Augie March
blahem
Holy Moly said:
Lovely bunch over there.
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've read so far on her, Naomi was an alcoholic not a user.
Woman killed in traffic accident - Brixton Hill 22nd of April
- Thread starter story
- Start date
Lovely bunch over there.
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've read so far on her, Naomi was an alcoholic not a user.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
innit.
still, come the day, we've got plenty of wall-space for the lot of 'em.
still, come the day, we've got plenty of wall-space for the lot of 'em.
Augie March
blahem
Who knew that a celebrity gossip site would be full of such angry right-wingers!
*wonders if the Heat letter pages are this bad
*wonders if the Heat letter pages are this bad
I was tempted to join in order to mass slaughter them with a suitable diatribe before concluding that as they can only manage to throw a couple of semi-literate sentences together between themselves there really isn't much point in anyone else making more of an effort than them towards making their failed-forum into something noteworthy of reading.
However, they're free to come here should they wish to have their sub-standard minds raped.
However, they're free to come here should they wish to have their sub-standard minds raped.
via-strass
New Member
I was there only 5-10 minutes after the accident, an ambulance was there but the first cops (who were probably patrolling Brixton High St) were just arriving. There were already a lot of people looking on. I didn't see /anyone/ take a picture on their camera phone. Lots of people were watching from the raised grassy area in front of the Ritzy and on the pavement in front of that. More people were standing in the street on all sides of the van. It seemed like some of Naomi's friends / people who were already hanging out in front of Ritzy were a lot of the ones standing in the street. Just when I arrived several people were lying on the floor trying to see under the van. None of these were taking pictures, I am sure they were all trying to find out how Naomi was.
At this point, (a couple of cops had arrived), the passenger window of the van had been broken. I saw maybe 3 or 4 people throw things at the van the whole time I was standing there, over about 20 minutes including someone who threw their drink (but not the container). A few people shouted things at the driver, but there was no 'chanting' let alone a 'chanting mob'. A lady bent back the drivers windscreen wipers. Although the driver looked very worried, I didn't see anyone try to get him out of the van, enter the van or specifically try to attack him physically. On several occasions as the police tried to push people back away from the van there were small scuffles. But there wasn't any 'riot', and although the situation was very tense, the amount of pushing there was never really looked as if it was going to become a confrontation between the people and the police.
I think that given the time of day there were a lot of people coming from the station or waiting for buses, and so there was quickly a huge amount of bystanders, but not a big gathering of furious people or ones who wanted to take on the police. As the police gradually pushed people back, first from the road, then the pavement and the grass, some of them objected to being pushed away, but there wasn't any violence. The police claimed that a medevac helicopter which was in the air was going to land next to the van (although I don't think it did), so people wanted to make space for it.
I am posting this since I have seen coverage, some of it linked to from here, mentioning things like mob violence, chanting, riots etc. Of course some people, including Naomi's friends, were very angry, but given the circumstances of the incident, not hugely more than people often get at traffic accidents. The police may have (and probably did) push people out of the way, but not unlike what you would expect in some crowd control situations. There was a very big number of officers there very soon after the first ones arrived, perhaps they thought some kind of riot was likely and so acted very fast.
Partly in response to some debate on the other thread, but I thought this was a better place for it.
At this point, (a couple of cops had arrived), the passenger window of the van had been broken. I saw maybe 3 or 4 people throw things at the van the whole time I was standing there, over about 20 minutes including someone who threw their drink (but not the container). A few people shouted things at the driver, but there was no 'chanting' let alone a 'chanting mob'. A lady bent back the drivers windscreen wipers. Although the driver looked very worried, I didn't see anyone try to get him out of the van, enter the van or specifically try to attack him physically. On several occasions as the police tried to push people back away from the van there were small scuffles. But there wasn't any 'riot', and although the situation was very tense, the amount of pushing there was never really looked as if it was going to become a confrontation between the people and the police.
I think that given the time of day there were a lot of people coming from the station or waiting for buses, and so there was quickly a huge amount of bystanders, but not a big gathering of furious people or ones who wanted to take on the police. As the police gradually pushed people back, first from the road, then the pavement and the grass, some of them objected to being pushed away, but there wasn't any violence. The police claimed that a medevac helicopter which was in the air was going to land next to the van (although I don't think it did), so people wanted to make space for it.
