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

[detective-boy]

Ian Tomlinson ruling: can we trust officers to police protests fairly now?
The decision not to charge the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson casts doubt on our safety at policed demonstrations
by Marc Vallée (NUJ Photographer)

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

No surprise to see that Vallee has totally ignored the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest", it's recommendations and the fact that very significant changes to the policing have protest have been built in to both police strategy and tactics (along with other changes made as a result of comments made in the various Court cases arising from such incidents).

Whether those changes are sufficient / make an appreciable difference remains to be seen. But to ignore the fact that they have been made simply illustrates the bias of the author.

 

[xes]

nobody's listening to you anymore. You've shown youself in your true colours in this thread once more. You are notrhing but a pig, and you always will be. It's as evident as it ever will be. I don't know if it's because you've had it hammered in to you that "the system works and it's the only way" Or wether you're just a total cunt. Either way, the outcome is the same. You are nothing but pig scum. Who will blindly and unquestioningly follow everything you are told by them. It's sick.

 

[detective-boy]

It's all completely legit and above board though isn't it d-b? Nothing at all stinking about any of that. It's all fine. Nothing to see here, move along now.

Not at all. I hadn't seen anything about that previously. I HAD (repeatedly, though many posters appear to be unable to see it) identified that there was an issue with the fact that the first post-mortem appears to have been a "routine" one (rather than a "special" one) and much of what now cannot be resolved with the medical evidence stems from that. I have said that if the police had (or should have) known that officers had used force on Ian Tomlinson they should have ensured that a "special" PM was ordered and / or engaged the IPCC. It now appears from the Guardian piece that the IPCC were aware and so the issue moves upstream to:

(a) What did the Coroner decide and why (and a decision to hold a routine post-mortem knowing of the IPCC interest would seem to be indefensible) and
(b) What did the IPCC do when it became plain that he was doing what he was doing - did they consider challenging his decision or did they acquiese in it - if they didn't do the former or (even worse) they did the latter that would seem to be indefensible.

I have never said, or suggested, that everything is right with this case. The problems that have arisen, which have led to the fact that no manslaughter charge can be laid and everything that flows from that, are entirely the result of the first PM not being a "special" PM (or, if it purportedly was, not being a competent one and one using a pathologist who was not authorised at the time) and how that came to be is an extremely important area for investigation and one in which it is extremely likely that people will have been found to have fucked up to the point where disciplinary, if not criminal, charges could be considered.

 

[xes]

I have said that if the police had (or should have) known that officers had used force on Ian Tomlinson they should have ensured that a "special" PM was ordered and / or engaged the IPCC.

But they didn't. They lied, and they covered it up. And you sit here and defend it. *claps*

I fucking hate you for it.

 

[detective-boy]

That'd be for a jury to decide.

Yes. And, as I have repeatedly said, one of the things that they would have to decide is causation. Beyond reasonable doubt. Which they cannot do because the evidence is not there in the judgment of the CPS.

We do not have a criminal justice system in this country which puts everything before the jury to make a decision. We never have had such a system - there has since time immemorial been the prima facie case threshold - and since 1985 (as a result of concerns that the police were making their own decisions about prosecuting or not) we have had the CPS, charged (in the interests of the defendants not being put through trials if there wasn't a realistic chance of a conviction (as well as saving money ...)) with deciding on the sufficiency of evidence prior to continuing with a prosecution.

It will only be "for a jury to decide" if there is sufficient evidence on which they are realistically able to convict (or, using the prima facie test, on which "a properly directed jury could convict"). I very strongly suspect that even on the prima facie test this would not have got off the ground - I cannot see a judge looking at the medical evidence and concluding that it would be safe for a jury to find causation beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[detective-boy]

he's certainly a faggot in the south park sense.

Homophobically abusive post reported. (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)

 

[detective-boy]

Apparently, the decision was taken by Stephen O'Doherty, a Deputy Director of the CPS Special Crime Division. Who, amazingly, was also the DD who took the decision in the John Charles De Menezes case.

Er ... why is that surprising? Perhaps, in the big scheme of things, he happens to still be occupying the position in which that decision is vested ...

(Sorry if this undermines an aspect of your conspiracy theory and all that ...)

 

[detective-boy]

nobody's listening to you anymore.

Actually, as evidenced by some of the posts on here, lots of people are. People with open minds. People who do not simply start frothing at the mouth and ranting but who try and understand what has happened and why, people who think about the actual issues and consider whether or not there is anything that could / should be done about them and, if so, how to do that. People who want to establish if anyone is to blame and, if so, to what extent. People who realise that lots of things come together whenever there is a tragic outcome and lots of people may, or may not, have fucked up. People who are grown-up enough to realise that we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes things go bad even though everyone has done their very best to avoid it happening and no-one is to blame. People who are thoughtful, intelligent and capable of rational thought. People who realise that they don't know everything that there is to know about everything and who therefore listen to explanations by others with different knowledge and experience. People who are capable of understanding different perceptions and who are able to empathise with people in different situations.

In short, not cunts like you and the rest of the gobshites on here who are either (a) too prejudiced; (b) to thick or (c) both (my money's on (c) by the way ...) to do anything but spout shite and ignore anything and everything which doesn't fit with their world view ...

 

[detective-boy]

But they didn't. They lied, and they covered it up. And you sit here and defend it. *claps*

Where have I defended that? I haven't fucking defended that at all. In fact I have done the exact fucking opposite - pointing out that if they did know of the connection and did not immediately ensure that the matter was treated as homicide and referred to the IPCC then they have fucked up and should be dealt with for it.

But I don't know the exact sequence of events, I do not have access to any evidence that shows exactly who knew what and when or any explanation provided by anyone who appears to have known and so, unlike you, I do not feel able to conclude what actually happened and whether or not anyone is culpable.

 

[xes]

go fuck yourself you arrogant fucking pig cunt. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see exactly what has happened here. We knew it last year, when the incident happened. That even though it was on film, that no pig fuck would ever come to justice. because pug fucks are above the law they "uphold" We all knew it, we knew that the police would lie and squirm their way out of it. And what has happened? oh yes, the police had lied and squirmed their way out if it. And you fucking love it. You can't even see how much a part of the problem you are.

oh, and the homophobic post you reported wasn't homophobic. You fucking cock. In the Sp episode which is refered, faggot is descriptive of motorbikers who are cunts. You are a cunt and you have a motorbike. I think it fits quite well.

 

[xes]

Where have I defended that? I haven't fucking defended that at all.

You think that the right decision has been made based on the evidence. But you ignore that FACT that the police lied and covered up their actions, and made it dam fucking sure that the evidence was as we see it now. Contradictory. They lied, they squirmed, and you won't see it. We all did. We knew it 15 months ago. We knew how this would run, the same as the last one, and the one before that. The police force is rotton to its very core. from the top to the bottom. And you will not aknowlage it. Even though it's there in plain sight. Not even trying to hide it anymore.

 

[detective-boy]

You think that the right decision has been made based on the evidence.

I do apologise for trying to decide things based on the evidence.

Instead of just "knowing" like you and the rest of the mugs on here.

 

[detective-boy]

oh, and the homophobic post you reported wasn't homophobic. You fucking cock. In the Sp episode which is refered, faggot is descriptive of motorbikers who are cunts. You are a cunt and you have a motorbike. I think it fits quite well.

go fuck yourself you arrogant fucking cunt. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see exactly what has happened here. We knew it last year, when the "drama queen" incident happened. That even though it was on the public boards, that no cunt would ever come to justice. because on urban cunts are above the law they, especially if they are slagging off a pig (or some other tosser from a disapproved of category) We all knew it, we knew that the posters would lie and squirm their way out of it. And what happened? oh yes, the posters lied and squirmed their way out if it. And you fucking love it. You can't even see how much a part of the problem you are.

Good this, isn't it ...

 

[Corax]

ADBAB

 

[DotCommunist]

so whats the score now? I make it about 6-4 to the OB. Maybe we can have half a point for moats botch-job.

 

[xes]

Bbbrrruuuuuum brubrubrubrubrubrubrubru BBRRROOOOMM BRUBRUBRUBRUBRUBRUBRUUUUUU BBRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM BRUBRUBRUBRUBRU

 

[stethoscope]

Christ almighty... only just caught up with this thread!!

DB, you're not srsly defending what's gone on here?

And it's about bent police, not gay ones.

 

[Kaka Tim]

DB - police officers never ever get punished by the law for violence whilst on duty. And in every single case you pop up with your oh-so resonable expanation of the complex evidential issues to show how - beyond a certain amount of human error - no one is to blame and every ones done their very best with the best intentions - whilst lambasting anyone who points out the rather fucking obvious woods from you trees as a rabid ACAB nut job.

Why do REALLY think that - depsite hundreds of deaths at the hands of police - not one officer has even been charged?

Why do you think that out all the many more well evidenced cases of police violence hardly any cases are passed to the CPS and virtually none make it to court?
(in fact sgt smellies assualt on that women at the ian tomlinson vigil is the only case I can think of where it actually got as far as the court)

Why do think so many of us predicted from day one that no officer would be charged with regards to the death of Ian Tomlinson?

How come you cant see the clear pattern of behaviour from the criminal justice system every time someone dies at the hands of the police? - first a false story is put out to smeer the victim and exonerate the police (usually contridicted by later evidecne - but by which time the damage has been done) , then a long winded investigation slowly gets into gear, meanwhile crucial evidence (i.e. CCTV footage) often goes missing, then after dragging out the process for as long as possible the CPS decides their is not enough evidence to mount a prosecution and the officer(s) invovled (who has often spent over a year suspended on full pay) is usually returned to duty and even promoted.

I was a the G20 protests. The police on duty were hyped up, aggresive and very quick to violently intimidate anyone who so much as looked at them the wrong way. We spent all day being pushed, carolled, sworn at, poked by batons, pushed by shields, threatened and having streets and passages blocked off all around us. It was the same tactics Ive seen on countless other demonstrations over the years - and as ever it was comletely unprovoked. There was no riot.

Its a deliberate tactic - with the tacit approval of the governemt - of wholesale violent imtimidation designed to deter people from having the temerity to take to the steets in protest.

In this context, the hundreds of police officers threatening, pushing, punching and beating were just doing their job. And thats why Ian Tomlinson died. Thats why they are never punished.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Says it all.

 

[cesare]

Homophobically abusive post reported. (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)

Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.

Er ... why is that surprising? Perhaps, in the big scheme of things, he happens to still be occupying the position in which that decision is vested ...

(Sorry if this undermines an aspect of your conspiracy theory and all that ...)

Perhaps you'd care to set out this conspiracy theory then? Because you keep referring to it, in a melodramatic manner, and yet seem curiously reticent about spelling out exactly what the this "theory" is.

 

[Corax]

Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.

It's one law for them, and an entirely different set of rules for us.

Hey, that reminds me of something....

 

[detective-boy]

Why do REALLY think that - depsite hundreds of deaths at the hands of police - not one officer has even been charged?

Lots of police officers have been charged. Some have been convicted. Most such cases get no significant publicity and so you should not fall into the old trap of believing that if you don't know about it it hasn't happened.

But the basic issue is that usually (almost invariably) the situation is such that some force can be justified and so the issue for the Court (as in the one case you can remember) is whether the force used was more than was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances ... and, in deciding that, the honestly held belief of the person using the force is pretty much a determining factor (this is general law -it is not something special for the police).

Yes, there have been, and continue to be, a number of issues connected with the investigation, decision making and prosecution of allegations against police officers, but there is not a wholesale cover-up / exemption from the law on the scale that you claim.

The perception of cover-up is not helped by the making of administrative decisions behind closed doors by the IPCC / CPS. But that doesn't mean that those decisions are wrong, or part of a conspiracy of any sort - those of us that know how they operate (and who have been on the wrong end of such investigations) know that they are (for the most part) thorough, independent and based on a proper consideration of the evidence. But they rely on paper-based evidence (i.e. there is no cross examination of the witnesses) and they are not in public and so it is inevitable that there is a perception of cover-up by those who do not know.

The response to my posts on this thread (in a situation in which the detail contained in the CPS explanation of their decision is far more than I have know before) illustrates that no amount of explanation or attempts to explain the rationale will dispel those perceptions and that is why I suggest a new "Grand Jury"-style hearing, in which the IPCC / CPS decisions are reviewed in open Court, with cross-examination, in a hearing empowered to overturn those decisions and commit for trial and / or direct disciplinary hearings.

Police officers (and other agents of the state) MUST be accountable to the people for their actions. Personally I believe that they ARE accountable at present, but they are not SEEN TO BE accountable. It is quite right and proper that in serious cases (where death or serious injury results at least) that there should be a public hearing; that the accountability should include personal, oral explanation by the individual officer(s) of what they did and why and that the people (in the person of a counsel for the Grand Jury or, possibly, counsel for any interested party) should be able to cross-examine the officers.

 

[detective-boy]

Perhaps you'd care to set out this conspiracy theory then? Because you keep referring to it, in a melodramatic manner, and yet seem curiously reticent about spelling out exactly what the this "theory" is.

If you really can't see a conspiracy theory on this thread then you really ARE thicker than you appear to be ...

 

[detective-boy]

It's one law for them, and an entirely different set of rules for us.

Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia. Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.

Fact.

 

[xes]

There is no rationale, it's an open and shut case. Or at least it should have been. The IPCC thought so, were they not in posession of all the facts? Are they barking conspiritors?

 

[cesare]

If you really can't see a conspiracy theory on this thread then you really ARE thicker than you appear to be ...

Curious reticence indeed. You're the only person alleging a conspiracy theory. C'mon; spit it out.

Oh yeah ... and this >>><<< ... shove it back up there. Please.

 

[Corax]

The perception of cover-up is not helped by the making of administrative decisions behind closed doors by the IPCC / CPS.

The perception of cover-up is really not helped by the series of lies told by City of London and friends in the weeks after the incident.

This is the bit you seem to have missed, and IMO is a large part of the reason for the general anger felt by people about the situation.

 

[Corax]

Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia. Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.

Fact.

Cobblers. You fail to distinguish between homophobia and ironical reference to homophobia.

I sometimes blame the joos for random things on here. Not once have I been pulled up for racism for it, because it's patently obvious that I'm not actually being anti-semitic, but am instead referencing the absurd behaviour of real anti-semites.

There are a number of gay posters on U75, and you're the only one (If you're gay that is. I don't know tbh, and I don't care) that I've ever seen claim that these boards accept or allow genuine homophobia.

Did you see the reaction Foxyred got when she stated that her fiancee intended to instill hatred of teh gays in their kid? It wasn't exactly whole-hearted applause.

If you're sure that this place is a hotbed of gay-bashing, perhaps you should pm editor about it. Unless you think that he's a signed up member of Westboro Baptist Church as well of course.

 

[DexterTCN]

Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia. Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.

Fact.

Is it Urban's job to challenge homophobia?

Urban is challenging the police actions which directly led to the death of a man.

If you have an issue with homophobia - start a thread about it, this is the Tomlinson thread.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.

Remember his shrieks of "homophobic abuse!" when someone accused him of throwing a hissy fit not so long ago? I laughed so much I nearly shat myself at the barefaced twattery of the man.