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.
So you're guessing then ....
Yesand they would watch several places y/n
It isn't though (don't forget we're talking about those who believe it's all "a massive cover-up due to corruption")...sorry, but no, it's a huge amount more than that, and, i strongly suspect, Mr & Mrs Everyman by now
That one refers to a witness who states that the police "murdered" him by hitting him on the head with a baton ... now where exactly did that happen...It is the case. There are a myriad of links (not just the Indy example I gave you) to witnesses' accounts. Look, here's another one: http://www.salfordonline.com/editorschoice.php?func=viewdetails&vdetails=12318
Get a sensible and hyperbole-free complaint about the issue into the media (or make a specific complaint about that point to the IPCC).d-b: If we can just skip the past the part where I carry on drip feeding links to support my allegation that there was video footage and witness accounts in the public domain before 3.4.09 ... what, in your opinion, is the best way of raising this issue of the lack of "special post-mortem" in such a way that it would be effective in bringing about a review of the CPS decision?
I am not in a position to know whether what you state about the identity of the officers in those photos is accurate or not. If it is, make a formal complaint about them as it is plain that they would have difficulty in explaining why they did not tell anyone that the same person was involved and, if they did tell someone what that person did with the information needs to be investigated.There's no way he could pass along Cornhill without having seen Tomlinson on the ground or being carried away.
It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...It's an internet forum, get a grip and behave like an adult.
Clearly you fucking don't. But hey, don't let me interrupt you're little imaginary world ......and we all know what assumption is...
No. Cops use force on someone on film. Then that someone dies a few minutes later. And it is not possible to link the two events.cops kill someone on film
i'm blinded by my contempt for "justice" and "democracy" in this country.No. Cops use force on someone on film. Then that someone dies a few minutes later. And it is not possible to link the two events.
That is not "killing" someone. People saw the use of force. They did not "see" that that force caused death. It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.
I can't work out whether you are thick as shit. Or just blinded by prejudice. Or both.
makes me sick seeing you trying to justify this lack of action.
absolute fucking bollocks, he's been making the cps case, i've just gone back over the thread for his posts.He's been saying action should be taken, at least on a charge of ABH, and suggesting changes to the system to prevent decisions like this being taken in the future.
absolute fucking bollocks
absolute fucking bollocks, he's been making the cps case, i've just gone back over the thread for his posts.
whitewash. state sponsored murder.
the state killed him. the state prevented any kind of criminal trial taking place.No offence, but this is not "state sponsored murder". Its a laughably biased decision from the CPS, it is a cop getting away without (at the moment) very serious charges indeed despite the evidence suggesting a trial should take place and the people who investigated the incident thinking that a trial should take place, but it is not a state sanctioned murder. Why on earth would the state off Tomlinson?
the state killed him. the state prevented any kind of criminal trial taking place.
it's not rocket science.
so what's your explanation then?Its that kind of definition that devalues "state sanctioned murder" way below the point where it should be.
so what's your explanation then?
Do you think he would have died there without that cop having attacked him?That is not "killing" someone. People saw the use of force. They did not "see" that that force caused death. It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.
like i said above, i'm still finding it difficult to be calm and objective about all of this. too close to home, too common for comfort, too raw.Didnt I mention it above on post #530?
like i said above, i'm still finding it difficult to be calm and objective about all of this. too close to home, too common for comfort, too raw.
btw, you are aware that sanctioning an offence can take place before and/or after any particular incident. i'm not implying mr tomlinson was killed in some shadowy state plan, but that the state has sanctioned the lack of follow-up action despite the overwhelming body of evidence. it's given approval to the fact of his death as being somehow justified.No offence, but this is not "state sponsored murder". Its a laughably biased decision from the CPS, it is a cop getting away without facing (at the moment) very serious charges despite the evidence suggesting a trial should take place (and the people who investigated the incident thinking that a trial should take place), but it is not a state sanctioned murder. Why on earth would the state off Tomlinson?
The bottom line is many of us on here predicted that no prosecution would come of the investigation and that the cop who attacked Tomlinson would get away with it and low and behold......