with live evidence and cross-examination.
The evidential test is, as you say, very subjective and it also suffers from the fact it is based on paper evidence (i.e. statements) - any investigator will tell you there is a world of difference between a written statement and what a witness eventually says (and, more importantly, how they say it and how it comes across) in Court.
No, they don't (usually, and at least in the UK, though both come in a wide variety of styles, especially handguns). But who's speculating now? And thanks for using an example from California to demonstrate how shit the UK police are ...
I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.Some eggs and bacon with your massive waffle, sir?
But it is the law whether you like it or not.
A lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportinate use of force can be absolutely anything, from a slight touch to knowingly killing someone. Violently pushing someone (with or without any foresight that they would be likely to fall over) could be a lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force in a wide range of circumstances. To simply look at the act and decide whether or not it is lawful or not from that alone simply demonstrates your ignorance of the law.
Why do fuckwits concentrate on the use of the word "fall". It isn't mutually exclusive with there being a push - the fall is clearly directly the result of the push. Use of the word fal to escribe what happened after the push does not imply any suggestion that it was nothing to do with the push. Only an obsessive fuckwit, looking for issues where none exist, would think otherwise ...
Yes, but that was not my fucking point was it? 99 times out of 100 a push does not lead to a fall and 99 times out of 100 a fall doesn't lead to a fractured skull. It would not be a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome in the circumstances which existed. (And before you go off on one, this is NOT the same as saying that if it did there would be no liability - there obviously would).
No. That is not what I said at all. It is not a reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said. Why don't you actually concentrate on what I post instead of making things up ...
And I'd rather not live in a world where if someone died as a result of something entirely unconnected with anything I had done, I would be held responsible just because I happened to be there / have done something. As would you ... I can hear you squealing about the injustice now if the Old Bill started prosecuting people from any class that you happen to support in such circumstances ...Id rather not live in a world like that, call me odd, but you know...
