GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot
Discussion
You're trying to champion justice by removing protection and rights for the accused. You're wanting to remove justice and rights by charging those for murder when there's no evidence. You're really progressive and the type of person who took us from "hanging people for stealing bread".
These are laws which protect and apply to EVERYONE. It isn't for the benefit of "enforcement or the government" or "powerful institutions". What about that don't you get?
These are laws which protect and apply to EVERYONE. It isn't for the benefit of "enforcement or the government" or "powerful institutions". What about that don't you get?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th February 20:37
I have just read the report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26084624
So the IPCC is going to get more money and more staff and they are going to stop police officers colluding on statements. Again too little too late.
If a Labour government gets elected they say they will replace the IPCC with something that has more powers. That is a typical vague political statement that will probably come to nothing but I live in hope.
So the IPCC is going to get more money and more staff and they are going to stop police officers colluding on statements. Again too little too late.
If a Labour government gets elected they say they will replace the IPCC with something that has more powers. That is a typical vague political statement that will probably come to nothing but I live in hope.
I agree the IPCC need more staff. They also need to prioritise their investigations and be dealing with the most serious ones.
They don't need more powers. They have what they need. They need to get used to the fact the people they're treating as criminal suspects aren't there to make an investigator's life easy.
They don't need more powers. They have what they need. They need to get used to the fact the people they're treating as criminal suspects aren't there to make an investigator's life easy.
La Liga said:
I agree the IPCC need more staff. They also need to prioritise their investigations and be dealing with the most serious ones.
They don't need more powers. They have what they need. They need to get used to the fact the people they're treating as criminal suspects aren't there to make an investigator's life easy.
This is true. I think this gets forgotten in all the froth. They don't need more powers. They have what they need. They need to get used to the fact the people they're treating as criminal suspects aren't there to make an investigator's life easy.
La Liga said:
I agree. The CPS are much more wiling to charge / summons police officers to court to try and show "transparency" than they will an MOP. I've seen some shockers go to court.
It may be that the public interest test is met when the bad behaviour is by a Police Officer when it might not be when committed by a MoP.La Liga said:
These are laws which protect and apply to EVERYONE. It isn't for the benefit of "enforcement or the government" or "powerful institutions". What about that don't you get?
The point made was that the current law suits their purposes and that is true. The law allows agents of the state to be armed and let loose on the public in a manner that would be unlawful for everyone else. The application of the criminal law in response to this is simply applying the ordinary homicide laws to the individual who pulls the trigger.
How about prosecutions of individuals under health and safety law?
Zeeky said:
The point made was that the current law suits their purposes and that is true. The law allows agents of the state to be armed and let loose on the public in a manner that would be unlawful for everyone else. The application of the criminal law in response to this is simply applying the ordinary homicide laws to the individual who pulls the trigger.
He said "some laws" - and since he didn't specify which, I am reasonable to assume he's linking the ones we're talking about i.e. ones which allow judges to discontinue unfounded prosecutions and only offer certain verdicts to the jury. This is the bit he doesn't get: the laws he's saying shouldn't exist are protections that nearly always the benefit the public (as oppose to police being prosecuted). It is taking away prosecutions and certain verdicts from the state / Government / 'powerful institutions' when 'it' prosecutes the public since the public are nearly always the accused. In absolute terms, so does using force / self-defence. The public use force one one another much more than the police use force on the public. The numbers of the public who benefit from its protections vastly outweighs the police who do.
Zeeky said:
How about prosecutions of individuals under health and safety law?
How do you mean? 10 Pence Short said:
It may be that the public interest test is met when the bad behaviour is by a Police Officer when it might not be when committed by a MoP.
In some circumstances, yes, the public interest will always (and quite rightly) be very high when a police officer is involved. The examples I am aware of is the evidential threshold. The problem here is that when you have lots of police NG verdicts, the interpretation from the public isn't one of transparency, it's one of "an MOP would have been found guilty bla bla".
Rovinghawk said:
Hol said:
Terrorists had just bombed London, people were dead/dying and the public was crying out for action from the Police and the government,
This doesn't excuse the series of cock-ups that followed.
king trendy and PC at everyone else's expense it doesn't.Edited by Hol on Saturday 8th February 16:57
The BBC reports "Greater Manchester's chief constable has pleaded not guilty to a health and safety charge after an unarmed man was shot dead by an officer.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has said the marksman who killed Mr. Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept he believed his actions were necessary."
Surprise surprise! This is yet another example of the CPS denying a trial jury the opportunity to see the evidence and come to its own conclusion. There is no transparency in the CPS decision. It is just another link in the chain of events designed to withhold the truth from the public.
"The Crown Prosecution Service has said the marksman who killed Mr. Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept he believed his actions were necessary."
Surprise surprise! This is yet another example of the CPS denying a trial jury the opportunity to see the evidence and come to its own conclusion. There is no transparency in the CPS decision. It is just another link in the chain of events designed to withhold the truth from the public.
It is people like me who continually question the secrecy and bias of laws who eventually force change for the better. The public should be very worried about the groups of people abroad on our streets who are licensed to kill with impunity. All indications point to the slow erosion of the laws and procedures that shield them from public scrutiny. The truth eventually comes out even after many years of prevarication and obstruction. Hillsborough is not over yet.
davidball said:
It is people like me who continually question the secrecy and bias of laws who eventually force change for the better.
Yeah, you have great ideas like having people go to court without any evidence to be tried for murder. What a champion of justice... They don't have licence to kill with impunity. They are subject to the same laws as you and I and go through the same process to decide whether or not a prosecution is justified.
davidball said:
All indications point to the slow erosion of the laws and procedures that shield them from public scrutiny.
Such as? Two lethal discharges of firearms in the past few years you disagree with? How are they shielded when the IPCC reports are put in the public domain and the coroner's court is public?
La Liga said:
They don't have licence to kill with impunity. They are subject to the same laws as you and I and go through the same process to decide whether or not a prosecution is justified.
To be fair, the Tomlinson process was a little different to best practice.This might undermine your argument.
davidball said:
It is people like me who continually question the secrecy and bias of laws who eventually force change for the better. The public should be very worried about the groups of people abroad on our streets who are licensed to kill with impunity. All indications point to the slow erosion of the laws and procedures that shield them from public scrutiny. The truth eventually comes out even after many years of prevarication and obstruction. Hillsborough is not over yet.
The tinfoil hat is strong with this one...Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
They don't have licence to kill with impunity. They are subject to the same laws as you and I and go through the same process to decide whether or not a prosecution is justified.
To be fair, the Tomlinson process was a little different to best practice.This might undermine your argument.
"Planes are a very safe way to travel - but one once crashed therefore that undermines your argument."
They are subject to the same rules but have dodgy pathologists appointed by the home office (their employer) and don't get any criminal conviction whatsoever for what we all know happened.
I'll leave out the cover-ups & denials.
They're subject to the same rules until they're not.
I know you'll disagree, so let's agree to differ.
I'll leave out the cover-ups & denials.
They're subject to the same rules until they're not.
I know you'll disagree, so let's agree to differ.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff