Fedayn
Well-Known Member
What are you chatting about? She's a Tory peer not a police officer ...
The accused is a Tory peer? News to me i'm sure it was the victim who was the Tory peer......
Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
The accused is a Tory peer? News to me i'm sure it was the victim who was the Tory peer......
winjer
holocene death beat
This is easily provably untrue. e.g.
(Yes, there are cops without numbers in that photo, no pedant points available.)
Certainly not my experience, and as a regular legal observer it's obviously something I pay close attention to.
In some non-Met forces they now have their collar numbers on helmets, either on front and back, or left and right.
the button
out on the kocker
It makes perfect sense if obfuscation is the desired result. Is it incumbent on the IPCC (or any other) body to request a special PM before the coroner can allow one, or is it the coroner's obligation to call for a special PM if there are any suspicious circumstances, as there were in this case? Does not the very fact that the coroner refused to allow the IPCC make the whole thing more suspect, let alone the fact that Tomlinson died in the middle of a kettling operation?
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
/
Something I noticed. Earlier on you said you knew of no right to attend a PM, post 780. You said you weren't aware of any law, had never heard of one and had never heard of such circumstance where one would be used....what with the face getting pulled back off the skull and all the other gratuitousness. You even went as far as saying that if there was such a law...Liberty would have known about it.
Funny that...you know every other law - or have them to hand in your books/pc. Not this one though. Ah well.
In a thread about checking that the police aren't trying to cover up a murder. Convenient that.
If the IPCC want one they should insist on it. If the Coroner say's no, they should challenge it.
If the Coroner is aware of the fact the death is being treated as suspicious / unexplained they should hold one. If the police / IPCC say otherwise the Coroner can overrule them.
So far as I am aware, there is no hard and fast rule about which way round it goes - the Coroner's Rules 1984 (Rule 6) oblige the Coroner to "consult" with the police (and you can read IPCC in there now they exist) in suspicious death cases. Ultimately the Coroner has the final say and if the IPCC / police want them to do something else they can appeal their decision (by emergency application to the High Court if necessary).
As I have said repeatedly, if (as the Guardian say) the IPCC were involved, either they (if they didn't ask / insist) or the Coroner (if they were asked but refused), or both have some questions to answer.
He didn't. There was no "kettle". And he certainly didn't die in the "middle" of it. Why do you misrepresent the facts???
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I would have thought it would have been in everyone's best interests to treat any death during G20 with belt and braces. Right from the off ... treat it as 'suspicious'/'special', make sure that everything's covered - press, family, coroner, official investigation etc. Minimise the risk of complaints and bad PR. Everyone feels like they're fairly treated.
The law in question is the Coroner's Rules 1984. They are secondary legislation governing how Coroner's operate. They are of no direct relevance to the police or anyone else and I have never had any direct involvement with them. They are also somewhat arcane and subject to various amendment and extension.
I was commenting on the basis of my experience (which remains exactly the same: I have never seen or heard of a deceased's family present or represented at a PM). If you actually read them you will find that the FAMILY (unless medically qualified) have no right to be there (no doubt partially for exactly the same reasons as I pointed out).
And I wasn't answering someone's question - I raised the issue myself, musing on the fact that the Guardian story struck me as odd. And I remain very surprised that Liberty don't mention it on their website ... perhaps you'd like to ask THEM what they have got to hide ...
Hardly the actions of someone determined to, er, cover something up, eh? Bearing in mind that no-one else had raised the issue ...
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Aye, that bit looked more like a sweep than a kettle "move along now" (to my untrained eyes).
winjer
holocene death beat
Given that the streets were being cleared from the kettle (at Bank) outwards, it seems reasonable to consider it part of the kettling operation.
xes
F.O.A.D
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
bollocks.
you've stated your policy here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-the-phone?p=10909192&viewfull=1#post10909192
you claim not to insult people because of their beliefs, but this is somewhat in contradiction of the bit about people who believe all coppers are bastards. but pretty much everyone i know who is of the 'acab' persuasion has an example of a good cop: the case officer when i was a prosecution witness in a gbh case, for instance, seemed a nice man. however, for every decent cop i've had the good fortune to encounter i've run into scores of utter scum in uniform.it's not like there's a bad apple among a lot of good ones, more like a good apple placed in a barrel of putrid fruit.
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
I didn't say you were, er, covering it up...I said that the police involved were.Hardly the actions of someone determined to, er, cover something up, eh? Bearing in mind that no-one else had raised the issue ...
You're trying to argue semantics with everyone, I see. The definition of kettling, the minutiae of coronary procedure, ...the numbers on a uniform during an operation....and so on.
It's obvious, obvious, to anyone with half a brain what happened. Much of the bad feeling and justified concern and outrage is in large part with the authorities and their heavy-handedness which in this case lead to the death of a man. I see the current news stuff has been hinting that it's a rogue policeman (oooh...misconduct no less...where was that a year ago?) which is objectionable shit again.
They should be held to account with the same ease as anyone else.
They don't consider themselves to be equals...do they, d-b?
If the IPCC want one they should insist on it. If the Coroner say's no, they should challenge it.
If the Coroner is aware of the fact the death is being treated as suspicious / unexplained they should hold one. If the police / IPCC say otherwise the Coroner can overrule them.
So far as I am aware, there is no hard and fast rule about which way round it goes - the Coroner's Rules 1984 (Rule 6) oblige the Coroner to "consult" with the police (and you can read IPCC in there now they exist) in suspicious death cases. Ultimately the Coroner has the final say and if the IPCC / police want them to do something else they can appeal their decision (by emergency application to the High Court if necessary).
As I have said repeatedly, if (as the Guardian say) the IPCC were involved, either they (if they didn't ask / insist) or the Coroner (if they were asked but refused), or both have some questions to answer.
He didn't. There was no "kettle". And he certainly didn't die in the "middle" of it. Why do you misrepresent the facts???
You are misrepresenting me. The police tactics on the day were ones of containment and violent intimidation - kettling; setting out their stall for Superintendent David Hartshorn's "summer of rage", "Hartshorn identified April's G20 meeting of the group of leading and developing nations in London as an event that could kick-start a challenging summer. "We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'," he said." The TSG PC's were tacitly given the go ahead to go in hard to scare the middle classes into not demonstrating. Ian Tomlinson was killed by illegal state sanctioned violence and the coroner is an accessory after the fact - He'll go far.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
then the law is an ass, in that case.The law in question is the Coroner's Rules 1984. They are secondary legislation governing how Coroner's operate. They are of no direct relevance to the police or anyone else and I have never had any direct involvement with them. They are also somewhat arcane and subject to various amendment and extension.
I was commenting on the basis of my experience (which remains exactly the same: I have never seen or heard of a deceased's family present or represented at a PM). If you actually read them you will find that the FAMILY (unless medically qualified) have no right to be there (no doubt partially for exactly the same reasons as I pointed out).
And I wasn't answering someone's question - I raised the issue myself, musing on the fact that the Guardian story struck me as odd. And I remain very surprised that Liberty don't mention it on their website ... perhaps you'd like to ask THEM what they have got to hide ...
Hardly the actions of someone determined to, er, cover something up, eh? Bearing in mind that no-one else had raised the issue ...
although i think someone may have got there before me with that one.
The point is why the mention of the "middle of a kettling operation" was made ... clearly to cause people to draw their own (inaccurate) conclusions about the circumstances of the incident. Why? (It would be just as inaccurate to say that it happened in "the middle of a concerted attack on a bank" or something ...)
And quite right too ... who said you could go north of the river?
Without any shadow of a doubt some officers (how many of the many hundreds deployed did you actually meet / have an issue with?) were over aggressive and "out of control" ... but there is also a perception issue at work here where people see police officers using the tactics they have been taught to move people back (namely raising baton, pushing hand (or in this case shield) forward, and shouting "Get back" or similar as loud as possible) and perceiving them as being "out of control" when they are not. This happens in ordinary policing situations too - twelve years ago when I was a Brixton (where did twelve years go ...
) I spent quite a lot of my time dealing with people coming in to complain of officers who had "lost it" who had, in fact, only been using tactics they had been taught but which no-one had told the public had been introduced. So much so that I copied pages of the training manual so I could point to them and as "Like this?".Interestingly one of the issues raised by Denis O'Connor in his report on public order tactics arising from G20 (Adapting to Protest) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_07_09_g20_police_report.pdf (Chapter 6, pg 57 et seq) is how individual officer safety type tactics work in collective situations. This issue was specifically recognised in relation to CS spray when it was introduced (to the extent that officers deployed in public order situations are often told not even to carry it) but it has never been so clearly recognised in relation to other tactics. We now have a situation in which individual officers in a line of officers, confronted with an individual situation, revert to individual tactics that they would quite properly use in their High Street on a Saturday night* but which are inappropriate (and look even worse) in the public order situation. I think the actions of both the high profile cases arising from G20 (and many of the others) can be characterised in this way.
Reviewing how individual tactics are used in public disorder situations is one of the things which should follow the Report. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
(* In a typical High Street situation, there would normally be a handful of officers and if they are faced with a crowd who are generally shouting / pushing / hostile in the same way that a protest crowd are, the situation would normally be characterised as having gone out of control and so the use of aggressive tactics to prevent attacks / disperse the crowd / permit the carrying out of lawful actions (such as making an arrest which would typically be the cause of the crowd action) would be perfectly legitimate. In a protest situation, however, although the actions of the crowd appear the same, they are not, not least because there is not always (and maybe even not usually) an immediate unlawful action such as the rescue of a prisoner associated with it. A degree of pushing / shoving / abuse / hostility that would not be acceptable in a High Street situation should therefore be tolerated in a protest situation.)
I'm not saying otherwise. Quite the contrary, as I have repeatedly posted, I believe that not only should police officers be accountable for their actions (which they are, and (quite rightly) in excess of the accountability of others) but that that should be seen in a public forum and if that means that their individual rights as citizens are restricted to some extent then so be it, that is a proportionate step to take in view of the extra powers that they exercise on behalf of us all.
So why do you persist in portraying me as in some way saying the opposite?
xes
F.O.A.D
That would be fair to say if it were people who were attacking a bank, who then killed somebody.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
because, in amongst your claims that you would like to see justice for tomlinson, you have spent most of this thread justifying the decision of the cps not to prosecute, on the basis of the most dodgy postmortem account that has ever been seen.
maybe?
You cannot simply say that the police had a single tactic that day. Containment is one of a number of different tactics available to them and used in different situations. There may well have been a containment happening somewhere at the time of the Ian Tomlinson incident ... but the Ian Tomlinson incident was not directly part of any "kettle". You use "kettling" as an emotive term to stir up pictures in people's minds and to confuse the facts. It has taken on a life of it's own as in some way describing an illegal or overbearing tactic when containment is something that has been around for donkeys years (ask any travelling football fan) and one which, whilst some significant issues have arisen which need to be addressed about it's use in public order policing generally, remains both legal and effective in certain situations.
Ian Tomlinson encountered a cordon of officers preventing access to a certain area and moving down a street, clearing the public away ahead of them. He was free to move away in a number of other directions and he would not have encountered any police cordon or anything else preventig him going wherever he wanted along the majority of them. He was moving away from the cordon, in a street where there was no restriction of movement so far as I am aware, when he collapsed.
He was never contained or "kettled". He was NOT caught in the "middle of a kettling operation". To say otherwise is simply misrepresentation.
He was not alone. There was an idiot Commander who was shown on TV saying something like "If they want a fight, we're ready, bring it on". I have strongly criticised those comments from the start (and not just here). They should be the subject of disciplinary action in my view. They have been recognised as being "unwise" and I do not think we will see them again (and I hope that they will not be used internaly either - there is a balance to be struck between properly preparing officers for what they may face and for the possibility that they may need to use robust tactics and winding them up to the point where they are likely to overreact).
Why is the law an ass if it provides for the family of the deceased to be represented at a PM?
Although I didn't know of the existence of it, and I have never known it exercised, I have no problem with them having the right to be represented by a medically qualified person. I am surprised you do ...
But it wouldn't be if it was some other protestors, who had nothing to do with the attack on the bank, who were involved and if it happened some distance away from any bank ...
The officers in volved were NOT engaged in a containment and were not using containment tactics. Mr Tomlinson was not the subject of containment tactics. There was no containment in the immediate vicinity.
In the case of someone with the IQ of a fucking amoeba, incapable of seperating different issues and different strands of an argument, someone so fucking simple that everything either has to be black or white, good or bad, then you're probably right ... which explains why it is posters like you who keep doing it ...because, in amongst your claims that you would like to see justice for tomlinson, you have spent most of this thread justifying the decision of the cps not to prosecute, on the basis of the most dodgy postmortem account that has ever been seen.
maybe?
