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

[detective-boy]

They are reasons for those decisions being reached, not reasons why they might be dodgy.

That's because, as usual, you have failed to see what I have posted about the genuine issues that are there. And because you are incapable of distinguishing an explanation of the rationale used by the CPS from a "defence" of their decision. I have not posted anything about whether or not I think they have reached the right decision - I have simply explained the rationale for what they have done and indicated that I understand that rationale.

 

[Belushi]

No one, i mean no one, believes this shit.

This.

 

[gavman]

Absolutely as expected.

The police will never face charges for their behaviour in public order situations - its an unwritten law. I dont think a single case has come to court ever.

I hope the met get sued to fuck by the family - becasue that is about the only way the cunts can be restrained from battering people in the streets.
The other way is to give them another poll tax riot/brixton 81 type lesson.

The only positive thing to come out of this is that the excuses, cover up and corruption of the met and the criminal justice system are there for all to see.

it is becoming more difficult to get away with this kind of shit now; too much footage, too many intelligent people sharing information
the only way to slow things down would be to ban the filming of plod, and for them to remove all identification before going out

oh wait....

 

[ymu]

umm, no 'systemic failure' or 'institutionalised pro-establishmentism', if anything.
corruption would be if the wads of used tenners - or used fifties, if you're a harpenden chap - were seen hanging out of their pockets during the press conferences.

I disagree. Failing to maintain a professional distance is a form of corruption. It's why the oil regulator in the US has been sacked, and why the papers were so interested in the wining and dining stats of UK regulators a few weeks ago. If you're supposed to be independent, you have to be absolutely scrupulous about maintaining that independence.

 

[butchersapron]

it is becoming more difficult to get away with this kind of shit now; too much footage, too many intelligent people sharing information
the only way to slow things down would be to ban the filming of plod, and for them to remove all identification before going out

oh wait....

Oh wait on what point? They just got away with it. Twice.

 

[gavman]

oh wait they've banned the filming of police and began going out without numbers.....that kind of 'oh wait'

 

[butchersapron]

This how autopsies happen is all over the shop isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

oh wait they've banned the filming of police and began going out without numbers.....that kind of 'oh wait'

Well they got away with it with the cameras. with the filming. Get past this myth of the camera - the camera will not save anyone. Organised self-defence will.

 

[e19896]

Ian Tomlinson was killed by Territorial Support Group hardman Simon Harwood, under watchful eyes of experienced Forward Intelligence Team cops from Channel4News: Simon Harwood subject of complaint at Surrey Police after leaving Met Police four road rage.

Paul Lewis Knowing the Ian Tomlinson case inside-out, I really am shocked. Manslaughter was always a tough call, but no charge at all? Not misconduct?

We need now to support the friends and relatives of Ian Tomlinson to bring private prosecution.

The Territorial Support Group (TSG or CO20) is a Central Operations unit of London's Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) consisting of 720 officers, that specialises in public order containment among other specialist policing. The TSG is a uniformed unit of the MPS that replaced the controversial Special Patrol Group in 1987. TSG units patrol the streets of the capital in marked police vans; officers can be identified as TSG from the distinctive 'U' in their shoulder numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group

 

[Spymaster]

Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM everything that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.

And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are entirely in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings.

This is helpful. Cheers.

it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up

I posted that as the news was breaking this afternoon and my only source was a silent BBC ticker. I'm more up to date now.

 

[gavman]

Something that was blatantly obviously going to be a major issue from the outset to any senior investigating officer - the force used did not clearly and logically link with death (like a stab wound or a gunshot wound or even a heavy strike to the skull would) and that was made even more of a likely issue when indications of heart disease and cirrhosis came to light.

what about the 'eggshell skull' principle- you take your victim as you find them?

 

[Spymaster]

Can we get Detective Boy to blow his top and flounce off again?

All he is doing is spewing of fog of legalese ......

You silly fucking cock.

DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order.

He's explaining THE LAW and from his explanations you can draw your own conclusions as to its corruptors.

It's not his fault that you don't like the legal system or those that operate within/without it.

Detective Boy, what's the best chance of getting this arsehole policeman to face some sort of charge, and will he even be kicked of the force?

 

[gavman]

Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM everything that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.

And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are entirely in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings.

so it really does make sense to begin with an incompetent pathologist, for there can be no recovery afterwards. 'how to perform a cover up'

 

[butchersapron]

Thread now a goner.

 

[gavman]

yeh, cos the decision seems to me to give the police carte blanche to push people over as long as it's not obvious they're going to die. given that the pc harwood's actions were not opposed by any of the other officers indicates that they were all quite happy to see this sort of behaviour. if anything comes out of ian tomlinson's death it should be the realisation that if you push people about and something happens to them that there will be repercussions.

this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple

 

[xes]

You silly fucking cock.

DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order.

He's explaining THE LAW and from his explanations you can draw your own conclusions as to its corruptors.

It's not his fault that you don't like the legal system or those that operate within/without it.

Detective Boy, what's the best chance of getting this arsehole policeman to face some sort of charge, and will he even be kicked of the force?

this hasn;t got anythung to do with the law. it's about the police getting away with killing someone yet again. It is about corruption, and the utter blatent way they've gone about it is fucking blood bloiling. It was admitted that it wa assault and it was admitted that it was unlawful. So why no charge at all? Police scum sticking up for one another again. That's what it is. Pretty much everyone appart from you and DB can se it.

 

[Mr Moose]

this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple

Sadly, this is hardly going to apply to Police who can shoot someone seven times in the face, lie about it and face no charge.

 

[Barking_Mad]

You silly fucking cock.

DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order.

He's explaining THE LAW and from his explanations you can draw your own conclusions as to its corruptors.

The thing is Detective Boy is wasting his time, because anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't need or give a shit about what a bunch of stooges at the CPS have to say, because the evidence is as clear as day. Indeed trying to explain the reasoning why he shouldn't face charge just shows up what a load of complete nonsense their statement was.

It's not his fault that you don't like the legal system or those that operate within/without it.

It's impossible to take your frustration out on a faceless system, it's far easier to swipe at someone pointlessly trying to explain how it operates.

 

[gavman]

My sincere condolences to the Tomlinson family for what must be a terrible time.

If this had been a protester who shoved an officer to the ground and that officer proceeded to die, there is little doubt there would have been an attempt to convict. The idea that the protester would walk free of any charges would be unthinkable. That alone is enough to show how far the police are estranged from the public they are supposed to serve and protect.

I'm not sure it's been much different for a long time, but what this case (thanks to the footage) has done has to blow apart the widely held belief for many people who would routinely defend the police, that this sort of thing "just doesn't happen". That's not solved much, indeed it along with the police violence against "fluffies" at demos has simply alienated another section of society. Your average beat cops job just got that little bit harder.

Perhaps there should be some grass roots movement to provide funds to the Tomlinson family so they can fund a private prosecution, because money is the only thing left that can get you justice in this country.

top post

 

[gavman]

A child will tell you what happened is wrong, but it takes an adult to explain it away.

post of the week

 

[detective-boy]

what about the 'eggshell skull' principle- you take your victim as you find them?

Different evidential issue - in such cases there is no problem with causation - the fractured skull or whatever = cause of death and there is usually clear evidence that the force used (the punch or whatever) caused the fracture. The issue in those cases is that the seriousness of the injury caused was entirely unexpected because in the case of a "normal" person with a normal skull there would have been no fracture. As you state the principle is: "Tough, you caused the death, the fact that they were particularly fragile and 99 times out of a 100 you wouldn't have done is irrelevant". But there does still have to be a chain of causation, eggshell skull or not.

 

[e19896]

The thing is Detective Boy is wasting his time, because anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't need or give a shit about what a bunch of stooges at the CPS have to say, because the evidence is as clear as day. Indeed trying to explain the reasoning why he shouldn't face charge just shows up what a load of complete nonsense their statement was.




It's impossible to take your frustration out on a faceless system, it's far easier to swipe at someone pointlessly trying to explain how it operates.

Not a Fan of DB at the best of times but here i have gained some good information this time round, i agree at times it's far easier to swipe at someone, then look at what we as the public can now do to support The Tomlinson family in bringing a private prosecution and neither do i have hope in this having a positive outcome, but we need ask why there is little or no trust in The Police when they can murder at will and check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group what needs to be asked is this kind of policeing we want.

One of the first objections to anarchism you’ll hear will be a question along the lines of who will deal with crime. And it’s a good question. People will frequently criticise the actions of the police, but their role within society rarely meets with more than a cursory and simplistic analysis. But this is understandable, given the effort with which the importance and necessity of the police is forced down our throats every evening on the telly and the wide ranging responsibilities which they now have within society. It is hard enough to imagine a world without authority, let alone a world in which problems like crime are dealt with by ordinary people coming together to resolve the issue.

http://www.lasthours.org.uk/shop/

 

[detective-boy]

Detective Boy, what's the best chance of getting this arsehole policeman to face some sort of charge, and will he even be kicked of the force?

In terms of criminal charges I think a judicial review of the CPS decision is the most likely to succeed. I suspect that any such judicial review would leave the decision re-manslaughter untouched but I think there is scope for them to conclude the decision re-ABH was irrational and should be reviewed.

I can't see a private prosecution for manslaughter getting anywhere; a private prosecution for ABH may.

There is also the issue of an inquest to come. The Coroner would undoubtedly be able to call the officer involved in using force and those proceedings may well throw up new evidence or issues. The CPS, right at the end of their statement, mentioned that the issue would be revisited after the inquest.

As for disciplinary charges ... I think the conclusion of the CPS that there was a criminal assault (i.e. that in their view the force used was excessive) means that it is extremely likely that he will face a misconduct hearing able to dismiss him and that the evidence is such that he will have an uphill struggle justifying his use of force. Unless there is some interaction between Ian Tomlinson and the police (or possibly others around Ian Tomlinson in the moments before the use of force and providing grounds for force being used to move the protestors along if they were resisting (and the comments of CPS suggest there is not) I think it is plain that the use of force was excessive ... but I thought that in relation to the use of the baton by Sgt Smellie and the Court there disagreed.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I just watched the BBC news and yet again saw their CROPPED footage of Tomlinson being pushed over. Dear oh dear...

 

[detective-boy]

so it really does make sense to begin with an incompetent pathologist, for there can be no recovery afterwards.

You couldn't have hoped for a worse start to a homicide investigation than this. A routine post-mortem by any pathologist would not have been good (they are not accompanied by the detailed evidence gathering arrangements that go with a "special" post-mortem and much of what Freddy Patel is criticised for (such as not keeping the samples of abdominal fluid, etc.) would have applied no matter who the pathologist was - it is simply not standard practice in routine post-mortems. But the fact it was him, with his history, is just a nightmare ... (but it is important to note that he was NOT appointed by the police and he would NOT have been paid by them for a routine post-mortem - that is the responsibility of the Coroner).

 

[Kaka Tim]

No. You wouldn't. If there were the same evidential issues in relation to causation there would be long delays whilst different PMs were arranged and meetings were held between experts to try and resolve issues, there may well not be charges of manslaughter and there certainly may not be convictions. I have dealt with dozens of cases in which that has been the case. Every senior investigating officer will tell you the same. They do not get major publicity (or any publicity at all). But they happen.

If it hadn't been a policemen who was the assailant, then the cops wouldn't have drafted in their pet pathologist to ensure a verdict of death by natural causes.

 

[Spymaster]

.... because the evidence is as clear as day .....

Is it though?

Where is the "clear as day" evidence that said coppers push and baton-whack caused Mr Tomilinson's death?

 

[detective-boy]

this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple

No. If you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury DOES kill them, this is homicide. Not may. DOES.

 

[xes]

It's not a nightmare, it's rather bloody convinient. Some might say almost ...tooo convinient

It's plain to see now, you can argue the toss all you like. the blatent corruption is shining proud, on every single policeman/womans badge in the country.

 

[e19896]

In terms of criminal charges I think a judicial review of the CPS decision is the most likely to succeed. I suspect that any such judicial review would leave the decision re-manslaughter untouched but I think there is scope for them to conclude the decision re-ABH was irrational and should be reviewed.

I can't see a private prosecution for manslaughter getting anywhere; a private prosecution for ABH may.

There is also the issue of an inquest to come. The Coroner would undoubtedly be able to call the officer involved in using force and those proceedings may well throw up new evidence or issues. The CPS, right at the end of their statement, mentioned that the issue would be revisited after the inquest.

As for disciplinary charges ... I think the conclusion of the CPS that there was a criminal assault (i.e. that in their view the force used was excessive) means that it is extremely likely that he will face a misconduct hearing able to dismiss him and that the evidence is such that he will have an uphill struggle justifying his use of force. Unless there is some interaction between Ian Tomlinson and the police (or possibly others around Ian Tomlinson in the moments before the use of force and providing grounds for force being used to move the protestors along if they were resisting (and the comments of CPS suggest there is not) I think it is plain that the use of force was excessive ... but I thought that in relation to the use of the baton by Sgt Smellie and the Court there disagreed.

Fuck i agree with DB, for a change if The ABH was proven would those involved be sacked?, myself i doubt this would happen.