No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
If he had done this to a copper he'd have been arrested and charged with assault.
Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
paddyhasneeds said:
Please don't put words into my mouth. I haven't claimed he was "beaten so terribly ruthlessly" as he clearly wasn't. I think an officer over-reacted because he was having a bad day and that resulted in Tomlinson dying.
Do I think he intended to kill Tomlinson? No. Do I want him hung drawn and quartered? No. Do I think he's fit to wear the uniform in light of his seeming inability to control himself? No. Do I think he's been less than truthful at the inquiry? Yes.
I think the officer was over reacting because he was aving a 'great day', taking out his frustrations on people whilst being paid (wonder if he was on overtime?). Wonder what the 'banter' would have been liek at the end of the shift if no one had died....? "see that smeely old protestor I flattened?" etcDo I think he intended to kill Tomlinson? No. Do I want him hung drawn and quartered? No. Do I think he's fit to wear the uniform in light of his seeming inability to control himself? No. Do I think he's been less than truthful at the inquiry? Yes.
I'm also pretty sure he meant the poor guy no harm and was gutted by his actions leading to his death. But we all have to live by our actions and own up to the consequences.....
That is quite possibly the case.
However what would not have happened, is an inquest verdict of unlawful killing BEFORE a criminal trial. This, and all the attendant publicity makes it almost impossible for the officer to receive a fair trial if criminal proceedings are commenced in my opinion.
However what would not have happened, is an inquest verdict of unlawful killing BEFORE a criminal trial. This, and all the attendant publicity makes it almost impossible for the officer to receive a fair trial if criminal proceedings are commenced in my opinion.
Corsair7 said:
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
Looking at a couple of items reported from his background (allowed to retire - at 33? - through ill health after an alleged road rage incident, and then eventually made his way back to the Met) you have to wonder what the heck he was doing there in the first place.Corsair7 said:
If he had done this to a copper he'd have been arrested and charged with assault.
Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
Even without the Tomlinson death, the video shows him acting in a manner that should result in both criminal prosectuion and ejection from the Police. He is manifestly unfit for the job.Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
ExChrispy Porker said:
That is quite possibly the case.
However what would not have happened, is an inquest verdict of unlawful killing BEFORE a criminal trial. This, and all the attendant publicity makes it almost impossible for the officer to receive a fair trial if criminal proceedings are commenced in my opinion.
Well, considering that the standard of proof required for an unlawful killing verdict is the same as for a criminal verdict - beyond reasonable doubt - I disagree. The trial shouldn't take long.However what would not have happened, is an inquest verdict of unlawful killing BEFORE a criminal trial. This, and all the attendant publicity makes it almost impossible for the officer to receive a fair trial if criminal proceedings are commenced in my opinion.
ExChrispy Porker said:
The police do not decide which pathologist performs a PM.
That is the coroners responsibility.
I don't think that is entirely correct.That is the coroners responsibility.
The Metpol can call on any listed person to attend a sudden death, the coroner has to 'intervene' to elect a different one to the one that first attended.
This particular chap was called not by a coroner but by the police themselves.
Happy to be corrected!
My odd thing to say?
Well a previous poster was citing costs to the taxpayer and it being a witch hunt, hence my reference to cost.
Perhaps another odd thing to say would be to compare it with the hidden cost of rework, which is a consequence of not doing it correctly the first time.
The cost to the taxpayer can be laid at the feet of those that didn't deal with it correctly at the time?
The Report on Radio 4 about Dr Patel was broadcast last summer and isn't available for download from their website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705
When other constabularies have prosecuted their own officers for less, and prosecuted their own officers when their lapses have led to deaths the idea that this officer should walk away from his part in Tomlinson's demise seems a bit out of date?
Well a previous poster was citing costs to the taxpayer and it being a witch hunt, hence my reference to cost.
Perhaps another odd thing to say would be to compare it with the hidden cost of rework, which is a consequence of not doing it correctly the first time.
The cost to the taxpayer can be laid at the feet of those that didn't deal with it correctly at the time?
The Report on Radio 4 about Dr Patel was broadcast last summer and isn't available for download from their website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705
When other constabularies have prosecuted their own officers for less, and prosecuted their own officers when their lapses have led to deaths the idea that this officer should walk away from his part in Tomlinson's demise seems a bit out of date?
Zod said:
Well, considering that the standard of proof required for an unlawful killing verdict is the same as for a criminal verdict - beyond reasonable doubt - I disagree. The trial shouldn't take long.
