Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
xes
F.O.A.D
that video is shit. If you want to get pissed off at the police in action, then try this shit out for size. (not uk police, but they all do the same job, and it IS this wide spread)
watch it and fucking weep.
(short sysnopsis)
Shots fired at a home. Citizen target practicing at home. Officers arrive and citizen comes forward with no problems.
Then comes the SEIZURE of the gun he was target practicing with.
Then comes the unwarranted entry into the home.
Then comes the unwarranted entry into the gun safe.
Then comes the officers stating they want a gun just like this.
Then comes the officers, seargent, detectives discussing the exigent circumstances they are going to have to FABRICATE to make the entries legal.
Then comes the officers fabricating more crap to come up with some type of charges to create a seizure of the guns necessary.
(credit for my CnPing goes to this trhead http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread596392/pg1 )
watch it and fucking weep.
(short sysnopsis)
Shots fired at a home. Citizen target practicing at home. Officers arrive and citizen comes forward with no problems.
Then comes the SEIZURE of the gun he was target practicing with.
Then comes the unwarranted entry into the home.
Then comes the unwarranted entry into the gun safe.
Then comes the officers stating they want a gun just like this.
Then comes the officers, seargent, detectives discussing the exigent circumstances they are going to have to FABRICATE to make the entries legal.
Then comes the officers fabricating more crap to come up with some type of charges to create a seizure of the guns necessary.
(credit for my CnPing goes to this trhead http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread596392/pg1 )
xes
F.O.A.D
Indeed it does my good man, indeed it does.
Now if only we could make a certain ex copper see this, we could make some headway....
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Absolutely.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Not having any power leads to corrupt assholes doing what the fuck they like.
I haven't got a fucking problem with people challenging what I actually post in a rational and reasoned way. I have a massive fucking problem with people who misrepresent what I post (or even simply make up lies about what I have posted) and then challenge that. And I have a massive problem with people who simply state something is wrong / shite without explaining why or providing any alternatve analysis.
No officers in a unit that I was responsible for supervising was allowed not to display numbers. The vast majority of my colleagues on divisionally based units did likewise. I cannot speak for the TSG as I never worked on the TSG, though in the situations when I was aware of their deployment I never noticed any wholesale absence of numbers - there may have been some officers without numbers (it wasn't my role to check them all) but I would have noticed if any significant proportion had them missing (epaulettes look very different without numbers). The Met's policy has ALWAYS been that officers display their numbers. There is no reason why the Met would want a supervisor willing and able to challenge that not to be involved with a unit where it was a problem.
You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ... (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ...
)So you know what my fucking experience is better than I do, do you? Just fuck off, eh?
Where numbers are not displayed it is dealt with by a direction to display them. Unless that was something that was repeatedly attempted it would be neither worth the time, effort and fucking expense of a disciplinary hearing or likely to result in a fucking finding against them, let alone any significant penalty.
In cases where the officer with the absent numbers can be shown to have been doing that with some malicious intent, or where, with no numbers displayed they have committed some more serious disciplinary or criminal act, they should be disciplined. Whether there have been any such examples I do not know. I was certainly not aware of any such circumstances in situations I was personally involved with. I have regularly posted that this is a simple matter to deal with and it should be dealt with robustly. The Commissioner had an opportunity to do so after G20. He didn't take it. It remains to be seen if his internal directions have had any effect next time there is a large scale deployment of the TSG. If there is again widespread evidence of numbers being absent or obscured and there are not arrangements in place for those situations to be proactively identified and dealt with (e.g. by having a Professional Standards Dept team monitoring all footage and gathering evidence proactively, against first line supervisors as well as individual officers) then the Commissioner should personally be held accountable. Or even Kit Malthouse, seeing as he now thinks he runs the Met ...
I'm still at a fucking loss to see the point of this being brought up. Unless it's to prove my point that where the evidence exists police officers ARE tried and if the evidence is there the Court DO convict ...
Other than that it's a different situation, involving different officers, from a different force, in a different context ... and of no fucking relevance whatsoever, other than to prove that allegations of excessive use of force by police officers have been brought before the Ian Tomlinson case which, er, no-ones fucking disputing ...
If you actually watch the video you'll see that there is a significant difference between the force used by the other two (which basicaly consists of restraining the prisoner on the ground) and by him (which consists of repeated punches to the area of the head). The jury acquitted the other two, presumably on the basis that they found no joint enterprise. I would hope that they will be disciplined for failing to report the excessive use of force as it appears (a) they could not have been unaware of the nature of the force being used and (b) it was so grossly excessive that they could not realisitically argue that it was justifiable in the circumstances.
No. It isn't. You live in your own little world where you gather up instances like this and start to believe that sort of shite. Take a step back for a moment and think about how many interactions between police officers and citizens there are every day. And in how few of them any significant excessive use of force or other serious malpractice is alleged. Even though there are more incidents than we hear of, it's still a tiny proportion. Even tinier when you remove situations where there is organisational friction and associated issues (such as protest at the moment) where no matter what individual officers do, people have an issue with what the organisation is doing. The vast majority of officers, the vast majority of the time do their job to the best of their ability, within the law, often in extremely trying situations when people really are trying to do them serious harm and being extremely violent.
And your stereotyping of all police officers, all around the world in this way is exactly the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice. If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.
gavman
pj slumpy
stop doing it yourself then, you dishonest fuck
That's clearly a logical fallacy. People do not choose to be black, but they certainly opt to be police officers. And it's much fairer to generalise about a self-selecting group with a long culture of institutionalised racism and violence against protestors.
As for your claims of misrepresentation, you've a flaming cheek after you jumped down StephJ's throat with all sorts of hyperbolised, imagined bollocks on this thread. The evidence of your laughable guesswork and unpleasant aggression is there for all to see. I've seen bodybuilders with micropenises and 'roid rage show more self control and logical ability than you
Clearly you're a giant hypocrite, but it's a little pathetic to see such a lack of contrition and self knowledge. Don't dare try and take the moral high ground - you're an absolute plum
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Do you have any instances of where police officers have spoken out against colleagues where the death of a member of the public is involved?
Have any officers gone public in the UK against other officers? I don't recall that happening. Ever.
I do wish you'd stop calling people cunts.
You go on about the vast majority of police being just normal people doing a difficult job. The trouble is we read what you post here and you are - in no way - like the police you try to portray.
We're going on what you're like. And you're not much to like. A foul-mouthed, angry gay man with no ability discuss things rationally if people disagree with you. And you're very disagreeable. I know quite a few policemen and women, Some are ok, some are not. You're not ok, there's something wrong with you.
Very.
Implying now that those who you were saying last week are homophobic...implying now that they/we are racists. Depths of depravity, indeed.
xes
F.O.A.D
This is because all of the police are police. They are all an arm of a goverment, instead of protectors of the people. yes, I know police do alot of good stuff like catch actual criminals. But they also do alot of bad stuff, you talk like it's a rare occasion, but it's not, not from what I've seen. I know it's the fault of the goverment, who make up all the really fucking stupid laws which can be enterpreted anywhich way you fucking like. (missuse of anti terror laws with reguards to photography/ filming the police is a good example) All of them "uphold" these bullshit "laws" and do it with glee. And if it looks like a power trip, smells like a power trip...... So i think i'm perfectly justified in thinking what I do about the police. They're nothing but a tool of a control freak goverment. Surely police officers must know it's actually wrong to be doing half the shit they're told to do. I mean, they must know the difference between right and wrong, they've got through life thus far without licking a plug. But they still enforce the "laws" that goverment put inplace. yes, I know that's their job, but where would you draw the line in what you're prepared to do to carry out that job. I know that i could never do that to the people i'm supposed to be protecting. And i know what sort of person would.
, 
, +1, repped etc..
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
let's see...
the former head of interpol was jailed today: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-03/former-interpol-head-gets-15-years-jail-in-s-africa.html
if that's what the former head of interpol's been up to, what about all the rest of the fuckers?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
It is also clear to see the link between growing up with the surname Smellie and going on to be a copper who backhands unarmed women like that is acceptable
xes
F.O.A.D
She had a carton of juice, it could have been a hand grenade
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
free spirit
more tea vicar?
erm, I've not once mentioned Oxford Street in this thread, nor would I seeing as I wasn't at that particular demo, so feel free to expand on exactly how this photo pwns me?You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ... (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ...
besides, as I've already acknowledged that the majority of police on duty do have their numbers showing, I don't see how any photo taken at one particular point could possibly disprove my point.
if you want to call me a liar btw stop beating around the bush and just come out and say it. I'll make things clearer for you if it helps, these are the 3 instances where I have personally witnessed entire groups of met riot police with their shoulder numbers not visible, on top of the G20 where it's a matter of public record. Am I lying? Are these really just rogue coppers, or is this not (as I contend) evidence of a long running Met policy (defacto or otherwise)?
At the mayday guerilla gardening protest in 2000 I personally witnessed the frontline (well, front 2-3 rows) of the police kettling operation on all 4 sides of the square was carried out by several hundred coppers, none of whom had their shoulder numbers other than the sergeants at the back. I remember it specifically because I made a rather foolish point of going round each side of the square challenging them as to why they didn't have their numbers showing.
At J18 carnival against capitalism in the city in 1999 we left after spotting several van loads of kitted up riot police with no numbers on display moving in, specifically because their numbers were off, which we took to be a bad sign. I guess it could be that they were about to put their numbers on, but usually you'd think they'd do that in the van, not when they were already moving in to the action.
At the G8 protest in stirling the Met contingent's refusal to obey scottish law and display their numbers at all times was even commented on directly to me by the local head copper at the time, with a resigned 'but what can we really do about it' as I was negotiating directly with him to end the siege of the campsite which the met were insisting on maintaining until a full search had been conducted of the campsite.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you ignorant fucker.You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ... (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
ok, so I got it right that you weren't in TSG, that you'd not personally allow officers under your command not to hide their numbers... obviously I don't know your career better than you, but I obviously have picked up enough about it over the years to know that you are in no way an authority on the activities of TSG (particularly the more dubious activities) in the way that you might be on other areas of police work.
what you mean, unless certain sections of the met were actually quite happy to have a squad that they could deploy with numbers covered on occasions where it was judged that the gloves needed to come off?
In those kind of situations do you really not see any reason why the met (or certain sections of it) might want to keep a supervisor such as yourself away from the action?
ok, now even your posts are backing up what I'm saying. He didn't take firm action because if he had then the officers involved would almost certainly have come out and pointed out that they'd been ordered not to wear their numbers, and that this is a longstanding situation not a one off... or do you have a better explanation?db said:
Corrected for you. Thank you for clearly stating that you are a prejudiced tosser.
