G20 Policeman who pushed Ian Tomlinson over - No Charge

[clapham_gull]

I'm only trying to offer some insight into the technicalities that the CPS have been going on about, not to justify it

Well it appears relatively straightforward. The prosecution would have two witnesses (their pathologists) who fundamentally disagreed with each other.

That's the crux of it apparently - the defence would have ripped them apart.

But it shouldn't be forgotten that there is unfortunately much more to this story that the poor mans death.

 

[Acker79]

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.

I thought the article said one said natural causes (I presume the bleeding as a result of long term alcohol abuse argument) and one says the hit caused it. But he third post mortem was not released.

 

[simonsimon]

CPS. Coppers Protection Squad.

Enough said.

 

[Joey Deacon's Disco Suit]

CPS. Coppers Protection Squad.

Enough said.

Yeah, you've done that gag already.

 

[drew]

- 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)
QUOTE]

Pardon me for editing your post but I don't want to comment on the bulk of it as I can see where you're coming from. However, with regard to the section above, the motorist would not be prosecuted as speeding in itself, is not deemed to be an act of negligence. The onus would be on the motorcyclists to ensure it was safe for him to carry out the manouvre safely and within the speed limit himself. A similar scenario would be that if, as a pedestrian, you stepped out in front of a car doing 35 in a 30 limit, that would make the motorist responsible. The fault would be with the pedestrian. I suspect that is the reason the CPS or whomever, decided not to press charges. Having said that, he should have got 3 points and a fine as the tachograph showed he was breaking the law.

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.

Still at it then. Just can't help yourself can you!!!

 

[Mtoto]

I thought the article said one said natural causes (I presume the bleeding as a result of long term alcohol abuse argument) and one says the hit caused it. But he third post mortem was not released.

Every resource I can find says that the third PM agreed with the second.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Why,whas he charged with Affray ?

 

[alan partridge]

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

oh here he goes...

 

[clapham_gull]

Why,whas he charged with Affray ?

He wasn't suspected of it for a start, plus it takes more than a single person to be fighting to make it stick.

 

[clapham_gull]

I thought the article said one said natural causes (I presume the bleeding as a result of long term alcohol abuse argument) and one says the hit caused it. But he third post mortem was not released.

I think the second pathologist thought that the strike could possibly been a factor in his death.

Whilst the third (which hasn't been released) has been reported widely as agreeing with the findings of the first.

What needs to be mentioned here, is I think the first postmortem took place very quickly after the man's death. I'm not 100%, but I presume that it took place prior to the evidence regarding the strike being available.

Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct | UK news | The Guardian

 

[User removed 4]

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"

They would have put that copper in court for manslaughter and let a jury decide about the pathologists report, at the very least there is no way that the statute of limitations would have been allowed to expire, as i said , if you believe otherwise you're f***ing deluded.

 

[User removed 4]

oh here he goes...

You're a cock mate, that's pretty much all i've got to say about you.

 

[The Spanish]

You're a cock mate, that's pretty much all i've got to say about you.

he knows a lot about alan partridge though.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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.

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.

You obviously have more info on this than was directly available to the rest of us at the time. If true it's a worrying picture of our justice system.

The Met cop that has just been let off was suspended from the Met a few years ago. Before his case could be reviewed by the Met he transferred to Surrey and then a few years later was re-employed by the Met. At a very minimum one has to ask why the Surrey and Met vetting procedures are lax enough to allow an officer who is suspended to bounce between the forces to avoid possible punishment.

A few years ago I stayed in a hotel in Austria and bumped into a Met officer at the bar. He policed Palace matches and so we obviously got talking. He openly admitted that Met officers enjoyed policing football games as it allowed them to "get the boot in and crack a few skulls" without fear of punishment. The Met police force certainly give the impression that they're a bunch of bully boys and possibly even corrupt.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

- 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)
QUOTE]

Pardon me for editing your post but I don't want to comment on the bulk of it as I can see where you're coming from. However, with regard to the section above, the motorist would not be prosecuted as speeding in itself, is not deemed to be an act of negligence. The onus would be on the motorcyclists to ensure it was safe for him to carry out the manouvre safely and within the speed limit himself. A similar scenario would be that if, as a pedestrian, you stepped out in front of a car doing 35 in a 30 limit, that would make the motorist responsible. The fault would be with the pedestrian. I suspect that is the reason the CPS or whomever, decided not to press charges. Having said that, he should have got 3 points and a fine as the tachograph showed he was breaking the law.

Which is kinda the point - the Fire brigade had a duty of care for its staff which requires them to withdraw their staff from the immediate area to a distance of at least 600 metres when there are no lives to be saved and there is a danger to their crew if they were to remain - The site stored fireworks legally and therefore it was extremely plain that there was a risk to their staff (fireworks were seen going off in the video on the Argus website prior to the deadly explosion)

They failed to carry outr risk assessments as they were under an obligation to do so ( BBC NEWS | UK | In danger's way at deadly blazes = talks of another incident where lives were lost unneccessarily because risk assessments were not carried out as required)

They had little or no water to fight the fire as the nearby hydrant had been reported as faulty during an inspection months prior to the fire but had not been repaired - Yet they still failed to withdraw their staff, the Fire bridage failed in this duty of care.

The 2 members of east Sussex Fire and rescue would not have been killed by the explosion had the Fire Brigade done what was required of them, So should the owner and his son faced manslaughter charges for their deaths?

If the onus was on the motorcyclists to ensure it was safe for him to carry out the manouvre safely and within the speed limit himself but was killed during the incident, why has the onus on the Fire brigade been ignored ad why then were the owner and his son taken to court on manslaughter charges?

If a care home that killed a disabled girl in a scalding hot bath (as mentioned in the earlier post) was fined but no one individual involved or even the owner / manager faced any charges of manslaughter - why were the owner and his son charged and not just the compant prosecuted?

The whole thing seems very wrong to me and i have lost a lot of faith in justice in this country as a result of this.

 

[Nibble]

I imagine the police are quite glad he died as a result of being pushed over by a uniformed thug, at least he can't sue them or testify on his behalf. Not that it would have done much good, he would lose dead or alive.

 

[Nappy thrower]

I imagine the police are quite glad he died as a result of being pushed over by a uniformed thug, at least he can't sue them or testify on his behalf. Not that it would have done much good, he would lose dead or alive.

What's stopping his family taking out a private prosecution against the copper?

Just because the copper will not be charged it doesn't stop the police force dealing with this matter internally. This isn't really over yet i don't think.

 

[1066familyman]

They would have put that copper in court for manslaughter and let a jury decide about the pathologists report, at the very least there is no way that the statute of limitations would have been allowed to expire, as i said , if you believe otherwise you're f***ing deluded.

Blimey, you stopped short of the full blown murder charge and thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on compensation to the hypothetical black man's family - you mellowing or something ?

Anyway, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that black people get a better deal out of the criminal justice system in this country than white people, I'll continue to disagree with you - and no, not just so I can try and get just one more "f***ing deluded" out of you on the same thread.

 

[drew]

- 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)
QUOTE]

Pardon me for editing your post but I don't want to comment on the bulk of it as I can see where you're coming from. However, with regard to the section above, the motorist would not be prosecuted as speeding in itself, is not deemed to be an act of negligence. The onus would be on the motorcyclists to ensure it was safe for him to carry out the manouvre safely and within the speed limit himself. A similar scenario would be that if, as a pedestrian, you stepped out in front of a car doing 35 in a 30 limit, that would make the motorist responsible. The fault would be with the pedestrian. I suspect that is the reason the CPS or whomever, decided not to press charges. Having said that, he should have got 3 points and a fine as the tachograph showed he was breaking the law.

Sorry, that should have read wouldn't make the motorist responsible


Correction to my earlier post.

 

[User removed 4]

Anyway, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that black people get a better deal out of the criminal justice system in this country than white people, I'll continue to disagree with you - and no, not just so I can try and get just one more "f***ing deluded" out of you on the same thread.

I didnt say that they get a better deal out of the justice system, and anyone who has read my posts can see that, what I am implying is that in cases such as this , had the circumstances been exactly the same bar the colour of Ian Tomlinson's skin, ie he had been black, both the metropolitan police and the CPS would have bent over backwards to ensure that the officer involved was prosecuted, politcians would have been queuing up to denounce the ' thug in uniform ' and demanding inquiries etc etc,there would have been swp/anl marches and no doubt st doreen would have been all over the TV and newspapers, if you think otherwise here's one for free,you're f***ing deluded.