Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"

[detective-boy]

I'm trying to remember back, didn't cctv go missing?

Yeah, and three witnesses mysteriously disappeared, a tape recording of the officer admitting he intended to kill "the slag" was strangely discovered to have been wiped and the photographs of the body clearly showing three bullet holes were photoshopped ...

 

[xes]

I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.

But it is the law whether you like it or not.

The law conforms to its own prejudice and rules. as is blatently evident here. You have noticed that the only people defending the utterly undefensible are you, and a couple of other police sympathisers, haven't you? You have noticed that most people can tell the difference between right and wrong, and see through the legalise bullshit, to see what is right and what is wrong, can't you? You must be able to see that a massive injustice has happened, and a man guilty of manslaughter, has got away with killing an innocent man, just because he's a police man can't you? You may have to take off your blinkers to see this, but it is there, highlighted in big bright colours for you to see. This is the most blatent it will get, the police are getting away with killing innocent people, yet againn. And it is "yet again" over 1000 people have been killed by the hands of the police (according to a thread on here from yesterday) sinse 1969, and not one police officer has been held to account, ever. i guess you think that's because all police are as pure as the driven snow, and beyond justice. But that speaks volumes about the type of person you are, and the type of person who supports the wrong doings of the police, reguardless of the crimes they commit on a daily fucking basis.

back to the facts that you so readily ignore. the IPCC say that manslaughter charges should have been brought. The PCS say that it was an unwarrented illegal assault from which a man died. yet NO charges have been brought forward. Now, what fucking land in hell are you from, where this is acceptable, and the police have yet again, evaded the law? Decent people can see what is right and what is wrong, you are obviously not a decent person, as you're still blindly defending the completly undefensible. it's innexcusible. It really is.

 

[Corax]

Don't worry, I'm sure the decision will be reconsidered. I've written to my local MP you see. That'll do it.

*drums fingers*

 

[detective-boy]

What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?

They are talking of evidence from the post-mortem ... which, because it was not known that there had been police contact (or any other suspicious circumstance) was a routine post-mortem rather a "special" one with all that comes with that ... something which I have discussed ad fucking nauseum throughout this thread.

Please try and apply a bit of fucking thought instead of running around like headless chickens whenever anyone mentions something "new" which fits your conspiracy theory ...

(Special post-mortems are significantly more extensive / expensive / resource intensive than routine ones and there is no way that it could be justified holding them in all cases where there is a sudden death. In the particular circumstances of this incident, however, I am suprised that one was not requested even though all that was known was it was a collapse in the street at the time. It should certainly be learning from this incident that any death in the vicinity of public disorder or any large scale police operation should be treated as an unexplained death until there is reliable evidence that there are no suspicious circumstances.)

 

[detective-boy]

Normally you obviously have an arrest, either at the scene or following enquiries. Then the system kicks in and a process is followed, taking into account time limits. I don't think the OB in question was ever arrested even though his ID was known on the day.

An arrest in this case may well have been made (the IPCC usually arrest and interview under caution) at some stage. If there had been a need to do so earlier then it would have been done. His ID may have been known "on the day" but the fact that he had used force on Mr Tomlinson was not known for several days. In the circumstances of this case whether he was arrested or not made not a jot of difference to the investigation / evidential issues.

 

[xes]

this is not a conspiracy theory, it's afact. This copper has got away with killing an innocent man. Because he is a copper, and for no other reason. Corruption is the ONLY reason for it. there is NO justification. (although you're trying a bit too hard to say that there is)

 

[detective-boy]

Don't let people like d-b waffle reality force you into submission.

Corrected for you.

 

[cesare]

Well I'd seen that video before the post-mortem was done, so I'm fairly confident that it was known at the time.

 

[xes]

it needed no correction. and you wonder why people fucking hate you?

 

[detective-boy]

Who polices the police? The Police.

Er, no. The IPCC. Try and keep up.

 

[DotCommunist]

who thought it warranted a manslaughter charge.

 

[xes]

Er, no. The IPCC. Try and keep up.

who get ignored when they say that manslaughter charges should be brought forward to a police man. once again, the goverment investigate the goverment, and find themselves innocent. What a supprise.

 

[detective-boy]

Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?

The prevention of significant disorder - the law allows for force to be used lawfully in the prevention of crime (significant disorder would include crimes of assault, criminal damage, public order offences and others). The police direction, as part of an operation to prevent significant disorder would be lawful. Any resistance could also result in a right to use force in self-defence or defence of other officers. Prevention of a breach of the peace may also be another power available if he was about to use force unlawfully on officers in the exceution of their duty.

 

[detective-boy]

Let's just get this clear before the next round of shit - the IPCC thought the investigation warranted a prosecution on manslaughter - despite patel's autopsy. Let's make that fact clear.

Sorry, I could have sworn you thought the IPCC were police lackeys ... quite happy to cover-up for their mates in the police ... a useless waste of space ... never likely to prosecute a cop ... should be shut down and replaced by a truly independent organisation ...

 

[xes]

you are what is wrong with the police force. that thought process you have, which thinks that the police are beyond the law. as you clearly do. You hide behind bullshit legalise, and think that it makes you right. News flash. It doesn't. it makes you wronger than a wrong thing in wrongtown at the wrongtown festival of wrongness.

 

[detective-boy]

Let's not talk anymore about a push. Why have we allowed them to do that?

They haven't you fucking idiot. Their statement quite clearly discussed the push AND a baton strike. YOU have chosen only to witter on about the push.

 

[cesare]

d-b: why do you think it took so long for the CPS to process this?

?

 

[detective-boy]

Am I missing something here? Why the delay?

Yes. The investigation in this case was relatively simple. The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.

If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even think about saying you wouldn't!)

 

[detective-boy]

d-b: why do you think it took so long for the CPS to process this?

Put simply, because they were trying everything they could think of to find a way to prosecute it.

 

[cesare]

Yes. The investigation in this case was relatively simple. The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.

If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even think about saying you wouldn't!)

Thank you for the information, but please don't tell me what I can or can't think or say.

 

[Streathamite]

More people now see the police as a corrupt bunch of cunts. People trust them less and respect them less, no amount of posts by DB is going to make a blind bit of difference. They've made a rod for their own backs. Fuck em.

tbf, I think DB is all too painfully aware that police faith in the dibble is at an all time low, and with good reason

 

[cesare]

Put simply, because they were trying everything they could think of to find a way to prosecute it.

This is the part I'm unclear about. Are they hindered in some way from bringing a prosecution that might not succeed?

 

[tarannau]

If it went to a jury are you equally confident that they would find this policeman not guilty?

I would suspect that the balance of evidence would outweigh any guidance from the judge. After all respected pathologists seem to be tripping over themselves in the haste to suggest that they'd happily argue the case against the discredited Mr Patel

 

[detective-boy]

The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution.

They would have no problem in pursuing a civil action if they wished - there are legal aid arrangements in such cases (see all the cases in which long term prisoners take civil actions against the prison service, etc.) and there would be plenty of cause lawyers willing to get involved if they thought there was a reasonable chance of success (and hence some hope of getting paid) ... which, on the evidence, I would guess that they would.

I don't know where they have got their information from. Or maybe you mistook mention of a private criminal prosecution for mention of a civil prosecution (civil actions wouldn't normally be called "prosecutions").

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yes. The investigation in this case was relatively simple. The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.

If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even think about saying you wouldn't!)

That would be the evidence from a coroner who doesn't appear to have had any contract with the police at the time of the post mortem, who has been barred from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and from carrying out postmortems in "suspicious death" cases, and who is now facing 26 charges of sub-standard practices by the GMC - against the two later postmortems which seem to agree with each other insofar as their basic findings were concerned.

I think I'd like to have a seen a jury given the opportunity to decide which of these findings they preferred in coming to any verdict about charges that could have been bought into the court room.

 

[detective-boy]

d-b didn't respond on that point several pages ago.

What? You mean the bit where I didn't mention that the decision on the ABH was the weakest part of the CPS decision and the most likely one to be overturned if a judicial review were undertaken ...

 

[detective-boy]

the ones that had to be off were in westminster

As a result of a ruling based on, er, concerns over invasion of privacy, raised by, er, people like you ... you can't have it both ways you know - you either like CCTV cameras or you don't. Please make up your mind.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

The issue isn't necessarily a matter of belief, but that some interests have a greater ability to sustain their representation of events in accessible fora, so much so that the representation becomes "what actually happened", even though only in a contingent manner that is open to challenge.

And yes, I know my point is wanky and quasi-Baudrillardian.

 

[detective-boy]

You have noticed that the only people defending the utterly undefensible are you, and a couple of other police sympathisers, haven't you?

And you clearly haven't noticed I'm not "defending" anything - I'm explaining what the law is so that people can better understand the statement of the CPS and can better understand where there are valid issues to pursue and where they are wasting their time and simply looking like ignorant fools (and thus undermining the force of their own arguments).

You must be able to see that a massive injustice has happened, and a man guilty of manslaughter, has got away with killing an innocent man, just because he's a police man can't you?

No. I can't. Because there is insufficient evidence of causation to prove, by the general criminal rules of evidence that we use to decide what happened, that the actions of the officer caused the death. It is absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact he is a police officer.

And it is "yet again" over 1000 people have been killed by the hands of the police (according to a thread on here from yesterday) sinse 1969

Well, if it's from a thread here it must be true ...

(It's absolute bollocks if you are suggesting that there have been over 1000 deaths as a result of positive, deliberate police action (such as the use of force) in the UK since 1969. The number sounds far more likely to be a total of "detahs in police custody" which includes a massive proportion where there is no police use of force or alleged misconduct at all because the stats include people who die in police stations, after recent police contact, etc.).

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's time for a wevolution

Perhaps it is.
After all, with the government and the apparatus of state resiling from so many of the responsibilities it incurs under the tacit "social contract" between the governed and those who govern, perhaps it's time for new settlements to be made, whether forcefully or peacefully.
Because otherwise what happened to Mr. Tomlinson may be like to a shower before a storm.