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

[detective-boy]

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.

I would certainly agree that where there has been serious organisational failing, and especially where there is no clear individual culpability by any member of that organisation, the head should resign / be sacked - they take the big pay cheque, the buck stops with them unless it can be clearly delivered elsewhere. (I wouldn't agree that it should have been Cressida Dick who went though - the organisatonal issues were not hers and if you actually read the detailed sequence of events she was in a no-win situation because of deployment decisions taken by others. Ian Blair was the one who should have resigned - it was the whole organisation that failed and several of those failings can be traced to strategies overseen by him.

People say lessons are learned, but they're not.

Not often enough they aren't ... partially because of this constant distraction in looking for scapegoats - we need to investigate organisational failings in cases like this in the same way that we investigate air accidents (i.e. to ensure that no more planes fall out of the sky by finding what happened and why as quickly as possible ... even if that means the accounts of those involved cannot, by law, be used as evidence against them ...)

 

[detective-boy]

The fact remains that a phrase that has obvious racial connotations and associations cannot be blithely passed off as 'entirely non racist'.

You say that it has "obvious racial connotations". I have explained that I do not believe that it does and why.

Perhaps you would care to explain the basis for your statement.

 

[tarannau]

You say that it has "obvious racial connotations". I have explained that I do not believe that it does and why.

Perhaps you would care to explain the basis for your statement.

Come to Brixton and shout 'A Spade's a spade' in my local with no further context. The reaction will be all the proof you need.

One day fuckstick, you'll have the grace to admit a mistake. Until then you can try to deny the flaming obvious and claim others are misrepresenting you until you're blue in the face. It's pathetic, frankly

 

[sherpa]

Ian Blair was the one who should have resigned - it was the whole organisation that failed and several of those failings can be traced to strategies overseen by him.

Yet he didn't, which is the point I was making previously about what's good for other public servants, doesn't seem to be good for police officers. Quite the opposite in fact, given he's now a Lord. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

It would really help if you read what people write, applied less concrete thinking, and more critical thinking to your responses, instead of disappearing up your own arse in a fit of pique.

 

[detective-boy]

Come to Brixton and shout 'A Spade's a spade' in my local with no further context. The reaction will be all the proof you need.

If I did that, the context in which I was using the phrase would be clearly racist, wouldn't it ...

Do they not sell spades at the local garden centre ...

 

[detective-boy]

Yet he didn't, which is the point I was making previously about what's good for other public servants, doesn't seem to be good for police officers. Quite the opposite in fact, given he's now a Lord. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

Now it is plain that you (unlike many / most other posters) are talking about taking senior executive responsibility regardless of whether there is any personal involvement with the case, yes ... which is why, er, I've agreed with it ...

 

[tarannau]

If I did that, the context in which I was using the phrase would be clearly racist, wouldn't it ...

Do they not sell spades at the local garden centre ...

Why would it? Where's the logic in that? You could simply be using the phrase in it's original 'entirely non-racist' meaning - your words of course.

Isn't that what you argued, or are you rewriting history again to suit? Do you see what I mean about you and your double standards?

 

[sherpa]

Now it is plain that you (unlike many / most other posters) are talking about taking senior executive responsibility regardless of whether there is any personal involvement with the case, yes ... which is why, er, I've agreed with it ...

Oh, I don't think it should just be senior executives who are publicly held to account. If there is an individual case to answer, whether that be a disciplinary issue, or a criminal prosecution issue, then I think individuals should also be publicly held to account too, regardless of their role within the organisation.

It just seems very odd that the police, collectively, and individually, are rarely held to account for very much at all.

How lucky is that?

 

[detective-boy]

Why would it? Where's the logic in that? You could simply be using the phrase in it's original 'entirely non-racist' meaning - your words of course.

Because, on the basis of the circumstances YOU described:

(a) I would have deliberately gone to Brixton (high proportion of black people) to do it (as opposed to going to the Isle of Skye - not all that many black people) which would be strong circumstantial evidence of my intention to cause offence / my belief that it wouldcause offence and

(b) I would have shouted it for no apparent reason in a public house ... providing clear evidence that I was NOT using it in an entirely innocent and "normal" way.

Admit it ... you have dug yourself a hole (with an "earth-moving implement", natch ... ) with you efforts to be more right-on than a right-on thing. And doing that just brings the whole subject into disrepute with "normal" people who are capable of applying common sense and distinguishing situations from each other ...

 

[tarannau]

What a verbose load of obfuscatory and unconvincing pish. I've just asked you to my home pub to say something out loud - the rest is context you've decided to add on. There's nothing unusual about people making loud verbal outbursts or saying common phrases loudly in a bustling public house, is there?

Either the phrase is 'entirely non racist' - in which it should cause no offence, or it carries the racist connotations and associations I underlined before. Which is it?

FWIW I'd argue that it's contextual too, but then it's not 'entirely' anything, is it? You just can't bring yourself to backtrack or admit any mistake, can you? Instead we've this sad spectacle of you writing ever longer posts that hold little logic, consistency or common sense. You could just admit that you were wrong to use that turn of phrase all along - it clearly can and does hold racist connotations.

 

[detective-boy]

It just seems very odd that the police, collectively, and individually, are rarely held to account for very much at all.

They are held to account regularly ... what people (and it appears you) confuse with being held to account is being convicted / punished. That is NOT the same thing.

How lucky is that?

Lots of police cases arise from situations in which (a) there are perfectly obvious and lawful grounds for using some force and / or (b) there is a lot of (absolutely inevitable) confusion and "fog of war" and / or (c) there are absolutely unavoidable huge holes in the information that is known and / or (d) there is a need to take action in a situation which is extremely difficult, with little or no time available to gather further information.

In those types of situation the criminal law is reluctant to find criminal culpability - the law recognises that people (police officers or otherwise) can only act on what they know and that they are entitled to be judged on the basis of what they honestly believed to be the case at the timne they acted and NOT on the basis of what is now known to be the case with the benefit of hindisght.

Similarly, disciplinary proceedings take the same approach and I would certainly argue against anyone suggesting that is not right and proper - who would be a police officer (or take on any other difficult role) if they were to be arbitrarily judged on the basis of what is known with hindsight - people would quite rightly tell those suggesting such a system to stuff it up their fucking arses and do they job themselves if they're so fucking smart (something which neatly paraphrases a lot of my posts here ...).

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why we do not see large numbers of police officers (or other professionals for that matter) being convicted of criminal offences / dismissed for individual gross misconduct is because they are almost always doing their best, to do their job, in very trying and difficult circumstances they have neither committed any criminal offence or committed any act of gross misconduct ...

If we had a perfect world, in which police officers NEVER did anything wrong ... we'd have no police officers ever convicted of anything ... and yet there would be absolutely no logic in arguing that the absence of convictions was a bad thing and somehow indicative of some sort of failing (before the fuckwits start, I am NOT arguing we live in a perfect world where no police officers do anything wrong, I am simply using the extreme case to illustrate the failure in logic which sometimes gets applied to this debate).

 

[detective-boy]

Which is it?

As I have said from the start, it holds no racist or prejorative connotations in and of itself.

I would have absolutely no hesitation in using it in any pub I randomly happened to be in during the course of a discussion with someone else I was having a conversation with where I was wishing to convey the idea of bluntness.

YOU are the one asserting it does have some racist connotations per se ... and yet you have failed entirely to explain why. SO, instead of slagging me off, why not actually explain YOUR argument.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I call them shovels, or black people. Depending on the context, like.

 

[tarannau]

As I have said from the start, it holds no racist or prejorative connotations in and of itself.

I would have absolutely no hesitation in using it in any pub I randomly happened to be in during the course of a discussion with someone else I was having a conversation with where I was wishing to convey the idea of bluntness.

YOU are the one asserting it does have some racist connotations per se ... and yet you have failed entirely to explain why. SO, instead of slagging me off, why not actually explain YOUR argument.

You see DB, I'm merely holding you to the choice of words that you have selected. For someone who's so keen to allege misrepresentation, you're also quick to use mealy-mouthed, unconvincing and revisionist takes on the past.

Frankly there was no need for you to say 'entirely' (non racist) in the first place, but what's so striking is that you're still fighting this stupid, losing battle. Simply because you cannot bear to admit that you made a mistake or chose unwisely in the first place.

I shouldn't have to explain to you, slowly and as if to a particularly dumb child in denial, that the word spade can be offensive and used in a racist context. As can a phrase containing spade, unsurprisingly

Equally I haven't asked about the virtues of context, nor to provide a wordy explanation of when you thought something acceptable to use. I've simply said that it was wrong to use 'entirely' all along.

Would you concede that, by the same logic, 'drama queen' would be an entirely non-homophobic phrase? If it's 'entirely' free of any homophobic meanings and associations, why can't folks use it around you? It's entirely free of anything that could be affected by context then, isn't it?

 

[free spirit]

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?

joint enterprise... conspiracy... simply being in the vicinity of something kicking off on several bits of footage through the day could easily be enough to at least get the police a search warrant, potentially resulting in your PC, mobile phone etc being confiscated for 'evidence' for months or longer if someone decided they wanted to make life difficult for you.

Even if they ended up not being able to find enough to actually prosecute you for something they can still turn your life upside down if they choose to.

I've been threatened with arrest for conspiracy to cause a riot (or something like that) while on entirely the other side of the police lines to the rest of the protesters, and doing nothing more than standing out of the way talking on my phone to people on the other side trying to get them to de-escalate the situation, so the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line really doesn't wash IMO.

 

[detective-boy]

I shouldn't have to explain to you, slowly and as if to a particularly dumb child in denial, that the word spade can be offensive and used in a racist context. As can a phrase containing spade, unsurprisingly

Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?

It CAN be offensive and it CAN be used in a fucking racist context. Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged. What it ISN'T (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative per se.

Would you concede that, by the same logic, 'drama queen' would be an entirely non-homophobic phrase?

You mean by saying something like:

I did not say that "drama queen" is homophobic per se.

(Post 607, 25 July)

or

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.

(Post 1243, 19 August)



* Gives up trying to educate the dull cunt *

 

[detective-boy]

Just been a programme on Radio 4 about this (the Tomlinson case decision, not tarannau's fuckwittery ...). The analysis, provided by QCs and Professor's of Pathology amongst others is ... er ... pretty much identical with the analysis I have provided on here from the moment the CPS decision was released.

* Awaits torrent of apologies for the shed loads of bollocks posted telling me I'm talking shit ... *

 

[free spirit]

so they and you are saying essentially that legally speaking the CPS were correct in their decision?

I don't really think that's actually been the main complaint on here, I think most of us were well aware that legally speaking the CPS were likely to have made the correct decision. Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.

Legally correct or not, the fact remains that this officer assaulted this person twice for no reason, and the person collapsed in the order of 2 minutes later and then promptly died, and yet the officer in question is not being charged with committing any crime and will instead face an internal disciplinary hearing. This is what we're complaining about in essence, and no amount of 'well by the letter of the law the decision was correct' type bollocks changes the simple facts of the matter that this police man is getting away with 2 unprovoked and unjustified assaults that resulted in someone's death.

The suspicion will also always be there that this ending up in a situation where no charges could be brought is no accident, particularly given the initial police response to it, and the use of an obviously incompetent pathologist who managed to fuck up the autopsy so badly that no subsequent pathologist could possibly proof how he actually died, plus the delay in taking the charging decision which meant that the lesser charge was no longer available.

This entire investigation and charging decision making process has either been a monumental balls up from start to finish, or was deliberately conducted in this manner, either way the public, and particularly Tomlinsons family have every right to be fucking furious about it, and to expect heads to roll over it.

But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being technically, legally correct... would you like a gold star to go with that smug expression as well?

 

[two sheds]

My reaction when they said 'no realistic prospect ...' was 'well that's up to a jury to decide' and i still feel that. Otherwise, police are going to feel free in the future to gratuitously truncheon people in the kidneys whenever they feel like it. We need to send a message to these thugs.

 

[sus]

Just been a programme on Radio 4 about this (the Tomlinson case decision, not tarannau's fuckwittery ...). The analysis, provided by QCs and Professor's of Pathology amongst others is ... er ... pretty much identical with the analysis I have provided on here from the moment the CPS decision was released.

* Awaits torrent of apologies for the shed loads of bollocks posted telling me I'm talking shit ... *

The analysis was "pretty much identical" to yours? I don't recall you ever asking the question "cock up or cover up?", which was what the participants in Radio 4 programme seemed to find themselves asking. I must have missed the part where you even considered the question of whether this could have been a cover up.

 

[sherpa]

so they and you are saying essentially that legally speaking the CPS were correct in their decision?

I don't really think that's actually been the main complaint on here, I think most of us were well aware that legally speaking the CPS were likely to have made the correct decision. Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.

Legally correct or not, the fact remains that this officer assaulted this person twice for no reason, and the person collapsed in the order of 2 minutes later and then promptly died, and yet the officer in question is not being charged with committing any crime and will instead face an internal disciplinary hearing. This is what we're complaining about in essence, and no amount of 'well by the letter of the law the decision was correct' type bollocks changes the simple facts of the matter that this police man is getting away with 2 unprovoked and unjustified assaults that resulted in someone's death.

The suspicion will also always be there that this ending up in a situation where no charges could be brought is no accident, particularly given the initial police response to it, and the use of an obviously incompetent pathologist who managed to fuck up the autopsy so badly that no subsequent pathologist could possibly proof how he actually died, plus the delay in taking the charging decision which meant that the lesser charge was no longer available.

This entire investigation and charging decision making process has either been a monumental balls up from start to finish, or was deliberately conducted in this manner, either way the public, and particularly Tomlinsons family have every right to be fucking furious about it, and to expect heads to roll over it.

But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being technically, legally correct... would you like a gold star to go with that smug expression as well?

You have summarised, and expressed, my thoughts on the matter, better than I have been able to do. The technical detail of the law is one thing, however, the process that leads to justice being seen to be done, is quite another.

Is it any wonder that [some] people have a healthy mistrust of the police, and the system?

Oh, and anyone who actively seeks apologies from others, is usually a bit of a tool, in my experience.

 

[Citizen66]

No. It doesn't happen, but if it did it would be unjustifiable.

I wasn't speaking literally. I trust you understand the difference between a tongue-in-cheek comment and an accusation?

You stated that if they searched footage for anything untoward from a complainant it was because they were "playing with the big boys." I was parodying that.

 

[sherpa]

I wasn't speaking literally. I trust you understand the difference between a tongue-in-cheek comment and an accusation?

You stated that if they searched footage for anything untoward from a complainant it was because they were "playing with the big boys." I was parodying that.

I think that might be a bit too conceptual for detective_boy. If it's not literal or written in law, he doesn't get it.

He's a concrete thinker.

 

[tarannau]

Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?

It CAN be offensive and it CAN be used in a fucking racist context. Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged. What it ISN'T (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative per se...

* Gives up trying to educate the dull cunt *

And he's off again with the CAPITALS and swearing as if that makes up for a point and for mistaking apples for oranges. Despite the constant misrepresentation, I have never argued that you can divorce a word from context or that something must be taken a certain way. It's you, in your blunderingly offensive way, that's implied that spade's 'entirely' free of a racist context. As humorous as the image of you as some kind of tinpot Canute is, attempting to draw where the associations and demarcations of language end, I think you're getting very angry over something entirely avoidable.

There's a consistent pattern of behaviour on this thread of you trying to hold everyone to vastly different standards than you practice yourself. And with a whole load of vicious sweary nonsense to all and everyone to boot. Sigh really.

 

[sherpa]

joint enterprise... conspiracy... simply being in the vicinity of something kicking off on several bits of footage through the day could easily be enough to at least get the police a search warrant, potentially resulting in your PC, mobile phone etc being confiscated for 'evidence' for months or longer if someone decided they wanted to make life difficult for you.

Even if they ended up not being able to find enough to actually prosecute you for something they can still turn your life upside down if they choose to.

I missed this post when reading through the thread. This is exactly why the solicitor provided me with the information he did, and why he felt it was important for me to understand the implications of following through on a formal complaint against an officer, in order for me to make an informed decision.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

And he's off again with the CAPITALS and swearing as if that makes up for a point and for mistaking apples for oranges. Despite the constant misrepresentation, I have never argued that you can divorce a word from context or that something must be taken a certain way. It's you, in your blunderingly offensive way, that's implied that spade's 'entirely' free of a racist context. As humorous as the image of you as some kind of tinpot Canute is, attempting to draw where the associations and demarcations of language end, I think you're getting very angry over something entirely avoidable.

There's a consistent pattern of behaviour on this thread of you trying to hold everyone to vastly different standards than you practice yourself. And with a whole load of vicious sweary nonsense to all and everyone to boot. Sigh really.

word

 

[DexterTCN]

Every time dibble calls someone a cunt it makes me smile.

An utter inability to deal with reasoned discussion without resorting to derogatory, dismissive abuse accentuates the gulf between he and I (and most likely some others here).

I think I can fairly allege that he didn't just start to be abusive when he started posting on urban - this is ingrained, institutional behaviour. I've not seen anything to make me reconsider.

A shining example of that which he represents.

Oh - the posts by free spirit and tarannau have been consistently excellent.

 

[Pickman's model]

Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?

It CAN be offensive and it CAN be used in a fucking racist context. Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged. What it ISN'T (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative per se.


You mean by saying something like:

(Post 607, 25 July)

or

(Post 1243, 19 August)



* Gives up trying to educate the dull cunt *

you're making a crisis out of a drama. is there any way you can respond to criticism without descending to the sweary basement? you've yet to show it if you can.

 

[detective-boy]

Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.

Are you arguing that the usual rules should not apply to police officers as defendants? Or that the CPS should remove their evidential test for everyone and revert to the legal test of prima facie case?

And do you really think that it would be a good use of public money to start a trial, have all the prosecution evidence, just for the defence to make a submission of no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case and have the judge direct an acquittal (which they would inevitably have to do as a matter of law on a charge of manslaughter (and, if they didn;t, any conviction would inevitably be overturned on appeal))?

... unprovoked and unjustified assaults that resulted in someone's death.

You just don't get it, do you? The whole point is that it is not possible to say that the assaults "resulted" in the death. We do not know that. We cannot say that.

This entire investigation and charging decision making process has either been a monumental balls up from start to finish, or was deliberately conducted in this manner, either way the public, and particularly Tomlinsons family have every right to be fucking furious about it, and to expect heads to roll over it.

There are definitely issues which the CPS, the Coroner and the pathologist need to answer as a result of this investigation. The IPCC and the City of London police (who, it appears from last nights programme, did approve Patel as the pathologist) also have some questions to answer about the decisions around the initial investigation.

More importantly, there seems to be no reason why an ABH charge cannot, in law, be preferred based on the baton bruising injury for which there is no causation problem at all (quite the contrary!). The CPS have not done so based on their Charging Standards policy ad policy (unlike law) is there to be ignored in exceptional or difficult cases! In this case it is clear that the public interest demands that it is.

None of this, however, is a reason to abandon the rules of law just so that you can see a cop strung up for manslaughter.

 

[detective-boy]

I don't recall you ever asking the question "cock up or cover up?", which was what the participants in Radio 4 programme seemed to find themselves asking. I must have missed the part where you even considered the question of whether this could have been a cover up.

Which "participants" (plural) was that? The only mention I heard was by the reported pushing it as a question to the interviewee from Justice ... and even they swerved it by saying something wishy-washy like "Well I can see why the public might think about why this has happened". One response to one specific question by one interviewee right at the very end is hardly part of the "analysis", is it?