Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Naomi of Brixton, RIP

Status
Not open for further replies.
peterkro said:
Maybe because it is not wrong nor irrelevant nor insults her memory.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one then. Adults can do that, right?

What about the other question, of whether if anything else had run her over, there would have been so much uproar?
 
lumpenprinzess said:
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.
Click to expand...
The law does not allow the continued detention of a person prior to charge (which is why there is the whole debate about extending the pre-charge period of detention for suspected terrorists to 42 days). The police HAVE TO, by law (Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984) to either charge or release a suspect within 24 hours (can be extended to 36 hrs by a Supt, to 72 hrs by a Magistrate). In any case, even within that period, further detention can only be allowed if it is necessary for investigative reasons (e.g. to allow further questioning, to prevent interference with other witnesses being interviewed, etc.).

Charging can ONLY happen by law if there is a prima facie case (i.e. there is sufficient evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict). In practice it can ONLY happen if there is sufficient evidence to make a conviction more likely than not (CPS rules, brought in to PREVENT suspects against whom there is weak evidence being persecuted by the police charging them just to piss them about).

Both PACE and the CPS were brought in to protect the interests of suspects (and they have done so in a massive way). Unfortunately what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and when police officers or other agents of the State are the suspects they have exactly the same rights and protections.

In a case like this, unless there was an admission of the running over being deliberate, there would never be sufficient evidence to charge in the standard detention period. You see "proper" murderers bailed for long periods of time whilst scientific evidence and other long-term investigations are completed, being re-arrested weeks or months later, being re-interviewed and then charged.

In short, the driver being bailed pending further investigations is entirely standard practice.

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.
Click to expand...
"Alternative" does not mean "euphemism".

After years of pressure by road safety campaigners the police were persuaded to ditch the traditional "Accident" as it implied it was just that - an accident as opposed to being someone's fault. The campaigners (rightly in my view) argued that no, most "accidents" were someone's fault and the continued use of this misnomer contributed to the public attitude to them as being unavoidable when, in fact, the majority were entirely avoidable if agencies / individuals acted differently.

As a result the police service replaced "Accident" with "Collision" or "Incident". They are ALTERNATIVE ways of describing the situation and neither of them imply anything as to causation, they are simply factual.

What would you prefer they said?
 
ajdown said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I gather she wasn't just run over, she was shoved forward and deliberately driven over by a driver who made eye contact with her directly in front of his truck.

And the white van man would have been treated far differently than this Serco driver appears to have been.

And the community are justifiably concerned that because she was pissed she somehow "doesn't matter", whereas had it been Peaches Geldof or some Hollyoaks starlet pissed up stumbling out of the Fridge there would have been an uproar of Vesuvian proportions.
 
pk said:
From what I gather she wasn't just run over, she was shoved forward and deliberately driven over by a driver who made eye contact with her directly in front of his truck.

And the white van man would have been treated far differently than this Serco driver appears to have been.

And the community are justifiably concerned that because she was pissed she somehow "doesn't matter", whereas had it been Peaches Geldof or some Hollyoaks starlet pissed up stumbling out of the Fridge there would have been an uproar of Vesuvian proportions.
Click to expand...

What 'community' are we talking about? Brixton as a whole, or just a few people that called her a friend?

I think if it had been some celebrity wannabe that got hit, the media would have made much of a bigger thing about it, but most people in Brixton probably couldn't care less about it.

An interesting juxtaposition really.
 
ajdown said:
What 'community' are we talking about? Brixton as a whole, or just a few people that called her a friend?
Click to expand...

Both one and the same.

I think if it had been some celebrity wannabe that got hit, the media would have made much of a bigger thing about it, but most people in Brixton probably couldn't care less about it.

An interesting juxtaposition really.
Click to expand...

I think if said celeb had been deliberately accelerated over, as is alleged in this case, most people in Brixton would be asking serious questions about the nature of prison transportation in their town.
 
pk said:
I think if said celeb had been deliberately accelerated over, as is alleged in this case, most people in Brixton would be asking serious questions about the nature of prison transportation in their town.
Click to expand...
Let's drop the point about it being 'prison transportation' and just take it as a vehicle allegedly deliberately running over an individual.

That makes it an issue of bad driving, which surely does affect everyone - and, thus, are there particular things about that junction that makes it more dangerous than others that need dealing with?

How many thousands of prison transport vans have driven past that exact same spot over the years with no incidents occuring at all? How many millions of other vehicles have passed through with no accidents happening?

As someone who occasionally drives round St Matthew's extended roundabout, I utterly despise that section of road, especially with the diversion at the moment meaning you have to cross several lanes of traffic that won't stop in order to get round and then up Brixton Hill. That's not even bringing into the equation cyclists with no regard for other road users or pedestrians.

Most of the information boards we see round Brixton are stabbings, shootings, muggings, burglary or a combination somehow. Rarely do you see transport-related incidents occuring, and with the A23 being one of the main busy routes out of London, that does seem quite something, don't you think?
 
lumpenprinzess said:
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.
Click to expand...
When you post on a thread it will get "bumped" to the top of that forum and the new posts list. The date the thread was last posted on has no effect on the chances of people seeing it if a new post is made.

I'm quoting the rest of your post with paragraphs to make it easier for to read, for anyone who gave up on it before (it is very hard to read!). Good post though - and thanks for the info. :)

lumpenprinzess said:
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'.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know when the inquest is? And does it happen prior to charges being brought against the driver, or afterwards?
 
hendo said:
Does anyone know when the inquest is? And does it happen prior to charges being brought against the driver, or afterwards?
Click to expand...
An inquest would be opened and adjourned within a day or two of death.

It then remains adjourned pending any investigation and a decision as to any charges. If no charges are brought then it would be re-opened and the Coroner would decide how to proceed (with, or without, a jury; full public hearing with all witnesses called or a far more truncated version basically dealt with on the basis of statements, etc.)

If, after a reasonable period (which varies widely depending on the circumstances - it would usually be at least 6 months, usually more - the Coroner would periodically ask for an update on the progress of the investigation) the police have not found the suspects responsible, the Coroner may decide to go ahead with an inquest anyway. (This doesn't apply here - the suspect is known).

If after the investigation it IS decided to bring charges, the inquest remains adjourned until the criminal prosecution is completed. If there is a conviction for homicide then the Coroner usually formally records an administrative finding consistent with the conviction entered. If there is no conviction the Coroner has a choice. If they conclude that all the relevant issues have been fully explored during the criminal trial, then they may simply record an administrative finding consistent with the decision of the criminal court. If they conclude that there are issues still to be fully explored, they will then reopen the inquest and decide how to proceed.
 
lumpenprinzess said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Is that referring to the regrading of mental health service users' needs and the subsequent allocation of resources to focus on only those in the new "critical" category? Can't remember what bill/Act it's under but remember a protest outside the town hall by some service users a few months back. Anyone else know?
 
lumpenprinzess said:
"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".

As you well know, self-appointed member/solicitor/politician, that you are, cpcg meetings have a set agenda and to suggest that the friends and mourners of naomi were 'made to sit through' anything is a lie. Ideally the discussion about Naomi's death could have come first, not least, cos we wouldn't have had to put it with the fucking noise coming from someone who was so pissed she could barely stand up to begin with. The chair made very few moves to have the lady ejected and only did so following complaints from numerous attendees about the disruption. When the time came to discuss what happened to naomi, speakers were almost drowned out by the woman who, frankly, should have been escorted away by a friend to preserve her own and naomi's dignity. Shame on you for allowing her to behave as she did, and just sit back and enjoy the circus.

Your dishonesty and ability to twist and distort even the most obvious truths never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...
 
oh, and the lady whom you say was ejected or ejected, left of her own accord, in absolute disgust at the behaviour of the drunken lady. another blatant untruth on your part.
 
Naomi RIP.
I was chatgting to her on the Monday before the (murder) whilst waiting for the Libary to open, She was her normal jubilant self and we had a nice discussion, Naomi was a woman that had hidden depths and chose who to reveal them too, some only saw one aspect, whilst a chosen few saw the whole person.

>>>RIP Naomi 2008<<<
 
detective-boy said:
After years of pressure by road safety campaigners the police were persuaded to ditch the traditional "Accident" as it implied it was just that - an accident as opposed to being someone's fault. The campaigners (rightly in my view) argued that no, most "accidents" were someone's fault and the continued use of this misnomer contributed to the public attitude to them as being unavoidable when, in fact, the majority were entirely avoidable if agencies / individuals acted differently.

QUOTE]

The implication in many posts is that if this was not a police/Serco van the driver would be charged etc.

I disagree/A few years ago a friend of mine was knocked off there bike and killed by a motorist.The car was left on the scene and the driver left.Just after the incident the police had a call reporting the car stolen (the call was from a pub nearby).The owner denied driving the vehicle at the time.The police were unable to prove the driver was at the wheel at the time as there were more than one set of fingerprints on the steering wheel.

Draw your own conclusions about what really happened when my friend was killed.

Can I blame the police for this? Well ur innocent until proven guilty.On the other hand the police didnt fall over themselves to follow it up.

Seems to me that deaths on the road are treated more lightly by society in general than other deaths.

More people die on the roads than than by acts of Terror.But there is no war on road deaths.No draconian laws aimed at drivers who are in "incidents" that lead to someones death.

Detective Boy makes a point here that public perception of road deaths as compared to other deaths (by terrorism for example) means as a society they are treated differently.
Click to expand...
 
Mind - what makes you think that Naomi could have been sectioned? Because that's what you're talking about.

From my recollection from past discussion with you, you're not the most...ermmm...understanding person when it comes to mental health anyway, so I find it rather ironic that you're getting het up now!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
784
editor
editor
editor
RIP Nobby (Albert/Railway)
Replies
7
Views
1K
editor
editor
editor
The depressing growth of people with substance dependency on the streets of Brixton
2 3
Replies
74
Views
6K
DietCokeGirl
DietCokeGirl
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom