Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"
- Thread starter solidyeoman
- Start date
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
xes
F.O.A.D
It'd be nice if this thread could be kept on topic. DB had some good posts in the other thread. He stated what was law, I and many others took that to be his own view. (may or may not have been, IIRC he didn't really go into his own view very much) And as an adviser on things law related he did a good job. (handling of peoples opinions was a differnt thing) But law and the right thing to do in the case, are about as far from eachother as they could be.
It's of no supprise that noone will be held responsible for Ian Tomlinsons death. The police slowed the process, and made damn sure that it would be impossible to get a conviction from the evidence. Even though the evidence was there in plain day for all to see.
It's of no supprise that noone will be held responsible for Ian Tomlinsons death. The police slowed the process, and made damn sure that it would be impossible to get a conviction from the evidence. Even though the evidence was there in plain day for all to see.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
that's fair enough, mate, and thanx for reopening it. I do appreciate it must be a right pain for you mods.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Actually, I'd be more inclined to blame a) those eejits at the CPS b) Dr Patel and above all c)whichever utter moron was responsible for Dr Patel getting to do the original post mortem. IMO the culprit for c) should be dismissed, on the grounds that that is too big a f-up to go unactioned-on
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Seconded.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
The selection of Patel was deliberate, and done in the knowledge that he was facing a growing scandal over his incompetence (at best) and his collusion with police to get them a result (at worst). Once he did the first post mortem, the killer cop and the heirachy could rest easy. Even if Patel had found a "police issued dagger" stuck in Mr Tomlinson's back, Patel giving evidence would never be credible enough to secure a conviction.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
oh sod off you misery-driven inbred yokel!
Crispy's done us a favour here; he could have simply binned the whole thread such a carcrash had it become. a little appreciation is somewhat called for.
Onket
Je suis [CONTENT REMOVED]
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
peace, he's a mate, and a slightly stroppy one
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
if so than that is - surely - a scandal. I think it's the courts (MoJ) and not the police in charge of PMs (and who do them), tho'.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
I did try ... but when I went for the spade the right-on police arrived and arrested me.
I've got bail now so I'm going to try the hoe ...
... Bugger!
.
.
.
No. It isn't. The Coroner selects the pathologist. The police / IPCC in a crime / police misconduct case can / should request a "Home Office Pathologist" (one on the currently approved list for homicide, etc. PMs) and a "special" post-mortem.
As I have posted repeatedly, we have little detail about exactly what went on at that stage. It seems that the IPCC had some involvement and, hence, there must have been some knowledge / suspicion that police misconduct could have been involved or, at least, the death had occured in what could be described as "in / following police contact". It also seems that the City of London Police were involved ... but, then again, they would be routinely involved in any sudden death in the street and, without further information, it is not possible to read much into that. It also seems (from my experience of what a "special" post-mortem looks like, that this was most definitely not a "special" post-mortem so there is a clear need to understand more of who knew what and when and when, and why and by whom, the relevant decisions to appoint Patel / decide not to have a "special" PM (if that was in fact the case) were made.
In short, the Coroner is in charge of PMs. The police / IPCC have influence over how they are arranged but the Coroner has the final say. The other Courts / MoJ have no direct role.
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
or we could just agree that the cops got away with killing someone on camera and got off.
by using a dodgy pathologist, whose dodgy report is purported to have some legal bearing over any subsequent legal action.
and which took so much time to decide that by the time they'd made their mind up, the possibility of making other charges had disappeared.
and they call this justice.......
by using a dodgy pathologist, whose dodgy report is purported to have some legal bearing over any subsequent legal action.
and which took so much time to decide that by the time they'd made their mind up, the possibility of making other charges had disappeared.
and they call this justice.......
No. But we could agree that the cops got away with assaulting someone on camera and got off.
And, if you could actually bother to read the detail of what I'd posted, we could agree that (a) the failure to lay other, summary-only charges within the limitation period has not been properly explained by the CPS (my guess is that theye di NOT deliberately consider it at the six-month stage but that they forgot about that aspect until they later found out they had nothing else and went "Oh fuck ..." when the subject of common assault came up ... and (b) there is no reason in law why an ABH charge could not / should not be laid * and, personally, I would be pushing for a judicial review of the CPS decision not to do so because it has not be properly explained by the CPS and it is entirely based on their policy (i.e. Charging Standards).
* : Their report explains why an ABH charge based on the internal bleeding injury could not be pursued (for the same causation reasons as manslaughter could not - it is the same injury being considered) ... but it was silent on whether they considered an ABH charge based on the baton bruising ... which they only mentioned as a potential common assault charge ... which was outside the limitation period. In subsequent reports it appears they have confirmed that they applied their Charging Standards. They could, in the circumstances, have ignored their policy. In view of the fact that if they did not the officer, who they clearly stated they believed had used unlawful force, would avoid any criminal charge I believe they should have ignored their policy and taken whatever shit the defence threw at them.
Instead of "lol"ing you could remove your continuation of what the mods had requested to stop as I did when I became aware of their request ...
