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

[cesare]

Mortuaries obviously have appropriate hygiene arrangements in place for contaminated fluids and stuff ... but I won't pretend to know what they are ...

When you cut open a body blood and fluid comes out. There are drains on the tables. They are hosed down. Stuff is poured down the drains if it is not needed. I assume it is collected somehow and disposed of in an appropriate way. How does this make any difference?

I was just wondering in case there was a procedure for disposal that might have involved other people being part of the process. It doesn't seem like it though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was just wondering in case there was a procedure for disposal that might have involved other people being part of the process. It doesn't seem like it though.

Some wastes (including fluids) are incinerated.

 

[free spirit]

It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done. They also now have numbers on riot helmets.

(And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really do demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...)

Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.

right, well from personal experience I can tell you that the not a single met officer below the rank of sergeant out of the thousand or so who were involved in kettling trafalgar square at the mayday protest in 2000 was wearing a visible number, and after I'd made a point of asking why not at each side of the square, I was told by one of the sergeants that it was met policy that only sergeants wore numbers on riot duty (or it could have been that it was only a requirement for sergeants to display their numbers, something like that).

At J18 in 1999, I remember the change from officers with numbers displayed to officers in riot gear with their numbers removed / hidden

In 2005 at the G8 protest camp in stirling, I discussed this in person with the chief superintendant* of the local police force (I forget which force it was now), who was at least as pissed off with the met as I was for their behaviour up there, and it was he who pointed out to me the fact that the entire met contingent had been ordered to remove their numbers despite him pointing out to his opposite number that it was actually a legal requirement in scotland for officers to have their numbers visible.

And then at these protests it's clear that it was policy for the Met officers to cover / not display their numbers.

ffs the met distribute specific white plastic things to fit where the numbers would normally be, and they all wear them, so are you really attempting to argue that this is not a longstanding official met policy?

I may not be an expert on the exact dress requirements of each rank of the met, but I know what I've seen and been told repeatedly over a 15 year period.

btw, these numbers on the riot helmets... would these be displayed on the front or the back of the helmets?


*I think

 

[free spirit]

Not particularly. But I try and recognise my biases and not let them affect the objectivity of my explanations.

ok, and do you accept that you might not actually be as successful in this as you might hope to be?

 

[cesare]

Some wastes (including fluids) are incinerated.

Ah, right. It would be interesting to know the process here in case there were other witnesses (doubtful though).

 

[free spirit]

The [I]vast[/I] majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done. They also now have numbers on riot helmets.

actually I see what you've done there, very clever.

yes I agree with you that the vast majority of officers on protests probably do have their numbers displayed, but this doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority (in many cases all) of the teams that are deployed when things start to kick off / they expect them to kick off do not have their numbers displayed other than their sergeants.

this may not have been the case in the particular bit that you controlled, but it absolutely is the case for such large sections of the met over such a long time period that it can't possibly be anything other than an officially sanctioned policy.

 

[Fedayn]

Yes, clearly I do. Look at what I have posted on the point:



... Oh no. Hang on a minute ...

Why the fuck can't you READ what I actually fucking post instead of making up what I have posted. :mad

And you wonder why I end up throwing fucks into you.

Oi you ranting twat, I ackowledge you did. I simply asked why you think they didn't charge the officer when there was/is CLEAR evidence that the officer broke the law. I never questioned or claimed that you didn't say this, indeed look at what I said

And clearly there is clear evidence in this case that the now named officer clearly did break the law. This is not in doubt even if, like you clearly do, you agree re the doubts said clearly visible physical assault caused the death. There is video evidence clearly showing physical assault. So in this case, even if you accept the lack of a clear causal link with death, that the named plod got away with it because he clearly physically assaulted an entirely innocent man and is not even to be charged with assault occasioning ABH. You clearly agree with that, as such what reason do you think there have been no charges brought against the police officer?

I asked what reason you think there could be given a crime was clearly evidently filmed and witnessed. I never once said you didn't say this..... So, less of the hissy fits and perhaps a simple reply to a simple question??

 

[Fedayn]

It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done. They also now have numbers on riot helmets.

And yet even when they are filmed with no number showing, and that footage is being played in the background of the studio, senior police officers deny it happens, as happened after the G8 demo in Scotland in 2005.... Ho hum....

 

[sus]

...


My guess would be chance. But I do not know and nor do you (or anyone else in the public domain). He was not on the Home Office approved list for "special" post mortems but it wasn't a "special" post mortem (there are issues about why not for the police / IPCC / Coroner to answer). He was NOT, however, suspended entirely and hence he was available for "routine" post mortems. They run a rota / on-call system. The Coroner / the Coroner's Officer (not a police officer any more, usually a local authority employee) would simply call the one scheduled to work.

...

Seems like ex Royal Household Deputy Coroner Prof Paul Matthews was treating it as a special case, maybe too special eh? or would you say these refusals and omissions are normal practice for a coroner? Appointing an unreliable pathologist has caused a de facto obstruction of the course of justice hasn't it?

"The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009. Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place."

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

you're clearly not a south park fan, and your telepathic abilities leave much to be desired.

as for deserving it, i wouldn't even have noticed it if i hadn't tried to log in to check my pms.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

 

[winjer]

And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really do demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...

Historically correct, however one thing that has changed since the G20 is that Inspectors (and presumably above) now have what appears to be their warrant number on their epaulettes, next to their pips.

 

[detective-boy]

... I was told by one of the sergeants that it was met policy that only sergeants wore numbers on riot duty (or it could have been that it was only a requirement for sergeants to display their numbers, something like that)...

You hate the fuckers ... and yet you accept every word they say ...

ffs the met distribute specific white plastic things to fit where the numbers would normally be, and they all wear them, so are you really attempting to argue that this is not a longstanding official met policy?

There are no "white plastic things fitted where the numbers would normally be". There are a variety of coloured flashes which fit over the epaulettes to denote various things (rank, specialist skill) ... but the numbers are then applied OVER them (the white ones weren't one of the brightest idea as obviously silver metal numbers don't show up very well on white background).

I may not be an expert on the exact dress requirements of each rank of the met, but I know what I've seen and been told repeatedly over a 15 year period.

You can "know" what you like: there IS no policy, Met or otherwise, to the effect that officers on riot duty don't wear numbers. They may not enforce it as well as they could (which is, as I have posted numerous times before, simply inexcusable), but the Commissioner bemoans the fact that some officers don't appear to comply with the requirement to wear their numbers every time the issue comes up ... hardly something he'd do if he'd told them not to ...

“The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...lice-should-be-punished-for-covering-up-id.do

btw, these numbers on the riot helmets... would these be displayed on the front or the back of the helmets?

The back. They don't identify the individual officer (unless they have changed things recently, but do identify the Force, Unit and rank sometimes).

The MP = Metropolitan Police. The QK = a Brent unit, GD = a Hackney unit, NI = an Islington unit. You can see sgt stripes on some (who are also wearuing the white shoulder flashes I mentioned - the white ones are for sgts). And I think you can just about make out the numbers on the epaulettes of the officers nearest the camera, including on top of the white flashes.

 

[detective-boy]

ok, and do you accept that you might not actually be as successful in this as you might hope to be?

Not really. I am as successful as I think anyone can be who comes from a particular background.

 

[detective-boy]

Ah, right. It would be interesting to know the process here in case there were other witnesses (doubtful though).

There would be at least one or two mortuary assistants assisting with even a routine post mortem. They would probably have been responsible for measuring the volume of fluid, perhaps even for removing it from the abdomen under the instructions of the pathologist. They would not be medically qualified and it would be doubtful whether they would be able to give any meaningful evidence of the nature of the fluid (though if experienced they may well be able to identify it as entirely or mainly blood or not).

 

[detective-boy]

yes I agree with you that the vast majority of officers on protests probably do have their numbers displayed

Why would they do that if it is official policy not to?

...it can't possibly be anything other than an officially sanctioned policy.

Yes it can. And it is. It is gobshite officers who think they can get away with it steadily pushing the boundaries and when one or two get away with it, more start. And it is incompetent / pathetic first line supervisors (sergeants and inspectors) failing to do their jobs properly. And it is senior officers failing to hold the first line supervisors to account for failing to do their jobs properly. It is shit policing and shit supervision ... exactly what is behind a lot of the problems with ordinary policing.

 

[detective-boy]

I ackowledge you did.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you were telling me I clearly agreed with - I'm still not 100% clear from the original post - and I though you were saying I thought the officer had "got away" with the manslaughter.

I simply asked why you think they didn't charge the officer when there was/is CLEAR evidence that the officer broke the law.

In relation to the ABH the CPS said they didn't charge for the only injury that they considered ABH (by their charging standards) because that would be the internal bleeding (which suffered from exactly the same causation issues as when considering it as part of the manslaughter evidence - as it would as it is exactly the same injury). They didn't mention even considering the pattern bruising from the baton strike as an ABH as whilst that would amount to an ABH in law, it would NOT according to their charging standards. That is what Nat Carey criticises them for and it is what I have criticised them for. Their Charging Standards are policy not law and they could have found exceptional circumstances and ignored them (though they would undoubtedly have got shit from the defence if they had). As a result the only charge they considered in relation to the bruising was Common Assault and, as that is summary only, it was out of time (there is a six-month prosecution time limit on summary only offences). It is not plain whether at the six month stage the actively considered charging common assault and choose not to (which, if they did, I think they could be criticised for) or whether they didn't even think about it until the end of the case by which time it was too late (which they certainly should be criticised / sanctioned for).

All of this has been posted by me several times before.

 

[detective-boy]

And yet even when they are filmed with no number showing, and that footage is being played in the background of the studio, senior police officers deny it happens, as happened after the G8 demo in Scotland in 2005.... Ho hum....

Then they are fucking idiots. It happens. It always has happened a bit. It appears it has become a lot more widespread in recent years (due, no doubt, to a failure by first line supervisors to properly supervise their officers).

 

[detective-boy]

Seems like ex Royal Household Deputy Coroner Prof Paul Matthews was treating it as a special case, maybe too special eh? or would you say these refusals and omissions are normal practice for a coroner? Appointing an unreliable pathologist has caused a de facto obstruction of the course of justice hasn't it?

"The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009. Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place."

Why are you asking me questions about things I have repeatedly already posted about? Read the fucking thread.

 

[detective-boy]

Historically correct, however one thing that has changed since the G20 is that Inspectors (and presumably above) now have what appears to be their warrant number on their epaulettes, next to their pips.

I have seen warrant numbers on some sewn epaulettes ... but I am not sure that is a universal approach to the issue (or, seeing as they are six digits long and, hence, the numerals are inevitably going to be very small, a realistic or helpful one). In many county forces inspectors and about all keep their shoulder numbers regardless of rank (even though they don't usually display them with their pips, etc.) but in the Met they have never issued a shoulder number to Inspectors or above (or to detectives of any rank ... which causes issues when in exceptional circumstances they are hurriedly deployed to bolster uniform branch).

 

[the button]

Will you be giving a few quid to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, d-b?

http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/

PayPal link on the front page.

I think it would be good for the family to have the resources to have a chance to explore every legal channel.

 

[cesare]

There would be at least one or two mortuary assistants assisting with even a routine post mortem. They would probably have been responsible for measuring the volume of fluid, perhaps even for removing it from the abdomen under the instructions of the pathologist. They would not be medically qualified and it would be doubtful whether they would be able to give any meaningful evidence of the nature of the fluid (though if experienced they may well be able to identify it as entirely or mainly blood or not).

Would they have been asked, do you think?

 

[sus]

Why are you asking me questions about things I have repeatedly already posted about? Read the fucking thread.

You may have posted "about" the questions, but you haven't answered them. Is it usual for a coroner to refuse to allow the IPCC to be present at a "routine" post mortem, or do you think that this is in some way "special" treatment?

 

[detective-boy]

Will you be giving a few quid to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, d-b?

Like I'm really going to answer that ...

 

[Pickman's model]

I have seen warrant numbers on some sewn epaulettes ... but I am not sure that is a universal approach to the issue (or, seeing as they are six digits long and, hence, the numerals are inevitably going to be very small, a realistic or helpful one). In many county forces inspectors and about all keep their shoulder numbers regardless of rank (even though they don't usually display them with their pips, etc.) but in the Met they have never issued a shoulder number to Inspectors or above (or to detectives of any rank ... which causes issues when in exceptional circumstances they are hurriedly deployed to bolster uniform branch).

fortunately modern photographic technology allows clear pictures to be taken from some distance away now that the daguerreotype is no longer considered 'cutting edge'.

in addition, your information is dated: for example, an mps inspector on this year's 'may day' parade proudly displayed his warrant number on his epaulettes. i have seen a picture of the gentleman.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Like I'm really going to answer that ...

Why not?

 

[detective-boy]

Would they have been asked, do you think?

No idea. Depends how thoroughly the CPS wanted that angle investigated. And whether they anticipated that anything they could say woud be of any use (which may or may not have been the case). I suspect not - in formal statements anyway, they may have been contacted to see if there was anything on value they could recall.

 

[Pickman's model]

Like I'm really going to answer that ...

i thought you'd be able to spell 'no'.

 

[Pickman's model]

It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well. The vast majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done. They also now have numbers on riot helmets.

(And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really do demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...)

Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.

in 1866 the reform league advised their supporters attending a demonstration in central london to bring pencil and paper with them to note the numbers of violent officers.

as for having numbers on nato helmets (which i assume is what you mean by 'riot helmets'), you may have noticed that they are on the back. which is very useful if you are behind the officers in question but not so efficacious for those in front.

you say in another post that sometimes inspectors wear their warrant number on their epaulettes. this does suggest that they do indeed have numbers which are unique identifiers, even if they do not indicate the borough (or unit) from whence they came.

 

[detective-boy]

You may have posted "about" the questions, but you haven't answered them. Is it usual for a coroner to refuse to allow the IPCC to be present at a "routine" post mortem, or do you think that this is in some way "special" treatment?

I have posted about that, when the Guardian report was first quoted ... but if you can't be bothered to look for it ...

It makes no sense, the Guardian report about the IPCC being refused access to the PM. If it was routine PM the IPCC would simply not be interested. If the IPCC were interested, it implies that the matter had been referred to them, in which case it wasbeing dealt with as a death following police contact, in which case it should have been a "special" PM. The question is "Did the IPCC request a "special" PM?" If they did, and the Coroner refused, that would be highly irregular (and should have led to the IPCC challenging the Coroner's decision). If they did not, and yet they were interested in the case, that was incompetent and they should have done and whoever's decision that was fucked up and should be dealt with.

As for the reports that the family were not allowed to be present at the PM ... I have never known a family be present at a PM. I cannot think of a worse experience for a family to go through - seeing the deceased's face pulled back from the skull, the top of the skull cut off with a grinder and the brain sectioned and all the rest. If the report meant they had some right to be represented at the PM, or to have their own pathologist there or something, I am not aware of any such right (though there has been steady increase in rights in relation to inquests (which are not PMs) over the last few years and it may have been added whilst I haven't been looking). I have never known a family present or represented at a PM and I don't think there is any such right though ... and you might have expected Liberty to mention it if it existed ... and they don't: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...stigations-into-deaths/inquest-procedure.html