I asked detective_boy a question on another thread, in response to this post of his:
detective_boy said:
My response was:
sherpa said:
He hasn't responded, which leads me to think Pickman's model has a point.
Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
I asked detective_boy a question on another thread, in response to this post of his:
My response was:
He hasn't responded, which leads me to think Pickman's model has a point.
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
I'm afraid you'll quickly find a repetitive pattern of behaviour with dibble. Reference book quotes followed by rapidly escalating anger followed by abuse. Ad nauseum.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Latest news on Freddy Patel. Not properly qualified to do the PM, apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705
BBC said:
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I wonder if there's any argument to be made that a prosecution should now go ahead?
I mean, the basis of the decision not to prosecute was due to conflicting evidence, and the risk of putting Patel on the stand and him saying one thing... and two other doctors on the stand who say another thing... then that might leave room for "reasonable doubt". But if his potential testimony, in particular his conclusion, can be dismissed as unreliable evidence, then I'm not sure how far the Defence would be able to go in terms of arguing there's a conflict of opinions and therefore reasonable doubt...
Since the decision not to prosecute was based on slim/nil whatever chances of conviction on the basis of a 'conflict' of evidence giving rise to reasonable doubt, if there's no longer a conflict, because that unreliable evidence is ruled inadmissable...
There's a danger any potential conviction would be appealed, of course, but if the main thrust of an appeal is that the unreliable evidence of someone unqualified to give expert evidence wasn't taken into account, or was overruled or ruled inadmissable...
But anyway, I've said for years that the law and justice are two completely different things.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Well, they can't prosecute now even if they wanted to because it's too late...I can't remember where I read that, but 99% sure it was on the BBC website.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
That was relating to an assault charge.
Although it might also be too late for the Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer to revisit the notion of prosecution of manslaughter in the light of new evidence - i.e. since it transpires that Patel doesn't meet the criteria to be an investigative pathologist, then can he be called as an expert witness, and if not, then what's stopping the prosecution?
xes
F.O.A.D
The police will stop the prossecution.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Just bets better and better.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
BBC said:
WTF?
No. It doesn't happen, but if it did it would be unjustifiable.
In and of itself, yes it is. It has no racist origins and no perjorative meaning. It's only link with racism is through "spade" being used as racist abuse for a black person.
In this way it is entirely non-racist in exactly the same way as the phrase "drama queen" is in and of itself entirely non-homophobic.
BUT it could be used in a racist manner by someone intending the racist meaning to be read into it's use and it could be considered offensive for some specific reason by some individual, in which case, having been made aware of that, it would be insensitive (but not necessarily racist) to continue to use it in thier presence or towards them.
As I was not using it in a way which intended to have any racist meaning read into it and as I was (and am) unaware of anyone present considering it to be offensive per se, it's use was entirely non-racist to.
(And, just for the record, "drama queen" was used against me in an entirely deliberate way, intended to have it's homophobic meaning read into it's use AND it was specifically continued even after I had politely pointed out that I considered it offensive and to please avoid using it against me in that way.)
If you want to be politically correct I suggest you actually give some thought to understanding the concepts or people will just point and laugh at you and you will do more damage than good to the fight against racism and prejudice of all sorts.
So why the fuck did you take the advice of your paranoid, fuckwitted solicitor? If you had not acted in any way unlawfully they could look through the fucking footage to their hearts content and they would find fuck all to undermine your credibility as a complainant, would they?
There would be no "delving into other areas of your life" with the exception of checking to see if you had any known history ... which would seem to be a pretty reasonable thing to do for a variety of reasons ...
In and of itself, yes it is. It has no racist origins and no perjorative meaning. It's only link with racism is through "spade" being used as racist abuse for a black person.
.... <whingeing nonsense blah blah blah>
My god DB, that's a lot of blather and obfuscation. But the jist of it was that you were wrong to claim that it was an 'entirely non racist' phrase, isn't it? Trying to deny current connotations of language and associations is a stupid approach, canute-like in its futility and lack of link to reality
Here's a tip: lose the wordy bullshit and learn to apologise with some grace for once. It's bad enough you being a ginormous hypocrite, but have the decency to admit when your language is loose and inaccurate without all this laughable blather. Nobody is misrepresenting you - you are writing oversimplified bollocks that cannot be supported in actuality
And fuck off with the tiresome rolleyes for a change eh. You could just express yourself better and avoid such daft choices of phrase in the first place.
I hadn't seen the question.
The point is that lots of people in all of those cases (police or otherwise) DIDN'T lose their jobs. And there are loads and loads of other examples too.
Where one or two people were sacked or disciplined that was because they were found to have failed in a way which merited their being sacked or disciplined. That applies to the police as much as to anyone else.
But often no-one is individually culpable to the degree that merits criminal action, sacing or even lesser disciplinary action.
My basic point is simple: Just because someone dies (or there is some other tragic outcome) does NOT mean that anyone is individually "to blame". To demand otherwise, like the fucking tabloids encourage people to do, simply demonstrates your inability to understand that real world does not work like that. It also distracts attention from the organisational failings which frequently have happened and it prevents a sensible review of the facts which might actually prevent furture tragedies occuring.
To call for someones blood, regardless of any actual individual culpability - which, when all is said and done, is what you are doing - makes you no difference from the tossers marching around threatening to burn out paedophiles ...
Corrected for you ...
None whatsoever.
Go back and read the numerous long posts I have made on the subject to understand why.
Only there is individual culpability here, given that someone's on camera pushing a man from behind in a totally unnecessary fashion.
As for the rest of the post - it's another one of those laughable comparisons and logical fallacies that you seem to specialise in. It's remarkable that you think that's a reasonable way of debating. See also your unbelievable claim that people being prejudiced against people based on their profession and their past experiences (ie police) is comparable to people hating black youth. You've played the paedo and race card in your haste to excuse the police here. What next? Is having valid concerns about the police and wanting justice the same as hating the Baby Jeesus os something?
You're a hysterical prannet who needs to take more care with his language and logic
<Insert appropriate load of cunts, frothing language and rolleyes here>
That only applied to the Common Assault charge the CPS considered. There is a six month limitation period on all summary only offences (which Common Assault is). There is NO limitation period at all on more serious charges (including ABH which, in law, is made out by the "pattern bruising" clearly associated with the baton strike ... but which by the CPS Charging Standards (i.e. their policy) they would normally charge as Common Assault, not ABH.)
I have explained all this at length. Why do people not read what I take the time to post so that they can try and understand what is happening and why? That is why I bother to post it - so people can be informed in areas in which they are not.
So why the fuck did you take the advice of your paranoid, fuckwitted solicitor? If you had not acted in any way unlawfully they could look through the fucking footage to their hearts content and they would find fuck all to undermine your credibility as a complainant, would they?
Because, strangely, in my world, punching someone in the head constitutes as assault. On this occasion, as the perpetrator was a police officer, I didn't feel confident about approaching the police to make a complaint, as I didn't believe it would be dealt with appropriately, ergo, I sought advice from a solicitor who regularly deals with this kind of situation, and who, coincidentally, is neither paranoid or fuckwitted.
They felt that I should be made fully aware of the potential consequences of making a formal complaint against a police officer about an assault that happened during a demonstration, so that I could make an informed choice about whether I proceed or not. It's really not that difficult.
I haven't shared what my subsequent decision was, or the basis on which I made it, so you are without the full facts.
So, once again, shove your patronising, insulting tone, and your rolleyes up your arse, pal.
For manslaughter: insufficient evidence to prove causation (i.e. that the unlawful force used directly caused death).
For GBH / ABH on the basis of any internal bleeding injury: insufficient evidence to prove causation (i.e. that the unlawful force used directly caused that injury)
For ABH on the basis of the bruising caused by the baton strike: a policy decision (albeit one entirely consistent with their decisions in other cases) that the injury caused (bruising) whilst ABH in law should be prosecuted as Comon Assault
For common assault on the basis of the bruising caused by the baton strike and / or any of the other minor injuries found and / or the video evidence of the push: limitation period of six months for summary only offences
There is unsufficient evidence of causation because (a) there are alternative potential causes of death present (liver disease / heart disease) which cannot be excluded as being at least contributory factors and, more importantly, (b) there is no clear evidence of internal bleeding being the cause of death - neither of the later two pathologists who mentioned it saw any visible evidence of a ruptured blood vessel or any other injury that would have bled significantly (and nor did Patel) and the only basis for their conclusion is Patel's note that he found "intrabdominal fluid blood about 3l" in the abdomen when he conducted the PM. They took this to be 3l of blood (which would certainly be consistent with internal bleeding being the cause of death even if an actual rupture, etc. could not be seen) but Patel has explained he meant "...fluid with blood ..." and that the amount of blood was low (i.e. it was mostly fluid). Smaller amounts of blood would not be consistent with internal bleeding as a cause of death, especially in the absence of an actual rupture, etc. No-one else qualified to provide an opinion on the amount of blood in the 3l actually saw it at the time of the original PM (so far as is known) and Patel did not keep a sample so it cannot be ascertained by tests.
The fact that Patel is incompetent cannot be used to simply invent some evidence that may or may not have been there. He is the ONLY person able to give evidence of what he found on conducting the PM. His incompetence does not rule his evidence inadmissible. And even if it did there would now not even be evidence that there was "intrabdominal fluid blood, about 3l" in the abdomen, would there?
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying on this fucking thread from the outset.
No. The jist of it is is that only politically correct halfwits who do not know what the fuck they are talking about and who do more damage to understanding of racis and other prejudice put together a list of "banned" words which includes things like "spade", "manhole" and "blackboard".
I do not subscribe to that fuckwitted approach. You can if you like.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
what you've missed here is that patel's examination, as he was the only pathologist who got to examine the body in a 'proper' condition, is the utterly crucial ones, and the evidence of the other two cannot help but be based on his examination.
Yes there is, in part. There is a genuine evidential reason why there is no individual culpability for the death. But there is individual culpability for assault (ABH / Common Assault). I have repeatedly posted that (a) it was a fuck up by the CPS not to charge Common Assault within the limitation period and they should be held to account for that (I have seen no detailed explanation why they did not, other than "other enquiries were continuing" in which case they should explain to what extent it was considered and who took the decision not to charge (they could have charged and then asked for the case to be adjourned pending other enquiries, or even dealt with that and then come back with more serious charges later if the evidence was found) and that (b) in law they could charge ABH on the basis of the baton strike bruising, even though it would be against their Charging Standards policy and that in the circumstances they should do so, even though the defence will throw a load of shit at them for doing so and the Court may kick the case out as an abuse of process.
And my point is, some people did lose their jobs. Some were disciplined, some were dismissed.
detective_boy said:
It doesn't seem like it.
detective_boy said:
I understand that. However, my point was about their contribution to the collective failing of the organisation/s directly involved in a given situation, which is what I wrote in my original post. Sharon Shoesmith (personal opinons of her aside) was not directly responsible for the death of baby Peter, however, she was responsible for managing the department, and the staff in that department, who failed to protect him. she was dismissed; Cressida Dick got promoted.
detective_boy said:
No it doesn't. People say lessons are learned, but they're not.
detective-boy said:
I'm not calling for blood you hysterical lunatic, I'm calling for people to be held accountable for their role in the failings of an organisation, whilst carrying out its duty, which result in the death of an innocent person.
As for the last part of your post, it's the paedophile equivalent of Godwin's law.
I didn't say anything approaching that though, did I? And you've the cheek to go on about misrepresentation. The fact remains that a phrase that has obvious racial connotations and associations cannot be blithely passed off as 'entirely non racist'. Particularly when you're getting on your high horse about the use of 'drama queen' like the world's most myopic hypocrite
Now you can shout, refuse to accept the blinking obvious and swear to your heart's content, but it won't change that reality. No matter how much you try and deflect and go off onto some halfhearted, second hand routine about political correctness gone mad.
You're a sad joke, unable to ever admit when you're in the wrong. Nobody buys this constant bullshit that everyone is always misrepresenting you - it's closer to suggest that you're a buffoon who writes poorly, fails to admit mistakes and an unpleasant pillock who rounds on anyone who dares challenge his revisionist take on things. The constant is you and your loose language - it's amazing that you blame everyone else for your failings so often. One day the penny may drop, but I'm not holding my breath with your lack of self knowledge
Thank fuck someone has read (and understood) previous explanations ... I was beginning to think I'd imagined them ...
