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

[detective-boy]

where on earth have I 'ranted'?

I wasn't referring to you personally, but the critics who do, one of whom you quoted.

To me, the only worthwhile policing is policing by consent. That was once there in the mainstream (as opposed to the U75-esque fringes). In that mainstream, public confidence in the police, and therefore that consent, is at an all-time, critical-point low.

I totally agree that policing with consent is the best model. I agree there are issues in the police-public relationship. But I don't think the stats would support your claim that consent is at an all-time low - don't confuse the blogosphere with real-life: there are massiove numbers of soft-right citizens out there who would actually support the police being way more robust with what they view as "scum" than they are now ...

 

[detective-boy]

who are you saying didn't know there had been police contact?

Anyone, at that stage. Certainly not the Coroner (who arranged the first PM) or the IPCC or any senior police officer who would have been duty bound to report it to the IPCC and who would have immediately changed the arrangements to a "special" PM.

 

[xes]

doesn't help when the police also view people as scum.

 

[detective-boy]

- the perception will be that the police are (on occasion anyway) above being held accountable by the law because of the decisions (taken in this case against the recommendation of the investigating officers, lets not forget) of the CPS

I agree that that is the perception (which is why I suggest a Grand Jury type public hearing to review their administrative decisions in such cases). But I do not agree that they ARE unaccountable.

... but it does beg the question whether there was a reasonable chance that they would have found him not guilty of malfeasance given the nature of the offence, and/or of ABH (given Carey's comments earlier).

I have already commented that I would have expected ABH to succeed. As for malfeasance, the CPS explained that case law is such that it would not be appropriate in a case like this (and certainly not as a way of sidestepping evdential difficulties with a substantive offence (i.e. manslaughter)). Malfeasance is more than a single relatively minor (in the big scheme of things, don't mix up the serious / tragic outcome with what was actually done) act.

 

[detective-boy]

One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.

Lots of people very vociferously say lots of things ... what is needed is some substantive basis for such a claim and, so far as I am aware, there was none. But a detailed review of what was known, by whom, at what stage and what consideration, if any was given to treating it as an unexplained death and, hence, arranging a special post-mortem is justified as the decision to hold a routine post-mortem is the decision which is at the root of all the evidential difficulties.

 

[detective-boy]

the police? they knew.

Not at that stage they didn't so far as I am aware. If you think otherwise please link to a source.

 

[detective-boy]

Who hadn't informed the pathologist that there had been police contact? Whose job was that? Why didn't they do it?

The IPCC and / or the police senior officer aware of the incident. And they didn't do it because they didn't know. (The police contact in relation to the attempt at first aid is not what I am talking about, by the way, that would not be enough necessarly - I am talking about knowledge that significant force had been used against him a few minutes before his collapse).

 

[detective-boy]

That is a massive assumption; why make it?

It's not an assumption. It's an observation on the extent to which they went, which is detailed in their statement, and which is way more than would have been the case in an ordinary case. Which, as I have said repeatedy, would, in my experience, have been disposed of far sooner with a decision not to prosecute.

 

[cesare]

There's loads Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on

*ahem*

 

[detective-boy]

something I would argue is based on at least a little bit of common sense, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

But that would involve you including some acknowledgement that you understand the law is this or that ... but that common sense, or general principles of right or wrong, says it should be otherwise.

You (and the rest) are not exactly strong on acknowledgements like that, are you?

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone, at that stage. Certainly not the Coroner (who arranged the first PM) or the IPCC or any senior police officer who would have been duty bound to report it to the IPCC and who would have immediately changed the arrangements to a "special" PM.

so nsomeone was keeping quiet - or, rather, some people...

 

[detective-boy]

Nice piece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-police-protest

But sadly one which mixes up "being held accountable" with "being summarly convicted and hung out to dry".

Being accountable is being asked to explain and account for your actions, to have them scrutinised and, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, to be placed on trial. The officer HAS been held accountable - he has had to explain and account for his actions (to the IPCC) and his actions have been scrutinised (by the IPCC and the CPS) ... but at that point it has been decided (rightly or wrongly) that there is insufficient evidence to justify placing him on trial.

But bearing in mind the perspective of Marc Vallee I am not at all surprised to find he writes accountable when he means something totally different ...

 

[detective-boy]

how many police officers came into 'contact' with the police, how many police observed such, who many of them subsequently reported it, and was this contact communicated to the coroner? the answers would be, respectively, about 3, about 30, about none and no.

There's nothing to suggest that the officers who knew of the incident when force were used knew that the same person was the one who collapsed some minutes later in a different place. They're not fucking psychic ...

If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. Because if any officer did know of the connection then they are likely to have fucked up.

 

[detective-boy]

And if the answer isn't that no prosecution would have followed the it looks very much like one law for the police and another for Ian Tomlinson.

The answer is that is the same evidential difficulties existed as existed with this actual case then exactly the same outcome would have happened. Causation is required, regardless of the nature of the victim.

As I have repeatedly fucking posted. Can't you lot read?

 

[detective-boy]

let's just go back five years <snip irrelevant bollocks>

So that's a no, then? You have no publicly available source showing that the police used force on Ian Tomlinson which was available before the first post-mortem on 3 April.

Until you can put up, shut the fuck up.

 

[cesare]

d-b: You cannot get away from the fact that the witnesses had their version of events out in the public domain before 3 April 2009. There's no excuse for a "special post-mortem" not to have been ordered.

 

[detective-boy]

...when the facts of the case were known within minutes, if not hours, to bronze, silver and gold commanders on the day.

Please link to how you know that ... or shut the fuck up.

 

[cesare]

There's loads Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on

* ahem x 2*

 

[Pickman's model]

So that's a no, then? You have no publicly available source showing that the police used force on Ian Tomlinson which was available before the first post-mortem on 3 April.

Until you can put up, shut the fuck up.

i don't think i need to duplicate what cesare's done.

 

[detective-boy]

And you are the objective vice of reason arguing from within the very institution being criticised; you can see how that comes across can't you?

It was a fucking flippant comment, you literal minded fool.

 

[detective-boy]

erm, i thought it was the CPS who should 'follow up' on the IPCC recommendations'? i.e. the IPCC investigate, and if they deem there is a possible case hand the file to the CPS with words to the tune of 'based on our investigation, we think there may be a case to answer, tho' yours is the final say'?

Er, yes. And your point is, caller?

That is exactly what happened ...

 

[detective-boy]

But that's exactly what has happened.

In xes-world maybe. Not in the real world.

 

[xes]

But that would involve you including some acknowledgement that you understand the law is this or that ... but that common sense, or general principles of right or wrong, says it should be otherwise.

You (and the rest) are not exactly strong on acknowledgements like that, are you?

The law is supposed to make sure justice happens when crimes are commited. For this to happen, something wrong, has to be made right. general principles of right and wrong should be the basic corner stone of every single law there is.

What has happened, is that a criminal has got away wigth killing a man, because of stupid little arguments which have detracted away from thge crime which took place. IE a cover up. And this is a big fat smelly cover up.

 

[Pickman's model]

Please link to how you know that ... or shut the fuck up.

i would expect people at gt to have been watching down, er, cornhill and surrounding streets: and in the most heavily cctv'd part of london - if not the world - it would be somewhat of a surprise if the dozens of cameras hadn't caught something...

and the members of the forward intelligence team present - one alan palfrey and one stephen discombe - who were ita would doubtless have mentioned the incident to those higher up in co11.

and even if that didn't occur, i'm sure that the post-event debriefing would have brought these events to light within the tsg.

isn't that what the police do, report events upwards?

 

[xes]

In xes-world maybe. Not in the real world.

by real world you mean DB world. Cos everyone else is living in this one i'm having a good time in. You are the only person arguing the points you are arguing. everyone else can see it as plain as day. It was a cover up.

 

[detective-boy]

There's loads Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on

The video referred to in the article ostensibly dated 2.4.09 links to a Guardian article dated 7.4.09.

If the video (or any witnesses with direct evidence linking the two incidents as involving the same person) were brought to the attention of the police then someone has fucked up and should be investigated / dealt with. If they were available on the internet, but not brought to the specific attention of the police, there may be an argument that the police should have been proactively seeking out any connection (though if they were then they would sort of already be treating the death as suspicious ... so it's a bit circular) or that those routinely monitoring coverage should have recognised mention of the witnesses / video as being of crucial importance and should have immediately ensured that the nature of the investigation was changed.

But, equally, if people had that information prior to the first PM and, for whatever reason, they did not proactively bring it to the attention of the police or the IPCC then they should be looking to their own actions as having had a detrimental effect on the investigation and the outcome.

 

[detective-boy]

How much more informed do you need to be?

Informed enough to realise that a picture or a short clip of video rarely tells the whole story and is sometimes entirely misleading (remember that advert for police recruitment with a uniformed officer chasing a black guy in denims down the road ...?)

People watching the events of that day taken from different angles and by various persons are doing so from an informed position.

Not if they don't know what the law is, how the police could / should deal with a particular situation, what sort of tactics are available, what considerations have to be taken into account, etc. they're not. If they simply look and the pictures and draw a conclusion they are ignorant fools.

... and, whenever one of us Bolshie bastards has the temerity to criticise or question a police action you get call from your superiors to come and sort us out.

You really need to get treatment for that paranoia ...

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Another travesty of justice. Yet again the 'fascist boot boys of the state' get away with the killing of an innocent person. It makes me feel sick to the fuckin' core!

As for you db, go flounce again, or boil your head, you pathetic filthy apologist.

 

[detective-boy]

doesn't help when the police also view people as scum.

doesn't help when the people also view the police as scum.

Stereotyping and lack of empathy doesn't work in either direction.

 

[detective-boy]

d-b: You cannot get away from the fact that the witnesses had their version of events out in the public domain before 3 April 2009. There's no excuse for a "special post-mortem" not to have been ordered.

If that is the case then there isn't - as I have said from when I first raised this point.

And it was me that raised it - not one of the ranting fools ...