No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
XG332 said:
poo at Paul's said:
No charges are brought when a (female) copper beats up another (female) copper
Was this one caught on video. The police could sell that and make loads. musclecarmad said:
tybo said:
musclecarmad said:
i think if a copper said jump you should bloody well jump. Look at when you are in spain or america the respect people have for the police - no one dare even look at them otherwise they get a kicking. That's how it should be. Law and order and respect.
That's called 'Fear', not "respect".Edited by musclecarmad on Thursday 22 July 19:42
Would you really like to live in fear of the police?
I honestly think this country is too soft
I've started this topic in the plod forum where I mostly loiter. I'm just curious as to what experience people here have with CPS charge standards. Do people know about CPS threshold tests or that the reality is that if the CPS can in any manner charge a police officer, they will? People who suggest, or flat out say like Ferrari spider moron, that because it's a police officer they won't get charged shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter.
FishFace said:
or flat out say like Ferrari spider moron, that because it's a police officer they won't get charged shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Hey silly t
t i did not say such a thing. I said Quote"Totally big surprise that the pig go away with it...........not" End quote. I along with many thousands of others think this way. So get ya facts right bud.
Your just pissed because i used the term pig. I will use that term no matter who anyone is, from a wife beater to a bully who attacks an unarmed man. I could just as easly used the word "thug" or "bully".
Then some guy who i suspect is a police officer jumps to conclusions and makes a comment to me about helping me with my benefit book. Great attitude and prejudice from a police officer, so stereotypical.
When i was in the military there were bad heavy handed MPs and in civvy street there are bad heavy handed police. And if a bad copper who pushes his weight around and kills a man (allegedly
)is called a "pig", i feel fine with that. Edited by ferrari spider on Thursday 22 July 23:58
1) I am not a police officer so don't worry.
2) you know the link between using the word pig and it being a specific insult to police officers. Don't pretend it was intended otherwise.
3) you said he 'got away with it' - clear implication there that you think it was the wrong decision.
2) you know the link between using the word pig and it being a specific insult to police officers. Don't pretend it was intended otherwise.
3) you said he 'got away with it' - clear implication there that you think it was the wrong decision.
FishFace said:
1) I am not a police officer so don't worry.
2) you know the link between using the word pig and it being a specific insult to police officers. Don't pretend it was intended otherwise.
3) you said he 'got away with it' - clear implication there that you think it was the wrong decision.
1) I dont worry about things like that. 2) you know the link between using the word pig and it being a specific insult to police officers. Don't pretend it was intended otherwise.
3) you said he 'got away with it' - clear implication there that you think it was the wrong decision.
2) Prove it. Coincidentally thats what some racist cop would say. If clearly he did not like my black face driving my Ferrari on his patch, and decided to give me a hard time because of it. He would say prove it, ( As he planted a bag of drugs
)3) Yes he did get away with it, it was clear what happened to the majority of people who saw the tv coverage.
Edited by ferrari spider on Friday 23 July 00:34
ExChrispy Porker said:
odyssey2200 said:
But they hot a guy who was already under investigation to do the post mortem. Why would you do that in such a public case? Perhaps to cause confusion & cast enough doubt to get the case dropped?
Who do you mean by 'they'?The pathologist is appointed by the coroner. Are you claiming some kind of conspiracy involving the coroner
Fredey Patel was already under investigation due to some of his previous conclusions which were less than accurate.
Yet the coroner still appointed him to this high profile case. So in answer to your question, yes I am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g...
Obviously, the Telegraph may have some axe to grind, but it doesn't speak well of the Met or Surrey police.
Obviously, the Telegraph may have some axe to grind, but it doesn't speak well of the Met or Surrey police.
ZR1cliff said:
I don't share the same view, if a copper told me to jump while going about my business I'd be more likely to tell him to get lost in no uncertain terms. Just because they don a uniform of the law it gives them no legal right to order people around as they please.
Sometimes common sense is needed and sauntering with your hands in your pockets in such a situation is not common sense.
JagLover said:
ZR1cliff said:
I don't share the same view, if a copper told me to jump while going about my business I'd be more likely to tell him to get lost in no uncertain terms. Just because they don a uniform of the law it gives them no legal right to order people around as they please.
Sometimes common sense is needed and sauntering with your hands in your pockets in such a situation is not common sense.
FishFace said:
I've started this topic in the plod forum where I mostly loiter. I'm just curious as to what experience people here have with CPS charge standards. Do people know about CPS threshold tests or that the reality is that if the CPS can in any manner charge a police officer, they will? People who suggest, or flat out say like Ferrari spider moron, that because it's a police officer they won't get charged shows a total lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Disagree about the CPS, it is an entirely subjective organisation. It's considerations involve the famous 'is it in the public interest' test in addition to,'how likely are we to secure a conviction' (which may have very little to do with the evidence to be presented and more to do with trial dynamics). They frequently don't charge people when they could or should.My case in point is the 80 year old driver on extremely large quantities of medication who crossed the carriageway head-on into my good lady. In short the multiple trauma she suffered turned her from an energetic, can-do person into one who is now washed out by the daily pain of her injuries and has years of problems ahead with which to cope.
CPS view was that as the guy 'voluntarily' surrendered his licence it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute him. Sorry if this seems a bit strident but I think the CPS should just be a processing and prosecuting body and leave the decision of whether to bring a case to the judiciary as happens in other countries by use of examining magistrates. Furthermore, the delay in the case allowing a common assault charge to be timed-out is a loop-hole that needs closing. The clock should only start ticking when more serious charges have been ruled out i.e yesterday for the case in question.
ferrari spider said:
Dunclane said:
Seems you like to bite the hand that feeds you?
Huh! Well that makes no sense what so ever.And clearly you know the lads there, so there for you will know Marks and Gingers opinion on the standards of the UK police fire arms training standards.
Anyway his topic has nothing to do what so ever with fire arms training. So why mention it at all. Email sent.
Edited by ferrari spider on Friday 23 July 09:25
I work with Euro Tactical on a professional level, i am not a company director. Another email sentJagLover said:
ZR1cliff said:
I don't share the same view, if a copper told me to jump while going about my business I'd be more likely to tell him to get lost in no uncertain terms. Just because they don a uniform of the law it gives them no legal right to order people around as they please.
Sometimes common sense is needed and sauntering with your hands in your pockets in such a situation is not common sense.
If we offer the police too much protection and ability to avoid investigation via 'early retirement' we allow the very small bad element that they have within them an opertunity to flout the very laws they are paid to uphold. EVERY organisation has its bullies and cowards and cretins, including the police. weed them out, dont protect them.
For years I have held the utmost respect for the police, the CPS, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Yet two simple words have opened up a crack that goes to the very heart of the system, where it reveals a cruel, rotten core. No Charges. It's as chilling as it is succinct. It calls out a message, a warning, that anything other than total compliance will be crushed under a black boot called 'justice'. The threat caused by Ian Tomlinson as he walked home from work that day has set a new base-line as to what constitutes the definition of 'reasonable force'. No longer will force be met with force, force will be the opening narrative. You will be kept in line, you will comply and you will do what they say.
Saddam himself would have thought twice before appointing a pathologist facing 26 charges of sub-standard practices to one of the most high profile manslaughter cases in recent history. The investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death highlights either a breath-taking level of incompetence or a malignant specter concerned only with it own ends squatting at the centre of our criminal justice system.
It will be many years before the fallout from this whole sordid event finally settles. The full consequences of this case are not yet clear, even to those with the most prescient of eyes. In a world full of uncertaintites there are a few things of which we can be certain: Ian Tomlinson was walking home from work that day; Ian Tomlinson was brutally shoved to the ground by a police officer for nothing more than walking down a public street; Ian Tomlinson died soon after. In times gone by the ins and outs of this case would be examined in minute and transparent detail by the highest courts in the land. For Ian Tomlinson at least, this will no longer be the case.
Saddam himself would have thought twice before appointing a pathologist facing 26 charges of sub-standard practices to one of the most high profile manslaughter cases in recent history. The investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death highlights either a breath-taking level of incompetence or a malignant specter concerned only with it own ends squatting at the centre of our criminal justice system.
It will be many years before the fallout from this whole sordid event finally settles. The full consequences of this case are not yet clear, even to those with the most prescient of eyes. In a world full of uncertaintites there are a few things of which we can be certain: Ian Tomlinson was walking home from work that day; Ian Tomlinson was brutally shoved to the ground by a police officer for nothing more than walking down a public street; Ian Tomlinson died soon after. In times gone by the ins and outs of this case would be examined in minute and transparent detail by the highest courts in the land. For Ian Tomlinson at least, this will no longer be the case.
Edited by Dr_Gonzo on Friday 23 July 11:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff