Naomi of Brixton, RIP
- Thread starter nick h.
- Start date
- Status
*Miss Daisy*
Suck a Big Hairy....
There will be a meeting to remember Naomi today at 5 pm, one week after her death, in the square next to the spot where she died. The police are concerned that there may be unrest. I've been talking to a lot of the mourners over the last few days and while many are angry that she was "deliberately" run down, others say she brought it on herself and blame her friends for not pulling her out of the road.
I understand from somebody at Brixton police station that the driver says he couldn't see her. She was very short, the driver was sitting on the right and she was squashed under the front left wheel, so it does seem plausible that she was not in his line of sight when he drove over her. But why he didn't stop to check whether she was clear of the vehicle before driving off is beyond me. All the witnesses I interviewed (I'm a journalist and a friend of hers) agree that she was banging on the front of the vehicle before he ran her down and that he was rocking on the accelerator and the brake in an attempt to shove her out of the way. He's pretty certain to have recognised her and known her to be a street drinker. His work would have entailed him driving up and down Brixton Hill the whole time, and he'd probably seen her on many occasions - she was very conspicuous in that jacket of hers.
So it seems likely that he knew she was out of control. In my opinion he had a duty of care towards her and people are absolutely right to be angry with him for doing nothing to avert a totally avoidable death.
He was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving but has not been charged. I hear he's back at work behind the wheel as usual.
According to this info http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=843 the offence he was arrested for seems to me to be the appropriate one and carries a max. sentence of 14 years. But her drinking buddies are convinced he'll get off. If he is charged merely with careless driving he can't be jailed.
There's a banner at the site of her death reading 'Avenge Naomi - Killed by the System.' The wording was chosen by a local anarchist, not one of Naomi's close friends, and I don't think it reflects any intention on the part of a significant number of people to take action. Nobody's in the mood to do anything silly.
I haven't seen a Serco van all week, so I suspect they've been rerouted. Just as well.
Everybody knows that the police are upset by Naomi's death and I think they realise it would be very unfair to direct their anger at officers. I just hope the senior officer doesn't do anything daft, like despatching fleets of armoured vans full of officers in riot gear.
I understand from somebody at Brixton police station that the driver says he couldn't see her. She was very short, the driver was sitting on the right and she was squashed under the front left wheel, so it does seem plausible that she was not in his line of sight when he drove over her. But why he didn't stop to check whether she was clear of the vehicle before driving off is beyond me. All the witnesses I interviewed (I'm a journalist and a friend of hers) agree that she was banging on the front of the vehicle before he ran her down and that he was rocking on the accelerator and the brake in an attempt to shove her out of the way. He's pretty certain to have recognised her and known her to be a street drinker. His work would have entailed him driving up and down Brixton Hill the whole time, and he'd probably seen her on many occasions - she was very conspicuous in that jacket of hers.
So it seems likely that he knew she was out of control. In my opinion he had a duty of care towards her and people are absolutely right to be angry with him for doing nothing to avert a totally avoidable death.
He was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving but has not been charged. I hear he's back at work behind the wheel as usual.
According to this info http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=843 the offence he was arrested for seems to me to be the appropriate one and carries a max. sentence of 14 years. But her drinking buddies are convinced he'll get off. If he is charged merely with careless driving he can't be jailed.
There's a banner at the site of her death reading 'Avenge Naomi - Killed by the System.' The wording was chosen by a local anarchist, not one of Naomi's close friends, and I don't think it reflects any intention on the part of a significant number of people to take action. Nobody's in the mood to do anything silly.
I haven't seen a Serco van all week, so I suspect they've been rerouted. Just as well.
Everybody knows that the police are upset by Naomi's death and I think they realise it would be very unfair to direct their anger at officers. I just hope the senior officer doesn't do anything daft, like despatching fleets of armoured vans full of officers in riot gear.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Quite a few assumptions there IMO.
Yersss. I've been trying to correct this impression, but it's hard to get the point across when everyone under the tree except me is a bit two and eight.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
All of them?
dogmatique
merde alors
Absolute rubbish, sorry.
Garbage.
On another note, I don't think I've ever seen police anywhere taking so much effort to collect witness statements than I did tonight.
Obviously in part a public relations excercise, given the planned demonstration, but a visible stop and ask campaign can only help.
dogmatique
merde alors
When you come up with ridiculous statements as the above, you will be greeted with derision, and rightly so.
Pull your socks up, and stop trading on tragedy for your own ends.
Pull your socks up, and stop trading on tragedy for your own ends.
dogmatique
merde alors
No chance. You're making a fool of yourself. Self appointed "journalist". You're only doing harm.
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Our bus followed one from Oval down towards Stockwell the other day, we turned left towards Brixton and it went straight on.
Could be relevant, not sure.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
There's no derision from me. I don't know nick h. and I didn't witness this accident, but if this statement is true
"All the witnesses I interviewed (I'm a journalist and a friend of hers) agree that she was banging on the front of the vehicle before he ran her down and that he was rocking on the accelerator and the brake in an attempt to shove her out of the way."
then that's not "trading on tragedy" that's important information.
If you know facts about this killing, share them; if you don't, why are you being so arsey?
dogmatique
merde alors
.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I don't see anything "extremely inflammatory, ill considered and unhelpful" about - eg - this;
I've been talking to a lot of the mourners over the last few days and while many are angry that she was "deliberately" run down, others say she brought it on herself and blame her friends for not pulling her out of the road.
I understand from somebody at Brixton police station that the driver says he couldn't see her. She was very short, the driver was sitting on the right and she was squashed under the front left wheel, so it does seem plausible that she was not in his line of sight when he drove over her. But why he didn't stop to check whether she was clear of the vehicle before driving off is beyond me.
He also passed on the news about the vigil/memorial at 5 o'clock.
How she died is as important in this case as that she died, it's going to be talked about, and imo it's important that it is. It would be very easy for the police to shrug and say she was *only* an alky or whatever.
dogmatique
merde alors
Previous comment removed. I don't want to create a row.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
As has been pointed out numerous times, there is another thread for discussing the issues around this:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247946
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247946
lumpenprinzess
Member
Apologies for not putting this in the other thread, but it stops at April 24, and it didn't look like anyone would ever read something added to it now. The 'incident' was discussed at the Lambeth Police Consultation Group meeting this evening, although not until after Naomi's friends and supporters had been made to sit through a Powerpoint presentation AND a DVD about new police 'business areas' etc (maybe diversifying into COMMITTING crime -- cutting out the middleman so to speak -- this year?). Anyway the moment the chair saw fit to raise the matter that everyone except 'community safety' professionals and self-appointed 'spokespeople' had come to talk about just happened to coincide with the ejection of Naomi's loudest supporter/mourner. When she returned some time later the chair snapped, "I thought I told security not to let her back in". Fortunately though, the unwelcome member of the community had prepared a written list of questions, which were read out by someone from Lambeth Unison (although not without an ambivalent comment linking the killing to a lack of "adult services" for "people like Naomi", as if the answer was better medication to keep "people like this" out of the way of prison vans on their important mission.) The questions were the obvious ones that people have been asking: why did the driver accelerate in the first place, and why didn't he stop after he could see what was happening? And is the council willing to allow some kind of permanent memorial where Naomi died? Then other people asked: why is her death already labelled a 'tragic accident' when it hasn't been fully investigated and a lot of people still think it was deliberate? What's going on with CCTV: some of the cameras in the area are believed not to work; which ones do work, and is the 'incident' recorded on any of them? Is the van driver back at work, as has been reported? Why was the driver given bail, given the seriousness of the potential charge? The friend of Naomi (and 'incident' witness) who asked the question put this in context by mentioning the petty drug-related charges on which so many other people spend months rotting on remand, in many cases delivered to HMP Brixton courtesy of Serco. Finally someone else asked why not a single Lambeth council member had bothered to show up to discuss all this. The questions were responded to ('answered' would be too strong a word) by a high-ranking Brixton police bureaucrat. (Sorry I can't remember the name, they all look the same to me.) He wanted to deal with the points in sequence, he said (as opposed to all once, speaking in tongues?), in order to give a "flavour" of the police position. But the expelled speaker's questions, delivered by her Unison proxy, somehow disappeared from the sequence, and the officer moved straight on to the matter of "tragic accident". It's not true, he claimed, that the death has been called accidental: the witness appeal boards say "collision". Well maybe some of them do, but the ones I've seen say "incident", and there's an important difference. "Incident" is the term introduced by (Department for Transport? Home Office?) decree in the last couple of years to REPLACE 'accident', which was seen as letting drivers off too lightly by suggesting that crashes might be nobody's fault. In other words 'incident' is a euphemism for 'accident': in the absence of an officially allowed alternative IT MEANS THE SAME THING. Next: yes the driver has been bailed (no answer as to why, or why others are not), and is back at work. But that's ok because of the "robust" etc etc police investigation, on the basis of which the Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether or not to press charges. The disingenuousness of this argument (which was stretched over several minutes and formed the bulk of the cop's speech) is really breathtaking. Certainly Brixton police are making a point of being seen to investigate the 'incident' and the 'death by dangerous driving' charge, and for all anyone knows they may really be taking it seriously. But who does a senior policeman think he's kidding by trying to REASSURE bereaved friends of someone killed by the Criminal Justice[sic] system on the grounds that it's all in the hands of the CPS?!! The same agency that has declined to prosecute in every single case of death in police custody in the last 10+(++?) years, even when then Coroner's verdict is 'unlawful killing'?! The silver-tongued copper may have thought he could get around this problem by emphasising that Serco is a private contractor and the driver its employee alone. Some people posting on this list also seem to see it this way. But if anything the PFI aspect makes it WORSE: how is it supposed to absolve the policing and criminal justice system of responsibility for its agents' actions if the agents doing dirty work like trucking remand prisoners through a socially explosive (to its eternal credit) area are hired by private contractors on depleted, casual wages and pisspoor conditions?
Finally, yes I would have been glad to raise these points with the officer concerned at the meeting itself, but as soon as he had finished speaking the discussion returned to the normal agenda, featuring important issues like police 'asset management'.
Finally, yes I would have been glad to raise these points with the officer concerned at the meeting itself, but as soon as he had finished speaking the discussion returned to the normal agenda, featuring important issues like police 'asset management'.
ajdown
Posting in this thread
I have one question.
If Naomi had been run over by a bus, or a 'white van man', would there have been this much uproar? I doubt it, in all honesty.
One dangerous piece of driving by one individual resulting in one death (does anyone know how many hundreds, perhaps thousands of similar journeys around the country are made each day without incident) does not make her 'killed by the system'.
From what I can understand, the banner down there was placed by some anarchist hijacking the memorial to push 'his cause' - whatever it might be - and not one of Naomi's friends. Why has it not been removed by these 'friends' if it a) is blatantly wrong, b) is completely irrelevant, and c) insults her memory by making what happened a 'political statement'?
Maybe because it is not wrong nor irrelevant nor insults her memory.
Just a thought.
- Status
Similar threads
