No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
Dr_Gonzo said:
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.
Not just in times gone by, there are several different standards that seem to come into play in these times. If it had been a black lesbian that died there would be all sorts of investigations being called for.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson
Makes interesting reading.
A couple of snippets,
"The first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, has been suspended pending a General Medical Council hearing into allegations of misconduct in several unrelated cases."
"Officer in the video: Simon Harwood
[edit] Background
The officer seen striking Tomlinson is a police constable with the Territorial Support Group (TSG) at Larkhall Lane police station in Lambeth, South London.[41] Newspapers named him on 22 July 2010 as PC Simon Harwood.[42] He lives in Carshalton, Surrey, with his wife, a GP surgery manager, and their two sons.[31] The Crown Prosecution Service has referred to him only as "PC A".[4]
Harwood faced two misconduct hearing in the late 1990s and in 2004. The first arose out of a road-rage incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury, during which he reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that Harwood had used unnecessary force. Before the case was heard, Harwood retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Several years later, he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker, then applied to join the Surrey Police as an officer. Surrey Police say he was vetted and was frank about his history. During this time in Surrey, there was a complaint about his behaviour while on duty; it was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. After working for Surrey Police for 18 months, Harwood applied for a transfer back to the Met, and was accepted in November 2004. It is not clear how thoroughly the Met vetted him.[31]"
Makes interesting reading.
A couple of snippets,
"The first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, has been suspended pending a General Medical Council hearing into allegations of misconduct in several unrelated cases."
"Officer in the video: Simon Harwood
[edit] Background
The officer seen striking Tomlinson is a police constable with the Territorial Support Group (TSG) at Larkhall Lane police station in Lambeth, South London.[41] Newspapers named him on 22 July 2010 as PC Simon Harwood.[42] He lives in Carshalton, Surrey, with his wife, a GP surgery manager, and their two sons.[31] The Crown Prosecution Service has referred to him only as "PC A".[4]
Harwood faced two misconduct hearing in the late 1990s and in 2004. The first arose out of a road-rage incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury, during which he reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that Harwood had used unnecessary force. Before the case was heard, Harwood retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Several years later, he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker, then applied to join the Surrey Police as an officer. Surrey Police say he was vetted and was frank about his history. During this time in Surrey, there was a complaint about his behaviour while on duty; it was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. After working for Surrey Police for 18 months, Harwood applied for a transfer back to the Met, and was accepted in November 2004. It is not clear how thoroughly the Met vetted him.[31]"
ZR1cliff said:
Not just in times gone by, there are several different standards that seem to come into play in these times. If it had been a black lesbian that died there would be all sorts of investigations being called for.
Probably because the Met have been found guilty of racism - you might not want to hear it but it's true.ETA: Also no suprise that PC Simon Harwood has got away with killing Ian Tomlinson.
Edited by TonyToniTone on Friday 23 July 13:24
Elroy Blue said:
Two complaints since the late 1990's. Big deal. Considering that a huge number of complaints are malicious, he's doing well to only have two. Trying to portray him as a serial thug using those figures is pretty pathetic.
And of course there are no thugs hiding behind the uniform through out the met, are there.odyssey2200 said:
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
Elroy Blue said:
Two complaints since the late 1990's. Big deal. Considering that a huge number of complaints are malicious, he's doing well to only have two. Trying to portray him as a serial thug using those figures is pretty pathetic.
And one of those was unsubstantiated. I had a far worse record, as a PC and a Sgt, over that period, if we are taking unsubstantiated complaints as the criteria 
grumbledoak said:
Dr_Gonzo said:
You're quite right; he was only a newspaper seller afterall.
"Saddam himself", "brutally shoved" ?Go "scweam and scweam and scweam until you are thick", you great fairy.
Da pig pshed him ova innit.
I assume that's more to your level?
Edited by Dr_Gonzo on Friday 23 July 14:36
ZR1cliff said:
Elroy Blue said:
Two complaints since the late 1990's. Big deal. Considering that a huge number of complaints are malicious, he's doing well to only have two. Trying to portray him as a serial thug using those figures is pretty pathetic.
And of course there are no thugs hiding behind the uniform through out the met, are there.ZR1cliff said:
Elroy Blue said:
Two complaints since the late 1990's. Big deal. Considering that a huge number of complaints are malicious, he's doing well to only have two. Trying to portray him as a serial thug using those figures is pretty pathetic.
And of course there are no thugs hiding behind the uniform through out the met, are there.This chap may well be a nasty piece of work or he may not. Not knowing him it is not possible to know.
His use of force was on the video alone in my view not proportionate in terms of the strike, the push however I think could be justified.
Most officers would rather this be resolved in court not like this. On reading the CPS reasoning though and knowing there track record on charging officers ( which is charge almost no matter what) I can see why they didn't go for the serious charges.
I think they tried to placate by looking at the serious stuff and in the mean time lost the only offence that was every really there to be answered.
Dr_Gonzo said:
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.
Really? Then you know very little I'm afraid about things in the past. 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
Oh and if you think for one second a Police force or PSD unit would do anything but cut an officer adrift then you really do not know police forces.
The PSD recommended he face a manslaughter charge. CPS are not the police.
The MET wouldn't even blink if he had to go to court, indeed they would prefer it over this.
I think the problem is simply that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I don't necessarily think it's a cover-up or conspiracy, though christ alone knows what compelled the Met to use Patel for the post mortem, it just smacks of yet another f
k up where somehow nobody is held accountable, it's no-one's fault and "lessons will be learned".
I don't necessarily think it's a cover-up or conspiracy, though christ alone knows what compelled the Met to use Patel for the post mortem, it just smacks of yet another f
k up where somehow nobody is held accountable, it's no-one's fault and "lessons will be learned".paddyhasneeds said:
I think the problem is simply that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I don't necessarily think it's a cover-up or conspiracy, though christ alone knows what compelled the Met to use Patel for the post mortem, it just smacks of yet another fk up where somehow nobody is held accountable, it's no-one's fault and "lessons will be learned".
I don't necessarily think it's a cover-up or conspiracy, though christ alone knows what compelled the Met to use Patel for the post mortem, it just smacks of yet another f
k up where somehow nobody is held accountable, it's no-one's fault and "lessons will be learned".
Thats about the top and bottom of it, from what I can see.Mr_annie_vxr said:
ZR1cliff said:
Elroy Blue said:
Two complaints since the late 1990's. Big deal. Considering that a huge number of complaints are malicious, he's doing well to only have two. Trying to portray him as a serial thug using those figures is pretty pathetic.
And of course there are no thugs hiding behind the uniform through out the met, are there.This chap may well be a nasty piece of work or he may not. Not knowing him it is not possible to know.
His use of force was on the video alone in my view not proportionate in terms of the strike, the push however I think could be justified.
Most officers would rather this be resolved in court not like this. On reading the CPS reasoning though and knowing there track record on charging officers ( which is charge almost no matter what) I can see why they didn't go for the serious charges.
I think they tried to placate by looking at the serious stuff and in the mean time lost the only offence that was every really there to be answered.
jazzyjeff said:
Trophybloo said:
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.
JJ
Trophybloo said:
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.
I'm aware of the full test code. What I am saying is that the CPS very often charge police officers when there is little evidence and at a much lower standard than they would a member of the public.
Dr_Gonzo said:
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.
Wow, that'salters the use of force laws in this country in any manner. There's a difference between force being unlawful, and proving beyond reasonable doubt that it's unlawful. In these specific circumstances, the first examination of Mr Tomlinson has balled up what appears to have been the only realistic level of assault (common assault) that could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt - if it indeed was unlawful.
ferrari spider said:
1) 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 
)
2) Yes he did get away with it, it was clear what happened to the majority of people who saw the tv coverage.
1) Your what, you say? A Ferrari? Did you mention you have one of those? Perhaps even make your name your car. Just post "Ferrari, Ferrari,Ferrari, Ferrari" next time. )2) Yes he did get away with it, it was clear what happened to the majority of people who saw the tv coverage.
2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive. I would hope someone in your occupation would have a greater idea of use of force and the bigger picture. Probably an ambitious expectation.
I'm looking forward to HUGE cuts in the policing budget.
I really am.
Yet again they have displayed breathtaking arrogance in the face of widespread public disgust at their actions.
You can't get one to come out if your house is being burgled, but they will happily whack you with their truncheon if you are legally going about your business.
I really am.
Yet again they have displayed breathtaking arrogance in the face of widespread public disgust at their actions.
You can't get one to come out if your house is being burgled, but they will happily whack you with their truncheon if you are legally going about your business.
Baby Huey said:
I'm looking forward to HUGE cuts in the policing budget.
I really am.
Yet again they have displayed breathtaking arrogance in the face of widespread public disgust at their actions.
You can't get one to come out if your house is being burgled, but they will happily whack you with their truncheon if you are legally going about your business.
Yes, petal. You keep the Red flag flying here.I really am.
Yet again they have displayed breathtaking arrogance in the face of widespread public disgust at their actions.
You can't get one to come out if your house is being burgled, but they will happily whack you with their truncheon if you are legally going about your business.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff