G20 Policeman who pushed Ian Tomlinson over - No Charge

[User removed 4]

Justice For Christopher Alder Family - The Petition Site

So nobody got charged in the christopher alder case ?? ..........oh they did , sorry i thought you were saying that this case was similar to Ian Tomlinson's , in that it was seen on the six o clock news within a day of the incident happening and that the prevailing atmosphere in 1998 was similar to after the mcpherson report in 1999.


Keep clutching at straws .

 

[Mtoto]

Look, I'm not going to defend the copper for the sake of it, but the facts have already been set out.

(1) It's nothing to do with the police whether someone gets prosecuted or not apart from the most minor and clear cut of cases, it's the CPS (with help from the IPCC, who conducted the investigation in this case)

(2) There is NOT enough evidence to charge with manslaughter because as I have already said, you have to demonstrate that there is a causal link between the act and the consequence, and in a fifty-something homeless alcoholic (I say that not to deride the bloke, but merely to suggest that such people don't tend to be in the best of health anyway), you are never, ever going to be able to prove that being pushed to the ground contributed to either a heart attack or internal bleeding, depending on which report you want to read. Such conditions are not uncommon in people with generally poor health.

(3) We all know there is sufficient evidence to charge with assault, but as the law stands, the suspect would have to have been charged within six months of the offence taking place. THAT is why he hasn't been charged. The IPCC and CPS will have to answer the questions as to why it took so long (although as the media have confirmed on many occasions, there were hundreds of individual pieces of footage and accounts of the day to sift through).

Argue the morality of it all you like, but those are the facts.

Disagree re point 2.

He had been an alcoholic for years, but died just a few minutes after being assaulted by the policeman.

It is true that such conditions are "not uncommon in peple with generally poor health", but if the defence argument is that it just so happened, completely by coincidence, that he suffered a severe haemorrhage - bad enough to kill him in minutes - just prior to being shoved by the policeman, then that seems so unlikely that the probability should have been considered by a jury. They might well have decided that it was so unlikely that it was not credible.

Would he have been alive that evening had he not been assaulted? A week later? The answer does not need to be "definitely yes", just "almost certainly yes". At the very least, there was surely a case to be made.

 

[cjd]

Did the half a dozen useless articles (the police, just a few feet away, who watched their comrade commit his thuggery) get suspended too, for their complete lack of interest in upholding the law...? I.e. do police officers not come under the same laws as us , when it comes to blatant thuggery and hooliganism....?

 

[1066familyman]

Does anyone seriously think there would have been this outcome had Ian Tomlindon been black ?

Oh, here we go again.

You might want a little look here. IRR: Black Deaths in Custody

I won't bother reminding you about the Cynthia Jarrett or Cherry Grose cases as you're obviously well clued up as to why the riots happened already and no doubt have all the answers anyway.

 

[The Spanish]

Disagree re point 2.

He had been an alcoholic for years, but died just a few minutes after being assaulted by the policeman.

It is true that such conditions are "not uncommon in peple with generally poor health", but if the defence argument is that it just so happened, completely by coincidence, that he suffered a severe haemorrhage - bad enough to kill him in minutes - just prior to being shoved by the policeman, then that seems so unlikely that the probability should have been considered by a jury. They might well have decided that it was so unlikely that it was not credible.

Would he have been alive that evening had he not been assaulted? A week later? The answer does not need to be "definitely yes", just "almost certainly yes". At the very least, there was surely a case to be made.

Ednas a great poster but its a shame this is bought up twice as a contributory factor in the death of a man basically murdered by a copper without being prompted. the police have bought this up at every opportunity, good job there are enough people in this country who see through it.

'if he hadnt have been a piss artist we would only be dealing with grazed knees and a couple of bruises' means absolutely f*** all, or at least shouldnt to anyone unless its the OB and their perpeptual apologists clutching at straws to excuse the inexcusable..

 

[Nibble]

The justice sysyem has failed here and if you view the Police as the first step on that system then thay too are at fault. You have the courts saying "Oh we know he was in the wrong but not enough evidence" and The Police saying "The courts took too long they are in the wrong" You know what? You they are all in the bloody wrong. They may be different departments but they all work for the same cause.

 

[User removed 4]

Oh, here we go again.

You might want a little look here. IRR: Black Deaths in Custody

I won't bother reminding you about the Cynthia Jarrett or Cherry Grose cases as you're obviously well clued up as to why the riots happened already and no doubt have all the answers anyway.

I'm talking about NOW , the present day. We all know what went on years ago, but if you seriously think that in todays climate , that there would have been the same outcome if a black man had been seen on prime time TV being assaulted by a copper and who subsequently died, you're f***ing deluded.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

(2) There is NOT enough evidence to charge with manslaughter because as I have already said, you have to demonstrate that there is a causal link between the act and the consequence, and in a fifty-something homeless alcoholic (I say that not to deride the bloke, but merely to suggest that such people don't tend to be in the best of health anyway), you are never, ever going to be able to prove that being pushed to the ground contributed to either a heart attack or internal bleeding, depending on which report you want to read. Such conditions are not uncommon in people with generally poor health.

Hi Edna, I always thought that, innocently, that, for example...Bloke A hits Bloke B in a street fight, Bloke B falls to the ground and dies. Turns out Bloke B had a pre-existing brain condition which was exacerbated by being struck. Although Bloke A didn't intend to kill B, he can still be charged with manslaughter as B died as an indirect result of being hit.

Am I wrong in this? Actually I must be, mustn't I?

Thanks - confused.com

 

[Dandyman]

So nobody got charged in the christopher alder case ?? ..........oh they did , sorry i thought you were saying that this case was similar to Ian Tomlinson's , in that it was seen on the six o clock news within a day of the incident happening and that the prevailing atmosphere in 1998 was similar to after the mcpherson report in 1999.


Keep clutching at straws .

The judge ordered the jury to acquit in the Alder case.


If you want a fuller break down, try this:

INQUEST - United Campaigns For Justice


Deaths caused by the Police are still too frequent and I can't see any evidence that black people get treated better or enjoy any greater justice after deaths.

 

[The Spanish]

Hi Edna, I always thought that, innocently, that, for example...Bloke A hits Bloke B in a street fight, Bloke B falls to the ground and dies. Turns out Bloke B had a pre-existing brain condition which was exacerbated by being struck. Although Bloke A didn't intend to kill B, he can still be charged with manslaughter as B died as an indirect result of being hit.

Am I wrong in this? Actually I must be, mustn't I?

Thanks - confused.com

the only difference a brain condition, unlike a drink one, cannot be used very slyly to ensure a number of the stupider or nastier proportion of the population you supposedly serve are less inclined to criticise you, or imply that his life was not worth as much as other peoples, in your attempts getting a man guilty of a very serious crime off the hook as he has the same job as you, and you have a feeling that because you have to put up with some shitty public behaviour from time to time you should have some sort of immunity from prosecution in certain public order situations, or as near to it as you can engineer.

 

[franks brother]

Anyone started a 'Harwood is a legend' facebook site ?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Hi Edna, I always thought that, innocently, that, for example...Bloke A hits Bloke B in a street fight, Bloke B falls to the ground and dies. Turns out Bloke B had a pre-existing brain condition which was exacerbated by being struck. Although Bloke A didn't intend to kill B, he can still be charged with manslaughter as B died as an indirect result of being hit.

Am I wrong in this? Actually I must be, mustn't I?

Thanks - confused.com

Yeah, there is something in the legislation that says you have to take someone as you find them, ie that if you slapped a bloke who just happened to have a very thin skull and he died as a result, then yes, you would still be liable for that. I can't remember what the technical legal term for it is, but yes, that is the case. I suspect in the Tomlinson matter that the biggest issue is the discrepancy between the different pathologists reports, in that a defence solicitor would home straight in on that element and start suggesting that he could have already been suffering from whichever condition even before being pushed over and that there is an insufficiently clear link between the action and the cause of death. It sounds pretty lame on paper but it would be enough to induce reasonable doubt in a court case I suppose, which is all that's needed.

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there was some case up north a few years back where a guy was being hounded by local youths, and one of them pushed him or did something to him, and he dropped dead of a heart attack?? They were never charged with anything significant, if I recall.

Like I said, before you jump on me, I'm only trying to offer some insight into the technicalities that the CPS have been going on about, not to justify it

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

I Dont want to go against the grain here but what was that bloke actually doing mincing around in that powder keg situation?

 

[drew]

Ednas a great poster but its a shame this is bought up twice as a contributory factor in the death of a man basically murdered by a copper without being prompted. the police have bought this up at every opportunity, good job there are enough people in this country who see through it.

'if he hadnt have been a piss artist we would only be dealing with grazed knees and a couple of bruises' means absolutely f*** all, or at least shouldnt to anyone unless its the OB and their perpeptual apologists clutching at straws to excuse the inexcusable..

Unfortunately, comments that this was murder just serve to indicate ignorance or are purely inflammatory. How can giving someone a hefty push be considered murder. At worse, this could have been manslaughter but the CPS have deemed it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonably doubt.

It would have been better for the prosecution had Tomlinson not got up and walked away. Had he died on the spot then I suspect the link between cause and effect would have been more obvious and the case for prosecution more clear cut. As it is, who is to say what happened to him further down the line

Not sure why the family haven't started civil proceedings relating to the assault itself as that seems quite clear cut. Surely it is irrelevant whether the officer is criminally charged for manslaughter?

 

[drew]

Yeah, there is something in the legislation that says you have to take someone as you find them, ie that if you slapped a bloke who just happened to have a very thin skull and he died as a result, then yes, you would still be liable for that. I can't remember what the technical legal term for it is, but yes, that is the case. I suspect in the Tomlinson matter that the biggest issue is the discrepancy between the different pathologists reports, in that a defence solicitor would home straight in on that element and start suggesting that he could have already been suffering from whichever condition even before being pushed over and that there is an insufficiently clear link between the action and the cause of death. It sounds pretty lame on paper but it would be enough to induce reasonable doubt in a court case I suppose, which is all that's needed.

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there was some case up north a few years back where a guy was being hounded by local youths, and one of them pushed him or did something to him, and he dropped dead of a heart attack?? They were never charged with anything significant, if I recall.

Like I said, before you jump on me, I'm only trying to offer some insight into the technicalities that the CPS have been going on about, not to justify it

Eggshell skull rule I believe.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Hi Edna, I always thought that, innocently, that, for example...Bloke A hits Bloke B in a street fight, Bloke B falls to the ground and dies. Turns out Bloke B had a pre-existing brain condition which was exacerbated by being struck. Although Bloke A didn't intend to kill B, he can still be charged with manslaughter as B died as an indirect result of being hit.

Am I wrong in this? Actually I must be, mustn't I?

Thanks - confused.com

Well i think that it doesn't apply to members of the emergency services who can get away with anything they wish because they won't get charged as it would be undermining public confidennce to charge and prosecute them.

Another example was the fireworks explosions at Ringmer a few years back. The Fire Bridage failed to carry out risk assessments throughout, even though they were under an obligation to do so. They were supposed to evacuate the site within 30 minutes if there were no lives to save and there was a risk to their crew, blatently there was a risk as a) they knew that there were a large amount of licensed fireworks stored on the site (fire fighter testomony revealed that the owner and son did warn them about the metal container and the risk it posed - metal storage containers are allowed by law for a limited time and for transport, the fireworks stored were to be transported and it was just a case of it being put in there a little too early, is that worse than the h&s breaches of the fire service etc? as b) they had no water to fight the fire (both of which were evident in the video that was published on the Argus website after the verdicts were announced. c) firefighters in court said that they hadn't received any training to deal with this type of incident even though they were aware of the sites existance for a number of years and they were very dismissive of the risk the site posed both before and during the incident, even though they would have inspected the site several times before the incident. d) the national rules regarding tacklinig these types of incidents say that the site should be evacuated and everyone withdraw to at least 600 metres - So why didn't they? and so on...

Why have no-one from the fire bridage been investigated or charged? Is it just because they are an emergency service and had they been from a private company, would they have been charged. They admitted making major mistakes in the handling of their response and they put the 2 that died (RIP) in unneccessary danger but as they and the Police have a scapegoat they have got away with it and justice hasn't been done - This might be a lot to do with why a member of the fire service is suing the firebridgade after getting injured there.

The Police co-ordinated the response and failed to establish a cordon for this incident and 2 members of the public were injured, the Police wanted them to testify against the 2 men charged - but they refused as they admitted it was their fault as they shouldn't have been so close - the fire bridage shouldn't have withdrawn long before the explosion so why wasn't this considered when it investigating the incident and resulting in charges for them too (a part from the Fire brigade and Police working together to investigate it - hardly unbias and likely to to lead to charges against the fire service despite their deadly mistakes).

That case against the owner and his son was down to politics, and the emergency services closing ranks - while they are allowed to carry on acting irresponisbly and getting away without repercussions for their actions then justice will always be selective in this country - more down to who you are or who you work for rather than who was at fault and / whether it was a pure accident.

- A driver speeding recently killed a motorcyclist who overtook a lorry and would have been safely around the lorry if the oncoming vehicle wasn't speeding faced no charges Seaford biker died after being hit by speeding truck, inquest told From The Argus)

- A care home severely burned a disabled girl by putting her in a scaleding bath (she was unable to communicate her agony) and she was in constant pain until she died as a result of her injuries a few days later but no one from the home faced any charges 100,000 fine after disabled teenager fatally scalded So why wasn't the fireworks company charged and not the owner and son or why werent the staff responsible charged in the above case (apart from being connected to the local council)

- A mother killed her disabled daughter was found not guilty of murder / manslaughter despite deliberately setting out to kill her Mother cleared of trying to murder sick daughter | News

- Yet something that was caused by a completely freak accident at Ringmer and where the responding authorities got it completely wrong by failing to act as they were required by national rules resulting in 2 deaths has led to 2 men having the book thrown at them by the same authorities that got it soo wrong but conveniently ignored their own glaring errors which were a major contribution to their deaths and it could be argued that if they were taken to court, they too would be found guilty of manslaughter - wheres their justice, they were victims too, and did all that was required of them during the blaze, but the authorities were too arrogant to listen and heed the warnings.

Was there decision to prosecute them just because it involved the deaths of 2 emergency services staff and / or because it was done to deflect critism away from the Police and Fire service and their multiple failings? - Lets restore some justice in this case and free the owner and son now.

The justice system in this country is extremely biased against general members of the public (unless you have a sob story) with the Police and co having carte blanch to act recklessly and without repercussions as with this Police officer who struck the man during the G20 protests. The very minimum action should have been that he was sacked due to his unprofessional conduct.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The very minimum action should have been that he was sacked due to his unprofessional conduct.

The police can't deal with the officer concerned (I mean in terms of internal disciplinary measures) until after the outcome of any criminal investigation is complete, otherwise either case could be prejudiced. So now the decision has been made, finally, the Met will look at it from a misconduct point of view. I think he has been suspended anyway, I'm sure I read that somewhere.

 

[Mtoto]

Yeah, there is something in the legislation that says you have to take someone as you find them, ie that if you slapped a bloke who just happened to have a very thin skull and he died as a result, then yes, you would still be liable for that. I can't remember what the technical legal term for it is, but yes, that is the case. I suspect in the Tomlinson matter that the biggest issue is the discrepancy between the different pathologists reports, in that a defence solicitor would home straight in on that element and start suggesting that he could have already been suffering from whichever condition even before being pushed over and that there is an insufficiently clear link between the action and the cause of death. It sounds pretty lame on paper but it would be enough to induce reasonable doubt in a court case I suppose, which is all that's needed.

Off the top of my head, I'm sure there was some case up north a few years back where a guy was being hounded by local youths, and one of them pushed him or did something to him, and he dropped dead of a heart attack?? They were never charged with anything significant, if I recall.

Like I said, before you jump on me, I'm only trying to offer some insight into the technicalities that the CPS have been going on about, not to justify it

I'm not jumping on you, honest. Problem with the post mortems, though, is that the first one - commissioned from someone who, the prosecution might argue, could be trusted to give a "home win" - is up against two that took a very different view, and would, had the first one not happened, have justified a charge of manslaughter. A jury should have been allowed to judge which of the reports were credible, in the light of examination and cross-examination of the evidence.

 

[The Spanish]

Unfortunately, comments that this was murder just serve to indicate ignorance or are purely inflammatory.

no what is inflammatory is shoving people over and killing them for no reason other than you are a TSG arsehole thug bullying normal punters because you are a thick cnt with no mates who everyone sane hates. sorry but its inexcusable, and saying using inacurate or provocative language to describe it is not helpful, would be hilarious if it wasnt so depressing, vastly inappropriate, and drearily predictable.

 

[1066familyman]

I'm talking about NOW , the present day. We all know what went on years ago, but if you seriously think that in todays climate , that there would have been the same outcome if a black man had been seen on prime time TV being assaulted by a copper and who subsequently died, you're f***ing deluded.

Are you essentially saying then that since the " institutionally racist " report on the Met police following the Stephen Lawrence case, everything suddenly changed ? Or perhaps that at least now, in 2010, things have changed dramatically ? I'm sure latest stop and search figures for starters will prove you right.

What you are definitely saying is that had Ian Tomlinson been black then the outcome for the police officer in question would have been totally different. How different I wonder ? What exactly do you think would have been the outcome ? Obviously you believe a conviction for the police officer, but for what precisely ? I'm keen to know so that I can stop from being "f***ing deluded".

Quite why you felt the need to bring race into this in the first place is beyond me. On second thoughts, no, if anyone on here was going to play the race card it was always going to be you. It seems to me that any member of the general public, regardless of race or class, will always have an uphill struggle getting a police officer convicted in a court of law in this country. The whole criminal justice system quite clearly looks after it's own.