# Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"



## solidyeoman (Jul 21, 2010)

Demonstrate outside New Scotland Yard 1pm called by Families for Justice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2010)

about fucking time


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2010)

Here's hoping that the Tomlinson family receive justice for the murder of Ian.


----------



## Cobbles (Jul 21, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Here's hoping that the Tomlinson family receive justice for the murder of Ian.


 
Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.

_"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html

Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


----------



## The Boy (Jul 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


 
You really are a simpleton aren't you?


----------



## lighterthief (Jul 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


Just boring now, really.


----------



## BettyBlue (Jul 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


 
He wasn't estranged from all of his family. Know any of 'em do you? No? Well STFU then.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.



lol You really are a fuckwit


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 21, 2010)

I will eat my virtual internet hat if they bring any charges agasint any copper with regards to the manslaughter of ian tomlinson. 

BTW- according to the article in the guardian, the city of london police intially suggested to Ian Tomlinsons family that the copper who assualted him 'could have been a member of the public dressed up' !!! how fucking desperate is that?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 21, 2010)

You maybe estranged from your wife but very rarely will all the family especially not your children.Families do break up but very seldom do all the children of the marriage partner turn their back completely


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.



Except, of course, that the story is partial and makes assumptions that were later corrected.
Not that such a thing bothers a pathetic wanker like you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> I will eat my virtual internet hat if they bring any charges agasint any copper with regards to the manslaughter of ian tomlinson.


Sadly, there's almost no likelihood of a hat dinner for you. There'll just be bullshit about how it wasn't intentional, and how the officer (and all his fellows who covered up for the sack of shit) has had "words of advice".


> BTW- according to the article in the guardian, the city of london police intially suggested to Ian Tomlinsons family that the copper who assualted him 'could have been a member of the public dressed up' !!! how fucking desperate is that?


That's the CoL police for you. They've spent 100 years perfecting covering up their fellow-officers' fuck-ups and corruption.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 21, 2010)

I look forward to learning how I myself can push people over onto the concrete for no apparent reason, and be quite all right when they die from it. This could be useful information.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 22, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I look forward to learning how I myself can push people over onto the concrete for no apparent reason, and be quite all right when they die from it. This could be useful information.


Join the police


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I look forward to learning how I myself can push people over onto the concrete for no apparent reason, and be quite all right when they die from it. This could be useful information.


 
Don't you mean "strike a person in the leg with a baton and then push them over"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> Join the police


 I think he means "how can I do it without leaving a stain on my eternal soul?".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think he means "how can I do it without leaving a stain on my eternal soul?".


 
Once again the answer is 'become a copper'. You cannot stain what isn't there.


----------



## Cobbles (Jul 22, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> You maybe estranged from your wife but very rarely will all the family especially not your children.Families do break up but very seldom do all the children of the marriage partner turn their back completely


 
You mean like keeping in touch with your dad and offering him some support if you found out he was going to be homeless or even offering him somewhere to live when after a prolonged gap in contact you found out that he was actually homeless?

i wonder why they didn't bother showing any interest until there was a hint of cash compensation floating about?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Can one of the mods get this person off this thread today please?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

No charges to be brought as they can't prove a link between the assault and death. 

This one should run for a bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

> "no realistic prospect" of a conviction


 - no jury wouldn't convict.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No charges to be brought as they can't prove a link between the assault and death.


 
That's not what they said, after all it's a jury's job to find guilt/innocence. The quote from the CPS is "there was no realistic prospect of conviction", well there certainly isn't now they've decided there will be no trial....


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Surprise, sur-fucking-prise.


----------



## glenquagmire (Jul 22, 2010)

No realistic prospect of conviction for what? Assault? ABH? GBH? Manslaughter? NONE of these?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> The quote from the CPS is "there was no realistic prospect of conviction", well there certainly isn't now they've decided there will be no trial....



Yes, it seems the medical experts couldn't agree.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

glenquagmire said:


> No realistic prospect of conviction for what? Assault? ABH? GBH? Manslaughter? NONE of these?



Apparently a charge of common assault could have been justified but it has to be brought within six months, and since the enquiry went on for longer than six months this won't happen either.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it seems the medical experts couldn't agree.


 
Which medical experts?  Hasnt the stooge who carried out the first autopsy been thoroughly discredited?  The second one basically said someones killed him and for some reason we don't know what the third one said, but I rather suspect it might be similar to the second.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Apparently a charge of common assault could have been justified but it has to be brought within six months, and since the enquiry went on for longer than six months this won't happen either.


 
'Not our fault, the law is to blame'


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it seems the medical experts couldn't agree.


 
Well the first post mortem was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, a doctor currently facing charges of misconduct in 4 other post mortems and currently barred from performing autopsies in cases of suspicious deaths. Hardly a credible doctor, the second found it was a result of intermnal bleeding and the third has never been made public. So, we don't actually know what 1 of the doctors thought, another is currently awaiting charges of misconduct and may do so over this autopsy. So we're left with public knowledge of the one citing internal bleeding....


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> So we're left with public knowledge of the one citing internal bleeding....



Ok. And the CPS have said that a link can't be proved between the baton strike and the internal bleeding?

I've got no detail, I'm at work just reading the BBC ticker.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


I'll be happy to furnish the family with your full contact details should they decide to pursue a case of libel against your foul words.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Well the first post mortem was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, a doctor currently facing charges of misconduct in 4 other post mortems and currently barred from performing autopsies in cases of suspicious deaths.


 
Yes, he seems to have an unfortunate habit of concluding death was accidental or misadventure when it was quite obviously murder.  I should imagine that it was pure coincidence that some of the victims were prostitutes and/or drug users.  Perhaps he thought that they wern't real people so not worthy of further investigation.

Cunt.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

This is british justice. Three attempted fit-ups for PC Blakelock and nothing for Tomlinson except a smear campaign, lies and distortions.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. And the CPS have said that a link can't be proved between the baton strike and the internal bleeding?
> 
> I've got no detail, I'm at work just reading the BBC ticker.



No, the CPS concluded, as the BBC make clear there was "no realistic prospect of conviction". They don't say anywhere, according to the BBC as yet, that a link can't be proved.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Hands up who is supprised one little fucking bit?

The police can do what the fuck they like, including manslaughter. The fucking murdering scum cunts. I hope this fucking wanker dies a slow, painful, lonely death.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> No, the CPS concluded, as the BBC make clear there was "no realistic prospect of conviction". They don't say anywhere, according to the BBC as yet, that a link can't be proved.


 
Ok, I definitely read earlier, when Keir Starmer was on live, something along the lines of "can't prove a link between the assault and death".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Just to repeat:

*Demonstrate outside New Scotland Yard 1pm called by Families for Justice*


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> They don't say anywhere, according to the BBC as yet, that a link can't be proved.


 
Yes, it's on again now. That's precisely what they're saying.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it's on again now. That's precisely what they're saying.


 
This is in the article.... 





> Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no realistic prospect of conviction.
> 
> The incident and its aftermath was caught on video.
> 
> Mr Starmer said that there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.



The third post mortem is not public knowledge, why? So we have a possibly soon to be discredited doctor, disagreeing with a professional colleague. The third post mortem we may never know. Justice not being done or being seen to be done as some 'evidence' is not in the public domain. If in the future Freddy Patel is charged with misconduct over this post mortem will that mean charges can be brought? If Patel is found guilty of musconduct over the 4 autopsies he is already facing charges for will that change anything? It stinks.....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> No, the CPS concluded, as the BBC make clear there was "no realistic prospect of conviction". They don't say anywhere, according to the BBC as yet, that a link can't be proved.


there's no realistic chance of prosecution cos the fuckers won't take it to court and let a jury decide.


----------



## revlon (Jul 22, 2010)

at the very least they should make public the officers notes justifying his use of force on Tomlinson. If there is no legal justification for his actions, then there is no reason not to charge him with something.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 22, 2010)

No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Yes, he seems to have an unfortunate habit of concluding death was accidental or misadventure when it was quite obviously murder.  I should imagine that it was pure coincidence that some of the victims were prostitutes and/or drug users.  Perhaps he thought that they wern't real people so not worthy of further investigation.
> 
> Cunt.


 And of course, pure coincidence that he was asked to conduct the first autopsy in the first place.



> The Guardian writes that Patel's work had come under scrutiny before. He qualified as a doctor at the University of Zambia in 1974, and was registered to practice in the UK in 1988.[46]  In 1999, he was reprimanded by the General Medical Council for releasing to reporters medical details about Roger Sylvester, a black man who had died in police custody; Patel told reporters that Sylvester was a crack cocaine user, something his family denied. In 2002, the police dropped a criminal inquiry because Patel said the victim, Sally White, had died of a heart attack with no signs of violence, though she was reportedly found naked with bruising to her body, an injury to her head, and a bite mark on her thigh. Anthony Hardy, a mentally ill alcoholic who lived in the flat in which her body was found locked in a bedroom, later murdered two women and placed their body parts in bin bags. In response to the criticism, Patel said the GMC reprimand was a long time ago, and that his findings in the Sally White case had not been contested.[51]  The Sunday Telegraph reported in July 2009 that Patel had been suspended from the government's register of pathologists, pending an inquiry,[52]  and in July 2010 he faced a General Medical Council disciplinary hearing regarding disputes autopsies in four other cases.[46]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson#Postmortem_examinations



Bent as fuck.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> ...



What a cunt you are. Get cancer soon eh? Useless eater.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

oh the pet pathologist was a total police tool. This was well covered at the time. I'd go so far as to assume that the met were used to telling this pathologist what his findings were to be and him used to following through on his instructions.

Of course there is no evidence to suggest money changing hands but I would not be at all suprised.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, I definitely read earlier, when Keir Starmer was on live, something along the lines of "can't prove a link between the assault and death".


I thought that was what a trial and jury were there for?  Who made him the judge and jury?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I thought that was what a trial and jury were there for?  Who made him the judge and jury?


 
The CPS bring the prosecution, ergo they decide which cases 'deserve' a trial or not


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

One of the most absurd decisions I can ever remember from the CPS.   They have hidden behind the reasonable likelihood part of the Full Code Test and ignored every other part of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?



None whatsoever, except affordability, and I suspect that there are a few good lawyers (a few do exist!) waiting in the wings to take this forward if the family wish to.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

It's isn't just an appalling stitch up, it's taking the family and entire public to be mugs. To treat everyone as irrelevant cunts and to just not a give a flying fuck for what anyone else thinks.


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I thought that was what a trial and jury were there for?  Who made him the judge and jury?


 
The CPS don't prosecute unless there's an approximately 50% chance of conviction. Public funds etc etc. I'd have thought public interest would override that consideration in this case though. Shockingly bad decision.



> If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death *he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty*. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.



Never gonna happen - not this time, not next time, not until the streets erupt in a hellish fury which refuses to be subdued. And probably not even then.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

I think  the pov of the CPS is whoever they put up for prosecution on whatever charges, a London jury would find him guilty of all charges before the opening speeches had concluded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It's isn't just an appalling stitch up, it's taking the family and entire public to be mugs. To treat everyone as irrelevant cunts and to just not a give a flying fuck for what anyone else thinks.



If nothing else, it's an incredibly bad public relations move by "the establishment".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

so thats 'waving a drinks carton at a copper: A beating

Walking home from work during a protest: death.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> This is in the article....
> 
> The third post mortem is not public knowledge, why? So we have a possibly soon to be discredited doctor, disagreeing with a professional colleague. The third post mortem we may never know. Justice not being done or being seen to be done as some 'evidence' is not in the public domain. If in the future Freddy Patel is charged with misconduct over this post mortem will that mean charges can be brought? If Patel is found guilty of musconduct over the 4 autopsies he is already facing charges for will that change anything? It stinks.....



It certainly seems that way.


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?


 
Aye. Let's hope someone's willing and able to fund it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

The full CPS statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> One of the most absurd decisions I can ever remember from the CPS.   They have hidden behind the reasonable likelihood part of the Full Code Test and ignored every other part of it.


 
Interesting innit. The CPS wail that the OB say that they hide behind that, when their version is that the OB don't bring cases before them in the first place. But they're clearly hiding behind it now.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson
> 
> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.


That's because the first autopsy was done by pig cunts, with pig cunt agendas, the second 2 were not. They were done after it was realised what had actually happened, and not what the police told the papers what happened. The big fat cunting liars.

It makes my fucking blood boil.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson
> 
> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.


 
I knew it. So because the pet pathologist, the one who is currently in trouble over previous grievous fuckups is given the same weight as two other pathologists who disagreed with his hasty and dodgy initial findings.

Isn't that fucking convenient. Absolute piss takers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson
> 
> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.



So the 3rd autopsy agreed with the 2nd and this is not a reason to proceed with charges but, in fact, the key reason _not to_. That's amazing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Don't want to lose the police with what's coming over the next few years.


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2010)

Police *do* get done for causing deaths. Just not human ones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8528878.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

> Dr Patel was seen twice in conference by the prosecution team. Dr Patel maintained that the total fluid was somewhat in excess of three litres but that it was mainly ascites (a substance which forms in a damaged liver), which had been stained with blood. *He had not retained the fluid nor had he sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood because, he said, he had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites.*





> (e) Since Dr Patel was the only person to examine Mr Tomlinson's intact body, he was in the best position to have considered the nature of the fluid he had observed and removed, and he was in the best position to have identified any rupture.



So his incompetence is yet another line of defence.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Don't want to lose the police with what's coming over the next few years.


 I do, I hope we lose every single last fucking one of them. To a painful desease of some kind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> I do, I hope we lose every single last fucking one of them. To a painful desease of some kind.


 
I think you've missed the point there.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So his incompetence is yet another line of defence.


 
Indeed.  You can also make the argument that the whole tenor of his report was changed simply by adding the word "with":



> In his first report, Dr Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot." This had been interpreted by the other medical experts to mean that he had found 3 litres of blood in the abdomen.
> 
> If Dr Patel had found 3 litres of blood, this would have been approximately 60% of Mr Tomlinson's blood volume and would have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death.
> 
> However, when Dr Patel provided a further report on 6 April 2010, he recorded that he had found "intraabdominal fluid with blood about 3l with small blood clot". Since Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this finding to inform their own opinions, the significance of this more recent description of Dr Patel's findings had to be clarified with Dr Patel and discussed with the other experts.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson
> 
> *It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two*.


 
So here we have some of the info from the 3rd autopsy...??



> The family and the IPCC sought a second post mortem and this was undertaken by a second pathologist, Dr Cary, on 9 April 2009. He concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary's view that *when Mr Tomlinson fell*, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.
> 
> 
> On 22 April 2009 the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards instructed another pathologist, Dr Shorrock, to perform a third post mortem. Dr Shorrock agreed with Dr Cary's conclusion.



So we have some of the third autopsy report, it concurs with the second report.

Ian Tomlinson did not fall, he was pushed to the ground, he was pushed by a policeman, quite how then they come to the conclusion they have is beyond me frankly. 

It then goes on..... 





> > Having concluded that the officer's actions could constitute an assault
> 
> 
> , the CPS then considered the possible criminal charges.



And yet no charges...

And again...... 





> Conclusion
> In this case there has always been and, despite the efforts of the prosecution team to resolve issues, there remains an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death.



What happens if Mr Patel is found guilty of misconduct, perhaps struck off, what then? His conclusions would cwertainly be subject to more intense scrutiny.


This fucking stinks......


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


 
words fail me


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

it's the tacit implied contract between state and police 'We'll always back you up and should you get killed we'll get the man-any man- into jail'

I'd like to say that this shit won't slide but I really suspect that t will.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2010)

while this is entirely the expected result, it's still kind of unbelievable.


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

I'm sure there was an article at the time which claimed that there were oddities over Patel doing the autopsy in the first place - summat to do with not being on the list or on duty at the time. He got struck off the register a couple of months after because of these other cases - but IIRC this was claimed at the time. It's a tough google - anyone have a better memory than me?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

I think it was that he wasn't on duty. search in the G20 thread IIRC it was mentioned there


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

ymu said:


> I'm sure there was an article at the time which claimed that there were oddities over Patel doing the autopsy in the first place - summat to do with not being on the list or on duty at the time. He got struck off the register a couple of months after because of these other cases - but IIRC this was claimed at the time. It's a tough google - anyone have a better memory than me?


 
this?  

http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2009/070209/news070209_02.html


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


 
Please fuck off.

And die.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Please fuck off.
> 
> And die.


 seconded, thirded forthed and fithed. Pig loving cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson
> 
> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.



Could the decision be judicially reviewed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Please fuck off.
> 
> And die.



You forgot the words "slowly and painfully".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

ignore cobblers, the subject at hand is the disgusting miscarriage of justice not the inane ramblings of a piss stained middle management sort with delusion of wealth.


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> this?
> 
> http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2009/070209/news070209_02.html


 
Yes. Thanks.



> Investigators want to know why Dr Patel conducted the post mortem on Mr Tomlinson when it appeared he does not currently hold a police contract, another requirement of the Home Office rules.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 22, 2010)

I am not suprised at the result, it is the sheer audacity that I find amazing.  I was happy to just see the family appearing resolved and to have a good understanding of the system in the BBC footage just shown.  I hope the wanky griffin story doesn't get the headlines over this disgusting farce.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

The more I read, the more I'm astounded. I'm normally reasonably supportive of the police, but this is wrong.

Very wrong.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could the decision be judicially reviewed?


 
You would think so - both in the decision itself and in the proportionality of the CPS Full Code Test, which gives an astonishing amount of power to prosecutors (who essentially determine whether or not there is a realistic proposition of success).  

I should also state that the CPS are right that a charge for manslaughter would inevitably face the question of whether or not they could prove that Officer A's actions caused Tomlinsons death, and that there was a sizeable chance that a trial would not have been able to determine it beyond all reasonable doubt - its just that they should have left this up to the trial, given the obvious public interest issues in the case (and deaths following police contact generally), and most importantly that there are issues that appear to seriously affect the credibility of Patel as a witness.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The more I read, the more I'm astounded. I'm normally reasonably supportive of the police, but this is wrong.
> 
> Very wrong.


 
If you can shoot a man in the back 6 times in front of 50 witnesses and not have to answer for it then a mere baton whack followed by a push is nothing.

ETA: And of course it's not the Police's fault if CPS don't prosecute etc etc.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes. Thanks.


 
Another point rising from that article which appears to be of relevance to this decision is that Patel's post-mortem of Sally White (which apparently stated she died of a heart attack and ascribed it to natural causes) did not stop the CPS going on to charge Antony Hardy with her murder, even without an admission from Hardy at that stage.


----------



## Cobbles (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.



In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.

The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0. 

Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.
> 
> The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.
> 
> Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.



Yes but you seem to be ignoring the fact that Patel is extremley suspect that alone should be considered when deciding on his report.  If Patel is found guilty of misconduct then his evidence is worthless.

There was never going to be a murder charge because it's quite obvious there was no intent to kill, but no manslaughter or even ABH, that fucking stinks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

The CPS isn't the defence cobblers. All 3 autopsies are available to defence and prosecution. You seem rather confused.  If not downright ignorant.

Idea: Let's all ignore cobbles.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.
> 
> The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.
> 
> Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.


 
As has been said, there would have been difficulty proving a charge of manslaughter in court - however, the CPS have recently charged and convicted someone of murder even with Patel's autopsy saying something else, and there are questions that they could have raised about the credibility of both Patel and his autopsy of Tomlinson.  It would have been difficult, but it would have been a much better course of action than this is.


----------



## Hollis (Jul 22, 2010)

Suprise, suprise..


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> In which case it is clearly the correct decision to have made on the basis that whichever elements of all 3 autopsies the CPS decided lo lead as evidence could easily be refuted by any number of medical expert witnesses.
> 
> The prospect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a blow/push was the actual cause of death would therefore be 0.
> 
> Even if they could get past that little hurdle, the CPS would also have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who dealt the blow acted in a premeditated or criminally negligent fashion - extremely difficult if not impossible.


 
You're conflating tests. It is for the prosecution to convince the jury so they are satisfied 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. The burden on the CPS in deciding whether to bring a prosecution is much lower 'a reasonable chance of success'.

It was an assault at the very least by any common law of statutory definition, possibly ABH. A jury in London, offered more, might well have taken that as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> As has been said, there would have been difficulty proving a charge of manslaughter in court - however, the CPS have recently charged and convicted someone of murder even with Patel's autopsy saying something else, and there are questions that they could have raised about the credibility of both Patel and his autopsy of Tomlinson.  It would have been difficult, but it would have been a much better course of action than this is.


 

What's the normal process for deciding who carries out an autopsy? The reports i've seen say the police 'commissioned' this patel one - is that the way things are normally done or is that a departure from normal process?


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's the normal process for deciding who carries out an autopsy? The reports i've seen say the police 'commissioned' this patel one - is that the way things are normally done or is that a departure from normal process?


 
No idea, sorry.  I would assume there must be some sort of rota as to who is on duty for an area at any given time.  DB would probably know more.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> No idea, sorry.  I would assume there must be some sort of rota as to who is on duty for an area at any given time.  DB would probably know more.


 
That's what i assuming - it goes onto the spike and is taken 'as is'. The fact this is one reported as 'commissioned' is setting alarm bells off.


----------



## Cobbles (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The CPS isn't the defence cobblers. All 3 autopsies are available to defence and prosecution. The CPS doesn't actually make the cases either.



It's reasonable to presume that the CPS would need to lead evidence to connect the policeman's action to Tomlinson's death - no? 

That evidence would have to be based on the autopsies amplified by whatever medical experts they would need to establish a causal link.

The defence would therefore shop for whatever medical experts they needed to break the link - "Q:could the abdominal bleeding have been caused by a spontaneous failure of the deceased's cirrohotic liver? A:That's a possibility." - any such exchange would have to be commented on in a judge's summing up (whether murder or manslaughter).


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

big question now is, what the fuck is done about this? We can't go on with such a blatently fucking corrput police force/judicianal system.


----------



## Cobbles (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> big question now is, what the fuck is done about this? We can't go on with such a blatently fucking corrput police force/judicianal system.



How is the CPS "corrupt?


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> How is the CPS "corrupt?


 
the result of this case speaks for itself. It was a blatent case of a policemans actions resulting in an innocent mans death. If it were me, who hit a copper with a stick, who then fell to the ground and died, there'd be no fucking question. It's not fucking rocket science. This is corruption at it's most fucking blatent. And the more I think about it, the fucking angrier I get


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> It's reasonable to presume that the CPS would need to lead evidence to connect the policeman's action to Tomlinson's death - no?
> 
> That evidence would have to be based on the autopsies amplified by whatever medical experts they would need to establish a causal link.
> 
> The defence would therefore shop for whatever medical experts they needed to break the link - "Q:could the abdominal bleeding have been caused by a spontaneous failure of the deceased's cirrohotic liver? A:That's a possibility." - any such exchange would have to be commented on in a judge's summing up (whether murder or manslaughter).



Indeed that might have happened Cobbles, but the point you seem determined to miss is that there was evidence that they could have used to attack the credibility of Patel and his autopsy of Tomlinson, not the least of which is that both medical experts that were brought in (by the cops and Tomlinson's family) disagreed with him.  If Patel's first autopsy is the sole reason why they think that there would not have been a realistic prospect of conviction (which is what it appears to be) then something is deeply wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> It was a blatent case of a policemans actions resulting in an innocent mans death.


 
You can't say that without evidence proving it. What we can say is that something has gone badly wrong somewhere because a jury isn't even going to _get_ to see the evidence that exists.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 22, 2010)

Convenient that the time-limit for a common assault charge has lapsed.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You can't say that without evidence proving it. What we can say is that something has gone badly wrong somewhere because a jury isn't even going to _get_ to see the evidence that exists.


 
but the "evidence" is there for all to see. The video which shows Ian Thomlison being struck by a dirty pig cunt, and then Ian Thomlinson died.  From. His. Injuries. (it's all over the internet, it's clear to see)The police force are cunts, and so are those who support them. I just hope and pray that there is now massive civil unrest over this. This is a case of blatent lies from the police, covering up a death. It's fucking wrong. You do know the difference between right and wrong, don't you?


----------



## Shevek (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> the result of this case speaks for itself. It was a blatent case of a policemans actions resulting in an innocent mans death. If it were me, who hit a copper with a stick, who then fell to the ground and died, there'd be no fucking question. It's not fucking rocket science. This is corruption at it's most fucking blatent. And the more I think about it, the fucking angrier I get



This is what I wanted to say. Just heard this story on 6 music news. My thoughts were if I as a normal member of the public had thwacked a policeman/woman with a baton and they had subsequently died I would be in jail for a long time for murder.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2010)

Absolutely as expected. 

The police will _never_ face charges for their behaviour in public order situations - its an unwritten law.  I dont think a single case has come to court ever. 

I hope the met get sued to fuck by the family - becasue that is about the only way the cunts can be restrained from  battering people in the streets. 
The other way is to give them another poll tax riot/brixton 81 type lesson. 

The only positive thing to come out of this is that the excuses, cover up and corruption of the met and the criminal justice system are there for all to see.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The only positive thing to come out of this is that the excuses, cover up and corruption of the met and the criminal justice system are there for all to see.


 
not for all to see, some still seem completly blind to the facts.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2010)

There are very obvious public interests in this case coming to trial: need to hold the police to account, the need of the bereaved family.

There is a very obvious police interest in this case not coming to trial: protection of their reputation and authority.

The CPS has chosen sides; it has sided with another part of the criminal justice system against the public. 

Every opportunity should be taken to point out as vocally as possible that:

this choice was not forced on the CPS by the evidence;

the Tomlison family need their 'day in court'
 
the police must be subject to the laws they enforce (including trial by their peers)

How can we help to make sure this happens?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> but the "evidence" is there for all to see. The video which shows Ian Thomlison being struck by a dirty pig cunt, and then Ian Thomlinson died.  From. His. Injuries. (it's all over the internet, it's clear to see)The police force are cunts, and so are those who support them. I just hope and pray that there is now massive civil unrest over this. This is a case of blatent lies from the police, covering up a death. It's fucking wrong. You do know the difference between right and wrong, don't you?



Well yes, I think so. 

What we have so far is a copper knocking Tomlinson over. Of that there's no doubt. Tomlinson died later, no doubt there either. Then we've got three pathologists reports, one from a negligent and possibly corrupt Dr Patel saying it was a heart attack, and two from presumably upstanding pathologists, that agree that the cause of death was internal bleeding. Now for your statement that "the copper blatently killed him" to hold true, we'd have to establish that the baton strike or push caused the internal bleeding, if indeed that's what he died from. That the internal bleeding wasn't caused by an incident before or after he was assaulted by the copper. That's the bit that's missing. 

Now for some reason the CPS have decided that the evidence of two upstanding pathologists, for some reason won't be heard because of the evidence of one corrupt one. That's the bit that I'm not getting here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

Oh aye the citizen journalism aspect of the G20 protest has shown it all up as the rotten mob-handed bollocks that it is from our police.

They'll have to be a bit slyer from now on I reckon and you can be sure the misuse of the terrosim leg. against photographers at protests was a direct result of this.

Some lazy hack from the grauny quoted me berating the police wrt how citizen journalism exposed them this time. Didn't get any money and was called a student officer. The swine.

I just hope this doesn't rest, I mean it is so blatant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Now for some reason the CPS have decided that the evidence of two upstanding pathologists, for some reason won't be heard because of the evidence of one corrupt one. That's the bit that I'm not getting here.


That seems the most straightforward bit to me. To quote Louis:



> The CPS has chosen sides; it has sided with another part of the criminal justice system against the public.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Oh aye the citizen journalism aspect of the G20 protest has shown it all up as the rotten mob-handed bollocks that it is from our police.
> 
> They'll have to be a bit slyer from now on I reckon and you can be sure the misuse of the terrosim leg. against photographers at protests was a direct result of this.
> 
> ...



The lesson is that _Never Again without a Camera_ was always  based on naivety and only gets you so far.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Now for some reason the CPS have decided that the evidence of two upstanding pathologists, for some reason won't be heard because of the evidence of one corrupt one. That's the bit that I'm not getting here.


 the bit you aren't getting, is the bit where they're all corrupt liars, who will back their mates in the force, no matter what. I don't know why you can't see it, pretty much everyone else can. It's a plain as day.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> the bit you aren't getting, is the bit where they're all corrupt liars, who will back their mates in the force, no matter what. I don't know why you can't see it, pretty much everyone else can. It's a plain as day.


 
I don't believe they are all corrupt liars.  This decision however does nothing but weaken that belief.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

stick with that man, it'll come  Your hatred will grow, the more you read about shit like this. Plant that seed and water it. Then get fucking angry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> How is the CPS "corrupt?



The CPS isn't, necessarily. It's institutional practices however, with reference to homicide by members of police forces, *are*, otherwise there wouldn't be such a gaping deficit of officers charged.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> I don't believe they are all corrupt liars.  This decision however does nothing but weaken that belief.



Problem is that they don't *all* need to be "corrupt liars" for the laws that they're supposed to enforce to be undermined. All you need is a culture of acceptance.


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The CPS isn't, necessarily. It's institutional practices however, with reference to homicide by members of police forces, *are*, otherwise there wouldn't be such a gaping deficit of officers charged.


 
Indeed.



> Hopes were high when the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was launched in April 2004 that there would now be a reformed police complaints system - providing legal rights for complainants - that was above all independent, so that police were not investigating themselves. After 20 years working for a housing and social care agency in inner-city Birmingham, I joined the IPCC, as one of 18 new commissioners, with the aim of righting injustices. We claimed to be the most powerful civilian oversight body in the world, and we prepared to change the world. Five years on, I decided to leave. So what had gone wrong?
> 
> Only around 100 IPCC investigations, plus 150 police investigations "managed" by the IPCC, are undertaken each year, compared to 29,000 complaints. The majority of those 100 are not even complaints about day-to-day policing, but concern incidents where Article 2 of the Human Rights Act - the police's duty to safeguard life - may be involved, and by law require IPCC investigation. Some, such as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube in 2005 and possibly the death last week of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London, rightly attract great public concern. But the question, "Do you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your case?", is too near the truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

The police officer caught on video during last year's G20 protests striking a man who later died will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today. This not MURDER? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/07/g20-police-assault-video The met are just scum  Police Pointing a 50,000-volt Taser at a Group of People Lying on the Floor http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6130949.ece
The Met has agreed to pay settlements to some of those arrested in that raid., admitting that the whole raid was illegal.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 22, 2010)

To add to what VP said (which is spot on), members of The CPS are not personally corrupt. it's the relationship and culture of acceptance. The dibble are the people they work closest with, so they're conditioned, day in, day out, to see the cops' side of it, and to take more seriously the difficulties of prosecuting them, than the need to rein in their transgressions (or, in short, the need for justice).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The lesson is that _Never Again without a Camera_ was always  based on naivety and only gets you so far.


 
of course, its just that the days when the 'free' press could make up total lies unchallenged by any other evidence is numbered- not that the conflicting evidence gets anymore than this sort of gross contempt. And for people willing to look this shit is stark. The ability of authoritarian r/w sorts to fool themselves is slightly weakened. The comfort of telegraph lies is open to clear and obvious attack by boots on the ground. Only so far, sure. But better than it was.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> To add to what VP said (which is spot on), members of The CPS are not personally corrupt. it's the relationship and culture of acceptance. The dibble are the people they work closest with, so they're conditioned, day in, day out, to see the cops' side of it, and to take more seriously the difficulties of prosecuting them, than the need to rein in their transgressions (or, in short, the need for justice).


 
which is a round-about way of saying "corruption"


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill #IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others #G20KillersHaveNames


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

And the officer in charge who said "We're up for it".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2010)

I await the tide of derision but I have sent the message below to the PM and Home Secretary; you're limited to 1000 characters on the Number 10 contact page. I've also copied it to my local MP and some national news papers. 


Dear Mr Cameron please help right a wrong. 

The decision of the CPS to deny Ian  Tomlinson's family their 'day in court' is damaging and unnecessary.

The damage is obvious. Ian Tomlinson's family continue to be hurt. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police is severely compromised by video evidence of one of it's officers assaulting a member of the public. Public confidence in the criminal justice system  - police, CPS and courts - takes a heavy blow.

It seems that the CPS have placed all their emphasis on one part of their 'full code test' whilst ignoring much of the rest of it e.g. whether 'there are 'concerns over the accuracy, reliability or credibility of the evidence of any witness'.

Why not trust a jury to consider all the evidence including the questions relating to Mr Patel's professional competency.

The hurt and the damage can be rectified by submitting the CPS decision to judicial review and allowing the jury trial system to take it's course.​


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2010)

"lawyers challenge CPS over decision not to prosecute"


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> which is a round-about way of saying "corruption"


umm, no 'systemic failure' or 'institutionalised pro-establishmentism', if anything.
corruption would be if the wads of used tenners - or used fifties, if you're a harpenden chap  - were seen hanging out of their pockets during the press conferences.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 22, 2010)

murdering pig cunts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill #IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others #G20KillersHaveNames


 
do you have a source for this info?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> do you have a source for this info?


 
the chief super was in charge of the area, and alan palfrey was nearby (and he has a record of being economical with the truth in the witness box, i saw him once giving evidence at highbury magistrates).


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> do you have a source for this info?


 
That looks like one of bristle-krs's tweets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

cesare said:


> That looks like one of bristle-krs's tweets.


 
it's always worth asking e19896, it's not often apparent who he's nicked stuff from


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2010)

So PC Simon Harwood was the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson?

If so that info should be widely distributed - including details of where he is stationed. Maybe theres scope for a campaign for him to be sacked - pressure his CO to get killers of the streets. We should make it impossible for this violent shit bag to carry on as a police officer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Notice that on all all the main reporting it's now a push. That's it. A push. The laws talks and the media parrots.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> umm, no 'systemic failure' or 'institutionalised pro-establishmentism', if anything.
> corruption would be if the wads of used tenners - or used fifties, if you're a harpenden chap  - were seen hanging out of their pockets during the press conferences.


 Being "conditioned" into telling lies in court, to cover up a killing, is in my books, corruption. The wedges of cash would be bribary. And whilst the 2 go hand in hand, this is just th former.  

(please add words as needed: fucking, murdering, pig, bastard and scum)


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Notice that on all all the main reporting it's now a push. That's it. A push. The laws talks and the media parrots.


 
listening to the news is bad for your blood pressure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Not for me it ain't. If you don't know what they're saying then you've not less grounds on which to counter them - that's why juts shouting cunts about cuts  (or most things) is worthless.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> So PC Simon Harwood was the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson?


He was certainly the OB seen pushing over Ian Tomlinson. Another one from the territorial support group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group

Suspended, and still suspended - so I presume he's got a lovely tan and money to spend.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

it's cathartic though 

I don't need to watch the news to hear what's been said. I know the jist of it before it's on. It's always the same agenda driven garbage. Wrap it up how you like, it's the same thing, day in, day out.

edit, family reaction 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10728043


(contradiction post is contradicting)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2010)

the bbc are also uterrly failing to mention that dr patel is a corrupt, incompetent disgrace to his proffession who is about to be struck off and that his 'evidence' would be swiftly discredited in a court of law.  Seeing as that 'conflicting pathologist eveidence' is the basis for the CPS's decision not to prosecute I would say that they are seriously neglecting their duty as an 'impartial broadcaster' in failing to point this out.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 22, 2010)

cesare said:


> That looks like one of bristle-krs's tweets.


 
I thought that- it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> the bbc are also uterrly failing to mention that dr patel is a corrupt, incompetent disgrace to his proffession who is about to be struck off and that his 'evidence' would be swiftly discredited in a court of law.  Seeing as that 'conflicting pathologist eveidence' is the basis for the CPS's decision not to prosecute I would say that they are seriously neglecting their duty as an 'impartial broadcaster' in failing to point this out.


 
since when have they been impartial? they're the voice of the state and it is naive to assume otherwise.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it's always worth asking e19896, it's not often apparent who he's nicked stuff from


 
So the fact PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others G20 Killers Have Names agreed i should have said where the info come from ie briskers but lets not stop you being a wanker and using a simple mistake doing as you all ways do anyhow more info http://wp.me/pAQAs-8i and note the where the info has come from is linked and info on Murders that Scotland Yard have not been charged with and i feel that is the focus here not you petty disagreement and the fact your a utter wanker, dose not remove from the fact The Police once more walk from murder, it is that fact alone we need to focus on..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

A delaying yet rushing action by the CPS. Delay to get certain charges out of date and _before_ freddy patel gets struck off so the later case on which the larger refusal to charge is based can look slightly kosher. I wonder who kept them informed of the process on the later case? Oh for some decent investigative journos.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> So the fact PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others G20 Killers Have Names agreed i should have said where the info come from ie briskers but lets not stop you being a wanker and using a simple mistake doing as you all ways do anyhow more info http://wp.me/pAQAs-8i and note the where the info has come from is linked and info on Murders that Scotland Yard have not been charged with and i feel that is the focus here not you petty disagreement and the fact your a utter wanker, dose not remove from the fact The Police once more walk from murder, it is that fact alone we need to focus on..


 
Tell you what, keep it fucking zipped for now eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> So the fact PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others G20 Killers Have Names agreed i should have said where the info come from ie briskers but lets not stop you being a wanker and using a simple mistake doing as you all ways do anyhow more info http://wp.me/pAQAs-8i and note the where the info has come from is linked and info on Murders that Scotland Yard have not been charged with and i feel that is the focus here not you petty disagreement and the fact your a utter wanker, dose not remove from the fact The Police once more walk from murder, it is that fact alone we need to focus on..


you seem confused. as usual.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A delaying yet rushing action by the CPS. Delay to get certain charges out of date and _before_ freddy patel gets struck off so the later case on which the larger refusal to charge is based can look slightly kosher. I wonder who kept them informed of the process on the later case? Oh for some decent investigative journos.


lack of investigative journalists, but we do have bristle krs


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tell you what, keep it fucking zipped for now eh?


 
fuck that lets talk about the fact The Police have walked from another murder, not some crass disagreement you and others have with myself, i have the right to add to this conversation as much as the next person and it was a simple mistake.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

fuck the beeb on this one. '?The medical evidence was in conflict' is bullshit, the discredited pathologist called in to do the fit up job was later overruled by two seperate autopsies. That isn't disagreement that is a total fraud being shown up by two separate examiners. This is some shameful shit.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?


No ... except that any lawyer they engage will advise them that they will face the same evidential issues and that they will be liable to be responsible for costs if they lose and that the CPS have the right to take over a private prosecution and discontinue it if they choose to do so ... 

Mansfield will be along in a minute offering to do it and will end up with an acquittal (certainly in relation to manslaughter - perhaps less so in relation to ABH - their explanation for why they have not proceeded with that was, in my view, the weakest).  The law is the law and the evidential difficulties are not imaginary.  This is general law applicable to everyone and not something special applicable to police cases (see one punch manslaughter acquittals involving drunken fights _ad nauseum_...)


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

> John McDonnell MP, LRC Chair, said:
> 
> “Given the stark nature of the video evidence it is hard to understand the CPS’s findings. An independent public inquiry is warranted.”





> Andrew Fisher, LRC joint secretary, said:
> 
> “Today’s incomprehensible decision is a stark reminder - on the fifth anniversary of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes - that too often the police are placed above the law. The campaign for justice for Ian Tomlinson will continue, just as it has for Jean Charles de Menezes and for Blair Peach - and the LRC will continue to support these campaigns.”



http://l-r-c.org.uk/press/no-justice-as-police-exonerated-again/


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> So the fact PC SIMON HARWOOD didn't kill IanTomlinson alone: Ch Supt ALEX ROBERTSON; PC ALAN PALFREY; Ch Insp PETER MILLS & others G20 Killers Have Names agreed i should have said where the info come from ie briskers but lets not stop you being a wanker and using a simple mistake doing as you all ways do anyhow more info http://wp.me/pAQAs-8i and note the where the info has come from is linked and info on Murders that Scotland Yard have not been charged with and i feel that is the focus here not you petty disagreement and the fact your a utter wanker, dose not remove from the fact The Police once more walk from murder, it is that fact alone we need to focus on..


could you please repeat all this after you've either a) had it subbed by an english teacher, or trained journo, or b) felt your stabilising meds kick in. 
This stream-of-consciousness megaramble is virtually incomprehensible, and doesn't help the discussion


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No ... except that any lawyer they engage will advise them that they will face the same evidential issues and that they will be liable to be responsible for costs if they lose and that the CPS have the right to take over a private prosecution and discontinue it if they choose to do so ...
> 
> Mansfield will be along in a minute offering to do it and will end up with an acquittal (certainly in relation to manslaughter - perhaps less so in relation to ABH - their explanation for why they have not proceeded with that was, in my view, the weakest).  The law is the law and the evidential difficulties are not imaginary.  This is general law applicable to everyone and not something special applicable to police cases (see one punch manslaughter acquittals involving drunken fights _ad nauseum_...)


 
Let's not speculate eh?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I thought that was what a trial and jury were there for?  Who made him the judge and jury?


The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Didn't make them judge and jury no.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> One of the most absurd decisions I can ever remember from the CPS.   They have hidden behind the reasonable likelihood part of the Full Code Test and ignored every other part of it.


How do you mean?  The evidential test is the first they apply ... and if they conclude there is not a realistic likelihood of a conviction then the Public Interest Test is irrelevant.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's not speculate eh?


 
Just who the fuck are you to inform others what they can and not do, this is a free forum and unlike others you are involved with people are free to add comments. then we disagree or agree with them but hay let's not speculate i mean the fact The Police have walked from another Murder is what we should be talking about, but no your disagreements with others that keeps coming up..


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If nothing else, it's an incredibly bad public relations move by "the establishment".


I'm surprised that you consider that the impartial operation of the Criminal Justice system should be subject to perversion in the interests of public relations ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Mansfield will be along in a minute offering to do it and will end up with an acquittal (certainly in relation to manslaughter - perhaps less so in relation to ABH - their explanation for why they have not proceeded with that was, in my view, the weakest).  The law is the law and the evidential difficulties are not imaginary.  This is general law applicable to everyone and not something special applicable to police cases (see one punch manslaughter acquittals involving drunken fights _ad nauseum_...)


If the CPS put ABH before a jury, I'm not sure the jury would care too much about evidential niceties. Which is why there's no chance of them doing so. Nonetheless, ABH was there to be charged, all day long.

It's a stitch up, the whole country knows it, FFS they're watching it on the news every couple of hours.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Just who the fuck are you to inform others what they can and not do, this is a free forum and unlike others you are involved with people are free to add comments. then we disagree or agree with them but hay let's not speculate i mean the fact The Police have walked from another Murder is what we should be talking about, but no your disagreements with others that keeps coming up..


post something that makes sense and move things along instead of pissing about playing the hard done by kid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm surprised that you consider that the impartial operation of the Criminal Justice system should be subject to perversion in the interests of public relations ...


you haven't been following the bp/libyan bomber story, have you?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> It appears that the sole reason for the decision not to charge with manslaughter was because of the disagreement between the first autopsy and the other two.


Something that was blatantly obviously going to be a major issue from the outset to any senior investigating officer - the force used did not clearly and logically link with death (like a stab wound or a gunshot wound or even a heavy strike to the skull would) and that was made even more of a likely issue when indications of heart disease and cirrhosis came to light.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something that was blatantly obviously going to be a major issue from the outset to any senior investigating officer - the force used did not clearly and logically link with death (like a stab wound or a gunshot wound or even a heavy strike to the skull would) and that was made even more of a likely issue when indications of heart disease and cirrhosis came to light.



 It was obvious it would be _used_ by the CPS not to charge from the outset yes. Not used as in the fair access to the law sense, but as in to protect part of the law system.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

OK, onto the variopus cover ups/lies of what actually happened that night. Or too early?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> post something that makes sense and move things along instead of pissing about playing the hard done by kid.


 
As if i was to become the hard done by kid and give into bully's like you and have you not read i have posted info of use to the conversation, but no your disagreement with takes over the fact we should be talking about the fact the police have murdered and walked once more, come on then what are your thoughts on that?


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

to early for coverups? 18 months too late more like.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

The mythical hail of projectiles rained down with great force hasn't been re-mentioned. I suppose cos the video evidence shows two empty plastic water bottles thrown and this being strongly shouted down from those at the front of the crowd who could see what was going on.

Even as I type I recall the mystery of the delayed access for the ambulance. Twice held up by OB. That uniform has blood on it, again.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something that was blatantly obviously going to be a major issue from the outset to any senior investigating officer - the force used did not clearly and logically link with death (like a stab wound or a gunshot wound or even a heavy strike to the skull would) and that was made even more of a likely issue when indications of heart disease and cirrhosis came to light.


 And yet you seem determined to miss the fact that the Doctor who carried out the first post mortem in an incompetent manner by getting rid of physical evidence, who is currently under sever restrictions from the HO and Police and is currently facing charges of incompetence has his evidece treated as more important thatn two other Doctors. 1 Doctor, ie Patel, claimed therer was no link, two others disagreed. As Agricola as pointed out CPS has charged a man with murder contrary to the findings of another Patel autopsy and got a guilty. So why the difference here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> to early for coverups? 18 months too late more like.


this hadn't happened eighteen months ago. but it makes it a lesser story now, as it will almost certainly be out the papers in a week or two whereas in april last year the story was in the papers every day. after the jean charles de menezes affair it was clear that the cops would have to be caught slaughtering an oap in front of the pope before any action might be taken


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> As if i was to become the hard done by kid and give into bully's like you and have you not read i have posted info of use to the conversation, but no your disagreement with takes over the fact we should be talking about the fact the police have murdered and walked once more, come on then what are your thoughts on that?


 
Please stop persisting with this murder claim, e numbers, it makes you look like a plank.  What this cop done was manslaughter, not murder.  He should indeed be prosecuted for it and today's decision is a disgrace but then I don't think anyone's particularly surprised are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Police pathologists incompetence as a defence of police actions - heads i win tails you lose. _We use shit people people - don't blame us._ Of course, the original autopsy can be challenged to fuck - and would be. If patel was not struck off by then.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> So because the pet pathologist....


Freddy Patel is _anything_ but the "pet pathologist" of the police.  I personally refused to have him conduct a PM in a case of mine some years ago and I am amazed that he was still practising.

But, for the sake of clarity, it may be helpful to explain how pathologists are appointed.  Deaths are reported to a Coroner (nothing at all to do with the police - an independent judicial appointment).  They decide if there is a need for a PM.  If they do THEY (not the police) appoint one.  In the case of a suspicious death they appoint one who is "Home Office Approved" (a list of senior and experienced pathologists authorised to conduct "special" post-mortems).

It does not appear from the description of the first PM that it was treated as a suspicious death and hence a "special" post mortem was not conducted (which would be attended by senior investigating officer, photographer, exhibits officer, etc.).  How that decision came to be made would be worthy of scrutiny ... although at the time it was made I do not think that the previous contact with the police had been established (it took a day or two for the link to be made I think).  The rush was probably also partially motivated by the insatiable appetite of the media (and people generally, as evidenced here on a regular basis) to know things NOW.  The world needs to grow up and realise that impatience does not necessarily lead to good outcomes ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> And yet you seem determined to miss the fact that the Doctor who carried out the first post mortem in an incompetent manner by getting rid of physical evidence, who is currently under sever restrictions from the HO and Police and is currently facing charges of incompetence has his evidece treated as more important thatn two other Doctors. 1 Doctor, ie Patel, claimed therer was no link, two others disagreed. As Agricola as pointed out CPS has charged a man with murder contrary to the findings of another Patel autopsy and got a guilty. So why the difference here?


in a case as publicised as this surely any reasonable pathologist would have realised there might be a second post mortem and retained what they found. i wonder what the chances of a charge of perverting the course of justice are. i think i'll pre-empt d-b by concluding it wouldn't be entertained.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> And yet you seem determined to miss the fact that the Doctor who carried out the first post mortem in an incompetent manner by getting rid of physical evidence, who is currently under sever restrictions from the HO and Police and is currently facing charges of incompetence has his evidece treated as more important thatn two other Doctors. 1 Doctor, ie Patel, claimed therer was no link, two others disagreed. As Agricola as pointed out CPS has charged a man with murder contrary to the findings of another Patel autopsy and got a guilty. So why the difference here?


 
Yes. Precedent and successful one at that. Against two other autopsies as well i wonder?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could the decision be judicially reviewed?


Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Freddy Patel is _anything_ but the "pet pathologist" of the police.  I personally refused to have him conduct a PM in a case of mine some years ago and I am amazed that he was still practising.
> 
> But, for the sake of clarity, it may be helpful to explain how pathologists are appointed.  Deaths are reported to a Coroner (nothing at all to do with the police - an independent judicial appointment).  They decide if there is a need for a PM.  If they do THEY (not the police) appoint one.  In the case of a suspicious death they appoint one who is "Home Office Approved" (a list of senior and experienced pathologists authorised to conduct "special" post-mortems).
> 
> It does not appear from the description of the first PM that it was treated as a suspicious death and hence a "special" post mortem was not conducted (which would be attended by senior investigating officer, photographer, exhibits officer, etc.).  How that decision came to be made would be worthy of scrutiny ... although at the time it was made I do not think that the previous contact with the police had been established (it took a day or two for the link to be made I think).  The rush was probably also partially motivated by the insatiable appetite of the media (and people generally, as evidenced here on a regular basis) to know things NOW.  The world needs to grow up and realise that impatience does not necessarily lead to good outcomes ...



So patel's appointment (whoever it was done) was a rush job and he is incompetent in matters like this. I note also your 'appear' and that you've not bothered to find out if it was treated as a suspicious death and so warranted a special PM. I can think of other reasons for the 'rush'.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> ... there was a sizeable chance that a trial would not have been able to determine it beyond all reasonable doubt - its just that they should have left this up to the trial, given the obvious public interest issues in the case (and deaths following police contact generally), and most importantly that there are issues that appear to seriously affect the credibility of Patel as a witness.


You are confusing the issue of whether the CPS have correctly applied the Evidential and Public Interest Tests as they are bound to do so on the current system (which they appear to have done) and the issue of whether or not the current system is appropriate (which there is a strong argument against).  Your criticism os of the system rather than their application of it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2010)

None of what detective boy has posted shows that the CPS had to take the decision it did. The CPS could have chosen to accept that given the first pathologist's track record, a jury trial was the best place to resolve the conflicting evidence. This is a CPS decision that needs judicial review precisely so that the police can be seen to be subject to the same laws they seek to enforce.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> None of what detective boy has posted shows that the CPS had to take the decision it did. The CPS could have chosen to accept that given the first pathologist's track record, a jury trial was the best place to resolve the conflicting evidence. This is a CPS decision that needs judicial review precisely so that the police can be seen to be subject to the same laws they seek to enforce.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



That is exactly the core of it. No flannel should be allowed to obscure that.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

agricola said:


> If Patel's first autopsy is the sole reason why they think that there would not have been a realistic prospect of conviction (which is what it appears to be) then something is deeply wrong.


Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM _everything_ that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.  

And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are _entirely_ in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists _who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> None of what detective boy has posted shows that the CPS had to take the decision it did. The CPS could have chosen to accept that given the first pathologist's track record, a jury trial was the best place to resolve the conflicting evidence. This is a CPS decision that needs judicial review precisely so that the police can be seen to be subject to the same laws they seek to enforce.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 yeh, cos the decision seems to me to give the police carte blanche to push people over as long as it's not obvious they're going to die. given that the pc harwood's actions were not opposed by any of the other officers indicates that they were all quite happy to see this sort of behaviour. if anything comes out of ian tomlinson's death it should be the realisation that if you push people about and something happens to them that there will be repercussions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM _everything_ that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.
> 
> And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are _entirely_ in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists _who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings_.


 yeh, perverting the course of justice


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Please stop persisting with this murder claim, e numbers, it makes you look like a plank.  What this cop done was manslaughter, not murder.  He should indeed be prosecuted for it and today's decision is a disgrace but then I don't think anyone's particularly surprised are they?


 
No in my book it was MURDER it was a pre meditated act, manslaughter is the other a plank would not know that fact just as the following was MURDER.



> Scotland Yard Scot-Free
> 
> So no charges against the police for the death of Ian Tomlinson. This latest case of what many consider injustice is par for the course in action taken against Scotland Yard if we glance back through history:
> 
> ...



Source http://thenewsportal.net/?p=357566&expand and in my thoughts when The Police kill it is MURDER a pre meditated act,  not manslaughter.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> What we can say is that something has gone badly wrong somewhere because a jury isn't even going to _get_ to see the evidence that exists.


I have said previously that cases like this need to be heard in public - the decision of the CPS may have been perfectly correct ... but it was done on the basis of written evidence (as opposed to oral evidence subject to cross-examination) and behind closed doors (as opposed to in a public hearing).  I would suggest that in such cases the initial decision is taken and then tested in a new judicial hearing, similar to a US Grand Jury hearing, with a jury deciding, in which the evidence is heard and cross-examined in public and which has the power to overrule the administrative decision and insitute criminal proceedings.  That would appear to me to be a justifiable restriction of the general rights of a police officer (or other State agent, as compared with how an ordinary citizen is dealt with as a suspect in a criminal case) in cases where the use of force (or neglect, etc.) has led to death or serious injury.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> No in my book it was MURDER it was a pre meditated act, manslaughter is the other a plank would not know that fact just as the following was MURDER.
> 
> 
> 
> Source http://thenewsportal.net/?p=357566&expand and in my thoughts when The Police kill it is MURDER a pre meditated act,  not manslaughter.


 you seem to have forgotten diarmuid o'neill.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Convenient that the time-limit for a common assault charge has lapsed.


Another issue to be considered - it would be simple enough to make statutory provision for a notice to be served within a six month period in cases in which investigations into inextricably linked serious offences is continuing, the effect being that should no more serious charges be possible the summary only matters could be proceeded with despite the six month period having elapsed.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to have forgotten diarmuid o'neill.


 


> Diarmuid O'Neill (aka Dermot O'Neill) (born 24 June 1969 in Hammersmith, London, England – 23 September 1996), was a volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army  (IRA). O'Neill was killed in London in 1996 during a police raid on the hotel where he and two other IRA volunteers were staying. Due to the circumstances surrounding the killing, Amnesty International has called for a review of the police investigation into the killing of O'Neill. O'Neill was the only IRA member to be killed by police in Great Britain



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmuid_O'Neill

It was not my article but good point


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> No in my book it was MURDER it was a pre meditated act, manslaughter is the other a plank would not know that fact just as the following was MURDER.
> 
> 
> 
> Source http://thenewsportal.net/?p=357566&expand and in my thoughts when The Police kill it is MURDER a pre meditated act,  not manslaughter.


 
This is just nonsense and you wonder why no one listens to you? 

You're saying that the cop was thinking "I'm gonna kill this bloke by pushing him over" and this is simply not true is it? There's far more effective ways to kill someone than pushing them over.

Again, i'm not defending the police at all but this is no time for hysterics and by crying murder you're coming across as hysterical.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 22, 2010)

Not even a misconduct charge. What a fucking disgrace.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... otherwise there wouldn't be such a gaping deficit of officers charged.


Yes there would.  In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all.  In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use _some_ force and hence there is an additional (and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) burden.  The law (relating to any lawful use of force generally, not specific to use by the police) is that no-one is expected to weigh the use of force to a nicety in a difficult situation with no time to think (see s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - legislation brought in to try and address the householder use of force issue).  Where there is a lawful reason to use force, courts (including juries) are reluctant to convict anyone (not just police officers) who may have used a bit much (see numerous householder cases, numerous cases involving door staff, etc.).


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

> Keir Starmer’s decision not to prosecute PC Simon Harwood, who clearly assaulted Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest, while concealing his identity, is an outrageous scandal.  It is perhaps the most shameful episode ever in the history of British justice, a system which has long held a much higher opinion of itself than it ever deserved.  Today it is proved to be utterly useless and Starmer’s conduct proves him to be both incompetent and entirely unsuitable for his responsibility.
> 
> Starmer’s weasel words in his statement are truly pathetic and demonstrate weakness, a complete inability to see beyond legalese to the truth and are a clarion call for his dismissal.
> 
> ...



http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/...-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-british-justice/


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM _everything_ that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.
> 
> And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are _entirely_ in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists _who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings_.


 
Or, it consistently made sure that all paths lead to patel and then chose not to challenge his PM even though he's hanging in the wind...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2010)

So can I take it that if I find myself in front of a police officer it is considered acceptable for them to let their dog bite me and then to shove me violently to the ground onto my face? 

Is that really acceptable ?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> So why the difference here?


I have already posted about my view of the competence of Freddy Patel and the basic issue of why he was even appointed to the case in the first place.  As for the difference, without knowing the facts of the other case I couldn't say.  I suspect it is because in that case there was a clear alternative cause of death observable in the second post-mortems that was not, for whatever reason, as inevitably caught up with reliance on his initial observations as in this case.  It is not at all unusual for prosecutions to take place (and suceed in some cases) where there is a dispute between pathologists (or other experts) ... but each case needs to be taken on it's merits and the precise areas of dispute / agreement need to be taken into account.  This case was, from the outset and even without the complication of Patel's alleged incompetence, going to be an absolute nightmare evidentially.  As a senior investigating officer I am not at all surprised that there has been no manslaughter charge - I dealt with many, many non-police cases where that was exactly the same outcome (and more where we got to trial and there was an acquittal).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes there would.  In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all.  In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use _some_ force and hence there is an additional (and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) burden.  The law (relating to any lawful use of force generally, not specific to use by the police) is that no-one is expected to weigh the use of force to a nicety in a difficult situation with no time to think (see s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - legislation brought in to try and address the householder use of force issue).  Where there is a lawful reason to use force, courts (including juries) are reluctant to convict anyone (not just police officers) who may have used a bit much (see numerous householder cases, numerous cases involving door staff, etc.).



In brief we're not all subject to the same law. I note the self-exculpating 'usually' used above   -and the very different opposite assumption made of the public. Plenty of time to think here - in act he did it over a number of occasions.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> in a case as publicised as this surely any reasonable pathologist would have realised there might be a second post mortem and retained what they found.


In a "special" post mortem that would have been absolutely the case.  This was not a "special" post-mortem, it appears because at the time it was arranged (somewhat more urgently than usually the case with "routine" ones, no doubt because of the media pressure to know) the prior contact with police was not known.  The exact sequence of events between death and first PM would be interesting to know - I'm not sure it is in the public domain.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ... and that you've not bothered to find out if it was treated as a suspicious death and so warranted a special PM.


It's not that I have not "bothered", it's that I have no means of finding out any more than you.  I have had a check through some of the stuff published at the time and now and I cannot see the point discussed in the level of detail necessary to make a firm conclusion.  Accordingly the best I can do is apply my knowledge and expertise to what we know (i.e. samples not kept, pathologist apparently not on "Home Office List", no photographer / exhibits officer known to be present, etc.) and conclude that that does not sound like a "special" PM.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> None of what detective boy has posted shows that the CPS had to take the decision it did.


I'm not saying that the CPS "had" to make the decision.  I'm not sure they're saying there is anything that meant they "had" to make the decision.  They have made a decision which they are obliged to make and they have explained the rationale for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not that I have not "bothered", it's that I have no means of finding out any more than you.  I have had a check through some of the stuff published at the time and now and I cannot see the point discussed in the level of detail necessary to make a firm conclusion.  Accordingly the best I can do is apply my knowledge and expertise to what we know (i.e. samples not kept, pathologist apparently not on "Home Office List", no photographer / exhibits officer known to be present, etc.) and conclude that that does not sound like a "special" PM.


 
It sounds like a 'special' pathologist.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So can I take it that if I find myself in front of a police officer it is considered acceptable for them to let their dog bite me and then to shove me violently to the ground onto my face?
> 
> Is that really acceptable ?


Maybe ... it depends whether the use of force was justifiable in the execution of some lawful act (self-defence, defence of another, prevention of crime, lawful arrest, exercise of various police powers, etc.) AND if it was "reasonable and necessary" to achieve that lawful aim.

In this case it appears the view of the CPS is that the use of force was excessive and, if Ian Tomlinson had not died, there would have been charges of ABH / common assault likely. (Though a Court may or may not have convicted - see the case involving Sgt Smellie)


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (somewhat more urgently than usually the case with "routine" ones, no doubt because of the media pressure to know)


 yes, that's why they rushed it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

My sincere condolences to the Tomlinson family for what must be a terrible time. 

If this had been a protester who shoved an officer to the ground and that officer proceeded to die, there is little doubt there would have been an attempt to convict. The idea that the protester would walk free of any charges would be unthinkable. That alone is enough to show how far the police are estranged from the public they are supposed to serve and protect.

I'm not sure it's been much different for a long time, but what this case (thanks to the footage) has done has to blow apart the widely held belief for many people who would routinely defend the police, that this sort of thing "just doesn't happen". That's not solved much, indeed it along with the police violence against "fluffies" at demos has simply alienated another section of society. Your average beat cops job just got that little bit harder. 

Perhaps there should be some grass roots movement to provide funds to the Tomlinson family so they can fund a private prosecution, because money is the only thing left that can get you justice in this country.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I note the self-exculpating 'usually' used above   -and the very different opposite assumption made of the public.


It's simply a fact: in the majority of cases police officers using force are doing so purportedly to carry out a lawful act - please feel free to link to numerous cases of them simply randomly attacking people in the street for no reason.  Conversely, in the majority of ordinary cases of assault the suspect cannot point to any lawful act that they are purportedly carrying out (with the exception of self-defence / defence of property cases which _frequently_ lead to no charges / an acquittal).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

It's not a fact at all. Assumptions are never fact and they are rarely if ever law. 

I can point to one high profile one right now - this thread is about it. Why numerous examples of police being great makes this case any better is the sort of logic that leads well...here we are.

Why did you cut out the bit about us all then being subject to different laws?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> If this had been a protester who shoved an officer to the ground and that officer proceeded to die, there is little doubt there would have been an attempt to convict. The idea that the protester would walk free of any charges would be unthinkable.


Not if the same evidential issues linking the use of force with the cause of death existed it wouldn't.  _Exactly_ the same extensive investigation and consideration of the case would have been carried out to see if the evidence was there or the case could be presented in such a way as to render a conviction likely ... but if the same conclusion was reached then the outcome would have been the same.  But there would have also been an additional complication - in this case the use of force by the officer was purportedly in the exercise of some lawful power (albeit the issue did not arise as the CPS appear to have concluded it was excessive, though it _would_ undoubtedly have been an issue raised by the defence had the matter come to trial) whereas it would be unlikely (albeit not impossible) for a protestor to be able to demonstrate that the use of force on a police officer would have been in the exercise of some lawful right / power.

At a lower level there are _frequently_ instances of police officers being seriously assaulted (sometimes to the point where they have to be medically retired) and there being no charges pursued (or only minor charges being pursued) because of (a) evidential issues or (b) CPS decisions not to proceed on more serious charges.  It is a constant issue of discussion in Police Review and similar publications but it is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you cut out the bit about us all then being subject to different laws?


Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment.  There is absolutely no difference in the law at all.  If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment.  There is absolutely no difference in the law at all.  If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...


 
is it not a fact that if the shoe was on the other foot, it would have had a different outcome? If a protester had struck a police officer, and pushed them to the ground causing their death, and it's all on camera for everyone to see. Would they, or would they not get charged with killing a police officer? You're getting caught up in bullshit technicalities (aka legalise), and completly ignoring the crime that has taken place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2010)

i suppose the cut off for violent disorder's passed as well

but what about conspiracy to commit violent disorder?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because it's patent shite and not worthy of comment.  There is absolutely no difference in the law at all.  If you think there is please point us in the direction of it ...


 You pointed me in the direction of it:



> Yes there would. In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all. In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use some force and hence *there is an additional *(and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) *burden*.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

If someone assaults someone in that manner it should not matter who they are, the degree of violence was unnecessary. Given that this coward and bully (for that is what this man is) could attack a man from behind for no reason other than the fact he felt he could do it without remonstration form his colleagues or perhaps anyone else, is obscene.

You can explain to me your legalise and in its narrow remit it might be completely correct - but people with a sense of right and wrong can see that what happened here was grotesque and that had the roles in this instance on this day been reversed, the protester would not have got away with it. The fact others might have done and do, matters not one jot. If those images had shown a masked protester shoving over a copper who later died, he'd be looking at serving time.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see





Barking_Mad said:


> but people with a sense of right and wrong can see



this is what it boils down to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2010)

Another Blackelock fit-up attempt should be along to demonstrate the duality of the law as applied shortly. And they wonder why people cheered when Moat shot a copper.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> this is what it boils down to.



 A child will tell you what happened is wrong, but it takes an adult to explain it away.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> And they wonder why people cheered when Moat shot a copper.


 
Sad but true.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nah - they just want as much compensation as they can possibly blag.
> 
> _"A somewhat sad and shabby figure, he drank heavily and was estranged from his wife and family. He had been homeless for a while, but on the day of his death was heading for a hostel near Smithfield market."_ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html
> 
> Aw bless - they cared for him so much they couldn't give a toss where he slept.


 
yup, he certainly deserved to die. one wonders what all the fuss is about- the daily mail were good enough to tell us that he was a homeless at the time, yet still people bang on about it. the police should really be rewarded and encouraged to do this sort of thing more often


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> You're getting caught up in bullshit technicalities (aka legalise), and completly ignoring the crime that has taken place.


No.  I'm explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case.  That is not "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sadly, there's almost no likelihood of a hat dinner for you. There'll just be bullshit about how it wasn't intentional, and how the officer (and all his fellows who covered up for the sack of shit) has had "words of advice".


 
or asked to 'reflect on his actions' like the lunatic who tried to strangle me


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i suppose the cut off for violent disorder's passed as well
> 
> but what about conspiracy to commit violent disorder?


Violent disorder is an indicatble offence and so not subject to any Statute of Limitations.

The CPS statement did not specifically say that they considered it as an alternative ... but there would be significant issues in pursuing it as an alternative to a manslaughter or assault charge which could not be pursued for evidential reasons.  You would also have evidential issues in showing that there were "three or more persons ... using or threatening *unlawful* violence".  The use of some force by the police would be perfectly lawful.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it seems the medical experts couldn't agree.


 
it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You pointed me in the direction of it:


That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed.  The law is exactly the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed.  The law is exactly the same.


 
So what you say is meaningless then  - there is no added burden to charge the police at all. Or is there? If there is then there is an informally different operation of law.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Well the first post mortem was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, a doctor currently facing charges of misconduct in 4 other post mortems and currently barred from performing autopsies in cases of suspicious deaths. Hardly a credible doctor, the second found it was a result of intermnal bleeding and the third has never been made public. So, we don't actually know what 1 of the doctors thought, another is currently awaiting charges of misconduct and may do so over this autopsy. So we're left with public knowledge of the one citing internal bleeding....


 
c4 news reported today that the second two autopsies concurred that the death was as a result of trauma resulting from falling on his elbow / being struck


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not saying that the CPS "had" to make the decision.  I'm not sure they're saying there is anything that meant they "had" to make the decision.  They have made a decision which they are obliged to make and they have explained the rationale for it.



They had to make a decision (that's what obliged means, compelled by law, arrangement custom or necessity). They certainly weren't obliged to make the decision they did. The rationale is clearly questionable; indeed to many it seems perverse. Let's hope that this decision does get reviewed, that Tomlinson's family get the circumstances of his death discussed in open court and that the criminal justice system has a long hard look at how it works and who it works for.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  I'm explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case.  That is not "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".


 
You're not though. You're defending a specific decision.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> You can explain to me your legalise and in its narrow remit it might be completely correct ...


I have not explained that what happened is "correct".  I have explained the legal and evidential issues which led the CPS to decide that no charges should be brought.  There are lots of occasions where things that are "wrong" happen but it is not possible to pursue criminal charges (see fatal road traffic collisions _ad nauseum_).  From the outset I have said that in my view the use of force _appears_ to be excessive but to form a definite opinion I would need to know what had happened in the few seconds / yards prior to it being used.  From the statement of the CPS today it does not seem that there is anything in those few seconds / yards to justify it as "lawful, reasonable and necessary".


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> No reason why the Tomlinson family - or other persons - can't bring a private prosecution, is there?


 
just one. money


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

From the video


> THE CPS CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE POLICE OFFICER ASSAULTED OUR DAD
> []
> THE CPS Have accepted that the conduct of the OFFICER WAS UNLAWFUL.
> []


he got off on a stupid technicality. The law's an ass.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is not a difference in the LAW ... that is a difference in the situation and, hence, the EVIDENTIAL issues which need to be addressed.  The law is exactly the same.


 
Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context. Any individuals experience of the law will be shaped by these factor as well as the words on the page.  What people here are expecting is that the very different position of a police officer musn't lead to very different outcomes; if they do (as appears to be the case here...I'm not going to knock over a police man to prove my point) then the criminal justice system is damaged.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It's isn't just an appalling stitch up, it's taking the family and entire public to be mugs. To treat everyone as irrelevant cunts and to just not a give a flying fuck for what anyone else thinks.


 
there is some breathtaking arrogance doing the rounds. as far as the courts are concerned, the police are untouchable. this isn't a very good idea as people will start to take matters into their own hands.....

...and they wonder why a despicable character like moat can gain massive public support.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context. Any individuals experience of the law will be shaped by these factor as well as the words on the page.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Experience should teach that all law is supposed to be applied equally but isn't in practice  (writing the law treats everyone equally does not make is so) - indeed that implicit understanding underlay the assumptions of DB's posts that i replied to. He has obv become so used to operating on those assumptions that he can longer even see them.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So what you say is meaningless then  - there is no added burden to charge the police at all. Or is there? If there is then there is an informally different operation of law.


No there isn't.  The law is the law.  The _evidence_ available in any particular case, and the difficulty in overcoming THE SAME evidential burdens in any particular case, are different and rely on the facts.  In this instance the point I am making is that for a use of force to amount to a criminal it must be UNLAWFUL (or, if lawful, to be excessive, beyond what is "reasonable and necessary").  In a case where the defendant has a lawful reason to use force you need to adduce evidence to show that the force used was excessive.  That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force.  In a case where the defendant has NO lawful reason to use force you do NOT need to adduce evidence that the force used was excessive as ANY use (or even threat) of force would amount to an offence.  That would usually (or at least very often) be the case where the force was used by a member of the public on another person (whether police officer or not).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2010)

Can we get Detective Boy to blow his top and flounce off again? 

All he is doing is spewing of fog of legalese in a clear attempt to  obscure the only reasonable conclusion from this case - that police in public order situations can get away with anything, no matter what the evidence, becasue they will collude with the rest of the criminal justice system to ensure that they will never be convicted. 

The sick reality is that part of the police's job is to use violence on behalf of the state agasint the public - so they have to be allowed to get away with going too far. Like the paras on bloody sunday. 

Its laughable to try and argue that a ordinary member of the public who behaved in the same way would not be prosecuted. You would be charged with manslaughter as soon as the CPS could get the paperwork done.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're not though. You're defending a specific decision.


... by explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case.  No matter how much you dislike the decision that is NOT "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No there isn't.  The law is the law.  The _evidence_ available in any particular case, and the difficulty in overcoming THE SAME evidential burdens in any particular case, are different and rely on the facts.  In this instance the point I am making is that for a use of force to amount to a criminal it must be UNLAWFUL (or, if lawful, to be excessive, beyond what is "reasonable and necessary").  In a case where the defendant has a lawful reason to use force you need to adduce evidence to show that the force used was excessive.  That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force.  In a case where the defendant has NO lawful reason to use force you do NOT need to adduce evidence that the force used was excessive as ANY use (or even threat) of force would amount to an offence.  That would usually (or at least very often) be the case where the force was used by a member of the public on another person (whether police officer or not).



I note your repeated 'usually', your assumptions of lawful use of force and declare game over. Your other circular logic aside of course.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So the 3rd autopsy agreed with the 2nd and this is not a reason to proceed with charges but, in fact, the key reason _not to_. That's amazing.


 
yes. perhaps we should adopt this system for medical opinions, and see how well that works. one incompetent gets to stop the whole process. genius


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... by explaining the law and the need for evidence to prove a case.  No matter how much you dislike the decision that is NOT "bullshit technicalities (aka legalese)".


 
You haven't done that. I'd have more respect for you if you did. Your explanations always equal defence of decisions already reached. They are reasons for those decisions being reached, not reasons why they might be dodgy.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> he got off on a stupid technicality. The law's an ass.


In relation to a charge of common assault that is a valid comment.

In relation to the evidential difficulties of causation in relation to manslaughter it is not - the causation is _way_ more than a "stupid technicality" - for the law to be otherwise you would be deciding criminal liability dependant on random happenchance - a tragic outcome would lead to culpability absolutely regardless of whether or not the actions of the defendant actually led to the tragic outcome.

This is a major issue with the media and the public - just because something bad has happened does NOT necessarily and of itself mean that anyone is criminally liable.  Bad stuff happens and it is sometimes no-one's fault.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Only if you limit your definition of the law to the words on the page rather than legislation plus process, organisation and context.


The law is the law - a criminal offence has certain elements which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt to lead to a conviction - the "points to prove".  In different circumstances (whether or not the police are involved) how easy / difficult it is to prove those elements varies widely.  (In rape, for instance, it is _infinitely_ easier to prove there was no consent in a violent, stranger attack than in a "date rape" case).


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> big question now is, what the fuck is done about this? We can't go on with such a blatently fucking corrput police force/judicianal system.


 
here fucking here


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

No, the law is not the law. You've just demonstrated why as have the CPS today. No one, i mean no one, believes this shit.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Its laughable to try and argue that a ordinary member of the public who behaved in the same way would not be prosecuted. You would be charged with manslaughter as soon as the CPS could get the paperwork done.


No.  You wouldn't.  If there were the same evidential issues in relation to causation there would be long delays whilst different PMs were arranged and meetings were held between experts to try and resolve issues, there may well not be charges of manslaughter and there certainly may not be convictions.  I have dealt with _dozens_ of cases in which that has been the case.  _Every_ senior investigating officer will tell you the same.  They do not get major publicity (or any publicity at all).  But they happen.


----------



## fat Andy (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up


 
I totally agree that this is a poor outcome and that in this case perhaps it should have been put before a jury, but comments like these weaken the arguement. Freddie Patel was contracted to carry out the postmortem examinations on behalf of the coroner who covers the City police area. The Met have not used him for years. I know its illogical and archaic but if the death had happened in Trafalagar Square, for example, there could have been a different outcome.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They are reasons for those decisions being reached, not reasons why they might be dodgy.


That's because, as usual, you have failed to see what I have posted about the genuine issues that are there.  And because you are incapable of distinguishing an explanation of the rationale used by the CPS from a "defence" of their decision.  I have not posted anything about whether or not I think they have reached the right decision - I have simply explained the rationale for what they have done and indicated that I understand that rationale.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No one, i mean no one, believes this shit.


 
This.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Absolutely as expected.
> 
> The police will _never_ face charges for their behaviour in public order situations - its an unwritten law.  I dont think a single case has come to court ever.
> 
> ...


 
it is becoming more difficult to get away with this kind of shit now; too much footage, too many intelligent people sharing information
the only way to slow things down would be to ban the filming of plod, and for them to remove all identification before going out

oh wait....


----------



## ymu (Jul 22, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> umm, no 'systemic failure' or 'institutionalised pro-establishmentism', if anything.
> corruption would be if the wads of used tenners - or used fifties, if you're a harpenden chap  - were seen hanging out of their pockets during the press conferences.


I disagree. Failing to maintain a professional distance is a form of corruption. It's why the oil regulator in the US has been sacked, and why the papers were so interested in the wining and dining stats of UK regulators a few weeks ago. If you're supposed to be independent, you have to be absolutely scrupulous about maintaining that independence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> it is becoming more difficult to get away with this kind of shit now; too much footage, too many intelligent people sharing information
> the only way to slow things down would be to ban the filming of plod, and for them to remove all identification before going out
> 
> oh wait....


 
Oh wait on what point? They just got away with it. Twice.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

oh wait they've banned the filming of police and began going out without numbers.....that kind of 'oh wait'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

This _how autopsies happen_ is all over the shop isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> oh wait they've banned the filming of police and began going out without numbers.....that kind of 'oh wait'


 
Well they got away with it _with_ the cameras. with the filming. Get past this myth of the camera  - the camera will not save anyone. Organised self-defence will.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Ian Tomlinson was killed by Territorial Support Group hardman Simon Harwood, under watchful eyes of experienced  Forward Intelligence Team cops from Channel4News: Simon Harwood subject of complaint at Surrey Police after leaving  Met Police four road rage.



> Paul Lewis Knowing the Ian Tomlinson case inside-out, I really am shocked. Manslaughter was always a tough call, but no charge at all? Not misconduct?




We need now to support the friends and relatives of Ian Tomlinson to bring private prosecution.

The Territorial Support Group (TSG or CO20) is a Central Operations unit of London's Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) consisting of 720 officers, that specialises in public order containment among other specialist policing. The TSG is a uniformed unit of the MPS that replaced the controversial Special Patrol Group in 1987. TSG units patrol the streets of the capital in marked police vans; officers can be identified as TSG from the distinctive 'U' in their shoulder numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM _everything_ that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.
> 
> And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are _entirely_ in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists _who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings_.



This is helpful. Cheers. 



gavman said:


> it seems the medical panel was designed not to agree. freddie patel was a known incompetent who could only be guaranteed to make his usual hash of things. a perfect choice for a cover up



I posted that as the news was breaking this afternoon and my only source was a silent BBC ticker. I'm more up to date now.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something that was blatantly obviously going to be a major issue from the outset to any senior investigating officer - the force used did not clearly and logically link with death (like a stab wound or a gunshot wound or even a heavy strike to the skull would) and that was made even more of a likely issue when indications of heart disease and cirrhosis came to light.


 
what about the 'eggshell skull' principle- you take your victim as you find them?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Can we get Detective Boy to blow his top and flounce off again?
> 
> All he is doing is spewing of fog of legalese ......



You silly fucking cock. 

DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order. 

He's explaining THE LAW and from his explanations you can draw your own conclusions as to its corruptors.

It's not his fault that you don't like the legal system or those that operate within/without it.

Detective Boy, what's the best chance of getting this arsehole policeman _to face some sort _of charge, and will he even be kicked of the force?


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Keir Starmer's statement explained in some detail the lengths to which they went to try and find a way to prosecute without using Patels evidence ... but at the end of the day because he conducted the first PM _everything_ that came later was dependent on his findings because the second and third PMs were NOT dealing with the body in the state it was found and there were aspects of what was observed by Patel (such as the amount / nature of fluid in the abdomen) which were simply not there for anyone else to see subsequently.
> 
> And unlike in a case where a witness gives evidence which, if discredited, strengthens the prosecution case, discrediting him (by stressing his incompetence) actually undermined things - imagine you are sitting on a jury and you have to decide beyond reasonable doubt that there is a link between cause of death and any injury / use of force - you are _entirely_ in the hands of the expert evidence of pathologists and any argument that the one who conducted the first examination was incompetent inevitably gives you doubts in relation to both their conclusions and the conclusions of subsequent pathologists _who are acting, at least to some extent, on the basis of his observations / findings_.


 
so it really does make sense to begin with an incompetent pathologist, for there can be no recovery afterwards. 'how to perform a cover up'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

Thread now a goner.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, cos the decision seems to me to give the police carte blanche to push people over as long as it's not obvious they're going to die. given that the pc harwood's actions were not opposed by any of the other officers indicates that they were all quite happy to see this sort of behaviour. if anything comes out of ian tomlinson's death it should be the realisation that if you push people about and something happens to them that there will be repercussions.


 
this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You silly fucking cock.
> 
> DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order.
> 
> ...


 
this hasn;t got anythung to do with the law. it's about the police getting away with killing someone yet again. It is about corruption, and the utter blatent way they've gone about it is fucking blood bloiling. It was admitted that it wa assault and it was admitted that it was unlawful. So why no charge at all? Police scum sticking up for one another again. That's what it is. Pretty much everyone appart from you and DB can se it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple


 
Sadly, this is hardly going to apply to Police who can shoot someone seven times in the face, lie about it and face no charge.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You silly fucking cock.
> 
> DB has meticulously explained the legal position of the CPS. I doubt that you'd get him to disagree that the actions of the copper involved were out of order.
> 
> He's explaining THE LAW and from his explanations you can draw your own conclusions as to its corruptors.



The thing is Detective Boy is wasting his time, because anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't need or give a shit about what a bunch of stooges at the CPS have to say, because the evidence is as clear as day. Indeed trying to explain the reasoning why he shouldn't face charge just shows up what a load of complete nonsense their statement was.



> It's not his fault that you don't like the legal system or those that operate within/without it.



It's impossible to take your frustration out on a faceless system, it's far easier to swipe at someone pointlessly trying to explain how it operates.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> My sincere condolences to the Tomlinson family for what must be a terrible time.
> 
> If this had been a protester who shoved an officer to the ground and that officer proceeded to die, there is little doubt there would have been an attempt to convict. The idea that the protester would walk free of any charges would be unthinkable. That alone is enough to show how far the police are estranged from the public they are supposed to serve and protect.
> 
> ...


 
top post


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> A child will tell you what happened is wrong, but it takes an adult to explain it away.


 
post of the week


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> what about the 'eggshell skull' principle- you take your victim as you find them?


Different evidential issue - in such cases there is no problem with causation - the fractured skull or whatever = cause of death and there is usually clear evidence that the force used (the punch or whatever) caused the fracture.  The issue in those cases is that the seriousness of the injury caused was entirely unexpected because in the case of a "normal" person with a normal skull there would have been no fracture.  As you state the principle is: "Tough, you caused the death, the fact that they were particularly fragile and 99 times out of a 100 you wouldn't have done is irrelevant".   But there does still have to be a chain of causation, eggshell skull or not.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> The thing is Detective Boy is wasting his time, because anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't need or give a shit about what a bunch of stooges at the CPS have to say, because the evidence is as clear as day. Indeed trying to explain the reasoning why he shouldn't face charge just shows up what a load of complete nonsense their statement was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Not a Fan of DB at the best of times but here i have gained some good information this time round, i agree at times it's far easier to swipe at someone, then look at what we as the public can now do to support The Tomlinson family in bringing a private prosecution and neither do i have hope in this having a positive outcome, but we need ask why there is little or no trust in The Police when they can murder at will and check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group what needs to be asked is this kind of policeing we want.




> One of the first objections to anarchism you’ll hear will be a question along the lines of who will deal with crime. And it’s a good question. People will frequently criticise the actions of the police, but their role within society rarely meets with more than a cursory and simplistic analysis. But this is understandable, given the effort with which the importance and necessity of the police is forced down our throats every evening on the telly and the wide ranging responsibilities which they now have within society. It is hard enough to imagine a world without authority, let alone a world in which problems like crime are dealt with by ordinary people coming together to resolve the issue.



http://www.lasthours.org.uk/shop/


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Detective Boy, what's the best chance of getting this arsehole policeman _to face some sort _of charge, and will he even be kicked of the force?


In terms of _criminal_ charges I think a judicial review of the CPS decision is the most likely to succeed.  I suspect that any such judicial review would leave the decision re-manslaughter untouched but I think there is scope for them to conclude the decision re-ABH was irrational and should be reviewed.

I can't see a private prosecution for manslaughter getting anywhere; a private prosecution for ABH _may_. 

There is also the issue of an inquest to come.  The Coroner would undoubtedly be able to call the officer involved in using force and those proceedings may well throw up new evidence or issues.  The CPS, right at the end of their statement, mentioned that the issue would be revisited after the inquest.

As for disciplinary charges ... I think the conclusion of the CPS that there was a criminal assault (i.e. that in their view the force used was excessive) means that it is extremely likely that he will face a misconduct hearing able to dismiss him and that the evidence is such that he will have an uphill struggle justifying his use of force.  Unless there is some interaction between Ian Tomlinson and the police (or _possibly_ others around Ian Tomlinson in the moments before the use of force and providing grounds for force being used to move the protestors along if they were resisting (and the comments of CPS suggest there is not) I think it is plain that the use of force was excessive ... but I thought that in relation to the use of the baton by Sgt Smellie and the Court there disagreed.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

I just watched the BBC news and yet again saw their *CROPPED* footage of Tomlinson being pushed over. Dear oh dear...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> so it really does make sense to begin with an incompetent pathologist, for there can be no recovery afterwards.


You couldn't have hoped for a worse start to a homicide investigation than this.  A routine post-mortem by _any_ pathologist would not have been good (they are not accompanied by the detailed evidence gathering arrangements that go with a "special" post-mortem and much of what Freddy Patel is criticised for (such as not keeping the samples of abdominal fluid, etc.) would have applied no matter who the pathologist was - it is simply not standard practice in routine post-mortems.  But the fact it was him, with his history, is just a nightmare ...  (but it is important to note that he was NOT appointed by the police and he would NOT have been paid by them for a routine post-mortem - that is the responsibility of the Coroner).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You wouldn't.  If there were the same evidential issues in relation to causation there would be long delays whilst different PMs were arranged and meetings were held between experts to try and resolve issues, there may well not be charges of manslaughter and there certainly may not be convictions.  I have dealt with _dozens_ of cases in which that has been the case.  _Every_ senior investigating officer will tell you the same.  They do not get major publicity (or any publicity at all).  But they happen.



If it hadn't been a policemen who was the assailant, then the cops wouldn't have drafted in their pet pathologist to ensure a verdict of death by natural causes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> .... because the evidence is as clear as day .....



Is it though?

Where is the "clear as day" evidence that said coppers push and baton-whack caused Mr Tomilinson's death?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

gavman said:


> this principle is already enshrined in law. if you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury may kill them, this is homicide. the 'eggshell skull' priciple


No.  If you injure someone who is so fragile that your injury DOES kill them, this is homicide.  Not may.  DOES.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

It's not a nightmare, it's rather bloody convinient. Some might say almost ...tooo convinient  

It's plain to see now, you can argue the toss all you like. the blatent corruption is shining proud, on every single policeman/womans badge in the country.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In terms of _criminal_ charges I think a judicial review of the CPS decision is the most likely to succeed.  I suspect that any such judicial review would leave the decision re-manslaughter untouched but I think there is scope for them to conclude the decision re-ABH was irrational and should be reviewed.
> 
> I can't see a private prosecution for manslaughter getting anywhere; a private prosecution for ABH _may_.
> 
> ...


 
Fuck i agree with DB, for a change if The ABH was proven would those involved be sacked?, myself i doubt this would happen.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> this hasn;t got anythung to do with the law.


This sort of hysterical statement is why no-one takes you seriously.  It is _everything_ about the law.  What you believe the officer has done is a criminal offence (i.e. against the _law_).  The assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute is a matter of _law_.  If the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence there would have been a prosecution in a Court of _law_ and the proceedings would have been governed by the _law_ of evidence.  The Jury would have decided guilt according to the rules of _law_ and, if convicted, sentencing would have bee according to the _law_ of sentencing. 

What you are talking about is anarchy - simply having a random individual (you) deciding what is and isn't an offence and whether someone is or isn't guilty of it (based not on evidence but a few random bits of information you happen to have) and then deciding what _you_ think is an appropriate sanction.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This sort of hysterical statement is why no-one takes you seriously.  It is _everything_ about the law.  What you believe the officer has done is a criminal offence (i.e. against the _law_).  The assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute is a matter of _law_.  If the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence there would have been a prosecution in a Court of _law_ and the proceedings would have been governed by the _law_ of evidence.  The Jury would have decided guilt according to the rules of _law_ and, if convicted, sentencing would have bee according to the _law_ of sentencing.
> 
> What you are talking about is anarchy - simply having a random individual (you) deciding what is and isn't an offence and whether someone is or isn't guilty of it (based not on evidence but a few random bits of information you happen to have) and then deciding what _you_ think is an appropriate sanction.


 
ok it may be "about" the law, if you want to be technical. but it is most certainly not about upholding any of it. (and people don't take me seriously cos i believe in little green men, nothing to do with my hysteria  )


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> ... because the evidence is as clear as day.


But it isn't.

SOME of the evidence is as clear as day - we know who used force and we know how they used force (the push and the baton strike).  What _isn't_ "clear as day" is what the officer's justification (or otherwise) for that use of force is (a piece of evidence necessary to prove that what happened was unlawful and amounted to a criminal assault), though the statement of the CPS suggests that it is not adequate.  And what is most certainly not "clear as day" is that the use of force led to an injury which led to death or to any particular injury at ABH level (though, as I have said, this last point is, in my view, rather a weak part of the CPS decision).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> If it hadn't been a policemen who was the assailant, then the cops wouldn't have drafted in their pet pathologist to ensure a verdict of death by natural causes.


As I have said, the cops didn't "draft in their pet pathologist" (a) because it wasn't their decision and he was "drafted in" by the City of London Coroner so far as I am aware and (b) he is anything _but_ the police's pet pathologist (if they have one it is probably Nat Carey - by far the pathologist of choice for experienced senior investigating officers dealing with potentially difficult cases and, spookily, the one "drafted in" by the IPCC when they took over the investigation when the prior contact with police became apparent).


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

It doesn't mattwer the motives or justification. that's not in question. Ian thomlisons family on the news stated that the CPS had said that There was an assault, and that the assault was UNLAWFUL. So it IS as clear as day.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

> Pc Harwood left the Metropolitan Police a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident, then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force.
> 
> He could now face disciplinary charges over the death of Mr Tomlinson, and could also be the subject of an internal investigation by the Met into how he was allowed to rejoin the force despite having an unresolved disciplinary matter on his record.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

It's amazing how obfuscation, incompetence  and ignorance bracketed so often leads to such (clear decisions).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Fuck i agree with DB, for a change if The ABH was proven would those involved be sacked?, myself i doubt this would happen.


I think that in the circumstances a conviction for ABH would inevitably lead to dismissal. As I said, a disciplinary finding of (effectively) common assault which seems a distinct possibility on the basis of the CPS comments would be likely to.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> It doesn't mattwer the motives or justification. that's not in question. Ian thomlisons family on the news stated that the CPS had said that There was an assault, and that the assault was UNLAWFUL. So it IS as clear as day.


Yes ... insofar as that goes - the use of force they say was unlawful ... but they then go on to explain that the next bit (what it caused) is anything but.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Not a Fan of DB at the best of times but here i have gained some good information this time round...<snip>



The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.



It seems PC Simon Harwood 'had history of aggression' the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died, was previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour, and The CPS would have known this information but he still walk from The MURDER he committed, i have become less cynical over the years but fuck this stinks of a cover up to say the least and in this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html article The Metropolitan Police declined to comment on the force’s decision to re-employ Pc Harwood in 2004, then he goes onto to MURDER Ian Tomlinson


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.


There are clearly major issues in terms of the police-public relationship and there are (as usual) major concerns about the inability (or unwillingness) of the police service to acknowledge / apologise / explain until all proceedings are concluded (i.e. years later) ... but when you say a "man lost his life _due_ to the actions of one violent bully" you are going beyond what we actually _know_ or can _prove_, at least to the criminal standard.

It _may_ be the case that a civil court (if the police / individual officer) are sued will decide that causation can be proven to the civil standard (the balance of probabilities) but we don't know that.

As for the actions of other officers, we don't know what was or was not reported by any of them at the time and the use of force was not so excessive as to clearly be a breach of the law - again we come back to the fact that _some_ use of force may well have been justifiable and the push and single baton strike, though they look bad, primarily as Mr Tomlinson falls over, are not in and of themselves a massive use of force in the big scheme of things.  We are a _long_ was from a situation in which you can say that any officer nearby _must_ have realised a criminal offence had been committed by a colleague.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> .... when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully......



If that could be proven, I'd bang him up for life. 

But it can't can it?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jul 22, 2010)

DB you've said:



> That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force.



Then:



> Yes ... insofar as that goes - the use of force they say was unlawful



These two statements seem to contradict each other. And what possible reason did they have for using _some_ force? The bloke was walking down the street not doing anything.

Also why didn't the CPS prosecute on common assault before the 6 month time limit and then go for a more serious charge if the investigation warranted it? Surely prosecuting on common assault wouldn't mean that more serious charges couldn't be brought?

Lastly you aren't a medical expert of any kind whatsoever yet you seem quite comfortable in stating that the views of the second two pathologists fundamentally depended on the findings of the first pathologist. Why are you so confident in that assertion? The second and third pathologist seem certain about their judgments. Given the first pathologist could well be found to be incompetent then the CPS could have proceeded on manslaughter and ABH charges. Whether a conviction would be be made is another matter, but there must surely be enough evidence to give it a go. The CPS could, they decided not to.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

e19896 said:


> It seems PC Simon Harwood 'had history of aggression' the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died, was previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour, and The CPS would have known this information...


I am sure they would ... but sadly it doesn't help with the issue of causation which is the basis for there being no charge.

If there had been charges I am sure the CPS would have tried to use the previous incidents as part of the prosecution case under the fairly new provisions for the use of evidence of bad character (regardless of whether it led to a conviction).

And as for the fact he was re-employed after being (effectively) required to resign previously is sadly likely to turn out to be a major fuck-up ... Met vetting is a shambles, with lots of people being refused due to absolutely trivial matters and lots of instances of major issues not being identified ...    There is also scope for improving the psychological assessment of officers (generally, or in relation to the TSG) ... but that is _extremely_ unlikely to be possible in the current financial situation - if anything there will be _more_ problems like this.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jul 22, 2010)

> but that is extremely unlikely to be possible in the current financial situation - if anything there will be more problems like this.



Yes especially as the government will need the police to crack down on protests and strikes against the cuts. You can be sure there will be more of this.


----------



## xes (Jul 22, 2010)

papers tomorow are largely going with the Thomlinson story, and also that the IPCC suggested that they should bring manslaughter charges, and they were ignored. 

Why was the IPCC ignored?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> Why was the IPCC ignored?


cos its a fucking stitch-up basically


----------



## e19896 (Jul 22, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yes especially as the government will need the police to crack down on protests and strikes against the cuts. You can be sure there will be more of this.


 
I have to agree to be frank, just what the fuck is going on here that the likes of  PC Simon Harwood who 'had history of aggression can just walk from MURDER not good to say this but i have been thinking if only the alleged Hart Attack was some what more serious, what utter bullshit and then we have the same old lies from The Met, from 1984 to now they attack beat and murder the public and walk free, to do the same once more.


----------



## Weller (Jul 22, 2010)

> The married 43 year-old had been due to face a misconduct hearing over the alleged road rage incident, understood to have happened in the late 1990s, but instead retired on medical grounds.
> A few years later, the father of two rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker before applying to Surrey Police for a job as a police constable in May 2003.



This sort of stuff should not shock me any longer considering the corruption in the past few years but somehow it still shocks me that those in the police force know this goes on and never ever seem to be able  accept any criticism whatsoever  even when an innocent bloke is killed


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 22, 2010)

cesare said:


> Interesting innit. The CPS wail that the OB say that they hide behind that, when their version is that the OB don't bring cases before them in the first place. But they're clearly hiding behind it now.


i wouldn't say "interesting" as much as "fucking bent" tbh.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> These two statements seem to contradict each other.


Not at all.  The CPS don't say that there was no reason to use _any_ force - they say that the force used was unlawful - that may be on the basis that there was no lawful reason to use any force at all but I suspect that it was on the basis that it was excessive.



> And what possible reason did they have for using _some_ force? The bloke was walking down the street not doing anything.


If that's all he was doing, probably none.  But if he, or any other protestors / people around him, were resisting the police's lawful attempts to move them down the street then some use of force to "hurry" them along would be justifiable and is _frequently_ used.  Even if there was very little resistance then some force to turn him around or to propel him along in front of the police line would be justifiable as it is simply impracticable for there to be a debate with every individual person encountered by the police line to explain everything that is going on and try and persuade them to comply with the police request to go in a particular direction - the operation would simply grind to a halt and fall apart.



> Also why didn't the CPS prosecute on common assault before the 6 month time limit and then go for a more serious charge if the investigation warranted it? Surely prosecuting on common assault wouldn't mean that more serious charges couldn't be brought?


Arguably it would - there is a principle called _autrefois convict_ (or _autrefois acquit_) which means that if you are charged with something you have previously been convicted of (or acquitted of) the case will be thrown out and, so far as I am aware, that would apply in a case where a lesser charge based on exactly the same facts (i.e. the same use of force) had happened.  It would be interesting to know whether or not they actually considered what to do at the six month stage (as opposed to realising they had missed it when finally realising they had no more serious charges likely to succeed).    



> Lastly you aren't a medical expert of any kind whatsoever yet you seem quite comfortable in stating that the views of the second two pathologists fundamentally depended on the findings of the first pathologist. Why are you so confident in that assertion? The second and third pathologist seem certain about their judgments.


I am a senior investigating officer and I understand how to put together and interpret evidence.  I have experienced dozens of post-mortems and the various issues arising in cases where there are multiple post-mortems.  The statement of the CPS (to the effect that the subsequent PMs were reliant on observations made in the first one) is absolutely consistent with all my experience.  You only get to open a body up once.  You only get to see the contents of the abdomen once.  Bodies degenerate after death (despite refrigeration) and some aspects go quite quickly and so you only get one chance to see them.  In this case, where abdominal bleeding is the postulated cause of death by the second and third pathologist, the exact nature of the three litres of fluid found in the first PM in the abdomen is of crucial importance.  There was no sample and all they have is Freddy Patels observation about what it was ... and apparently there is some discreancy in how he described it (i.e. whether it was blood, or just contained a bit of blood - 3l of blood would be a major issue and even Freddy would have noticed that that might be a significant factor in cause of death so I suspect that it probably _wasn't_ blood ... but only he knows and the subseqent findings are reliant on his observation.



> Given the first pathologist could well be found to be incompetent then the CPS could have proceeded on manslaughter and ABH charges. Whether a conviction would be be made is another matter, but there must surely be enough evidence to give it a go. The CPS could, they decided not to


They could have "given it a go" ... but that is not what they have a duty to do: they have a duty to, first, decide whether there is sufficient evidence on which a conviction is _likely_ (i.e. something over a 50% chance) and then  (and only if they decide there is sufficient evidence) to decide whether it is in the public interest to proceed (something they would not have had any problem with in this case ... but they never got beyond their first question).


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But it isn't.
> 
> SOME of the evidence is as clear as day - we know who used force and we know how they used force (the push and the baton strike).  What _isn't_ "clear as day" is what the officer's justification (or otherwise) for that use of force is (a piece of evidence necessary to prove that what happened was unlawful and amounted to a criminal assault),



Ok, ill play along for _just one_ moment.

Why would trained a group of supposedly highly trained riot officers, with helmets, protective padding and batons, need "justification" to allow their police dog to bite a man before hitting him across the back of the legs and then allowing one of their officers to violently shove him to the floor as he was walking away from them with his hands in his pockets? (this is not a "use of force" as you put it, it's a violent assault on an unarmed and defenseless man.)

There is no justification for the individual officers action or the group as a whole, because you can't justify supposed public servants brutalising someone they are supposedly paid to protect and then failing to look after their welfare by leaving them sprawled on the pavement.  

Whilst no one can be entirely sure Ian Tomlinson would not have not have dropped dead in the same fashion as he did - had he been left alone by those armed thugs that day, it's pretty safe to claim that the _overwhelming_ balance of probabilities suggests he would still have been alive 5 minutes later...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

xes said:


> Why was the IPCC ignored?


They undoubtedly weren't "ignored" - their recommendation would have been noted by the CPS ... but it is the CPS who decide whether there is sufficient evidence or not and the IPCC are NOT lawyers.  The police _regularly_ recommend all sorts of things to the CPS only for the CPS to disagree.  It's what independence is all about ... if all they did was what the police / IPCC told them they wouldn't be independent ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 22, 2010)

yawn yawn yawn. db pops up like fucking noddy when the cps collude with the cops on one of the most questionable decisions i can remember seeing.

sometimes, you might want to acknowledge that your people kill other people indiscriminately. for no reason and with no retribution.

then you might begin to understand some of the anger. ha!


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Why would trained a group of supposedly highly trained riot officers, with helmets, protective padding and batons, need "justification" to allow their police dog to bite a man before hitting him across the back of the legs and then allowing one of their officers to violently shove him to the floor as he was walking away from them with his hands in his pockets? (this is not a "use of force" as you put it, it's a violent assault on an unarmed and defenseless man.)


Because unless there is a justification for a use of force then it is an assault.  

(And your use of emotive language is _exactly_ the sort of thing you would (rightly) criticise the police for if they did it) 



> There is no justification for the individual officers action or the group as a whole, because you can't justify supposed public servants brutalising someone they are supposedly paid to protect and then failing to look after their welfare by leaving them sprawled on the pavement.


If no-one else was helping him up you'd have a point.  If they just stepped over him and left him lying there you'd have a point.  But they didn't and I don't for one moment expect that _anyone_ present expected anything other than that he would have a couple of bruises and grazes as a result of falling over.   



> Whilst no one can be entirely sure Ian Tomlinson would not have not have dropped dead in the same fashion as he did - had he been left alone by those armed thugs that day, it's pretty safe to claim that the _overwhelming_ balance of probabilities suggests he would still have been alive 5 minutes later...


Balance of probabilities, maybe.  But the criminal law require beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Balance of probabilities, maybe.  But the criminal law require beyond reasonable doubt.


for a conviction, you need a judge and jury to hear the case, something we don't have here.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Even if there was very little resistance then some force to turn him around or to propel him along in front of the police line would be justifiable as it is simply impracticable for there to be a debate with every individual person encountered by the police line to explain everything that is going on and try and persuade them to comply with the police request to go in a particular direction - the operation would simply grind to a halt and fall apart.



If i wanted people out of my way then id suggest violently shoving them over and leaving them sprawled on the floor is not the best technique....But yes regardless, let us not have "the operation grind to a halt and fall apart" because of a middle aged man with his hands in his pockets. 

If that happened, then just imagine how many people would have to be pushed over?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 22, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yawn yawn yawn. db pops up like fucking noddy ...


yawn yawn yawn.  Paulie Tandoori pops up like fucking noddy ...



> sometimes, you might want to acknowledge that your people kill other people indiscriminately. for no reason and with no retribution.


But they don't.  Sometimes there are tragic outcomes.  Sometimes excessive force is used.  Sometimes other mistakes are made.  But you are talking absolute bollocks to claim that the police "kill other people indiscriminately".  Best you try Rio de Janeiro for that ...   More bollocks hyperbole obscuring the genuine issues ...  



> then you might begin to understand some of the anger. ha!


I understand the anger ... which is why I suggest ways of improving the situation we have.


----------



## FreddyB (Jul 22, 2010)

More people now see the police as a corrupt bunch of cunts. People trust them less and respect them less, no amount of posts by DB is going to make a blind bit of difference. They've made a rod for their own backs. Fuck em.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm surprised that you consider that the impartial operation of the Criminal Justice system should be subject to perversion in the interests of public relations ...


 I'm surprised you'd opine that the criminal justice system operates impartially, so it's little wonder you're confused, with such errant beliefs.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jul 22, 2010)

> If that's all he was doing, probably none. But if he, or any other protestors / people around him, were resisting the police's lawful attempts to move them down the street then some use of force to "hurry" them along would be justifiable and is frequently used. Even if there was very little resistance then some force to turn him around or to propel him along in front of the police line would be justifiable as it is simply impracticable for there to be a debate with every individual person encountered by the police line to explain everything that is going on and try and persuade them to comply with the police request to go in a particular direction - the operation would simply grind to a halt and fall apart.



But you are entirely speculating. From the video none of these things were happening. The situation didn't seem particularly tense and he was walking away. The police officer stepped in and aggressively pushed him over as he was walking away. Have a look at the video again, where is there any evidence for using any force whatsoever?



> Arguably it would - there is a principle called autrefois convict (or autrefois acquit) which means that if you are charged with something you have previously been convicted of (or acquitted of) the case will be thrown out and, so far as I am aware, that would apply in a case where a lesser charge based on exactly the same facts (i.e. the same use of force) had happened. It would be interesting to know whether or not they actually considered what to do at the six month stage (as opposed to realising they had missed it when finally realising they had no more serious charges likely to succeed).



Firstly you don't seem certain of this. Secondly the investigation would almost certainly have thrown up new facts. I would like to know for certain whether a conviction of common assault (which everyone seems certain would happen), would mean that a greater charge could not have been brought later, even if new facts came to light.

If it couldn't then the law needs to be changed in the way you describe earlier. Perhaps one reason it hasn't been changed is because it is in the interests of the establishment not to.

On medical evidence you are still speculating, you don't know anything for sure. You cannot be in any way sure that the second and third pathologist wouldn't be able to convince a jury of their findings and show that they were certain of this regardless of what the first pathologist said and did. You might have been on a lot of cases, you are no medical expert.



> They could have "given it a go" ... but that is not what they have a duty to do: they have a duty to, first, decide whether there is sufficient evidence on which a conviction is likely (i.e. something over a 50% chance) and then (and only if they decide there is sufficient evidence) to decide whether it is in the public interest to proceed (something they would not have had any problem with in this case ... but they never got beyond their first question).



I know the decision they came to. But I strongly suspect that the conclusion was politically motivated. Given that the 50% bench mark is very subjective they could have gone with it.

Incidentally even when there is clear evidence of someone being shot on the floor the police can laughably get away with murder or voluntary manslaughter by saying "I shot him in the back because I thought I was pulling out a taser". You seriously couldn't make this up. A hand gun and taser feel and look entirely different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10565543


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> yawn yawn yawn.  Paulie Tandoori pops up like fucking noddy ...
> 
> 
> *But they don't.  *Sometimes there are tragic outcomes.  Sometimes excessive force is used.  Sometimes other mistakes are made.  But you are talking absolute bollocks to claim that the police "kill other people indiscriminately".  Best you try Rio de Janeiro for that ...   More bollocks hyperbole obscuring the genuine issues ...
> ...


yes they clearly fucking do numb nuts


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

fucking tragic outcomes.....

cops kill people and get away with it. standard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes there would.  In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all.  In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use _some_ force and hence there is an additional (and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) burden.  The law (relating to any lawful use of force generally, not specific to use by the police) is that no-one is expected to weigh the use of force to a nicety in a difficult situation with no time to think (see s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - legislation brought in to try and address the householder use of force issue).  Where there is a lawful reason to use force, courts (including juries) are reluctant to convict anyone (not just police officers) who may have used a bit much (see numerous householder cases, numerous cases involving door staff, etc.).


 
Some eggs and bacon with your massive waffle, sir?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

14 brackets


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because unless there is a justification for a use of force then it is an assault.
> 
> (And your use of emotive language is _exactly_ the sort of thing you would (rightly) criticise the police for if they did it)



A use of force might be considered police using their power to arrest someone and handcuff them. Id say violently shoving someone over falls outside this use of these weasel words.



> If no-one else was helping him up you'd have a point.  If they just stepped over him and left him lying there you'd have a point.  But they didn't and I don't for one moment expect that _anyone_ present expected anything other than that he would have a couple of bruises and grazes as a result of falling over.



1) They didn't go over to him, a member of the public went over and helped him to his feet. 

2) He didn't fall over, he was shoved over unexpectedly from behind. He had his hands in his pockets and landed partly face first

3) A one foot fall can fracture your skull - and yes he didn't die from a fractured skull, but you can't trust to retrospection.



> Balance of probabilities, maybe.  But the criminal law require beyond reasonable doubt.



So the police can shove anyone over with a medical condition similar to his own and should they die say, "well actually, he might have died that day because of condition x, and you can't prove this wouldn't have happened beyond reasonable doubt."


Id rather not live in a world like that, call me odd, but you know...


----------



## winjer (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> The full CPS statement:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson


 
They can't even get the street he died on right:

"Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet. He then left Royal Exchange [Buildings] and walked a short distance into Threadneedle Street [actually Cornhill]. He was seen by members of the public to walk up the street and then appeared to bump into a building and slowly collapsed to the floor."

Fair fills me with confidence in their abilities.


----------



## Weller (Jul 23, 2010)

This thug avoided a misconduct hearing on medical grounds and then managed to rejoin with that unresolved , how the f*ck is anyone watching and reading this in/on the news going to believe that there has NOT been a cover up.

Total waste of time in my opinion db  harping on about what the law and procedure "actually"  is , it just shows that even when some have left the force they still want to defend it even when it is so so obvious for anyone seeing all this shortly after the Raoul Moat massive spending spree and task force , RAF jet , armored vehicles because "they" were threatened .

Nobody really cares surely what the "law" actually is when it is so clearly F*cked up and corrupt .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

gavman said:


> or asked to 'reflect on his actions' like the lunatic who tried to strangle me



Quite.
Logically, they're not all "bastards" and "lunatics", but they're part of an institution which operates as a "closed society", and that being so, they're well placed to circumvent or frustrate procedure that "mere mortals" cannot.


----------



## flickerx (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm incredibly angry and disgusted at this outcome - but most of all I feel really sad for the poor guy, just a newspaper seller, dead, for no reason whatsoever, except pure thuggery on the part of someone who is supposed to be protecting him.

Shame on the police and the CPS.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i wouldn't say "interesting" as much as "fucking bent" tbh.


 
I have to agree, it brings me no joy but I did not expect any other result. The police protect the system, the system protects the police - this symbiotic relationship that delivers no justice, that causes so many tragedies and causes only pain IS the British way. Unfortunately there is a wealth of cases and literature that shows this process in action.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm trying to remember back, didn't cctv go missing?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

> Coles said bungling at the start of the investigation had cost crucial evidence. She said the alleged mistakes included the decision by the Independent Police Complaints Commission to hand initial responsibility for the inquiry to City of London police. She said: "It was not treated as a potential crime from the outset and so evidence was lost."



What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?


 
Good and pertinent questions Butch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?


it does my brains in tbh. the duplicity, the arrogance, the sheer brass neck of the establishment.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?


none of it. cops kill people and that's ok, cos we're criminals.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 23, 2010)

Normally you obviously have an arrest, either at the scene or following enquiries. Then the system kicks in and a process is followed, taking into account time limits. I don't think the OB in question was ever arrested even though his ID was known on the day. 

Suspended on full pay at the time, and is still suspended on full pay.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> none of it. cops kill people and that's ok, cos we're criminals.


 
Only one way to fightback though - it's together against these people. Don't let people like d-b waffle you into submission.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> fucking tragic outcomes.....
> 
> cops kill people and get away with it. standard.


 


People kill people and get away with it.. If one of our people get killed.. who do we want to find out who did it........


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?


 
You'll be starting a criminology course soon Butch. Who is tasked with enforcing the law? The Police? Who polices the police? The Police. I remember that old P.R.O.P book, "Who Guards the Guards" (talking about Prison officer brutality towards prisoners) and it is a good way to look at what happens. Given that the police hear no evil see no evil etc when other police break the law (and there are many - that old Phil OChs song was right 'there are muderers and more in the police') then there is no hurry and certainly no critical awareness used when collecting and safeguarding evidence that may one day be used in court. Its a mixture of bluster, blunder and incompetance that is deliberately created and the system 'saves the day' and delivers the verdict they all wanted all along.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it does my brains in tbh. the duplicity, the arrogance, the sheer brass neck of the establishment.


 
Yeah, I always imagine I hear Oxbridge public schools accents doing the deals...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

Frankie Jack said:


> People kill people and get away with it.. If one of our people get killed.. who do we want to find out who did it........


sorry but i think that's bollocks. cops have a preferential place within our society, if you're going to take the calling, you do so with certain responsibilities and needlessly killing some random bloke isn't one of those imo. i don't agree with the institution per se, i don't think we need some national guard, but whatever your colours, this is state murder, sanctioned and signed off as something meaningless.

which is disgusting.


----------



## winjer (Jul 23, 2010)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/



> Whilst the officer was *entitled to require* Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.



Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?


anything which starts:

_In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published._

is gonna be a fucking stitch-up. i can't even believe people are taking this mockery of justice seriously. there is no legal substance for the decision, this is a white-wash.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

Let's just get this clear before the next round of shit - *the IPCC thought the investigation warranted a prosecution on manslaughter* - despite patel's autopsy. Let's make that fact clear.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

The pathologist who carried out the 2nd autopsy says this is is a crock of shit and would have testified to that account - i.e against the CPS pic of only patel's autopsy



> He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.
> 
> Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with *a baton strike*, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."



Let's not talk anymore about a push. Why have we allowed them to do that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2010)

'we' allowed nothing. They control the discourse, you know that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

I don't. I profoundly disagree with that and i've spend many thousands of words telling you why i disagree exactly with that. 

No, we're not powerless. Make the talk about why push means attack with a baton. I'm not on about his specific case either. Why can the bbc just lie like this? Because they know they're not in the slightest bit responsible to me or you. (They're not tbh - fuck the BBC).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

> The CPS lawyer who made the decision was the same one who decided no officer should face charges for the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes by police who mistook him for a terrorist. That shooting happened five years ago yesterday.



Nice


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

Even the bloody politicians on Question Time and This Week were expressing misgivings.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2010)

You can't tell me the mainstream media isn't run by and written by the mid to upper bourgeoisie with certain interests at heart- that doesn't mean we are powerless. Just that our voices aren't the ones given prominence. Even its workers berate it (see Flat Earth News) as a useless vehicle for hysteria and vested interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> You can't tell me the mainstream media isn't run by and written by the mid to upper bourgeoisie with certain interests at heart- that doesn't mean we are powerless. Just that our voices aren't the ones given prominence. Even its workers berate it (see Flat Earth News) as a useless vehicle for hysteria and vested interests.


 
I don't want to tell you that, i've no interest in telling you that. Why are people obsessed by this? There is no single discourse  - people take and make what they want from all sorts of places. They turn what the mirror says into what they think the mirror says (it's a great left wing 1945 paper) - there is no discourse that people buy into or don't. Forget this media bollocks - if you buy into that you buy into the idea that we're all thick and are told what to do. Which you know is wrong.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

The IPCC managed to investigate and hand over their findings within 4 months (April to August 2009). It's _seemingly_ taken the CPS 12 months to decide what to do with those findings. Am I missing something here? Why the delay?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> The IPCC managed to investigate and hand over their findings within 4 months (April to August 2009). It's _seemingly_ taken the CPS 12 months to decide what to do with those findings. Am I missing something here? Why the delay?


 
Would i simply be informing you of the relevant facts if i told you why my view was law for you and everyone for ever you worthless cunts - or offering a view on how someone might take hqt time to reach that conclusion?  

The timing is interesting.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2010)

it isn't that we are thick and do what we are told, it is that they write the fucking news and they make the orthodox take on history. I'm still having to correct people over the smears n jeers wrt the Tomlinson debacle today simply because some folks think the big sheets are worthy sources. Now that isn't calling people thick, it is pointing out that some give undue prominence to what the papers say because the discourse of public life is so often 'helped' along by these journos.

Despite the helthy 'newspapers are full of shit' attitudes I encounter the debates are framed by the articles and it is only once the bollocks has ben dismissed that we get to the meat of the issues. Every fucking time I talk shop with mates or randoms we get the 'joy' of moving past the media angle first. As I said, they frame the debate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

That only works if you think people are thick and believe what they see on the news, No fucker even watches the news. That twat up in the ne should have cured you of this idea if not real life.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Would i simply be informing you of the relevant facts if i told you why my view was law for you and everyone for ever you worthless cunts - or offering a view on how someone might take hqt time to reach that conclusion?
> 
> The timing is interesting.


 
"Curiouser and curiouser!" "I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it" "You're nothing but a pack of cards!" <<< As you know, quotes from Alice Through The Looking Glass.

There is that weird Alice-type feeling of distortion about this. I've watched and rewatched the footage of him being batoned and violently shoved for no apparent reason. The IPCC managed to get their investigation done relatively smartish. Then nothing seems to happen for a year ... Keir, you're a QC and Director For Public Prosecutions. Is this normal? How long do the CPS usually take to manage high profile IPCC investigated cases?


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

d-b: why do you think it took so long for the CPS to process this?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 23, 2010)

Is it not time we asked do we need The Police? For myself the death of  Ian Mr Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009, will never be forgotten, we can never seek justice from such a rotten corrupt system there seems little if no point in asking, as Anarchist and activist we need to over come our own apathy and act, not only in support for The family  Mr Ian Tomlinson, but also for those who have been MURDERD  BEATEN BATERD by The Metropolitan Police force over the years let not our anger fade this time round, the winter of discontent is only a petrel bomb, stones throw away are we prepared to take now or stay the same?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 23, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Is it not time we asked do we need The Police?



Who's going to ask that? You and three other people I expect.



e19896 said:


> as Anarchist and activist we need to over come our own apathy and act, not only in support for The family  Mr Ian Tomlinson, but also for those who have been MURDERD  BEATEN BATERD by The Metropolitan Police force over the years let not our anger fade this time round, the winter of discontent is only a petrel bomb, stones throw away are we prepared to take now or stay the same?



When are you going to realise that this sort of rhetoric helps no one and that literally no one listens to it?  Are we prepared to take what now? The state? Don't make me laugh, you can have these wank fantasies all you like but they aint gonna come true without public support and you aint gonna get public support by talking about throwing petrol bombs all over the place and banging on about your 'anarchist' credentials.  By the way fuck you and your 'apathy' bollocks, people are angry about this, me included, but speaking in rhetoric that's older than you are isn't going to help matters is it? Or maybe you really think it will?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 23, 2010)

It's time for a wevolution


----------



## dylans (Jul 23, 2010)

Just watched his family on TV. The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution. This is the end of the matter because they are not rich. That says everything about this case. I am not surprised but I am disgusted.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 23, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Who's going to ask that? You and three other people I expect.
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to realise that this sort of rhetoric helps no one and that literally no one listens to it?  Are we prepared to take what now? The state? Don't make me laugh, you can have these wank fantasies all you like but they aint gonna come true without public support and you aint gonna get public support by talking about throwing petrol bombs all over the place and banging on about your 'anarchist' credentials.  By the way fuck you and your 'apathy' bollocks, people are angry about this, me included, but speaking in rhetoric that's older than you are isn't going to help matters is it? Or maybe you really think it will?


 
Either is that anger unless you do something with it, you know re wank fantasies for some your right, but fact is you know fuck all about myself and where i would stand on The Barricades far far far more than just some fucking wank fantasist and just as a by the way one is 45 years old been active from the age of 15 see here for the full rant..


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-cps-ruling



> But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.
> 
> He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.
> 
> Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 23, 2010)

Looking more like a CPS stitch up than IPCC atm, then. That  is interesting.

 "It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is." - absolutely. d-b didn't respond  on that point several pages ago.




dylans said:


> Just watched his family on TV. The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution. This is the end of the matter because they are not rich. That says everything about this case. I am not surprised but I am disgusted.


 Had the slight feel of a planted Q&A. I hope the ubiquitous 'wealthy individual who wishes to remain anonymous' does pipe up because they really deserve and need their day in court.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> Just watched his family on TV. The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution. This is the end of the matter because they are not rich. That says everything about this case. I am not surprised but I am disgusted.



They've launched a Campaign Fighting Fund: http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/2010/07/launch-of-campaign-fighting-fund.html


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'we' allowed nothing. They control the discourse, you know that.


 
No they attempt to limit the available discourses; but you are evidence of our ability to resist, subvert and escape those limits. Discourses can determine but not as forcefully or as much as I used to think; which is a good thing.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

....



> Although it has been decided he will not face criminal charges for striking Tomlinson it has been disclosed that the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, backed a prosecution for manslaughter.
> 
> Pc Harwood left the Metropolitan Police a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident, then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

I think iirc that the cameras were not turned on that day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> I think iirc that the cameras were not turned on that day.


yeh. 'nothing to see here' sort of thing


----------



## teqniq (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm really not surprised by any of this, disgusted but not surprised. The establishment pretty much always looks after it's own. They also probably calculate that they'll need all the mindless muscle they can get if the shit really does hit the fan with all the spending cuts and suchlike. Best not alienate the police eh?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. 'nothing to see here' sort of thing


 
After a quick look it would appear that the CCTV in this area was working and they do have footage (although im sure i remember reading that due to some legal ruling or other they would have to be turned off?)



> The IPCC Commissioner for London Deborah Glass said CCTV footage showed police officers refused to let Mr Tomlinson through a cordon opposite the Bank of England, prompting him to walk around the corner into Royal Exchange Passage.
> 
> She said: “A number of witnesses have described seeing him there, getting caught up in a crowd and being pushed back by police officers.
> 
> ...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7987616.stm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> After a quick look it would appear that the CCTV in this area was working and they do have footage (although im sure i remember reading that due to some legal ruling or other they would have to be turned off?)
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7987616.stm


the ones that had to be off were in westminster


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

Justice for Ian Tomlinson, sign the petition now: http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/justice-ian-tomlinson


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Is it not time we asked do we need The Police?


it's taken you enough time to start to catch up with what other people have been saying for years.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> From the video none of these things were happening. The situation didn't seem particularly tense and he was walking away. The police officer stepped in and aggressively pushed him over as he was walking away. Have a look at the video again, where is there any evidence for using any force whatsoever?


The point is the video did not show the 30 secs / 100yds prior to the use of force - it started pretty much with it.  So NONE of us know what happened.  I am not saying that any particular thing happened in that 30 secs / 100yds we haven't seen / heard about, I am simply pointing out that things _could_ have happened that _may_ have amounted to justification for _some_ use of force (in response to someone (you I think) specifically asking me what possible justification could there be ...).  And I have repeatedly said that the plain comment by the CPS to the effect that the use of force amounted to an assault (and thus was not in their view lawful) very strongly suggests that there was nothing in that period that did amount to justification for the level of force we saw used (albeit it doesn't necessarily mean that they believed there was no justification for _any_ use of force.  The situation is not simplistic and clear cut.  The video clip, starting only a second or two prior to the use of force does NOT provide the entire story (any more than the video of someone punching someone really hard would show the whole story if it didn't include the pushes and threats of use of a weapon which preceded it ...).



> Firstly you don't seem certain of this. Secondly the investigation would almost certainly have thrown up new facts. I would like to know for certain whether a conviction of common assault (which everyone seems certain would happen), would mean that a greater charge could not have been brought later, even if new facts came to light.


That's because I'm not a lawyer.  I know enough to know that the issue would arise. I do not know enough to provide a legal opinion on what the outcome of consideration of it would be.  Entirely new facts coming to light subsequently _would_ enable alternative charges to be laid (e.g. there are cases in which an ABH charge led to a conviction and when the victim died a few weeks later manslaughter or murder was proceeded with successfully) ... but I am not at all sure there are any significant new facts which were not known at the six month stage.



> Perhaps one reason it hasn't been changed is because it is in the interests of the establishment not to.


How so?  Surely it would be in the interests of the establishment to prosecute the riff-raff no matter how long after the event it was?



> On medical evidence you are still speculating, you don't know anything for sure.


I have never said I do.  (Unlike you who quite happily speculates that things you don't know are actually what you would like them to be).  I have explained at length how the opinions of the second and third pathologist would inevitably be reliant on some of the findings of the first and, hence, how it would be inevitable that the first would be called and, hence, how the jury would be presented with the disagreement in findings and, hence, would be far less likely to be able to reach a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

I may not be a medical expert but I am an expert at putting together the evidence (including medical evidence in cases where pathologists disagree) for a criminal prosecution.  Perhaps you would like to share the details of YOUR experience that gives you the confidence to tell me I am talking bollocks.



> But I strongly suspect that the conclusion was politically motivated.


Having dealt with the CPS since they were invented I believe that the absolute opposite would be the case - they would have been absolutely thorough in ensuring that if there was a hope of reaching their threshold they would do so.  But the fact that it is an administrative decision, made behind closed doors means that people will never believe that and will perceive it as an establishment cover-up ... which is why I suggest we need a Grand Jury style hearing at which such decisions can be tested in open court, with live evidence and cross-examination.

The evidential test is, as you say, very subjective and it also suffers from the fact it is based on paper evidence (i.e. statements) - any investigator will tell you there is a world of difference between a written statement and what a witness eventually says (and, more importantly, how they say it and how it comes across) in Court.



> You seriously couldn't make this up. A hand gun and taser feel and look entirely different ...


No, they don't (usually, and at least in the UK, though both come in a wide variety of styles, especially handguns).  But who's speculating now?  And thanks for using an example from California to demonstrate how shit the UK police are ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some eggs and bacon with your massive waffle, sir?


I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.

But it is the law whether you like it or not.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> A use of force might be considered police using their power to arrest someone and handcuff them. Id say violently shoving someone over falls outside this use of these weasel words.


A lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportinate use of force can be absolutely anything, from a slight touch to knowingly killing someone.  Violently pushing someone (with or without any foresight that they would be likely to fall over) could be a lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force in a wide range of circumstances.  To simply look at the act and decide whether or not it is lawful or not from that alone simply demonstrates your ignorance of the law.



> 2) He didn't fall over, he was shoved over unexpectedly from behind. He had his hands in his pockets and landed partly face first


Why do fuckwits concentrate on the use of the word "fall".  It isn't mutually exclusive with there being a push - the fall is clearly directly the result of the push.  Use of the word fal to escribe what happened after the push does not imply any suggestion that it was nothing to do with the push.  Only an obsessive fuckwit, looking for issues where none exist, would think otherwise ...  



> 3) A one foot fall can fracture your skull - and yes he didn't die from a fractured skull, but you can't trust to retrospection.


Yes, but that was not my fucking point was it?  99 times out of 100 a push does not lead to a fall and 99 times out of 100 a fall doesn't lead to a fractured skull.  It would not be a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome in the circumstances which existed.  (And before you go off on one, this is NOT the same as saying that if it did there would be no liability - there obviously would). 



> So the police can shove anyone over with a medical condition similar to his own and should they die say, "well actually, he might have died that day because of condition x, and you can't prove this wouldn't have happened beyond reasonable doubt."


No.  That is not what I said at all.  It is not a reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said.  Why don't you actually concentrate on what I post instead of making things up ... 




> Id rather not live in a world like that, call me odd, but you know...


And I'd rather not live in a world where if someone died as a result of something entirely unconnected with anything I had done, I would be held responsible just because I happened to be there / have done something.  As would you ... I can hear you squealing about the injustice now if the Old Bill started prosecuting people from any class that you happen to support in such circumstances ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm trying to remember back, didn't cctv go missing?


Yeah, and three witnesses mysteriously disappeared, a tape recording of the officer admitting he intended to kill "the slag" was strangely discovered to have been wiped and the photographs of the body clearly showing three bullet holes were photoshopped ...


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.
> 
> But it is the law whether you like it or not.


 
The law conforms to its own prejudice and rules. as is blatently evident here. You have noticed that the only people defending the utterly undefensible are you, and a couple of other police sympathisers, haven't you? You have noticed that most people can tell the difference between right and wrong, and see through the legalise bullshit, to see what is right and what is wrong, can't you? You must be able to see that a massive injustice has happened, and a man guilty of manslaughter, has got away with killing an innocent man, just because he's a police man can't you? You may have to take off your blinkers to see this, but it is there, highlighted in big bright colours for you to see. This is the most blatent it will get, the police are getting away with killing innocent people, yet againn. And it is "yet again" over 1000 people have been killed by the hands of the police (according to a thread  on here from yesterday) sinse 1969, and not one police officer has been held to account, ever. i guess you think that's because all police are as pure as the driven snow, and beyond justice. But that speaks volumes about the type of person you are, and the type of person who supports the wrong doings of the police, reguardless of the crimes they commit on a daily fucking basis. 

back to the facts that you so readily ignore. the IPCC say that manslaughter charges should have been brought. The PCS say that it was an unwarrented illegal assault from which  a man died. yet NO charges have been brought forward. Now, what fucking land in hell are you from, where this is acceptable, and the police have yet again, evaded the law? Decent people can see what is right and what is wrong, you are obviously not a decent person, as you're still blindly defending the completly undefensible. it's innexcusible. It really is.


----------



## Corax (Jul 23, 2010)

Don't worry, I'm sure the decision will be reconsidered.  I've written to my local MP you see.  That'll do it.

_*drums fingers*_


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?


They are talking of evidence from the post-mortem ... which, because it was not known that there had been police contact (or any other suspicious circumstance) was a routine post-mortem rather a "special" one with all that comes with that ... something which I have discussed _ad_ fucking _nauseum_ throughout this thread.

Please try and apply a bit of fucking thought instead of running around like headless chickens whenever anyone mentions something "new" which fits your conspiracy theory ... 

(Special post-mortems are significantly more extensive / expensive / resource intensive than routine ones and there is no way that it could be justified holding them in all cases where there is a sudden death.  In the particular circumstances of this incident, however, I am suprised that one was not requested even though all that was known was it was a collapse in the street at the time.  It should certainly be learning from this incident that _any_ death in the vicinity of public disorder or any large scale police operation should be treated as an unexplained death until there is reliable evidence that there are no suspicious circumstances.)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Normally you obviously have an arrest, either at the scene or following enquiries. Then the system kicks in and a process is followed, taking into account time limits. I don't think the OB in question was ever arrested even though his ID was known on the day.


An arrest in this case may well have been made (the IPCC usually arrest and interview under caution) at some stage.  If there had been a need to do so earlier then it would have been done.  His ID may have been known "on the day" but the fact that he had used force on Mr Tomlinson was not known for several days.  In the circumstances of this case whether he was arrested or not made not a jot of difference to the investigation / evidential issues.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

this is not a conspiracy theory, it's afact. This copper has got away with killing an innocent man. Because he is a copper, and for no other reason. Corruption is the ONLY reason for it. there is NO justification. (although you're trying a bit too hard to say that there is)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Don't let people like d-b waffle reality force you into submission.


Corrected for you.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

Well I'd seen that video before the post-mortem was done, so I'm fairly confident that it was known at the time.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

it needed no correction. and you wonder why people fucking hate you?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Who polices the police? The Police.


Er, no.  The IPCC.  Try and keep up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2010)

who thought it warranted a manslaughter charge.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er, no.  The IPCC.  Try and keep up.


 who get ignored when they say that manslaughter charges should be brought forward to a police man. once again, the goverment investigate the goverment, and find themselves innocent. What a supprise.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?


The prevention of significant disorder - the law allows for force to be used lawfully in the prevention of crime (significant disorder would include crimes of assault, criminal damage, public order offences and others).  The police direction, as part of an operation to prevent significant disorder would be lawful.  Any resistance could also result in a right to use force in self-defence or defence of other officers.  Prevention of a breach of the peace _may_ also be another power available if he was about to use force unlawfully on officers in the exceution of their duty.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's just get this clear before the next round of shit - *the IPCC thought the investigation warranted a prosecution on manslaughter* - despite patel's autopsy. Let's make that fact clear.


Sorry, I could have sworn you thought the IPCC were police lackeys ... quite happy to cover-up for their mates in the police ... a useless waste of space ... never likely to prosecute a cop ... should be shut down and replaced by a truly independent organisation ...


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

you are what is wrong with the police force. that thought process you have, which thinks that the police are beyond the law. as you clearly do. You hide behind bullshit legalise, and think that it makes you right. News flash. It doesn't. it makes you wronger than a wrong thing in wrongtown at the wrongtown festival of wrongness.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's not talk anymore about a push. Why have we allowed them to do that?


They haven't you fucking idiot.  Their statement quite clearly discussed the push AND a baton strike.  YOU have chosen only to witter on about the push.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> d-b: why do you think it took so long for the CPS to process this?


 
?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> Am I missing something here? Why the delay?


Yes.  The investigation in this case was relatively simple.  The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.

If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even _think_ about saying you wouldn't!)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> d-b: why do you think it took so long for the CPS to process this?


Put simply, because they were trying everything they could think of to find a way to prosecute it.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  The investigation in this case was relatively simple.  The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.
> 
> If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even _think_ about saying you wouldn't!)



Thank you for the information, but please don't tell me what I can or can't think or say.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 23, 2010)

FreddyB said:


> More people now see the police as a corrupt bunch of cunts. People trust them less and respect them less, no amount of posts by DB is going to make a blind bit of difference. They've made a rod for their own backs. Fuck em.


tbf, I think DB is all too painfully aware that police faith in the dibble is at an all time low, and with good reason


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Put simply, because they were trying everything they could think of to find a way to prosecute it.



This is the part I'm unclear about. Are they hindered in some way from bringing a prosecution that might not succeed?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2010)

If it went to a jury are you equally confident that they would find this policeman not guilty?

I would suspect that the balance of evidence would outweigh any guidance from the judge. After all respected pathologists seem to be tripping over themselves in the haste to suggest that they'd happily argue the case against the discredited Mr Patel


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> The saddest thing of all this was hearing them say they don't have the money to pursue a civil prosecution.


They would have no problem in pursuing a civil action if they wished - there are legal aid arrangements in such cases (see all the cases in which long term prisoners take civil actions against the prison service, etc.) and there would be _plenty_ of cause lawyers willing to get involved if they thought there was a reasonable chance of success (and hence some hope of getting paid) ... which, on the evidence, I would guess that they would.  

I don't know where they have got their information from.  Or maybe you mistook mention of a private _criminal_ prosecution for mention of a civil prosecution (civil actions wouldn't normally be called "prosecutions").