The point is though that a criminal trial should take place BEFORE an inquest, so as not to influence the jury in the criminal trial.This is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.
The inquest for the estate agent killed in Bristol, for example, has been opened and adjourned until the criminal case is concluded.
ExChrispy Porker said:
Zod said:
Well, considering that the standard of proof required for an unlawful killing verdict is the same as for a criminal verdict - beyond reasonable doubt - I disagree. The trial shouldn't take long.
The point is though that a criminal trial should take place BEFORE an inquest, so as not to influence the jury in the criminal trial.This is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.
The inquest for the estate agent killed in Bristol, for example, has been opened and adjourned until the criminal case is concluded.
The idea that he cannot get a fair trial because a jury ahs already decided that the killing is unlawful is a bit of a stretch though. All the trial needs to prove is his identity and then he will have the opportunity to claim mitigation.
Zod said:
It should, but we have the DPP and the CPS to blame for things happening in the wrong order.
The idea that he cannot get a fair trial because a jury ahs already decided that the killing is unlawful is a bit of a stretch though. All the trial needs to prove is his identity and then he will have the opportunity to claim mitigation.
It's not quite that simple The idea that he cannot get a fair trial because a jury ahs already decided that the killing is unlawful is a bit of a stretch though. All the trial needs to prove is his identity and then he will have the opportunity to claim mitigation.
ExChrispy Porker said:
Zod said:
It should, but we have the DPP and the CPS to blame for things happening in the wrong order.
The idea that he cannot get a fair trial because a jury ahs already decided that the killing is unlawful is a bit of a stretch though. All the trial needs to prove is his identity and then he will have the opportunity to claim mitigation.
It's not quite that simple The idea that he cannot get a fair trial because a jury ahs already decided that the killing is unlawful is a bit of a stretch though. All the trial needs to prove is his identity and then he will have the opportunity to claim mitigation.
drivin_me_nuts said:
.. your last paragraph:
That's one way to look at it. Another would be that we, as a collective of people have every right and responsibility to find out whether those who are supposed to maintain law and order, acted within the boundaries and responsibilities of the laws they are employed to enforce.
To my mind, there is no financial cost too high that it is not justifyable. One illegal death is one death too many. What ever the man might or might not have been, no one should die in the street through the inapporpriate actions of those enforcing the law.
I cant really disagree.That's one way to look at it. Another would be that we, as a collective of people have every right and responsibility to find out whether those who are supposed to maintain law and order, acted within the boundaries and responsibilities of the laws they are employed to enforce.
To my mind, there is no financial cost too high that it is not justifyable. One illegal death is one death too many. What ever the man might or might not have been, no one should die in the street through the inapporpriate actions of those enforcing the law.
One of my bigger concerns these days is a lot of footage from protests and riots is filmed by protesters and rioters, people with an agenda and who will be selective in what they do with any footage in that as i see it they will use it to cause trouble for the police.
However in reverse will protect rioters and protesters from prosecution for criminal acts by not making damage/assault footage available to the police or public.
Corsair7 said:
If he had done this to a copper he'd have been arrested and charged with assault.
Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
What other video of him abusing his powers???Coppers actions in other film, showing throwing camerman to floor, tells me he's just a thug looking for a fight, that happens to wear a uniform.
Filmed twice abusing his powers in 15 minutes, makes you wonder how many other times he did this but wasnt caught on film.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
.. your last paragraph:
That's one way to look at it. Another would be that we, as a collective of people have every right and responsibility to find out whether those who are supposed to maintain law and order, acted within the boundaries and responsibilities of the laws they are employed to enforce.
To my mind, there is no financial cost too high that it is not justifyable. One illegal death is one death too many. What ever the man might or might not have been, no one should die in the street through the inapporpriate actions of those enforcing the law.
I cant really disagree.That's one way to look at it. Another would be that we, as a collective of people have every right and responsibility to find out whether those who are supposed to maintain law and order, acted within the boundaries and responsibilities of the laws they are employed to enforce.
To my mind, there is no financial cost too high that it is not justifyable. One illegal death is one death too many. What ever the man might or might not have been, no one should die in the street through the inapporpriate actions of those enforcing the law.
One of my bigger concerns these days is a lot of footage from protests and riots is filmed by protesters and rioters, people with an agenda and who will be selective in what they do with any footage in that as i see it they will use it to cause trouble for the police.
However in reverse will protect rioters and protesters from prosecution for criminal acts by not making damage/assault footage available to the police or public.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff