No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
The aggravated trespass in fortnum and masons wasn't legal.
If he's conspiring with others to do similar again then it's not legal.
I doubt in North Korea they would have been polite, used as little force, taken the trouble to explain or listened to his whiny political activist girlfriend. I also suggest that the reason he's not protesting in North Korea.
If he's conspiring with others to do similar again then it's not legal.
I doubt in North Korea they would have been polite, used as little force, taken the trouble to explain or listened to his whiny political activist girlfriend. I also suggest that the reason he's not protesting in North Korea.
ExChrispy Porker said:
Gene Vincent said:
But it is more likely now that the person responsible for an illegal killing will get his just desserts, it's a balls-up but at least now justice is served. We are all the better for that at least.
Edit ... pudding error!
Sadly, I think it is now LESS likely that justice will be done.Edit ... pudding error!
Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 6th May 11:34
There may well be an exciting show trial staged for the benefit of the media, but whether that will be just, remains to be seen.
I still maintain that it will be practically impossible to find an untainted jury, for example.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
The aggravated trespass in fortnum and masons wasn't legal.
When does going into an open shop but not buying anything become aggravated trespass?Mr_annie_vxr said:
If he's conspiring with others to do similar again then it's not legal.
Conspiring to window shop?Mr_annie_vxr said:
I doubt in North Korea they would have been polite, used as little force, taken the trouble to explain or listened to his whiny political activist girlfriend. I also suggest that the reason he's not protesting in North Korea.
I suppose calling it a little North Korean is verging on the hyperbolic.Questioning "the job" being done and trying undermine those doing it is an entirely reasonable thing to do in the circumstances...
Gene Vincent said:
I don't quite see how. The man appears responsible by any reasonable assessment of the situation so finding him guilty would not be counter to any form of justice. I am not sure the word tainted is an appropriate term for a jury having seen much of what has gone on in the last few months. Juries are by and large a fair means of arriving at a good decision, it works. The media are not hounding this man, the public are not clammering for his blood, he won't face a show trial of any form, just trial by jury. I do think he will, if found guilty be made an example of but that happens right across the judicial system, examples are underscored for the greater good, I think a hard sentence would put an end to the perception of invulnerability that has grown like topsy in Police officers in the last 20 years and that will be a bloody good thing! An important reminder that policing is by consent not by authority or force of arms.
I wish I shared your faith.The way things should happen are
1.Criminal trial
2.Disciplinary hearing
3. Inquest
the way things are going we shall have
1.Inquest ( including mention of unsubstantiated complaints)
2. Discipline hearing in public - likely to be widely reported.
3. Criminal trial.
Now I just don't think this sequence of events is likely to lead to a very fair trial. I may well be wrong but it all seems like a show trial to me, otherwise why hold the disciplinary in public ( has that ever been done before ?
Mr_annie_vxr said:
fluffnik said:
Still just trespass at that point.
So you support illegally remaining on people land? Placing others in fear?If asked to go one should go.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
They were doing a lot more than window shopping.
Your support of illegal trespass is noted.
I don't support illegal trespass, nor vandalism.Your support of illegal trespass is noted.
I am a bit of a Situationist though...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/tomlinson...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
Veitch? He deserves a medal for seeing that woman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
Veitch? He deserves a medal for seeing that woman.
Very disappointing.
To think many members of the public are probably more honest and have more integrity. Good on the police woman for keeping decent notes.
Headcams could be justified on the grounds of keeping the police straight and helping to restore public confidence in the police?
carinaman said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/tomlinson...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
carinaman said:
Veitch? He deserves a medal for seeing that woman.
I don't think she wants to make him uneasy about the job he does..."However it is not surprising, in the context of a major policing operation in which thousands of officers were deployed and many were using force, that Pc Harwood's push, no matter how forceful, was not the subject of reporting."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Other officers were throwing people in the vicinity around? Perhaps they didn't see the BBC cameraman thrown down to the floor?
That's a sh*t excuse for Tomlinson being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The IPCC need a good talking to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Other officers were throwing people in the vicinity around? Perhaps they didn't see the BBC cameraman thrown down to the floor?
That's a sh*t excuse for Tomlinson being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The IPCC need a good talking to.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 10th May 05:23
carinaman said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/tomlinson...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
Veitch? He deserves a medal for seeing that woman.
This bit makes me feel a bit empty.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13334642
Shocking.
Indefensible?
Veitch? He deserves a medal for seeing that woman.
Guardian said:
Putting down the phone, Smith immediately wrote in her notes that she had seen a white male in a blue football top with black tracksuit bottoms who had asked to pass a police cordon. She wrote: "Officer left of me pushed him. He went forward. Thought he had hit head. Expected blood. He sat up, looked round, said 'I just want to go home', dazed shocked."
I note that three Met officers reported the assault on Mr Tomlinson, and that the Met Police passed the information on to the City of London Police (who were responsible for the investigation).We now need to know what happened within the City Police. Was it a deliberate cover up, or just incompetence?
Don
--
carinaman said:
People see what they want to see, rather than what actually happens explains why the police woman took notes and the others didn't? It's a reminder about witness statements possibly being what people want to see, rather than what really happened?
Been following but not posting. Just read that and its bit disingenuous to say she took notes. When she became aware of his death a few days later she immediately wrote down what she remembered is how i read it.
Not a big issue but nonetheless....
Wont comment on anything else as i will simply get shouted out of town.
Thanks for your contributions Tallbutt_Buxomly. I wasn't aware she wrote it up later.
I know several police, so I'm disappointed. It should have been handled better and differently. I don't think it's good enough regardless of the organisation. All those people were involved and it went so wrong? Truth and the protection of the public aren't the core business of the police?
It's good she wrote it up. She wrote up the truth. She's not a snitch.
I know several police, so I'm disappointed. It should have been handled better and differently. I don't think it's good enough regardless of the organisation. All those people were involved and it went so wrong? Truth and the protection of the public aren't the core business of the police?
It's good she wrote it up. She wrote up the truth. She's not a snitch.
Mojocvh said:
"A report by the IPCC also said it was "reckless" that an officer incorrectly told a pathologist the newspaper seller fell in front of a police van."
It's all coming out now!
Only 2 possible reasons:It's all coming out now!
1- The plod lied.
2- The plod was paying such little attention to their surroundings that their holding of a warrant card should be seriously reconsidered.
Yes it was a stressful situation etc however if you cannot do the job (which includes being fully aware of what's around you and not attacking members of the public) you shouldn't be in the job.
I work in finance, if I have a bad day I don't go and commit fraud.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff