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

[Citizen66]

It certainly put me in my plaice.

 

[cesare]

acrab

 

[Refused as fuck]

I expect the top bass to resign over this scandal.

 

[Pickman's model]

I expect the top bass to resign over this scandal.

a squid says they won't

 

[Refused as fuck]

You're always singing the same tuna, Pickman's.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're always singing the same tuna, Pickman's.

you think cops have a sole?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

it was a well fishy verdict tbf

 

[xes]

The peoples fish

(it's a copper beta)

 

[detective-boy]

"The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence on how those injuries were caused from the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2004. <snip irrelevant cut and paste>

Yes. I know. Thet concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence at that time. They have now concluded that there is and, as I said, this demonstrates that when there is sufficient evidence the IPCC / CPS pursue charges ... something that is constantly denied.

The CPS have decided to pursue this prosecution. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest. But, hey, no-one would expect anything else from you ...

 

[detective-boy]

I would have thought that only cases where action was taken and it was proved that a police officer had done wrong, would count to a figure like that.

Not for the first time you would have though wrong ...

There are statistics of complaints made which are maintained at force / unit level and which are used as the baseline against which the percentages substantiated / resulting in action being taken are measured. Simply making complaints adds to that baseline figure and helps to highlight any concerns over the numbers not resulting in action taken.

Complaints made, but not substantiated, are also noted (formally or informally) by line managers and allow them to identify officers with particular issues which need to be addressed or proactively investigated (e.g. by the use of some sort of integrity test or by specific attention being paid to their activities). If you don't make those complaints, the pattern does not emerge and line managers don't have the information on which they can act.

It is exactly the same as the fuckwitted argument that it is pointless reporting street robberies, or minor yobbism, because "nothing is ever done" - it may well be the case that nothing can be done retrospectively, or to do something retrospectively is disproportionately expensive, but as a pattern emerges proactive operations can be (and are) mounted to catch the offenders in the act next time ...

You can deny it as much as you like, but if you fail to report police misconduct that you are the victim of or which you directly witness then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 

[detective-boy]

I didn't witness any of that, yet when I said I hadn't complained about it you steamed in with your gratuitous fuckings and shits and rolleyes:

From your post I concluded that you did.

If you did not directly witness it then I apologise for suggesting that you should have reported it. I was referring to matters directly experienced or witnessed, not things observed at arms length through the media or third party reports.

 

[detective-boy]

Interesting how much venom a simple criticism of the police force generates in you.

Interesting the extent to which you can misrepresent my position seeing as I, er, am arguing that people SHOULD report misconduct and that it SHOULD be robustly investigated, retrospectively if that is viable and proportionate and proactively and by the monitoring of patterns over time if not.

 

[winjer]

Thet concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence at that time. They have now concluded that there is and, as I said, this demonstrates that when there is sufficient evidence the IPCC / CPS pursue charges ... something that is constantly denied.

That's nonsense, the conclusion of the complaints process was no charges.

To imply otherwise is simply dishonest. But, hey, no-one would expect anything else from you ...

Excuse me?

 

[detective-boy]

That's nonsense, the conclusion of the complaints process was no charges.

So who the fuck is prosecuting now if it isn't the fucking CPS?

 

[winjer]

That's a non-sequitur. The complaints process led to no charges. The civil case and prospect of judicial review led to charges. As you well know.

 

[detective-boy]

That's a non-sequitur. The complaints process led to no charges. The civil case and prospect of judicial review led to charges. As you well know.

My only point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge. Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not.

When they were presented with sufficient evidence they have pursued charges. Fact.

 

[Pickman's model]

My only point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge. Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not.

When they were presented with sufficient evidence they have pursued charges. Fact.

what about that dead bloke on a train in stockwell? evidence there, i would have thought, of some sort of assault. but what happened?

 

[DexterTCN]

I, er, am arguing that ...

My only point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge. Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not..

Nonsense. You've proved nothing apart from the boringly repeated assertions that your arguments are always correct and everyone of a different opinion is wrong.

Quoting the law does not make you the law dibble.

 

[two sheds]

No, there's a certain logical attraction to that one: if the CPS didn't bring a case it shows they didn't have enough information; if they brought a case it shows they did. Not something you can dispute really.

 

[DexterTCN]

The CPS didn't bring a case so as to let the statue of limitations run out on the lesser charges.

 

[detective-boy]

No, there's a certain logical attraction to that one

That's the problem with these fucking idiots ... logic escapes them. They prove it time and time and time again and their inability to apply it is frequently why they end up falling out with me.

 

[two sheds]

No, you've missed my point i'm afraid, it's got the 'have you stopped beating your wife' type of logical attractiveness. If the CPS doesn't bring a case you can always say it didn't have enough information. They could have forty witnesses and a dog that saw them do it and it still wouldn't be enough information.

 

[sherpa]

if you fail to report police misconduct that you are the victim of or which you directly witness then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

So, if I'm advised by a very experienced solicitor, that complaining about being punched in the head, by a police officer, during a demo, will likely result in them trawling all the video footage collected by the FIT team present that day, to see if there is anything they can charge me with, then, quite possibly targeting me in future, in any area of my life, makes me part of the problem?

LOL

 

[two sheds]

So, if I'm advised by a very experienced solicitor, that complaining about being punched in the head, by a police officer, during a demo, will likely result in them trawling all the video footage collected by the FIT team present that day, to see if there is anything they can charge me with, then, quite possibly targeting me in future, in any area of my life, makes me part of the problem?

LOL

Indeed, however where I *would* agree with db is when someone in the police witnesses a colleague (for example) beating someone up or lying in a statement. Then i'd agree totally that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if they don't testify against the perpetrator, but how often does that happen?

Eta although i suppose they're then hit by the same things sherpa says here

 

[Pickman's model]

That's the problem with these fucking idiots ... logic escapes them. They prove it time and time and time again and their inability to apply it is frequently why they end up falling out with me.

it's always someone else's fault, isn't it

they fall out with you - but it isn't that, this thread and other threads you've been on are littered with comments from people about your crass ill manners and double standards and foul and abusive language - language which, if it was repeated in front of a serving officer would see you arrested for section 5 of poa on a regular basis.

in all too many cases you deliberately and with malice aforethought insult people who've done nothing to deserve it: you cause the very problems you complain about.

why don't you take a leaf out of agricola's book and at least pretend to have a halfway decent personality?

 

[sherpa]

Indeed, however where I *would* agree with db is when someone in the police witnesses a colleague (for example) beating someone up or lying in a statement. Then i'd agree totally that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if they don't testify against the perpetrator, but how often does that happen?

Not often, I'd wager.

but every time I have seen the stats about how few complaints are substantiated / result in any action used it is as a stick to beat the police with

[/unintended irony] LOL

But you are not entitled to expect that your definition of it as inappropriate will be definitive - there may well be an explanation / defence / circumstances you are not aware of.

I suspect that's a convenient 'get out' which extends to anyone [police officer or otherwise] who witnesses something that could be an uncomfortable truth for the force concerned.

To make sure that the true level of inappropriate police behaviour is recorded. So that the statistics reflect the truth. So that when those statistics are published the public, or the agencies created to act on their behalf, can properly address the apparent issues on an organisational level as well as on the individual level.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are lies, damned lies and d-b posts.

*corrected for you at no extra charge*

 

[sherpa]

*corrected for you at no extra charge*

A proper public service.

 

[Pickman's model]

A proper public service.

 

[two sheds]

but again it has to be said db is great if you have a particular police related problem and need advice on how to approach it.