Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Because we don't do much about it.
What you do as a responsible and competent observer is exactly what should happen. As I have said dozens of times before, the ONLY people who can police individual officers are the public - otherwise you'd have a line of supervisors walking around behind every constable.

And ALL significant breaches of law or disciplinary code should be reported (albeit in a proportionate way - not by calling for officers to be sacked for the slightest transgression) so that even if individual instances can't, or aren't pursued massively in their own right, eventually a picture of behaviour over time is gathered and issues can either be addressed (i.e. the problem behaviours stopped) or the officer can be dismissed.
 
ray! db back on sweary-form :cool:

testcard2.gif
 
attempting to pervert the course of justice

During a three week trial at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, the court heard that Mr Aspinall had been charged and convicted of two counts of assaulting a police officer in July 2008, but had later had his conviction quashed at Liverpool Crown Court following an appeal.

It appears he was originally convicted with assaulting a police officer which was quashed as it was a pack of lies. If any of those officers were witnesses in that case and swore on oath then it's perjury too. I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ght-beating-duty-soldier-CCTV-faces-jail.html
 
For how long? Based on which employment law? What would you suggest the sanction of the disciplinary hearing should be?

If it's "utterly unacceptable" it can't be that difficult to take disciplinary action, surely. If you like, we could call it gross misconduct and make it grounds for dismissal. :)
 
Oh...and quoting a 1970 case where ....a fucking recruit, you say???.... reports gossip (as opposed to reporting illegal actions which lead to death). Not doing it for me.
That was me. It's noted for being the last case where a death in custody lead to conviction and imprisonment for police officers - hence the oft-quoted statistics about x numbers of deaths in custody since 1969.

I take it you prefer to remain ignorant.
 
I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ght-beating-duty-soldier-CCTV-faces-jail.html
Perhaps it would help if at some point you actually read that article?

"Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

"Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."
 
Perhaps it would help if at some point you actually read that article?

"Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

"Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

So they haven't been convicted of anything then (the full timers). How predictable.
 
It appears he was originally convicted with assaulting a police officer which was quashed as it was a pack of lies. If any of those officers were witnesses in that case and swore on oath then it's perjury too. I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.
The fact that the convictio was quashed does NOT necessarily mean that all the original evidence was "a pack of lies". It simply means that there were doubts about some of it to the extent that it is not safe to leave a conviction which was based on the court being sure beyond all reasonable doubt. And of course the doubts may have arisen from the account of one witness, not necessarily all of them.

An acquittal does NOT automatically mean that all (or any) of the witnesses have attempted to pervert the course of justice or committed perjury.

And where someone is convicted of some other substantive offence it is unusual to pursue a prosecution for any associated lies linked with their denials of guilt of the substantive offence (otherwise we'd have a queue of convicted defendants being tried for perjury on the basis of their lies on oath in thier own defence!!).
 
If you like, we could call it gross misconduct and make it grounds for dismissal. :)
OK, so we've finally got there.

You would make the non-wearing of numbers an absolute offence (i.e. there would be no need to show any ulterior motive in doing so, no need to show that it was a deliberate move on the officers part, it would be enough to say you were there, you were on duty and you did not have your numbers correctly displayed) and that you would treat this as gross misconduct and, if the disciplinary case is proven (which, as it would be an absolute offence it invariably would be) you would dismiss the officers.

At a cost to the public of who knows how many tens of thousands of pounds in wasted training and recruitment of a new officer.

You're simply mad. :rolleyes:
 
So they haven't been convicted of anything then (the full timers). How predictable.
So now (a) we're distinguishing between establishment cover-ups (which only apply to full time officers, not Specials) and (b) we're including the jury who (presumably) were nobbled by the establishment to conspire with them to acquit the full time officers .... :rolleyes:
 
So now (a) we're distinguishing between establishment cover-ups (which only apply to full time officers, not Specials) and (b) we're including the jury who (presumably) were nobbled by the establishment to conspire with them to acquit the full time officers .... :rolleyes:

It has to get to a jury first though, doesn't it
 
It has to get to a jury first though, doesn't it
You're not good at this reading business are you ... :rolleyes:

Daily Mail report of case linked to earlier said:
""Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

"Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

I am reading that as meaning (and my understanding from other reports is) that the jury acquitted them of the charges.
 
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.

Just been re-reading a lot of this thread and this post is the best so far.

For those who want to know, "The Victimised State and the Mystification of Social Harm" by Joe Sim, chapter 8 in a book called "Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm seriously edited by Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs and Gordon (Pluto press, 2004) outlines the facts of state & police protection of the police and so on, it explains how and why it does it too.
 
You CAN libel someone who is identifiable and / or known to one or more people. And I am. So go fuck yourself, twat.

surely to libel someone the libeler must know who they are talking about? and knowing someone's internet moniker doesn't amount to knowing who they are irl?
 
surely to libel someone the libeler must know who they are talking about? and knowing someone's internet moniker doesn't amount to knowing who they are irl?
Surely to post about the law, the poster must know what they are talking about? :rolleyes:

You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.

So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.

You see that "unless" bit ... if you go back and look you'll see that my point is that it applies in my case: lots of people know who "detective-boy" is in real-life.

From the U75 guide to libel written specifically for people like you (the clue is in it's title ...)

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
 
lots of people know who I am IRL. You better be nice to me db or I'll sue
But I wouldn't dream of making unsubstantiated allegations about people's professional life, or any other significant aspect of their lives, whether or not I (or anyone else) knew their real identity.

And that is where I differ from the Collective, who somehow seem to think that they have the right to do so ... :rolleyes:
 
Nah, i disagree with points db is making on here but he's quite right about the libel. He pointed it out quite fairly i thought - and it doesn't reflect well on people having a go at him just because they've been shown to be wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom