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

[tarannau]

They were fucking kids after a misplaced laugh, in an happy slap attack that went tragically wrong.

Given that these little ratboys weren't meant to be protecting our streets or could be expected to be models of self control, I actually have a little more sympathy towards them than the copper who might receive a slap on the wrist and dishonourable discharge, a-bleeding-again.

 

[xes]

Spot the difference...

Playing spot the difference is no fun when you point out the differences

 

[free spirit]

Playing spot the difference is no fun when you point out the differences

better?

 

[xes]

much

 

[ViolentPanda]

More info on the BBC.

The language of the commissioner is interesting, especially his comment that "the incident had 'cast a shadow' on the professionalism of the overwhelming number of staff and officers involved in policing the G20 event."
So, yet again we're being sold the "bad apple" thesis, with little regard paid to the fact that Harwood's actions were ignored by fellow officers who only came forward once it was a clear that a criminal investigation was afoot.

"Bad apples" my arse. This is institutionalised behaviour on the part of the Met (and most other police services), and it'll take more than a disciplinary hearing that ends in a derisory punishment to wash the blood from the MPS's hands.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't be ridiculous. If he was forced out of the Met as a result of his conduct it's not like he could just join another force, with the possibility of transferring back to the Met again at a later date!

Oh, wait...

Well, quite.

 

[stethoscope]

"Bad apples" my arse. This is institutionalised behaviour on the part of the Met (and most other police services), and it'll take more than a disciplinary hearing that ends in a derisory punishment to wash the blood from the MPS's hands.

Exactly my feelings when I saw that... it's not about 'weeding out bad apples' as they continually try and make it, it's about the whole attitude and approach of the police force as an institution - whether it be trying to prevent photographers taking pictures by abusing 'terrorist legislation', to their tactics of preventing protests (kettling, etc).

 

[Pickman's model]

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 ...)

i'd be grateful if you could explain to me what you found "homophobically abusive" in my post.[/quote]*taps watch*

 

[ViolentPanda]

*taps watch*

Reports homophobically-abusive post!

 

[cesare]

More info on the BBC.

This is interesting:

On Monday, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said it was "profoundly unsatisfactory" that "a conflict of evidence" led to no charges over Ian Tomlinson's death.

Erm, but Dominic, aren't you responsible for supervising the CPS? Or did you mean that it's all ver ver sad etc, but what's to do sorta thing?

Perhaps you'll get HM Crown Prosecution Services Inspectorate to have a wee look into it, if you think it's "profoundly unsatisfactory"????

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

EDM tabled by Caroline Lucas:

INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON

That this House notes the public interest and disquiet over the case of Ian Tomlinson and the threat to public trust and confidence in the Police that this case poses; further notes that the Independent Police Complaints Commission failed to investigate this death for seven days and how this failure has undermined public trust and confidence in the police complaints system; further notes the controversy over the appointment of the pathologist, Dr Freddie Patel, and notes the possibility of a conflict of interest in the inquest as currently constituted; therefore, calls upon the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint a judge as coroner to conduct a prompt and effective inquest into the far ranging issues this case raises; and calls upon the Legal Services Commission to provide public funding for Ian Tomlinson's family to be legally represented.

 

[detective-boy]

Don't know if DB would agree with your paraphrasing though.

I don't agree with it at all. As usual it's total misrepresentation.

I think even he doesn't feel particularly happy about the outcome of this. The average person's perspective of the police is going to be even worse after this shoddy CPS decision.

Absolutely. I'm not happy with the overall outcome at all. If, as appears to be the case, there was nothing in the seconds before the use of force to justify it, then the officer should be prosecuted criminally and / or through disciplinary process.

The decision re-manslaughter was evidentially inevitable (as a professional investigator I suspected that would be the case from the moment heart disease and liver disease were mentioned, even without the complications of an incompetent / routine first post mortem). If they'd gone ahead with it, it probably wouldn't have made it past half time and it certainly wouldn't have led to a conviction that would have survived appeal.

The Common Assault could not be prosecuted after the 6 month period. If they deliberately decided not to charge it at the 6 month period I believe that was a mistake. If they did not consider doing so, that was a fuck up and they should be criticised / sanctioned for it.

As for the ABH, as I have repeatedly posted, the CPS decision and rationale is far less convincing and the only reason they haven't proceeded on that in relation to the baton strike bruise is that it would not be consistent with their own charging standards - legally the injury would be an ABH and in view of (a) their conclusion that the force used was not merited; (b) the evidential difficulties ruling out manslaughter and (c) the inability to prosecute common assault due to time-barring I think they should have exercised their discretion to ignore their charging standards (whcih are policy, not law, and thus there to be broken if it can be justified). Yes, they'd no doubt have got shit about it being an abuse of process or whatever from the defence, but I would not be at all sure that would have succeeded and, even if it did, they would have been seen to have done all they could to deliver justice.

I have also expressed concerns over how we came to have a "routine" PM done initially by Freddy Patel with, depending on exactly who knew what, when, either the police or the IPCC or the Coroner (or all three) having fucked up (and who should be investigated / prosecuted / disciplined as necessary).

In short, I have not "defended" the unnecessary use of force at all. Prior to the CPS report coming out and giving us information about whether there was any justification for the use of force from the few seconds prior to the clip we have all seen I simply pointed out that there may be some, we simply did not know. After the CPS report has come out I have simply explained the rationale for the decisions they have made (well, tried to, in the face of posters with their fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, la, la. Can't hear you!!" ). I have NOT "defended" the use of force at all.

 

[detective-boy]

Which, roughly translated, means: "Oh right. You've got a point. But you're an ex-copper so lets just ignore the fact we've been caught out talking absolute bollocks again and just revert to ACAB ...

Tossers.

 

[detective-boy]

the law is there to serve the issue of right and wrong - not the law (nor those who enforce it, or practice it, for that matter).

Absolutely bizarre.

 

[detective-boy]

i'd be grateful if you could explain to me what you found "homophobically abusive" in my post.

You know perfectly well that you posted what you did to abuse / annoy me by using a term which you perfectly well know is an abusive term for homosexuals.

And you were caught out doing so despite your attempt at clever, clever obfuscation.

You deserved it.

 

[detective-boy]

(excusing not having done so sooner by saying "there was an ongoing court case)

It is absolutely fucking standard practice for disciplinary proceedings to be deferred until after any consideration or prosecution of criminal proceedings to have been completed. It is for exactly the same reason that inquests are adjourned until after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Otherwise it would risk prejudicing them and result in acquittal. (And if they are successful there may be no need for disciplinary proceedings or an inquest, saving witnesses additional hassle and public money).

Would you rather prefer impatience and an acquittal over patience and a potential conviction?

 

[detective-boy]

Spot the difference...

Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall. There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.

Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease. Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.

If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.

 

[detective-boy]

I actually have a little more sympathy towards them than the copper

That's the heart of the matter, isn't it.

You and the other tossers quite simply identify with scum and hate cops. And everything you say, think and post is predicated by that. It is prejudice, plain and simple. And it is pathetic that you even try and deny it.

I really hope that you are the victim of some such scum one day. You will reap what you sow and that can only be right.

 

[xes]

And we all hope you get beat shit of by the police one day, so badly that you die, and nobody ever gets brought to justice.

Seriously, I've put it on my cosmic ordering list.

 

[detective-boy]

Perhaps you'll get HM Crown Prosecution Services Inspectorate to have a wee look into it, if you think it's "profoundly unsatisfactory"????

Sadly they're not empowered to investigate complaints about specific cases:

Please note that HMCPSI is not the complaints authority for the CPS.

... and they're probably on the Govt's quango hitlist anyway! (Perhaps a couple of random citizens might like to volunteer to carry out the role for nothing ... )

So far as I am aware, the only means of complaining about such a thing is a complaint to the CPS themselves for internal investigation.

As I have said, the most effective means of challenging their decision making is by Judicial Review.

 

[detective-boy]

And we all hope you get beat shit of by the police one day, so badly that you die, and nobody ever gets brought to justice.

Tell me something fucking new.

 

[xes]

you still here?

 

[Fedayn]

Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall. There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.

Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease. Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.

If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.

And yet someone else is shot to death never having been identified and still no charges. Change the record....

 

[free spirit]

Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall. There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.

Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease. Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.

If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.

that's bullshit and you know it.

the cause and effect in this case couldn't be clearer. The only doubt is cast by the results of the first autopsy which was an attempt at a complete whitewash before video and witness evidence of the incident came to light. The Pathologists who conducted the 2nd and 3rd autopsies (commissioned by the IPCC and Met Police) were in no doubt at all as to what caused Tomlinson's death

Cary told the Guardian he had "no doubt" what caused the death of Tomlinson, whose body he examined. "The push caused a haemorrhage to the abdomen, and the haemorrhage causes Mr Tomlinson to collapse a minute or two later," he said. "He was vulnerable to this because of the liver disease he had."

The CPS said it believed it could not convince a jury that the push by the officer had contributed to the death. Cary said: "The only occasion I have seen, from the evidence, that could have caused the abdominal haemorrhage was the shove to the ground by the officer."

A third pathologist, Kenneth Shorrock, commissioned by the Metropolitan police, agreed with Cary's view that the cause of death was an abdominal haemorrhage.

had the met not been able to use their influence to get an incompetent / possibly bent pathologist assigned to the first autopsy to cover up any involvement from their officers in the death there would have been no confusion at all in the medical evidence (or is it your assertion that it was a mere coincidence that such an obviously incompetent pathologist was assigned to such a high profile case?). It's also highly unlikely IMO that the CPS would have decided not to prosecute despite 2/3 pathologist concurring with the dissenting pathologist facing imminent procedings to get him struck off in any case other than one involving a copper.

Had this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?

 

[cesare]

Sadly they're not empowered to investigate complaints about specific cases:



... and they're probably on the Govt's quango hitlist anyway! (Perhaps a couple of random citizens might like to volunteer to carry out the role for nothing ... )

So far as I am aware, the only means of complaining about such a thing is a complaint to the CPS themselves for internal investigation.

As I have said, the most effective means of challenging their decision making is by Judicial Review.

You think their boss can't empower them?

 

[tarannau]

That's the heart of the matter, isn't it.

You and the other tossers quite simply identify with scum and hate cops. And everything you say, think and post is predicated by that. It is prejudice, plain and simple. And it is pathetic that you even try and deny it.

I really hope that you are the victim of some such scum one day. You will reap what you sow and that can only be right.

Oh please, spare me the moralising you intolerant, ranty nutbag. I don't see what's prejudiced about cutting some immature teenagers a little more slack than a middle aged professional man charged with maintaining law and order.

I'm not making excuses for either set of cunts, where you're far too quick to leap to the defence of policemen again and again. There was no reason for that policeman to lose control and attack a defenceless man in the back like that. At least you'd don't expect kids to be patrolling the streets and looking after the public.

 

[detective-boy]

that's bullshit and you know it ... the cause and effect in this case couldn't be clearer ... The only doubt is cast by the results of the first autopsy

Make your mind up. Either it "couldn't be clearer" OR there is some doubt. You can't have it both ways.

Read the thread to see my repeated explanation for why the conclusions of the second and third pathologists are irretrievably tainted by the findings of the first. (And for how the first pathologist was NOT appointed by the Met ...)

[quoteHad this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Read the thread and you'll see the explanation why. Just because you are unwilling to understand the legal requirements of causation does not mean they are not there. You may make an argument that the law shouldn't require causation ... but, in my view, that would be fuckwitted and would lead to lots of unjust convictions, based simply on the fact that there was a tragic outcome. People should only be responsible for the harm that they can be shown to cause.

 

[detective-boy]

You think their boss can't empower them?

They probably could, but that is not the way things work, is it? Agencies suddenly being given responsibilities that they were neither set-up nor resourced to carry out ...

 

[xes]

surely it should be the first pathologist report, which is irretrievably tainted by the other 2? Not sure if it's how I read it, or how you wrote it, it sounds like you're saying th first one was right, and the second 2 were wrong.

 

[detective-boy]

I don't see what's prejudiced ...

You see, this is exactly what's so fucking annoying about you lot. You simply cannot bring yourselves to admit the patently bleeding obvious. If you di we could just dismiss you and move on. Instead you state things based plainly and simply on prejudice and then don't have the fucking backbone to admit it.

Why are you so pathetic? Why can't you either (a) stand up for what you believe or (b) stop spouting shite you are unwilling to stand behind?