I am posting this since I have seen coverage, some of it linked to from here, mentioning things like mob violence, chanting, riots etc. Of course some people, including Naomi's friends, were very angry, but given the circumstances of the incident, not hugely more than people often get at traffic accidents. The police may have (and probably did) push people out of the way, but not unlike what you would expect in some crowd control situations. There was a very big number of officers there very soon after the first ones arrived, perhaps they thought some kind of riot was likely and so acted very fast.
Partly in response to some debate on the other thread, but I thought this was a better place for it.
via-strass
New Member
To correct myself slightly, the only cameras I saw were being held up by people when they though someone at the front of the crowd was getting pushed etc by police. NOT taking pictures of the driver or the underneath of the van.
Media reports in "not entirely reliable" shocker ...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You'd think they'd learn their lesson about buying info from coppers at the scene, wouldn't you?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
For the past few days there has been a big banner reading "Avenge Naomi, killed by the system" by the tree where people have been laying flowers etc.
I don't know who put it there but I think it's pretty crass to use a tragic incident like this to try and make some kind of political point.
I don't know who put it there but I think it's pretty crass to use a tragic incident like this to try and make some kind of political point.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Any idea what 'the system' is that is supposed to be responsible? I'm kinda new round here.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
you'd have to ask the people writing the banner, I suppose.
you could read it as the van driver being part of the penal system and therefore a fascist racist nazi bent on killing anyone on the list or maybe a system that fails its vulnerable members by allowing them to fall through the net... *shrugs*
Rabble rousing, using the accident for their own aims?
you could read it as the van driver being part of the penal system and therefore a fascist racist nazi bent on killing anyone on the list or maybe a system that fails its vulnerable members by allowing them to fall through the net... *shrugs*
Rabble rousing, using the accident for their own aims?
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Unfortunately that was the conclusion I'd come to.
It all seemed a bit Wolfie Smith to me...
Red Faction
Allez Les Rouges
It's marketing bollocks
.
(In the scale of severity, quite distasteful marketing bollocks)
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
As I posted on another thread before seeing this one had been bumped:
For murder there has to be an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. For manslaughter there has to be an unlawful act which kills (i.e. there does not need to be that intention).
It is not unusual in cases where the evidence is more likely to end up as a manslaughter conviction to be charged as murder initially (a Court can always reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter, it cannot do the opposite), although in this case, where there has been some significant time to get all the evidence sorted out and reviewed by the CPS in detail, it would be usual for the charge to reflect the outcome genuinely supported by the evidence.
I have not seen anything which suggests whether the driver has given any account in interviews. If he has not then this charge would not be surprising if there is any suggestion from witnesses / scene examination / CCTV that he has deliberately collided with Naomi the police and CPS will pursue the case to the Courts, with a murder charge, as that is the only place where the driver can be forced to provide any explanation they wish to or face the consequences. It is not the role of the police/CPS to second guess what the defendant may say in their defence.
Do not be surprised if this does end up as manslaughter or a total acquittal at Court, especially if there is a defence which has not been heard yet.
For murder there has to be an intention to kill or cause really serious harm. For manslaughter there has to be an unlawful act which kills (i.e. there does not need to be that intention).
It is not unusual in cases where the evidence is more likely to end up as a manslaughter conviction to be charged as murder initially (a Court can always reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter, it cannot do the opposite), although in this case, where there has been some significant time to get all the evidence sorted out and reviewed by the CPS in detail, it would be usual for the charge to reflect the outcome genuinely supported by the evidence.
I have not seen anything which suggests whether the driver has given any account in interviews. If he has not then this charge would not be surprising if there is any suggestion from witnesses / scene examination / CCTV that he has deliberately collided with Naomi the police and CPS will pursue the case to the Courts, with a murder charge, as that is the only place where the driver can be forced to provide any explanation they wish to or face the consequences. It is not the role of the police/CPS to second guess what the defendant may say in their defence.
Do not be surprised if this does end up as manslaughter or a total acquittal at Court, especially if there is a defence which has not been heard yet.
That strapline belongs to their Home Affairs Division which is bigger than just the prisoner transport bit. They (and a large number of other companies) provide all sorts of technology and other systems and services to sell to the police. Do you think the police invent and make all their stuff themselves?
And prisoner transport services being provided by the private sector is absolutely nothing new. It's been around for at least twenty years. Why the apparent outrage?
editor
hiraethified
At no point did I even suggest anything of the sort.
It's really annoying when people try and put words in my mouth, you know. "Apparent outrage" my arse.
