Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

21 pages already!

I'm not going to vent my spleen. I'm sure those far more eloquent than I have volubly expressed opinions with which I thoroughly agree.

So I'll just say that I would like to see a judicial review of this decision, and I'd like to see an investigation of the CPS in case they've attempted to pervert the course of justice.
 
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.

No it is an assumption pure and simple; you are assuming the time spent indicates a certain motivation without any evidence of the motivation itself. Just repeating the same assumption in a more longwinded fashion doesn't make it any less an assumption...and we all know what assumption is...

Louis MacNeice
 
i must admit, im still finding it difficult to express my anger about all of this. i cannot recall a similar derogation of responsibility in many a year.

cops kill someone on film, anyone who was there can tell you what went on, and after 15 months of rubbish, there's nothing. apart from more lies and spin.
 
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
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...

If you're providing links to witnesses to the fact that the same person was involved in the two incidents, please make sure they are accurate / reliable ...
 
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?
Get a sensible and hyperbole-free complaint about the issue into the media (or make a specific complaint about that point to the IPCC).

As I have said, if there was reliable evidence (or even significant suspicion) made known to (or readily available to) the police prior to the initial post-mortem being conducted there would be good grounds for complaining that it was not done as a special post-mortem and that the case had not been reported to the IPCC. If the IPCC knew, then the complaint should be against them.
 
There's no way he could pass along Cornhill without having seen Tomlinson on the ground or being carried away.
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.

As I have said repeatedly, if the police knew that it was the same person involved, or if that information was readily available to them in a way in which they should have found it, then someone has fucked up.
 
cops kill someone on film
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.
 
He died of internal bleeding, as the only reliable medical evidence tells us.

I'm going to go cosh somebody, film them kicking the bucket, and then tell the OB they've no way of linking me giving my victim a massive whack over the head and the victim dying due to massive fucking head injuries. According to dibble scrote above I should be okay.
 
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.
i'm blinded by my contempt for "justice" and "democracy" in this country.

i can't work out whether you're a false flag operation tbh.

shall we just cut to the "cunt" bit?

"it is not possible to link the two events." - not unless you're terminally stupid or bent, like you. makes me sick seeing you trying to justify this lack of action.
 
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, he's been making the cps case, i've just gone back over the thread for his posts.

whitewash. state sponsored murder.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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......
 
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?
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.
 
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......

But remember - those of us who predicted the usual stitch up are nut job, ACABer, conspiracy theorists in Detective Boy's world.
 
Back
Top Bottom