Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 328
yeah thats kinda what i thought, why did he run from them anyway.
G20 police officer cleared of assault
- Thread starter borich_planner
- Start date
yeah thats kinda what i thought, why did he run from them anyway.
I cannot believe no charges are being taken against the officer. The actions were completely unacceptable.
The route he took was snaking around the street because the ways he initially chosen home were blocked off.
The route he took was snaking around the street because the ways he initially chosen home were blocked off.
I was under the impression that had been changed years ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm
well i think people in general do support the police until they have a bad experience with them.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
I think it's a more a case of people support the police until the police become increasingly incompetent and unaccountable.
For example, my mum has been leaving messages every day for the past month and a half for a detective at the local police station about a certain issue and nobody has ever returned them.
It's my understanding that these sort of failings and the more important ones such as those being discussed in this thread are due to failings in the leadership of those at the top of the police force through bad training, lack of communication or lack of involvement.
The detective at the local police station won't get into trouble for basically ignoring our messages, will he? Therefore he'll continue to do so and that's down to his character as a person. Of course there are those police officers out there that are helpful, that do care and do their jobs for our benefit rather than their own petty amusement, but often they are unrewarded or under the thumb of a higher ranking officer of a different disposition.
Last edited:
No, he did not. You are obviously going by the lies that Ian Blair initially put out, and not the subsequent corrections.
Actually no he wasn't an illegal immigrant, that was another lie put out by the Met police.
The Met police unfortunately are very good at covering the tracks of their dodgy officers who commit crimes which normal members of the public would end up in prison for.
Not if you have cirrhosis of the liver. I think the police officer was perfectly entitled to give Mr Tomlinson a shove if he refused to get out of the way.
source? proof?
Because every incident is just that simple right? No, it isn't.
It's surprisingly easy to become a 'nuisance' to a police officer when he feels he wants to assert his manly authority.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Oh, General Discussion, how I love your populace!
Did I say every incident is that simple? No I didn't, if anything I implied the opposite which is why it's wrong to vilify the police for doing their job.
Question for you: do you think that one member of the public should be able to dictate where a police line stands, or should it be up to the police commander where the police go?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Your post suggests you don't reall grasp how it works.
I have been the subject of a malicious and completely untrue allegation which ended up on the desk of the IPCC. Cut and dried, no foundation to it whatsoever. Time taken to resolve it ? 4 months.
If there is sufficient evidence to nail a cop to the wall, thy will be done. Simple as. There is nothing whatsover to gain from a cover up and indeed a lot to lose.
The decision not to charge the officer with manslaughter, ABH or misconduct was, in my humble opinion, the only course of action open to the CPS as there was no realistic chance of a prosecution in a million years.
There was also no realistic chance of the case being finalised before the 6 month prosecution time limit for common assault given the complications of the case. That leaves a bad taste for me.
I do not like what I saw that day. There was nothing to stop the cop nodding to another for Mr Tomlinson's arms to be held and him being walked away from the scene. The push was not justifiable at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Where a police line stands should be dictated by a police commander following policy and guidelines set in stone by a panel of experts in crowd control.
So what if in like so many of the incidents I've seen, you get indicated to move by an officer and as you say you would, start to do so - only to be helped along by a shove in the back despite the fact that you are there to protest lawfully and agreed to move out of the way and promptly started to do so, then after being knocked to the floor, brushing yourself off and continuing to move in the direction indicated - taking a couple batton hits to the legs?
Would you then, still be spouting this rubbish?
- because I have seen the above scenario far, far too many times.
But according to you, it would never happen.
I'd have thought based on the 2nd and 3rd post mortems both agreeing it was death by internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, that this would have overridden Dr.Patels post mortem, and have convicted the policeman of manslaughter. 
"The first examination by Dr Freddy Patel - currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations - found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.
Ian Tomlinson's family and solicitor give their reaction to the decision
The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test. It was conducted on behalf of the officer.
Mr Starmer said there were irreconcilable differences between the evidence from Dr Patel and the two subsequent post-mortem examinations.
Dr Patel already faces disciplinary proceedings, and could be struck off, by the General Medical Council over alleged failings in his handling of four separate post-mortem examinations between 2002 and 2005."
"The first examination by Dr Freddy Patel - currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations - found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.
Ian Tomlinson's family and solicitor give their reaction to the decision
The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test. It was conducted on behalf of the officer.
Mr Starmer said there were irreconcilable differences between the evidence from Dr Patel and the two subsequent post-mortem examinations.
Dr Patel already faces disciplinary proceedings, and could be struck off, by the General Medical Council over alleged failings in his handling of four separate post-mortem examinations between 2002 and 2005."
I'd have thought based on the 2nd and 3rd post mortems both agreeing it was death by internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, that this would have overridden Dr.Patels post mortem, and have convicted the policeman of manslaughter.
[/I]"
Erm nope.
The results from the second and third post mortem examination is evidence. The same as Dr. Patels post mortem.
All three pieces of evidence would be discloseable to the Defence, Jury and Judge, should there be a Court case.
You cannot chose which Post Mortem to ignore - and that I suspect is the crux of the whole decision by the CPS not to run the case - that there could be a doubt as to the actual cause of death.
The existence of evidence does not mean that someone is guilty and therefore automatically convicted.
It is up to a Jury to listen to the evidence before it and then based on that evidence to make a decision as to whether the defendant is guilty of the charges or not.