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  The investigation in this case was relatively simple.  The problem is trying to find a way to sort out the conflicting medical evidence and evidential issues for the lawyers.
> 
> If they'd reached their conclusion in 10 minutes you'd have been jumping up and down saying why didn't they try harder to find a way round the evidential difficulties and pursue a prosecution ... (don't even _think_ about saying you wouldn't!)


That would be the evidence from a coroner who doesn't appear to have had any contract with the police at the time of the post mortem, who has been barred from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and from carrying out postmortems in "suspicious death" cases, and who is now facing 26 charges of sub-standard practices by the GMC - against the two later postmortems which seem to agree with each other insofar as their basic findings were concerned.

I think I'd like to have a seen a jury given the opportunity to decide which of these findings they preferred in coming to any verdict about charges that could have been bought into the court room.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> d-b didn't respond  on that point several pages ago.


What?  You mean the bit where I didn't mention that the decision on the ABH was the weakest part of the CPS decision and the most likely one to be overturned if a judicial review were undertaken ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the ones that had to be off were in westminster


As a result of a ruling based on, er, concerns over invasion of privacy, raised by, er, people like you ... you can't have it both ways you know - you either like CCTV cameras or you don't.  Please make up your mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That only works if you think people are thick and believe what they see on the news, No fucker even watches the news. That twat up in the ne should have cured you of this idea if not real life.



The issue isn't necessarily a matter of belief, but that some interests have a greater ability to sustain their representation of events in accessible fora, so much so that the representation *becomes* "what actually happened", even though only in a contingent manner that is open to challenge.

And yes, I know my point is wanky and quasi-Baudrillardian.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> You have noticed that the only people defending the utterly undefensible are you, and a couple of other police sympathisers, haven't you?


And you clearly _haven't_ noticed I'm not "defending" anything - I'm explaining what the law is so that people can better understand the statement of the CPS and can better understand where there are valid issues to pursue and where they are wasting their time and simply looking like ignorant fools (and thus undermining the force of their own arguments).



> You must be able to see that a massive injustice has happened, and a man guilty of manslaughter, has got away with killing an innocent man, just because he's a police man can't you?


No.  I can't.  Because there is insufficient evidence of causation to prove, by the general criminal rules of evidence that we use to decide what happened, that the actions of the officer _caused_ the death.   It is absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact he is a police officer. 



> And it is "yet again" over 1000 people have been killed by the hands of the police (according to a thread  on here from yesterday) sinse 1969


Well, if it's from a thread here it _must_ be true ... 

(It's absolute bollocks if you are suggesting that there have been over 1000 deaths as a result of positive, deliberate police action (such as the use of force) in the UK since 1969.  The number sounds far more likely to be a total of "detahs in police custody" which includes a massive proportion where there is no police use of force or alleged misconduct at all because the stats include people who die in police stations, after recent police contact, etc.).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's time for a wevolution



Perhaps it is.
After all, with the government and the apparatus of state resiling from so many of the responsibilities it incurs under the tacit "social contract" between the governed and those who govern, perhaps it's time for new settlements to be made, whether forcefully or peacefully.
Because otherwise what happened to Mr. Tomlinson may be like to a shower before a storm.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> Corruption is the ONLY reason for it.


Course it is dear ... if you ignore the fucking explanation for the evidential dificulties provided at great length by the CPS ... 

I really wonder why anyone bothers trying to explain anything to fuckwits like you when you simply take no fucking notice whatsoever and just jump to whatever conclusions fit your prejudices.  It really is a waste of fucking time and public money - if you're too fucking thick / prejudiced to properly engage with information what is the fucking point?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 23, 2010)

anyone interested on reading up on deaths in police custody might be interested to read this PDF
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs26.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.
> 
> But it is the law whether you like it or not.



No, it's an interpretation of the law. Yours. That's why we end up with what seem like diametrically-opposed verdicts proceeding from seemingly identical cases: The law is, in it's final analysis, interpreted.

But you know that. You're legally-qualified.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> Well I'd seen that video before the post-mortem was done, so I'm fairly confident that it was known at the time.


That's a fucking neat trick then ...

First post-mortem carried out 3 April.  (Source CPS report: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

Witnesses start to come forward suggesting some incident with the police (3-6 April) and Guardian obtain and publicise video (7 April (i.e. 4 days after the first PM))  (Source: Guardian's own timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/15/ian-tomlinson-death-g20) 

Please stop making things up to bolster your conspiracy theory ...


----------



## Urbanblues (Jul 23, 2010)

Once again Old Bill is held up to be above the law. When my mother, an 87-year old law abiding citizen who has never had a bad word for the police, views this as a ‘bloody disgrace’ and ‘they’re getting away with murder’, then they’re on a slippery slope.

DB, I think you’d be well advised to employ an assistant; for I can see a turbulent future ahead for the police and their reputation – perceived or otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er, no.  The IPCC.  Try and keep up.



So the IPCC are in charge of police discipline and good conduct?
No, of course they aren't. The police service itself polices those aspects of "policing the police". The IPCC only tend to deal with the most egregious violations, as an earlier post that detailed their rate of complaint uptake illustrated.

Instead of rolling your eyes, how about engaging your grey matter?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> who get ignored when they say that manslaughter charges should be brought forward to a police man. once again, the goverment investigate the goverment, and find themselves innocent. What a supprise.


You really are talking bollocks here.  The status of the CPS is _exactly_ the same as the IPCC - both are agencies of the State and both are independent of the police (although both are equally alleged to be too close to the police).  They have different roles, however.  It is the IPCCs job to investigate (as they are investigators, not lawyers) and submit a report, with _recommendations_ if they wish, to the CPS.  It is the role of the CPS (who are lawyers, not investigators) to consider such reports and make a _decision_ as to legal proceedings.  They _frequently_ disagree (as do the police and the CPS in ordinary cases) and, when they do, the CPS decision is the one which matters.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

it's not a theory,i t's a fact. the police have yet again, covered up a death. YET AGAIN. it is indefensible. But here you are, defending it, saying that you're not defending it. A massive fundamental wrong has been committed. A massive one. it's quite obvious to everyone but you. Why is that?


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's a fucking neat trick then ...
> 
> First post-mortem carried out 3 April.  (Source CPS report: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/
> 
> ...



There were witnesses flooding the internet with their version of events right from the off, together with videos, photos etc ............. so you can take this >><< and stick it where the law don't shine.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2010)

So DB, would you recommend any disciplinary action for the officers who fed the family duff information, implied that it could be a protestor in a police outfit, or that prematurely announced that he died of a heart attack? You know, after they pulled the same trick as they did with DeMenezes, slurring his reputation in public and implying that he was a troublemaker.

How many officers were really disciplined for taking off their badges and concealing their identity btw? Surely even one senior officer must have been demoted for not taking any supervisory action? What sort of amateurish organisation is this?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> ... which thinks that the police are beyond the law. as you clearly do.


I don't though.  I think the police are entirely subject to the law.  And I have even suggested that we should have some additional process whereby they are held to account in a public setting in cases like this.  I would even support a change to prosecutions based on the (legal) requirement for a _prima facie_ case rather than the CPS evidential test which applies to all other citizens in cases where the police (or any other State agent) has caused death or serious harm.

It is YOU who is arguing that police should NOT be subjected to the application of the law of the land but should be summarily sacked / convicted when something bad happens regardless of any actual culpability ...


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

tarannau said:


> How many officers were really disciplined for taking off their badges and concealing their identity btw? Surely even one senior officer must have been demoted for not taking any supervisory action? What sort of amateurish organisation is this?


Last night as i was turning the TV off, I heard something about nearly 300 complaints being made after the G20 protests. Over 80 of those were deemed worthy of investigation by the IPCC, yet not one single complaint was followed up on. 

Now, "detective boy" why is this? other than utter 100% police corruption?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> .  It should certainly be learning from this incident that _any_ death in the vicinity of public disorder or any large scale police operation should be treated as an unexplained death until there is reliable evidence that there are no suspicious circumstances.)


doesn't the fact that this was not 100% standard procedure - carved in stone in the procedural rulebook - stand as a very large black mark over the criminal justice system? surely there should be zero doubt about it being an 'unexplained death'.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, I think DB is all too painfully aware that police faith in the dibble is at an all time low, and with good reason


I am more than aware of the issues with police-public relations ... but I believe we need to establish genuine issues which can be addressed from knee-jerk, inaccurate ranting which can't.  If you put together a reasoned argument for genuine issues to be dealt with then the police / government / etc. find it far more difficult to dismiss them than if you simply rant inaccurately about things that are simply _not_ wrong.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2010)

Leaving legal excuses aside, what's to stop the police having stronger internal disciplinary procedures?

Why the hell haven't more of these officers been disciplined, demoted or given written advice. There's nothing to stop the force aiming for higher standards and to stop hiding behind the letter of the law?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> This is the part I'm unclear about. Are they hindered in some way from bringing a prosecution that might not succeed?


Yes.  The Evidential Test that they are bound to apply:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/principles.html

They must conclude that there is a realistic chance of a conviction before agreeing to proceed with a prosecution.  They apply it in a way which means "ordinary" crims walk out of the door _all_ the time.  It is linked to their performance indicator being a low number of failed prosecutions - if they go ahead with weak cases more of them fail and count against them and so their performance indicator mitigates against them pursuing weak cases.

This is a general rule - it is NOT something they apply only in police cases.  (In fact, if this were an ordinary case and Mr Tomlinson had died after being pushed over by someone in a fight outside a pub or something I think they would have made a decision not to prosecute a damn sight sooner than they did and whilst they may have had one case conference to try and resolve the medical evidence issues the DPP would most definitely not have been there and they wouldn't have had several!


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don't though.  I think the police are entirely subject to the law.


 But that's the thing, they're not. This case shows that in glorious technicolour. You can think that they are, but actual happenings show that not to be the case. I'll even appologise to you, for the shit i throw your way, as it's a little bit mean in some cases. but you've got to understand why I feel that way. it's not because I'm ill-informed, like you think. It's because time and time again, the police kill someone, and get away with it. And they get away with it using the most stupid fucking reasoning possible. And I swear they do it to piss me off. Stupid little loopholes, that are there apparently to make sure that people who are innocent get a fair chance. But are used against that, to get guilty people off.

  Like here, where a man was assaulted, and was dead 5 minutes later. That's the crime that was committed. you can put what you like ontop of that, but that is what happened. It was found that the attacking of the man was unlawful. Therefor it must be ABH at the very least. But as Ian Thomlison died as a result of his injuries (and he did, 5 minutes after being attacked he's dead, you do the math) then the ONLY outcome is manslaughter. It would have been if it were an ordinary member of the public. And you know it, deep down you must do. You can say that each case is different and blah blah blah. but you know, and I know you know, which is what makes it all the more infuriating.

  Now this is all on video, the attack, the sound of poor Ian slamming his head into the ground, the complete randomness of it. (lets face it, walking onfront of a trained riot cop, does not = assault) It's on video. If that was anyone else, there would be no reasonable doubt. and infact there wasn't. It was only because the police sided with a bogus pathology report. (look, it was, just look at the evidence) and not the other that completly contradicted it, and because it took so fucking long to get to court. And you can bet your arse that it would have come to case quicker if there wasn't a copper at the wrong end of it. (I know that's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one, admit it)

Ian thomlinsons family were right up against it from the start. the police had everything in place for a cover up, and that IS what has happened here. It's not conspiracy, it's happened. Don't get mad at us for pointing it out, that's missplaced anger. be angry at those who have done this, and have done it for a long long time. (and will continue to do this, until they are stopped) I'm sorry that I've been a reactionary cunt toward you, but surely you can see my side, and why I'm/we're so angry?

When you sit there and deny all of this, you can see how it looks, surely.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

tarannau said:


> If it went to a jury are you equally confident that they would find this policeman not guilty?
> 
> I would suspect that the balance of evidence would outweigh any guidance from the judge. After all respected pathologists seem to be tripping over themselves in the haste to suggest that they'd happily argue the case against the discredited Mr Patel


If it went to a prosecution I would expect the defence to make a submission of "no case to answer" on manslaughter at half time on the basis that no properly directed jury could conclude that there was causation proven beyond reasonable doubt and I would expect a judge to agree and to direct the jury to acquit on the manslaughter count.

I would expect a jury to convict on a charge of ABH and I would not anticipate any half-time submission in reation to that being successful (assuming there is nothing else that we don't know about in the 30secs / 100yds prior to the video starting which would justify the use of such a level of force).

The CPS decision in relation to ABH is not convincing.  In law (as opposed to the CPS Charging Standards, see later) for an ABH there has to be an injury which "interferes with the health and confort" of the victim.  This is usually translated as meaning something which is more than merely trivial, which lasts for more than a few minutes or hours and that usually needs some form of first aid or possibly even basic medical treatment.  In law significant bruising can be ABH.  The CPS Charging Standards, however (which do not reflect the law but which are the standards they are duty bound to apply (and which they apply all the time to reduce charges where police officers are victims to common assault / assault on police from ABH or even GBH level and which are a major area of friction between police and CPS)) set a much higher threshold: loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness; extensive or multiple bruising; displaced broken nose; minor fractures; minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches); psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic.

Applying this test, the only injury which amounted to ABH that seems to have been present would be the fatal, internal bleed and clearly the same causation problems apply in relation to that as an ABH injury as they do to it as a manslaughter cause of death.

That left only the bruising from the baton which whilst (as noted by Nat Carey) amounts to ABH in law, does NOT amount to ABH in the CPS Charging Standards (not being "extensive or multiple" bruising).  If they had decided to go ahead with an ABH prosecution on this basis, the CPS would be absolutely 100% sure that the defence would jump all over them, arguing an abuse of process and being able to call evidence of dozens (if not hundreds) of similar assaults on police officers (and others) which were reduced from ABH and prosecuted as common assault or assault on police.  This would be extremely likely to succeed as an "abuse of process" pre-trial argument and would also be even more likely to bring pain and criticism than biting the bullet and making the decision at the outset.

I think if you asked 100 coppers, 99 would say drop the CPS Charging Standard for ABH and bring it back in line with what the _law_ actually requires ... and if that means a charge against the officer in this case, that is a fair outcome.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportinate use of force can be absolutely anything, from a slight touch to knowingly killing someone.  Violently pushing someone (with or without any foresight that they would be likely to fall over) could be a lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force in a wide range of circumstances.  To simply look at the act and decide whether or not it is lawful or not from that alone simply demonstrates your ignorance of the law.



I don't need "the law" to know that the "use of force" in this case, to move Ian Tomlinson was completely disproportionate, unnecessary and violent from someone who is paid to protect the public. Quote “the law” all you like….




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Why do fuckwits concentrate on the use of the word "fall".  It isn't mutually exclusive with there being a push - the fall is clearly directly the result of the push.  Use of the word fal to escribe what happened after the push does not imply any suggestion that it was nothing to do with the push.  Only an obsessive fuckwit, looking for issues where none exist, would think otherwise ...



Because “the fall” _was_ was proceeded by a violent shove in the back which caused him to land partly on his head as his hands were in his pockets. Consciously or otherwise your wording removed the violence from what happened and left it dangling out of context. Old and frail people ‘fall’, Ian Tomlinson was violently shoved to the ground.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Yes, but that was not my fucking point was it?  99 times out of 100 a push does not lead to a fall and 99 times out of 100 a fall doesn't lead to a fractured skull.  It would not be a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome in the circumstances which existed.  (And before you go off on one, this is NOT the same as saying that if it did there would be no liability - there obviously would).






			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I don't for one moment expect that anyone present expected anything other than that he would have a couple of bruises and grazes as a result of falling over.



99 times out of a 100? So you're a statistician as well? He fell on his head, on to concrete from 5ft+ up at speed. Perhaps it says much about your levels of compassion for your fellow man that you (and those on duty) expected nothing more than “a couple of bruises and grazes.” Maybe he had concussion? But they wouldn't have known because they didn't check.

If the policeman was defending himself by pushing someone who was attacking him away, then I’d agree, but he wasn’t. He ran up behind a defenceless man with his hands in his pockets and violently shoved him in the back before he and his colleagues left him sprawling on the ground. 

Anyhow that’s my lot, I cant be arsed dealing with anymore of your rancid abuse.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That would be the evidence from a coroner who doesn't appear to have had any contract with the police at the time of the post mortem, who has been barred from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and from carrying out postmortems in "suspicious death" cases...


You mean pathologist, not coroner.  And this was not a "suspicious death" case at the time he was appointed and so it was perfectly legitimate for him to be appointed to conduct the routine post-mortem as he was not struck off or suspended.

Please go and read the posts I have already made explaining why the evidence of the two subsequent pathologists is inevitably dependant on his findings / observations.  In short they conclude the cause of death was internal bleeding even though they could find NO evidence of a rupture that would likely to cause such bleeding on the basis of his finding that there was _"intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot"_ in his first report which they interpreted as meaning there was 3l of blood (a very significant amount).  He later clarified his finding to mean _"intraabdominal fluid *with* blood about 3l with small blood clot_ and further elaborated that it was ascites fluid (which arises from a liver trauma) _stained with blood_ (i.e. the amount of actual blood was way less than the 3l used as the basis for the other pathologists conclusions.  He also said he had not found any rupture capable of bleeding fatally.  Their conclusions are inevitably undermined by his initial findings as subsequently elaborated (like most doctors, pathologists are prone to abbreviate their reports and so the absence of the word "with" in his first report is not in and of itself impossible, particularly as it was written at the time it was just one of thousands of routine PM reports he had written).


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am more than aware of the issues with police-public relations ... but I believe we need to establish genuine issues which can be addressed from knee-jerk, inaccurate ranting which can't.  If you put together a reasoned argument for genuine issues to be dealt with then the police / government / etc. find it far more difficult to dismiss them than if you simply rant inaccurately about things that are simply _not_ wrong.


where on earth have I 'ranted'? I don't, by and large, anywhere.
e2a: it's more than just 'issues' now, btw. To me, the only worthwhile policing is policing by consent. That was once there in the mainstream (as opposed to the U75-esque fringes). In that mainstream, public confidence in the police, and therefore that consent, is at an all-time, critical-point low.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> anyone interested on reading up on deaths in police custody might be interested to read this PDF
> http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs26.pdf


And anyone doing so would be well-advised to note that "deaths in custody" is NOT just cases where proactive / deliberate police use of force, etc. led to death (e.g. of the 277 cases between 1990 and 1996 where there was more than a "tangential" involvement of police, death was caused by the defendants own action in 172 cases (63%); by their medical condition in 81 cases (29%) and by the actions of someone else (police or otherwise) in just 22 cases (8%)).  

Whilst any death in police custody / care, whether by suicide, or due to some illness, etc. is of concern I wouldn't want you all running off and getting you knickers in a twist about these hundreds of police "killings" ....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They are talking of evidence from the post-mortem ... which, because it was not known that there had been police contact (or any other suspicious circumstance) was a routine post-mortem rather a "special" one with all that comes with that ... something which I have discussed _ad_ fucking _nauseum_ throughout this thread.


who are you saying didn't know there had been police contact?


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don't though.  I think the police are entirely subject to the law.  And I have even suggested that we should have some additional process whereby they are held to account in a public setting in cases like this.  I would even support a change to prosecutions based on the (legal) requirement for a _prima facie_ case rather than the CPS evidential test which applies to all other citizens in cases where the police (or any other State agent) has caused death or serious harm.



The thing is DB though that this argument is very hard to sustain in the face of decisions like this - the perception will be that the police are (on occasion anyway) above being held accountable by the law because of the decisions (taken in this case against the recommendation of the investigating officers, lets not forget) of the CPS, and I am not at all sure that the perception is all that wrong when it comes to Tomlinson.  It would have been difficult to successfully prosecute this PC for manslaughter (though not impossible given the specific circumstances of this case), but it does beg the question whether there was a reasonable chance that they would have found him not guilty of malfeasance given the nature of the offence, and/or of ABH (given Carey's comments earlier).


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> <snip>  And this was not a "suspicious death" case at the time he was appointed and so it was perfectly legitimate for him to be appointed to conduct the routine post-mortem as he was not struck off or suspended. <snip>



One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 23, 2010)

> After being told there would be no charges Paul King confronted Keir Starmer with these words:
> 
> ‘ YOU GET BACK TO YOUR MILLION POUND HOUSE.THIS DECISION DOESN’T MATTER TO YOU. BUT WE HAVE TO GO HOME NOW AND WE DON’T HAVE A DAD. AND BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU’VE DECIDED WE’RE NEVER GOING TO KNOW WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH’
> 
> These passionate and eloquent words should be embazoned on a banner outside the offices of the DPP. I  believe that it is absolutely urgent that some action is taken to turn public anger into concrete political form which people can join in before the moment passes. I’d much rather some other organisation/people would do this but the moment can not be left to pass and in the absence of any other proposal in the name of London Class war ( two people and a dog) we will gather outside the offices of Keir Starmer the DPP  next Friday from 12-2pm. I absolutely urge comrades to join us. I listened to talk shows on the radio last night – overwhemingly raging against the police. if we use every medium at our disposal we maybe able to reach out  to some of these and get them along. If we fail……..so fucking what -at least we’d fail in trying than by inertia. If you’re coming then please say so it’l encourage us all. If we tolerate the open murder of a working class man by the police without lifting a finger then we truly deserve the dustbin of history. Spread the word;    12 n00n – 2pm next Friday DPP offices.




Source​


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The law is, in it's final analysis, interpreted.


Yes and no. Interpretation is necessary where the meaning is unclear or controversial (such as with a new law where terms are used which are not defined in the statute, or where a new situation has arisen which requires consideration of whether or not it fits within a pre-existing category (e.g. is a new weapon a "made" offensive weapon, or is a motorised skateboard a "mechanically propelled vehicle" or whatever).

But there are large areas of law which are described as "settled" and where there is no debate or controversy at all and so application rather than interpretation is all that is needed.  The law of causation in manslaughter cases is one such area - there is no debate about whether or not causation is needed - it is.  Full stop.  For a case to result in a decision that it did not would be a massive upheaval in the law.  Any lawyer would advise you quite definitively on settled areas of law and provide an opinion on chances of success in other areas.  I doubt _very_ much whether you would find any lawyer willing to have a crack at arguing that causation is not required in manslaughter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

> e19896 
& where's this quote from?


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

where are the DPP offices and where is this from so I can pass it on


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.


 
yes. 

who didn't know there had been police contact? the police? they knew. the coroner? if the coroner didn't know there had been police contact it's because the police wanted to cover it up.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> When my mother, an 87-year old law abiding citizen who has never had a bad word for the police, views this as a ‘bloody disgrace’ and ‘they’re getting away with murder’, then they’re on a slippery slope.


Something which I would argue is based at least as much on a desperate lack of understanding about what the law is, etc. as on any _informed_ opinion.  This is _precisely_ why I do what I do here and (more importantly) why I do likewise in the broadcast media.  Criticise by all means ... but do so from an informed position.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2010)

Who hadn't informed the pathologist that there had been police contact? Whose job was that? Why didn't they do it?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

*Britain's top prosecutor was confronted by Ian Tomlinson's family and told that his decision not to bring charges was a "fucking disgrace" and that he should "go back" to his "million-pound house".*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-family-charges-disgrace


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Put simply, because they were trying everything they could think of to find a way to prosecute it.


 
That is a massive assumption; why make it?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, of course they aren't.


But we're not talking about complaints and discipline here are we?  This is a death following police contact and as such is _absolutely_ the responsibility of the IPCC to investigate, with a full independent investigation too ... as you well know 

And the police service has not chosen to keep the rest of the shite for itself either - it would be more than happy if the IPCC (or anyone else) was made responsible and resourced to take it over.  So don;t imply that the fact that they are still responsible is somehow a decision made by the police ...

(And if you ust use big words like egregious, make sure you use appropriate ones - the IPCC take over the most _serious_ cases)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That is a massive assumption; why make it?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
oh come on now. you know detective-boy's the only poster here arguing from an informed position. who are we to criticise what no one but detective-boy understands?


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something which I would argue is based at least as much on a desperate lack of understanding about what the law is, etc. as on any _informed_ opinion.  This is _precisely_ why I do what I do here and (more importantly) why I do likewise in the broadcast media.  Criticise by all means ... but do so from an informed position.


 
something I would argue is based on at least a little bit of common sense, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Instead of rolling your eyes, how about engaging your grey matter?


Any independent and open-minded observer would clearly see that I have engaged by grey matter in relation to this thread to a massively greater extent than the vast majority of other posters (who have simply ranted / repeated prejudices / declared they're not interested in any other information / explanation / perspective ...)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

Nice piece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-police-protest


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> it's quite obvious to everyone but you. Why is that?


Because you are all prejudiced fools, ignorant of the actual law and unwilling to consider any detail which doesn't fit your agenda?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> There were witnesses flooding the internet with their version of events right from the off, together with videos, photos etc ............. so you can take this >><< and stick it where the law don't shine.


Go on then.  Link to any publicly available source showing the police using force on Ian Tomlinson before 3 April.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> something I would argue is based on at least a little bit of common sense, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.


 
See, that's your problem ring and wrong doesn't matter - but the law does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Any independent and open-minded observer would clearly see that I have engaged by grey matter in relation to this thread to a massively greater extent than the vast majority of other posters (who have simply ranted / repeated prejudices / declared they're not interested in any other information / explanation / perspective ...)


 
you've claimed that at the time the first post mortem was carried out it wasn't known that there had been police contact. who didn't know? the police? the coroner? the ipcc? who?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go on then.  Link to any publicly available source showing the police using force on Ian Tomlinson before 3 April.


 
how many police officers came into 'contact' with the police, how many police observed such, who many of them subsequently reported it, and was this contact communicated to the coroner? the answers would be, respectively, about 3, about 30, about none and no.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> See, that's your problem ring and wrong doesn't matter - but the law does.


 
I shall slap myself in the face until I remember!!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  The Evidential Test that they are bound to apply:
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/principles.html
> 
> ...



What about if he'd got his dog to bite a police officer, then struck him with a metal tube and final shoved him to the floor as he was walking away, only for the officer to collapse and die minutes later? What do you think the CPS would have done in that case? And if the answer isn't that no prosecution would have followed the it looks very much like one law for the police and another for Ian Tomlinson.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

tarannau said:


> So DB, would you recommend any disciplinary action for the officers who fed the family duff information, implied that it could be a protestor in a police outfit, or that prematurely announced that he died of a heart attack?


I have no detailed knowledge of what was said by who, in who context, when or why.  And so I cannot make any comment on whether any disciplinary action would be appropriate.  If you do and you share it I will give you a view.



> You know, after they pulled the same trick as they did with DeMenezes, slurring his reputation in public and implying that he was a troublemaker.


I have seen nothing from the police (official or even unofficial) which implies he was a troublemaker.  Please link to anything you are aware of.



> How many officers were really disciplined for taking off their badges and concealing their identity btw? Surely even one senior officer must have been demoted for not taking any supervisory action? What sort of amateurish organisation is this?


I have no idea.  There certainly should have been disciplinary action in cases where evidence was readily available (I would not necessarily suggest that it would be worth spending millions carrying out a huge reactive investigation unless there were aggravating factors (such as the officer with no ID numbers displayed committing some serious offence).  If there have been none then that is perfectly sound grounds for complaint / criticism. (As I have posted consistently from the outset).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> Over 80 of those were deemed worthy of investigation by the IPCC, yet not one single complaint was followed up on.
> 
> Now, "detective boy" why is this? other than utter 100% police corruption?


How the _fuck_ can it be POLICE corruption when it is ther IPCC who have not followed them up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go on then.  Link to any publicly available source showing the police using force on Ian Tomlinson before 3 April.


 
let's just go back five years and think about the case of jean charles de menezes. how long was it before questions started to be asked about his death and the police version of events started to unravel? 

returning to 1 april 2009, it's well known that the police forced journalists to leave parts of the city of london. it's well known that the police set out to assault hundreds - if not thousands of people - that day. it's well known that the police issued lies about the circumstances of ian tomlinson's death. and now you're falling back on the false position of talking about publicly available material, when the facts of the case were known within minutes, if not hours, to bronze, silver and gold commanders on the day.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because you are all prejudiced fools, ignorant of the actual law and unwilling to consider any detail which doesn't fit your agenda?


 
And you are the objective vice of reason arguing from within the very institution being criticised; you can see how that comes across can't you?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. I should declare an interest as on both of the two occasions I have been in the dock, the police giving evidence have lied on oath; luckily on neither occasion were there serious repercussions from their perjury, but it happened and there could have been. I was genuinely shocked that they did it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 23, 2010)

erm, i thought it was the CPS who should 'follow up' on the IPCC recommendations'? i.e. the IPCC investigate, and if they deem there is a possible case hand the file to the CPS with words to the tune of 'based on our investigation, we think there may be a case to answer, tho' yours is the final say'?


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How the _fuck_ can it be POLICE corruption when it is ther IPCC who have not followed them up?


 Because it is the police who do the violent actions worthy of complaint in the first place, and it is the police who make dam fucking sure that they get away with it. the IPCC are there to keep people like me quiet. They're obviously not taken seriously by the CPS.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> doesn't the fact that this was not 100% standard procedure - carved in stone in the procedural rulebook - stand as a very large black mark over the criminal justice system? surely there should be zero doubt about it being an 'unexplained death'.


Hmmm.  I'm not sure.  As I said there is certainly no way that every sudden death can (or should) be treated as unexplained / suspicious (for a start you'd all be whinging about hundreds more streets being closed for days and days whilst full scene examinations were carried out).   But I am surprised that this was not recognised as a case which did merit such an approach even though there was no knowledge of police use of force at the time.  It can't really be an exhaustive list of situations which are and which are not to be treated to the full monty - the world isn't that neat and tidy - but it certainly should have been recognised as a "critical incident" by someone at an early stage - the supervisor in charge of the unit giving first aid, or any supervisor made aware that he had died if no-one else (and I would have expected the incident commander, who _must_ have been aware of the collapse incident, to have recognised it).

In my last couple of years of service, I started to make arrangements for senior investigating officers, exhibits officers, scene examiners, etc. to be given basic public order training and provided with public order kit for _precisely_ this sort of situation - a suspicious or unexplained death during public disorder - but I believe that that work was not taken any further after I left.  This means that a "proper" major enquiry can only be commenced (in relation to scene examination, etc. anyway) after the disorder has been cleared and the area is safe for officers without protective equipment to be deployed into.  In this particular case, I don't think that has made any difference - I would not have expected anything relevant to be recoverable from either the scene of the first contact (even if it were known at the time) or the location of the collapse.  The whole issue relates to the PM procedure and that was taking place in a nice safe mortuary.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Leaving legal excuses aside, what's to stop the police having stronger internal disciplinary procedures?


Nothing (apart from general employment law, now that that applies to police officers).  The robustness (or otherwise) of internal disciplinary procedures is something I have bemoaned many times before.  Yes, trivial matters should be rapidly dealt with and it would be entirely wrong to dismiss officers over some minor issue ... but serious matters should be thoroughly investigated, dealt with as soon as possible and there should be no reluctance to dismiss officers found guilty of serious disciplinary (or criminal) matters.  (That said, we should not forget that there ARE lots of officers disciplined and dismissed which we do not hear about).

(I wouldn't critcise anyone, police officer or otherwise, for applying the letter of the law, however.  It should absolutely be the case that all are amenable to the law equally - there cannot be any allowing the rules of law to be ignored just because it is a complaint against a police officer - they have Human Rights too.)


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (I wouldn't critcise anyone, police officer or otherwise, for applying the letter of the law, however.  It should absolutely be the case that all are amenable to the law equally - there cannot be any allowing the rules of law to be ignored just because it is a complaint against a police officer - they have Human Rights too.)


 But that's exactly what has happened.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go on then.  Link to any publicly available source showing the police using force on Ian Tomlinson before 3 April.



There's loads  Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> It's because time and time again, the police kill someone, and get away with it.


That is where you go wrong.  And that is why you keep winding yourself up.  You ASSUME that the "police *kill* someone" when actually what happens is that someone _dies_.  Sometimes, but relatively rarely, it turns out that "the police killed them" is actually accurate ... but then you need to take account of the fact that the law allows fatal force to be used in some cases and so a number of those cases turn out to be lawful killings.  And then you need to differentiate cases where there is some malicious / intentional wrongdoing which causes / contributes to death from where there is a simple accident or mistake - police officers are human beings and so accidents and mistakes will inevitably happen.

By starting from the "police kill someone" perpective you simply set yourself up to be enraged because you create, by the use of that phrase, a picture in your mind which is frequently not accurate and so, when the investigation shows it up to be something else, you go into one.



> Stupid little loopholes, that are there apparently to make sure that people who are innocent get a fair chance. But are used against that, to get guilty people off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Urbanblues (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Something which I would argue is based at least as much on a desperate lack of understanding about what the law is, etc. as on any _informed_ opinion.  This is _precisely_ why I do what I do here and (more importantly) why I do likewise in the broadcast media.  Criticise by all means ... but do so from an informed position.


 
DB, we live in a media-led age. Images, and more potently moving images, inform and form our view of the world. When we see man, hands in pocket, walking along, offering no offence to anyone, suddenly struck and beaten to the floor by the police, and these images coming from many different sources and angles...

How much more informed do you need to be? People watching the events of that day taken from different angles and by various persons are doing so from an informed position. The information transmitted to their TV screens informs them that the police brutally attacked an innocent man and he died shortly afterwards.

DB, we know you’ve little or no respect for the views of the average punter on here. We’re not bright enough to circumvent the smoke and mirrors you put up in defence of the police. Always defending, what are to the majority of U75 posters, fairly indefensible positions you come across as though you’re still in the pay of the Met; and, whenever one of us Bolshie bastards has the temerity to criticise or question a police action you get call from your superiors to come and sort us out.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> I don't need "the law" to know that the "use of force" in this case, to move Ian Tomlinson was completely disproportionate, unnecessary and violent from someone who is paid to protect the public.


Er, yes, you do ... otherwise you wouldn;t know what was and was not disproportionate, unnecessary or violent ... 



> Consciously or otherwise your wording removed the violence from what happened and left it dangling out of context.


Only in your fevered and prejudiced imagination where you see conspiracy and corruption everywhere ... 



> Anyhow that’s my lot, I cant be arsed dealing with anymore of your rancid abuse.


Excellent.  I won't have to waste any more time addressing arrant nonsense then.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

It is a massive cover up DB. You just can't/wont see it. 

You're the only one who can't. So it doesn't really matter.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> where on earth have I 'ranted'?


I wasn't referring to you personally, but the critics who do, one of whom you quoted.



> To me, the only worthwhile policing is policing by consent. That was once there in the mainstream (as opposed to the U75-esque fringes). In that mainstream, public confidence in the police, and therefore that consent, is at an all-time, critical-point low.


I totally agree that policing with consent is the best model.  I agree there are issues in the police-public relationship.  But I don't think the stats would support your claim that consent is at an all-time low - don't confuse the blogosphere with real-life: there are massiove numbers of soft-right citizens out there who would actually support the police being _way_ more robust with what they view as "scum" than they are now ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> who are you saying didn't know there had been police contact?


Anyone, at that stage.  Certainly not the Coroner (who arranged the first PM) or the IPCC or any senior police officer who would have been duty bound to report it to the IPCC and who would have immediately changed the arrangements to a "special" PM.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

doesn't help when the police also view people as scum.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> - the perception will be that the police are (on occasion anyway) above being held accountable by the law because of the decisions (taken in this case against the recommendation of the investigating officers, lets not forget) of the CPS


I agree that that is the _perception_ (which is why I suggest a Grand Jury type public hearing to review their administrative decisions in such cases).  But I do not agree that they ARE unaccountable.  



> ... but it does beg the question whether there was a reasonable chance that they would have found him not guilty of malfeasance given the nature of the offence, and/or of ABH (given Carey's comments earlier).


I have already commented that I would have expected ABH to succeed.  As for malfeasance, the CPS explained that case law is such that it would not be appropriate in a case like this (and certainly not as a way of sidestepping evdential difficulties with a substantive offence (i.e. manslaughter)).  Malfeasance is more than a single relatively minor (in the big scheme of things, don't mix up the serious / tragic _outcome_ with what was actually done) act.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.


Lots of people very vociferously say lots of things ... what is needed is some substantive basis for such a claim and, so far as I am aware, there was none.  But a detailed review of what was known, by whom, at what stage and what consideration, if any was given to treating it as an unexplained death and, hence, arranging a special post-mortem is justified as the decision to hold a routine post-mortem is the decision which is at the root of all the evidential difficulties.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the police? they knew.


Not at that stage they didn't so far as I am aware.  If you think otherwise please link to a source.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who hadn't informed the pathologist that there had been police contact? Whose job was that? Why didn't they do it?


The IPCC and / or the police senior officer aware of the incident.  And they didn't do it because they didn't know. (The police contact in relation to the attempt at first aid is not what I am talking about, by the way, that would not be enough necessarly - I am talking about knowledge that significant force had been used against him a few minutes before his collapse).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That is a massive assumption; why make it?


It's not an assumption.  It's an observation on the extent to which they went, which is detailed in their statement, and which is _way_ more than would have been the case in an ordinary case.  Which, as I have said repeatedy, would, in my experience, have been disposed of far sooner with a decision not to prosecute.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> There's loads  Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on


 

*ahem*


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> something I would argue is based on at least a little bit of common sense, and knowing the difference between right and wrong.


But that would involve you including some acknowledgement that you understand the law is this or that ... but that common sense, or general principles of right or wrong, says it should be otherwise.

You (and the rest) are not exactly strong on acknowledgements like that, are you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Anyone, at that stage.  Certainly not the Coroner (who arranged the first PM) or the IPCC or any senior police officer who would have been duty bound to report it to the IPCC and who would have immediately changed the arrangements to a "special" PM.


so nsomeone was keeping quiet - or, rather, some people...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Nice piece
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-police-protest


But sadly one which mixes up "being held accountable" with "being summarly convicted and hung out to dry".

Being accountable is being asked to explain and account for your actions, to have them scrutinised and, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, to be placed on trial.  The officer HAS been held accountable - he has had to explain and account for his actions (to the IPCC) and his actions _have_ been scrutinised (by the IPCC and the CPS) ... but at that point it has been decided (rightly or wrongly) that there is insufficient evidence to justify placing him on trial.

But bearing in mind the perspective of Marc Vallee I am not at all surprised to find he writes accountable when he means something totally different ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> how many police officers came into 'contact' with the police, how many police observed such, who many of them subsequently reported it, and was this contact communicated to the coroner? the answers would be, respectively, about 3, about 30, about none and no.


There's nothing to suggest that the officers who knew of the incident when force were used knew that the same person was the one who collapsed some minutes later in a different place.  They're not fucking psychic ... 

If you have evidence to the contrary please share it.  Because if any officer did know of the connection then they are likely to have fucked up.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And if the answer isn't that no prosecution would have followed the it looks very much like one law for the police and another for Ian Tomlinson.


The answer is that is the same evidential difficulties existed as existed with this actual case then exactly the same outcome would have happened.  Causation is required, regardless of the nature of the victim.

As I have repeatedly fucking posted.  Can't you lot read?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> let's just go back five years <snip irrelevant bollocks>


So that's a no, then?  You have no publicly available source showing that the police used force on Ian Tomlinson which was available before the first post-mortem on 3 April.

Until you can put up, shut the fuck up.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

d-b: You cannot get away from the fact that the witnesses had their version of events out in the public domain before 3 April 2009. There's no excuse for a "special post-mortem" not to have been ordered.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> ...when the facts of the case were known within minutes, if not hours, to bronze, silver and gold commanders on the day.


Please link to how you know that ... or shut the fuck up.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> There's loads  Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on


 
* ahem x 2*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So that's a no, then?  You have no publicly available source showing that the police used force on Ian Tomlinson which was available before the first post-mortem on 3 April.
> 
> Until you can put up, shut the fuck up.


 
i don't think i need to duplicate what cesare's done.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And you are the objective vice of reason arguing from within the very institution being criticised; you can see how that comes across can't you?


It was a fucking flippant comment, you literal minded fool.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> erm, i thought it was the CPS who should 'follow up' on the IPCC recommendations'? i.e. the IPCC investigate, and if they deem there is a possible case hand the file to the CPS with words to the tune of 'based on our investigation, we think there may be a case to answer, tho' yours is the final say'?


Er, yes.  And your point is, caller? 

That is exactly what happened ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> But that's exactly what has happened.


In xes-world maybe.  Not in the real world.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But that would involve you including some acknowledgement that you understand the law is this or that ... but that common sense, or general principles of right or wrong, says it should be otherwise.
> 
> You (and the rest) are not exactly strong on acknowledgements like that, are you?


 
The law is supposed to make sure justice happens when crimes are commited. For this to happen, something wrong, has to be made right. general principles of right and wrong should be the basic corner stone of every single law there is. 

What has happened, is that a criminal has got away wigth killing a man, because of stupid little arguments which have detracted away from thge crime which took place. IE a cover up. And this is a big fat smelly cover up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please link to how you know that ... or shut the fuck up.


 
i would expect people at gt to have been watching down, er, cornhill and surrounding streets: and in the most heavily cctv'd part of london - if not the world - it would be somewhat of a surprise if the dozens of cameras hadn't caught something...

and the members of the forward intelligence team present - one alan palfrey and one stephen discombe - who were ita would doubtless have mentioned the incident to those higher up in co11.

and even if that didn't occur, i'm sure that the post-event debriefing would have brought these events to light within the tsg.

isn't that what the police do, report events upwards?


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In xes-world maybe.  Not in the real world.


 
by real world you mean DB world. Cos everyone else is living in this one i'm having a good time in. You are the only person arguing the points you are arguing. everyone else can see it as plain as day. It was a cover up.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> There's loads  Here's one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426083.html?c=on


The video referred to in the article ostensibly dated 2.4.09 links to a Guardian article dated 7.4.09.

If the video (or any witnesses with direct evidence linking the two incidents as involving the same person) were brought to the attention of the police then someone has fucked up and should be investigated / dealt with.  If they were available on the internet, but not brought to the specific attention of the police, there _may_ be an argument that the police should have been proactively seeking out any connection (though if they were then they would sort of already be treating the death as suspicious ... so it's a bit circular) or that those routinely monitoring coverage should have recognised mention of the witnesses / video as being of crucial importance and should have immediately ensured that the nature of the investigation was changed.

But, equally, if people had that information prior to the first PM and, for whatever reason, they did not proactively bring it to the attention of the police or the IPCC then they should be looking to their own actions as having had a detrimental effect on the investigation and the outcome.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> How much more informed do you need to be?


Informed enough to realise that a picture or a short clip of video rarely tells the whole story and is sometimes _entirely_ misleading (remember that advert for police recruitment with a uniformed officer chasing a black guy in denims down the road ...?)



> People watching the events of that day taken from different angles and by various persons are doing so from an informed position.


Not if they don't know what the law is, how the police could / should deal with a particular situation, what sort of tactics are available, what considerations have to be taken into account, etc. they're not.  If they simply look and the pictures and draw a conclusion they are ignorant fools.  



> ... and, whenever one of us Bolshie bastards has the temerity to criticise or question a police action you get call from your superiors to come and sort us out.


You really need to get treatment for that paranoia ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 23, 2010)

Another travesty of justice. Yet again the 'fascist boot boys of the state' get away with the killing of an innocent person. It makes me feel sick to the fuckin' core!

As for you db, go flounce again, or boil your head, you pathetic filthy apologist.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> doesn't help when the police also view people as scum.


doesn't help when the people also view the police as scum.

Stereotyping and lack of empathy doesn't work in either direction.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> d-b: You cannot get away from the fact that the witnesses had their version of events out in the public domain before 3 April 2009. There's no excuse for a "special post-mortem" not to have been ordered.


If that is the case then there isn't - as I have said from when I first raised this point.

And it was me that raised it - not one of the ranting fools ...


----------



## audiotech (Jul 23, 2010)

JUSTICE FOR IAN TOMLINSON
6,815 signatures so far.

Please add your voice by signing.

http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/justice-ian-tomlinson


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> The law is supposed to make sure justice happens when crimes are commited.


Justice includes the acquittal of the innocent as well as the conviction of the guilty.

It is striking how you lot consistently argue that miscarriages of justice in the normal course of events are ONLY wrongful convictions and that wrongful acquittals are not miscarriages of justice at all (whereas I argue that both are as regrettable as each other).

And yet when an allegation is made against a police officer you only ever consider a wrongful acquittal to be a miscarriage of justice and you would proactively ignore all the usual rules of law, designed to ensure that no wrongful convictions occur just to see a copper sacrificed on the alter of your hatred and prejudice (i.e. you would positively argue for a miscarriage of justice in the form of a wrongful conviction.  I even suspect you'd go further and argue that if the IPCC took to fitting coppers up that would be a good thing ... (something that some senior officers in the Met's Professional Standards Department tended towards a few years ago, by the way)



> What has happened, is that a criminal has got away wigth killing a man, because of stupid little arguments which have detracted away from thge crime which took place. IE a cover up. And this is a big fat smelly cover up.


No.  What has happened is that someone has died, which is tragic, but by the application of the normal rules of law, no-one can be held criminally responsible for that death.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model][QUOTE=detective-boy said:


> Please link to how you know that ... or shut the fuck up.


 
i would expect people at gt to have been watching down, er, cornhill and surrounding streets: and in the most heavily cctv'd part of london - if not the world - it would be somewhat of a surprise if the dozens of cameras hadn't caught something...

and the members of the forward intelligence team present - one alan palfrey and one stephen discombe - who were ita would doubtless have mentioned the incident to those higher up in co11.

and even if that didn't occur, i'm sure that the post-event debriefing would have brought these events to light within the tsg.

isn't that what the police do, report events upwards?[/quote]


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I even suspect you'd go further and argue that if the IPCC took to fitting coppers up that would be a good thing ... (something that some senior officers in the Met's Professional Standards Department tended towards a few years ago, by the way)


a couple of links wouldn't go amiss




> No.  What has happened is that someone has died, which is tragic, but by the application of the normal rules of law, no-one can be held criminally responsible for that death.


of course not, cos cops aren't like the rest of us.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i would expect ...


So you're guessing then .... 



> isn't that what the police do, report events upwards?


But we're talking about more than simply being aware of the two parts of the incident - we're talking about realising that it was the same person involved in both.  And it is by no means obvious that routine activity would have led to that connection being made, at least not in the initial few days though subsequent review of CCTV would have been expected to find it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you're guessing then ....


quick question, do people at gt watch what's going on via cctv? y/n


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But we're talking about more than simply being aware of the two parts of the incident - we're talking about realising that it was the same person involved in both.  And it is by no means obvious that routine activity would have led to that connection being made, at least not in the initial few days though subsequent review of CCTV would have been expected to find it.


 that grinding's not teeth it's goalposts


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

xes said:


> everyone else can see it as plain as day.


A few internet warriors, dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists, ACAB-ers and the usual rent-a-crowd suspects is not "everyone" ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A few internet warriors, dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists, ACAB-ers and the usual rent-a-crowd suspects is not "everyone" ...


so it's the entire english speaking world against the met and you.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> quick question, do people at gt watch what's going on via cctv? y/n


Yes.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so it's the entire english speaking world against the met and you.


Well done!  You've managed to absolutely reverse the meaning of what I posted ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.


and they would watch several places y/n


----------



## the button (Jul 23, 2010)

audiotech said:


> JUSTICE FOR IAN TOMLINSON
> 6,815 signatures so far.
> 
> Please add your voice by signing.
> ...


 
Signed.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A few internet warriors, dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists, ACAB-ers and the usual rent-a-crowd suspects is not "everyone" ...


sorry, but no, it's a huge amount more than that, and, i strongly suspect, Mr & Mrs Everyman by now


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If that is the case then there isn't - as I have said from when I first raised this point.
> 
> And it was me that raised it - not one of the ranting fools ...



It is the case. There are a myriad of links (not just the Indy example I gave you) to witnesses' accounts. Look, here's another one: http://www.salfordonline.com/editorschoice.php?func=viewdetails&vdetails=12318


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A few internet warriors, dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists, ACAB-ers and the usual rent-a-crowd suspects is not "everyone" ...


 
again, your complete and utter dettatchment from reality is ever more apparent.


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

d-b: If we can just skip the past the part where I carry on drip feeding links to support my allegation that there was video footage and witness accounts in the public domain before 3.4.09 ... what, in your opinion, is the best way of raising this issue of the lack of "special post-mortem" in such a way that it would be effective in bringing about a review of the CPS decision?


----------



## winjer (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> They can't even get the street he died on right:
> 
> "Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet. He then left Royal Exchange [Buildings] and walked a short distance into Threadneedle Street [actually Cornhill]. He was seen by members of the public to walk up the street and then appeared to bump into a building and slowly collapsed to the floor."
> 
> Fair fills me with confidence in their abilities.



"The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted to Channel 4 News it made a mistake about the locations involved in Ian Tomlinson's death during yesterday's announcement"
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/cps+admits+ian+tomlinson+report+mistakes/3721497


----------



## cesare (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> "The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted to Channel 4 News it made a mistake about the locations involved in Ian Tomlinson's death during yesterday's announcement"
> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/cps+admits+ian+tomlinson+report+mistakes/3721497



Oh good grief. An entire *year* to reach a decision and they still can't get their facts straight.


----------



## Jessiedog (Jul 23, 2010)

Oh dear.



Woof


----------



## Urbanblues (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> isn't that what the police do, report events upwards?


 
No, they rehearse events. It's all well scripted; no room for any improvisation.


----------



## winjer (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There's nothing to suggest that the officers who knew of the incident when force were used knew that the same person was the one who collapsed some minutes later in a different place.  They're not fucking psychic


There is. I've even told you about it before. Please stop repeating this lie.

This is PC Alan Palfrey (127EK):




Here he is again in riot gear:




Here, at 7:20pm he's just witnessed Simon Harwood's attack on Ian Tomlinson:






And here he is at 7:33pm outside 77 Cornhill, where Ian Tomlinson had collapsed minutes earlier:




There's no way he could pass along Cornhill without having seen Tomlinson on the ground or being carried away.

The other officer in the centre of the second photo is Steven Discombe (2558CO), who Palfrey accompanied throughout April 1st. Discombe is - in his own words - "a Public Order Field Intelligence Officer; this role gives me specific responsibility for several protest areas, one of which is Anti Capitalism. I have responsibility for the monitoring of Anti Capitalist demonstrations within the Metropolitan Police District."

To suggest that PC Discombe was either unobservant of the collapsed person at the demonstration, or unable to communicate what he had seen to more senior officers is nonsense. Again, it is impossible that he could have passed Tomlinson on Cornhill without seeing him. Both officers made statements to IPCC investigators about Tomlinson.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> d-b: If we can just skip the past the part where I carry on drip feeding links to support my allegation that there was video footage and witness accounts in the public domain before 3.4.09 ... what, in your opinion, is the best way of raising this issue of the lack of "special post-mortem" in such a way that it would be effective in bringing about a review of the CPS decision?


 
Not to ignore your skip, but to return to your allegation doesnt it miss the point somewhat?  

Shouldnt the question instead be why Patel didnt notice the bruising on Tomlinson (which Cary noted as covering quite a large area), and why he didnt add this to the fact (which must have been known to him) that Tomlinson had died at the same time and in the immediate vicinity of disorder between protestors and police, and flagged it up as requiring a special post-mortem anyway?  One would have thought marks of recent violence on a person found near where some violence was going on would have led him to link the two.


----------



## the button (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> There is. I've even told you about it before. Please stop repeating this lie.
> 
> This is PC Alan Palfrey (127EK):
> 
> ...



Well done, sir/madam.


----------



## the button (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> One would have thought marks of recent violence on a person found near where some violence was going on would have led him to link the two.



One would indeed.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 23, 2010)

This is of course relies of the dubious logic that you could expect an officer to see anything which could implicate a fellow policeman. How long would they have to get their stories logbooks in order before they were interviewed?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er, yes, you do ... otherwise you wouldn;t know what was and was not disproportionate, unnecessary or violent ...
> 
> 
> Only in your fevered and prejudiced imagination where you see conspiracy and corruption everywhere ...
> ...



Thanks the lord we have you to set us all straight!

No one forces you to reply to my "arrant nonsense" just as no one forces you to spit your internet dummy and resort to calling me names and insulting me. It's an internet forum, get a grip and behave like an adult.


----------



## i_got_poison (Jul 23, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> I will eat my virtual internet hat if they bring any charges agasint any copper with regards to the manslaughter of ian tomlinson.
> 
> BTW- according to the article in the guardian, the city of london police intially suggested to Ian Tomlinsons family that the copper who assualted him 'could have been a member of the public dressed up' !!! how fucking desperate is that?



it's stuff like this that makes me want to go out there and do a raoul moat (minus the gf).


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 23, 2010)

is anyone really that surprised either by the CPS lack of abilities to discern what is blindingly obvious to anyone else or about the usual suspects cheer leading of the police on this thread?


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> There's no way he could pass along Cornhill without having seen Tomlinson on the ground or being carried away.
> 
> To suggest that PC Discombe was either unobservant of the collapsed person at the demonstration, or unable to communicate what he had seen to more senior officers is nonsense. Again, it is impossible that he could have passed Tomlinson on Cornhill without seeing him. Both officers made statements to IPCC investigators about Tomlinson.


 
Actually its far from impossible that that either could have passed Tomlinson without recognizing him (as the man who had been hit by the PC earlier) - after all, they had had no dealings with Tomlinson on the first occasion and do not appear to have been amongst the officers who treated him after he collapsed.  They could have seen a man collapsed, but to say its impossible that they did not recognize him is some way far off the mark.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 23, 2010)

In case you missed it:

Ian Tomlinson Campaign Fund


----------



## Quartz (Jul 23, 2010)

21 pages already!

I'm not going to vent my spleen. I'm sure those far more eloquent than I have volubly expressed opinions with which I thoroughly agree.

So I'll just say that I would like to see a judicial review of this decision, and I'd like to see an investigation of the CPS in case they've attempted to pervert the course of justice.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 23, 2010)

I would like to see a unicorn dance on top of the Old Bailey.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not an assumption.  It's an observation on the extent to which they went, which is detailed in their statement, and which is _way_ more than would have been the case in an ordinary case.  Which, as I have said repeatedy, would, in my experience, have been disposed of far sooner with a decision not to prosecute.


 
No it is an assumption pure and simple; you are assuming the time spent indicates a certain motivation without any evidence of the motivation itself. Just repeating the same assumption in a more longwinded fashion doesn't make it any less an assumption...and we all know what assumption is...

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you're guessing then ....



Assuming surely....it appears everybody'ds at it.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> and they would watch several places y/n


Yes


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

i must admit, im still finding it difficult to express my anger about all of this. i cannot recall a similar derogation of responsibility in many a year.

cops kill someone on film, anyone who was there can tell you what went on, and after 15 months of rubbish, there's nothing. apart from more lies and spin.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, but no, it's a huge amount more than that, and, i strongly suspect, Mr & Mrs Everyman by now


It isn't though (don't forget we're talking about those who believe it's all "a massive cover-up due to corruption")...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> It is the case. There are a myriad of links (not just the Indy example I gave you) to witnesses' accounts. Look, here's another one: http://www.salfordonline.com/editorschoice.php?func=viewdetails&vdetails=12318


That one refers to a witness who states that the police "murdered" him by hitting him on the head with a baton ... now where exactly did that happen... 

If you're providing links to witnesses to the fact that the same person was involved in the two incidents, please make sure they are accurate / reliable ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

cesare said:


> d-b: If we can just skip the past the part where I carry on drip feeding links to support my allegation that there was video footage and witness accounts in the public domain before 3.4.09 ... what, in your opinion, is the best way of raising this issue of the lack of "special post-mortem" in such a way that it would be effective in bringing about a review of the CPS decision?


Get a sensible and hyperbole-free complaint about the issue into the media (or make a specific complaint about that point to the IPCC).

As I have said, if there was reliable evidence (or even significant suspicion) made known to (or readily available to) the police prior to the initial post-mortem being conducted there would be good grounds for complaining that it was not done as a special post-mortem and that the case had not been reported to the IPCC.  If the IPCC knew, then the complaint should be against them.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> There's no way he could pass along Cornhill without having seen Tomlinson on the ground or being carried away.


I am not in a position to know whether what you state about the identity of the officers in those photos is accurate or not.  If it is, make a formal complaint about them as it is plain that they would have difficulty in explaining why they did not tell anyone that the same person was involved and, if they did tell someone what that person did with the information needs to be investigated.

As I have said repeatedly, if the police knew that it was the same person involved, or if that information was readily available to them in a way in which they should have found it, then someone has fucked up.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's an internet forum, get a grip and behave like an adult.


It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> ...and we all know what assumption is...


Clearly you fucking don't.  But hey, don't let me interrupt you're little imaginary world ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> cops kill someone on film


No.  Cops use force on someone on film.  Then that someone dies a few minutes later.  And it is not possible to link the two events.

That is not "killing" someone.  People saw the use of force.  They did not "see" that that force caused death.  It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.

I can't work out whether you are thick as shit.  Or just blinded by prejudice.  Or both.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 23, 2010)

He died of internal bleeding, as the only _reliable_ medical evidence tells us.

I'm going to go cosh somebody, film them kicking the bucket, and then tell the OB they've no way of linking me giving my victim a massive whack over the head and the victim dying due to massive fucking head injuries. According to dibble scrote above I should be okay.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Cops use force on someone on film.  Then that someone dies a few minutes later.  And it is not possible to link the two events.
> 
> That is not "killing" someone.  People saw the use of force.  They did not "see" that that force caused death.  It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.
> 
> I can't work out whether you are thick as shit.  Or just blinded by prejudice.  Or both.


i'm blinded by my contempt for "justice" and "democracy" in this country. 

i can't work out whether you're a false flag operation tbh.

shall we just cut to the "cunt" bit?  

_"it is not possible to link the two events."_ - not unless you're terminally stupid or bent, like you. makes me sick seeing you trying to justify this lack of action.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> makes me sick seeing you trying to justify this lack of action.



He's been saying action should be taken, at least on a charge of ABH, and suggesting changes to the system to prevent decisions like this being taken in the future.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> He's been saying action should be taken, at least on a charge of ABH, and suggesting changes to the system to prevent decisions like this being taken in the future.


absolute fucking bollocks, he's been making the cps case, i've just gone back over the thread for his posts.

whitewash. state sponsored murder.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> absolute fucking bollocks



No it's not, but if you want to totally ignore those posts that's your choice.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> absolute fucking bollocks, he's been making the cps case, i've just gone back over the thread for his posts.
> 
> whitewash. state sponsored murder.


 
No offence, but this is not "state sponsored murder".  Its a laughably biased decision from the CPS, it is a cop getting away without facing (at the moment) very serious charges despite the evidence suggesting a trial should take place (and the people who investigated the incident thinking that a trial should take place), but it is not a state sanctioned murder.  Why on earth would the state off Tomlinson?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> No offence, but this is not "state sponsored murder".  Its a laughably biased decision from the CPS, it is a cop getting away without (at the moment) very serious charges indeed despite the evidence suggesting a trial should take place and the people who investigated the incident thinking that a trial should take place, but it is not a state sanctioned murder.  Why on earth would the state off Tomlinson?


the state killed him. the state prevented any kind of criminal trial taking place.

it's not rocket science.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the state killed him. the state prevented any kind of criminal trial taking place.
> 
> it's not rocket science.


 
Its that kind of definition that devalues "state sanctioned murder" way below the point where it should be.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> Its that kind of definition that devalues "state sanctioned murder" way below the point where it should be.


so what's your explanation then?


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so what's your explanation then?


 
Didnt I mention it above on post #530?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is not "killing" someone.  People saw the use of force.  They did not "see" that that force caused death.  It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.


Do you think he would have died there without that cop having attacked him?


----------



## dylans (Jul 23, 2010)

The bottom line is many of us on here predicted that no prosecution would come of the investigation and that the cop who attacked Tomlinson would get away with it and low and behold......


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> Didnt I mention it above on post #530?


like i said above, i'm still finding it difficult to be calm and objective about all of this. too close to home, too common for comfort, too raw.


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> like i said above, i'm still finding it difficult to be calm and objective about all of this. too close to home, too common for comfort, too raw.


 
np, it is outrageous after all


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> No offence, but this is not "state sponsored murder".  Its a laughably biased decision from the CPS, it is a cop getting away without facing (at the moment) very serious charges despite the evidence suggesting a trial should take place (and the people who investigated the incident thinking that a trial should take place), but it is not a state sanctioned murder.  Why on earth would the state off Tomlinson?


btw, you are aware that _sanctioning_ an offence can take place before and/or after any particular incident. i'm not implying mr tomlinson was killed in some shadowy state plan, but that the state has sanctioned the lack of follow-up action despite the overwhelming body of evidence. it's given approval to the fact of his death as being somehow justified.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 23, 2010)

dylans said:


> The bottom line is many of us on here predicted that no prosecution would come of the investigation and that the cop who attacked Tomlinson would get away with it and low and behold......


 
But remember - those of us who predicted  the usual  stitch up are  nut job, ACABer, conspiracy theorists in Detective Boy's world.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 23, 2010)

Its also important to remeber that this was not a one off event. The aggresive police tactics that day and on countless other demos in recent years meant it was only a matter of time before someone was killed. 
The copper who killed ian tomlinson was behaving exactly as hed been instructed and enouraged to behave.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the state killed him. the state prevented any kind of criminal trial taking place.
> 
> it's not rocket science.



The state didn't. *Parts* of the criminal justice apparatus of the state have, depending on whether you attribute incompetence or malice to them, either:
1) Fucked up really badly, or
2) engineered an outcome whereby a policeman has been able to walk away unpunished after causing a death through his actions.

Either way, the criminal justice system comes out of this looking like it's just wallowed in a dungheap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> But remember - those of us who predicted  the usual  stitch up are  nut job, ACABer, conspiracy theorists in Detective Boy's world.


 
That's fair enough. In my world detective-boy is a mewling twat.


----------



## albionism (Jul 24, 2010)

A fighting fund has been set up to hopefully bring about
a private prosecution.
http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/2010/07/launch-of-campaign-fighting-fund.html


----------



## cesare (Jul 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...



Sexist pig.


----------



## winjer (Jul 24, 2010)

agricola said:


> Actually its far from impossible that that either could have passed Tomlinson without recognizing him (as the man who had been hit by the PC earlier) - after all, they had had no dealings with Tomlinson on the first occasion and do not appear to have been amongst the officers who treated him after he collapsed.


As was noted at the time Simon Harwood immediately after attacking Ian Tomlinson went to speak to one of the FIT, this is on video.

They're not the only officers who went down Cornhill after the incident, the other FIT and the dog handlers also did, as they formed part of the moving cordon that cleared it - including all the non-police witnesses to the attack on Tomlinson.



> They could have seen a man collapsed, but to say its impossible that they did not recognize him is some way far off the mark.


I didn't. I said it's impossible for them not to have seen him, so it only requires them to have been observant, not psychic.


----------



## winjer (Jul 24, 2010)

the button said:


> Well done, sir/madam.


More here: http://www.lasthours.org.uk/articles/g20-another-version-of-the-truth/


----------



## Urbanblues (Jul 24, 2010)

d-b is a tool of the Met; a rentapologist.


----------



## winjer (Jul 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If it is, make a formal complaint about them as it is plain that they would have difficulty in explaining why they did not tell anyone that the same person was involved and, if they did tell someone what that person did with the information needs to be investigated.


The information (and more) was given to the IPCC and the Tomlinson family's solicitor last April.


----------



## cesare (Jul 24, 2010)

winjer said:


> More here: http://www.lasthours.org.uk/articles/g20-another-version-of-the-truth/



Yep, & loads more detail on krs's blog.


----------



## cesare (Jul 24, 2010)

From schnews:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...


 
You're really not doing yourself any favours here.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 24, 2010)

*Ian Tomlinson ruling: can we trust officers to police protests fairly now?*
The decision not to charge the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson casts doubt on our safety at policed demonstrations
by Marc Vallée (NUJ Photographer)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-police-protest

_"The chilling thing is that for anyone who is thinking about protesting against the enforced transfer of billions of pounds from the public sector to the private sector due to the Con-Dem government's austerity measures will encounter the same police units, training, leadership, methodology and intelligence-lead policing. So watch your back, folks."_


----------



## Corax (Jul 24, 2010)

winjer said:


> The other officer in the centre of the second photo is Steven Discombe (2558CO), who Palfrey accompanied throughout April 1st. Discombe is - in his own words - "a Public Order Field Intelligence Officer; this role gives me specific responsibility for several protest areas, one of which is Anti Capitalism. I have responsibility for the monitoring of Anti Capitalist demonstrations within the Metropolitan Police District."
> 
> To suggest that PC Discombe was either unobservant of the collapsed person at the demonstration, or unable to communicate what he had seen to more senior officers is nonsense. Again, it is impossible that he could have passed Tomlinson on Cornhill without seeing him. Both officers made statements to IPCC investigators about Tomlinson.


 
Discombe's a total prick.  Just wanted to get that on record.


----------



## Corax (Jul 24, 2010)

> The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009.
> 
> Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place.



It's all completely legit and above board though isn't it d-b?  Nothing at all stinking about any of that.  It's all fine.  Nothing to see here, move along now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's all completely legit and above board though isn't it d-b?  Nothing at all stinking about any of that.  It's all fine.  Nothing to see here, move along now.


 
mistakes made. lessons learnt. time to move on.



(and make sure not to dawdle as you move on - cos dawdling in front of police officer now gives him the right to sort of accidently kill you)


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 24, 2010)

ironically enough the PDF I linked to about deaths in police custody is titled 'learning the lesson'

and they never do.


----------



## rekil (Jul 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Cops use force on someone on film.  Then that someone dies a few minutes later.  And it is not possible to link the two events.
> 
> That is not "killing" someone.  People saw the use of force.  They did not "see" that that force caused death.  It's not the fucking same as seeing someone shot / stabbed / fucking run over.



That'd be for a jury to decide. 

Oh.



> I can't work out whether you are thick as shit.  Or just blinded by prejudice.  Or both.


This kind of thing isn't working DB.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...



I'm tempted to report this post for hebegynophobia.

But I wouldn't want to look the same sort of cunt as you do when you report innocuous remarks as homophobic attacks, so I'll just content myself with calling you a maladjusted sexist prick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I would like to see a unicorn dance on top of the Old Bailey.



I'd like to see the statue of Nemesis sheath her sword in Keir Starmer's entrails.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> d-b is a tool of the Met; a rentapologist.



You could have stopped after the fourth word.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm tempted to report this post for hebegynophobia.
> 
> But I wouldn't want to look the same sort of cunt as you do when you report innocuous remarks as homophobic attacks, so I'll just content myself with calling you a maladjusted sexist oddball.


*corrected*


----------



## Corax (Jul 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> But I wouldn't want to look the same sort of cunt as you do when you report innocuous remarks as homophobic attacks


 
Does he?  Is db a gayer then?  I didn't know that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2010)

Corax said:


> Does he?  Is db a gayer then?  I didn't know that.


 
he's certainly a faggot in the south park sense.


----------



## cesare (Jul 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd like to see the statue of Nemesis sheath her sword in Keir Starmer's entrails.



Apparently, the decision was taken by Stephen O'Doherty, a Deputy Director of the CPS Special Crime Division. Who, amazingly, was also the DD who took the decision in the John Charles De Menezes case.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> He died of internal bleeding, as the only _reliable_ medical evidence tells us.


If you actually bothered trying to understand what the CPS report explains and what I have been trying to explain for pages, you'd know that it is NOT reliable medical evidence because it relies entirely on the observations made by the first pathologist - the ONLY pathologist who actually opened up the body and saw what was there as it was.  And that is Freddy Patel (who, by the very nature of your comment, you clearly agree is _unreliable_).

The two pathologists who conclude that the cause of death was internal bleeding do so _despite_ NOT being able to find any evidence of a rupture in a blood vessel, etc. which would explain such a high level of bleeding (something which Freddy Patel agrees with - he says he didn't find any evidence of any such rupture either).  They reach their conclusion, therefore, on the basis of Freddy Patel's original report which stated that he found, in the abdomen, _"intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot."_.  They took this as meaning there was 3 litres of blood which, if correct, would be a legitimate basis for concluding death was caused by internal bleeding (3l is a big proportion of total blood and it's loss would put you into the area where death could well result).  Freddy Patel, in a second report, clarified that what he actually found was "intraabdominal fluid *WITH* blood about 3l with small blood clot." and he clarified in the various meetings that it was effectively blood-stained intraabdominal fluid and so the amount of blood involved was significantly less than the total volume.  Because no sample was taken it is impossible to discover the _actual_ amount of blood and it could be anything down to a few millilitres - Freddy Patel seems to be very much suggesting that it was towards the lower end - what he saw was, in his opinion, a bit of blood staining a lot of intraabdominal fluid.  If it was significantly less than 3l of blood then the two pathologists who state the cause of death was internal bleeding would (particularly in the absence of any evidence of a rupture consistent with such bleeding) be forced to answer the question "If Freddy Patel is right, and there was considerably less blood than 3l present in the total volume of fluid, would that be consistent with your conclusion that the cause of death was internal bleeding?" with "No.  It wouldn't." 

As we simply do not know the volume of blood and have no way of finding it out, the ONLY evidence we have is what Freddy Patel say's he saw.  It is not that the other two pathologists saw what he saw and disagree with it - they simply did not see it.

Put yourself on a jury with this being played out in front of you.  Could you be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of death was internal bleeding?  If not, you'd _have_ to acquit (assuming you were doing your job properly and according to law whereas if it actually _was_ you you'd ignore the facts and just convict anyway because "All pigs are cunts and deserve to get done", natch ...).

THAT is the problem.  Please try and understand it and if you want to discuss it further, do so from a position which demonstrates that you have actually done so.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _"it is not possible to link the two events."_ - not unless you're terminally stupid or bent, like you. makes me sick seeing you trying to justify this lack of action.


I meant _evidentially_, in that it is not (according to the medical evidence) to link the use of force (and the resulting fall), neither of which would in and of themselves be likely to cause death directly with the death.

You _can_ link them as in suspecting / believing they are linked in some way (which everyone has done, hence the investigation ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you think he would have died there without that cop having attacked him?


I don't know.  I _suspect_ not ... but that is the difficulty when there are alternative causes of death available (in this case heart disease and liver disease) ... people can die of them at any time.

What I do know is that we have a criminal justice system which says (in my opinion quite rightly) that for someone to be held _criminally_ liable for someone's death we have to be able to demonstrate, to the point where a jury is sure beyond reasonable doubt, that the actions of the defendant caused the death - i.e. there is a chain of causation between what they did and the death.

I have dealt with dozens of cases over the years in which I have suspected that the actions of defendants have caused death, in many of them with the medical evidence issues being far _less_ obvious than here (One particular case which springs to mind was of an elderly man, helping out in his nephew's shop when three youths started shoplifting.  He stood in the door to try and stop them getting away and they ran into him, knocking him backwards out on to the pavement where he fell and hit his head, fracturing his skull.  He died some days later in hospital and the PM showed that the brain damage, etc. associated with the fractured skull was not so severe that it would obviously have killed him (though it could have done) and that he had advanced heart disease which also was not such that it could be said that it did kill him (though it could have done) - result, no manslaugher charge).  I have been gutted with the decisions and the families involved have been even more upset / annoyed / confused / bewildered.

But that is the law and, as I said, it is right.  Otherwise you would be making people criminally liable for a tragic outcome that was absolutely nothing to do with them at all.  Do you _really_ want that (bearing in mind that it would impact on far more "workers" / unemployed / people living on benefits / other categories beloved of Urban than it would on police officers)?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The state didn't. *Parts* of the criminal justice apparatus of the state have, depending on whether you attribute incompetence or malice to them, either:
> 1) Fucked up really badly, or
> 2) engineered an outcome whereby a policeman has been able to walk away unpunished after causing a death through his actions.


As usual you are conflating the fact that there is an unpalatable outcome with the fact that someone must have fucked up ... 

There is a (3):  Had to conclude that no matter how unpalatable / unwelcome the outcome, the evidence simply wasn't there


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

winjer said:


> The information (and more) was given to the IPCC and the Tomlinson family's solicitor last April.


In that case they (and the media) would be well advised to concentrate on asking what became of that aspect of the investigation instead of going with the headline issue which (in relation to the manslaughter at least) they will get nowhere with.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> *Ian Tomlinson ruling: can we trust officers to police protests fairly now?*
> The decision not to charge the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson casts doubt on our safety at policed demonstrations
> by Marc Vallée (NUJ Photographer)
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-police-protest


No surprise to see that Vallee has totally ignored the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest", it's recommendations and the fact that very significant changes to the policing have protest have been built in to both police strategy and tactics (along with other changes made as a result of comments made in the various Court cases arising from such incidents).

Whether those changes are sufficient / make an appreciable difference remains to be seen.  But to ignore the fact that they have been made simply illustrates the bias of the author.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

nobody's listening to you anymore. You've shown youself in your true colours in this thread once more. You are notrhing but a pig, and you always will be. It's as evident as it ever will be. I don't know if it's because you've had it hammered in to you that "the system works and it's the only way" Or wether you're just a total cunt. Either way, the outcome is the same. You are  nothing but pig scum. Who will blindly and unquestioningly follow everything you are told by them. It's sick.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's all completely legit and above board though isn't it d-b?  Nothing at all stinking about any of that.  It's all fine.  Nothing to see here, move along now.


Not at all.  I hadn't seen anything about that previously.  I HAD (repeatedly, though many posters appear to be unable to see it) identified that there was an issue with the fact that the first post-mortem appears to have been a "routine" one (rather than a "special" one) and much of what now cannot be resolved with the medical evidence stems from that.  I have said that if the police had (or should have) known that officers had used force on Ian Tomlinson they should have ensured that a "special" PM was ordered and / or engaged the IPCC.  It now appears from the Guardian piece that the IPCC were aware and so the issue moves upstream to:

(a) What did the Coroner decide and why (and a decision to hold a routine post-mortem knowing of the IPCC interest would seem to be indefensible) and
(b) What did the IPCC do when it became plain that he was doing what he was doing - did they consider challenging his decision or did they acquiese in it - if they didn't do the former or (even worse) they did the latter that would seem to be indefensible.

I have _never_ said, or suggested, that everything is right with this case.  The problems that have arisen, which have led to the fact that no manslaughter charge can be laid and everything that flows from that, are _entirely_ the result of the first PM not being a "special" PM (or, if it purportedly was, not being a competent one and one using a pathologist who was not authorised at the time) and how that came to be is an extremely important area for investigation and one in which it is extremely likely that people will have been found to have fucked up to the point where disciplinary, if not criminal, charges could be considered.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have said that if the police had (or should have) known that officers had used force on Ian Tomlinson they should have ensured that a "special" PM was ordered and / or engaged the IPCC.


 
But they didn't. They lied, and they covered it up. And you sit here and defend it. *claps* 

I fucking hate you for it.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

copliker said:


> That'd be for a jury to decide.


Yes.  And, as I have repeatedly said, one of the things that they would have to decide is causation.  Beyond reasonable doubt.  Which they cannot do because the evidence is not there in the judgment of the CPS.

We do not have a criminal justice system in this country which puts everything before the jury to make a decision.  We never have had such a system - there has since time immemorial been the _prima facie_ case threshold - and since 1985 (as a result of concerns that the police were making their own decisions about prosecuting or not) we have had the CPS, charged (in the interests of the defendants not being put through trials if there wasn't a realistic chance of a conviction (as well as saving money ...)) with deciding on the sufficiency of evidence prior to continuing with a prosecution.

It will only be "for a jury to decide" if there is sufficient evidence on which they are realistically able to convict (or, using the _prima facie_ test, on which "a properly directed jury could convict").  I very strongly suspect that even on the _prima facie_ test this would not have got off the ground - I cannot see a judge looking at the medical evidence and concluding that it would be safe for a jury to find causation beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> he's certainly a faggot in the south park sense.


Homophobically abusive post reported.  (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

cesare said:


> Apparently, the decision was taken by Stephen O'Doherty, a Deputy Director of the CPS Special Crime Division. Who, amazingly, was also the DD who took the decision in the John Charles De Menezes case.


Er ... why is that surprising?  Perhaps, in the big scheme of things, he happens to still be occupying the position in which that decision is vested ... 

(Sorry if this undermines an aspect of your conspiracy theory and all that ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

xes said:


> nobody's listening to you anymore.


Actually, as evidenced by some of the posts on here, lots of people are.  People with open minds.  People who do not simply start frothing at the mouth and ranting but who try and understand what has happened and why, people who think about the actual issues and consider whether or not there is anything that could / should be done about them and, if so, how to do that.  People who want to establish if anyone is to blame and, if so, to what extent.  People who realise that lots of things come together whenever there is a tragic outcome and lots of people may, or may not, have fucked up.  People who are grown-up enough to realise that we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes things go bad even though everyone has done their very best to avoid it happening and no-one is to blame.  People who are thoughtful, intelligent and capable of rational thought.  People who realise that they don't know everything that there is to know about everything and who therefore listen to explanations by others with different knowledge and experience.  People who are capable of understanding different perceptions and who are able to empathise with people in different situations.

In short, not cunts like you and the rest of the gobshites on here who are either (a) too prejudiced; (b) to thick or (c) both (my money's on (c) by the way ...) to do anything but spout shite and ignore anything and everything which doesn't fit with their world view ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

xes said:


> But they didn't. They lied, and they covered it up. And you sit here and defend it. *claps*


_Where_ have I defended that?  I haven't fucking _defended_ that at all.  In fact I have done the exact fucking opposite - pointing out that if they did know of the connection and did not immediately ensure that the matter was treated as homicide and referred to the IPCC then they have fucked up and should be dealt with for it.

But I don't know the exact sequence of events, I do not have access to any evidence that shows exactly who knew what and when or any explanation provided by anyone who appears to have known and so, unlike you, I do not feel able to conclude what actually happened and whether or not anyone is culpable.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

go fuck yourself you arrogant fucking pig cunt. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see exactly what has happened here. We knew it last year, when the incident happened. That even though it was on film, that no pig fuck would ever come to justice. because pug fucks are above the law they "uphold" We all knew it, we knew that the police would lie and squirm their way out of it. And what has happened? oh yes, the police had lied and squirmed their way out if it. And you fucking love it. You can't even see how much a part of the problem you are. 

oh, and the homophobic post you reported wasn't homophobic. You fucking cock. In the Sp episode which is refered, faggot is descriptive of motorbikers who are  cunts. You are a cunt and you have a motorbike. I think it fits quite well.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> _Where_ have I defended that?  I haven't fucking _defended_ that at all.


 You think that the right decision has been made based on the evidence. But you ignore that FACT that the police lied and covered up their actions, and made it dam fucking sure that the evidence was as we see it now. Contradictory. They lied, they squirmed, and you won't see it. We all did. We knew it 15 months ago. We knew how this would run, the same as the last one, and the one before that. The police force is rotton to its very core. from the top to the bottom. And you will not aknowlage it. Even though it's there in plain sight. Not even trying to hide it anymore.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

xes said:


> You think that the right decision has been made based on the evidence.


I do apologise for trying to decide things based on the evidence.

Instead of just "knowing" like you and the rest of the mugs on here.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

xes said:


> oh, and the homophobic post you reported wasn't homophobic. You fucking cock. In the Sp episode which is refered, faggot is descriptive of motorbikers who are  cunts. You are a cunt and you have a motorbike. I think it fits quite well.


go fuck yourself you arrogant fucking cunt. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see exactly what has happened here. We knew it last year, when the "drama queen" incident happened. That even though it was on the public boards, that no cunt would ever come to justice. because on urban cunts are above the law they, especially if they are slagging off a pig (or some other tosser from a disapproved of category)  We all knew it, we knew that the posters would lie and squirm their way out of it. And what happened? oh yes, the posters lied and squirmed their way out if it. And you fucking love it. You can't even see how much a part of the problem you are. 

Good this, isn't it ...


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

ADBAB


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2010)

so whats the score now? I make it about 6-4 to the OB. Maybe we can have half a point for moats botch-job.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bbbrrruuuuuum brubrubrubrubrubrubrubru BBRRROOOOMM BRUBRUBRUBRUBRUBRUBRUUUUUU BBRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM BRUBRUBRUBRUBRU


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 25, 2010)

Christ almighty... only just caught up with this thread!!

DB, you're not srsly defending what's gone on here? 

And it's about bent police, not gay ones.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 25, 2010)

DB - police officers never ever get punished by the law for violence whilst on duty. And in every single case you pop up  with your oh-so resonable expanation of the complex evidential issues to show how - beyond a certain amount of human error - no one is to blame and every ones done their very best with the best intentions - whilst lambasting anyone who points out the rather fucking obvious woods from you trees as a rabid ACAB nut job. 

Why do REALLY think that - depsite hundreds of deaths at the hands of police - not one officer has even been charged?

Why do you think that out all the many more well evidenced cases of police violence hardly any cases are passed to the CPS and virtually none make it to court?
 (in fact sgt smellies assualt on that women at the ian tomlinson vigil is the only case I can think of where it actually got as far as the court)

Why do think so many of us predicted from day one that no officer would be charged with regards to the death of Ian Tomlinson?

How come you cant see the clear pattern of behaviour from the criminal justice system every time someone dies at the hands of the police? - first a false story is put out to smeer the victim and exonerate the police (usually contridicted by later evidecne - but by which time the damage has been done) , then a long winded investigation slowly gets into gear, meanwhile crucial evidence (i.e. CCTV footage) often goes missing, then after dragging out the process for as long as possible the CPS decides their is not enough evidence to mount a prosecution and the officer(s) invovled (who has often spent over a year suspended on full pay) is usually returned to duty and even promoted.  

I was a the G20 protests. The police on duty were hyped up, aggresive and very quick to violently intimidate anyone who so much as looked at them the wrong way. We spent all day being pushed, carolled, sworn at, poked by batons, pushed by shields, threatened and having streets and passages blocked off all around us. It was the same tactics Ive seen on countless other demonstrations over the years - and as ever it was comletely unprovoked. There was no riot. 

Its a deliberate tactic - with the tacit approval of the governemt - of wholesale violent imtimidation designed to deter people from having the temerity to take to the steets in protest. 

In this context, the hundreds of police officers threatening, pushing, punching and beating  were just doing their job. And thats why Ian Tomlinson died. Thats why they are never punished.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jul 25, 2010)

Says it all.


----------



## cesare (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Homophobically abusive post reported.  (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)



Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.



detective-boy said:


> Er ... why is that surprising?  Perhaps, in the big scheme of things, he happens to still be occupying the position in which that decision is vested ...
> 
> (Sorry if this undermines an aspect of your conspiracy theory and all that ...)



Perhaps you'd care to set out this conspiracy theory then? Because you keep referring to it, in a melodramatic manner, and yet seem curiously reticent about spelling out exactly what the this "theory" is.


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.


 
It's one law for them, and an entirely different set of rules for us.

Hey, that reminds me of something....


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Why do REALLY think that - depsite hundreds of deaths at the hands of police - not one officer has even been charged?


Lots of police officers have been charged.  Some have been convicted.  Most such cases get no significant publicity and so you should not fall into the old trap of believing that if you don't know about it it hasn't happened.

But the basic issue is that usually (almost invariably) the situation is such that _some_ force can be justified and so the issue for the Court (as in the one case you _can_ remember) is whether the force used was more than was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances ... and, in deciding that, the honestly held belief of the person using the force is pretty much a determining factor (this is general law -it is not something special for the police).

Yes, there have been, and continue to be, a number of issues connected with the investigation, decision making and prosecution of allegations against police officers, but there is not a wholesale cover-up / exemption from the law on the scale that you claim.

The _perception_ of cover-up is not helped by the making of administrative decisions behind closed doors by the IPCC / CPS.  But that doesn't mean that those decisions are wrong, or part of a conspiracy of any sort - those of us that know how they operate (and who have been on the wrong end of such investigations) know that they _are_ (for the most part) thorough, independent and based on a proper consideration of the evidence.  But they rely on paper-based evidence (i.e. there is no cross examination of the witnesses) and they are not in public and so it is inevitable that there is a perception of cover-up by those who do not know.

The response to my posts on this thread (in a situation in which the detail contained in the CPS explanation of their decision is far more than I have know before) illustrates that no amount of explanation or attempts to explain the rationale will dispel those perceptions and that is why I suggest a new "Grand Jury"-style hearing, in which the IPCC / CPS decisions are reviewed in open Court, with cross-examination, in a hearing empowered to overturn those decisions and commit for trial and / or direct disciplinary hearings.  

Police officers (and other agents of the state) MUST be accountable to the people for their actions.  Personally I believe that they ARE accountable at present, but they are not SEEN TO BE accountable.  It is quite right and proper that in serious cases (where death or serious injury results at least) that there should be a public hearing; that the accountability should include personal, oral explanation by the individual officer(s) of what they did and why and that the people (in the person of a counsel for the Grand Jury or, possibly, counsel for any interested party) should be able to cross-examine the officers.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

cesare said:


> Perhaps you'd care to set out this conspiracy theory then? Because you keep referring to it, in a melodramatic manner, and yet seem curiously reticent about spelling out exactly what the this "theory" is.


If you really can't see a conspiracy theory on this thread then you really ARE thicker than you appear to be ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's one law for them, and an entirely different set of rules for us.


Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia.  Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.

Fact.


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

There is no rationale, it's an open and shut case. Or at least it should have been. The IPCC thought so, were they not in posession of all the facts? Are they barking conspiritors?


----------



## cesare (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you really can't see a conspiracy theory on this thread then you really ARE thicker than you appear to be ...



Curious reticence indeed. You're the only person alleging a conspiracy theory. C'mon; spit it out. 

Oh yeah ... and this >>><<< ... shove it back up there. Please.


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The _perception_ of cover-up is not helped by the making of administrative decisions behind closed doors by the IPCC / CPS.


 
The perception of cover-up is _really_ not helped by the series of lies told by City of London and friends in the weeks after the incident.

This is the bit you seem to have missed, and IMO is a large part of the reason for the general anger felt by people about the situation.


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia.  Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.
> 
> Fact.


 
Cobblers.  You fail to distinguish between homophobia and ironical reference to homophobia.

I sometimes blame the joos for random things on here.  Not once have I been pulled up for racism for it, because it's patently obvious that I'm not actually being anti-semitic, but am instead referencing the absurd behaviour of real anti-semites.

There are a number of gay posters on U75, and you're the only one (If you're gay that is.  I don't know tbh, and I don't care) that I've ever seen claim that these boards accept or allow genuine homophobia.

Did you see the reaction Foxyred got when she stated that her fiancee intended to instill hatred of teh gays in their kid?  It wasn't exactly whole-hearted applause.

If you're sure that this place is a hotbed of gay-bashing, perhaps you should pm editor about it.  Unless you think that he's a signed up member of Westboro Baptist Church as well of course.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia.  Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.
> 
> Fact.


 
Is it Urban's job to challenge homophobia?

Urban is challenging the police actions which directly led to the death of a man.

If you have an issue with homophobia - start a thread about it, this is the Tomlinson thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2010)

cesare said:


> Yeah, the hierarchy of diversity where you can be blatantly sexist and not get pulled up for it; but where you make allegations of homophobic abuse where none exist.


Remember his shrieks of "homophobic abuse!" when someone accused him of throwing a hissy fit not so long ago? I laughed so much I nearly shat myself at the barefaced twattery of the man.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh...and things are FACTS when you say them, I notice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2010)

Corax said:


> It's one law for them, and an entirely different set of rules for us.
> 
> Hey, that reminds me of something....



Differential access to and treatment by the law is a sad and long-lived fact of life.
There's something we can all do, though. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and things are FACTS when you say them, I notice.



Have you ever noticed how people who suffix fact-light claims with the word "fact" are usually (but not exclusively) twats?


----------



## cesare (Jul 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Remember his shrieks of "homophobic abuse!" when someone accused him of throwing a hissy fit not so long ago? I laughed so much I nearly shat myself at the barefaced twattery of the man.



Yes, I do remember. I try and be scrupulously polite to d-b, until such time that he is impolite to me. And then afaic it's no holds barred.

He made a blatantly sexist post back there, and no amount of "homophobic!!!!" distraction is going to alter that because I made sure that I quoted it.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia.  Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.
> 
> Fact.



It also doesn't pull up on mysogyny as often. Although I'm not sure some of the things you've said were homophobic actually were ? (Drama Queen???? how is that homophobic?)


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you ever noticed how people who suffix fact-light claims with the word "fact" are usually (but not exclusively) twats?


 
yes


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> It also doesn't pull up on mysogyny as often.


I quite agree.  It's cringingly "laddish" sometimes.



> Although I'm not sure some of the things you've said were homophobic actually were ? (Drama Queen???? how is that homophobic?)


Because it was used quite deliberately, aimed directly at me, knowing that I had said that I found it offensive in the context.  It was personal abuse and offensive in a homophobic way in that particular situation.

I did not say that "drama queen" is homophobic _per se_.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 25, 2010)

And, like the other thread, it is now apparent that the Cunt Collective have turned up and set up camp on this thread, engaging in their usual self-congratulatory circle-jerk, so I'm wasting my time trying to engage in any further sensible discussion.  So I'm off.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And, like the other thread, it is now apparent that the Cunt Collective have turned up and set up camp on this thread, engaging in their usual self-congratulatory circle-jerk, so I'm wasting my time trying to engage in any further sensible discussion.  So I'm off.



Good. Fuck off and don't come back this time you prick.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 25, 2010)

Until the next time your colleagues in the Met need someone to apologise for murder then DB.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So I'm off.


seeeee ya!


----------



## xes (Jul 25, 2010)

Bye, don't let the door repeatedly hit you in the face on the way out


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 25, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> he's certainly a faggot in the south park sense.


 
Casual homophobic abuse isn't acceptable.


----------



## cesare (Jul 25, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Casual homophobic abuse isn't acceptable.



Then it's a good job that Pickman's didn't do that then, isn't it?



> In November 2009 "The F Word", a South Park episode aired dealing with the overuse of the word fag, along with its history and how it evolved from a 16th century slang meaning "old or unpleasant woman" to a homophobic slur into a general insult commonly used amongst American youth.[45] The four lead characters, all young boys, assert that the meaning remains an insult but refers to Harley motorcyclists and convince the town to officially change the meaning which is kept despite criticism from the rest of the nation.[46][47][48]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)#Television_and_newsmedia

How do you feel about casual sexist abuse?


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Casual homophobic abuse isn't acceptable.



Yep.  No capitalisation at the start of the sentence.  very sloppy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Lots of police officers have been charged.  Some have been convicted.  Most such cases get no significant publicity and so you should not fall into the old trap of believing that if you don't know about it it hasn't happened.



Utter Bullshit. *Not one police officer has ever been charged for either death in custody or when they have killed people whilst on duty* - Even in the most clear cut cases of police repsonsibility like Blair Peach, Harry Stanley, Cherie Groce, Charles De Menzies and Ian Tomlinson - no charges.
And - as far as I know - sgt smellie is the only police officer ever to charged with violence whilst on duty. And the judge made sure he was aquitted. 

I challenge you to name any more

The coverups and whitewashes that occur in  every single case are consistant and utterly blatant.


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> I challenge you to name any more


 
Not going to happen.

He's thrown his toys out of the pram and stormed off in a huff.

*Again.*


----------



## the button (Jul 25, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> And - as far as I know - sgt smellie is the only police officer ever to charged with violence whilst on duty. And the judge made sure he was aquitted.



Meanwhile, the OB seem to take quite a tolerant line on offences committed outside of the line of duty...



> More than 1,000 serving police officers in Britain have criminal convictions, the Liberal Democrats have reported.
> 
> More than half of the 1,063 convictions relate to speeding or other motoring offences; 77 officers have convictions for violence and 96 for dishonesty.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7936041.stm


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jul 25, 2010)

I really haven't got time to wade through all this but to come back to DB about 17 pages back 

You still haven't shown, in any way, that the second and third pathologists findings would *have* to rely on the findings of the first pathologist. Only a medical expert could claim this, which you aren't. From what I've read they seem confident of their findings and that they could convince a jury.

In terms of what happened before the video took place you said 





> I am simply pointing out that things could have happened that may have amounted to justification for some use of force


. Well yes, anything could have happened. Ian Tomlinson could have been waving an uzi around while tattooing ACAB onto his knuckles. But it's unlikely. So we have to go by probability. If Ian Tomlinson had done anything at all that could have justified use of force, one way or another the police would have let us know about it and so would the media, but there has been absolutely nothing to suggest that, so I think it's fairly safe to say that he didn't do anything to justify any use of force at all.

On your point about common assault stopping further charges Paddick doesn't seem to agree with you:



> They could have summonsed for common assault within the six months' time limit and carried on their inquiries into the manslaughter charge.



Has this already been put up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-death-inquest-coroner



> The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009.
> 
> Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place.


----------



## sherpa (Jul 25, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> On your point about common assault stopping further charges Paddick doesn't seem to agree with you......






			
				Paddick said:
			
		

> They could have summonsed for common assault within the six months' time limit and carried on their inquiries into the manslaughter charge.



So why didn't they? 

I'm not expecting you to answer that btw, One_Stop.

However, along with other apparent _inconsistencies_ in carrying out due process, it seems a little odd, if the pursuit of transparency and honesty is to be taken seriously. Ahem.

A criminal barrister rang in to Any answers yesterday afternoon, and I didn't get to hear all he had to say, but I think he may have alluded to something similar. I wish I had a better grasp of the law and how it's applied.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Utter Bullshit. *Not one police officer has ever been charged for either death in custody or when they have killed people whilst on duty* - Even in the most clear cut cases of police repsonsibility like Blair Peach, Harry Stanley, Cherie Groce, Charles De Menzies and Ian Tomlinson - no charges.


 
This is not true - officers were charged after the John Shorthouse shooting, as they were after the non-fatal shootings of Cherry Groce and Stephen Waldorf (though each one was found not guilty, somewhat astonishingly so in the case of Waldorf).  Police officers were also charged after the death of Christopher Alder.  Admittedly none have been been found guilty since the death of David Oluwale (though if you extend "killed people whilst on duty" to include road traffic offences then there have been several convicted of causing death).


----------



## audiotech (Jul 25, 2010)

agricola said:


> This is not true - officers were charged after the John Shorthouse shooting, as they were after the non-fatal shootings of Cherry Groce and Stephen Waldorf (though each one was found not guilty, somewhat astonishingly so in the case of Waldorf).  Police officers were also charged after the death of Christopher Alder.  Admittedly none have been been found guilty since the death of David Oluwale (though if you extend "killed people whilst on duty" to include road traffic offences then there have been several convicted of causing death).


 
Reported in The Guardian just recently that more people are killed by speeding police cars, than people killed by guns in the UK.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 26, 2010)

Oh look - he's done a flounce whilst delivering a  storm of foul mouthed abuse. 

Pompous, self important and an apologist for murder and corruption.


----------



## rekil (Jul 26, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Casual homophobic abuse isn't acceptable.


 
Is it ok to opine that DB is "away with the fairies"?


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

I see that Pickman's has been banned.


----------



## xes (Jul 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> I see that Pickman's has been banned.


 
 

It wasn't casual homophobia, he took one for the team, man.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 26, 2010)

DB has applied law in retrospect before leading to baffling doublethink. In the case of the girl who was hit by a speeding cop car up in the NE of England (he didn't have his lights or siren on - copper recently convicted and jailed) he claimed that police had to chase criminals in cars, even if it made them driver faster and potentially kill someone because "It gave all criminals a red light to get away". He then went on to say that "Killing a pedestrian or other car driver was never justified in a police chase".

Like this topic he likes to invoke "They didn't and couldn't know that at the time" retrospection....He might know the law but he doesn't know common sense.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> I see that Pickman's has been banned.


 
I hope its temporary.

A little while back I was calling out some overt homophobia all over the place from the likes of derf, stoatie, etc and complaining did fuck all - was basically just told to challenge it. DB makes a meal out of something when being a cunt himself and Pickman's gets a ban, how does that work then?!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

It's entirely possible I've missed much but has anyone seen any comment on the CPS decision by any member of the political class - pref the Coalition of the Willing but actually any politician ?


----------



## rekil (Jul 26, 2010)

stephj said:


> DB makes a meal out of something when being a cunt himself and Pickman's gets a ban, how does that work then?!


DB would probably claim that there's no evidence of any causal link between his reporting of PM and the subsequent ban. 'He could have been banned for any number of reasons you cunt thick bollocks etc.'


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

Still, it's good to see DB as consistently inconsistent and snide as usual on here. Whinging to the mods about being called things as harsh as a drama queen whilst at the same time grouping everyone else and hysterically tarring them as cunts in intolerant outburst after outburst. And then getting all precious in a grandstanding piece of moral relativism, alleging all kinds of homophobia ('you ethnics get it easy) and acting the hard done by soul. I don't recognise the distortion fwiw - yes, there are too many pathetic nomarks on here using 'ghey', but equally many have complained abojut homophobic comments in the past, stephj and myself included.

I guess we could do tit for tat reported post and end up with a banstorm every time DB pipes up again. Or perhaps, just perhaps, we can stop making allowances for this discredited pottymouth and treat him like another poster. And when he's like this he's the worst possible kind of poster, an abusive, myopic gobshite with little self control and a victim/knowall complex a mile wide


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> doesn't help when the people also view the police as scum.


 
something needs to be done then, to re-establish faith in the state. 
something like not permitting the police to assault and kill citizens with impunity, perhaps?


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But sadly one which mixes up "being held accountable" with "being summarly convicted and hung out to dry".


 
as would happen to a protester, or ordinary member of the public in the reverse scenario?


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A few internet warriors, dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists, ACAB-ers and the usual rent-a-crowd suspects is not "everyone" ...


 
or 'concerned citizens and other members of the general public', to use a less pejorative expression

funny how you seek to disqualify half the adult population. is that how policing works?


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> he's certainly a faggot in the south park sense.


 
this isn't homophobic abuse you cretin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_F_Word_(South_Park)


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Homophobically abusive post reported.  (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)


 
beneath contempt you are


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually, as evidenced by some of the posts on here, lots of people are.  People with open mouths.


 
corrected for you


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and things are FACTS when you say them, I notice.


 
funny that..


----------



## gavman (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And, like the other thread, it is now apparent that the Cunt Collective have turned up and set up camp on this thread, engaging in their usual self-congratulatory circle-jerk, so I'm wasting my time trying to engage in any further sensible discussion.  So I'm off.


 
hth with another flounce xxxx


----------



## xes (Jul 26, 2010)

He's "gone" now, so we can move on. Prehaps if we ignore him, and never utter that name again, he'll stay "gone".


----------



## winjer (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No surprise to see that Vallee has totally ignored the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest", it's recommendations and the fact that very significant changes to the policing have protest have been built in to both police strategy and tactics


They have? Brian Spence, head of Public Order Training for the Met was recently asked what changed had been made to training since the G20. "None." And as a result of Adapting to Protest? "None."


----------



## winjer (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But bearing in mind the perspective of Marc Vallee


What is the perspective of Marc Vallee, exactly?


----------



## winjer (Jul 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> *Not one police officer has ever been charged for either death in custody or when they have killed people whilst on duty*


Not true. Rare, but not none.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/03/prisonsandprobation.uknews2
http://www.blaqfair.com/blaqfair/oluwale.htm



> And - as far as I know - sgt smellie is the only police officer ever to charged with violence whilst on duty. And the judge made sure he was aquitted. I challenge you to name any more.


Not even close to true.

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/...sault_charge_bobby_must_wait_for_verdict.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/8522768.stm
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Officer-was-charged-after-disarming.3384142.jp

etc. etc.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

stephj said:


> I hope its temporary.
> 
> A little while back I was calling out some overt homophobia all over the place from the likes of derf, stoatie, etc and complaining did fuck all - was basically just told to challenge it. DB makes a meal out of something when being a cunt himself and Pickman's gets a ban, how does that work then?!



Who knows. Kinda getting accustomed to perverse decisions in the context of this thread.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 26, 2010)

MULTIQUOTE!


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

???


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

Erm Crispy?

Be interested in why the double standards about DB. Pickman's comment, whilst idiotic, is clearly a South Park in joke from a very famous episode. Much more offensive comments have been reported, shorn of amusing context, and the offenders only tend to get a slap on the wrist at most. Seems a bit weird tbh


----------



## winjer (Jul 26, 2010)

Crispy said:


> MULTIQUOTE!


You mean? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hadn't noticed that was enabled before.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

Plus not forgetting d-b's originating sexist insult.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...




^^^ there.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> ^^^ there.



 How's that sexist???

Little girls whinge!


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

Fairly shit, isn't it? Maybe the mods just want folks to report posts like that, but I'd rather not tbh - it'd be better if the punishments were proportionate. For at the moment it almost seems that a signposted South Park jibe is taken as more offensive, apparently giving the recipient free reign to spout 75 cunts and a handful of sexist outbursts at a victim of his choice.

To be fair, some of the mods have tacked DB on his language before. Not that it's made the slightest fucking difference


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> How's that sexist???
> 
> Little girls whinge!



*ignores blatant trolling*


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

TBH even Spy must know that he's on shaky ground here. Besides, given that a certain pottymouthed invulnerable can seemingly object to 'drama queens' and 'hissy fit' and take them as 'evidence' for wider homphobia, it's a bit telling that he'd use such phrases, no?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> TBH even Spy must know that he's on shaky ground here.



She didn't bite.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

That's because you're a little too obvious these days Spy. Like a more predictable Clarkson with a worse barnet


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 26, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> She didn't bite.



Looks like you’re losing your touch with the ladies.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Like a more predictable Clarkson *with a worse barnet*



Trichophobic post reported.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 26, 2010)

Ian Tomlinson's family on the decision.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 26, 2010)

I have not been on this thread for quite a few pages. Can I make an educated guess as to progress? Has Detective Boy justified the killing of Thompson and called everyone cunts?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually, what it IS, is institutionalised homophobia.  Urban75 as an entity does not recognise and challenge homophobia in the same way that it challenges racism.
> 
> Fact.


I'm sorry, but that really is 100% rubbish, and I'm certain mike and the mods would agree with me


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 26, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Can I make an educated guess as to progress? Has Detective Boy justified the killing of Thompson


 
Some education you had there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I have not been on this thread for quite a few pages. Can I make an educated guess as to progress? Has Detective Boy justified the killing of Thompson and called everyone cunts?



Tomlinson, you norbert!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2010)

Anyone posted this yet? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/26/happy-slap-teenagers-jailed-death

Nothing like the Tomlinson case of course, they were black and weren't police.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> Utter Bullshit. *Not one police officer has ever been charged for either death in custody or when they have killed people whilst on duty*


Course they haven't dear ... except this one you mean?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-cleared-of-murder-1235948.html

And these ten:

http://cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/147_06/

And these five:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1896862.stm



> I challenge you to name any more


And whilst I agree that police officers being charged with murder / manslaughter is very rare (but not causing death by dangerous driving - see below), charges relating to excessive force are commonplace (as, er, I said).

A five-minute Google gives us:

Three in Wigan (2009) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6650961.ece
Ali Dizaei (off duty initially, but then putting himself on duty, 2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/09/ali-dizaei-guilty-metropolitan-police
One in Leicester (2009): http://inleicester.com/news/096213/Officer convicted of common assault
One in Telford (2010): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/8522768.stm
Two in Kent (2009): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8002337.stm
One officer, two incidents, Merseyside (2000): http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-62651783.html
One in Greater Manchester (2008): http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr210408_gmp.htm
One in Cheshire (2009): http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr131109_cheshire.htm
Two more in Manchester (2007): http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr290909_gmp.htm

As you confidently stated: _"as far as I know - sgt smellie is the only police officer ever to charged with violence whilst on duty"_.

And lots of examples of officers being charged in connection with causing death by dangerous driving whilst on duty ... which rather undermines your thesis that the establishment covers things up and conspires to keep cops out of the dock: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4787364/Police-officer-charged-over-grandmothers-death.html
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/march/16/policeman_on_driving_charge.aspx
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...rged-with-causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/...rey_Police_officer_charged_after_fatal_crash/

Perhaps you'd now like to (a) apologise; (b) acknowledge that you know fuck all and (c) explain why you stated such shite when the simplest of enquiries would have revealed it was, er, shite ...  

(And you lot wonder why you piss me off ... )


----------



## TopCat (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Course they haven't dear ... except this one you mean?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-cleared-of-murder-1235948.html
> 
> ...


 

hey muppet brain? How many police have ever been convicted and imprisoned? Ever? I can only think of one copper who was completely pissed and ran over a pedestrian in Peckham. He did six months if I remember correctly and was off duty at the time of the killing. Of those charged who went to court, well the old retrial scam kept them out of prisons way no? Bug the jury room, force a retrial if they are not supportive of the police. That armed bike cop in london in the 90's. he shot and killed an unarmed bloke who was trying to flee the scene of a crime. How many times did he get tried before they found a jury of Daily Mail readers? i think the copper had four trials.


----------



## Corax (Jul 26, 2010)

Shortest flounce ever?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 26, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> And - as far as I know - sgt smellie is the only police officer ever to charged with violence whilst on duty.


 


TopCat said:


> I can only think of one ...


You really aren't very good at learning from experience, are you?  

Suffice it to say that somewhere between "some" and "lots" of police officers have been convicted and imprisoned, depending on your parameters.  And I have absolutely no intention of proving that I am right in saying this again.

Try that new-fangled Google thing ...

(or even just read some of the links in my prevous post ...)


----------



## Corax (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Suffice it to say that somewhere between "some" and "lots" of police officers have been convicted and imprisoned, depending on your parameters.  And I have absolutely no intention of proving that I am right in saying this again.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 26, 2010)

To go back a bit...




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> It's an internet forum, get a grip and stop whinging like a fucking little girl ...



This was directed at me.....it _is_ only the internet, that's why it costs bugger all to be polite, perhaps especially so given DB's background. I don't hate coppers, as he claimed I did, but i won't submit to any external authority that tells me that "the law" is important than basic right or wrong, and a sense of responsibility to your fellow human beings.

As I posted in this thread a long while back, a small child would tell you that what happened to Ian Tomlinson was wrong, but it takes an adult to explain it away. DB did just that. He may know the law, but he clearly has a problem knowing what is acceptable treatment of a human being by another human being - let alone treatment of a human being by someone who is paid to protect his welfare. But defend it he did in various ways, all of which grant the policeman "defence by hindsight", i paraphrase...

'The policeman couldn't know he would fall over like that'
'99 out of 100 falls don't end up with a fractured skull'
'It can't be proven that the fall killed him, you can't link the two'

None of which of course put any responsibility on the policeman to behave _responsibly_ in the first place - or for his fellow officers to either reprimand him or go to the the help of Ian Tomlinson. In DB's eyes they were doing their job and this officer might have pushed 99 people over like that before and they were all fine, so why should this guy be any different? 

To sum his position up, it's only a problem for the police to behave like this when someone is seriously injured or dies - and even then it can't be proven that they were responsible for someones death or injury as they might have dropped dead had they not been bitten, batoned and pushed head first on to the pavement...hey it happens all the time and we can't prove it - or at least _the law_ can't prove it. 

As Aristotle said, 



> Law is mind without reason.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 26, 2010)

Had the footage showed Tomlinson walking down the street before _tripping over a curb and falling_ who thinks DB would be saying,

"No. A man falls over a curb on film. Then that someone dies a few minutes later. It is not possible to link the two events."

Anyone?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Course they haven't dear


Ooooh that's homophobic!



Corax said:


> Shortest flounce ever?


He's getting ready for a biggy.


----------



## past caring (Jul 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You really aren't very good at learning from experience, are you?
> 
> Suffice it to say that somewhere between "some" and "lots" of police officers have been convicted and imprisoned, depending on your parameters.  And I have absolutely no intention of proving that I am right in saying this again.
> 
> ...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 27, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> To go back a bit...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good post. Don't know if DB would agree with your paraphrasing though. I think even he doesn't feel particularly happy about the outcome of this. The average person's perspective of the police is going to be even worse after this shoddy CPS decision.


----------



## past caring (Jul 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Course they haven't dear ... except this one you mean?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-cleared-of-murder-1235948.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 27, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> To go back a bit...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I agree with every word you have said here. the law is there to serve the issue of right and wrong - not the law (nor those who enforce it, or practice it, for that matter).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Homophobically abusive post reported.  (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)


 i'd be grateful if you could explain to me what you found "homophobically abusive" in my post.


----------



## gavman (Jul 27, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Erm Crispy?
> 
> Be interested in why the double standards about DB. Pickman's comment, whilst idiotic, is clearly a South Park in joke from a very famous episode. Much more offensive comments have been reported, shorn of amusing context, and the offenders only tend to get a slap on the wrist at most. Seems a bit weird tbh


 
free the pickman's one!


----------



## gavman (Jul 27, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I have not been on this thread for quite a few pages. Can I make an educated guess as to progress? Has Detective Boy justified the killing of Thompson and called everyone cunts?


 
spooky. what are this week's lottery numbers?


----------



## mistere (Jul 27, 2010)

On the Guardian news ticker now, no more information at the moment.



> LATEST: Police officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson to ground at G20 protests charged with gross misconduct, Scotland Yard says. More details soon ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2010)

mistere said:


> On the Guardian news ticker now, no more information at the moment.


 
would this be the same officer who on 24 july was thought to be abroad?


----------



## mistere (Jul 27, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> would this be the same officer who on 24 july was thought to be abroad?


 
I haven't been following the details of this story other than the original report that he was not going to be charged, which I thought was disgraceful, and I haven't been following this thread so I'm not sure.  I just saw this on the Guardian and thought that people here might be interested, I expect that a statement will be released soon explaining it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2010)

mistere said:


> On the Guardian news ticker now, no more information at the moment.



So, having been assured that the unofficial block on coppers paying for their crimes in court is still in place, the Met decide to make themselves look proactive by bringing disciplinary charges against Harwood (excusing not having done so sooner by saying "there was an ongoing court case), whereby the worst that'll happen is losing his job, and if that happens he'll probably just join another UK police service.
Again.


----------



## gavman (Jul 27, 2010)

we're being played


----------



## xes (Jul 27, 2010)

this is IMO, just a go at quieting down the protest on friday. A wrong has been done, it can't be undone like this.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 27, 2010)

More info on the BBC.


----------



## Corax (Jul 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, having been assured that the unofficial block on coppers paying for their crimes in court is still in place, the Met decide to make themselves look proactive by bringing disciplinary charges against Harwood (excusing not having done so sooner by saying "there was an ongoing court case), whereby the worst that'll happen is losing his job, and if that happens he'll probably just join another UK police service.
> Again.



Don't be ridiculous.  If he was forced out of the Met as a result of his conduct it's not like he could just join another force, with the possibility of transferring back to the Met again at a later date!

Oh, wait...


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2010)

Spot the difference...

Person A is punched in an unprovoked attack and falls backwards, hitting his head on the pavement and dies a week later in hospital after not regaining conciousness. The attack is captured on CCTV.

Person A's attackers receive prison sentences of 4 1/2 years & 3 1/2 years.

***

Person B is hit with a blunt instrument then pushed violently from behind causing him to fall to the ground in an unprovoked attack, manages to stagger away before collapsing and dying from his injuries closeby minutes later. The attack is recorded on video camera and witnessed by several people.

Despite being identified, with video and witness evidence, Person B's attacker isn't even prosecuted.

***



Spoiler: spoiler for xes



The difference being in their chosen gang's establishment links and ability to cover up their crimes. Person A's attackers were young black members of the local neighbourhood gang with no establishment links to protect them, whereas person B's attacker was an enforcer with London's biggest gang which prides itself on it's ability to pervert the course of justice with impunity to protect it's members from virtually any risk of ever doing any jail time through it's high level establishment links.

Case A

Case B


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 27, 2010)

free spirit said:


> Spot the difference...
> 
> Person A is punched in an unprovoked attack and falls backwards, hitting his head on the pavement and dies a week later in hospital after not regaining conciousness. The attack is captured on CCTV.
> 
> ...




Why would you want anyone protecting them?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> Why would you want anyone protecting them?


I think you miss the point - neither party should be above the law due to their establishment links.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 27, 2010)

They were fucking kids after a misplaced laugh, in an happy slap attack that went tragically wrong.

Given that these little ratboys weren't meant to be protecting our streets or could be expected to be models of self control, I actually have a little more sympathy towards them than the copper who might receive a slap on the wrist and dishonourable discharge, a-bleeding-again.


----------



## xes (Jul 27, 2010)

free spirit said:


> Spot the difference...


 Playing spot the difference is no fun when you point out the differences


----------



## free spirit (Jul 27, 2010)

xes said:


> Playing spot the difference is no fun when you point out the differences


better?


----------



## xes (Jul 27, 2010)

much


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2010)

Quartz said:


> More info on the BBC.




The language of the commissioner is interesting, especially his comment that "the incident had 'cast a shadow' on the professionalism of the overwhelming number of staff and officers involved in policing the G20 event."
So, yet again we're being sold the "bad apple" thesis, with little regard paid to the fact that Harwood's actions were ignored by fellow officers who only came forward once it was a clear that a criminal investigation was afoot.

"Bad apples" my arse. This is institutionalised behaviour on the part of the Met (and most other police services), and it'll take more than a disciplinary hearing that ends in a derisory punishment to wash the blood from the MPS's hands.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2010)

Corax said:


> Don't be ridiculous.  If he was forced out of the Met as a result of his conduct it's not like he could just join another force, with the possibility of transferring back to the Met again at a later date!
> 
> Oh, wait...



Well, quite.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Bad apples" my arse. This is institutionalised behaviour on the part of the Met (and most other police services), and it'll take more than a disciplinary hearing that ends in a derisory punishment to wash the blood from the MPS's hands.


 
Exactly my feelings when I saw that... it's not about 'weeding out bad apples' as they continually try and make it, it's about the whole attitude and approach of the police force as an institution - whether it be trying to prevent photographers taking pictures by abusing 'terrorist legislation', to their tactics of preventing protests (kettling, etc).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2010)

Pickman's model][QUOTE=detective-boy said:


> Homophobically abusive post reported.  (Not that anything'll be done about it - there's a well know hierarchy of diversity here - "nigger" or "paki" will get you banned but you can abuse the gays and the Muslims as much as you like ...)


 i'd be grateful if you could explain to me what you found "homophobically abusive" in my post.[/quote]*taps watch*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> *taps watch*



Reports homophobically-abusive post!


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

Quartz said:


> More info on the BBC.



This is interesting:



> On Monday, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said it was "profoundly unsatisfactory" that "a conflict of evidence" led to no charges over Ian Tomlinson's death.



Erm, but Dominic, aren't you responsible for supervising the CPS? Or did you mean that it's all ver ver sad etc, but what's to do sorta thing?

Perhaps you'll get HM Crown Prosecution Services Inspectorate to have a wee look into it, if you think it's "profoundly unsatisfactory"????


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 28, 2010)

EDM tabled by Caroline Lucas:

INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON

That this House notes the public interest and disquiet over the case of Ian Tomlinson and the threat to public trust and confidence in the Police that this case poses; further notes that the Independent Police Complaints Commission failed to investigate this death for seven days and how this failure has undermined public trust and confidence in the police complaints system; further notes the controversy over the appointment of the pathologist, Dr Freddie Patel, and notes the possibility of a conflict of interest in the inquest as currently constituted; therefore, calls upon the Secretary of State for Justice to appoint a judge as coroner to conduct a prompt and effective inquest into the far ranging issues this case raises; and calls upon the Legal Services Commission to provide public funding for Ian Tomlinson's family to be legally represented.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Don't know if DB would agree with your paraphrasing though.


I don't agree with it at all.  As usual it's total misrepresentation.  



> I think even he doesn't feel particularly happy about the outcome of this.  The average person's perspective of the police is going to be even worse after this shoddy CPS decision.


Absolutely.  I'm not happy with the overall outcome at all.  If, as appears to be the case, there was nothing in the seconds before the use of force to justify it, then the officer _should_ be prosecuted criminally and / or through disciplinary process.  

The decision re-manslaughter was evidentially inevitable (as a professional investigator I suspected that would be the case from the moment heart disease and liver disease were mentioned, even without the complications of an incompetent / routine first post mortem).  If they'd gone ahead with it, it probably wouldn't have made it past half time and it certainly wouldn't have led to a conviction that would have survived appeal.  

The Common Assault could not be prosecuted after the 6 month period.  If they deliberately decided not to charge it at the 6 month period I believe that was a mistake.  If they did not consider doing so, that was a fuck up and they should be criticised / sanctioned for it.

As for the ABH, as I have repeatedly posted, the CPS decision and rationale is far less convincing and the only reason they haven't proceeded on that in relation to the baton strike bruise is that it would not be consistent with their own charging standards - _legally_ the injury _would_ be an ABH and in view of (a) their conclusion that the force used was not merited; (b) the evidential difficulties ruling out manslaughter and (c) the inability to prosecute common assault due to time-barring I think they should have exercised their discretion to ignore their charging standards (whcih are policy, not law, and thus there to be broken if it can be justified).  Yes, they'd no doubt have got shit about it being an abuse of process or whatever from the defence, but I would not be at all sure that would have succeeded and, even if it did, they would have been seen to have done _all_ they could to deliver justice.

I have also expressed concerns over how we came to have a "routine" PM done initially by Freddy Patel with, depending on exactly who knew what, when, either the police or the IPCC or the Coroner (or all three) having fucked up (and who should be investigated / prosecuted / disciplined as necessary). 

In short, I have not "defended" the unnecessary use of force at all.  Prior to the CPS report coming out and giving us information about whether there was any justification for the use of force from the few seconds prior to the clip we have all seen I simply pointed out that there _may_ be some, we simply did not know.  After the CPS report has come out I have simply _explained_ the rationale for the decisions they have made (well, tried to, in the face of posters with their fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, la, la.  Can't hear you!!"  ).  I have NOT "defended" the use of force at all.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

past caring said:


>


Which, roughly translated, means:  "Oh right.  You've got a point.  But you're an ex-copper so lets just ignore the fact we've been caught out talking absolute bollocks again and just revert to ACAB ...

Tossers.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> the law is there to serve the issue of right and wrong - not the law (nor those who enforce it, or practice it, for that matter).


Absolutely bizarre.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd be grateful if you could explain to me what you found "homophobically abusive" in my post.


You know perfectly well that you posted what you did to abuse / annoy me by using a term which you perfectly well know is an abusive term for homosexuals.

And you were caught out doing so despite your attempt at clever, clever obfuscation.

You deserved it.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> (excusing not having done so sooner by saying "there was an ongoing court case)


It is absolutely fucking standard practice for disciplinary proceedings to be deferred until after any consideration or prosecution of criminal proceedings to have been completed.  It is for exactly the same reason that inquests are adjourned until after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Otherwise it would risk prejudicing them and result in acquittal.  (And if they are successful there may be no need for disciplinary proceedings or an inquest, saving witnesses additional hassle and public money).

Would you rather prefer impatience and an acquittal over patience and a potential conviction?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

free spirit said:


> Spot the difference...


Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall.  There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.

Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease.  Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.

If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I actually have a little more sympathy towards them than the copper


That's the heart of the matter, isn't it.

You and the other tossers quite simply identify with scum and hate cops.  And _everything_ you say, think and post is predicated by that.  It is prejudice, plain and simple.  And it is pathetic that you even try and deny it.

I _really_ hope that you are the victim of some such scum one day.  You will reap what you sow and that can only be right.


----------



## xes (Jul 28, 2010)

And we all hope you get beat shit of by the police one day, so badly that you die, and nobody ever gets brought to justice.  

Seriously, I've put it on my cosmic ordering list.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> Perhaps you'll get HM Crown Prosecution Services Inspectorate to have a wee look into it, if you think it's "profoundly unsatisfactory"????


Sadly they're not empowered to investigate complaints about specific cases:




			
				HMCPSI said:
			
		

> Please note that HMCPSI is not the complaints authority for the CPS.



... and they're probably on the Govt's quango hitlist anyway!  (Perhaps a couple of random citizens might like to volunteer to carry out the role for nothing ...  )

So far as I am aware, the only means of complaining about such a thing is a complaint to the CPS themselves for internal investigation.

As I have said, the most effective means of challenging their decision making is by Judicial Review.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

xes said:


> And we all hope you get beat shit of by the police one day, so badly that you die, and nobody ever gets brought to justice.


Tell me something fucking new.


----------



## xes (Jul 28, 2010)

you still here?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall.  There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.
> 
> Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease.  Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.
> 
> If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.



And yet someone else is shot to death never having been identified and still no charges. Change the record....


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Someone is punched and falls to the ground, later dying from injuries directly connected with the fall.  There is no problem proving causation proveable between the punch, the fall and the injury which caused death.
> 
> Someone is hit with a blunt instrument and pushed violently from behind, later dying from either internal bleeding, possibly caused by the fall, but possibly caused by some other factor and / or heart disease and / or liver disease.  Although it is clear that the blow and / or the push cased the fall, it is NOT possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt causation between the blow, the push and / or the fall and the cause of death.
> 
> If the facts of the injury / cause of death had been the other way round, the two youths would not have been charged (just like lots of people are not charged in similar situations) and the PC would have been.


that's bullshit and you know it.

the cause and effect in this case couldn't be clearer. The only doubt is cast by the results of the first autopsy which was an attempt at a complete whitewash before video and witness evidence of the incident came to light. The Pathologists who conducted the 2nd and 3rd autopsies (commissioned by the IPCC and Met Police) were in no doubt at all as to what caused Tomlinson's death



> Cary told the Guardian he had "no doubt" what caused the death of Tomlinson, whose body he examined. "The push caused a haemorrhage to the abdomen, and the haemorrhage causes Mr Tomlinson to collapse a minute or two later," he said. "He was vulnerable to this because of the liver disease he had."
> 
> The CPS said it believed it could not convince a jury that the push by the officer had contributed to the death. Cary said: "The only occasion I have seen, from the evidence, that could have caused the abdominal haemorrhage was the shove to the ground by the officer."


 


> A third pathologist, Kenneth Shorrock, commissioned by the Metropolitan police, agreed with Cary's view that the cause of death was an abdominal haemorrhage.



had the met not been able to use their influence to get an incompetent / possibly bent pathologist assigned to the first autopsy to cover up any involvement from their officers in the death there would have been no confusion at all in the medical evidence (or is it your assertion that it was a mere coincidence that such an obviously incompetent pathologist was assigned to such a high profile case?). It's also highly unlikely IMO that the CPS would have decided not to prosecute despite 2/3 pathologist concurring with the dissenting pathologist facing imminent procedings to get him struck off in any case other than one involving a copper.

Had this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Sadly they're not empowered to investigate complaints about specific cases:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You think their boss can't empower them?


----------



## tarannau (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's the heart of the matter, isn't it.
> 
> You and the other tossers quite simply identify with scum and hate cops.  And _everything_ you say, think and post is predicated by that.  It is prejudice, plain and simple.  And it is pathetic that you even try and deny it.
> 
> I _really_ hope that you are the victim of some such scum one day.  You will reap what you sow and that can only be right.


 

Oh please, spare me the moralising you intolerant, ranty nutbag. I don't see what's prejudiced about cutting some immature teenagers a little more slack than a middle aged professional man charged with maintaining law and order. 

I'm not making excuses for either set of  cunts, where you're far too quick to leap to the defence of policemen again and again. There was no reason for that policeman to lose control and attack a defenceless man in the back like that. At least you'd don't expect kids to be patrolling the streets and looking after the public.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

free spirit said:


> that's bullshit and you know it ... the cause and effect in this case couldn't be clearer ... The only doubt is cast by the results of the first autopsy


Make your mind up.  Either it "couldn't be clearer" OR there is some doubt.  You can't have it both ways.  

Read the thread to see my repeated explanation for why the conclusions of the second and third pathologists are irretrievably tainted by the findings of the first.  (And for how the first pathologist was NOT appointed by the Met ...)

[quoteHad this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?[/QUOTE]
Yes.  Read the thread and you'll see the explanation why.  Just because you are unwilling to understand the legal requirements of causation does not mean they are not there.  You may make an argument that the law shouldn't require causation ... but, in my view, that would be fuckwitted and would lead to lots of unjust convictions, based simply on the fact that there was a tragic outcome.  People _should_ only be responsible for the harm that they can be shown to cause.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> You think their boss can't empower them?


They probably _could_, but that is not the way things work, is it?  Agencies suddenly being given responsibilities that they were neither set-up nor resourced to carry out ...


----------



## xes (Jul 28, 2010)

surely it should be the first pathologist report, which is irretrievably tainted by the other 2? Not sure if it's how I read it, or how you wrote it, it sounds like you're saying th first one was right, and the second 2 were wrong.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I don't see what's prejudiced ...


You see, this is _exactly_ what's so fucking annoying about you lot.  You simply cannot bring yourselves to admit the patently bleeding obvious.  If you di we could just dismiss you and move on.  Instead you state things based plainly and simply on prejudice and then don't have the fucking backbone to admit it.

Why are you so pathetic?  Why can't you either (a) stand up for what you believe or (b) stop spouting shite you are unwilling to stand behind?


----------



## xes (Jul 28, 2010)

I am prejudiced against the police. All of them. 

Does this make you happy?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

xes said:


> .. it sounds like you're saying th first one was right, and the second 2 were wrong.


No.  I'm not.  I'm basically saying either could be right, or all three could be wrong, on the basis of the evidence available.

If you bother to read the thread you'll see why.  In short Patel was the ONLY pathologist to see the body when he first cut it open.  He says he found about 3l of fluid in the abdomen.  It may have been blood, it may have been intrabdominal fluid or it may have been a mixture of both (probably the latter, but in what proportion is not known).  No samples were taken.  Patel says it was primarily fluid, with a bit of blood staining.  That would be inconsistent with death by internal bleeding.  The other two _read_ his observations as meaning it was blood.  If it was (entirely, or mostly) that would be consistent with death by internal bleeding.  Patel says they _read_ his observations wrong.  They didn't actually see the fluid (it wan't kept or sampled) so they don;t know for themselves.

What all three DO appear to agree on is that there was no _obvious_ rupture of a blood vessel, organ, etc. which would be consistent with fatal internal bleeding (but sometimes it can come from other not visible causes apparently).  To this extent the conclusion of death by internal bleeding is less than incontroversial.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

xes said:


> Does this make you happy?


If you simply explain your posts / failure to acknowledge other points of view are based on that prejudice and nothing else, yes.  Because it will mean we know there is no point attempting to explain / debate with you.


----------



## xes (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you simply explain your posts / failure to acknowledge other points of view are based on that prejudice and nothing else, yes.  Because it will mean we know there is no point attempting to explain / debate with you.


 
But it's not just based on prejudices (I was playing along, y'see) It's also based on the fact that time and time again, police get away with breaking the law. The very laws that they are employed to uphold. And until you see that point, there's no point in debating with you.


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They probably _could_, but that is not the way things work, is it?  Agencies suddenly being given responsibilities that they were neither set-up nor resourced to carry out ...



Well, I only mentioned it because he said it was "profoundly unsatisfactory". He has the wherewithal to have a look into it.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

xes said:


> It's also based on the fact that time and time again, police get away with breaking the law. The very laws that they are employed to uphold. And until you see that point, there's no point in debating with you.


I can see that point to a certain extent.  There _are_ (unfortunately) cases in which police officers "get away with" breaking the law (i.e. there IS sufficient evidence that *a* police officer did something unlawful but insufficient evidence to prove that *a particular* police officer did something unlawful or that (more rarely) there IS sufficient evidence that a particular police officer did something unlawful and for some reason it is decided not to prosecute them).  But the first situation is just as is the case for everyone else - there are lots of other crimes which are not prosecuted because we can't prove who did it and it is hardly any sort of technicality or conspiracy.  And there is no alternative - what do you suggest, just picking someone who happened to be there and summarily convicting them?  The second situation is, in my view, indefensible.  If there IS sufficient evidence a police officer should always be prosecuted.  Full stop.  It is why I am not at all happy that there has been no prosecution for ABH / Common Assault in this case. There should have been.

But I suspect you are not just taking about these two categories of case.  I suspect you are talking about cases where there is a tragic outcome which you ASSUME means there must be some criminal act and where an investigation / consideration of the evidence / inquest concludes that there is insufficient evidence of a crime (or, frequently, positively proves that a crime has NOT happened).  In that case no police officer has "got away" with breaking the law or anything else - the law has not, so far as can be proven, been broken.  No matter how tragic the outcome.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  I'm not.  I'm basically saying either could be right, or all three could be wrong, on the basis of the evidence available.
> 
> If you bother to read the thread you'll see why.  In short Patel was the ONLY pathologist to see the body when he first cut it open.  He says he found about 3l of fluid in the abdomen.  It may have been blood, it may have been intrabdominal fluid or it may have been a mixture of both (probably the latter, but in what proportion is not known).  No samples were taken.  Patel says it was primarily fluid, with a bit of blood staining.  That would be inconsistent with death by internal bleeding.  The other two _read_ his observations as meaning it was blood.  If it was (entirely, or mostly) that would be consistent with death by internal bleeding.  Patel says they _read_ his observations wrong.  They didn't actually see the fluid (it wan't kept or sampled) so they don;t know for themselves.
> 
> What all three DO appear to agree on is that there was no _obvious_ rupture of a blood vessel, organ, etc. which would be consistent with fatal internal bleeding (but sometimes it can come from other not visible causes apparently).  To this extent the conclusion of death by internal bleeding is less than incontroversial.


_a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. *If that's not ABH I would like to know what is*."_ source


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> He has the wherewithal to have a look into it.


He certainly has ... but I think through some one-off arrangement rather than by using HMCPSI who's job it is not and who probably don't have the necessary expertise.  (Sounds like a job for a judge to be honest).


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He certainly has ... but I think through some one-off arrangement rather than by using HMCPSI who's job it is not and who probably don't have the necessary expertise.  (Sounds like a job for a judge to be honest).



Well I hope he does appoint someone, if he's _that_ disappointed with the decision.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> *If that's not ABH I would like to know what is*."[/I] source


Er ... yes.  And seeing as that is _exactly_ what I have said from the outset about their decision re-ABH (i.e. that they have made it on their Charging Standard policy guidance and not on the legal definition), your point is ... 

And why post that in response to a quote from me which discusses causation of death when it is on an entirely different point?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> Well I hope he does appoint someone, if he's _that_ disappointed with the decision.


I agree.  There's lots to look at in relation to the arrangements for the first PM too (again as I have repeatedly said).  But don't hold your breath.  If it goes the same way as everything else seems to be they'll probably ask if there's a couple of NEETS with a few days spare who'd like to volunteer to do it for nothing ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 28, 2010)

oh, and on the "reliability" of patel's evidence:

_The confusion about the fluid and the improperly kept records largely swings on a single word, according to the CPS report. In his first report, written on 3 April 2009, Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 31 with small blood clot". *This, the CPS notes, would have accounted for around 60% of Tomlinson's blood volume and would "have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death*".

But three days later, Patel wrote a new report in which he claimed that he had found "intraabdominal fluid WITH blood"._ source

strange how patel's wording was subsequently amended to fit his findings isn't it? no evidence of any cover-ups there is there, oh no?


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

I wonder how Patel disposed of the fluid.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can see that point to a certain extent.  There _are_ (unfortunately) cases in which police officers "get away with" breaking the law (i.e. there IS sufficient evidence that *a* police officer did something unlawful but insufficient evidence to prove that *a particular* police officer did something unlawful or that (more rarely) there IS sufficient evidence that a particular police officer did something unlawful and for some reason it is decided not to prosecute them).  But the first situation is just as is the case for everyone else - there are lots of other crimes which are not prosecuted because we can't prove who did it and it is hardly any sort of technicality or conspiracy.  And there is no alternative - what do you suggest, just picking someone who happened to be there and summarily convicting them?  The second situation is, in my view, indefensible.  If there IS sufficient evidence a police officer should always be prosecuted.  Full stop.  It is why I am not at all happy that there has been no prosecution for ABH / Common Assault in this case. There should have been.
> 
> But I suspect you are not just taking about these two categories of case.  I suspect you are talking about cases where there is a tragic outcome which you ASSUME means there must be some criminal act and where an investigation / consideration of the evidence / inquest concludes that there is insufficient evidence of a crime (or, frequently, positively proves that a crime has NOT happened).  In that case no police officer has "got away" with breaking the law or anything else - the law has not, so far as can be proven, been broken.  No matter how tragic the outcome.



And clearly there is clear evidence in this case that the now named officer clearly did break the law. This is not in doubt even if, like you clearly do, you agree re the doubts said clearly visible physical assault caused the death. There is video evidence clearly showing physical assault. So in this case, even if you accept the lack of a clear causal link with death, that the named plod got away with it because he clearly physically assaulted an entirely innocent man and is not even to be charged with assault occasioning ABH. You clearly agree with that, as such what reason do you think there have been no charges brought against the police officer?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Make your mind up.  Either it "couldn't be clearer" OR there is some doubt.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Read the thread to see my repeated explanation for why the conclusions of the second and third pathologists are irretrievably tainted by the findings of the first.  (And for how the first pathologist was NOT appointed by the Met ...)


any doubt that there is relies on the evidence of a pathologist who's currently suspended and involved in a misconduct hearing at the GMC involving 26 charges for which he is almost certain to be struck off, therefore it would not be reasonable to rely on this evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the cause of death given that 2 separate pathologists not facing any disciplinary charges concur with each other as to the cause of death.

I never said the 1st pathologist was appointed by the met, I said that they used their influence to get him (or presumably AN Other tame pathologist) appointed. I also gave another option of it being entirely random that such a tame / incompetent / probably bent pathologist happened to be appointed to such a high profile case, and just happened to produce an autopsy that wrongly exonerated the met by coming up with natural causes, and actually managed to somehow write off 3 litres of blood found where it shouldn't have been next to an internal wound as not being the cause of death.

so, in your opinion was it pure chance, or was it a deliberate part of an attempted establishment cover up that such an incompetent pathologist was appointed?




			
				detective-boy;10917811[quoteHad this gone to court can you honestly argue that any sane jury would have been left in any reasonable doubt about the medical evidence (assuming a half competent prosecution team)?[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Yes.  Read the thread and you'll see the explanation why.  Just because you are unwilling to understand the legal requirements of causation does not mean they are not there.  You may make an argument that the law shouldn't require causation ... but, in my view, that would be fuckwitted and would lead to lots of unjust convictions, based simply on the fact that there was a tragic outcome.  People _should_ only be responsible for the harm that they can be shown to cause.





detective-boy said:


> But there does still have to be a chain of causation, eggshell skull or not.



the chain of causation is clear though. There's a witness statement saying that he was hit in the stomach with a batton, then witness and video evidence of him being pushed forcefully to the ground seconds later by the same officer, then minutes later he's found collapsed close to the scene of him being attacked by the officer, and postmortem evidence from 2 pathologists saying that he died as a result of internal bleeding from wounds consistent with those likely to result from the attack minutes earlier.

The only potential flaw in the chain of causation (other than the contradictory statement from the dodgy soon to be struck off pathologist) here would be an arguement that he may have been injured by someone else at some point in the minutes between him being attacked by the police and dying. Given the profile of the incident though, and the number of witnesses crowding the area, the chances of this happening without a single witness or piece of photo or video evidence of it happening should easily be considered to be so slim as to not provide reasonable doubt.

bottom line, the evidence here including the chain of causation is easily strong enough to have justified being taken to court and prosecuted to allow a jury to determine whether or not it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the CPS deciding this internally, and denying Tomlinson and his family access to the justice they should be guaranteed in any free and democratic society.


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

So, did he just pour in down the sink or something?


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ).  But the first situation is just as is the case for everyone else - there are lots of other crimes which are not prosecuted because we can't prove who did it and it is hardly any sort of technicality or *conspiracy*.  And there is no alternative - what do you suggest, just picking someone who happened to be there and summarily convicting them?


go on then DB, explain exactly how the met's long running policy of ensuring that the only officers to have their numbers displayed when on protest / riot duty are sergeants and above (IIRC, maybe it's higher than sergeants?) is not a long running conspiracy by the met to protect their officers from any charges that could result from any of their individual actions while on riot/protest duty?

what other justification can you possibly come up with for why this has been the met's policy for decades to the point that they even carried it on in Scotland at the G8 where such actions are actually illegal under scottish law?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> oh, and on the "reliability" of patel's evidence:


Again you quote something which is _exactly_ what I have posted.  What the fuck is it with you lot - you can't even bring yourselves to say "Oh yeah, you're right" when you find something which fucking proves what I have been saying ... 



> strange how patel's wording was subsequently amended to fit his findings isn't it? no evidence of any cover-ups there is there, oh no?


It would have been stranger if he had insisted it was all / mainly blood (and thus a clear indication of a potential cause of death by internal bleeding) if he hadn't even considered that in his initial report.  Pathologists, like all doctors, tend to abbreviate things in their reports (especially if they are routine ones) and I have seen things like "intrabdominal fluid blood" which _could_ mean "intrabdominalfluid *and* blood" or "intrabdominal fluid *with* blood" or "intrabdominal fluid */*blood" or any number of other things dozens of times and had to send them back for clarification.

It's sloppy.  It's not evidence of any "conspiracy".


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> I wonder how Patel disposed of the fluid.


It was probably poured away immediately it's volume was measured.  That would be the standard practice at a routine PM if not sample was considered necessary.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You see, this is _exactly_ what's so fucking annoying about you lot.  You simply cannot bring yourselves to admit the patently bleeding obvious.  If you di we could just dismiss you and move on.  Instead you state things based plainly and simply on prejudice and then don't have the fucking backbone to admit it.
> 
> Why are you so pathetic?  Why can't you either (a) stand up for what you believe or (b) stop spouting shite you are unwilling to stand behind?


do you see yourself as being entirely unbiased?


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It was probably poured away immediately it's volume was measured.  That would be the standard practice at a routine PM if not sample was considered necessary.


 
Poured away where? (Seems a bit insanitary)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> You clearly agree with that...



Yes, _clearly_ I do.  Look at what I have posted on the point:



detective-boy said:


> I'm not happy with the overall outcome at all.  If, as appears to be the case, there was nothing in the seconds before the use of force to justify it, then the officer _should_ be prosecuted criminally and / or through disciplinary process.
> 
> ...
> 
> As for the ABH, as I have repeatedly posted, the CPS decision and rationale is far less convincing and the only reason they haven't proceeded on that in relation to the baton strike bruise is that it would not be consistent with their own charging standards - _legally_ the injury _would_ be an ABH and in view of (a) their conclusion that the force used was not merited; (b) the evidential difficulties ruling out manslaughter and (c) the inability to prosecute common assault due to time-barring *I think they should have exercised their discretion to ignore their charging standards* (whcih are policy, not law, and thus there to be broken if it can be justified).  Yes, they'd no doubt have got shit about it being an abuse of process or whatever from the defence, but I would not be at all sure that would have succeeded and, even if it did, they would have been seen to have done _all_ they could to deliver justice.


 
... Oh no.  Hang on a minute ...

Why the *fuck* can't you READ what I actually fucking post instead of making up what I have posted.   :mad 

And you wonder why I end up throwing fucks into you.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 28, 2010)

There's no way on earth I'm actually participating in this thread, but 


detective-boy said:


> throwing fucks into you


made me


----------



## the button (Jul 28, 2010)

Readers of this thread may be interested to know that it is now possible to donate to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign via PayPal. Link from here: -

http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/

That is all.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

free spirit said:


> any doubt that there is relies on the evidence of a pathologist who's currently suspended and involved in a misconduct hearing at the GMC involving 26 charges for which he is almost certain to be struck off, therefore it would not be reasonable to rely on this evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the cause of death given that 2 separate pathologists not facing any disciplinary charges concur with each other as to the cause of death.


Yes, of course it would.  The fact he is discredited undermines _anything_ he says.  And they unavoidably _have_ to rely on what he says as the basis for their conclusions.  Which are therefore tainted with doubt.  If he said something different and they came to their conclusions entirely on the basis of their own observations (i.e. what they saw for themselves and not what he told them he saw) then I'd agree (as would the CPS - they discuss the point in detail in their report) ... but they don't unfortunately.



> ...and actually managed to somehow write off 3 litres of blood found where it shouldn't have been next to an internal wound as not being the cause of death.


(a) You are ASSUMING it was blood and he is lying when he says it was a mix (mainly intrabdominal fluid).  There is NO evidence to this effect at all.  Nor any suggestion from anyone that he is lying.
(b) He did NOT find any "internal wound".  They did not find any "internal wound" either.  None of them are able to say where any blood in the mix came from.  It is _far_ less likely that 3l of blood appeared without their being a clear rupture than if a lesser amount (as suggested by Patel).  The absence of an obvious rupture mitigates _against_ the internal bleeding cause of death. 



> so, in your opinion was it pure chance, or was it a deliberate part of an attempted establishment cover up that such an incompetent pathologist was appointed?


My guess would be chance.  But I do not know and nor do you (or anyone else in the public domain).  He was not on the Home Office approved list for "special" post mortems but it wasn't a "special" post mortem (there are issues about why not for the police / IPCC / Coroner to answer).  He was NOT, however, suspended entirely and hence he was available for "routine" post mortems.  They run a rota / on-call system.  The Coroner / the Coroner's Officer (not a police officer any more, usually a local authority employee) would simply call the one scheduled to work.

As I have said from the outset, the very LAST pathologist any Met investigating officer would call would be Patel.  (I refused to let him anywhere near a body of mine ten years ago, even when he was still on the Home Office list ...)



> the chain of causation is clear though.


No.  It simply isn't. 



> The only potential flaw in the chain of causation (other than the contradictory statement from the dodgy soon to be struck off pathologist) here would be an arguement that he may have been injured by someone else at some point in the minutes between him being attacked by the police and dying. Given the profile of the incident though, and the number of witnesses crowding the area, the chances of this happening without a single witness or piece of photo or video evidence of it happening should easily be considered to be so slim as to not provide reasonable doubt.


No-one is saying that.  Why are you making things up that are simply not being said?  



> bottom line, the evidence here including the chain of causation is easily strong enough to have justified being taken to court and prosecuted to allow a jury to determine whether or not it was proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the CPS deciding this internally, and denying Tomlinson and his family access to the justice they should be guaranteed in any free and democratic society.


No, it isn't.

There is certainly an argument that either the CPS decided wrongly on the likelihood of it being fatal to a conviction.  Or that in such cases the sufficiency of evidence test they apply shouldn't apply.  But no lawyer would tell you that it would be a case likely to succeed.  Quite the contrary.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> So, did he just pour in down the sink or something?


Probably.


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Probably.


 
Makes me wonder just what gets into our water supply.

I find that a bit hard to believe though (I'm not saying I don't believe you) ... any kind of body fluid could be contaminated.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

free spirit said:


> go on then DB, explain exactly how the met's long running policy of ensuring that the only officers to have their numbers displayed when on protest / riot duty are sergeants and above (IIRC, maybe it's higher than sergeants?) is not a long running conspiracy by the met to protect their officers from any charges that could result from any of their individual actions while on riot/protest duty?


It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well.  The _vast_ majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done.  They also now have numbers on riot helmets.  

(And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really _do_ demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...) 

Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

free spirit said:


> do you see yourself as being entirely unbiased?


Not particularly.  But I try and recognise my biases and not let them affect the objectivity of my explanations.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> Poured away where? (Seems a bit insanitary)


Mortuaries obviously have appropriate hygiene arrangements in place for contaminated fluids and stuff ... but I won't pretend to know what they are ...

When you cut open a body blood and fluid comes out.  There are drains on the tables.  They are hosed down.  Stuff is poured down the drains if it is not needed.  I _assume_ it is collected somehow and disposed of in an appropriate way.  How does this make any difference?


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Mortuaries obviously have appropriate hygiene arrangements in place for contaminated fluids and stuff ... but I won't pretend to know what they are ...
> 
> When you cut open a body blood and fluid comes out.  There are drains on the tables.  They are hosed down.  Stuff is poured down the drains if it is not needed.  I _assume_ it is collected somehow and disposed of in an appropriate way.  How does this make any difference?



I was just wondering in case there was a procedure for disposal that might have involved other people being part of the process. It doesn't seem like it though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2010)

cesare said:


> I was just wondering in case there was a procedure for disposal that might have involved other people being part of the process. It doesn't seem like it though.



Some wastes (including fluids) are incinerated.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well.  The _vast_ majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done.  They also now have numbers on riot helmets.
> 
> (And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really _do_ demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...)
> 
> Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.


right, well from personal experience I can tell you that the not a single met officer below the rank of sergeant out of the thousand or so who were involved in kettling trafalgar square at the mayday protest in 2000 was wearing a visible number, and after I'd made a point of asking why not at each side of the square, I was told by one of the sergeants that it was met policy that only sergeants wore numbers on riot duty (or it could have been that it was only a requirement for sergeants to display their numbers, something like that).

At J18 in 1999, I remember the change from officers with numbers displayed to officers in riot gear with their numbers removed / hidden

In 2005 at the G8 protest camp in stirling, I discussed this in person with the chief superintendant* of the local police force (I forget which force it was now), who was at least as pissed off with the met as I was for their behaviour up there, and it was he who pointed out to me the fact that the entire met contingent had been ordered to remove their numbers despite him pointing out to his opposite number that it was actually a legal requirement in scotland for officers to have their numbers visible.

And then at these protests it's clear that it was policy for the Met officers to cover / not display their numbers.

ffs the met distribute specific white plastic things to fit where the numbers would normally be, and they all wear them, so are you really attempting to argue that this is not a longstanding official met policy?

I may not be an expert on the exact dress requirements of each rank of the met, but I know what I've seen and been told repeatedly over a 15 year period.

btw, these numbers on the riot helmets... would these be displayed on the front or the back of the helmets?


*I think


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Not particularly.  But I try and recognise my biases and not let them affect the objectivity of my explanations.


 
ok, and do you accept that you might not actually be as successful in this as you might hope to be?


----------



## cesare (Jul 28, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some wastes (including fluids) are incinerated.



Ah, right. It would be interesting to know the process here in case there were other witnesses (doubtful though).


----------



## free spirit (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The [*I]vast[/I] majority *of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done.  They also now have numbers on riot helmets.


actually I see what you've done there, very clever.

yes I agree with you that the vast majority of officers on protests probably do have their numbers displayed, but this doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority (in many cases all) of the teams that are deployed when things start to kick off / they expect them to kick off do not have their numbers displayed other than their sergeants.

this may not have been the case in the particular bit that you controlled, but it absolutely is the case for such large sections of the met over such a long time period that it can't possibly be anything other than an officially sanctioned policy.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes, _clearly_ I do.  Look at what I have posted on the point:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oi you ranting twat, I ackowledge you did. I simply asked why you think they didn't charge the officer when there was/is CLEAR evidence that the officer broke the law. I never questioned or claimed that you didn't say this, indeed look at what I said 





> And clearly there is clear evidence in this case that the now named officer clearly did break the law. This is not in doubt even if, like you clearly do, you agree re the doubts said clearly visible physical assault caused the death. There is video evidence clearly showing physical assault. So in this case, even if you accept the lack of a clear causal link with death, that the named plod got away with it because he clearly physically assaulted an entirely innocent man and is not even to be charged with assault occasioning ABH. You clearly agree with that, as such what reason do you think there have been no charges brought against the police officer?



I asked what reason you think there could be given a crime was clearly evidently filmed and witnessed. I never once said you didn't say this..... So, less of the hissy fits and perhaps a simple reply to a simple question??


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well.  The _vast_ majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done.  They also now have numbers on riot helmets.


 
And yet even when they are filmed with no number showing, and that footage is being played in the background of the studio, senior police officers deny it happens, as happened after the G8 demo in Scotland in 2005.... Ho hum....


----------



## sus (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...
> 
> 
> My guess would be chance.  But I do not know and nor do you (or anyone else in the public domain).  *He was not on the Home Office approved list for "special" post mortems but it wasn't a "special" post mortem* (there are issues about why not for the police / IPCC / Coroner to answer).  He was NOT, however, suspended entirely and hence he was available for "routine" post mortems.  They run a rota / on-call system.  The Coroner / the Coroner's Officer (not a police officer any more, usually a local authority employee) would simply call the one scheduled to work.
> ...



Seems like ex Royal Household Deputy Coroner Prof Paul Matthews was treating it as a special case, maybe too special eh? or would you say these refusals and omissions are normal practice for a coroner? Appointing an unreliable pathologist has caused a de facto obstruction of the course of justice hasn't it? 

"The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009. Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You know perfectly well that you posted what you did to abuse / annoy me by using a term which you perfectly well know is an abusive term for homosexuals.
> 
> And you were caught out doing so despite your attempt at clever, clever obfuscation.
> 
> You deserved it.


you're clearly not a south park fan, and your telepathic abilities leave much to be desired.

as for deserving it, i wouldn't even have noticed it if i hadn't tried to log in to check my pms.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 28, 2010)




----------



## winjer (Jul 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really _do_ demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...


Historically correct, however one thing that has changed since the G20 is that Inspectors (and presumably above) now have what appears to be their warrant number on their epaulettes, next to their pips.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> ... I was told by one of the sergeants that it was met policy that only sergeants wore numbers on riot duty (or it could have been that it was only a requirement for sergeants to display their numbers, something like that)...


You hate the fuckers ... and yet you accept every word they say ... 



> ffs the met distribute specific white plastic things to fit where the numbers would normally be, and they all wear them, so are you really attempting to argue that this is not a longstanding official met policy?


There are no "white plastic things fitted where the numbers would normally be".  There are a variety of coloured flashes which fit over the epaulettes to denote various things (rank, specialist skill) ... but the numbers are then applied OVER them (the white ones weren't one of the brightest idea as obviously silver metal numbers don't show up very well on white background).



> I may not be an expert on the exact dress requirements of each rank of the met, but I know what I've seen and been told repeatedly over a 15 year period.


You can "know" what you like: there IS no policy, Met or otherwise, to the effect that officers on riot duty don't wear numbers.  They may not enforce it as well as they could (which is, as I have posted numerous times before, simply inexcusable), but the Commissioner bemoans the fact that some officers don't appear to comply with the requirement to wear their numbers every time the issue comes up ... hardly something he'd do if he'd told them not to ...




			
				Kit Malthouse MPA said:
			
		

> “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”


 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...lice-should-be-punished-for-covering-up-id.do



> btw, these numbers on the riot helmets... would these be displayed on the front or the back of the helmets?


The back.  They don't identify the individual officer (unless they have changed things recently, but do identify the Force, Unit and rank sometimes).





The MP = Metropolitan Police.  The QK = a Brent unit, GD = a Hackney unit, NI = an Islington unit.  You can see sgt stripes on some (who are also wearuing the white shoulder flashes I mentioned - the white ones are for sgts).  And I think you can just about make out the numbers on the epaulettes of the officers nearest the camera, including on top of the white flashes.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> ok, and do you accept that you might not actually be as successful in this as you might hope to be?


Not really.  I am as successful as I think anyone can be who comes from a particular background.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> Ah, right. It would be interesting to know the process here in case there were other witnesses (doubtful though).


There would be at least one or two mortuary assistants assisting with even a routine post mortem.  They would probably have been responsible for measuring the volume of fluid, perhaps even for removing it from the abdomen under the instructions of the pathologist.  They would not be medically qualified and it would be doubtful whether they would be able to give any meaningful evidence of the nature of the fluid (though if experienced they may well be able to identify it as entirely or mainly blood or not).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> yes I agree with you that the vast majority of officers on protests probably do have their numbers displayed


Why would they do that if it is official policy not to?   



> ...it can't possibly be anything other than an officially sanctioned policy.


Yes it can.  And it is.  It is gobshite officers who think they can get away with it steadily pushing the boundaries and when one or two get away with it, more start.  And it is incompetent / pathetic first line supervisors (sergeants and inspectors) failing to do their jobs properly.  And it is senior officers failing to hold the first line supervisors to account for failing to do their jobs properly.  It is shit policing and shit supervision ... _exactly_ what is behind a lot of the problems with ordinary policing.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I ackowledge you did.


I'm sorry.  I misunderstood what you were telling me I clearly agreed with - I'm still not 100% clear from the original post - and I though you were saying I thought the officer had "got away" with the manslaughter.



> I simply asked why you think they didn't charge the officer when there was/is CLEAR evidence that the officer broke the law.


In relation to the ABH the CPS said they didn't charge for the only injury that _they_ considered ABH (by their charging standards) because that would be the internal bleeding (which suffered from exactly the same causation issues as when considering it as part of the manslaughter evidence - as it would as it is exactly the same injury).  They didn't mention even considering the pattern bruising from the baton strike as an ABH as whilst that would amount to an ABH in law, it would NOT according to their charging standards.  That is what Nat Carey criticises them for and it is what I have criticised them for.  Their Charging Standards are _policy_ not law and they _could_ have found exceptional circumstances and ignored them (though they would undoubtedly have got shit from the defence if they had).  As a result the only charge they considered in relation to the bruising was Common Assault and, as that is summary only, it was out of time (there is a six-month prosecution time limit on summary only offences).  It is not plain whether at the six month stage the actively considered charging common assault and choose not to (which, if they did, I think they could be criticised for) or whether they didn't even think about it until the end of the case by which time it was too late (which they certainly should be criticised / sanctioned for).

All of this has been posted by me several times before.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> And yet even when they are filmed with no number showing, and that footage is being played in the background of the studio, senior police officers deny it happens, as happened after the G8 demo in Scotland in 2005.... Ho hum....


Then they are fucking idiots.  It happens.  It always has happened a bit.  It appears it has become a lot more widespread in recent years (due, no doubt, to a failure by first line supervisors to properly supervise their officers).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

sus said:


> Seems like ex Royal Household Deputy Coroner Prof Paul Matthews was treating it as a special case, maybe too special eh? or would you say these refusals and omissions are normal practice for a coroner? Appointing an unreliable pathologist has caused a de facto obstruction of the course of justice hasn't it?
> 
> "The Guardian has learned that Matthews refused to allow investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to attend the first postmortem, two days after Tomlinson's death at the G20 protest in April 2009. Furthermore, it was alleged today that the coroner did not tell the Tomlinson family of their legal right to attend or send a representative to the postmortem, nor of its time and place."


Why are you asking me questions about things I have repeatedly already posted about?  Read the fucking thread.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

winjer said:


> Historically correct, however one thing that has changed since the G20 is that Inspectors (and presumably above) now have what appears to be their warrant number on their epaulettes, next to their pips.


I have seen warrant numbers on some sewn epaulettes ... but I am not sure that is a universal approach to the issue (or, seeing as they are six digits long and, hence, the numerals are inevitably going to be very small, a realistic or helpful one).  In many county forces inspectors and about all keep their shoulder numbers regardless of rank (even though they don't usually display them with their pips, etc.) but in the Met they have never issued a shoulder number to Inspectors or above (or to detectives of any rank ... which causes issues when in exceptional circumstances they are hurriedly deployed to bolster uniform branch).


----------



## the button (Jul 29, 2010)

Will you be giving a few quid to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, d-b?

http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/

PayPal link on the front page.

I think it would be good for the family to have the resources to have a chance to explore every legal channel.


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There would be at least one or two mortuary assistants assisting with even a routine post mortem.  They would probably have been responsible for measuring the volume of fluid, perhaps even for removing it from the abdomen under the instructions of the pathologist.  They would not be medically qualified and it would be doubtful whether they would be able to give any meaningful evidence of the nature of the fluid (though if experienced they may well be able to identify it as entirely or mainly blood or not).


 
Would they have been asked, do you think?


----------



## sus (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why are you asking me questions about things I have repeatedly already posted about?  Read the fucking thread.


 
You may have posted "about" the questions, but you haven't answered them. Is it usual for a coroner to *refuse to allow the IPCC* to be present at a "routine" post mortem, or do you think that this is in some way "special" treatment?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

the button said:


> Will you be giving a few quid to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, d-b?


Like I'm _really_ going to answer that ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have seen warrant numbers on some sewn epaulettes ... but I am not sure that is a universal approach to the issue (or, seeing as they are six digits long and, hence, the numerals are inevitably going to be very small, a realistic or helpful one).  In many county forces inspectors and about all keep their shoulder numbers regardless of rank (even though they don't usually display them with their pips, etc.) but in the Met they have never issued a shoulder number to Inspectors or above (or to detectives of any rank ... which causes issues when in exceptional circumstances they are hurriedly deployed to bolster uniform branch).


fortunately modern photographic technology allows clear pictures to be taken from some distance away now that the daguerreotype is no longer considered 'cutting edge'.

in addition, your information is dated: for example, an mps inspector on this year's 'may day' parade proudly displayed his warrant number on his epaulettes. i have seen a picture of the gentleman.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Like I'm _really_ going to answer that ...


 
Why not?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> Would they have been asked, do you think?


No idea.  Depends how thoroughly the CPS wanted that angle investigated.  And whether they anticipated that anything they could say woud be of any use (which may or may not have been the case). I suspect not - in formal statements anyway, they may have been contacted to see if there was anything on value they could recall.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Like I'm _really_ going to answer that ...


i thought you'd be able to spell 'no'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It isn't the fucking Met's "policy" at all as you know perfectly well.  The _vast_ majority of police officers on all protests have their numbers displayed and always have done.  They also now have numbers on riot helmets.
> 
> (And when you suggest that the policy is actually officers "higher than sergeants" you really _do_ demonstrate your ignorance - officers above sergeant don't HAVE fucking numbers ...)
> 
> Yet again you are talking absolute bollocks and, in doing so, entirely undermining any seriousness with which anyone takes you.


in 1866 the reform league advised their supporters attending a demonstration in central london to bring pencil and paper with them to note the numbers of violent officers.

as for having numbers on nato helmets (which i assume is what you mean by 'riot helmets'), you may have noticed that they are on the back. which is very useful if you are behind the officers in question but not so efficacious for those in front.

you say in another post that sometimes inspectors wear their warrant number on their epaulettes. this does suggest that they do indeed have numbers which are unique identifiers, even if they do not indicate the borough (or unit) from whence they came.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

sus said:


> You may have posted "about" the questions, but you haven't answered them. Is it usual for a coroner to *refuse to allow the IPCC* to be present at a "routine" post mortem, or do you think that this is in some way "special" treatment?


I have posted about that, when the Guardian report was first quoted ... but if you can't be bothered to look for it ...

It makes no sense, the Guardian report about the IPCC being refused access to the PM.  If it was routine PM the IPCC would simply not be interested.  If the IPCC _were_ interested, it implies that the matter _had_ been referred to them, in which case it _was_being dealt with as a death following police contact, in which case it _should_ have been a "special" PM.  The question is "Did the IPCC request a "special" PM?"  If they did, and the Coroner refused, that would be highly irregular (and should have led to the IPCC challenging the Coroner's decision).  If they did not, and yet they were interested in the case, that was incompetent and they should have done and whoever's decision that was fucked up and should be dealt with. 

As for the reports that the _family_ were not allowed to be present at the PM ... I have _never_ known a family be present at a PM.  I cannot think of a worse experience for a family to go through - seeing the deceased's face pulled back from the skull, the top of the skull cut off with a grinder and the brain sectioned and all the rest.  If the report meant they had some right to be represented at the PM, or to have their own pathologist there or something, I am not aware of any such right (though there has been steady increase in rights in relation to _inquests_ (which are not PMs) over the last few years and it may have been added whilst I haven't been looking).  I have _never_ known a family present or represented at a PM and I don't think there is any such right though ... and you might have expected Liberty to mention it if it existed ... and they don't:  http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...stigations-into-deaths/inquest-procedure.html


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Why not?


Have you stopped beating your wife?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have posted about that, when the Guardian report was first quoted ... but if you can't be bothered to look for it ...
> 
> It makes no sense, the Guardian report about the IPCC being refused access to the PM.  If it was routine PM the IPCC would simply not be interested.  If the IPCC _were_ interested, it implies that the matter _had_ been referred to them, in which case it _was_being dealt with as a death following police contact, in which case it _should_ have been a "special" PM.  The question is "Did the IPCC request a "special" PM?"  If they did, and the Coroner refused, that would be highly irregular (and should have led to the IPCC challenging the Coroner's decision).  If they did not, and yet they were interested in the case, that was incompetent and they should have done and whoever's decision that was fucked up and should be dealt with.
> 
> As for the reports that the _family_ were not allowed to be present at the PM ... I have _never_ known a family be present at a PM.  I cannot think of a worse experience for a family to go through - seeing the deceased's face pulled back from the skull, the top of the skull cut off with a grinder and the brain sectioned and all the rest.  If the report meant they had some right to be represented at the PM, or to have their own pathologist there or something, I am not aware of any such right (though there has been steady increase in rights in relation to _inquests_ (which are not PMs) over the last few years and it may have been added whilst I haven't been looking).  I have _never_ known a family present or represented at a PM and I don't think there is any such right though ... and you might have expected Liberty to mention it if it existed ... and they don't:  http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...stigations-into-deaths/inquest-procedure.html


 
for someone who affects to have been a homicide investigator your knowledge of the post-death investigation seems strangely limited. i found this within 30 seconds of seeing your post here quoted: http://www.knifecrimes.org/post-mortem.html

which clearly states that the family have a right to be represented, although they may only be present if they are a qualified medico.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> as for having numbers on nato helmets (which i assume is what you mean by 'riot helmets'), you may have noticed that they are on the back.


You mean like I posted ... 



> this does suggest that they do indeed have numbers which are unique identifiers, even if they do not indicate the borough (or unit) from whence they came.


We were referring to shoulder numbers.

You really are a fucking objectionable, supercillious waste of oxygen and fucking bandwidth, aren't you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Have you stopped beating your wife?


can you keep on-topic - y/n


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We were referring to shoulder numbers.


yes, the numbers to which i was referring were on the shoulder which is where you would expect to find epaulettes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You really are a fucking objectionable, supercillious waste of oxygen and fucking bandwidth, aren't you.


i ask again: can you keep on-topic - y/n


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i found this within 30 seconds of seeing your post here quoted: http://www.knifecrimes.org/post-mortem.html


Fucking hell!  Pickman's model posts something fucking useful!!!   Hold the front page!  

Thank you for that.  It is a surprisingly informative source for the Home Office (who have recently upgraded their whole website ... I hope it's all like this ...).  As I did point out, the rights of families of the deceased have been increased recently and this must be one of the new ones.  (The right of an _accused_ to be represented has been there for donkeys years).

(ETA: On researching it, apparently not - it's in Rule 7 of the Coroner's Rules 1984.  I knew that the Coroner had to inform the family of the deceased, I hadn't realised that they had the right to be represented at the first PM.  I _never_ encountered any that were.  You learn something every day!)

(ETA: Despite appearances, it's not a Home Office designed site but one from an independent Charity.  So much for the hopes that all the Home Office site was going to be so clear and informative following their re-vamp ...  )


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fucking hell!  Pickman's model posts something fucking useful!!!   Hold the front page!


if you have anything on-topic to add i would be interested to hear it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Have you stopped beating your wife?


 
I don't have a wife. I didn't ask you a leading question, either. I asked why you could not openly say whether you would or would not support the Tomlinson campaign.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't have a wife. I didn't ask you a leading question, either. I asked why you could not openly say whether you would or would not support the Tomlinson campaign.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question


 
But it still isn't a loaded question. I'm not asking you to condemn the Met, the CPS nor the officers involved. I'm asking if you support the family's campaign for an enquiry into the whole mess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why would they do that if it is official policy not to?
> 
> 
> Yes it can.  And it is.  It is gobshite officers who think they can get away with it steadily pushing the boundaries and when one or two get away with it, more start.  And it is incompetent / pathetic first line supervisors (sergeants and inspectors) failing to do their jobs properly.  And it is senior officers failing to hold the first line supervisors to account for failing to do their jobs properly.  It is shit policing and shit supervision ... _exactly_ what is behind a lot of the problems with ordinary policing.



So, institutional failings, by any other name.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm asking if you support the family's campaign for an enquiry into the whole mess.



No.  You're not.  You asked:



the button said:


> Will you be giving a few quid to the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, d-b?



And don't wriggle and say you didn't mean make an actual donation or some such shite - you even provided information about fucking PayPal.

You don;t even know what you fucking post ...


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You're not.  You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think you'll find those are two different posters.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> I think you'll find those are two different posters.


fucking forensic this joker eh? 

it's almost as painful to watch as his continuing farcical efforts to try and somehow make the patel examination somehow the crucial, and key, piece of evidence that has effectively cut off all routes of legal redress against the copper involved.....


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

Amazing, isn't it. He's a hysterical nutbag unable to even distinguish between posters, which should tell you all about his care and attention to detail. He'll be onto his sponsored cuntathon before we know it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You don;t even know what you fucking post ...


you don't know what he posts is what you mean


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You're not.  You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh they all look the same don't they


----------



## the button (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm Proper Tidy, and so is my wife.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2010)

the button said:


> I'm Proper Tidy, and so is my wife.



Hmm, I've heard she's dead mucky, that one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)




----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> I think you'll find those are two different posters.


I know.

I think you'll find Proper Tidy didn't actually ask _any_ question of their own, they simply started asking why I wouldn't answer that posted by the button.  I therefore assumed that they had adopted that question as their own ...

It gets more like Tag Team Twat here every day ...


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I know.
> 
> I think you'll find Proper Tidy didn't actually ask _any_ question of their own, they simply started asking why I wouldn't answer that posted by the button.  I therefore assumed that they had adopted that question as their own ...
> 
> It gets more like Tag Team Twat here every day ...


 

But Proper Tidy didn't "you even provided information about fucking PayPal" - did he? You made a mistake. Man up and admit it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I know.
> 
> I think you'll find Proper Tidy didn't actually ask _any_ question of their own, they simply started asking why I wouldn't answer that posted by the button.  I therefore assumed that they had adopted that question as their own ...
> 
> It gets more like Tag Team Twat here every day ...


it just gets worse


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You're not.  You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Lol. 

Mad detecting skills there db.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> But Proper Tidy didn't "you even provided information about fucking PayPal" - did he? You made a mistake. Man up and admit it.


I'd forgotten it wasn't them who had initially posted the question by then, yes.  But you cannot deny that they had adopted the initial post of the button.  Anything else is simply misrepresentation.

(ETA:  NIce to see that this is again dengenerating into a "slag db off-a-thon" rather than any attempt to discuss the fucking issues ... ) (Four substantive on-topic posts apart from mine in the last 34, the rest simply being trolling shite, including some by posters who have just appeared in the fucking thread to have a pop ...).  And you deny that there is a Cunt's Collective at work here ... )


----------



## tarannau (Jul 29, 2010)

Oh please, you feel fit to group and slag off posters indiscriminately, often confusing them or using the kind of logic that small children would laugh it. It's a bit rich to start accusing others of personal insults when you're basically the king pottymouth, prone to makng assine generalisations about swathes of other posters.

Maybe you can take some responsibility for your own posts and lack of self control for a change.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 29, 2010)

Luton man who threw egg at Baroness Warsi jailed



> Gavin Reid, 23, of Green Close, Luton, had denied a charge under the Public Order Act of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress.
> 
> But City of Westminster magistrates' found him guilty and sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment.



And yet........



> Ms Roscoe said politicians tend to be "reasonably robust".
> 
> "There has been no evidence to make me sufficiently sure that she (Baroness Warsi) felt any harassment, alarm or distress."





Of course the claims that there's one law for the police and another for ordinary people is paranoid anti-police rubbish.....


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Of course the claims that there's one law for the police and another for ordinary people is paranoid anti-police rubbish.....


What are you chatting about?  She's a Tory peer not a police officer ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Maybe you can take some responsibility for your own posts and lack of self control for a change.


Maybe you can actually understand the point I'm making for a change ...  

I don't slag people off "indiscriminately".  You get some fucks thrown into you if you are failing to engage with the discussion sensibly or, more usually, if all you do is turn up to have a pop at me rather than contribute something meaningful.  As others have pointed out elsewhere, the amount of shit I get is immense ... er ... like the majority of the last 34 posts ...  The usual idiots have turned up to make post after fucking post about some (invented) massive fuck-up by me whilst not making any substantive contribution to the thread at all.

Why don't you have a pop at the trolls instead of their victim for standing up to them???


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What are you chatting about?  She's a Tory peer not a police officer ...


 
The accused is a Tory peer? News to me i'm sure it was the victim who was the Tory peer......


----------



## winjer (Jul 29, 2010)

free spirit said:


> not a single met officer met officer below the rank of sergeant out of the thousand or so who were involved in kettling trafalgar square at the mayday protest in 2000 was wearing a visible number


This is easily provably untrue. e.g.





(Yes, there are cops without numbers in that photo, no pedant points available.)



free spirit said:


> but this doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority (in many cases all) of the teams that are deployed when things start to kick off / they expect them to kick off do not have their numbers displayed other than their sergeants.


Certainly not my experience, and as a regular legal observer it's obviously something I pay close attention to.



detective-boy said:


> The back.  They don't identify the individual officer (unless they have changed things recently, but do identify the Force, Unit and rank sometimes).


In some non-Met forces they now have their collar numbers on helmets, either on front and back, or left and right.


----------



## the button (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why don't you have a pop at the trolls instead of their victim for standing up to them???


----------



## sus (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have posted about that, when the Guardian report was first quoted ... but if you can't be bothered to look for it ...
> 
> *It makes no sense,* the Guardian report about the IPCC being refused access to the PM.  If it was routine PM the IPCC would simply not be interested.  If the IPCC _were_ interested, it implies that the matter _had_ been referred to them, in which case it _was_being dealt with as a death following police contact, in which case it _should_ have been a "special" PM.  The question is "Did the IPCC request a "special" PM?"  If they did, and the Coroner refused, that would be highly irregular (and should have led to the IPCC challenging the Coroner's decision).  If they did not, and yet they were interested in the case, that was incompetent and they should have done and whoever's decision that was fucked up and should be dealt with.
> 
> As for the reports that the _family_ were not allowed to be present at the PM ... I have _never_ known a family be present at a PM.  I cannot think of a worse experience for a family to go through - seeing the deceased's face pulled back from the skull, the top of the skull cut off with a grinder and the brain sectioned and all the rest.  If the report meant they had some right to be represented at the PM, or to have their own pathologist there or something, I am not aware of any such right (though there has been steady increase in rights in relation to _inquests_ (which are not PMs) over the last few years and it may have been added whilst I haven't been looking).  I have _never_ known a family present or represented at a PM and I don't think there is any such right though ... and you might have expected Liberty to mention it if it existed ... and they don't:  http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...stigations-into-deaths/inquest-procedure.html


 
It makes perfect sense if obfuscation is the desired result. Is it incumbent on the IPCC (or any other) body to request a special PM before the coroner can allow one, or is it the coroner's obligation to call for a special PM if there are any suspicious circumstances, as there were in this case? Does not the very fact that the coroner refused to allow the IPCC make the whole thing more suspect, let alone the fact that Tomlinson died in the middle of a kettling operation?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don't slag people off "indiscriminately"..


/

Something I noticed.  Earlier on you said you knew of no right to attend a PM, post 780.   You said you weren't aware of any law, had never heard of one and had never heard of such circumstance where one would be used....what with the face getting pulled back off the skull and all the other gratuitousness.  You even went as far as saying that if there was such a law...Liberty would have known about it.

Funny that...you know every other law - or have them to hand in your books/pc.   Not this one though.   Ah well.

In a thread about checking that the police aren't trying to cover up a murder.   Convenient that.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

sus said:


> Is it incumbent on the IPCC (or any other) body to request a special PM before the coroner can allow one, or is it the coroner's obligation to call for a special PM if there are any suspicious circumstances, as there were in this case?


If the IPCC want one they should insist on it.  If the Coroner say's no, they should challenge it.

If the Coroner is aware of the fact the death is being treated as suspicious / unexplained they should hold one.  If the police / IPCC say otherwise the Coroner can overrule them.

So far as I am aware, there is no hard and fast rule about which way round it goes - the Coroner's Rules 1984 (Rule 6) oblige the Coroner to "consult" with the police (and you can read IPCC in there now they exist) in suspicious death cases.  Ultimately the Coroner has the final say and if the IPCC / police want them to do something else they can appeal their decision (by emergency application to the High Court if necessary).



> Does not the very fact that the coroner refused to allow the IPCC make the whole thing more suspect...


As I have said repeatedly, if (as the Guardian say) the IPCC were involved, either they (if they didn't ask / insist) or the Coroner (if they were asked but refused), or both have some questions to answer.



> let alone the fact that Tomlinson died in the middle of a kettling operation?


He didn't.  There was no "kettle".  And he certainly didn't die in the "middle" of it.  Why do you misrepresent the facts???


----------



## xes (Jul 29, 2010)

sus didn't say he died in a kettle, he said he died in a kettling opperation. Which is true.


----------



## xes (Jul 29, 2010)

There wasn't really any need for that, at least pickmans wasn't actually homophobic.


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

I would have thought it would have been in everyone's best interests to treat any death during G20 with belt and braces. Right from the off ... treat it as 'suspicious'/'special', make sure that everything's covered - press, family, coroner, official investigation etc. Minimise the risk of complaints and bad PR. Everyone feels like they're fairly treated.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Funny that...you know every other law - or have them to hand in your books/pc.


The law in question is the Coroner's Rules 1984.  They are secondary legislation governing how Coroner's operate.  They are of no direct relevance to the police or anyone else and I have never had any direct involvement with them.  They are also somewhat arcane and subject to various amendment and extension.  

I was commenting on the basis of my experience (which remains exactly the same: I have _never_ seen or heard of a deceased's family present or represented at a PM).  If you actually read them you will find that the FAMILY (unless medically qualified) have no right to be there (no doubt partially for exactly the same reasons as I pointed out).

And I wasn't answering someone's question - I raised the issue myself, musing on the fact that the Guardian story struck me as odd.  And I remain very surprised that Liberty don't mention it on their website ... perhaps you'd like to ask THEM what they have got to hide ...

Hardly the actions of someone determined to, er, cover something up, eh?  Bearing in mind that no-one else had raised the issue ...


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

xes said:


> There wasn't really any need for that, at least pickmans wasn't actually homophobic.



Are you calling for button to be banned?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 29, 2010)

xes said:


> sus didn't say he died in a kettle, he said he died in a kettling opperation. Which is true.


No.  It isn't.  "Kettling" is the name applied to a containment.  There was no containment.  There was a cordon preventing people passing along a particular road so he had to turn and go another way.  That is NOT a "kettling operation".


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It isn't.  "Kettling" is the name applied to a containment.  There was no containment.  There was a cordon preventing people passing along a particular road so he had to turn and go another way.  That is NOT a "kettling operation".



Aye, that bit looked more like a sweep than a kettle "move along now" (to my untrained eyes).


----------



## winjer (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It isn't.  "Kettling" is the name applied to a containment.  There was no containment.  There was a cordon preventing people passing along a particular road so he had to turn and go another way.  That is NOT a "kettling operation".


Given that the streets were being cleared from the kettle (at Bank) outwards, it seems reasonable to consider it part of the kettling operation.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2010)

I was there and the police were aggressive as fuck from the start, kettling us in and herding people around.

LDR and I narrowly avoided being baton-charged for, err, walking down the street. The police were out of control that day.


----------



## xes (Jul 29, 2010)

cesare said:


> Are you calling for button to be banned?


 
no, don't be silly.  I just think that it was an ill thought out post.


----------



## cesare (Jul 29, 2010)

xes said:


> no, don't be silly.  I just think that it was an ill thought out post.



I though it was quite apt. Martyr/victim  ...  saviour ... crucified as faggot instead of inri ... many layers of lols there


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don't slag people off "indiscriminately".


 bollocks.

you've stated your policy here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-the-phone?p=10909192&viewfull=1#post10909192

you claim not to insult people because of their beliefs, but this is somewhat in contradiction of the bit about people who believe all coppers are bastards. but pretty much everyone i know who is of the 'acab' persuasion has an example of a good cop: the case officer when i was a prosecution witness in a gbh case, for instance, seemed a nice man. however, for every decent cop i've had the good fortune to encounter i've run into scores of utter scum in uniform.it's not like there's a bad apple among a lot of good ones, more like a good apple placed in a barrel of putrid fruit.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Hardly the actions of someone determined to, er, cover something up, eh?  Bearing in mind that no-one else had raised the issue ...


I didn't say you were, er, covering it up...I said that the police involved were. 

You're trying to argue semantics with everyone, I see.   The definition of kettling, the minutiae of coronary procedure, ...the numbers on a uniform during an operation....and so on.

It's obvious, obvious, to anyone with half a brain what happened.   Much of the bad feeling and justified concern and outrage is in large part with the authorities and their heavy-handedness which in this case lead to the death of a man.   I see the current news stuff has been hinting that it's a rogue policeman (oooh...misconduct no less...where was that a year ago?) which is objectionable shit again.

They should be held to account with the same ease as anyone else.

They don't consider themselves to be equals...do they, d-b?


----------



## sus (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If the IPCC want one they should insist on it.  If the Coroner say's no, they should challenge it.
> 
> If the Coroner is aware of the fact the death is being treated as suspicious / unexplained they should hold one.  If the police / IPCC say otherwise the Coroner can overrule them.
> 
> ...



You are misrepresenting me. The police tactics on the day were ones of containment and violent intimidation - kettling; setting out their stall for Superintendent David Hartshorn's "summer of rage",  "Hartshorn identified April's G20 meeting of the group of leading and developing nations in London as an event that could kick-start a challenging summer. "We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'," he said."  The TSG PC's were tacitly given the go ahead to go in hard to scare the middle classes into not demonstrating. Ian Tomlinson was killed by illegal state sanctioned violence and the coroner is an accessory after the fact - He'll go far.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 29, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The law in question is the Coroner's Rules 1984.  They are secondary legislation governing how Coroner's operate.  They are of no direct relevance to the police or anyone else and I have never had any direct involvement with them.  They are also somewhat arcane and subject to various amendment and extension.
> 
> I was commenting on the basis of my experience (which remains exactly the same: I have _never_ seen or heard of a deceased's family present or represented at a PM).  If you actually read them you will find that the FAMILY (unless medically qualified) have no right to be there (no doubt partially for exactly the same reasons as I pointed out).
> 
> ...


then the law is an ass, in that case.

although i think someone may have got there before me with that one.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

winjer said:


> Given that the streets were being cleared from the kettle (at Bank) outwards, it seems reasonable to consider it part of the kettling operation.


The point is why the mention of the "middle of a kettling operation" was made ... clearly to cause people to draw their own (inaccurate) conclusions about the circumstances of the incident.  Why?  (It would be _just_ as inaccurate to say that it happened in "the middle of a concerted attack on a bank" or something ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

editor said:


> LDR and I narrowly avoided being baton-charged for, err, walking down the street. The police were out of control that day.


And quite right too ... who said you could go north of the river?  

Without any shadow of a doubt _some_ officers (how many of the many hundreds deployed did you actually meet / have an issue with?) were over aggressive and "out of control" ... but there is also a perception issue at work here where people see police officers using the tactics they have been taught to move people back (namely raising baton, pushing hand (or in this case shield) forward, and shouting "Get back" or similar as loud as possible) and perceiving them as being "out of control" when they are not.  This happens in ordinary policing situations too - twelve years ago when I was a Brixton (where did twelve years go ... ) I spent quite a lot of my time dealing with people coming in to complain of officers who had "lost it" who had, in fact, only been using tactics they had been taught but which no-one had told the public had been introduced.  So much so that I copied pages of the training manual so I could point to them and as "Like this?".

Interestingly one of the issues raised by Denis O'Connor in his report on public order tactics arising from G20 (Adapting to Protest) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_07_09_g20_police_report.pdf (Chapter 6, pg 57 _et seq_) is how _individual_ officer safety type tactics work in _collective_ situations.  This issue was specifically recognised in relation to CS spray when it was introduced (to the extent that officers deployed in public order situations are often told not even to carry it) but it has never been so clearly recognised in relation to other tactics.  We now have a situation in which individual officers in a line of officers, confronted with an individual situation, revert to individual tactics that they would quite properly use in their High Street on a Saturday night* but which are inappropriate (and look even worse) in the public order situation.  I think the actions of both the high profile cases arising from G20 (and many of the others) can be characterised in this way.

Reviewing how individual tactics are used in public disorder situations is one of the things which should follow the Report.  It will be interesting to see the outcome.

(* In a typical High Street situation, there would normally be a handful of officers and if they are faced with a crowd who are generally shouting / pushing / hostile in the same way that a protest crowd are, the situation would normally be characterised as having gone out of control and so the use of aggressive tactics to prevent attacks / disperse the crowd / permit the carrying out of lawful actions (such as making an arrest which would typically be the cause of the crowd action) would be perfectly legitimate.  In a protest situation, however, although the actions of the crowd _appear_ the same, they are not, not least because there is not always (and maybe even not usually) an immediate unlawful action  such as the rescue of a prisoner associated with it.  A degree of pushing / shoving / abuse / hostility that would not be acceptable in a High Street situation should therefore be tolerated in a protest situation.)


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> They should be held to account with the same ease as anyone else.


I'm not saying otherwise.  Quite the contrary, as I have repeatedly posted, I believe that not only should police officers be accountable for their actions (which they are, and (quite rightly) in excess of the accountability of others) but that that should be seen in a public forum and if that means that their individual rights as citizens are restricted to some extent then so be it, that is a proportionate step to take in view of the extra powers that they exercise on behalf of us all.

So why do you persist in portraying me as in some way saying the opposite?


----------



## xes (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The point is why the mention of the "middle of a kettling operation" was made ... clearly to cause people to draw their own (inaccurate) conclusions about the circumstances of the incident.  Why?  (It would be _just_ as inaccurate to say that it happened in "the middle of a concerted attack on a bank" or something ...)


 
That would be fair to say if it were people who were attacking a bank, who then killed somebody.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why do you persist in portraying me as in some way saying the opposite?


because, in amongst your claims that you would like to see justice for tomlinson, you have spent most of _this_ thread justifying the decision of the cps not to prosecute, on the basis of the most dodgy postmortem account that has ever been seen.

maybe?


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

sus said:


> The police tactics on the day were ones of containment and violent intimidation - kettling;


You cannot simply say that the police had a single tactic that day.  Containment is one of a number of different tactics available to them and used in different situations.  There may well have been a containment happening somewhere at the time of the Ian Tomlinson incident ... but the Ian Tomlinson incident was not directly part of any "kettle".  You use "kettling" as an emotive term to stir up pictures in people's minds and to confuse the facts.  It has taken on a life of it's own as in some way describing an illegal or overbearing tactic when containment is something that has been around for donkeys years (ask any travelling football fan) and one which, whilst some significant issues have arisen which need to be addressed about it's use in public order policing generally, remains both legal and effective in certain situations.

Ian Tomlinson encountered a cordon of officers preventing access to a certain area and moving down a street, clearing the public away ahead of them.  He was free to move away in a number of other directions and he would not have encountered any police cordon or anything else preventig him going wherever he wanted along the majority of them.  He was moving away from the cordon, in a street where there was no restriction of movement so far as I am aware, when he collapsed.  

He was _never_ contained or "kettled".  He was NOT caught in the "middle of a kettling operation".  To say otherwise is simply misrepresentation.  



> Superintendent David Hartshorn's "summer of rage",  "Hartshorn identified April's G20 meeting of the group of leading and developing nations in London as an event that could kick-start a challenging summer. "We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'


He was not alone.  There was an idiot Commander who was shown on TV saying something like "If they want a fight, we're ready, bring it on".  I have strongly criticised those comments from the start (and not just here).  They should be the subject of disciplinary action in my view.  They have been recognised as being "unwise" and I do not think we will see them again (and I _hope_ that they will not be used internaly either - there is a balance to be struck between properly preparing officers for what they may face and for the possibility that they may _need_ to use robust tactics and winding them up to the point where they are likely to overreact).


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> then the law is an ass, in that case.


Why is the law an ass if it provides for the family of the deceased to be represented at a PM?  

Although I didn't know of the existence of it, and I have never known it exercised, I have no problem with them having the right to be represented by a medically qualified person.  I am surprised you do ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

xes said:


> That would be fair to say if it were people who were attacking a bank, who then killed somebody.


But it _wouldn't_ be if it was some other protestors, who had nothing to do with the attack on the bank, who were involved and if it happened some distance away from any bank ...

The officers in volved were NOT engaged in a containment and were not using containment tactics.  Mr Tomlinson was not the subject of containment tactics.  There was no containment in the immediate vicinity.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> because, in amongst your claims that you would like to see justice for tomlinson, you have spent most of _this_ thread justifying the decision of the cps not to prosecute, on the basis of the most dodgy postmortem account that has ever been seen.
> 
> maybe?


In the case of someone with the IQ of a fucking amoeba, incapable of seperating different issues and different strands of an argument, someone so fucking simple that _everything_ either has to be black or white, good or bad, then you're probably right ... which explains why it is posters like you who keep doing it ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the case of someone with the IQ of a fucking amoeba, incapable of seperating different issues and different strands of an argument, someone so fucking simple that _everything_ either has to be black or white, good or bad, then you're probably right ... which explains why it is posters like you who keep doing it ...


i think you forgot your fav "cunt" there. 

otherwise, the usual patient approach from our resident apologist for police killing and corruption


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He was not alone.  There was an idiot Commander who was shown on TV saying something like "If they want a fight, we're ready, bring it on".  I have strongly criticised those comments from the start (and not just here).  They should be the subject of disciplinary action in my view.



Incitement to commit ABH more like. 

Oh, but that can't happen, as ABH didn't occur, in spite of the whole world seeing it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the case of someone with the IQ of a fucking amoeba, incapable of seperating different issues and different strands of an argument, someone so fucking simple that _everything_ either has to be black or white, good or bad, then you're probably right ... which explains why it is posters like you who keep doing it ...


amoeba don't fuck.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 30, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> amoeba don't fuck.


 
tag


----------



## sus (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You cannot simply say that the police had a single tactic that day.  Containment is one of a number of different tactics available to them and used in different situations.  There may well have been a containment happening somewhere at the time of the Ian Tomlinson incident ... but the Ian Tomlinson incident was not directly part of any "kettle".  You use "kettling" as an emotive term to stir up pictures in people's minds and to confuse the facts.  It has taken on a life of it's own as in some way describing an illegal or overbearing tactic when containment is something that has been around for donkeys years (ask any travelling football fan) and one which, whilst some significant issues have arisen which need to be addressed about it's use in public order policing generally, remains both legal and effective in certain situations.
> 
> Ian Tomlinson encountered a cordon of officers preventing access to a certain area and moving down a street, clearing the public away ahead of them.  He was free to move away in a number of other directions and he would not have encountered any police cordon or anything else preventig him going wherever he wanted along the majority of them.  He was moving away from the cordon, in a street where there was no restriction of movement so far as I am aware, when he collapsed.
> 
> ...


 
I didn't "simply say that the police had a single tactic that day". I said they used the tactics of containment _and_ violent intimidation to achieve an end other than merely managing the G20 demo; namely to instill fear in the in the masses before they embarked on their mythical "summer of rage". Rather than describing the TSG officers as "out of control", I think "off the leash" is nearer to the mark, as evidenced by the excessive and widespread violence and lack of ID numbers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2010)

sus said:


> I didn't "simply say that the police had a single tactic that day". I said they used the tactics of containment _and_ violent intimidation to achieve an end other than merely managing the G20 demo; namely to instill fear in the in the masses before they embarked on their mythical "summer of rage". Rather than describing the TSG officers as "out of control", I think "off the leash" is nearer to the mark, as evidenced by the excessive and widespread violence and lack of ID numbers.


bollocks. 

they weren't off the leash.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...e-chief-i-saw-my-officers-do-nothing-wrong.do


----------



## winjer (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Ian Tomlinson encountered a cordon of officers preventing access to a certain area and moving down a street, clearing the public away ahead of them.  He was free to move away in a number of other directions and he would not have encountered any police cordon or anything else preventig him going wherever he wanted along the majority of them.


He'd already encountered the cordons on King William Street, Lombard Street and Cornhill, he collapsed just past one on Finch Lane, had he kept going East he'd have come to another on Bishopsgate.

"Why do you misrepresent the facts??? " indeed.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh, but that can't happen, as ABH didn't occur, in spite of the whole world seeing it


I'm not sure that that is an accurate summary.  ABH (applying the strict legal definition) seems to have occured in the view of the CPS ... but their Charging Standards (i.e. policy) dictate that they will not prosecute it as ABH but as Common Assault is a summary-only offence the limitation period had passed before they decided they could prosecute it.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

sus said:


> I didn't "simply say that the police had a single tactic that day". I said they used the tactics of containment _and_ violent intimidation to achieve an end other than merely managing the G20 demo; namely to instill fear in the in the masses before they embarked on their mythical "summer of rage". Rather than describing the TSG officers as "out of control", I think "off the leash" is nearer to the mark, as evidenced by the excessive and widespread violence and lack of ID numbers.


I have no issue with any claim that containment was one of a variety of tactics used in the policing of the G20 protest in Cenral London that day.  

My sole point was that to claim that Ian Tomlinson was caught up "in the middle of a kettling operation" was wrong.


----------



## detective-boy (Jul 30, 2010)

winjer said:


> He'd already encountered the cordons on King William Street, Lombard Street and Cornhill, he collapsed just past one on Finch Lane, had he kept going East he'd have come to another on Bishopsgate.


There were cordons in all sorts of places.  A big chunk of central City was affected by public disorder and policing connected with it.  It appears Ian Tomlinson wanted to pass through that area and was steadily trying different routes and that he had encountered some cordons and kept trying different routes.  Sooner or later he would have found a way around.  

But that is NOT the same as him being caught up "in the middle of a kettling operation".  He was never contained and most, if not all the cordons he encountered were not engaged in a containment.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There were cordons in all sorts of places.  A big chunk of central City was affected by public disorder and policing connected with it.  It appears Ian Tomlinson wanted to pass through that area and was steadily trying different routes and that he had encountered some cordons and kept trying different routes.  Sooner or later he would have found a way around.
> 
> But that is NOT the same as him being caught up "in the middle of a kettling operation".  He was never contained and most, if not all the cordons he encountered were not engaged in a containment.



Surely you must admit that this is splitting hairs?  He was not actively contained by one particular kettle, but found himself blocked my multiple cordons on different routes?  How was he to respond to that other than as if he was kettled?


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that that is an accurate summary.  ABH (applying the strict legal definition) seems to have occured in the view of the CPS ... but their Charging Standards (i.e. policy) dictate that they will not prosecute it as ABH but as Common Assault is a summary-only offence the limitation period had passed before they decided they could prosecute it.


 
Can you explain this please? If they think ABH occurred, what policy dictates that they cannot prosecute it as ABH?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> amoeba don't fuck.


(((((my sex life))))))


----------



## e19896 (Jul 30, 2010)

Nuff said..


----------



## Ungrateful (Jul 30, 2010)

I don;t think its been posted but the BBC report of the protest is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10821402

About 100 protesters have gathered at the Crown Prosecution Service's offices in central London to demonstrate about the lack of charges brought over the death of G20 protester Ian Tomlinson.....

Only person interviewed is Prof. Chris Knight.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 31, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The point is why the mention of the "middle of a kettling operation" was made ... clearly to cause people to draw their own (inaccurate) conclusions about the circumstances of the incident.  Why?  (It would be _just_ as inaccurate to say that it happened in "the middle of a concerted attack on a bank" or something ...)


How inaccurate would it be to say that they were shielding him from rioters throwing bottles and that they had to move him to a place of safety?

In comparison to your moaning about kettling semantics...how inaccurate is what the police said...maybe you have some kind of non-chromatic scale.


----------



## Corax (Jul 31, 2010)

ymu said:


> Can you explain this please? If they think ABH occurred, what policy dictates that they cannot prosecute it as ABH?


 
Don't hold your breath, he went on an abusive rant session and flounced again.  Is anyone keeping count?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 31, 2010)

> Meet PC Simon Harwood the Territorial Support Group police officer who is accused of hitting Ian Tomlinson and causing his death.
> 
> 
> Yesterday this photo was circulated by his solicitors Reynolds Dawson to the editors of all the national newspapers for publication, in an attempt to ensure that photographers didn’t camp outside his home in Carshalton in Surrey. The Sun ran the picture about an hour ago on its website.
> ...









Thanks to BristleKRS for providing this info

http://www.blowe.org.uk/2010/07/face-of-officer-accused-of-killing-ian.html


----------



## audiotech (Jul 31, 2010)

Three policemen violently assaulted a soldier who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan in 'a scene worthy of the TV programme Life on Mars' as they tried to restrain him, a court heard today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...teran-like-scene-Life-Mars.html#ixzz0vGTPXHNo


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Surely you must admit that this is splitting hairs?


No.  IT's being accurate and calling someone who is trying to link his death with "kettling" so that next time it happens they can go "And don't forget, Ian Tomlinson was killed by kettling".  It's the foundation laying for lies.  (They'll do it anyway, just wait and see ...)



> How was he to respond to that other than as if he was kettled?


Just like a motorist does when confronted by multiple roads blocked by, say, a protest - turn round and wander off to try another way ... which is what he was doing when he collapsed and died.  If you are "kettled" you can't "wander off" anywhere - that is, er, the basic fucking point of the tactic ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

ymu said:


> Can you explain this please? If they think ABH occurred, what policy dictates that they cannot prosecute it as ABH?


I've explained it a million fucking times.  Read the thread.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

e19896 said:


> Nuff said..


You support the public libelling of people, do you?  Of trial by mob and / or media?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

Ungrateful said:


> Only person interviewed is Prof. Chris Knight.


The media's current favourite rent-a-quote idiot ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Three policemen violently assaulted a soldier who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan in 'a scene worthy of the TV programme Life on Mars' as they tried to restrain him, a court heard today.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...teran-like-scene-Life-Mars.html#ixzz0vGTPXHNo


And your point is?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You support the public libelling of people, do you?  Of trial by mob and / or media?


 
Seeing as they seem to have incompetently fucked up or let lapse other opportunities for trial then there isn't really much choice, is there?

Every man and his dog can see that this guy was out of order, a uncontrolled knobber that assaulted a member of the public. Yet we're meant to stomach the prospect of him being suspended on full pay and then being dismissed with no further action

Justice should seen to be done. Not one officer or official that I'm aware of has faced any effective sanction as a result of this suspicious bungle, from the officers who misinformed the family, from the bod who appointed such a controversial coroner, from the body who decided that not charging with assault within time would be acceptable and so on. Justice should be seen to be done, and that's not going to be done by forcing an officer just to resign (again). Who is culpable for all these fuck ups and why has nothing been done?

That bloke deserves more than a public name and shame - a mere slap of the wrists really


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just like a motorist does when confronted by multiple roads blocked by, say, a protest - turn round and wander off to try another way ... which is what he was doing when he collapsed and died.


 
You missed the bit about being hit by a policeman with a baton despite having turned round to wander off...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your point is?


 
ACAB.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Every man and his dog can see that this guy was out of order, a uncontrolled knobber that assaulted a member of the public.


If the sign said "assaulter" then it would be justifiable.  But "murderer" is simply libellous.  Even if it _was_ possible to evidentially prove causation, it would not have been murder - there is patently no evidence that he intended to kill or cause really serious harm. 



> Justice should seen to be done.


Indeed it should.  Where have I _ever_ suggested otherwise?  But if there are problems with the system / other people involved in the investigation / decision making process it is neither right nor just to simply scapegoat him.



> That bloke deserves more than a public name and shame - a mere slap of the wrists really


I look forward to seeing your support on threads suggesting the introduction of chain gangs, wearing orange uniforms, for run of the mill scum, so that justice can be seen to be done and so that those who make poeple's lives a misery can be named and shamed ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

stephj said:


> You missed the bit about being hit by a policeman with a baton despite having turned round to wander off...


Yes.  Because it's got absolutely fuck all to do with the point being fucking discussed, has it?  

(Or did you actually mean to post "Well, maybe not.  But I think it would be reasonable to say the cordons were connected with the kettling operation, even if they were some distance away.  After all they were part of the same operation."?  I only ask because you _may_ have intended to post something relevant and, accidentally, have posted some absolute shite by mistake.  Just thought I'd check, after the flaming I got for failing to notice that you had actually _meant_ something entirely different from what you actually posted on another thread ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> ACAB.


And your point is ... 

Actually don't bother answering - we all* know there is absolutely no fucking point to you.

(* By all, I mean all normal people. obv.  Not the rest of the Collective who'll be circle-jerking over your smart-arse comment even as we speak ...)


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  Because it's got absolutely fuck all to do with the point being fucking discussed, has it?
> 
> (Or did you actually mean to post "Well, maybe not.  But I think it would be reasonable to say the cordons were connected with the kettling operation, even if they were some distance away.  After all they were part of the same operation."?  I only ask because you _may_ have intended to post something relevant and, accidentally, have posted some absolute shite by mistake.  Just thought I'd check, after the flaming I got for failing to notice that you had actually _meant_ something entirely different from what you actually posted on another thread ...)


 
I'm only going out of my way to pick any hole in your posts regardless of what you may or may not have said, just as you did to me the other day. Guess it only works one way.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

stephj said:


> I'm only going out of my way to pick any hole in your posts regardless of what you may or may not have said, just as you did to me the other day. Guess it only works one way.


No.  It only works if your capable of doing it ... which you patently obviously aren't.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 1, 2010)

I've rarely seen such an arrogant hypocrite with such limited self-perception to be honest. After your embarrassing, unpleasant wrong end if the stick attack on StephJ on another thread, I'm guessing that you're finding the concept of an apology difficult. It's a sad day for the police that DB's no longer there to exhibit his advanced sense of empathy and ability to win hearts and minds.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your point is?



The same as Mr Ian Unsworth QC, for the prosecution, who told the jury, 'The acts of these three police officers were unjustified, unwarranted and,...unlawful.' We will see if the jury agrees with the prosecution all in good time?


----------



## ymu (Aug 1, 2010)

*lightbulb moment*

db is an ACAB sleeper. He _wants_ them discredited. There's no other rational explanation for him. Harwood's senior officers are astonished that no charges were brought. Agricola is astonished and disgusted. But reliable old db is still defending the indefensible.

Excellent.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I've rarely seen such an arrogant hypocrite with such limited self-perception to be honest.








There you go ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

audiotech said:


> The same as Mr Ian Unsworth QC, for the prosecution, who told the jury, 'The acts of these three police officers were unjustified, unwarranted and,...unlawful.' We will see if the jury agrees with the prosecution all in good time?


And your point is?  For fuck's sake this is painful ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 1, 2010)

ymu said:


> But reliable old db is still defending the indefensible.


But I'm not though.  As you'd fucking know if you actually bothered to read the fucking posts I've made through the mist of froth and spittle ...

"But reliable old ymu is still misrepresenting what db posts" would be a million times more fucking accurate.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There you go ...


 
Are you a serving officer, or have you 'retired'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> go fuck yourself you arrogant fucking cunt. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can see exactly what has happened here. We knew it last year, when the "drama queen" incident happened. That even though it was on the public boards, that no cunt would ever come to justice. because on urban cunts are above the law they, especially if they are slagging off a pig (or some other tosser from a disapproved of category)  We all knew it, we knew that the posters would lie and squirm their way out of it. And what happened? oh yes, the posters lied and squirmed their way out if it. And you fucking love it. You can't even see how much a part of the problem you are.
> 
> Good this, isn't it ...


 


detective-boy said:


> And, like the other thread, it is now apparent that the Cunt Collective have turned up and set up camp on this thread, engaging in their usual self-congratulatory circle-jerk, so I'm wasting my time trying to engage in any further sensible discussion.  So I'm off.


 


detective-boy said:


> I'd forgotten it wasn't them who had initially posted the question by then, yes.  But you cannot deny that they had adopted the initial post of the button.  Anything else is simply misrepresentation.
> 
> (ETA:  NIce to see that this is again dengenerating into a "slag db off-a-thon" rather than any attempt to discuss the fucking issues ... ) (Four substantive on-topic posts apart from mine in the last 34, the rest simply being trolling shite, including some by posters who have just appeared in the fucking thread to have a pop ...).  And you deny that there is a Cunt's Collective at work here ... )


 


detective-boy said:


> the fucking posts I've made through the mist of froth and spittle ...


----------



## sherpa (Aug 1, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
He reminds me of someone who interviewed me, once.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It only works if your capable of doing it ... which you *patently obviously* aren't.


 
Tautology.

And it would be cunts' collective, not cunt's collective.



> As you'd fucking know if you actually bothered to read the fucking posts I've made through the mist of froth and spittle ...


les mots justes


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2010)

cesare said:


> I would have thought it would have been in everyone's best interests to treat any death during G20 with belt and braces. Right from the off ... treat it as 'suspicious'/'special', make sure that everything's covered - press, family, coroner, official investigation etc. Minimise the risk of complaints and bad PR. Everyone feels like they're fairly treated.



Yeah, but fair treatment in this case would involve a copper getting convicted of (at the very least) assault*. Even from the point of view of maintaining appearances (I won't insult anybody by entertaining the idea that morality or decency enter into it) the priority is to ensure that the plod emerge from this whole thing with no official reproach for their conduct. This cuts two ways, firstly you've got those who generally want to trust the police (and the CPS, IPCC, coroners etc) being reassured that their faithful servants have once again behaved impeccably; you then have those who don't trust the police, to whom the message from all this is, 'we can fuck you up and get away with it.' Just remember next time you see your friendly local copper strolling down the street, it can batter the shit out of you if it wants to and nothing bad will happen to it as a result. And it is carrying weapons. 

*I'm not an expert on legal matters, but I will refer to the case of Materazzi vs Zidane 2006. It doesn't matter what Matterazi said, Zizou assaulted him on the field of play and so he had to be shown the red card.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> And it would be cunts' collective, not cunt's collective.


 
Hmmm.  Depends.  If there was a top cunt, a chief cunt if you will, who the collective belonged too, then you could have a "cunt's collective".

I nominate myself for Chief Cunt.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Are you a serving officer, or have you 'retired'?


I left the police service in 2002.  

(And before anyone starts posting the libellous shite they usually do whenever this is mentioned, no, it was not as a result of any sort of complaint, discipline, conviction or anything else.  I have an "exemplary" certificate of service and still work with the police service in a variety of capacities from time to time).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

cesare said:


> I would have thought it would have been in everyone's best interests to treat any death during G20 with belt and braces. Right from the off ... treat it as 'suspicious'/'special', make sure that everything's covered - press, family, coroner, official investigation etc. Minimise the risk of complaints and bad PR. Everyone feels like they're fairly treated.


Indeed it would.  Which is why I have said from the outset that I am surprised that it was not and why there are questions to be answered by the police / IPCC / Coroner (depending on who knew what when in relation to the link between Ian Tomlinson and the earlier incident when force was used).


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> it was not as *a result of any sort of complaint, discipline, conviction or anything else.*


 
Yeah, but be fair - you were a copper, none of that was very likely to happen was it.

See 'Ian Tomlinson' for more details.


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

Corax said:


> Yeah, but be fair - you were a copper, none of that was very likely to happen was it.
> 
> See 'Ian Tomlinson' for more details.


 


He flounced from the force because his superiors just rolled their eyes at his bullshit ranting words of wisdom.

So he came here instead.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> He flounced from the force because his superiors just rolled their eyes at his bullshit ranting words of wisdom.


Senior officers (no-one, no matter how fucking elevated their rank or position, is "superior" to anyone else - I am surprised that you subscribe to the contrary view ...) certainly rolled their eyes at my insistence on doing the job properly and not cutting corners / bending rules / misleading the public for performance management and other bullshit reasons, yes.  To the point where one pointed out, in an air of exasperation, "You're very good at doing the right thing, you're not very good at doing what you're told".  

I had no desire to be the Commissioner, I don't "do" internal politics, I'd done everything I wanted to do as a police officer and so I left.  The organisation (especially the Met, which I know best) has become ever more dysfunctional since I left and I do not regret leaving at all.

(ETA: And to the extent that senior officers didn't like being told the truth about situations, especially when it did not fit in with their world view, it was _very_ similar to here, where the Collective are pathologically incapable of accepting any view which does not fit with theirs ...)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have an "exemplary" certificate of service and still work with the police service in a variety of capacities from time to time).


do you mean the certificate's exemplary or the service was exemplary?


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

Told ya.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> Told ya.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Senior officers (no-one, no matter how fucking elevated their rank or position, is "superior" to anyone else - I am surprised that you subscribe to the contrary view ...) certainly rolled their eyes at my insistence on doing the job properly and not cutting corners / bending rules / misleading the public for performance management and other bullshit reasons, yes.  To the point where one pointed out, in an air of exasperation, "You're very good at doing the right thing, you're not very good at doing what you're told".
> 
> I had no desire to be the Commissioner, I don't "do" internal politics, I'd done everything I wanted to do as a police officer and so I left.  The organisation (especially the Met, which I know best) has become ever more dysfunctional since I left and I do not regret leaving at all.
> 
> (ETA: And to the extent that senior officers didn't like being told the truth about situations, especially when it did not fit in with their world view, it was _very_ similar to here, where the Collective are pathologically incapable of accepting any view which does not fit with theirs ...)


 
Detective_boy, yesterday:





e2a: As for the senior officers of the met being remarkably like u75, there's one key difference; namely that this is an internet bulletin board and nothing said here is of any consequene whatsoever. The met police however is a very large organisation with a very large number of guns and the responsibility to protect a capital city with a population of several million people.


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
You inserted yourself between my post and the one it referred to.

Cunt.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (And before anyone starts posting the libellous shite they usually do whenever this is mentioned..


Allow me...I heard you were sacked for sucking off police horses.  

(Casual abuse will stop when the cunt collective shit stops)


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...still work with the police service in a variety of capacities from time to time).[/size]



Yes, you come on U75 to defend the excesses of the police service; but, not very convincingly.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> e2a: As for the senior officers of the met being remarkably like u75, there's one key difference; namely that this is an internet bulletin board and nothing said here is of any consequene whatsoever. The met police however is a very large organisation with a very large number of guns and the responsibility to protect a capital city with a population of several million people.


No-one suggested that the senior officers of the met were "remarkably like u75". 

They may have shared an inability to hear the truth if they didn't like it ... but apart from they they were _totally_ different.  If they had been like the Collective I wouldn't have stayed 21 minutes, let alone 21 years ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> (Casual abuse will stop when the cunt collective shit stops)


The Collective "shit" will only stop if and when the Collective ceases it's operation ... so sounds like you need to get used to it really!


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> Yes, you come on U75 to defend the excesses of the police service; but, not very convincingly.


I don't defend the excesses of the police _at all_, except in the fevered imaginations of the Collective ...


----------



## cesare (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The Collective "shit" will only stop if and when the Collective ceases it's operation ... so sounds like you need to get used to it really!


 
There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on here. With your experience, perhaps you'd consider an approach aimed at de-escalation?


----------



## xes (Aug 2, 2010)

"cunt collective" = the public.

it's how the police have seen us for a good few years. Seem to treat enough people like cunts anyhow.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The Collective "shit" will only stop if and when the Collective ceases it's operation ... so sounds like you need to get used to it really!


 
It's its, it's not it's.

I'm quite happy to throw abuse back at you, discussion's pretty pointless.  You're an arsehole.   Do you really think you can bully people into having the same opinion as you?   Do you think if you swear at them enough they'll acquiesce?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No-one suggested that the senior officers of the met were "remarkably like u75".
> 
> .


 
No, you're right. What you actually said was 'very simillar' not 'remarkably like'. Two phrases as divorced in content and tone as 'would you like a cup of tea?' and 'die motherfucker die!'. My humblest apologies.


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Do you really think you can bully people into having the same opinion as you?   Do you think if you swear at them enough they'll acquiesce?


He does, yes. And if it doesn't work, he flounces. He flounced from the police force and he's flounced from here ... <counts on fingers> <runs out of fingers> <runs out of toes> ... loads of times. One day there will be a happier world where db's word is law and he can finally get on with his life. Until then, yer all cunts.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

cesare said:


> There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on here. With your experience, perhaps you'd consider an approach aimed at de-escalation?


Those with a position of responsibility, power and influence are obliged to de-escalate.  Which is why I consistently argue that in relation to the delivery of policing, individual officers and the police service as a whole have a significantly greater responsibility for addressing the issues that arise between themselves and citizens than do the citizens themselves.

Therefore in this case, the Collective (seeing as they hunt as a pack and egg each other on) have a responsibility to avoid flaming me _every_ time I appear and to avoid propogating falsehoods (not that they'd have much to post if they did that ...) as they are in a position of relative power as compared to me as an individual poster.  And the Mods, who have _actual_ power here have a responsibility to prevent trolling by members of the Collective and their unjustified gang-attacks on me which disrupt thread after thread.  Sadly, for the most part, they signally avoid doing that.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

xes said:


> "cunt collective" = the public.


No.  The Collective = you and your tosser mates on here.  The vast majority of the public (and the vast (but silent) majority of posters on here) are far more intelligent and open-minded than you and display far less prejudice.

Perhaps you'd care to refelect on the situation that the Collective have created, namely that many posters feel restrained from posting their views, if they conflict with the monothought clique that is the Collective, in case they attract the same sort of flaming that I do ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Do you think if you swear at them enough they'll acquiesce?


No.  But I reserve the right to throw fucks into a tosser.  Why should you be allowed to post shite without getting called on it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  The Collective = you and your tosser mates on here.  The vast majority of the public (and the vast (but silent) majority of posters on here) are far more intelligent and open-minded than you and display far less prejudice.
> 
> Perhaps you'd care to refelect on the situation that the Collective have created, namely that many posters feel restrained from posting their views, if they conflict with the monothought clique that is the Collective, in case they attract the same sort of flaming that I do ...


quit digging


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, you're right. What you actually said was 'very simillar' not 'remarkably like'. Two phrases as divorced in content and tone as 'would you like a cup of tea?' and 'die motherfucker die!'. My humblest apologies.


The comparison I drew was in relation to ONE aspect.  You generalised it _way_ beyond what I fucking posted, you twat.  You really are fucking stupid.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> ... <counts on fingers> <runs out of fingers> <runs out of toes> ... loads of times.


Some fucking statistician you must be ... 

(Though 99.98% of your posts are total shite.  Fact.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The comparison I drew was in relation to ONE aspect.  You generalised it _way_ beyond what I fucking posted, you twat.  You really are fucking stupid.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 2, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> quit digging


Quit posting.  Or breathing ...


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

Self-awareness still not your strong point then, db?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  But I reserve the right to throw fucks into a tosser.  Why should you be allowed to post shite without getting called on it?


nobody should.

That's nobody including you though, which is a concept you appear to not understand.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Senior officers (no-one, no matter how fucking elevated their rank or position, is "superior" to anyone else - I am surprised that you subscribe to the contrary view ...) certainly rolled their eyes at my insistence on doing the job properly and not cutting corners / bending rules / misleading the public for performance management and other bullshit reasons, yes.  To the point where one pointed out, in an air of exasperation, "You're very good at doing the right thing, you're not very good at doing what you're told".
> 
> I had no desire to be the Commissioner, I don't "do" internal politics, I'd done everything I wanted to do as a police officer and so I left.  The organisation (especially the Met, which I know best) has become ever more dysfunctional since I left and I do not regret leaving at all.
> 
> (ETA: And to the extent that senior officers didn't like being told the truth about situations, especially when it did not fit in with their world view, it was _very_ similar to here, where the Collective are pathologically incapable of accepting any view which does not fit with theirs ...)


 
to return to an earlier point then, would it be fair to say that you'd be exactly the type of officer that the Met would keep as far away as possible from situations where you might be likely to come across hundreds of TSG & support in full riot gear with not a single number to be seen on any of their collars?

and that you're therefore maybe not best placed to determine whether or not this is in fact a long standing policy (defacto or otherwise), whereas people who've been stood face to face with them in kettles and the like just might be capable of noticing whether or not any of the coppers surrounding them had their numbers displayed or not?


----------



## cesare (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Those with a position of responsibility, power and influence are obliged to de-escalate.  Which is why I consistently argue that in relation to the delivery of policing, individual officers and the police service as a whole have a significantly greater responsibility for addressing the issues that arise between themselves and citizens than do the citizens themselves.
> 
> Therefore in this case, the Collective (seeing as they hunt as a pack and egg each other on) have a responsibility to avoid flaming me _every_ time I appear and to avoid propogating falsehoods (not that they'd have much to post if they did that ...) as they are in a position of relative power as compared to me as an individual poster.  And the Mods, who have _actual_ power here have a responsibility to prevent trolling by members of the Collective and their unjustified gang-attacks on me which disrupt thread after thread.  Sadly, for the most part, they signally avoid doing that.


 

I'll take that as a "no" then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

free spirit said:


> to return to an earlier point then, would it be fair to say that you'd be exactly the type of officer that the Met would keep as far away as possible from situations where you might be likely to come across hundreds of TSG & support in full riot gear with not a single number to be seen on any of their collars?
> 
> and that you're therefore maybe not best placed to determine whether or not this is in fact a long standing policy (defacto or otherwise), whereas people who've been stood face to face with them in kettles and the like just might be capable of noticing whether or not any of the coppers surrounding them had their numbers displayed or not?


by no means! according to d-b he's been a senior officer at many public order dos


----------



## audiotech (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your point is?  For fuck's sake this is painful ...



sub judice


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your point is?  For fuck's sake this is painful ...


 
stop banging the keyboard so hard then


----------



## free spirit (Aug 2, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means! according to d-b he's been a senior officer at many public order dos


I'm sure he has, but being silver commander, sitting a in some mobile command unit looking at maps, drinking coffee and issuing radio commands at one protest doesn't help much when it comes to knowing whether or not the TSG and others are instructed to hide their numbers at other protests by other commanders who're a bit more old skool about things... or whether this is at least defacto met policy for certain protests.

if he wanted to actually offer some proof to back up his statements, he could presumably point to the numerous examples there must have been of at least some of these hundreds of officers being reprimanded (and no I don't mean someone talking the talk for the press, I mean actually reprimanded in a way that is recorded on their records and affects their career).


----------



## xes (Aug 2, 2010)

free spirit said:


> nobody should.
> 
> That's nobody including you though, which is a concept you appear to not understand.


 
typical stance for people from a certain working background.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 2, 2010)

Has the officer who struck Tomlinson been publically identified by any chance? I'm sure Londoners would be keen to know exactly which officer they oughtn't to walk past with their hands in their pockets for fear of a beating is all. Particularly if there is likely to be no evidence that such an attack took place even when half the country has seen the evidence.


----------



## ymu (Aug 2, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> Has the officer who struck Tomlinson been publically identified by any chance? I'm sure Londoners would be keen to know exactly which officer they oughtn't to walk past with their hands in their pockets for fear of a beating is all. Particularly if there is likely to be no evidence that such an attack took place even when half the country has seen the evidence.


 
Yes. His lawyers released a photo last week in an attempt to stop the press door-stepping him. Click pic for details.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 3, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Three policemen violently assaulted a soldier who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan in 'a scene worthy of the TV programme Life on Mars' as they tried to restrain him, a court heard today.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...teran-like-scene-Life-Mars.html#ixzz0vGTPXHNo



And here's the evidence:


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I don't defend the excesses of the police _at all_, except in the fevered imaginations of the Collective ...


 
Of course. In for me, in for me; they've all got it in for me!


----------



## ymu (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And here's the evidence:



Cue db explaining that this is all standard practice in accordance with their training and necessary for the protection of the public and that non-professionals really just can't understand these things because they've not had specialist training in how to be a violent arsehole copper.


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And here's the evidence:




And?  That's just straight from page 32 of the standard operational manual.  Rubbing someone's face along the tarmac is sometimes the only way to stop them from biting you.  And that wasn't disproportionate, unnecessary punching, he was clearly using the "hammer strike" move, designed to stun a criminal in order to protect the safety of the public and officers.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## winjer (Aug 3, 2010)

Turns out it was another 'bad apple':



> "The conduct of SPC Lightfoot that day fell well below the standard we expect at Greater Manchester Police. His actions in no way reflect the committed and professional attitude shown by the vast majority of our Special Constables, who are highly trained in the best ways to safely detain prisoners. We are even more disappointed that he knowingly lied before a criminal court."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ght-beating-duty-soldier-CCTV-faces-jail.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2010)

the old "i'm not angry, i'm disappointed" line, i see


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 3, 2010)

Will 'special' constables be given a royal whitewash, I wonder, I'd wager he'll be the scapegoat for the three of them.


----------



## winjer (Aug 3, 2010)

That's a fairly easy prediction, given the other two have been acquitted and he's next in court *for sentencing.*


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 3, 2010)

Assuming I was aware of that fact, which I wasn't.


----------



## xes (Aug 3, 2010)

that video is shit. If you want to get pissed off at the police in action, then try this shit out for size. (not uk police, but they all do the same job, and it IS this wide spread) 

watch it and fucking weep.
(short sysnopsis)
Shots fired at a home. Citizen target practicing at home. Officers arrive and citizen comes forward with no problems.

Then comes the SEIZURE of the gun he was target practicing with.

Then comes the unwarranted entry into the home.

Then comes the unwarranted entry into the gun safe.

Then comes the officers stating they want a gun just like this.

Then comes the officers, seargent, detectives discussing the exigent circumstances they are going to have to FABRICATE to make the entries legal.

Then comes the officers fabricating more crap to come up with some type of charges to create a seizure of the guns necessary. 




(credit for my CnPing goes to this trhead http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread596392/pg1 )


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 3, 2010)

Power corrupts.


----------



## xes (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Power corrupts.


 
Indeed it does my good man, indeed it does. 

Now if only we could make a certain ex copper see this, we could make some headway....


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Power corrupts.


 
Absolutely.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Power corrupts.


 
Not having any power leads to corrupt assholes doing what the fuck they like.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

free spirit said:


> That's nobody including you though, which is a concept you appear to not understand.


I haven't got a fucking problem with people challenging what I _actually_ post in a rational and reasoned way.  I have a massive fucking problem with people who misrepresent what I post (or even simply make up lies about what I have posted) and then challenge that.  And I have a massive problem with people who simply state something is wrong / shite without explaining why or providing any alternatve analysis.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

free spirit said:


> would it be fair to say that you'd be exactly the type of officer that the Met would keep as far away as possible from situations where you might be likely to come across hundreds of TSG & support in full riot gear with not a single number to be seen on any of their collars?


No officers in a unit that I was responsible for supervising was allowed not to display numbers.  The vast majority of my colleagues on divisionally based units did likewise.  I cannot speak for the TSG as I never worked on the TSG, though in the situations when I was aware of their deployment I never noticed any wholesale absence of numbers - there may have been some officers without numbers (it wasn't my role to check them all) but I would have noticed if any significant proportion had them missing (epaulettes look very different without numbers).  The Met's policy has ALWAYS been that officers display their numbers.  There is no reason why the Met would want a supervisor willing and able to challenge that not to be involved with a unit where it was a problem.



> ... whereas people who've been stood face to face with them in kettles and the like just might be capable of noticing whether or not any of the coppers surrounding them had their numbers displayed or not?


You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ...  (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ... )


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I'm sure he has, but being silver commander, sitting a in some mobile command unit looking at maps, drinking coffee and issuing radio commands at one protest doesn't help much when it comes to knowing whether or not the TSG and others are instructed to hide their numbers at other protests by other commanders who're a bit more old skool about things... or whether this is at least defacto met policy for certain protests.


So you know what my fucking experience is better than I do, do you?  Just fuck off, eh?



> if he wanted to actually offer some proof to back up his statements, he could presumably point to the numerous examples there must have been of at least some of these hundreds of officers being reprimanded (and no I don't mean someone talking the talk for the press, I mean actually reprimanded in a way that is recorded on their records and affects their career).


Where numbers are not displayed it is dealt with by a direction to display them.  Unless that was something that was repeatedly attempted it would be neither worth the time, effort and fucking expense of a disciplinary hearing _or_ likely to result in a fucking finding against them, let alone any significant penalty.  

In cases where the officer with the absent numbers can be shown to have been doing that with some malicious intent, or where, with no numbers displayed they have committed some more serious disciplinary or criminal act, they should be disciplined.  Whether there have been any such examples I do not know.  I was certainly not aware of any such circumstances in situations I was personally involved with.  I have regularly posted that this is a simple matter to deal with and it should be dealt with robustly.  The Commissioner had an opportunity to do so after G20.  He didn't take it.  It remains to be seen if his internal directions have had any effect next time there is a large scale deployment of the TSG.  If there is again widespread evidence of numbers being absent or obscured and there are not arrangements in place for those situations to be proactively identified and dealt with (e.g. by having a Professional Standards Dept team monitoring all footage and gathering evidence proactively, against first line supervisors as well as individual officers) then the Commissioner should personally be held accountable.  Or even Kit Malthouse, seeing as he now thinks he runs the Met ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And here's the evidence:


I'm still at a fucking loss to see the point of this being brought up.  Unless it's to prove _my_ point that where the evidence exists police officers ARE tried and if the evidence is there the Court DO convict ... 

Other than that it's a different situation, involving different officers, from a different force, in a different context ... and of no fucking relevance whatsoever, other than to prove that allegations of excessive use of force by police officers have been brought before the Ian Tomlinson case which, er, no-ones fucking disputing ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> Cue db explaining that this is all standard practice in accordance with their training and necessary for the protection of the public and that non-professionals really just can't understand these things because they've not had specialist training in how to be a violent arsehole copper.


Cue ymu refusing to acknowledge that I have done no such thing.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Will 'special' constables be given a royal whitewash, I wonder, I'd wager he'll be the scapegoat for the three of them.


If you actually watch the video you'll see that there is a significant difference between the force used by the other two (which basicaly consists of restraining the prisoner on the ground) and by him (which consists of repeated punches to the area of the head).  The jury acquitted the other two, presumably on the basis that they found no joint enterprise.  I would hope that they will be disciplined for failing to report the excessive use of force as it appears (a) they could not have been unaware of the nature of the force being used and (b) it was so grossly excessive that they could not realisitically argue that it was justifiable in the circumstances.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 3, 2010)

xes said:


> ...and it IS this wide spread


No.  It isn't.  You live in your own little world where you gather up instances like this and start to believe that sort of shite.  Take a step back for a moment and think about how many interactions between police officers and citizens there are every day.  And in how few of them any significant excessive use of force or other serious malpractice is alleged.  Even though there are more incidents than we hear of, it's still a _tiny_ proportion.  Even tinier when you remove situations where there is organisational friction and associated issues (such as protest at the moment) where no matter what individual officers do, people have an issue with what the _organisation_ is doing.  The vast majority of officers, the vast majority of the time do their job to the best of their ability, within the law, often in extremely trying situations when people really _are_ trying to do them serious harm and being extremely violent.

And your stereotyping of all police officers, all around the world in this way is _exactly_ the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.  If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.


----------



## gavman (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't got a fucking problem with people challenging what I _actually_ post in a rational and reasoned way.  I have a massive fucking problem with people who misrepresent what I post (or even simply make up lies about what I have posted) and then challenge that.


 
stop doing it yourself then, you dishonest fuck


----------



## tarannau (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your stereotyping of all police officers, all around the world in this way is _exactly_ the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.  If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.


 
That's clearly a logical fallacy. People do not choose to be black, but they certainly opt to be police officers. And it's much fairer to generalise about a self-selecting group with a long culture of institutionalised racism and violence against protestors.

As for your claims of misrepresentation, you've a flaming cheek after you jumped down StephJ's throat with all sorts of hyperbolised, imagined bollocks on this thread. The evidence of your laughable guesswork and unpleasant aggression is there for all to see. I've seen bodybuilders with micropenises and 'roid rage show more self control and logical ability than you

Clearly you're a giant hypocrite, but it's a little pathetic to see such a lack of contrition and self knowledge. Don't dare try and take the moral high ground - you're an absolute plum


----------



## gavman (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy;10936959
And your stereotyping of all police officers said:
			
		

> exactly[/I] the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.  If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.


 
so how does your stereotyping of urban posters compare to this?
can you see it?
or are YOU a cunt?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...is _exactly_ the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.


Do you have any instances of where police officers have spoken out against colleagues where the death of a member of the public is involved?

Have any officers gone public in the UK against other officers?  I don't recall that happening.  Ever.

I do wish you'd stop calling people cunts.   

You go on about the vast majority of police being just normal people doing a difficult job.   The trouble is we read what you post here and you are - in no way - like the police you try to portray.

We're going on what you're like.   And you're not much to like.  A foul-mouthed, angry gay man with no ability discuss things rationally if people disagree with you.   And you're very disagreeable.   I  know quite a few policemen and women,   Some are ok, some are not.   You're not ok, there's something wrong with you.

Very.

Implying now that those who you were saying last week are homophobic...implying now that they/we are racists.   Depths of depravity, indeed.


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2010)

7 posts in a row then.

Are any of them worth reading?

Time is precocious.


----------



## xes (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your stereotyping of all police officers, all around the world in this way is _exactly_ the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.  If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.


 This is because all of the police are police. They are all an arm of a goverment, instead of protectors of the people. yes, I know police do alot of good stuff like catch actual criminals. But they also do alot of bad stuff, you talk like it's a rare occasion, but it's not, not from what I've seen. I know it's the fault of the goverment, who make up all the really fucking stupid laws which can be enterpreted anywhich way you fucking like. (missuse of anti terror laws with reguards to photography/ filming the police is a good example) All of them "uphold" these bullshit "laws" and do it with glee. And if it looks like a power trip, smells like a power trip...... So i think i'm perfectly justified in thinking what I do about the police. They're nothing but a tool of a control freak goverment. Surely police officers must know it's actually wrong to be doing half the shit they're told to do. I mean, they must know the difference between right and wrong, they've got through life thus far without licking a plug. But they still enforce the "laws" that goverment put inplace. yes, I know that's their job, but where would you draw the line in what you're prepared to do to carry out that job. I know that i could never do that to the people i'm supposed to be protecting. And i know what sort of person would.


----------



## Corax (Aug 3, 2010)

xes said:


> This is because all of the police are police. They are all an arm of a goverment, instead of protectors of the people. yes, I know police do alot of good stuff like catch actual criminals. But they also do alot of bad stuff, you talk like it's a rare occasion, but it's not, not from what I've seen. I know it's the fault of the goverment, who make up all the really fucking stupid laws which can be enterpreted anywhich way you fucking like. (missuse of anti terror laws with reguards to photography/ filming the police is a good example) All of them "uphold" these bullshit "laws" and do it with glee. And if it looks like a power trip, smells like a power trip...... So i think i'm perfectly justified in thinking what I do about the police. They're nothing but a tool of a control freak goverment. Surely police officers must know it's actually wrong to be doing half the shit they're told to do. I mean, they must know the difference between right and wrong, they've got through life thus far without licking a plug. But they still enforce the "laws" that goverment put inplace. yes, I know that's their job, but where would you draw the line in what you're prepared to do to carry out that job. I know that i could never do that to the people i'm supposed to be protecting. And i know what sort of person would.


 
, , +1, repped etc..

Can't wait to see DB's answer.  I expect he'll just call you a cunt though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your stereotyping of all police officers, all around the world in this way is _exactly_ the same as saying all black boys are robbers ... i.e. total, complete an utter unjustifiable shite based solely on prejudice.  If you really cannot see that then you are more of a cunt than I give you credit for.


 let's see...

the former head of interpol was jailed today: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-03/former-interpol-head-gets-15-years-jail-in-s-africa.html

if that's what the former head of interpol's been up to, what about all the rest of the fuckers?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2010)

It is also clear to see the link between growing up with the surname Smellie and going on to be a copper who backhands unarmed women like that is acceptable


----------



## xes (Aug 3, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It is also clear to see the link between growing up with the surname Smellie and going on to be a copper who backhands unarmed women like that is acceptable


 She had a carton of juice, it could have been a hand grenade


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2010)

xes said:


> She had a carton of juice, it could have been a hand grenade


 
or, worse, a health drink


----------



## xes (Aug 3, 2010)

won't somebody thing of the children *cries*


----------



## free spirit (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ...  (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ... )


erm, I've not once mentioned Oxford Street in this thread, nor would I seeing as I wasn't at that particular demo, so feel free to expand on exactly how this photo pwns me?

besides, as I've already acknowledged that the majority of police on duty do have their numbers showing, I don't see how any photo taken at one particular point could possibly disprove my point.

if you want to call me a liar btw stop beating around the bush and just come out and say it. I'll make things clearer for you if it helps, these are the 3 instances where I have personally witnessed entire groups of met riot police with their shoulder numbers not visible, on top of the G20 where it's a matter of public record. Am I lying? Are these really just rogue coppers, or is this not (as I contend) evidence of a long running Met policy (defacto or otherwise)?

At the mayday guerilla gardening protest in 2000 I personally witnessed the frontline (well, front 2-3 rows) of the police kettling operation on all 4 sides of the square was carried out by several hundred coppers, none of whom had their shoulder numbers other than the sergeants at the back. I remember it specifically because I made a rather foolish point of going round each side of the square challenging them as to why they didn't have their numbers showing. 

At J18 carnival against capitalism in the city in 1999 we left after spotting several van loads of kitted up riot police with no numbers on display moving in, specifically because their numbers were off, which we took to be a bad sign. I guess it could be that they were about to put their numbers on, but usually you'd think they'd do that in the van, not when they were already moving in to the action.

At the G8 protest in stirling the Met contingent's refusal to obey scottish law and display their numbers at all times was even commented on directly to me by the local head copper at the time, with a resigned 'but what can we really do about it' as I was negotiating directly with him to end the siege of the campsite which the met were insisting on maintaining until a full search had been conducted of the campsite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You mean like you confidently asserted about the officers at Oxford Street ... only to be totally pwned by a photograph posted by winjer ...  (or has that been photoshopped by the Met's black propoganda unit ... )


 you ignorant fucker.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you know what my fucking experience is better than I do, do you?  Just fuck off, eh?





detective-boy said:


> No officers in a unit that I was responsible for supervising was allowed not to display numbers.  The vast majority of my colleagues on divisionally based units did likewise. * I cannot speak for the TSG as I never worked on the TSG,* though in the situations when I was aware of their deployment I never noticed any wholesale absence of numbers - there may have been some officers without numbers (it wasn't my role to check them all) but I would have noticed if any significant proportion had them missing (epaulettes look very different without numbers).


ok, so I got it right that you weren't in TSG, that you'd not personally allow officers under your command not to hide their numbers... obviously I don't know your career better than you, but I obviously have picked up enough about it over the years to know that you are in no way an authority on the activities of TSG (particularly the more dubious activities) in the way that you might be on other areas of police work.



detective-boy said:


> The Met's policy has ALWAYS been that officers display their numbers.  There is no reason why the Met would want a supervisor willing and able to challenge that not to be involved with a unit where it was a problem.


what you mean, unless certain sections of the met were actually quite happy to have a squad that they could deploy with numbers covered on occasions where it was judged that the gloves needed to come off?

In those kind of situations do you really not see any reason why the met (or certain sections of it) might want to keep a supervisor such as yourself away from the action?




			
				db said:
			
		

> I have regularly posted that this is a simple matter to deal with and it should be dealt with robustly. *The Commissioner had an opportunity to do so after G20. He didn't take it*.


ok, now even your posts are backing up what I'm saying. He didn't take firm action because if he had then the officers involved would almost certainly have come out and pointed out that they'd been ordered not to wear their numbers, and that this is a longstanding situation not a one off... or do you have a better explanation?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

tarannau said:


> And it's much fairer to generalise about a self-selecting group with a long culture of institutionalised racism and violence against protestors. OK to be totally, completely and utterly prejudiced against any group you happen not to like


Corrected for you.  Thank you for clearly stating that you are a prejudiced tosser.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

gavman said:


> so how does your stereotyping of urban posters compare to this?


I _don't_ stereotype Urban posters ... I identify a particular subset (The Collective).  If you actually bothered to read what I post you would know that I _regularly_ bemoan the fact that the gobbiness and bullying of the members of the Collective causes _huge_ numbers of posters to avoid posting with their own opinions (if they happen not to align with Collective monothought and the views of the Circle Jerk) because they know they'll get flamed ... as evidenced by the PMs I get _every_ time I take them on.  

If I really _did_ stereotype ALL Urban posters as the Collective do you _really_ think I'd waste my time here?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Implying now that those who you were saying last week are homophobic...


It hurts when you realise the truth, doesn't it?   

(And where am I implying that you are fucking "racists".  Cunt.)  

(If you don't want to be called a cunt, don't post like one.  Simples.)


----------



## tarannau (Aug 4, 2010)

I think you're misrepresenting my post there DB. I note that you weren't able to comment on your own defective logic or stupid comparison between police officers and black youth.

Still, I wouldn't want to divert you from your pattern of hypocrisy and general stupidity. Will you at least concede that it's more understandable/justifiable to make generalisations about a group that choose to take up a certain profession rather than generalise about people based solely on skin colour?

I realise this may come difficult to you, but a little honesty and ability to engage with posts correctly would be appreciated. Fucking around with posts like that is a reportable offence you know.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> But they also do alot of bad stuff, you talk like it's a rare occasion, but it's not, not from what I've seen.


I've seen a million times more interactions between the police and citizens than you have.  I've partaken in many myself.  I have _far_ more data on which to draw a conclusion than you.  Why is your conclusion supposed to be more valid than mine?  Why will you not accept that the situation may not be as _you_ have seen it on your relatively very limited experience?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (If you don't want to be called a cunt, don't post like one.  *Simples.*)




tbf, I tend to think of people who end their posts with simples as cun...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> ... but where would you draw the line in what you're prepared to do to carry out that job.


At the point where it did not align with the democratically expressed will of the people and where it varied from the UKs oath of allegiance as a police officer.  Which is a million miles away from anything we have here.

If you actually walked away from the hyperbole, exaggeration and total lies that are told about policing, and actually engaged with the issues that DO exist then you may actually make a difference.  But whilst you portray a situation that is _patently_ untrue you will be treated like the idiots you are and you will be ignored.  Sadly that means that you (who are actually motivated to make a difference and to challenge the actions of the State) have no impact on the things that DO need to be addressed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually watch the video you'll see that there is a significant difference between the force used by the other two (which basicaly consists of restraining the prisoner on the ground) and by him (which consists of repeated punches to the area of the head).  The jury acquitted the other two, presumably on the basis that they found no joint enterprise.  I would hope that they will be disciplined for failing to report the excessive use of force as it appears (a) they could not have been unaware of the nature of the force being used and (b) it was so grossly excessive that they could not realisitically argue that it was justifiable in the circumstances.


 
You've missed out the bit that prior to the footage emerging the three officers told a pack of lies in order to get the victim charged with an offence. Isn't that perjury?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

free spirit said:


> erm, I've not once mentioned Oxford Street in this thread, nor would I seeing as I wasn't at that particular demo, so feel free to expand on exactly how this photo pwns me?


I'm so *terribly* sorry ... it was _Trafalgar Square_, not Oxford Street you referred to ...

Now perhaps _you'd_ care to explain how this post from a "regular legal observer" _doesn't_ pwn you ... 



winjer said:


> This is easily provably untrue. e.g.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> if you want to call me a liar ...


I don't want to call you a liar - I am sure you have seen officers on some occasions without numbers but you are exaggerating, you are extending your own personal experience to a massive generalisation it simply doesn't justify and you are claiming that it is "evidence" of a policy which simply does not exist.

Like I have said dozens of times before: keep it in proportion and people will have to listen to you (eventually).  Exaggerate wildly and expect to get treated like a fool and ignored.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

free spirit said:


> He didn't take firm action because if he had then the officers involved would almost certainly have come out and pointed out that they'd been ordered not to wear their numbers, and that this is a longstanding situation not a one off... or do you have a better explanation?


He didn't take firm action beause he's crap.  He was selected by Boris and Kit Malthouse because they wanted someone who'd do what they were told, not because he was likely to deal robustly with the issues that need dealing with (like the issue of a significant minority of officers, particularly, it would appear, amongst the TSG having acquired the habit of not wearing, or obscuring, their numbers - something which I have long acknowledged and suggested should be dealt with).

They could not have pointed to any 'order' not to wear their numbers as (a) there is no written order to that effect (quite the contrary) and (b) any oral order from a supervisor would be unlawful and would render the supervisor liable to disciplinary proceedings too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I've seen a million times more interactions between the police and citizens than you have.  I've partaken in many myself.  I have _far_ more data on which to draw a conclusion than you.  Why is your conclusion supposed to be more valid than mine?  Why will you not accept that the situation may not be as _you_ have seen it on your relatively very limited experience?


 
Could it not be possible what with having been a senior cop, that the lower ranks behaved themselves in your presence? Even when you started they could have behaved better as they saw that you were ambitious and one day going to be their boss?

You have stated that you haven't worked closely with the TSG, it is this department that seems to cause the most problems. Certainly the only time I have ever been hit by a copper was by a TSG with no numbers showing. I was hit with a shield in a wholly unprovoked attack whilst mooching along very much in the manner of Mr. Tomlinson.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I think you're misrepresenting my post there DB. I note that you weren't able to comment on your own defective logic or stupid comparison between police officers and black youth.


I wasn't making a "comparison between police officers and black youth" you fucking idiot.  I was simply providing another example of what would be a fuckwitted generalisation.  



> Will you at least concede that it's more understandable/justifiable to make generalisations about a group that choose to take up a certain profession rather than generalise about people based solely on skin colour?


No.  Only a prejudiced cunt would attempt to justify ANY stereotyping, on the basis of ANY characteristic is the action.

Will you now at least concede that you are a prejudiced cunt?



> Fucking around with posts like that is a reportable offence you know.


As you _perfectly_ well know, the use of strikethorugh to "correct" a post to make a point is commonly used here.  If you _really_ think it's a fucking banning offence, go fucking report it.

But expect to be called a "grass" by the rest of the Collective ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf, I tend to think of people who end their posts with simples as cun...


That is actually a fair point ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've missed out the bit that prior to the footage emerging the three officers told a pack of lies in order to get the victim charged with an offence. Isn't that perjury?


I have far too little information about what led up to the arrest to know whether or not that statement is true.  The simple fact that an officer has been convicted (and two others charged but acquitted) in connection with the use of excessive force in making an arrest does not, in and of itself, mean that the actual making of the arrest in the first place was unlawful and, even less, that the person assaulted was not guilty of some offence leading to their arrest.

Perjury is only committed when false evidence is deliberately given on oath.  I do not know whether the officers gave evidence on oath in their own defence and, if they did, I do not know what it was.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Could it not be possible what with having been a senior cop, that the lower ranks behaved themselves in your presence?


So, seeing as Chief Inspectors and Superintendents would be present on the ground, and as they knew officers of at least the rank of Assistant Commissioner were viewing live footage of events, why would officers not be wearing numbers at G20?

There is a valid point about officers, particularly on the TSG, apparently not wearing numbers to a significant extent.  And about their supervisors failing to robustly address the issue.  But it is nowhere near as widespread as is being suggested.  And it is definitely not any sort of official policy.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2010)

Could we have a little less of this all round please?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So, seeing as Chief Inspectors and Superintendents would be present on the ground, and as they knew officers of at least the rank of Assistant Commissioner were viewing live footage of events, why would officers not be wearing numbers at G20?



Quite possibly because the TSG knew that none of these top bods would step in and tell the sergeants or inspectors to sort their men out whilst in the field. Don't want to knock the moral of the storm troopers prior to the big kick off and all that?




			
				DB said:
			
		

> There is a valid point about officers, particularly on the TSG, apparently not wearing numbers to a significant extent.  And about their supervisors failing to robustly address the issue.  But it is nowhere near as widespread as is being suggested.  And it is definitely not any sort of official policy.



It's not that common in everyday situations, where it does seem common is on protests. As many who have been on a protest that has turned ugly can testify, there are regular cops acting in a reasonable manner, easily identifiable. Then something happens and they are replaced with the masked, tooled up cops with no id visible, these are the ones who lay in to the crowds, often creating the disorder that they are there to police.


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But whilst you portray a situation that is _patently_ untrue you will be treated like the idiots you are and you will be ignored.  .


 What is patently untrue about what i wrote? The police ARE an arm of goverment, a goverment who are hellbent on some form of mass control. I would never be able to uphold these "laws" that the police "uphold" as it is wrong. Pure and simple. You may think that this is the expressed will of the people. But I ask you, what person wants to be controlled to such an extent? I've never met one who agrees with the ammount of "power" the police are given over the people they are supposed to be protecting. The goverment have turned everyone into criminals, and the police are the tool which allows this to be. What is untrue about that? Do let me know.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Quite possibly because the TSG knew that none of these top bods would step in and tell the sergeants or inspectors to sort their men out whilst in the field. Don't want to knock the moral of the storm troopers prior to the big kick off and all that?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that common in everyday situations, where it does seem common is on protests. As many who have been on a protest that has turned ugly can testify, there are regular cops acting in a reasonable manner, easily identifiable. Then something happens and they are replaced with the masked, tooled up cops with no id visible, these are the ones who lay in to the crowds, often creating the disorder that they are there to police.


 
This ^^

All the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If I really _did_ stereotype ALL Urban posters as the Collective do you _really_ think I'd waste my time here?


 yes. you're that sort of person. do you think you use your time here profitably now?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So, seeing as Chief Inspectors and Superintendents would be present on the ground, and as they knew officers of at least the rank of Assistant Commissioner were viewing live footage of events, why would officers not be wearing numbers at G20?
> 
> There is a valid point about officers, particularly on the TSG, apparently not wearing numbers to a significant extent.  And about their supervisors failing to robustly address the issue.  But it is nowhere near as widespread as is being suggested.  And it is definitely not any sort of official policy.


A senior officer at G20 not wearing a number....






standing next to another officer not wearing a number....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> At the point where it did not align with the democratically expressed will of the people and where it varied from the UKs oath of allegiance as a police officer.


 so YOU know what the 'democratically expressed will of the people is'? please elaborate on how you know that and how it is not at variance with the swearing allegiance not to the people but to some unelected biddy of german descent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> A senior officer at G20 not wearing a number....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh for fuck's sake. can't you see the chief super has a fucking name badge on?

you may wish to consult this: http://www.met.police.uk/about/ranks.htm

incidently, by his helmet the cop without any numbers should be from haringey & is level 2 not tsg


----------



## tarannau (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I wasn't making a "comparison between police officers and black youth" you fucking idiot.  I was simply providing another example of what would be a fuckwitted generalisation.
> 
> 
> No.  Only a prejudiced cunt would attempt to justify ANY stereotyping, on the basis of ANY characteristic is the action.
> ...


 
Jesus, you really are more than a little dense aren't you? Every time your defective logic is questioned you turn into a gibbering, aggressive idiot. It's what morons tend to do when they haven't got a decent answer, swearing and jumping up and down to obfuscate

By all means feel free to show me where I stereotype and exhibit prejudice about the police in the fashion you're hysterically going on about. I may have reservations about the general culture of the police and believe that there are far more bad apples than you'll admit, but I'm usually fairly measured - more MCAB (most) than ACAB. That's a view shaped by personal experience and seeing police in action far too often. I'd also say my views are shared by a hefty proportion the BME population - are you always so quick to dismiss those concerns as stereotyped, prejudiced or simply to shout abuse?

I don't think I've ever said all cops are evil, nor come over all Pickmans' about it. Indeed I'll even count a few policemen as my friends over the years. I wouldn't include you in that group mind - because you're an aggressive, jumped up pillock with all the empathy and appeal of a skunk's gonads. it's the way that you win hearts and minds that really appeals, oh and the giant hypocrisy and inability to apologise. You're a winning human being for sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

tarannau said:


> You're a whining human being for sure.


corrected for you


----------



## tarannau (Aug 4, 2010)

Still, you've got to love the idea that if you're placing two groups directly next to each other in a sentence contrasting their treatment, you're not effectively 'comparing' them, you're simply providing another example.

Fuck me, with logic like that it's wonder he can tie his shoelaces in the morning. The stunning thing is that he still believes he has a fair point and this is a reasonable thought process, let alone that it gives him a right to swear blue murder at anyone who questions him


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You have stated that you haven't worked closely with the TSG, it is this department that seems to cause the most problems. Certainly the only time I have ever been hit by a copper was by a TSG with no numbers showing. I was hit with a shield in a wholly unprovoked attack whilst mooching along very much in the manner of Mr. Tomlinson.


The really odd thing is that I've spoken to a few coppers about TSG and they always groan, refer to them as meatheads, and describe their dismay whenever they turned up to make things worse.

But db seems entirely oblivious to this. It's quite strange.


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

Mind you, they were ex-coppers who left for honourable reasons. Maybe that's why.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Quite possibly because the TSG knew that none of these top bods would step in and tell the sergeants or inspectors to sort their men out whilst in the field.


Which, er, sort of entirely undermines the point that was being made that the reason I never saw any officers without numbers was that I was a senior officer and they would, er, worry that I would step in and tell them to sort it out ... 

There's nothing like consistency in a line of argument ... and this is nothing like consistency in a line of argument ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> What is untrue about that? Do let me know.


The hyperbole and exaggeration.  As you know perfectly well.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> A senior officer at G20 not wearing a number....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Officers above the rank of Inspector in the Met do not have shoulder numbers as has been discussed.  You fail (typicaly) to note, however, that he is wearing is NAME badge.

Have you used that photograph as the basis for making a complaint about him apparently permitting an officer to fail to display his numbers?

Why not?

(Awaits usual "Cos nothing'd happen ..." shite)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> please elaborate on how you know that...


It's called the will of Parliament, as contained in the laws that they pass and the directions they give about the policing of the country.

As you well know.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Still, you've got to love the idea that if you're placing two groups directly next to each other in a sentence contrasting their treatment, you're not effectively 'comparing' them, you're simply providing another example.


It wasn't the two _groups_ I was comparing, it was the two _principles_.  Have you had to take lessons to be this fucking thick?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> Mind you, they were ex-coppers who left for honourable reasons.


Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 4, 2010)

Oh please you clown - the two are inextricably linked in your post. Stop with this revisionist nonsense and mealy mouthed bollocks

It's always someone else's fault with you. Folks are meant to buy (rich hypocritical irony) that everyone's continually misreading and misrepresenting your posts when in fact logic suggests that you're a precious numbskulll who should learn to write more fucking clearly and unambiguously. 

Although, given your excuses here re. comparison - drawing artificial links between principle and groups that you specifically name for effect - then a little honesty on your part would be a mandatory too.

It's embarrassing frankly. I've taught first year exchange students who have a better grasp of the written word than you. At the very least they don't blame everyone else for misunderstanding them, nor burst out swearing at frequent intolerant intervals


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you left under a cloud. I meant that they left because they couldn't stomach the culture. You flounced because you couldn't get your own way all the time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which, er, sort of entirely undermines the point that was being made that the reason I never saw any officers without numbers was that I was a senior officer and they would, er, worry that I would step in and tell them to sort it out ...



TSG don't give a fuck about non-TSG, non-TSG too crapping to tell TSG what to do.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


>



Illustrates the point quite well. The chief super there is hardly going to start balling out the constable for no numbers in the middle of a rumpus, anymore than he's going to give the sergeant behind a dressing down for failing to ensure his men are properly attired.


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


 
(ex)Officer facepalm strikes again


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I've taught first year exchange students who have a better grasp of the written word than you.


I hope they don't pay ... otherwise one day you'll find a whole queue of them at the door demanding their money back ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> You flounced because you couldn't get your own way all the time.


No.  Because, as I have explained in detail previously, I was not happy with the way the organisation was going and how the public were being lied to in relation to the policing services they received (i.e. I tried to do things properly, according to proper policies and procedures, and was constantly pressured into cutting corners.  When I refused that brought me into conflict with the senior managers who were telling me to do the _wrong_ thing.).  It was not "all the time" and I was reasonable in what I expected, as it is not always possible to deliver everything exactly as promised.  I did not insist that we deliver a Rolls-Royce policing model all the time, but I DID insist that we did our best to deliver a serviceable Ford Focus one.

Are you _really_ suggesting that I was wrong to do this and that I should have just kept my mouth shut and gone along with what I was being told to do, even though it was wrong?  

Bearing in mind your approach to policing, I should be one of your fucking heroes shouldn't I? ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> TSG don't give a fuck about non-TSG, non-TSG too crapping to tell TSG what to do.


There is a certain arrogance about them and, like many specialist units, they have developed their own cultures and norms.  I have posted many times about how they tend to be far more aggressive in interactions and far too ready to resort to force and arrest.  Sadly many divisional officers, especially those on "response teams" seem to be adopting similar cultures ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Illustrates the point quite well. The chief super there is hardly going to start balling out the constable for no numbers in the middle of a rumpus, anymore than he's going to give the sergeant behind a dressing down for failing to ensure his men are properly attired.


I'd disagree it's "in the middle of a rumpus".  It appears quite calm.  There does not appear to be any reason whatsoever why (a) the constable should not be directed to correct his dress; (b) the sergeant shouldn't be bollocked for allowing it to happen and / or (c) the Chief Supt couldn't take their details and deal with the matter later.

I think it is unlikely that any investigation will uncover sufficient grounds of any significant disciplinary offence (as I have previously posted simply not having numbers displayed is a _relatively_ minor matter unless accompanied by aggravating circumstances such as an intent to commit a more serious offence or at the time of doing so) likely to lead to anything other than a reprimand ... but, in view of the sensitive nature of the issue, it IS worth asking the question by making a complaint.  If nothing else it reminds senior officers that people are watching them, and how they are dealing with the issue.


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The hyperbole and exaggeration.  As you know perfectly well.


 
What exaggeration would that have been? The bit where I said that officers have some common knowledge of right and wrong as they've yet to lick a plug? yeah, sorry 'bout that.


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'd disagree it's "in the middle of a rumpus".  It appears quite calm.  There does not appear to be any reason whatsoever why (a) the constable should not be directed to correct his dress; (b) the sergeant shouldn't be bollocked for allowing it to happen and / or (c) the Chief Supt couldn't take their details and deal with the matter later.
> 
> I think it is unlikely that any investigation will uncover sufficient grounds of any significant disciplinary offence (as I have previously posted simply not having numbers displayed is a _relatively_ minor matter unless accompanied by aggravating circumstances such as an intent to commit a more serious offence or at the time of doing so) likely to lead to anything other than a reprimand ... but, in view of the sensitive nature of the issue, it IS worth asking the question by making a complaint.  If nothing else it reminds senior officers that people are watching them, and how they are dealing with the issue.


 
The fact that the police force treats it as a minor matter does not make it so. Surely you can see that? Coppers who don't wear numbers are almost invariably beating people up. I know - I used to spend most of my time on demos filming interviews coppers who had been seen committing violence - none of them ever had a number and none of them ever agreed to state what theirs was.

You're incredibly naive, given your background and experience.


----------



## gavman (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I wasn't making a "comparison between police officers and black youth" you fucking idiot.  I was simply providing another example of what would be a fuckwitted generalisation.
> 
> 
> No.  Only a prejudiced cunt would attempt to justify ANY stereotyping, on the basis of ANY characteristic is the action.
> ...



so to class a member of the ku klux klan as a racist would be an unjustified prejudice, then?
of course not. they have chosen to join and be part of an organisation with a culture of racism and prejudice that elevates the priorities of one group, to the detriment of others
ring any bells?


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

ding fucking dong


----------



## gavman (Aug 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You've missed out the bit that prior to the footage emerging the three officers told a pack of lies in order to get the victim charged with an offence. Isn't that perjury?


 
attempting to pervert the course of justice


----------



## gavman (Aug 4, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> A senior officer at G20 not wearing a number....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



corrected for you


----------



## gavman (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


 
all that means is that he knows why they left, but not you.
good luck with the action. you fucking dickhead


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 4, 2010)

gavman said:


> corrected for you


 
Could be jam from his donuts. Fucker looks like he's familiar enough with Krispy Kreme.


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

gavman said:


> all that means is that he knows why they left, but not you.
> good luck with the action. you fucking dickhead


 
No, I know why he left. He's explained it enough times. He flounced.

By "honourable reasons" I meant seeing the force for what it is and leaving out of a sense of moral rectitude. Flouncing because people don't do what you want them to however many times you stamp your feet is not honourable, it's childish.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> The fact that the police force treats it as a minor matter does not make it so. Surely you can see that?


Do you _really_ think that simply not displaying your ID numbers, with no aggravating factors at all, would lead to anything other than a simple disciplinary warning? * 

And are you _really_ arguing that sacking an officer for it, at a cost of hundreds of thosands of pounds to the public purse in the cost of training, etc. now wasted, is justifiable and proportionate?

And are you _really_ so naive to think that any such action would survive challenge in an employment tribunal?  

(* And before you go off on one again, I have REPEATEDLY differentiated between a simple failure to wear numbers and not wearing numbers in circumstances where it can be shown there is an ulterior motive or where other malpractice is happening)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

gavman said:


> so to class a member of the ku klux klan as a racist would be an unjustified prejudice, then?
> of course not. they have chosen to join and be part of an organisation with a culture of racism and prejudice that elevates the priorities of one group, to the detriment of others


So now you're equating the police service with the fucking Ku Klux Klan.  Jesus fucking wept, what the _fuck_ is it with you pricks?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> ding fucking dong


Oh look, here comes the Circle Jerk ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Do you _really_ think that simply not displaying your ID numbers, with no aggravating factors at all, would lead to anything other than a simple disciplinary warning?
> 
> And are you _really_ arguing that sacking an officer for it, at a cost of hundreds of thosands of pounds to the public purse in the cost of training, etc. now wasted, is justifiable and proportionate?
> 
> And are you _really_ so naive to think that any such action would survive challenge in an employment tribunal?


 
Surely the aggravating factor would be in the offence itself? It begs the question of why an officer would hide or obscure their numbers, and the only reasonable answer is surely that they do not wish to be identified. Why would an officer not wish to be identified unless they are planning to act above and beyond what is permitted in law?

I don't see why an officer obscuring their numbers is any different to, for example, a would-be burglar going tooled up.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is a certain arrogance about them ...


Gee...really?   Never see that with police types.

If you were to start a libel action would they investigate your character in relation to the people you're bringing it against?   We'd get your name and picture for that, I suppose.

Oh...and regarding the racist thing...I believe the police were branded as institutionally racist some time back, seems to be fair comment.

Especially considering the way you talk to people. 

You certainly come across as that type.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's called the will of Parliament, as contained in the laws that they pass and the directions they give about the policing of the country.
> 
> As you well know.


 
that's hardly 'the democratic will of the people', is it. i don't think you can say that, for example, the local government finance act 1988 was the will of the people. the will of parliament and the will of the people are two entirely separate things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So now you're equating the police service with the fucking Ku Klux Klan.  Jesus fucking wept, what the _fuck_ is it with you pricks?


 
i agree  the police service in this country has never had the popularity the kkk has enjoyed in the past.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> By "honourable reasons" I meant seeing the force for what it is and leaving out of a sense of moral rectitude. Flouncing because people don't do what you want them to however many times you stamp your feet is not honourable, it's childish.


So you are arguing that I should have stayed, even though (a) senior officers were misrepresenting to the public the service they could expect; (b) I was being told to cut corners, etc. to deliver "performance targets" and fuck the quality of service delivered to particular victims or their families and (c) having raised those issues a number of times I was not only ignored but basically targeted as a troublemaker?  Yes?

And how exactly does that square with your incessant demands that police officers challenge malpractice and, if it is not corrected, cease having anything to do with the organisation?

Face it, I have done _exactly_ what you would expect a principled officer to do.  But you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that, can you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Officers above the rank of Inspector in the Met do not have shoulder numbers as has been discussed.  You fail (typicaly) to note, however, that he is wearing is NAME badge.
> 
> Have you used that photograph as the basis for making a complaint about him apparently permitting an officer to fail to display his numbers?
> 
> ...


 
little sir echo


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


 
i think you should read something about libel and stop making an arse of yourself shouting about clearly non-libellous remarks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> principled officer


 
Oxymoron


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Surely the aggravating factor would be in the offence itself?


Not necessarily.  Many officers have insufficient epaulettes (or numbers sometimes) for all their individual items of uniform.  This means that sometimes different pieces of uniform are put on or taken off without the numbers / epaulettes being transferred.  You would need to know the circumstances of the failure to display them to know whether or not there is any aggravating factor or whether it is simply oversight or some other mistake.  (The PC in the picture, for instance, is wearing a high-vis jacket.  You would need to know when he was directed to wear that and whether there was an opportunity to transfer numbers / epaulettes.  You would also need to see whether he had numbers on other items of uniform he had been wearing earlier.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> having raised those issues a number of times I was not only ignored but basically targeted as a troublemaker?  Yes?


 assuming you behaved there the way you behave here it's a wonder you weren't sacked.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Not necessarily.  Many officers have insufficient epaulettes (or numbers sometimes) for all their individual items of uniform.  This means that sometimes different pieces of uniform are put on or taken off without the numbers / epaulettes being transferred.  You would need to know the circumstances of the failure to display them to know whether or not there is any aggravating factor or whether it is simply oversight or some other mistake.  (The PC in the picture, for instance, is wearing a high-vis jacket.  You would need to know when he was directed to wear that and whether there was an opportunity to transfer numbers / epaulettes.  You would also need to see whether he had numbers on other items of uniform he had been wearing earlier.)


 
Fair enough. So, if it could be demonstrated that the officer(s) in question has sufficient time and access to have worn ID numbers, surely that would or should be a fairly major offence?


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh look, here comes the Circle Jerk ...


 
fappity fappity fwap fwap


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> fappity fappity fwap fwap


 
what i want to know is how you can be a circle jerk on your own.


----------



## xes (Aug 4, 2010)

use your imagination dude


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

xes said:


> use your imagination dude


 
you run about in a circle wanking?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you run about in a circle wanking?


 
Nah, that's called a Hockney


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> You certainly come across as that type.


You can tell that from a few posts (absolutely NONE of which suggest any sort of racism, institutional or otherwise), eh?  Fucking hell, you're good ... 

(And the way I talk to people is an indicator that I suffer from institutional cuntism, not fucking racism ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> that's hardly 'the democratic will of the people', is it. i don't think you can say that, for example, the local government finance act 1988 was the will of the people. the will of parliament and the will of the people are two entirely separate things.


So what do you suggest, Einstein?  Police officers carrying out a fucking referendum every time they have to exercise their fucking discretion?

You really are a prick.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> assuming you behaved there the way you behave here it's a wonder you weren't sacked.


Strangely enough I never met quite so many out and out fucking morons as I encounter here ...

In fact, I have never encounterde quite so many in any other context ...


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Do you _really_ think that simply not displaying your ID numbers, with no aggravating factors at all, would lead to anything other than a simple disciplinary warning? *
> 
> And are you _really_ arguing that sacking an officer for it, at a cost of hundreds of thosands of pounds to the public purse in the cost of training, etc. now wasted, is justifiable and proportionate?
> 
> ...


 
Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.

That doesn't make it right. Members of the public view it as an extremely serious matter, especially when numbers appear to be removed when the officer intends to indulge in anonymous wrongdoing.

We know perfectly well that the police don't take it seriously. That doesn't make it right or proper that this is the case. It's why the police aren't trusted. It's why Raoul Moat is being hailed as some kind of sick hero. It's time they got their house in order and acted responsibly and within the letter of the law. Protesters who conceal their identity are targeted for it, but if a police officer does it he won't even get a slap on the wrist. And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So what do you suggest, Einstein?  Police officers carrying out a fucking referendum every time they have to exercise their fucking discretion?
> 
> You really are a prick.


 
i'm suggesting you don't know what the bloody fuck you're on about.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Y(And the way I talk to people is an indicator that I suffer from institutional cuntism, not fucking racism ...)


A bit of both, really.

Your posts scream hate, can't be denied.  Thank fuck you're not in the force anymore.   Thank fuck you don't have any kids to pass that shit on to.

Must be terrible...knowing you're going to die alone and unloved.  On the other hand, it's good for society.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.
> 
> That doesn't make it right. Members of the public view it as an extremely serious matter, especially when numbers appear to be removed when the officer intends to indulge in anonymous wrongdoing.
> 
> We know perfectly well that the police don't take it seriously. That doesn't make it right or proper that this is the case. It's why the police aren't trusted. It's why Raoul Moat is being hailed as some kind of sick hero. It's time they got their house in order and acted responsibly and within the letter of the law. Protesters who conceal their identity are targeted for it, but if a police officer does it he won't even get a slap on the wrist. And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.


 
Quite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...oulder-identification-on-front-line-duty.html

So that is half of all coppers who don't have the opportunity to put their numbers on before starting work, apparently.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fair enough. So, if it could be demonstrated that the officer(s) in question has sufficient time and access to have worn ID numbers, surely that would or should be a fairly major offence?


As I have repeatedly said, if there is no reasonable explanation, or if there are aggravating factors (such as any indication that there was, or was intended to be malpractice they could then not be identified as responsible for), then yes, it is a serious matter (certainly now as it has become such a sensitive issue and only a total fucking idiot wouldn't know the public concerns about the issue) and it should be robustly investigated and pursued through the disciplinary process.  I have also repeatedly posted that there should be _proactively_ policed by Professional Standards in future public order situations, with them also identifiying and dealing with supervisors who do not address the issue themselves. 

Why do you all keep pretending that I haven't said all this before?


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

It's weird how db feels the need to argue that it is a trivial matter when senior plod have made it clear that it is not, eh?



> Speaking after the suspensions, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met Commissioner, said it was 'unacceptable' for officers not to wear their identification numbers.
> 
> He said: "I have made it absolutely clear that it is absolutely unacceptable for any officer who should have identification numbers on not to have those identification numbers on.
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

Given that there is no lawful excuse for not wearing a shoulder number, why do you think aggravating factors need to be present for it to be taken seriously? Seems like a get-out clause to me. Much simpler to discipline any officer not wearing one. I believe that's why some forces have started embroidering them on, so the lying cunts can't claim it fell off.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.


Congratulations on simply repeating what you had already said and failing entirely to address the questions I asked ... 



> And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.


And on misrepresenting what I have posted yet again.  You simply can't fucking help yourself can you?


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

What questions? If you mean the "do I really think" stuff, those weren't questions, they were sarcastic statements. But I've made it clear what I think. To be more explicit, I think it should be an automatic disciplinary matter and grounds for suspension without pay. I've made that pretty clear. If it's "utterly unacceptable" then it should not be happening and the force should take action to ensure that no officer thinks they can get away with it or is allowed to get away with it.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So that is half of all coppers who don't have the opportunity to put their numbers on before starting work, apparently.


No.  359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't.  Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). *I* have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten.  It happens.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's weird how db feels the need to argue that it is a trivial matter when senior plod have made it clear that it is not, eh?


*I've* never said it's "acceptable" - quite the contrary.

*He's* never said that it's a serious disciplinary matter, likely to lead to any significant finding or penalty in the absence of aggravating factors.

And I've suggested he should proactively address the issue far more robustly than he seems to intend ... so hardly a good witness in your campaign to discredit every fucking thing I post, eh?


----------



## ymu (Aug 4, 2010)

It shouldn't happen. Not realising my car licence had fallen off the windscreen or forgetting to renew my insurance won't save me from the legal consequences. There is no reason why police officers should receive more leniency when a serious offence is committed. If it was taken seriously, I'm sure episodes of "forgetfulness" will reduce miraculously.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't.  Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category).


 
Half of all coppers asked. That's how surveys work.



detective-boy said:


> *I* have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten.  It happens.



And is that an acceptable excuse, forgetting?


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Strangely enough I never met quite so many out and out fucking morons as I encounter here ...


 
You should get out more then, d-b. Take up voluntary work as a police community support officer; or, victim support, maybe.


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't.  Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). *I* have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten.  It happens.


 
Ever forgotten to go out without your truncheon, whistle or squad car?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...*He's* never said that it's a serious disciplinary matter...


That's a massive claim, isn't it.   Never?

How would you know he's never done it?  You know no such thing, dibble.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't.  Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). *I* have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten.  It happens.


it's strange how many surveys of the entire population find about 1,000 to be a statistically significant sample (when i worked in market research we used a sample of 500 from a possible pool of c.80,000 for customer satisfaction surveys); 359 seems from this perspective quite a reasonable sample.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

ymu said:


> There is no reason why police officers should receive more leniency when a serious offence is committed. If it was taken seriously, I'm sure episodes of "forgetfulness" will reduce miraculously.


What do you mean by "taken seriously"?

What, for instance, do you suggest Professional Standards should do if they were sent the photo with the PC without numbers on his hi-vis jacket and the Chief Supt standing next to him?

And if the PC turned out to have just been ordered to have put his high-vis on and had numbers on the uniform underneath and had forgotten to change the numbers / epaulettes over, had not been specifically told to do so and ignored the direction; had no previous history of not displaying numbers or any other aggravating factors, what do you suggest would be an appropriate disciplinary sanction?

Stop just fucking repeating the same mantra and add some fucking detail about what you actually fucking mean.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Half of all coppers asked. That's how surveys work.


And questioning the reliability of the "findings" (and especially of how those findings are _portrayed_) is what grown-ups do with the results ... especially when the survey was a self-selecting sample answering a simple yes / no question ...

I'm surprised a statistician like ymu hasn't expressed concerns about the weight being put on the outcome ... maybe it's because it actually supports their proposition.  I am sure she'd be jumping up and down like a good 'un if I happened to post that I'd got a sample of a few hundred cops who said they'd never _deliberately_ failed to wear or obscured their numbers ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> You should get out more then, d-b. Take up voluntary work as a police community support officer; or, victim support, maybe.


Why do you think PCSOs are "voluntary work" - they're paid £19-£24k (last time I looked).  Hardly fucking "voluntary" ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> Ever forgotten to go out without your truncheon, whistle or squad car?


Truncheon and whistle, yes.  Car is hardly a similar situation is it ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> How would you know he's never done it?  You know no such thing, dibble.


I've never seen him quoted as saying it's a "serious disciplinary matter".  You are challenging that.  Please link to relevant quote ...


----------



## winjer (Aug 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Do you have any instances of where police officers have spoken out against colleagues where the death of a member of the public is involved? Have any officers gone public in the UK against other officers?  I don't recall that happening.  Ever.


"In 1970 a young police recruit reported to a senior officer that he'd heard gossip from colleagues about the severe way Kitching and Ellerker had treated Oluwale. This report might have been prompted by fraud charges that were on-going against Ellerker. An enquiry was launched, carried out by Scotland Yard, and sufficient evidence was gathered to prompt manslaughter, perjury and grievous bodily harm (GBH) charges being brought against Kitching and Ellerker in 1971."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Oluwale

"The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has today praised the courage of four Metropolitan Police Service Officers who came forward to report the behaviour of a colleague following an incident in August 2005. The officers reported PC Mark Tuffey, 45, after they heard him using racially aggravated insulting words and behaviour whilst on duty"

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/pr050506_tootingbec.htm
(see also: http://www.4wardever.org/#/brian-douglas/4528092357 )



free spirit said:


> I don't see how any photo taken at one particular point could possibly disprove my point. [...] At the mayday guerilla gardening protest in 2000 I personally witnessed the frontline (well, front 2-3 rows) of the police kettling operation on all 4 sides of the square was carried out by several hundred coppers, none of whom had their shoulder numbers other than the sergeants at the back.


Because it's a photo of the kettle at Trafalgar Square. 



Paulie Tandoori said:


> A senior officer at G20 not wearing a number....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder if that's his other epaulette with a number we can see on his left shoulder?

Oh yes, _yes it is_. How do I know for sure? Because it's in your next photo, FFS. I think he might have made a reasonable claim to have been wearing both earlier in the day - notice also that the officer next to him is missing the opposite epaulette.

The senior officer is Chief Superintendent Mick Johnson, head of the TSG, who at the time wouldn't have had a shoulder number _to wear_, but as already pointed out _is_ wearing a name badge.



Pickman's model said:


> incidently, by his helmet the cop without any numbers should be from haringey & is level 2 not tsg


He is, but the helmet is not reliable as we know from other incidents at the G20 - e.g. the medics who tried to revive Ian Tomlinson are from Hackney (GD), but were wearing TSG helmets (U34). Probably as a result of many helmets being spread around the Bank area before the protest started.



gavman said:


> standing next to another blood spattered officer not wearing a number....


It was red paint.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 5, 2010)

winjer said:


> Oh yes, _yes it is_. How do I know for sure? Because it's in your next photo, FFS.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


You're far to reasonable to be a legal observer (and far to prone to actually, er, observe).  You'll never last!   

(ETA: I'd want to know exactly what numbers were on the single epaulettes on the adjacent constables though ... )


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Truncheon and whistle, yes.  Car is hardly a similar situation is it ...


 
I don't know. Some of your colleagues forget that members of the public are human beings. If they can forget something like that; why not a squad car.


----------



## ymu (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What do you mean by "taken seriously"?
> 
> What, for instance, do you suggest Professional Standards should do if they were sent the photo with the PC without numbers on his hi-vis jacket and the Chief Supt standing next to him?
> 
> ...


 
I already said what I'd do. Automatic disciplinary and suspension without pay. If a driver "forgets" to put a valid number plate on his car/trailer, they get done for it regardless of the intent behind the action. Therefore, they do not do it very often.

Hold the police to the same standards as we hold everyone else.


----------



## xes (Aug 5, 2010)

ymu said:


> Hold the police to the same standards as we hold everyone else.


 That will NEVER happen.

(fapfapfap) [/circlejerk]


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2010)

winjer said:


> He is, but the helmet is not reliable as we know from other incidents at the G20 - e.g. the medics who tried to revive Ian Tomlinson are from Hackney (GD), but were wearing TSG helmets (U34). Probably as a result of many helmets being spread around the Bank area before the protest started.


according to the caption on the picture you link to, it was taken 'late on the day' of the g20: hence, after the protest started. do you have something showing helmets being shuffled about prior to the protest?


----------



## winjer (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (ETA: I'd want to know exactly what numbers were on the single epaulettes on the adjacent constables though ... )


They're not exactly hard to find, the red paint hit them before they had their helmets on, when they were part of the cordon by Shouty McHeadwound. There's bound to be a few photos where you can read them. 



Pickman's model said:


> according to the caption on the picture you link to, it was taken 'late on the day' of the g20: hence, after the protest started. do you have something showing helmets being shuffled about prior to the protest?


The helmets were there when the march I was with arrived from London Bridge, this is in my contemporaneous notes (which you can inspect at LDMG's secret HQ by appointment). Here are the same helmets at 2:34pm - the camera's clock was set an hour slow. That's at the point when the police were kicking off on Threadneedle Street, but not elsewhere, pre-RBS.

Now, _jog on_ pedant.


----------



## gavman (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What do you mean by "taken seriously"?
> 
> What, for instance, do you suggest Professional Standards should do if they were sent the photo with the PC without numbers on his hi-vis jacket and the Chief Supt standing next to him?
> 
> ...


 
it would be perfectly clear to anyone who isn't being as willfully obtuse as you. wearing of police numbers needs to made equivalent to displaying number plates on a car, ie an offence not to do it.


----------



## gavman (Aug 5, 2010)

ymu said:


> I already said what I'd do. Automatic disciplinary and suspension without pay. If a driver "forgets" to put a valid number plate on his car/trailer, they get done for it regardless of the intent behind the action. Therefore, they do not do it very often.
> 
> Hold the police to the same standards as we hold everyone else.


 
got there first


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And if the PC turned out to have just been ordered to have put his high-vis on and had numbers on the uniform underneath and had forgotten to change the numbers / epaulettes over, had not been specifically told to do so and ignored the direction; had no previous history of not displaying numbers or any other aggravating factors, what do you suggest would be an appropriate disciplinary sanction


Gee I don't know...what if that officer stopped me driving and I had no insurance...I'd only just been told I needed insurance, I amen't paid until tomorrow, didn't think I'd be getting a car this week, I'd never been in trouble before, I'm a good family man......

What would he do, dibble?

Oh...and quoting a 1970 case where ....a fucking recruit, you say???.... reports gossip (as opposed to reporting illegal actions which lead to death).   Not doing it for me.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 5, 2010)

winjer said:


> "In 1970 a young police recruit reported to a senior officer that he'd heard gossip from colleagues about the severe way Kitching and Ellerker had treated Oluwale. This report might have been prompted by fraud charges that were on-going against Ellerker. An enquiry was launched, carried out by Scotland Yard, and sufficient evidence was gathered to prompt manslaughter, perjury and grievous bodily harm (GBH) charges being brought against Kitching and Ellerker in 1971."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Oluwale
> 
> "The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has today praised the courage of four Metropolitan Police Service Officers who came forward to report the behaviour of a colleague following an incident in August 2005. The officers reported PC Mark Tuffey, 45, after they heard him using racially aggravated insulting words and behaviour whilst on duty"
> ...


thank you for your fastidious attention to detail.

we now know that photographic (and contemporary) evidence can show many things (apparently).

what we still really don't know is why the cops can get away with killing completely innocent people. ian tomlinson was walking home. and a cop killed him. don't forget that.

i apologise completely for any mistakes in my earlier claims, it was heat of the moment stuff.

thankfully, ........


----------



## free spirit (Aug 6, 2010)

hmm, looking back on what I wrote originally about the numbers it seems I did get a bit carried away, probably in the heat of the moment in response to DB's expletive laden rant I was responding to. These revised statements are a bit closer to what I actually meant to say, and I'd not actually realised I'd been quite so definitive about it - 'ie not a single met officer'.



free spirit said:


> I can tell you that the not a single met officer below the rank of sergeant _*in large sections of the police*_ who were involved in kettling trafalgar square_* at one point*_ at the mayday protest in 2000 was wearing a visible number


 


free spirit said:


> but this doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority (in many cases all) of _*some of the frontline units*_ that are deployed when things start to kick off / they expect them to kick off_* at certain types of protests *_do not have their numbers displayed other than their sergeants.



If as Winjer says, this isn't as common as I thought from my experience then fair enough, maybe I'm just an aggravating factor or something. It remains the case though that this is far from the first time that this has happened, and I've never heard of any action being taken against any of the officers involved on previous occasions, which does tend to lead one to suspect that it's not an issue that's taken seriously by the met. 

I'm still convinced based on my conversations with several coppers at that mayday, and up in Scotland that when it has happened in a largescale way it must have been at least tacitly authorised by someone reasonably high up the chain. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 4 times I've seen it happen have been when the met have lost control of a situation and are trying to get their authority back in protests involving basically the same grouping / ethos (RTS, Dissent, g20 mob) plus on all 4 occasions the protests have been preceded by Met (well actually I guess more NETCU or it's predecessors) instigated press campaigns demonising the protestors and ramping up the threat of violence. 

This was what I meant by a policy btw, not that it necessarily happens on every protest (as I'm sure it doesn't), but that there's a pattern to when it does happen that's a bit too blatant IMO to just be random chance. Coupled with the fact that NETCU and their predecessors were heavily targeting these campaigns by fair means or foul in the build up to, during and after the actions, I don't think it's that outlandish to say there was some sort of strategy / policy at play that the removal of numbers in these situation was part of.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 6, 2010)

winjer said:


> Because it's a photo of the kettle at Trafalgar Square.


yeah sorry, I'm sure I'd originally written that comment about trafalgar square a bit differently then clicked the wrong button and had to rewrite it, so I'd forgotten I'd written it in that way.

thing is though, at one point shortly after they'd kettled the square I did go round challenging (aka being an annoying twat probably) the officers on at least 2 and I thought 3 sides of the square as to why they weren't wearing their numbers, and I'd have thought that at least one of them might have pointed out that he was wearing his number if I was just being blind about it. Thinking about it, I think I was fairly loudly actually attempting to report the groups of officers who weren't displaying their numbers to others nearby who were, so I guess it can't have been quite as widespread as I'd initially remembered it as being... mists of time and all that.

*I think they were the ones who'd formed a wedge to split the crowd in 2 up the road between traf square and parliament square by the MD's that was getting trashed, then forced everyone back up into traf square, so the bottom end of traf square towards parliament square.


----------



## winjer (Aug 6, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> what we still really don't know is why the cops can get away with killing completely innocent people. ian tomlinson was walking home. and a cop killed him. don't forget that.


Because we don't do much about it.


----------



## xes (Aug 6, 2010)

winjer said:


> Because we don't do much about it.


 
other than it was all on video, and al lthe procedures to stop the prossecution were in place from the get go?


----------



## winjer (Aug 6, 2010)

All the more reason to end our apathy.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> I don't know. Some of your colleagues forget that members of the public are human beings. If they can forget something like that; why not a squad car.


Actually, thinking about it, I _did_ almost forget to bring one back once - it was during a phase when (a) we couldn't afford petrol and (b) we were being told to walk not drive if we could and so we were allowed to drive to the far reaches of the area, but then to park up and walk for a while ... and it was such a nice day I had wlaked almost all the way back to the nick before remembering I'd taken a car out with me ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

ymu said:


> Automatic disciplinary and suspension without pay.


For how long?  Based on _which_ employment law?  What would you suggest the sanction of the disciplinary hearing should be?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

winjer said:


> - the camera's clock was set an hour slow.


Oh dear ... this won't go well with the Conspiracy Theorists ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

gavman said:


> ie an offence not to do it.


IT IS.  My question is what are you suggesting the _sanction_ should be?  And if you have an allegation of an officer not wearing numbers at some time in the past, how seriously should that be taken in terms of the resources put into a restrospective investigation?  Are you suggesting that an enquiry equivalent to a homicide investigation should be undertaken?  With no stone left unturned?  At a cost of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of pounds?  (Cos ymu seems to be ..)


----------



## audiotech (Aug 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You're far to reasonable to be a legal observer...



This says a lot about your prejudice before the law. Next you'll be saying it was only a joke. Ha!


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and quoting a 1970 case where ....a fucking recruit, you say???.... reports gossip (as opposed to reporting illegal actions which lead to death).   Not doing it for me.


Where did I quote any 1970 case?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> What would he do, dibble?


Probably report you (seeing as having no insurance is considered by the law a pretty serious motoring offence and one which regularly acts to the detriment of others (i.e. people involved in collisions)).  And then leave it to the Court to decide on penalty ... fully expecting it to usually be a fine of a few tens of quids and a few points onyour licence.

And if someone wandered in and said someone had been driving without insurance a few days ago, there would be NO retrospective investigation at all and it would just be noted for future attention in case they were encountered committing a new offence in the future.

Which is the level of seriousness I am suggesting it is appropriate to apply to officers not wearing numbers:  if they're seen doing it, bollock them and tell them not to.  If they ignore that / fail to wear numbers on a future occasion or there are other aggravating factors, report them for discipline and expect them to get a warning unless they have previous findings against them in the relevant period.  

Simply not wearing numbers, with no aggravating factors, is NOT a sacking offence.  Nor is it at all sensible to argue that it should be.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

free spirit said:


> hmm, looking back on what I wrote originally about the numbers it seems I did get a bit carried away, probably in the heat of the moment in response to DB's expletive laden rant I was responding to.


The words you're looking for "I'm sorry d-b.  I realise that I was grossly exaggerating and when I persisted with my ridiculous generalisations it was no surprise you got the arse with me."

But, of course, you'll never use them ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 6, 2010)

oh shut up you tart


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

winjer said:


> Because we don't do much about it.


What you do as a responsible and competent observer is _exactly_ what should happen. As I have said dozens of times before, the ONLY people who can police individual officers are the public - otherwise you'd have a line of supervisors walking around behind every constable.

And ALL significant breaches of law or disciplinary code should be reported (albeit in a proportionate way - not by calling for officers to be sacked for the slightest transgression) so that even if individual instances can't, or aren't pursued massively in their own right, eventually a picture of behaviour over time is gathered and issues can either be addressed (i.e. the problem behaviours stopped) or the officer can be dismissed.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Next you'll be saying it was only a joke. Ha!


It was only a joke you moron.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.


 
You can't libel an internet moniker, Mister clued-up about the law.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 6, 2010)

Well done dibble.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 6, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You can't libel an internet moniker, Mister clued-up about the law.


You CAN libel someone who is identifiable and / or known to one or more people.  And I am.  So go fuck yourself, twat.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 6, 2010)

ray! db back on sweary-form


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 6, 2010)

gavman said:


> attempting to pervert the course of justice


 


> During a three week trial at Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court, the court heard that Mr Aspinall had been charged and convicted of two counts of assaulting a police officer in July 2008, but had later had his conviction quashed at Liverpool Crown Court following an appeal.



It appears he was originally convicted with assaulting a police officer which was quashed as it was a pack of lies. If any of those officers were witnesses in that case and swore on oath then it's perjury too. I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ght-beating-duty-soldier-CCTV-faces-jail.html


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You CAN libel someone who is identifiable and / or known to one or more people.  And I am.  So go fuck yourself, twat.


 
It would be 'difficult to prove.' 

Sorry for borrowing your line there.


----------



## ymu (Aug 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> For how long?  Based on _which_ employment law?  What would you suggest the sanction of the disciplinary hearing should be?


 
If it's "utterly unacceptable" it can't be that difficult to take disciplinary action, surely. If you like, we could call it gross misconduct and make it grounds for dismissal.


----------



## winjer (Aug 7, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and quoting a 1970 case where ....a fucking recruit, you say???.... reports gossip (as opposed to reporting illegal actions which lead to death).   Not doing it for me.


That was me. It's noted for being the last case where a death in custody lead to conviction and imprisonment for police officers - hence the oft-quoted statistics about _x_ numbers of deaths in custody since 1969.

I take it you prefer to remain ignorant.


----------



## winjer (Aug 7, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ght-beating-duty-soldier-CCTV-faces-jail.html


Perhaps it would help if at some point you actually read that article?

"Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

"Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 7, 2010)

winjer said:


> Perhaps it would help if at some point you actually read that article?
> 
> "Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."
> 
> "Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."



So they haven't been convicted of anything then (the full timers). How predictable.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 8, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It appears he was originally convicted with assaulting a police officer which was quashed as it was a pack of lies. If any of those officers were witnesses in that case and swore on oath then it's perjury too. I'm guessing they haven't been put on trial for either perjury or perverting the course of justice.


The fact that the convictio was quashed does NOT necessarily mean that _all_ the original evidence was "a pack of lies".  It simply means that there were doubts about some of it to the extent that it is not safe to leave a conviction which was based on the court being sure beyond all reasonable doubt.  And of course the doubts may have arisen from the account of one witness, not necessarily all of them.

An acquittal does NOT automatically mean that all (or any) of the witnesses have attempted to pervert the course of justice or committed perjury.

And where someone is convicted of some other substantive offence it is unusual to pursue a prosecution for any associated lies linked with their denials of guilt of the substantive offence (otherwise we'd have a queue of convicted defendants being tried for perjury on the basis of their lies on oath in thier own defence!!).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 8, 2010)

ymu said:


> If you like, we could call it gross misconduct and make it grounds for dismissal.


OK, so we've finally got there.

You would make the non-wearing of numbers an absolute offence (i.e. there would be no need to show any ulterior motive in doing so, no need to show that it was a deliberate move on the officers part, it would be enough to say you were there, you were on duty and you did not have your numbers correctly displayed) and that you would treat this as gross misconduct and, if the disciplinary case is proven (which, as it would be an absolute offence it invariably would be) you would dismiss the officers.

At a cost to the public of who knows how many tens of thousands of pounds in wasted training and recruitment of a new officer.

You're simply mad.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 8, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So they haven't been convicted of anything then (the full timers). How predictable.


So now (a) we're distinguishing between establishment cover-ups (which only apply to full time officers, not Specials) and (b) we're including the jury who (presumably) were nobbled by the establishment to conspire with them to acquit the full time officers ....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So now (a) we're distinguishing between establishment cover-ups (which only apply to full time officers, not Specials) and (b) we're including the jury who (presumably) were nobbled by the establishment to conspire with them to acquit the full time officers ....


 
It has to get to a jury first though, doesn't it


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 8, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It has to get to a jury first though, doesn't it


You're not good at this reading business are you ... 




			
				Daily Mail report of case linked to earlier said:
			
		

> ""Lightfoot was last week convicted of perjury and yesterday a jury also found him guilty of the Section 47 assault. He showed no emotion as the verdict was returned. He was cleared of one further count of assault and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."
> 
> "Sgt Russell and PC Kelsall were both cleared of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."



I am reading that as meaning (and my understanding from other reports is) that the jury acquitted them of the charges.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You're not good at this reading business are you ...
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading that as meaning (and my understanding from other reports is) that the jury acquitted them of the charges.


 
Yes. My point is relatively few cases make it to a jury.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You're not good at this reading business are you ...



This is a problem I've noticed he has.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er, no.  The IPCC.  Try and keep up.


 
In 'the field' where 'the action' happens, where it matters, it is the police officer dribble - that is what I meant. After 'the event' attempts at legitimation by IPCC don't help anything.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 9, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> DB - police officers never ever get punished by the law for violence whilst on duty. And in every single case you pop up  with your oh-so resonable expanation of the complex evidential issues to show how - beyond a certain amount of human error - no one is to blame and every ones done their very best with the best intentions - whilst lambasting anyone who points out the rather fucking obvious woods from you trees as a rabid ACAB nut job.
> 
> Why do REALLY think that - depsite hundreds of deaths at the hands of police - not one officer has even been charged?
> 
> ...


 
Just been re-reading a lot of this thread and this post is the best so far.

For those who want to know, "The Victimised State and the Mystification of Social Harm" by Joe Sim, chapter 8 in a book called "Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm seriously edited by Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs and Gordon (Pluto press, 2004) outlines the facts of state & police protection of the police and so on, it explains how and why it does it too.


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You CAN libel someone who is identifiable and / or known to one or more people.  And I am.  So go fuck yourself, twat.


 
surely to libel someone the libeler must know who they are talking about? and knowing someone's internet moniker doesn't amount to knowing who they are irl?


----------



## winjer (Aug 10, 2010)

No and no.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

gavman said:


> surely to libel someone the libeler must know who they are talking about? and knowing someone's internet moniker doesn't amount to knowing who they are irl?


Surely to post about the law, the poster must know what they are talking about?  



> You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are.
> 
> So, if you spread the same Dyke TV licence allegations but called him Big Beardo McFluffy, he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname.



You see that "unless" bit ... if you go back and look you'll see that my point is that it applies in my case: lots of people know who "detective-boy" is in real-life.

From the U75 guide to libel written _specifically_ for people like you (the clue is in it's title ...)

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

oh the pomposity


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2010)

infamy infamy they've all got infamy.....


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

lots of people know who I am IRL.  You better be nice to me db or I'll sue

lol


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> lots of people know who I am IRL.  You better be nice to me db or I'll sue


But *I* wouldn't dream of making unsubstantiated allegations about people's professional life, or any other significant aspect of their lives, whether or not I (or anyone else) knew their real identity.

And _that_ is where I differ from the Collective, who somehow seem to think that they have the right to do so ...


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

"the collective"

lol

paranoia!


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2010)

Nah, i disagree with points db is making on here but he's quite right about the libel. He pointed it out quite fairly i thought - and it doesn't reflect well on people having a go at him just because they've been shown to be wrong.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm just prodding him for a laugh 'cos he's so easy to wind up.  Although db certainly isn't averse to having a go at people for no reason.  In fact, I could probably have made a reasonable case for him libelling me a while ago, by saying I believe "ACAB" when I don't - given my work at the time in criminal justice and drug treatment.  However, I'm not that pompous or precious.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I'm just prodding him for a laugh 'cos he's so easy to wind up.


So now you are so secure in the fact that you will _never_ be called for breaching the FAQs by the mods that you blatantly admit trolling in an open post ...


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2010)

Yeah, don't do that.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm not trolling db.  I'm winding you up.  There is a difference.  FYI I have been banned for breaching the FAQ in the past.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Yeah, don't do that.


 
OK, I won't admit it in future.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Yeah, don't do that.


what's good for the goose and all that....

see the Tories to hire in credit firms to root out 'benefit cheats' thread where DB has no compunction to wading in with personal insults and abuse. he's the most potty mouthed poster on here tbf.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I'm not trolling db.  I'm winding you up.  There is a difference.


 
Not sure there is really


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> "the collective"
> 
> lol
> 
> paranoia!



It's pretty sad really. I wonder how many officers view the general public in a similar one dimensional manner? Im sure it had its erm...advantages...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Not sure there is really


 
Half U75 would have to be banned if winding someone up was taken to the letter.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> I wonder how many officers view the general public in a similar one dimensional manner?


But it's not viewing "the public" in a one dimensional manner is it?

It's not even viewing U75 posters in a one dimensional manner.

It's identifying the fact that there is a subset who behave in exactly the same way, seem to share the same views and spend most of their time in a self-congratulatory circle jerk.  Which there is, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Not sure there is really


 
I hope you're warning db too.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But it's not viewing "the public" in a one dimensional manner is it?
> 
> It's not even viewing U75 posters in a one dimensional manner.
> 
> It's identifying the fact that there is a subset who behave in exactly the same way, seem to share the same views and spend most of their time in a self-congratulatory circle jerk.  Which there is, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.



you're paranoid


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But it's not viewing "the public" in a one dimensional manner is it?
> 
> It's not even viewing U75 posters in a one dimensional manner.
> 
> It's identifying the fact that there is a subset who behave in exactly the same way, seem to share the same views and spend most of their time in a self-congratulatory circle jerk.  Which there is, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.



Im sure many police have their own "subsets" of the general public.....

You included me in your "subset" (whilst also managing a torrent of abuse and sexism) despite the fact id managed to disagree with you without feeling the need to immitate your base behaviour or claim that you were "just like all those other officers".

If you want people to respond to the high standards of thought and behaviour you expect, you're best off starting by looking at your own behaviour. The fact you're acting this way as an ex officer of some rank, merely reduces the value of what you say. And yes, i know it can be hard dealing with people who disagree with you or antagonise you, but im sure it's easier than dealing with people who act the same way in real life - and i bet you managed to get through the day without insulting them, right?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2010)

The reason I don’t like the gratuitous abuse is because it gets in the way of the actual topic. As remarked above, Kaka Tim’s post got to the heart of it - most after that is just a distraction. 

As to displaying numbers, I agree with whoever compared it to going out tooled up for burglary. Any that weren’t wearing numbers identified as hitting someone who had not directly threatened them should be charged with assault, just like other thugs out for a pissed Saturday night brawl. You either allow the sort of person who enjoys that sort of shit to be given the privileges that the police enjoy, or you don’t. 

Apart from Tomlinson (and of course the photo of the police medic giving nearby demonstrators their treatment), the event that I particularly recall about the G20 protests was the statement from a woman who was part of the good natured crowd of the environmental protest later on in the day - large contingent of women and children. She they were ringed by police and one copper casually said to her with a bit of a smile ‘we’ve got a surprise for you in half an hour’. Thirty minutes later the police waded in with the batons, no provocation. That just reminds me of Germany in the 1930s. The cunt (and not a word I often use) who gave that particular order along with the officers and men who did the baton charge should be out of the force and up before criminal investigations and juries for abh. That's the place for them to plead that they were only obeying orders. 

What we should have had was a public inquiry into the policing. Without that, it’s telling us as british citizens exactly what we get if we don’t stay in line. If you don’t hold any of the police to account for that day, you’re teaching a whole new generation of people that they shouldn’t trust the police and they shouldn’t trust the government that allows it. 

Oh, hold on a minute ….


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But it's not viewing "the public" in a one dimensional manner is it?
> 
> It's not even viewing U75 posters in a one dimensional manner.
> 
> It's identifying the fact that there is a subset who behave in exactly the same way, seem to share the same views and spend most of their time in a self-congratulatory circle jerk.  Which there is, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.


i think what you mean is there are a number of people who piss you off and you find it easier to view the world through the prism of a manichean duality than to acknowledge that people can disagree with you without being part of a conspiracy against you.

edited to add: you don't need to be a psychologist to see something concerning about the constant sexual nature of detective-boy's insults, with his constant "you're a cunt", "throwing some fucks" into people, blathering on about circle jerks...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Just been re-reading a lot of this thread and this post is the best so far.
> 
> For those who want to know, "The Victimised State and the Mystification of Social Harm" by Joe Sim, chapter 8 in a book called "Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm seriously edited by Hillyard, Pantazis, Tombs and Gordon (Pluto press, 2004) outlines the facts of state & police protection of the police and so on, it explains how and why it does it too.


 
what i appreciate about your posts is the way in which you always relate things to people's everyday experiences and never hide behind a veil of academic jargon


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I hope you're warning db too.


 
I can't fucking stand these threads. DB throwing the fucks around, his detractors goading him on. Makes me want to ban you all and delete the thread. Grow up, everyone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I can't fucking stand these threads. DB throwing the fucks around, his detractors goading him on. Makes me want to ban you all and delete the thread. Grow up, everyone.


 
from what you say the instigator of these spats - and you seem to identify him - is the root of the problem.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2010)

Doesn't absolve the rest of you


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Apart from Tomlinson (and of course the photo of the police medic giving nearby demonstrators their treatment), the event that I particularly recall about the G20 protests was the statement from a woman who was part of the good natured crowd of the environmental protest later on in the day - large contingent of women and children. She they were ringed by police and one copper casually said to her with a bit of a smile ‘we’ve got a surprise for you in half an hour’. Thirty minutes later the police waded in with the batons, no provocation. That just reminds me of Germany in the 1930s. The cunt (and not a word I often use) who gave that particular order along with the officers and men who did the baton charge should be out of the force and up before criminal investigations and juries for abh. That's the place for them to plead that they were only obeying orders.


I quite agree.

I take it you complained and / or assisted her to do so ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Doesn't absolve the rest of you


You would do well to search Pickman's Model's posts for (a) substantive content and (b) trollery ...


----------



## xes (Aug 11, 2010)

*puts hand up*

oooh miss miss, go look in that persons things, they've been naughty.  

Shit stirring cunt.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 11, 2010)

xes said:


> *puts hand up*
> 
> oooh miss miss, go look in that persons things, they've been naughty.
> 
> Shit stirring cunt.



You're no fucking angel

Seriously, this thread and others like it are one of the worst kinds. Just circular abuse and preconceptions and fights to the death over minutiae. Pathetic.


----------



## xes (Aug 11, 2010)

I may bo no angel, but I ain't a grass either. 

Butyou have a point, this thread isn't a pretty one. I had ducked out of it, but I just couldn't let that level of blatent coppery go by without saying cunt. (sorry)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 11, 2010)

xes said:


> ... but I ain't a grass either.


Isn't it time you grew up you pathetic loser?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You're no fucking angel
> 
> Seriously, this thread and others like it are one of the worst kinds. Just circular abuse and preconceptions and fights to the death over minutiae. Pathetic.


well there's a surprise now. cops get off scot free with killing someone and the thread becomes argumentative to say the least....now, i wonder why ever that could be...


----------



## xes (Aug 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Isn't it time you grew up you pathetic loser?


 
*post reported*

miss miss he called me a name.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You're no fucking angel
> 
> Seriously, this thread and others like it are one of the worst kinds. Just circular abuse and preconceptions and fights to the death over minutiae. Pathetic.


 
Oh come on, there's no more real discussion to be had on this thread.


----------



## xes (Aug 11, 2010)

yeah, we all know a dirty cop got off with killing an innocent man, due to a dirty corrupt system. There isn't much more to add.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2010)

actually, this thread has been highly interesting, because it has revealed - with DB's help - the ever-growing, ever-more-toxic disconnect at the heart of our system of 'justice' in this country. Legalistically, and in practical terms, virtually everything that D-B has said has been absolutely right, and sensible. However, _morally_, in terms of what meets most of our deep-seated instincts as to what is _right_, there is a huge chasm; the Law is not doing what it should, from the POV of the Man On The Clapham Omnibus, which is the most worrying thing opf all.
If you prersented a wide cross-section of the public with the facts of this tragic, horrible matter, and asked them whether they felt Justice had been done over this, or that Tomlinson's family had got justice, the answer - I am absolutely convinced - would be a loud, resounding 'no'.
(Yes, I trust that public's instincts. They came befcore our current legal set-up).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> However, _morally_, in terms of what meets most of our deep-seated instincts as to what is _right_, there is a huge chasm; the Law is not doing what it should, from the POV of the Man On The Clapham Omnibus, which is the most worrying thing opf all.


Absolutely spot on.  Which makes it all the more pathetic that the gobshites who jump up and down and make all sorts of ridiculous fucking claims have managed to obscure the genuine fucking issues that _do_ exist by inventing many that do not.

The simple fact is that they are not at all interested in making the _system_ better for the future so long as they hang out some individual to dry and fuck whether or not that is fair and just according to the system we have at the moment ... and fuck the fact that doing so will make not the slightest fucking difference to stopping it happening again in the future.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...gobshites...The simple fact is that they are not at all interested in making the _system_ better for the future ...


Didn't you walk out on that system because you couldn't be arsed?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I quite agree.
> 
> I take it you complained and / or assisted her to do so ...


 
No, I didn't because I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference. Every time i've ever complained about anything I've had a bland e-mail saying how much the person receives my letter agrees with my concerns and nothing has ever ever happened. 

If you quite agree though, and with your views on complaining, then presumably *you've* complained. Particularly since you are an ex serving officer - your views would carry much more weight than mine. What did they say?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 12, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Didn't you walk out on that system because you couldn't be arsed?


No


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 12, 2010)

two sheds said:


> No, I didn't because I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference. Every time i've ever complained about anything I've had a bland e-mail saying how much the person receives my letter agrees with my concerns and nothing has ever ever happened.


How fucking predictable ... the usual pathetic excuse.  

If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.  You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.



> If you quite agree though, and with your views on complaining, then presumably *you've* complained. Particularly since you are an ex serving officer - your views would carry much more weight than mine. What did they say?


I complain about things that I witness that I consider merit complaining about, yes.  Sometimes they merit action being taken and I pursue them until it is.  Sometimes there is nothing meaningful to be done and I am satisfied that the complaint is recorded and thus becomes part of the statistics which build the bigger picture of how the police operate and where they fuck up that we can all use as a stick to beat the organisation, directly or through the organisations that exist to monitor those things.  I have the ability to keep things in proportion so I have no expectation that an officer is going to be summarily dismissed and stripped of all their pension rights simply because the were a bit rude or over-aggressive in a difficult situation. 

So MY complaints are in there, forming part of the stats?

Where the _fuck_ are yours?  (Oh yeah, they're missing ... so anyone looking at the stats will think that everything's just peachy ... )


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have the ability to keep things in proportion


 really? you don't show it here.


----------



## winjer (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (Oh yeah, they're missing ... so anyone looking at the stats will think that everything's just peachy ... )


An alternative view might be that since complaints are also something that police fuck up, every additional complaint that they get and dismiss can be taken and promoted as a positive statistic.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The words you're looking for "I'm sorry d-b.  I realise that I was grossly exaggerating and when I persisted with my ridiculous generalisations it was no surprise you got the arse with me."
> 
> But, of course, you'll never use them ...


I apologised to winjer, but not to you because winjer was polite in his posts, whereas you've been a complete cock in yours from your first reply. Note that was your fist reply to me, not after I'd 'persisted' in anything. Stop behaving like a total bellend and you might find people react a bit differently to you, and the discussions you're involved in might be a bit more productive for all concerned.


----------



## winjer (Aug 12, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I'm still convinced based on my conversations with several coppers at that mayday, and up in Scotland that when it has happened in a largescale way it must have been at least tacitly authorised by someone reasonably high up the chain.


I think it's more likely that it's overlooked, rather than an authorised, along with other regular minor misconduct.


----------



## xes (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How fucking predictable ... the usual pathetic excuse.
> 
> If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.  You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.


 And you wonder why people call you a cunt? A pathetic excuse, that the police IGNORE complaints (just like the 80 or so that the IPCC thought investigation worthy from the G20, where NO investigation was carried through) You think that people should batter their head against a wall for no reason? Becasue that is what complaining to the police, about the police is like. The only thing which is pathetic here, is piss poor excuses for WHY these things are never followed through, and the piss poor explanation for why it's like this in the first place. Police don't like it up'em, and as much as you think this is all just a load of cunts who hate the police, that's bollocks. It's the police who don't like to be investigated when they fuck over the public. And it shows itself to be the case time and time again. You can call me what ever you like for thinking like this, you can even fucking get litigious on my arse if it makes you feel all big and strong. I don't care. What is is what is. Old bill are cunts when it comes to convictong their own, and complaints go largely ignored. And you think it's pathetic that people can't be arsed anymore? That's fucking rich.


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.  You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.



So, somebody who witnesses a wrongdoing and for whatever reason fails to complain is as much a part of the problem as the perpetrators. That’s an interesting thesis.

To begin with, having read much of your defence of police officers, I’m actually quite confused as to actually knowing when an officer is doing the wrong thing. Prior to the Tomlinson case had I seen a PC attack someone from behind with a baton I’d have thought that a bit rum; possibly not the way for a Bobby to act; you know, the wrong thing to do. 

However, you’ve convinced me that I can’t take such things at face value; that things viewed in black and white are best ignored for the more logical grey explanations.

“Being as much part of the ******** problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.” 

About three years ago as I was out and about wheeling myself on my estate when I saw a group of police officers, some standing, some in a crouched pose, all very animated. Being a naturally inquisitive type I mooched over to get a closer goosey. In all some seven uniformed officers had a non-uniformed person on the deck; and, were giving him a bit of a hiding – well, they were hitting him with fists and kicking him with their feet; so, unless I misconstrued their actions I’ll stick with hiding.

A bit upset, I had a flashback to many years ago when I was set upon by a gang of a dozen; I moved closer and challenged these people. One of their number turned suddenly with no little aggression telling me to ‘****** off! Or we’ll nick you’.

In rather a cowardly way I did ‘****** off’, wheeling myself away a bit lively. When I got home later I felt guilty and decided to phone the local police station to find out what had happened. Apparently, nothing had happened; the local nick could find no trace of an incident at the address or locale that I gave. As the Chair of my local TRA I also had the contact detail of the local community police sergeant (don’t shoot me down if I’ve got the terminology wrong, it was a few years back). Again, after making checks he told me that there were no reports of incidents in that area at time I’d reported – indeed, it had been incident free for some weeks.

I was left feeling a bit encounters-of-the-third-kindish. I chatted to a few neighbours. They’d been at work at the time. None of the local kids could help – indeed if any had been around I’m sure the Bill would have had a bit more to contend with.

Since reading d-b’s condemnation; I now feel as though I’m as much a part of the ******* problem as the officers who do the wrong thing; and, I hang my head in shame – unless of course I took what the officers were doing out of context in which case I’m just part of the Collective that doesn’t understand the complexities of modern day policing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How fucking predictable ... the usual pathetic excuse.
> 
> If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.  You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.


perhaps if the police behaved in the manner we're led to believe they should then there wouldn't need to be quite the volume of complaints there is. if people don't complain as much as you would like, perhaps it's because the police routinely find, no matter the evidence, that nothing wrong has in fact occurred.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 13, 2010)

winjer said:


> An alternative view might be that since complaints are also something that police fuck up, every additional complaint that they get and dismiss can be taken and promoted as a positive statistic.


It's an alternative view ... but every time I have seen the stats about how few complaints are substantiated / result in any action used it is as a stick to beat the police with about how ineffective their complaint investigation systems are ... 

(Thanks for linking to an example of police officers never being charged with using excessive force, by the way.  It's always nice to have proof positive that I am talking absolute shite when I say that if the evidence is there they are ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 13, 2010)

xes said:


> The only thing which is pathetic here, is piss poor excuses for WHY these things are never followed through, and the piss poor explanation for why it's like this in the first place.


I have not made any excuse for why complaints are not followed through.  I have not seen anyone else do so.  Personally I believe we should resource the IPCC properly and transfer all responsibility for initially investigating _all_ complaints to them (with scope for them to refer cases they consider entirely minor for management action in accordance with usual employment practice and procedures).  

But people need to go into the process with realistic expectations about what is proportionate in terms of investigative effort and any sanction and not get the arse just because the copper is not summarily dismissed and stripped of their pension benefits for some minor transgression.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 13, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> However, you’ve convinced me that I can’t take such things at face value; that things viewed in black and white are best ignored for the more logical grey explanations.


If you witness something you believe is inappropriate then you should report it.  But you are _not_ entitled to expect that _your_ definition of it as inappropriate will be definitive - there may well be an explanation / defence / circumstances you are not aware of.

Assuming that _your_ perception of something is right and everything else is wrong / a lie is only ever going to result in disappointment.



> Since reading d-b’s condemnation; I now feel as though I’m as much a part of the ******* problem as the officers who do the wrong thing; and, I hang my head in shame – unless of course I took what the officers were doing out of context in which case I’m just part of the Collective that doesn’t understand the complexities of modern day policing.


Don't be so fucking stupid.  You did exactly what was reasonable to do (though I would not suggest actually intervening in a situation you know nothing about unless there are exceptionally clear circumstances or need).  You could / should have gathered information about the officers identity (numbers / vehicles) and made a formal complaint when the initial contact led to suspicions something was being covered up but what you did was what we need to do.


----------



## xes (Aug 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have not made any excuse for why complaints are not followed through.  I have not seen anyone else do so.  Personally I believe we should resource the IPCC properly and transfer all responsibility for initially investigating _all_ complaints to them (with scope for them to refer cases they consider entirely minor for management action in accordance with usual employment practice and procedures).
> 
> But people need to go into the process with realistic expectations about what is proportionate in terms of investigative effort and any sanction and not get the arse just because the copper is not summarily dismissed and stripped of their pension benefits for some minor transgression.


 No, fair enough, you've not been making excuses for why complaints are largley ignored, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. And to call that a pathetic excuse for not wanting to complain, isn't really justified. If you know that any complaint, unless you're very lucky, will fall on deaf ears, then what's the point? You're not going to get any justice out of it, no plod will get investigated/fired over it. So it's time better spent getting on with your life. I know that's defeating the object, and it's not how it should be, but it's how it is. And there are valid reasons, it's not just lazyness like you implied in your post. The only real expectations you could possibly go into a case against the police, is expecting to loose your case. i know it's not your fault that this is the way, but it is the way these things tend to go.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How fucking predictable ... the usual pathetic excuse.
> 
> If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.



Ever thought of being polite? Not something that comes naturally to you, clearly, but you could give it a try. And where did I moan that everything is shit? You’re just making stuff up.  



> You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.



Ooo I’m part of the ‘Urban Collective’ now  

I’ve seen you use this argument before, and it’s dishonest. As it happens I have gone in for complaining to the authorities quite a lot during my time, but I don’t happen to have complained about that particular issue. If I made an official complaint about everything I felt could be improved (a) I’d be spending all my time doing that (unlike those like you some of us have to work you know) (b) I’d be wasting the time of people who should presumably be getting on with their work and if they have half a brain anyway they’re going to be quite aware that something’s wrong (c) I’d soon be marked down by those like you as a professional complainer so my letters would be ignored anyway.  

You’re now saying, though, that unless someone makes an official complaint about a specific action, then they are equally responsible for that action as the perpetrator – “just as much part of the fucking problem”. If we look past the bluster, though, you agreed with me “totally” yet you didn’t complain about that particular issue either. Not only does that make you just as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing, it makes you a hypocrite. 

As it happens, I *have* complained about a couple of things recently. First was when the Israelis killed the peace activists on the Gaza ships. Did *you* complain? If you didn’t then you (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are just as much part of the fucking problem as the Israelis who did the killing.  

The other was to the Catholic church about their priests’ abusing young children in their charge. Did *you* complain about that? If you didn’t then clearly you (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are just as much part of the fucking problem as the priests who did the abusing. 

Are you and those like you just as much part of the fucking problem as the priests who did the abusing db? Is that what you’re saying? No, you’re just using another tactic because you don’t like other people criticizing the authorities. Alongside swearing at people gratuitously to provoke them and picking someone up on a small error in procedure so you can blow it up as if it’s the most important part of the argument. 



> I complain about things that I witness that I consider merit complaining about, yes.



Ah, so for everybody else it’s anything they say on a bulletin board, for you it’s something that you actually witness: another bit of hypocrisy. 



> I have no expectation that an officer is going to be summarily dismissed and stripped of all their pension rights simply because the were a bit rude or over-aggressive in a difficult situation.



Where did I suggest this simply because they were a bit rude? You’re making stuff up again. 



> So MY complaints are in there, forming part of the stats?



Well whoopey do. That miraculously wipes your conscience clean of any stigma does it. 



> Where the _fuck_ are yours?  (Oh yeah, they're missing ... so anyone looking at the stats will think that everything's just peachy ... )


 
You really do have a persecution complex don’t you. You want people to have a go at you, and when someone doesn’t, then you have a go anyway to try to get them to have a go back. Then you can get into your preferred mode of ‘ooo look they’re all calling me names. The urban collective is persecuting me again’. 

Grow up.


----------



## winjer (Aug 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thanks for linking to an example of police officers never being charged with using excessive force, by the way.  It's always nice to have proof positive that I am talking absolute shite when I say that if the evidence is there they are ...


*cough*
"The CPS concluded that the evidence relating to some of the Claimant's facial injuries could not be explained away and that on the balance of probabilities they were cause by deliberate strikes by officers in circumstances which could not be justified by the reasonable use of force. However, the CPS concluded that the assault was not provable to the criminal standard."

"The IPCC concluded that there was sufficient evidence to bring disciplinary proceedings but against only one officer for one specific act. [...] This act is by far and away the least important of the Claimant's concerns. A disciplinary hearing was conducted which was restricted to addressing this very limited part of the events"

source

I don't think Babar Ahmad or his solicitors would agree with your contention that this is an example of the complaints system leading to prosecution.


----------



## free spirit (Aug 14, 2010)

*cough*

also... (from the originally linked article)


> An original Met inquiry ruled no officer should be disciplined and no criminal charges were brought. However, after his successful civil proceedings for compensation last year, Ahmad's solicitor Fiona Murphy submitted a file to the CPS and asked it to examine the evidence again.


so the CPS are only prosecuting the officers 7 years after the event, after the police lost a civil case on the matter, and the victim's solicitor handed a file of evidence to the CPS. The original inquiry obviously having been a whitewash / coverup if it could find nothing wrong enough even to have disciplined anyone.

It's all well and good DB having a go at people for not complaining, but when making a successful complaint can involve many years of hastle, and may well require you to actually launch a civil case against the police before any notice is really taken of your complaint, it's much more understandable that people might think twice about bothering to make a complaint in all but the most extreme of circumstances / unless they're 100% sure they've got cast iron evidence of wrongdoing.

I know people who have made successful complaints in the past, and it's basically sucked the life out of them for years, and served as a major distraction from the original cause they were protesting about. It's not something that should be undertaken lightly IMO, and the benefits of doing so (for campaigners about issues other than police behaviour) should always be weighed up against the risks of the original campaign ending up sidetracked.

From what I can tell, DB's main raison d'etre is the police / security / justice system, so for him a complaint about some aspect of the police's work simply furthers that agenda, whereas for someone who's main focus is the arms trade / environment / AN Other cause, a longwinded complaints procedure against the police is an unwanted distraction from their main cause, and they may well logically (and reluctantly) decide to not pursue it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2010)

the other issue d-b (deliberately?) omits to mention, is that if you complain of all the wrongdoing you see the chances are that you'll be marked down as a vexatious complainant and your complaints won't be investigated. i think it's only worth complaining about the things you know you can win, as otherwise you'd be wasting time and possibly money on it.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2010)

xes said:


> ... then what's the point?


To make sure that the _true_ level of inappropriate police behaviour is recorded.  So that the statistics reflect the truth.  So that when those statistics are published the public, or the agencies created to act on their behalf, can properly address the apparent issues on an _organisational_ level as well as on the individual level.

When you complain about an ignorant shop assistant do you _really_ expect them to be instantly and summarily dismissed?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2010)

two sheds said:


> (a) I’d be spending all my time doing that (unlike those like you some of us have to work you know)


And what the *fuck* makes you think that I don't have to fucking work?  



> I *have* complained about a couple of things recently. First was when the Israelis killed the peace activists on the Gaza ships.
> ...
> The other was to the Catholic church about their priests’ abusing young children in their charge. Did *you* complain about that? If you didn’t then clearly you (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are just as much part of the fucking problem as the priests who did the abusing.


No, I didn't.  And, in the big scheme of things I _am_ part of the fucking problem that allows States and religious organisations to get away with their shite.

But we have been talking about complaining about things that fate means that we are directly involved in, or at least directly witness, not some fucking news story about something that happened somewhere else ...  



> Ah, so for everybody else it’s anything they say on a bulletin board, for you it’s something that you actually witness: another bit of hypocrisy.


No.  It's _exactly_ the fucking same.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 15, 2010)

winjer said:


> I don't think Babar Ahmad or his solicitors would agree with your contention that this is an example of the complaints system leading to prosecution.


How the fuck has it happened then?  The fucking prosecution fairy doing it are they?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> When you complain about an ignorant shop assistant do you _really_ expect them to be instantly and summarily dismissed?



You make a good point here. Most police officers are as qualified for their "job" as an average shop assistant, and have similar responsibilities. The jobs are so similar that you could easily swap a shop assistant for a police officer and no-one would any the wiser.


----------



## winjer (Aug 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How the fuck has it happened then?  The fucking prosecution fairy doing it are they?


"The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence on how those injuries were caused from the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2004. We took the view at that time that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of anyone involved. Following Mr Ahmad's successful civil proceedings for compensation from the police in the High Court last year, his solicitors asked the CPS to look at the evidence again. The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Special Crime Division to do so. We have now completed our review of the evidence. Our conclusion is that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to charge four of the officers involved in the arrest of Mr Ahmad with causing actual bodily harm to him"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/133_10/


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 16, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> You make a good point here. Most police officers are as qualified for their "job" as an average shop assistant, and have similar responsibilities. The jobs are so similar that you could easily swap a shop assistant for a police officer and no-one would any the wiser.


 
Yes, there are the obvious parallels. Being short-changed by a spotty teenager and being attacked from the rear by a baton wielding PC after which you die automatically springs to mind.


----------



## xes (Aug 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> To make sure that the _true_ level of inappropriate police behaviour is recorded.  So that the statistics reflect the truth.  So that when those statistics are published the public, or the agencies created to act on their behalf, can properly address the apparent issues on an _organisational_ level as well as on the individual level.


 But if the complaints are pretty much being ignored, then they aren't really going to be going towards any sort of  figure to record the wrong doings of the police. I would have thought that only cases where action was taken and it was proved that a police officer had done wrong, would count to a figure like that.

And to the best of my knowlege I've never complained about a shop assistant.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But we have been talking about complaining about things that fate means that we are directly involved in, or at least directly witness, not some fucking news story about something that happened somewhere else ...



Err no we weren't actually. The post of mine you quoted was: 



two sheds said:


> Apart from Tomlinson (and of course the photo of the police medic giving nearby demonstrators their treatment), the event that I particularly recall about the G20 protests was the statement from a woman who was part of the good natured crowd of the environmental protest later on in the day - large contingent of women and children. She they were ringed by police and one copper casually said to her with a bit of a smile ‘we’ve got a surprise for you in half an hour’. Thirty minutes later the police waded in with the batons, no provocation. That just reminds me of Germany in the 1930s. The cunt (and not a word I often use) who gave that particular order along with the officers and men who did the baton charge should be out of the force and up before criminal investigations and juries for abh. That's the place for them to plead that they were only obeying orders.



I didn't witness any of that, yet when I said I hadn't complained about it you steamed in with your gratuitous fuckings and shits and rolleyes:  



detective-boy said:


> How fucking predictable ... the usual pathetic excuse.
> 
> If you can't be bothered complaining don't come moaning here that everything is shit.  You (and all those like you who try to justify your own idleness in not making formal complaints) are _just_ as much part of the fucking problem as the officers who do the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



Interesting how much venom a simple criticism of the police force generates in you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 16, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> You make a good point here. Most police officers are as qualified for their "job" as an average shop assistant, and have similar responsibilities. The jobs are so similar that you could easily swap a shop assistant for a police officer and no-one would any the wiser.


 
It's true. Last Wednesday I got a crack over the head with a baton for getting too close to the fish counter in Asda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> It's true. Last Wednesday I got a crack over the head with a baton for getting too close to the fish counter in Asda.


 
you were lucky not to get kippered.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 16, 2010)

It certainly put me in my plaice.


----------



## cesare (Aug 16, 2010)

acrab


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 16, 2010)

I expect the top bass to resign over this scandal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> I expect the top bass to resign over this scandal.


 
a squid says they won't


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 16, 2010)

You're always singing the same tuna, Pickman's.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> You're always singing the same tuna, Pickman's.


 
you think cops have a sole?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 16, 2010)

it was a well fishy verdict tbf


----------



## xes (Aug 16, 2010)

The peoples fish

(it's a copper beta)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> "The Crown Prosecution Service received a file of evidence on how those injuries were caused from the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2004. <snip irrelevant cut and paste>


Yes.  I know.  Thet concluded there _wasn't_ sufficient evidence at that time.  They have now concluded that there is and, as I said, this demonstrates that _when there is sufficient evidence_ the IPCC / CPS pursue charges ... something that is constantly denied.  

The CPS have decided to pursue this prosecution.  To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.  But, hey, no-one would expect anything else from you ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

xes said:


> I would have thought that only cases where action was taken and it was proved that a police officer had done wrong, would count to a figure like that.


Not for the first time you would have though wrong ... 

There are statistics of complaints _made_ which are maintained at force / unit level and which are used as the baseline against which the percentages substantiated / resulting in action being taken are measured.  Simply making complaints adds to that baseline figure and helps to highlight any concerns over the numbers not resulting in action taken.

Complaints made, but not substantiated, are also noted (formally or informally) by line managers and allow them to identify officers with particular issues which need to be addressed or proactively investigated (e.g. by the use of some sort of integrity test or by specific attention being paid to their activities).  If you don't make those complaints, the pattern does not emerge and line managers don't have the information on which they can act.

It is _exactly_ the same as the fuckwitted argument that it is pointless reporting street robberies, or minor yobbism, because "nothing is ever done" - it may well be the case that nothing can be done retrospectively, or to do something retrospectively is disproportionately expensive, but as a pattern emerges proactive operations can be (and are) mounted to catch the offenders in the act next time ...

You can deny it as much as you like, but if you fail to report police misconduct that you are the victim of or which you directly witness then you _are_ part of the problem and not part of the solution.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

two sheds said:


> I didn't witness any of that, yet when I said I hadn't complained about it you steamed in with your gratuitous fuckings and shits and rolleyes:


From your post I concluded that you did.

If you did not directly witness it then I apologise for suggesting that you should have reported it.  I _was_ referring to matters directly experienced or witnessed, not things observed at arms length through the media or third party reports.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Interesting how much venom a simple criticism of the police force generates in you.


Interesting the extent to which you can misrepresent my position seeing as I, er, am arguing that people SHOULD report misconduct and that it SHOULD be robustly investigated, retrospectively if that is viable and proportionate and proactively and by the monitoring of patterns over time if not.


----------



## winjer (Aug 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thet concluded there _wasn't_ sufficient evidence at that time.  They have now concluded that there is and, as I said, this demonstrates that _when there is sufficient evidence_ the IPCC / CPS pursue charges ... something that is constantly denied.


That's nonsense, the conclusion of the complaints process was no charges.



> To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.  But, hey, no-one would expect anything else from you ...


Excuse me?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> That's nonsense, the conclusion of the complaints process was no charges.


So who the fuck is prosecuting now if it isn't the fucking CPS?


----------



## winjer (Aug 16, 2010)

That's a non-sequitur. The complaints process led to no charges. The civil case and prospect of judicial review led to charges. As you well know.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> That's a non-sequitur. The complaints process led to no charges. The civil case and prospect of judicial review led to charges. As you well know.


My _only_ point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge.  Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not.

When they were presented with sufficient evidence they have pursued charges.  Fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> My _only_ point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge.  Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not.
> 
> When they were presented with sufficient evidence they have pursued charges.  Fact.


what about that dead bloke on a train in stockwell? evidence there, i would have thought, of some sort of assault. but what happened?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I, er, am arguing that ...


 


detective-boy said:


> My _only_ point is that when there is sufficient evidence the CPS charge.  Which disproves the confident statement, repeated numerous times on this thread, that they do not..


Nonsense.   You've proved nothing apart from the boringly repeated assertions that your arguments are always correct and everyone of a different opinion is wrong.

Quoting the law does not make you the law dibble.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2010)

No, there's a certain logical attraction to that one: if the CPS didn't bring a case it shows they didn't have enough information; if they brought a case it shows they did. Not something you can dispute really.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 17, 2010)

The CPS didn't bring a case so as to let the statue of limitations run out on the lesser charges.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2010)

two sheds said:


> No, there's a certain logical attraction to that one


That's the problem with these fucking idiots ... logic escapes them.  They prove it time and time and time again and their inability to apply it is _frequently_ why they end up falling out with me.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2010)

No, you've missed my point i'm afraid, it's got the 'have you stopped beating your wife' type of logical attractiveness. If the CPS doesn't bring a case you can always say it didn't have enough information. They could have forty witnesses and a dog that saw them do it and it still wouldn't be enough information.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> if you fail to report police misconduct that you are the victim of or which you directly witness then you _are_ part of the problem and not part of the solution.



So, if I'm advised by a very experienced solicitor, that complaining about being punched in the head, by a police officer, during a demo, will likely result in them trawling all the video footage collected by the FIT team present that day, to see if there is anything they can charge me with, then, quite possibly targeting me in future, in any area of my life, makes me part of the problem?

LOL


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> So, if I'm advised by a very experienced solicitor, that complaining about being punched in the head, by a police officer, during a demo, will likely result in them trawling all the video footage collected by the FIT team present that day, to see if there is anything they can charge me with, then, quite possibly targeting me in future, in any area of my life, makes me part of the problem?
> 
> LOL



Indeed, however where I *would* agree with db is when someone in the police witnesses a colleague (for example) beating someone up or lying in a statement. Then i'd agree totally that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if they don't testify against the perpetrator, but how often does that happen?

Eta although i suppose they're then hit by the same things sherpa says here


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's the problem with these fucking idiots ... logic escapes them.  They prove it time and time and time again and their inability to apply it is _frequently_ why they end up falling out with me.


it's always someone else's fault, isn't it 

_they_ fall out with _you_ - but it isn't that, this thread and other threads you've been on are littered with comments from people about your crass ill manners and double standards and foul and abusive language - language which, if it was repeated in front of a serving officer would see you arrested for section 5 of poa on a regular basis.

in all too many cases you deliberately and with malice aforethought insult people who've done nothing to deserve it: you cause the very problems you complain about.

why don't you take a leaf out of agricola's book and at least pretend to have a halfway decent personality?


----------



## sherpa (Aug 17, 2010)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, however where I *would* agree with db is when someone in the police witnesses a colleague (for example) beating someone up or lying in a statement. Then i'd agree totally that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution if they don't testify against the perpetrator, but how often does that happen?


 
Not often, I'd wager.




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> but every time I have seen the stats about how few complaints are substantiated / result in any action used *it is as a stick to beat the police with*



[/unintended irony] LOL




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> But you are not entitled to expect that your definition of it as inappropriate will be definitive - *there may well be an explanation / defence / circumstances you are not aware of.*



I suspect that's a convenient 'get out' which extends to anyone [police officer or otherwise] who _witnesses_ something that could be an uncomfortable truth for the force concerned.




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> To make sure that the true level of inappropriate police behaviour is recorded. So that the statistics reflect the truth. So that when those statistics are published the public, or the agencies created to act on their behalf, can properly address the apparent issues on an organisational level as well as on the individual level.



There are lies, damned lies and statistics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> There are lies, damned lies and d-b posts.


*corrected for you at no extra charge*


----------



## sherpa (Aug 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you at no extra charge*


 
A proper public service.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> A proper public service.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 17, 2010)

but again it has to be said db is great if you have a particular police related problem and need advice on how to approach it.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> So, if I'm advised by a very experienced solicitor, that complaining about being punched in the head, by a police officer, during a demo, will likely result in them trawling all the video footage collected by the FIT team present that day, to see if there is anything they can charge me with, then, quite possibly targeting me in future, in any area of my life, makes me part of the problem?


If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you take a leaf out of agricola's book and at least pretend to have a halfway decent personality?


Because I believe in calling a spade a spade and a cunt a cunt.

Cunt.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> I suspect that's a convenient 'get out' which extends to anyone [police officer or otherwise] who _witnesses_ something that could be an uncomfortable truth for the force concerned.


So your spur of the moment conclusions, based on partial information and with no regard whatsoever for any explanation or facts that might be unknown to you, and no doubt driven by your own prejudices are _absolutely, totally and definitively_ a statement that something was unlawful ... what the _fuck_ makes you so fucking arrogant that you are able to mysteriously discern the fucking absolute truth ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy;10979191 ... what the [I said:
			
		

> fuck[/I] makes you so fucking arrogant that you are able to mysteriously discern the fucking absolute truth ...


indeed


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So your spur of the moment conclusions, based on partial information and with no regard whatsoever for any explanation or facts that might be unknown to you, and no doubt driven by your own prejudices are _absolutely, totally and definitively_ a statement that something was unlawful ... what the _fuck_ makes you so fucking arrogant that you are able to mysteriously discern the fucking absolute truth ...


 
Could you quit the aggressive and abusive tone please. I've afforded you the courtesy of not calling you names or personalising my posts, I'd be grateful if you could control yourself sufficiently to do the same.

I haven't suggested that I am able to discern the absolute truth, in the absence of other information/evidence. You're putting words into my mouth, and I'd rather you didn't. I am, however, suggesting that the police, as individuals, and as an organisation, have a strong culture of _loyalty_, and will do what they can to protect themselves, individually and collectively. I also believe that the police, as a powerful tool of the state, are protected in a way that ordinary members of the public aren't. I believe this is particularly true in situations such as demonstrations where the police are protected by the state in a variety of ways.




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...



So the police are the big boys eh? 

So, are you saying I should expect, and accept, that if I have the temerity to complain about being assaulted at a demo, the fact I was there, is enough to warrant subsequent police attention into other areas of my life?

And you suggest it is me that is arrogant?

LOL


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 18, 2010)

two sheds said:


> but again it has to be said db is great if you have a particular police related problem and need advice on how to approach it.


 
_"the trains always ran on time..."_


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...



That's what they said to Ian Tomlinson. Oh no, they didn't. What great insight into the mentality of policing demos though.  

Who've you hurt then detective boy?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 18, 2010)

Yes, perhaps db would like to put his tax returns and income details up on u75 for general checking - if he's got nothing to hide then he's got nothing to fear. Or perhaps the names and addresses of anyone who's ever made a complaint about him - again, if he's got nothing to hide then he's got nothing to fear. 

He's always complaining about *something* on urban so he's clearly in playing with the big boys now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because *I believe in calling a spade a spade *and a cunt a cunt.
> 
> Cunt.


racist


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...


but that totally evades the point about a complaint triggering a vendetta from plod central


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...


and whilst i'm at it, exercising the right to peaceful protest, and expecting the ;police not to behave like bootboys is 'playing big boys games'?_ really??_
I am astonished - I thought it was called 'democracy and fundamental human rights', myself.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 18, 2010)

'big boys' are clearly folk who strike an unarmed man from behind - without provocation - causing his early death.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because I believe in calling a spade a spade and a cunt a cunt.
> 
> Cunt.


no you don't. you constantly obfuscate and blather about how something like causing a man's death is not something the police can be held accountable for, whether that's accountable by being put in front of a court, facing disciplinary charges or any other way. you are not open, you're not forthright, you're always sneaking around the edges and posting up guff.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...


 
Actually, I'd like to know, where in my previous post I implied I had something to hide. I was merely objecting to the idea that a complaint against a police officer would elicit an unwarranted invasion into my life.

There was no evidence, in my post, of any such thing; now who's drawing conclusions based on absolutely sweet fuck all?

in my view, the police use this as a tactic for deterring people from complaining about them, which in turn leaves them believing they can act with impunity in such situations.

It really isn't a very difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...


 
so i suppose you're playing little boys' games by throwing round insults.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> 'big boys' are clearly folk who strike an unarmed man from behind - without provocation - causing his early death.


 
Well 'ard.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Actually, I'd like to know, where in my previous post I implied I had something to hide. I was merely objecting to the idea that a complaint against a police officer would elicit an unwarranted invasion into my life.
> 
> There was no evidence, in my post, of any such thing; now who's drawing conclusions based on absolutely sweet fuck all?
> 
> ...


 

...but if you don't complain then you're as guilty as the copper doing the bad thing. Round we go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Well 'ard.


 
d-b's 'big boys' = antisocial thugs in uniform


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...but if you don't complain then you're as guilty as the copper doing the bad thing.


 
Damn me and my guilty ways.

This exchange also confirms my belief that most OB are a little hard of thinking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2010)

or indeed, backhand women without provocation. Just cos your name is Smellie and you were bullied at school.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> So, are you saying I should expect, and accept, that if I have the temerity to complain about being assaulted at a demo, the fact I was there, is enough to warrant subsequent police attention into other areas of my life?


I was saying that if you were acting unlawfully earlier (which is implied by the fact that you are worried that they will go looking through any footage to see if you were ...) then it goes with the territory.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> racist


I think you will find that it is YOU who is attributing a racist meaning to a well-known and entirely non-racist saying ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...but if you don't complain then you're as guilty as the copper doing the bad thing. Round we go.


 
...and if you do complain then it's perfectly reasonable for special branch to go through your bins and camp in your loft for the next year.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I think you will find that it is YOU who is attributing a racist meaning to a well-known and entirely non-racist saying ...


hello mr tongue, meet mr cheek.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I think you will find that it is YOU who is attributing a racist meaning to a well-known and entirely non-racist saying ...


 
It's not entirely non-racist you halfwitted goon - there's an obvious connotation and the term can certainly be misused. Language can be ambiguous, no matter how much you shout and roll your eyes at people.

I'd urge you to take a little more care with your language. After all, you're the prize prannet who got on your high horse about the use of drama queen iirc. The hypocrisy grates a little.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> ...and if you do complain then it's perfectly reasonable for special branch to go through your bins and camp in your loft for the next year.


 
Hey, if you want to play with the big boys...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 18, 2010)

Does anyone recollect what the stupid fat ex pig cunt now does for a living? Is it some sort of cuntsultant?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Does anyone recollect what the stupid fat ex pig cunt now does for a living? Is it some sort of cuntsultant?


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I was saying that if you were acting unlawfully earlier (which is implied by the fact that you are worried that they will go looking through any footage to see if you were ...) then it goes with the territory.


 
How on earth have you concluded I was worried, from what I wrote in my original post? Unsurprised, yes, worried, no.

For someone who aggressively accuses others of drawing inaccurate conclusions, I'd suggest you'd do well to take a moment to reflect on your own behaviour. Moreover, I'd go further and suggest much of what you write is classic projection.

Whether I was acting unlawfully or not (and I wasn't, I was trying to leave an area to avoid being kettled), the notion that police can then delve into other areas of my life leaves me thinking they believe they can behave with impunity, particularly with people who exercise their right to dissent/protest. I presume they do this in order to _offset_ my allegation with something that will undermine my credibility or provide the opportunity to charge me with something, probably very minor, that would otherwise be ignored, again, to undermine my allegation, or to get me to withdraw it.

The tactics of bullies, who know they can get away with bullying, as their paymasters will ensure they are not held to account in any meaningful way.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 18, 2010)

So the pig criticises victims of police violence for not making official complaints while admitting there is a real threat of intimidation against victims of police violence not to complain. The police are _never_ to blame, it seems.



detective-boy said:


> If there is nothing for them to find there is no problem ... if, as you imply, there is then tough - play big boys games and you'll get hurt ...



If there's "nothing to find", they will publicly make something up then quietly slip it under the rug when the media aren't watching anymore. They can get away with it, because they're "the big boys". Those poor bastards who need protecting from the evil general public _walking away from them_.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 18, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no you don't. you constantly obfuscate and blather about how something like causing a man's death is not something the police can be held accountable for, whether that's accountable by being put in front of a court, facing disciplinary charges or any other way. you are not open, you're not forthright, you're always sneaking around the edges and posting up guff.


 
I asked detective_boy a question on another thread, in response to this post of his:




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> you simply do not accept that in the real world there are lots of tragic outcomes which are no one individual's fault, let alone for which any one individual has criminal liability.



My response was:




			
				sherpa said:
			
		

> Yet, in other very public tragedies, where someone dies, Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter, for instance, people are held to account, and lose their jobs as a result, even if there was no criminal case to answer, as individuals. Why do the police seem to be exempt from this?
> 
> As you said earlier, no one lost their job following the death of Jean Charles de Menezes - do you not think that leaves people feeling the police see themselves as not being as answerable as other public servants when it comes to situations which result in a death that could have been prevented, had people been doing their jobs properly? It makes them/you look like arrogant, self-serving hypocrites, who see fit to hide behind the letter of the law, whilst having neither the integrity or humility to hold certain individuals accountable for the part they played in the collective failings of the organisation.
> 
> For someone who seems to spend a lot of time calling other people stupid and thick, you seem to have difficulty with simple concepts, abstract thinking, and you're woefully lacking in people skills.



He hasn't responded, which leads me to think Pickman's model has a point.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> He hasn't responded, which leads me to think Pickman's model has a point.


I'm afraid you'll quickly find a repetitive pattern of behaviour with dibble.  Reference book quotes followed by rapidly escalating anger followed by abuse.  Ad nauseum.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 19, 2010)

Latest news on Freddy Patel. Not properly qualified to do the PM, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> The pathologist at the heart of the decision not to prosecute over the death of a man at the G20 protests should not have been registered to investigate suspicious deaths.
> 
> Dr Freddy Patel, 63, appeared on a Home Office register despite failing to meet its criteria, the BBC has learned.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 19, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Latest news on Freddy Patel. Not properly qualified to do the PM, apparently.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705


I wonder if there's any argument to be made that a prosecution should now go ahead?

I mean, the basis of the decision not to prosecute was due to conflicting evidence, and the risk of putting Patel on the stand and him saying one thing... and two other doctors on the stand who say another thing... then that might leave room for "reasonable doubt".  But if his potential testimony, in particular his conclusion, can be dismissed as unreliable evidence, then I'm not sure how far the Defence would be able to go in terms of arguing there's a conflict of opinions and therefore reasonable doubt... 

Since the decision not to prosecute was based on slim/nil whatever chances of conviction on the basis of a 'conflict' of evidence giving rise to reasonable doubt, if there's no longer a conflict, because that unreliable evidence is ruled inadmissable...

There's a danger any potential conviction would be appealed, of course, but if the main thrust of an appeal is that the unreliable evidence of someone unqualified to give expert evidence wasn't taken into account, or was overruled or ruled inadmissable... 

But anyway, I've said for years that the law and justice are two completely different things.


----------



## xes (Aug 19, 2010)

It's almost as if the police didn't want to charge one of their own. I'm not quite sure where I'm getting that idea from, mind.......

corrupt fucking cunts.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 19, 2010)

Well, they can't prosecute now even if they wanted to because it's too late...I can't remember where I read that, but 99% sure it was on the BBC website.


----------



## xes (Aug 19, 2010)

Yep, you read right. And it's wasn't done like this on purpose at all, oh no sir.  t was all due to "a lack of evidence" PMSL


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 19, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, they can't prosecute now even if they wanted to because it's too late...I can't remember where I read that, but 99% sure it was on the BBC website.


That was relating to an assault charge.  

Although it might also be too late for the Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer to revisit the notion of prosecution of manslaughter in the light of new evidence - i.e. since it transpires that Patel doesn't meet the criteria to be an investigative pathologist, then can he be called as an expert witness, and if not, then what's stopping the prosecution?


----------



## xes (Aug 19, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> then what's stopping the prosecution?


 The police will stop the prossecution.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Latest news on Freddy Patel. Not properly qualified to do the PM, apparently.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705


 
Just bets better and better.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2010)

BBC said:
			
		

> The Home Office Register is maintained by the National Policing Improvement Agency.
> 
> In a statement, the Agency said: "Although police and coroners are not obliged by law to instruct a forensic pathologist on the Home Office Register, it would be most unusual not to do so and could adversely impact on a prosecution."




WTF?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> ...and if you do complain then it's perfectly reasonable for special branch to go through your bins and camp in your loft for the next year.


No.  It doesn't happen, but if it did it would be unjustifiable.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> It's not entirely non-racist ...


In and of itself, yes it is.  It has no racist origins and no perjorative meaning.  It's _only_ link with racism is through "spade" being used as racist abuse for a black person.

In this way it is _entirely_ non-racist in _exactly_ the same way as the phrase "drama queen" is in and of itself entirely non-homophobic.

BUT it _could_ be used in a racist manner by someone intending the racist meaning to be read into it's use and it _could_ be considered offensive for some specific reason by some individual, in which case, having been made aware of that, it would be insensitive (but not _necessarily_ racist) to continue to use it in thier presence or towards them.

As I was not using it in a way which intended to have any racist meaning read into it and as I was (and am) unaware of anyone present considering it to be offensive _per se_, it's use was entirely non-racist to.

(And, just for the record, "drama queen" was used against me in an entirely deliberate way, intended to have it's homophobic meaning read into it's use AND it was specifically continued even after I had politely pointed out that I considered it offensive and to please avoid using it against me in that way.)

If you want to be politically correct I suggest you actually give some thought to understanding the concepts or people will just point and laugh at you and you will do more damage than good to the fight against racism and prejudice of all sorts.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> How on earth have you concluded I was worried, from what I wrote in my original post? Unsurprised, yes, worried, no.


So why the fuck did you take the advice of your paranoid, fuckwitted solicitor?  If you had not acted in any way unlawfully they could look through the fucking footage to their hearts content and they would find fuck all to undermine your credibility as a complainant, would they?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> ... the notion that police can then delve into other areas of my life ...


There would be no "delving into other areas of your life" with the exception of checking to see if you had any known history ... which would seem to be a pretty reasonable thing to do for a variety of reasons ...


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In and of itself, yes it is.  It has no racist origins and no perjorative meaning.  It's _only_ link with racism is through "spade" being used as racist abuse for a black person.
> .... <whingeing nonsense blah blah blah>


 
My god DB, that's a lot of blather and obfuscation. But the jist of it was that you were wrong to claim that it was an 'entirely non racist' phrase, isn't it? Trying to deny current connotations of language and associations is a stupid approach, canute-like in its futility and lack of link to reality

Here's a tip: lose the wordy bullshit and learn to apologise with some grace for once. It's bad enough you being a ginormous hypocrite, but have the decency to admit when your language is loose and inaccurate without all this laughable blather. Nobody is misrepresenting you - you are writing oversimplified bollocks that cannot be supported in actuality

And fuck off with the tiresome rolleyes for a change eh. You could just express yourself better and avoid such daft choices of phrase in the first place.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> He hasn't responded, which leads me to think Pickman's model has a point.


I hadn't seen the question.

The point is that lots of people in all of those cases (police or otherwise) DIDN'T lose their jobs.  And there are loads and loads of other examples too.

Where one or two people were sacked or disciplined that was because they were found to have failed in a way which merited their being sacked or disciplined.  That applies to the police as much as to anyone else.

But often no-one is individually culpable to the degree that merits criminal action, sacing or even lesser disciplinary action.

My basic point is simple:  Just because someone dies (or there is some other tragic outcome) does NOT mean that anyone is individually "to blame".  To demand otherwise, like the fucking tabloids encourage people to do, simply demonstrates your inability to understand that real world does not work like that.  It also distracts attention from the _organisational_ failings which frequently have happened and it prevents a sensible review of the facts which might actually prevent furture tragedies occuring.

To call for someones blood, regardless of any _actual_ individual culpability - which, when all is said and done, is what you are doing - makes you no difference from the tossers marching around threatening to burn out paedophiles ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm afraid you'll quickly find a repetitive pattern of behaviour with dibble.  Reference book quotes followed by _*members of the Collective turning up and either making up facts, reaching absolute decisions in the absence of any facts, denying what has been posted is correct without providing anything to back up that assertion or generally misrepresenting what has actually been posted*_ rapidly escalating anger followed by abuse.  Ad nauseum.


Corrected for you ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I wonder if there's any argument to be made that a prosecution should now go ahead?


None whatsoever.

Go back and read the numerous long posts I have made on the subject to understand why.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> To call for someones blood, regardless of any _actual_ individual culpability - which, when all is said and done, is what you are doing - makes you no difference from the tossers marching around threatening to burn out paedophiles ...


 
Only there is individual culpability here, given that someone's on camera pushing a man from behind in a totally unnecessary fashion.

As for the rest of the post - it's another one of those laughable comparisons and logical fallacies that you seem to specialise in. It's remarkable that you think that's a reasonable way of debating. See also your unbelievable claim that people being prejudiced against people based on their profession and their past experiences (ie police) is comparable to people hating black youth. You've played the paedo and race card in your haste to excuse the police here. What next? Is having valid concerns about the police and wanting justice the same as hating the Baby Jeesus os something? 

You're a hysterical prannet who needs to take more care with his language and logic

<Insert appropriate load of cunts, frothing language and rolleyes here>


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, they can't prosecute now even if they wanted to because it's too late...I can't remember where I read that, but 99% sure it was on the BBC website.


That only applied to the Common Assault charge the CPS considered.  There is a six month limitation period on all summary only offences (which Common Assault is).  There is NO limitation period at all on more serious charges (including ABH which, in *law*, is made out by the "pattern bruising" clearly associated with the baton strike ... but which by the CPS Charging Standards (i.e. their *policy*) they would normally charge as Common Assault, not ABH.)

I have explained all this at length.  Why do people not read what I take the time to post so that they can try and understand what is happening and why?   _That_ is why I bother to post it - so people can be _informed_ in areas in which they are not.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why the fuck did you take the advice of your paranoid, fuckwitted solicitor?  If you had not acted in any way unlawfully they could look through the fucking footage to their hearts content and they would find fuck all to undermine your credibility as a complainant, would they?


 
Because, strangely, in my world, punching someone in the head constitutes as assault. On this occasion, as the perpetrator was a police officer, I didn't feel confident about approaching the police to make a complaint, as I didn't believe it would be dealt with appropriately, ergo, I sought advice from a solicitor who regularly deals with this kind of situation, and who, coincidentally, is neither paranoid or fuckwitted. 

They felt that I should be made fully aware of the potential consequences of making a formal complaint against a police officer about an assault that happened during a demonstration, so that I could make an informed choice about whether I proceed or not. It's really not that difficult. 

I haven't shared what my subsequent decision was, or the basis on which I made it, so you are without the full facts.

So, once again, shove your patronising, insulting tone, and your rolleyes up your arse, pal.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> ... and if not, then what's stopping the prosecution?


For manslaughter:  insufficient evidence to prove causation (i.e. that the unlawful force used directly caused death).
For GBH / ABH on the basis of any internal bleeding injury: insufficient evidence to prove causation (i.e. that the unlawful force used directly caused that injury)
For ABH on the basis of the bruising caused by the baton strike: a _policy_ decision (albeit one entirely consistent with their decisions in other cases) that the injury caused (bruising) whilst ABH in _law_ should be prosecuted as Comon Assault
For common assault on the basis of the bruising caused by the baton strike and / or any of the other minor injuries found and / or the video evidence of the push:   limitation period of six months for summary only offences

There is unsufficient evidence of causation because (a) there _are_ alternative potential causes of death present (liver disease / heart disease) which cannot be excluded as being at least contributory factors and, more importantly, (b) there is no clear evidence of internal bleeding being the cause of death - neither of the later two pathologists who mentioned it saw any visible evidence of a ruptured blood vessel or any other injury that would have bled significantly (and nor did Patel) and the _only_ basis for their conclusion is Patel's note that he found "intrabdominal fluid blood about 3l" in the abdomen when he conducted the PM.  They took this to be 3l of blood (which would certainly be consistent with internal bleeding being the cause of death even if an actual rupture, etc. could not be seen) but Patel has explained he meant "...fluid _with_ blood ..." and that the amount of blood was low (i.e. it was mostly fluid).  Smaller amounts of blood would _not_ be consistent with internal bleeding as a cause of death, especially in the absence of an actual rupture, etc.  No-one else qualified to provide an opinion on the amount of blood in the 3l actually saw it at the time of the original PM (so far as is known) and Patel did not keep a sample so it cannot be ascertained by tests.

The fact that Patel is incompetent cannot be used to simply invent some evidence that may or may not have been there.  He is the ONLY person able to give evidence of what he found on conducting the PM.  His incompetence does not rule his evidence inadmissible.  And even if it did there would now not even be evidence that there was "intrabdominal fluid blood, about 3l" in the abdomen, would there?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> WTF?


This is EXACTLY what I've been saying on this fucking thread from the outset.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> But the jist of it was that you were wrong to claim that it was an 'entirely non racist' phrase, isn't it?


No.  The jist of it is is that only politically correct halfwits who do not know what the fuck they are talking about and who do more damage to understanding of racis and other prejudice put together a list of "banned" words which includes things like "spade", "manhole" and "blackboard".

I do not subscribe to that fuckwitted approach.  You can if you like.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> I wonder if there's any argument to be made that a prosecution should now go ahead?
> 
> I mean, the basis of the decision not to prosecute was due to conflicting evidence, and the risk of putting Patel on the stand and him saying one thing... and two other doctors on the stand who say another thing... then that might leave room for "reasonable doubt".  But if his potential testimony, in particular his conclusion, can be dismissed as unreliable evidence, then I'm not sure how far the Defence would be able to go in terms of arguing there's a conflict of opinions and therefore reasonable doubt...
> 
> ...


what you've missed here is that patel's examination, as he was the only pathologist who got to examine the body in a 'proper' condition, is the utterly crucial ones, and the evidence of the other two cannot help but be based on his examination.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Only there is individual culpability here, given that someone's on camera pushing a man from behind in a totally unnecessary fashion.


Yes there is, in part.  There is a genuine evidential reason why there is no individual culpability for the _death_.  But there _is_ individual culpability for assault (ABH / Common Assault).  I have _repeatedly_ posted that (a) it was a fuck up by the CPS not to charge Common Assault within the limitation period and they should be held to account for that (I have seen no detailed explanation why they did not, other than "other enquiries were continuing" in which case they should explain to what extent it was considered and who took the decision not to charge (they could have charged and then asked for the case to be adjourned pending other enquiries, or even dealt with that and then come back with more serious charges later if the evidence was found) and that (b) in _law_ they could charge ABH on the basis of the baton strike bruising, even though it would be against their Charging Standards _policy_ and that in the circumstances they should do so, even though the defence will throw a load of shit at them for doing so and the Court _may_ kick the case out as an abuse of process.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The point is that lots of people in all of those cases (police or otherwise) DIDN'T lose their jobs.  And there are loads and loads of other examples too.



And my point is, some people did lose their jobs. Some were disciplined, some were dismissed.




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> Where one or two people were sacked or disciplined that was because they were found to have failed in a way which merited their being sacked or disciplined.  *That applies to the police as much as to anyone else.*



It doesn't seem like it. 




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> But often no-one is individually culpable to the degree that merits criminal action, sacing or even lesser disciplinary action.



I understand that. However, my point was about their contribution to the collective failing of the organisation/s directly involved in a given situation, which is what I wrote in my original post. Sharon Shoesmith (personal opinons of her aside) was not directly responsible for the death of baby Peter, however, she was responsible for managing the department, and the staff in that department, who failed to protect him. she was dismissed; Cressida Dick got promoted.




			
				detective_boy said:
			
		

> My basic point is simple:  Just because someone dies (or there is some other tragic outcome) does NOT mean that anyone is individually "to blame".  To demand otherwise, like the fucking tabloids encourage people to do, simply demonstrates your inability to understand that real world does not work like that.  It also distracts attention from the _organisational_ failings which frequently have happened and it prevents a sensible review of the facts which might actually prevent furture tragedies occuring.



No it doesn't. People say lessons are learned, but they're not.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> To call for someones blood, regardless of any _actual_ individual culpability - which, when all is said and done, is what you are doing - makes you no difference from the tossers marching around threatening to burn out paedophiles ...



I'm not calling for blood you hysterical lunatic, I'm calling for people to be held accountable for their role in the failings of an organisation, whilst carrying out its duty, which result in the death of an innocent person.

As for the last part of your post, it's the paedophile equivalent of Godwin's law.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  The jist of it is is that only politically correct halfwits who do not know what the fuck they are talking about and who do more damage to understanding of racis and other prejudice put together a list of "banned" words which includes things like "spade", "manhole" and "blackboard".
> 
> I do not subscribe to that fuckwitted approach.  You can if you like.



I didn't say anything approaching that though, did I? And you've the cheek to go on about misrepresentation. The fact remains that a phrase that has obvious racial connotations and associations cannot be blithely passed off as 'entirely non racist'. Particularly when you're getting on your high horse about the use of 'drama queen' like the world's most myopic hypocrite

Now you can shout, refuse to accept the blinking obvious and swear to your heart's content, but it won't change that reality. No matter how much you try and deflect and go off onto some halfhearted, second hand routine about political correctness gone mad.

You're a sad joke, unable to ever admit when you're in the wrong. Nobody buys this constant bullshit that everyone is always misrepresenting you - it's closer to suggest that you're a buffoon who writes poorly, fails to admit mistakes and an unpleasant pillock who rounds on anyone who dares challenge his revisionist take on things. The constant is you and your loose language - it's amazing that you blame everyone else for your failings so often. One day the penny may drop, but I'm not holding my breath with your lack of self knowledge


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what you've missed here is that patel's examination, as he was the only pathologist who got to examine the body in a 'proper' condition, is the utterly crucial ones, and the evidence of the other two cannot help but be based on his examination.


Thank fuck someone has read (and understood) previous explanations ... I was beginning to think I'd imagined them ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Sharon Shoesmith (personal opinons of her aside) was not directly responsible for the death of baby Peter, however, she was responsible for managing the department, and the staff in that department, who failed to protect him. she was dismissed; Cressida Dick got promoted.


I would certainly agree that where there has been serious organisational failing, and _especially_ where there is no clear individual culpability by any member of that organisation, the head should resign / be sacked - they take the big pay cheque, the buck stops with them unless it can be clearly delivered elsewhere.  (I wouldn't agree that it should have been Cressida Dick who went though - the organisatonal issues were not hers and if you actually read the detailed sequence of events she was in a no-win situation because of deployment decisions taken by others.  Ian Blair was the one who should have resigned - it was the _whole_ organisation that failed and several of those failings can be traced to strategies overseen by him.



> People say lessons are learned, but they're not.



Not often enough they aren't ... partially because of this constant distraction in looking for scapegoats - we need to investigate organisational failings in cases like this in the same way that we investigate air accidents (i.e. to ensure that no more planes fall out of the sky by finding what happened and why as quickly as possible ... even if that means the accounts of those involved cannot, by law, be used as evidence against them ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> The fact remains that a phrase that has obvious racial connotations and associations cannot be blithely passed off as 'entirely non racist'.


You say that it has "obvious racial connotations".  I have explained that I do not believe that it does and why.

Perhaps you would care to explain the basis for your statement.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You say that it has "obvious racial connotations".  I have explained that I do not believe that it does and why.
> 
> Perhaps you would care to explain the basis for your statement.



Come to Brixton and shout 'A Spade's a spade' in my local with no further context. The reaction will be all the proof you need.

One day fuckstick, you'll have the grace to admit a mistake. Until then you can try to deny the flaming obvious and claim others are misrepresenting you until you're blue in the face. It's pathetic, frankly


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Ian Blair was the one who should have resigned - it was the _whole_ organisation that failed and several of those failings can be traced to strategies overseen by him.



Yet he didn't, which is the point I was making previously about what's good for other public servants, doesn't seem to be good for police officers. Quite the opposite in fact, given he's now a Lord. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

It would really help if you read what people write, applied less concrete thinking, and more critical thinking to your responses, instead of disappearing up your own arse in a fit of pique.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Come to Brixton and shout 'A Spade's a spade' in my local with no further context. The reaction will be all the proof you need.


If I did that, the context in which I was using the phrase would be clearly racist, wouldn't it ... 

Do they not sell spades at the local garden centre ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Yet he didn't, which is the point I was making previously about what's good for other public servants, doesn't seem to be good for police officers. Quite the opposite in fact, given he's now a Lord. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?


Now it is plain that you (unlike many / most other posters) are talking about taking senior executive responsibility regardless of whether there is any personal involvement with the case, yes ... which is why, er, I've agreed with it ...


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If I did that, the context in which I was using the phrase would be clearly racist, wouldn't it ...
> 
> Do they not sell spades at the local garden centre ...


 
Why would it? Where's the logic in that? You could simply be using the phrase in it's original 'entirely non-racist' meaning - your words of course.

Isn't that what you argued, or are you rewriting history again to suit? Do you see what I mean about you and your double standards?


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Now it is plain that you (unlike many / most other posters) are talking about taking senior executive responsibility regardless of whether there is any personal involvement with the case, yes ... which is why, er, I've agreed with it ...


 
Oh, I don't think it should just be senior executives who are publicly held to account. If there is an individual case to answer, whether that be a disciplinary issue, or a criminal prosecution issue, then I think individuals should also be publicly held to account too, regardless of their role within the organisation.

It just seems very odd that the police, collectively, and individually, are rarely held to account for very much at all. 

How lucky is that?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Why would it? Where's the logic in that? You could simply be using the phrase in it's original 'entirely non-racist' meaning - your words of course.


Because, on the basis of the circumstances YOU described:

(a) I would have deliberately gone to Brixton (high proportion of black people) to do it (as opposed to going to the Isle of Skye - not all that many black people) which would be strong circumstantial evidence of my intention to cause offence / my belief that it _would_cause offence and

(b) I would have shouted it for no apparent reason in a public house ... providing clear evidence that I was NOT using it in an entirely innocent and "normal" way.

Admit it ... you have dug yourself a hole (with an "earth-moving implement", natch ... ) with you efforts to be more right-on than a right-on thing.  And doing that just brings the whole subject into disrepute with "normal" people who are capable of applying common sense and distinguishing situations from each other ...


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

What a verbose load of obfuscatory and unconvincing pish. I've just asked you to my home pub to say something out loud - the rest is context you've decided to add on. There's nothing unusual about people making loud verbal outbursts or saying common phrases loudly in a bustling public house, is there?

Either the phrase is 'entirely non racist' - in which it should cause no offence, or it carries the racist connotations and associations I underlined before.  Which is it? 

FWIW I'd argue that it's contextual too, but then it's not 'entirely' anything, is it? You just can't bring yourself to backtrack or admit any mistake, can you? Instead we've this sad spectacle of you writing ever longer posts that hold little logic, consistency or common sense. You could just admit that you were wrong to use that turn of phrase all along - it clearly can and does hold racist connotations.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> It just seems very odd that the police, collectively, and individually, are rarely held to account for very much at all.


They are _held to account_ regularly ... what people (and it appears you) confuse with being held to account is being _convicted / punished_.  That is NOT the same thing. 



> How lucky is that?


Lots of police cases arise from situations in which (a) there are perfectly obvious and lawful grounds for using _some_ force and / or (b) there is a lot of (absolutely inevitable) confusion and "fog of war" and / or (c) there are absolutely unavoidable huge holes in the information that is known and / or (d) there is a need to take action in a situation which is extremely difficult, with little or no time available to gather further information.

In those types of situation the criminal law is reluctant to find criminal culpability - the law recognises that people (police officers or otherwise) can only act on what they know and that they are entitled to be judged on the basis of _what they honestly believed to be the case at the timne they acted_ and *NOT* on the basis of what is _now_ known to be the case with the benefit of _hindisght_.

Similarly, disciplinary proceedings take the same approach and I would certainly argue against anyone suggesting that is not right and proper - who would be a police officer (or take on any other difficult role) if they were to be arbitrarily judged on the basis of what is known with hindsight - people would quite rightly tell those suggesting such a system to stuff it up their fucking arses and do they job themselves if they're so fucking smart (something which neatly paraphrases a lot of my posts here ...).

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why we do not see large numbers of police officers (or other professionals for that matter) being convicted of criminal offences / dismissed for individual gross misconduct is because they are almost always doing their best, to do their job, in very trying and difficult circumstances they have neither committed any criminal offence or committed any act of gross misconduct ...

If we had a perfect world, in which police officers NEVER did anything wrong ... we'd have no police officers ever convicted of anything ... and yet there would be absolutely no logic in arguing that the absence of convictions was a bad thing and somehow indicative of some sort of failing (before the fuckwits start, I am NOT arguing we live in a perfect world where no police officers do anything wrong, I am simply using the extreme case to illustrate the failure in logic which sometimes gets applied to this debate).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Which is it?


As I have said from the start, it holds no racist or prejorative connotations in and of itself.

I would have absolutely no hesitation in using it in any pub I randomly happened to be in during the course of a discussion with someone else I was having a conversation with where I was wishing to convey the idea of bluntness.

YOU are the one asserting it does have some racist connotations _per se_ ... and yet you have failed entirely to explain why.  SO, instead of slagging me off, why not actually explain YOUR argument.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 19, 2010)

I call them shovels, or black people. Depending on the context, like.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I have said from the start, it holds no racist or prejorative connotations in and of itself.
> 
> I would have absolutely no hesitation in using it in any pub I randomly happened to be in during the course of a discussion with someone else I was having a conversation with where I was wishing to convey the idea of bluntness.
> 
> YOU are the one asserting it does have some racist connotations _per se_ ... and yet you have failed entirely to explain why.  SO, instead of slagging me off, why not actually explain YOUR argument.


 


You see DB, I'm merely holding you to the choice of words that you have selected. For someone who's so keen to allege misrepresentation, you're also quick to use mealy-mouthed, unconvincing and revisionist takes on the past.

Frankly there was no need for you to say 'entirely' (non racist) in the first place, but what's so striking is that you're still fighting this stupid, losing battle. Simply because you cannot bear to admit that you made a mistake or chose unwisely in the first place.

I shouldn't have to explain to you, slowly and as if to a particularly dumb child in denial, that the word spade can be offensive and used in a racist context. As can a phrase containing spade, unsurprisingly

Equally I haven't asked about the virtues of context, nor to provide a wordy explanation of when you thought something acceptable to use. I've simply said that it was wrong to use 'entirely' all along.

Would you concede that, by the same logic, 'drama queen' would be an entirely non-homophobic phrase? If it's 'entirely' free of any homophobic meanings and associations, why can't folks use it around you? It's entirely free of anything that could be affected by context then, isn't it?


----------



## free spirit (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why the fuck did you take the advice of your paranoid, fuckwitted solicitor?  If you had not acted in any way unlawfully they could look through the fucking footage to their hearts content and they would find fuck all to undermine your credibility as a complainant, would they?


 
joint enterprise... conspiracy... simply being in the vicinity of something kicking off on several bits of footage through the day could easily be enough to at least get the police a search warrant, potentially resulting in your PC, mobile phone etc being confiscated for 'evidence' for months or longer if someone decided they wanted to make life difficult for you.

Even if they ended up not being able to find enough to actually prosecute you for something they can still turn your life upside down if they choose to.

I've been threatened with arrest for conspiracy to cause a riot (or something like that) while on entirely the other side of the police lines to the rest of the protesters, and doing nothing more than standing out of the way talking on my phone to people on the other side trying to get them to de-escalate the situation, so the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line really doesn't wash IMO.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I shouldn't have to explain to you, slowly and as if to a particularly dumb child in denial, that the word spade can be offensive and used in a racist context. As can a phrase containing spade, unsurprisingly


Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?

It *CAN* be offensive and it *CAN* be used in a fucking racist context.  Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged.  What it *ISN'T* (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative _per se_.



> Would you concede that, by the same logic, 'drama queen' would be an entirely non-homophobic phrase?


You mean by saying something like:




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I did not say that "drama queen" is homophobic per se.


 (Post  607, 25 July)

or




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> In this way it is entirely non-racist in exactly the same way as the phrase "drama queen" is in and of itself entirely non-homophobic.


 (Post 1243, 19 August)



* Gives up trying to educate the dull cunt *


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2010)

Just been a programme on Radio 4 about this (the Tomlinson case decision, not tarannau's fuckwittery ...).  The analysis, provided by QCs and Professor's of Pathology amongst others is ... er ... pretty much identical with the analysis I have provided on here from the moment the CPS decision was released.

* Awaits torrent of apologies for the shed loads of bollocks posted telling me I'm talking shit ... *


----------



## free spirit (Aug 19, 2010)

so they and you are saying essentially that legally speaking the CPS were correct in their decision?

I don't really think that's actually been the main complaint on here, I think most of us were well aware that legally speaking the CPS were likely to have made the correct decision. Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.

Legally correct or not, the fact remains that this officer assaulted this person twice for no reason, and the person collapsed in the order of 2 minutes later and then promptly died, and yet the officer in question is not being charged with committing any crime and will instead face an internal disciplinary hearing. This is what we're complaining about in essence, and no amount of 'well by the letter of the law the decision was correct' type bollocks changes the simple facts of the matter that this police man is getting away with 2 unprovoked and unjustified assaults that resulted in someone's death.

The suspicion will also always be there that this ending up in a situation where no charges could be brought is no accident, particularly given the initial police response to it, and the use of an obviously incompetent pathologist who managed to fuck up the autopsy so badly that no subsequent pathologist could possibly proof how he actually died, plus the delay in taking the charging decision which meant that the lesser charge was no longer available.

This entire investigation and charging decision making process has either been a monumental balls up from start to finish, or was deliberately conducted in this manner, either way the public, and particularly Tomlinsons family have every right to be fucking furious about it, and to expect heads to roll over it.

But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being technically, legally correct... would you like a gold star to go with that smug expression as well?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 19, 2010)

My reaction when they said 'no realistic prospect ...' was 'well that's up to a jury to decide' and i still feel that. Otherwise, police are going to feel free in the future to gratuitously truncheon people in the kidneys whenever they feel like it. We need to send a message to these thugs.


----------



## sus (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just been a programme on Radio 4 about this (the Tomlinson case decision, not tarannau's fuckwittery ...).  The analysis, provided by QCs and Professor's of Pathology amongst others is ... er ... pretty much identical with the analysis I have provided on here from the moment the CPS decision was released.
> 
> * Awaits torrent of apologies for the shed loads of bollocks posted telling me *I'm talking shit ...* *




The analysis was "pretty much identical" to yours? I don't recall you ever asking the question "cock up or cover up?", which was what the participants in  Radio 4 programme seemed to find themselves asking. I must have missed the part where you even considered the question of whether this could have been a cover up.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> so they and you are saying essentially that legally speaking the CPS were correct in their decision?
> 
> I don't really think that's actually been the main complaint on here, I think most of us were well aware that legally speaking the CPS were likely to have made the correct decision. Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.
> 
> ...



You have summarised, and expressed, my thoughts on the matter, better than I have been able to do. The technical detail of the law is one thing, however, the process that leads to justice being seen to be done, is quite another.

Is it any wonder that [some] people have a healthy mistrust of the police, and _the system_? 

Oh, and anyone who actively seeks apologies from others, is usually a bit of a tool, in my experience.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It doesn't happen, but if it did it would be unjustifiable.


 
I wasn't speaking literally. I trust you understand the difference between a tongue-in-cheek comment and an accusation?

You stated that if they searched footage for anything untoward from a complainant it was because they were "playing with the big boys." I was parodying that.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I wasn't speaking literally. I trust you understand the difference between a tongue-in-cheek comment and an accusation?
> 
> You stated that if they searched footage for anything untoward from a complainant it was because they were "playing with the big boys." I was parodying that.



I think that might be a bit too conceptual for detective_boy. If it's not *literal* or written in law, he doesn't get it. 

He's a concrete thinker.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?
> 
> It *CAN* be offensive and it *CAN* be used in a fucking racist context.  Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged.  What it *ISN'T* (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative _per se_...
> 
> * Gives up trying to educate the dull cunt *



And he's off again with the CAPITALS and swearing as if that makes up for a point and for mistaking apples for oranges. Despite the constant misrepresentation, I have never argued that you can divorce a word from context or that something must be taken a certain way. It's you, in your blunderingly offensive way, that's implied that spade's 'entirely' free of a racist context. As humorous as the image of you as some kind of tinpot Canute is, attempting to draw where the associations and demarcations of language end, I think you're getting very angry over something entirely avoidable.

There's a consistent pattern of behaviour on this thread of you trying to hold everyone to vastly different standards than you practice yourself. And with a whole load of vicious sweary nonsense to all and everyone to boot. Sigh really.


----------



## sherpa (Aug 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> joint enterprise... conspiracy... simply being in the vicinity of something kicking off on several bits of footage through the day could easily be enough to at least get the police a search warrant, potentially resulting in your PC, mobile phone etc being confiscated for 'evidence' for months or longer if someone decided they wanted to make life difficult for you.
> 
> Even if they ended up not being able to find enough to actually prosecute you for something they can still turn your life upside down if they choose to.



I missed this post when reading through the thread. This is exactly why the solicitor provided me with the information he did, and why he felt it was important for me to understand the implications of following through on a formal complaint against an officer, in order for me to make an informed decision.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2010)

tarannau said:


> And he's off again with the CAPITALS and swearing as if that makes up for a point and for mistaking apples for oranges. Despite the constant misrepresentation, I have never argued that you can divorce a word from context or that something must be taken a certain way. It's you, in your blunderingly offensive way, that's implied that spade's 'entirely' free of a racist context. As humorous as the image of you as some kind of tinpot Canute is, attempting to draw where the associations and demarcations of language end, I think you're getting very angry over something entirely avoidable.
> 
> There's a consistent pattern of behaviour on this thread of you trying to hold everyone to vastly different standards than you practice yourself. And with a whole load of vicious sweary nonsense to all and everyone to boot. Sigh really.


word


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 20, 2010)

Every time dibble calls someone a cunt it makes me smile.   

An utter inability to deal with reasoned discussion without resorting to derogatory, dismissive abuse accentuates the gulf between he and I (and most likely some others here).

I think I can fairly allege that he didn't just start to be abusive when he started posting on urban - this is ingrained, institutional behaviour.   I've not seen anything to make me reconsider.

A shining example of that which he represents.

Oh - the posts by free spirit and tarannau have been consistently excellent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Jesus fucking Christ you really ARE thick, aren't you?
> 
> It *CAN* be offensive and it *CAN* be used in a fucking racist context.  Which I have clearly fucking acknowledged.  What it *ISN'T* (and which, despite repeated requests, you have failed to fucking explain or demonstrate) is racist or perjroative _per se_.
> 
> ...


 you're making a crisis out of a drama. is there any way you can respond to criticism without descending to the sweary basement? you've yet to show it if you can.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

free spirit said:


> Having said that though, it would have been nice just this once for the CPS to actually allow this to run it's course, and for a jury of his peers to be allowed to sit in judgement on him rather than some faceless CPS legal bod removing that possibility.


Are you arguing that the usual rules should not apply to police officers as defendants?  Or that the CPS should remove their evidential test for _everyone_ and revert to the legal test of _prima facie_ case?

And do you really think that it would be a good use of public money to start a trial, have all the prosecution evidence, just for the defence to make a submission of no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case and have the judge direct an acquittal (which they would inevitably _have_ to do as a matter of law on a charge of manslaughter (and, if they didn;t, any conviction would _inevitably_ be overturned on appeal))?



> ... unprovoked and unjustified assaults that resulted in someone's death.


You just don't get it, do you?  The whole point is that it is not possible to say that the assaults "resulted" in the death.  We do not know that.  We cannot say that.



> This entire investigation and charging decision making process has either been a monumental balls up from start to finish, or was deliberately conducted in this manner, either way the public, and particularly Tomlinsons family have every right to be fucking furious about it, and to expect heads to roll over it.


There are definitely issues which the CPS, the Coroner and the pathologist need to answer as a result of this investigation.  The IPCC and the City of London police (who, it appears from last nights programme, did approve Patel as the pathologist) also have some questions to answer about the decisions around the initial investigation.

More importantly, there seems to be no reason why an ABH charge cannot, in law, be preferred based on the baton bruising injury for which there is no causation problem at all (quite the contrary!).  The CPS have not done so based on their Charging Standards _policy_ ad policy (unlike law) is there to be ignored in exceptional or difficult cases!  In this case it is clear that the public interest demands that it is.

None of this, however, is a reason to abandon the rules of law just so that you can see a cop strung up for manslaughter.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

sus said:


> I don't recall you ever asking the question "cock up or cover up?", which was what the participants in  Radio 4 programme seemed to find themselves asking. I must have missed the part where you even considered the question of whether this could have been a cover up.


Which "participants" (plural) was that?  The only mention I heard was by the reported pushing it as a question to the interviewee from Justice ... and even they swerved it by saying something wishy-washy like "Well I can see why the public might think about why this has happened".  One response to one specific question by one interviewee right at the very end is hardly part of the "analysis", is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> a cop strung up for manslaughter.


there is only one case of which i'm aware of anyone being 'strung up' for manslaughter: that of one thomas cooper in 1816: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18160214-19-off112&div=t18160214-19#highlight

there'd clearly have to be major changes in the legal system before mr harwood faced the gallows.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Is it any wonder that [some] people have a healthy mistrust of the police, and _the system_?


No.  Which is why I have actually suggested that we need to change the system for the consideration of serious cases against police officers and other State officials by introducing a Grand Jury type hearing to review the administrative decisions of the IPCC / CPS, etc and with the power to commit directly to trial.

No-one has, so far as I am aware, responded to this suggestion, on this thread or anywhere else, preferring instead to rant on about cover-ups and to demand that a scapegoat be found, with a wholsesale scrapping of all sorts of rules of law which protect _all_ defendants from injustice ...

Now why is that then?  Why prefer ranting to sober consideration of actually improving the system so that there IS transparency?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 20, 2010)

Where has anyone demanded a scapegoat?

Surely everyone posting wants the perpetrator punished, not an innocent party.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> An utter inability to deal with reasoned discussion without resorting to derogatory, dismissive abuse accentuates the gulf between he and I (and most likely some others here).


I have no problem dealing with "reasoned discussion".  Sadly there is little of it here ... and none at all from The Collective.

Fuckwittedness, prejudice, total lack of logic, persistent drawing of firm conclusions based in limited or no facts, gross misrepresentation of what I have _actually_ posted  and a _total_ inability to consider any alternative explanations apart from the one they have instantly decided upon (based _entirely_ on their (negative or positive) prejudices and stereotyping are what gets "derogatory, dismissive abuse".

Maybe you should encourageThe Collective to avoid all of the above and see what happens ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Where has anyone demanded a scapegoat?
> 
> Surely everyone posting wants the perpetrator punished, not an innocent party.


I have no problem with wanting to see the officer charged with assault.  I have said so in so many words since the CPS decision not to chage was publicised.

But that is not what people want, is it?  They want him charged with (convicted of, to be honest - an acquittal by the jury would just result in claims that the jury were part of the "establishment conspiracy" as has been alleged on other threads ...) _manslaughter_ regardless of the generic rules of the laws of evidence that mean that it cannot be done.  That would be wanting him convicted of something that, in law, he is not guilty of.  *That* is scapegoating.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have no problem dealing with "reasoned discussion".  Sadly there is little of it here ... and none at all from The Collective.
> 
> Fuckwittedness, prejudice, total lack of logic, persistent drawing of firm conclusions based in limited or no facts, gross misrepresentation of what I have _actually_ posted  and a _total_ inability to consider any alternative explanations apart from the one they have instantly decided upon (based _entirely_ on their (negative or positive) prejudices and stereotyping are what gets "derogatory, dismissive abuse".
> 
> Maybe you should encourageThe Collective to avoid all of the above and see what happens ...


 

So that's another way of saying that you don't understand then - you are the most notable knucklehead on here at grossly misrepresentating others, showing an inability to entertain alternate explanations and to understand the written word. The sight of you trying to arrogantly claim that a word like 'spade' can be 'entirely' free of racist context and trying to define language and association by concrete, quasi-legal principles has been utterly illuminating (and humorous). Whatever your police expertise, it's clear that your skills with the written word and basic concepts of literary theory are lacking, not that you allow that to stop you spouting out ignorant, oversimplistic tosh or trying to prescribe how language can be perceived. All the insults and cunts in the world don't cover up your basic arrogance and lack of knowledge, nor your inability to admit a mistake or poor choice in the first place.

The idea of 'the collective' is of course entirely ridiculous. It's not as though posters like myself and Pickmans, Citizen and all share that many opinions, nor is there some concerted effort to gang up on you - your posts eally are that halfbaked and poorly explained. You don't have to believe there's some concerted effort to drag you down, you arrogant prannet - it's entirely possible and of course very likely that people can arrive at the conclusion that you're a jumped up muppet and precious clown all by themselves.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 20, 2010)

tarannau said:


> The sight of you trying to arrogantly claim that a word like 'spade' can be 'entirely' free of racist context...


Tell you what, you thick cunt.  Instead of just STATING that it isn't (as if your fucking word is the word of fucking God or something) why not actually answer the question you've been asked a million fucking times and explain what these mysterious racist connotations are that it has _in and of itself_ (i.e. NOT in how it can be used, in and of itself).

And, until you do, just shut the fuck up, eh?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 20, 2010)

Oh go weed the garden or something


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

*Ian Tomlinson Death, No one charged, no one held responsible.*

Well the issues are not going to go away just because a certain poster calls everyone names repeatedly. Despite the other thread being closed we need a space to discuss this appalling behaviour on the part of the police that lead to a mans death.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

so the tactic of repeated abuse to all and sundry by one apologist finally pays off as crispy locks the thread eh? 

nice and democratic that.......


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

Well all the sane urbanites could put DB on ignore??


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2010)

If it helps have a reasoned discussion I'm up for it.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 23, 2010)

What's the point though? Captain Pottymouth will accuse everyone else of misreading him, misrepresent others left right and centre and then call everyone in 50mile vicinity a cunt when his posts are questioned. And then after that cuntstorm everyone will get an equal slap on the wrist for some reason or other.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

The point is that Detective Boy has an ever present agenda which must be opposed. He posts here on Urban only to put forward the view that we live in a genuine democracy and the police are the servants of said democracy. He will try and constantly argue that the police do no wrong and that if they do its the aberrant behaviour of one police officer countering the widely held view that the police are rotten from the top down. 

Fuck him, lets not get distracted. The list of people dead at the hands of the police grows and nothing must stop people from debating their response.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 23, 2010)

Ach, I don't think it's that cynical. I suspect he's not that smart or tactical, more a fruitloop with no self control and an inability to admit mistakes

I'll apologise slightly for the other thread, where what seemed a simple debate about a  linguistic principle turned into the usual flood of cunting this and that. At best it should have been an academic debate - that point being that you can never effectively divorce a word from context and it can never be 'entirely' anything - but no way could DB trying and discuss things reasonably. Trying to defend his unwise choice of words he threw everything but the cunting kitchen sink my way with his usual charm, even throwing a load of irrelevant, misrepresentative PC gawn mad bollocks (why? - I've not even said anything of the sort),laughable tosh about 'per se' and any other irrelevancy he could use as distraction. Gawd knows what he'd have been like if someone tried the same tricks on him - well, we'd have been seing the righteous explosion from out of space. 

DB always reminds me of one of those unreliable witness characters you get in courtroom dramas that crack indicatively under pressure. Initially convincing and authoratative, he so quickly becomes unbalanced, aggressive and delusional enough to undermine his credibility. 

I'd love the other thread unlocked fwiw - I can't see what stopping will achieve. 50 pages down and largely dumped because someone's predicatably on the pottymouth tip, again


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2010)

I did intend to unlock that thread after a cooling off period, actually. And now this replacement thread is _also_ all about detective boy and he hasn't even posted on it. Fantastic. Bodes well for "reasoned discussion"


----------



## tarannau (Aug 23, 2010)

Don't you think DB makes the threads all about himself with his histrionics, aggression and accusations? If he doesn't get a reaction he'll post 10 times in a row until he gets one. Be fair now

What do you propose? Everyone ignore that fact that pretty much everyone's accused of continually misrepresenting him as if that's plausible, that they should accept the constant flow of cunts and other insults. For what? To be all told they're as bad as one another and that the whole thread should be sacrificed

This has been going on for months now. Nobody buys the 'all equally bad' argument


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> to discuss this appalling behaviour on the part of the police that lead to a mans death


 
"Appalling behaviour" that was carried out by highly-trained, well-supervised, experienced officers.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2010)

Not equally all bad, no. Equally tedious to deal with, yes. I really can't be bothered to untangle and read 20 pages of back and forth. If it's all so disagreeable, why engage? Put him on ignore and don't reply = problem solved.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I did intend to unlock that thread after a cooling off period, actually. And now this replacement thread is _also_ all about detective boy and he hasn't even posted on it. Fantastic. Bodes well for "reasoned discussion"


 
Shall I start another thread entitled DB is a pig bastard?


----------



## ymu (Aug 23, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Ach, I don't think it's that cynical. I suspect he's not that smart or tactical, more a fruitloop with no self control and an inability to admit mistakes


This. You see it in his unerring ability to include people who often support him in his paranoid little notion of the "Cunt's Collective", whenever they have the temerity to disagree with him.

There's no particular agenda. Just a paranoid little man with an over-developed ego and a very distorted world view.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2010)

The discussion certainly seems to be back on track...


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)

He just gets wound up easy by people intent on winding him up.

What's this thread about, again?


----------



## tarannau (Aug 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Not equally all bad, no. Equally tedious to deal with, yes. I really can't be bothered to untangle and read 20 pages of back and forth. If it's all so disagreeable, why engage? Put him on ignore and don't reply = problem solved.


 
How do you ignore someone who has a tendency to take on all comers, post multiple times in a row and fills his posts with more CAPITALS and emphasis than you can shake a stick at? If it was an isolated occasion it'd be fine, but this swear filled aggression is the norm. Ignoring would be a futile approach - it's not as though DB is discrimate in his choice of targets, nor that you could expect a board-wide ignore or nobody to quote. It would just continue with a new cast of characters forevermore, people sacrificing their right of reply for no good reason. The mod activity seems to be to bury it and hope it goes away

Why shouldn't you be able to engage with a thread without some jumped-up goon rounding on all and sundry? If it was an isolated case then fine, but this is routine - the problem will never end.

The problem will not be solved by ignoring, that's for certain.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

My favourite was when he threatened people with defamation actions in the courts.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

Captain Sweary has persistently being posting angry replies to me on the benefits thread, even though my posts are to other people. I've apologised already on another thread for some heated posts of my own, but this doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever. I struggle to see why such behaviour is tolerated tbf.


----------



## ymu (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Captain Sweary has persistently being posting angry replies to me on the benefits thread, even though my posts are to other people. I've apologised already on another thread for some heated posts of my own, but this doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever. I struggle to see why such behaviour is tolerated tbf.


I'm not a big fan of the ban hammer, but it is fair to say that if any poster - not to mention the rest of us - would benefit from an enforced holiday it is db. I too am at a loss to explain the mods lack of action on this. Unless it's just because the mess he creates is too difficult to pick through so they just assume it's a six-of-one situation.


----------



## ymu (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> My favourite was when he threatened people with defamation actions in the courts.


I like it when he stalks me across threads.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2010)

I like it when he accuses me of being a part of some 'collective'. The sum total of people I hang out with from here in real life = zero. 

I don't rate those detective skills of his much.


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)

Some of you people need to get a life.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

Onket said:


> Some of you people need to get a life.


 
Go and moan in feedback you...


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Go and moan in feedback you...


 


I've not been in there for months! Kicked the habit.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

I bet you still get the shakes and want to go in there to discuss a new smiley for a month...


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I bet you still get the shakes and want to go in there to discuss a new smiley for a month...


 
I prefered the 'length of tagline' one, personally.


----------



## xes (Aug 23, 2010)

It'd be nice if this thread could be kept on topic. DB had some good posts in the other thread. He stated what was law, I and many others took that to be his own view. (may or may not have been, IIRC he didn't really go into his own view very much) And as an adviser on things law related he did a good job. (handling of peoples opinions was a differnt thing) But law and the right thing to do in the case, are about as far from eachother as they could be. 

It's of no supprise that noone will be held responsible for Ian Tomlinsons death. The police slowed the process, and made damn sure that it would be impossible to get a conviction from the evidence. Even though the evidence was there in plain day for all to see.


----------



## pk (Aug 23, 2010)

Urban75 should not be a forum for pigs to join anyway... since Paddick they've all been cunts, true to type.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2010)

ok, old thread reopened and merged with new one. please try and keep things on topic and civil. *any aggressive or deliberately provocative posts will be met with a ban.*


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> ok, old thread reopened and merged with new one. please try and keep things on topic and civil. *any aggressive or deliberately provocative posts will be met with a ban.*


that's fair enough, mate, and thanx for reopening it. I do appreciate it must be a right pain for you mods.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

xes said:


> It's of no supprise that noone will be held responsible for Ian Tomlinsons death. The police slowed the process, and made damn sure that it would be impossible to get a conviction from the evidence. Even though the evidence was there in plain day for all to see.


Actually, I'd be more inclined to blame a) those eejits at the CPS b) Dr Patel and above all c)whichever utter moron was responsible for Dr Patel getting to do the original _post mortem_. IMO the culprit for c) should be dismissed, on the grounds that that is too big a f-up to go unactioned-on


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> that's fair enough, mate, and thanx for reopening it. I do appreciate it must be a right pain for you mods.


 
Seconded.


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)




----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2010)

The selection of Patel was deliberate, and done in the knowledge that he was facing a growing scandal over his incompetence (at best) and his collusion with police to get them a result (at worst). Once he did the first post mortem, the killer cop and the heirachy could rest easy. Even if Patel had found a "police issued dagger" stuck in Mr Tomlinson's back, Patel giving evidence would never be credible enough to secure a conviction.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

Onket said:


>


oh sod off you misery-driven inbred yokel!
Crispy's done us a favour here; he could have simply binned the whole thread such a carcrash had it become. a little appreciation is somewhat called for.


----------



## Onket (Aug 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh sod off you misery-driven inbred yokel!


 


Cheers for that.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2010)

starting to look ever so slightly deliberately provocative here


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> starting to look ever so slightly deliberately provocative here


peace, he's a mate, and a slightly stroppy one


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The selection of Patel was deliberate, and done in the knowledge that he was facing a growing scandal over his incompetence (at best) and his collusion with police to get them a result (at worst). Once he did the first post mortem, the killer cop and the heirachy could rest easy. Even if Patel had found a "police issued dagger" stuck in Mr Tomlinson's back, Patel giving evidence would never be credible enough to secure a conviction.


if so than that _is_ - surely - a scandal. I think it's the courts (MoJ) and not the police in charge of PMs (and who do them), tho'.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 23, 2010)

Sorry, should have put a  on there


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The point is that Detective Boy has an ever present agenda which must be opposed. He posts here on Urban only to put forward the view that we live in a genuine democracy and the police are the servants of said democracy. He will try and constantly argue that the police do no wrong and that if they do its the aberrant behaviour of one police officer countering the widely held view that the police are rotten from the top down.
> 
> Fuck him, lets not get distracted. The list of people dead at the hands of the police grows and nothing must stop people from debating their response.


 
Amen to that. 

You coming down to Brighton for October 13th TC?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Oh go weed the garden or something


I did try ... but when I went for the spade the right-on police arrived and arrested me.

I've got bail now so I'm going to try the hoe ...

... Bugger!


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2010)

Oh great. A carpet-bombing session.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

xes said:


> Even though the evidence was there in plain day for all to see.


But the point is, it isn't ... SOME of the evidence is there in plain day for all to see ... but not ALL the evidence.

Where is the evidence of CAUSATION "in plain day for all to see"?


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> if so than that _is_ - surely - a scandal. I think it's the courts (MoJ) and not the police in charge of PMs (and who do them), tho'.


No.  It isn't.  The Coroner selects the pathologist.  The police / IPCC in a crime / police misconduct case can / should request a "Home Office Pathologist" (one on the currently approved list for homicide, etc. PMs) and a "special" post-mortem.

As I have posted repeatedly, we have little detail about exactly what went on at that stage.  It seems that the IPCC had some involvement and, hence, there must have been some knowledge / suspicion that police misconduct could have been involved or, at least, the death had occured in what could be described as "in / following police contact".  It also seems that the City of London Police were involved ... but, then again, they would be routinely involved in any sudden death in the street and, without further information, it is not possible to read much into that.  It also seems (from my experience of what a "special" post-mortem looks like, that this was most definitely _not_ a "special" post-mortem so there is a clear need to understand more of who knew what and when and when, and why and by whom, the relevant decisions to appoint Patel / decide not to have a "special" PM (if that was in fact the case) were made.

In short, the Coroner is in charge of PMs.  The police / IPCC have influence over how they are arranged but the Coroner has the final say.  The other Courts / MoJ have no direct role.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh great. A carpet-bombing session.










> Last edited by detective-boy; 23-08-2010 at 22:10. Reason: Have now seen the mods comment



lol


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

or we could just agree that the cops got away with killing someone on camera and got off.

by using a dodgy pathologist, whose dodgy report is purported to have some legal bearing over any subsequent legal action.

and which took so much time to decide that by the time they'd made their mind up, the possibility of making other charges had disappeared.

and they call this justice.......


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> or we could just agree that the cops got away with killing someone on camera and got off.


No.  But we could agree that the cops got away with _assaulting_ someone on camera and got off.



> and which took so much time to decide that by the time they'd made their mind up, the possibility of making other charges had disappeared.


And, if you could actually bother to read the detail of what I'd posted, we could agree that (a) the failure to lay other, summary-only charges within the limitation period has not been properly explained by the CPS (my guess is that theye di NOT deliberately consider it at the six-month stage but that they forgot about that aspect until they later found out they had nothing else and went "Oh fuck ..." when the subject of common assault came up ... and (b) there is no reason in _law_ why an ABH charge could not / should not be laid * and, personally, I would be pushing for a judicial review of the CPS decision not to do so because it has _not_ be properly explained by the CPS and it is entirely based on their _policy (i.e. Charging Standards)_.

* : Their report explains why an ABH charge based on the internal bleeding injury could not be pursued (for the same causation reasons as manslaughter could not - it is the same injury being considered) ... but it was silent on whether they considered an ABH charge based on the baton bruising ... which they _only_ mentioned as a potential common assault charge ... which was outside the limitation period.  In subsequent reports it appears they have confirmed that they applied their Charging Standards.  They _could_, in the circumstances, have ignored their policy.  In view of the fact that if they did not the officer, who they _clearly_ stated they believed had used unlawful force, would avoid _any_ criminal charge I believe they _should_ have ignored their policy and taken whatever shit the defence threw at them.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 23, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol


Instead of "lol"ing you _could_ remove your continuation of what the mods had requested to stop as I did when I became aware of their request ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  But we could agree that the cops got away with _assaulting_ someone on camera and got off.
> 
> 
> And, if you could actually bother to read the detail of what I'd posted, we could agree that (a) the failure to lay other, summary-only charges within the limitation period has not been properly explained by the CPS (my guess is that theye di NOT deliberately consider it at the six-month stage but that they forgot about that aspect until they later found out they had nothing else and went "Oh fuck ..." when the subject of common assault came up ... and (b) there is no reason in _law_ why an ABH charge could not / should not be laid * and, personally, I would be pushing for a judicial review of the CPS decision not to do so because it has _not_ be properly explained by the CPS and it is entirely based on their _policy (i.e. Charging Standards)_.
> ...


i'd like to see the fucker arrested late on a friday night in somewhere like hull and given his own guided tour of the cell-block tbf.

if we're getting all peter pan and that.....


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 23, 2010)

And as a bit of light relief: Police call in Ghostbusters after fears of poltergeist violence


----------



## winjer (Aug 23, 2010)

Further proof that so long as no-one dies, cops sometimes do get charged:



> A Met police officer has been charged with assault after a teenage boy was pushed through a glass window. Pc Marcus Ballard, 29, faces two counts of common assault over the incident in Bromley, south London, on 27 February. [...] The teenager, who was not injured, was arrested for assaulting police but no charges were brought. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched an inquiry after colleagues reported concerns to anti-corruption officers after the incident.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11063784


----------



## ymu (Aug 24, 2010)

There's been a few cases recently of coppers reporting their own. Is this a new trend, or are the press just reporting it more because police violence is a hot topic right now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2010)

> Today Dr Patel was found to have failed to identify marks on a five-year-old girl which suggested she had been violently attacked before her death.
> 
> The panel said Dr Patel carried out only a “cursory” examination of Annastacia Williams in September 2002.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-patel-irresponsible-on-other-post-mortems.do


----------



## winjer (Aug 25, 2010)

"However the pathologist escaped charges after his legal team claimed it would be “unfair” to defend the allegations as he had lost his case files — the same technicality on which he escaped charges in the case of “Camden Ripper” victim Sally White"

Fucksakes.


----------



## laptop (Aug 27, 2010)

[Meanwhile, a photographer's impressions of the events ]


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 27, 2010)

pk said:


> Urban75 should not be a forum for pigs to join anyway... since Paddick they've all been cunts, true to type.


That is undemocratic, and unreasonable. Given that, after all, you yourself have stated a belief that 'we will always need a police force', then past and present police officers should have the right to participate in fora of open debate as much as the next man - whatever format those fora may take.


----------



## Onket (Aug 27, 2010)

Spot the mature poster there, and the cunt that needs to grow the fuck up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> if so than that _is_ - surely - a scandal. I think it's the courts (MoJ) and not the police in charge of PMs (and who do them), tho'.


 
The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.


you seem to be living in the past, when there were police courts. the courts and the police are different things, although the conflation to which you've fallen victim is not uncommon.


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 31, 2010)

Top link from the BBC, The bottom link from The New Statesman.

G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct

G20 pathologist found guilty by GMC


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2010)

Although the vastly more important matter of the cricket being fixed leads- wankers


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2010)

SpookyFrank said:


> The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.


no,  they are not, - not _at all_. Some courts (i.e. judges presiding) may have agendas which coincide with those of the cops behind a given prosecution, but to say "The courts and the police are the same thing" is as far from the truth as we are from Malibu beach right now.
e2a; proof? The biggest and most vitriolic critics of the legal profession (judges _and_ barristers) are invariably coppers!


----------



## ymu (Aug 31, 2010)

> It ruled he acted in a way liable to bring the profession into disrepute when he changed the woman's cause of death.
> 
> In an examination in January, he decided she had died from a blood clot in the coronary arteries.
> 
> ...



He changed Tomlinson's PM report too - "abdominal fluid blood" to "abdominal fluid with blood".


----------



## ymu (Aug 31, 2010)

> During Tuesday's hearing, panel chairman Richard Davies said: "The panel is not satisfied that there is no risk of the relevant conduct being repeated."
> 
> He said pathologists "must not set aside their professional judgement for any of the parties involved during or after a post-mortem examination for reasons of expediency or anything else".


Damn right.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 31, 2010)

Good.   About fucking time.   Casts a further dark shadow over the decision not to prosecute the police.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 31, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Top link from the BBC, The bottom link from The New Statesman.
> 
> G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct
> 
> G20 pathologist found guilty by GMC



Any chance this will lead to the decision to not prosecute being reviewed?


----------



## winjer (Aug 31, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Good.   About fucking time.   Casts a further dark shadow over the decision not to prosecute the police.


It's doesn't, it reinforces it. Patel fucked up the first post mortem, the others depend on him.


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2010)

Corax said:


> Don't worry, I'm sure the decision will be reconsidered.  I've written to my local MP you see.  That'll do it.
> 
> _*drums fingers*_


 
Well, he took his sweet time about it, but the response isn't the boilerplate brush-off that I was expecting tbh:

_"Having followed the handling of the case personally I share your concerns about the nature of the investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death. Dr Freddy Patel who carried out the initial postmortem has indeed been discredited a number of times. Given that two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson came to the conclusion that he died of natural _<sic - I think this is meant to be 'internal'> _bleeding, as opposed to a heart attack as Dr Patel concluded, it seems untoward that the CPS ended the matter by stating that there was a conflict of forensic opinion.

Although I will not predict what the outcome of a full prosecution of PC Simon Hayward _<sic - this should be 'Harwood'>_ might have been, I am convinced that the investigation should not have been terminated on the testimony of a pathologist who is currently under investigation by the GMC.

I have written on your behalf to Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP, Minister of State at the Home Office with responsibility for police accountability, to ask whether the Home Office is prepared to make an intervention to ensure that there is a properly conducted inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death. I believe that this is crucila for the sake of Mr Tomlinson's family and for the reputation of the police force in the UK.

I enclose a copy of my letter for your information and will forward you the Minister's response as soon as possible."_


And the enclosed letter to Nick Herbert:

"_I am writing to you in your capacity as Minister with responsibility for police accountability on behalf of a number of constituents who have contacted me on the subject of Ian Tomlinson's death at the G20 protests.  I enclose an example of their correspondence for your information.

As you will be aware Dr Freddy Patel who conducted the initial post mortem on Mr Tomlinson's body is currently under investigation by the GMC for several mishandled post mortems.  Two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson reached a very different conclusion to Mr Patel's diagnosis of a heart attack, namely that Mr Tomlinson died of natural bleeding _<sic - 'internal bleeding' surely same as before, is this dodgy dictation software or something?>._ The impartiality of the inquest has to be questioned following BBC allegations that the MET were involved with the appointment of Dr Patel _<sic - it was City of London police, but close enough >._  In any case it seems that Paul Matthews the CPS coroner has decided that PC Simon Hayward _<sic - 'Harwood'... >_ should not be prosecuted on the basis of some potentially very insecure evidence.

It is crucial for the sake of Mr Tomlinson's family and for the reputation of the police force in the UK that a proper inquest is conducted into this matter.  I would greatly appreciate it if you could indicate for my constituents whether the Home Office is willing to take steps to make sure that this investigation is carried out with all due integrity."_



Leaving aside the needlessly sloppy errors and the fact that he's ignored the apparent abuse of process of delaying the decision past the statute of limitation for common assault, it's actually a better response than I was expecting.

Not that anything will actually come of it of course.


----------



## winjer (Sep 3, 2010)

Corax said:


> Given that two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson came to the conclusion that he died of natural [/I]<sic - I think this is meant to be 'internal'> _bleeding_


_

The Guardian made the same error, so perhaps he c&ped?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified (corrected)
http://projectsheffield.wordpress.c...alified-to-be-on-home-office-list-claims-bbc/ (orig)_


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2010)

winjer said:


> The Guardian made the same error, so perhaps he c&ped?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good sleuthing!


----------



## winjer (Sep 3, 2010)

Thanks, I knew already because I gave them the correction.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 5, 2010)

So Patel the pathologist (to recap) who was already under investigation for corruption in autopsies, but was given the task of doing the Tomlinson case, and whose findings were at the heart of allowing there to be no conviction, has finally been tried for his malpractice.

the verdict: guilty (as noted above)

now what would you expect to happen - a lynching in the media? outrage at the corruption in police trials? imprisonment for patel? a fine for patel? never allowed to practice again?
none of the above - hes been banned from practicing for 3 months. 3 months. 
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...ddie+patel+suspended+for+three+months/3759677


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 5, 2010)

ska invita said:


> So Patel the pathologist (to recap) who was already under investigation for corruption in autopsies...


Please link to where there is any report of any allegation or investigation of his _corruption_ (as opposed to incompetence).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 5, 2010)

Same old, same old. He was bent. The OB exploited that fact.

The law? Fuck it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please link to where there is any report of any allegation or investigation of his _corruption_ (as opposed to incompetence).


 
ska invita just alleged he's corrupt: no need for an external link.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 6, 2010)

I'd say the initial police response to Tomlinson's death was pretty bloody corrupt, and appointing a tame pathologist was part of that response. 

If a member of the public lashed out at someone with a baseball bat unprovoked and the victim died, i don't think the police would be so ready to say 'ah well he was on his way out anyway'. I'm not sure why it should make any difference really. I don't see why it is a defence that they were ill anyway and you just didn't know. Tough, you shouldn't go round hitting people unprovoked. It's a bit like the old defence 'ah well melud i was pissed and didn't know what i was doing'


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 6, 2010)

two sheds said:


> If a member of the public lashed out at someone with a baseball bat unprovoked and the victim died, i don't think the police would be so ready to say 'ah well he was on his way out anyway'. I'm not sure why it should make any difference really. I don't see why it is a defence that they were ill anyway and you just didn't know.


You _entirely_ fail to understand the nature of the evidential problem here.  It is not that "he was dying anyway" it is that the force used cannot be shown to have caused his death.  If, in your example, the baseball bat made glancing contact, causing a bruise and the victim wandered off and collapsed and died a few minutes later it would have to be shown that the attack with the baseball bat _caused_ the death in some way.

Here the issue is that the cause of death is not even known for sure - Patel concluded it was heart disease but two other pathologists concluded it was internal bleeding which was caused by the fall caused by the unlawful use of force.  Unfortunately in reaching their conclusion they inevitably rely upon an observation of Patel's which he says they have misinterpreted ... and which therefore will never be proveable beyond reasonable doubt. 

As an aside I have never seen any mention of an alternative approach to manslaughter in this case, namely that the stress of the unlawful force being used on him brought on the heart attack - a legitimate causation route that has been used in other cases (such as those where burglars visit an elderly person who dies minutes later from a heart attack brought on by the stress).  This would be a valid question for those who wish to pursue the matter to raise with the CPS ... but for that to succeed the prosecution would have to adduce evidence which showed that the heart attack was the cause of death ... and that would mean the two later pathologists changing their opinion based on acceptance of Patel's clarification of his observations ... which I suspect they will never do unless Hell freezes over ...


----------



## winjer (Sep 7, 2010)

> The coroner presiding over the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson has officially requested that a senior judicial figure take over the case, on the eve of formal proceedings.
> 
> The City of London coroner Paul Matthews will tomorrow begin a pre-inquest review – a proceeding that will set out the scope of the judicial investigation into Tomlinson's death.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/06/ian-tomlinson-coroner-inquest


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 7, 2010)

In view of the questions that _he_ has to answer (about the appointment of Patel and related issues), I think there is no doubt whatsoever he shouldn't be in charge of the inquest.

His claims of "lack of expertise in criminal cases" could, if true, explain some of the frankly bizarre decisions he made in relation to the initial PM.


----------



## ymu (Sep 7, 2010)

He's not said anything at all about that yet.



> Matthews has yet to explain why he selected Patel, whose professional conduct had repeatedly been brought into question prior to his appointment.
> 
> Last week the General Medical Council in effect banned Patel from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases and suspended him for three months after being found guilty of misconduct or "deficient professional performance" in three earlier autopsy cases.
> 
> However Matthews is not thought to have referred to the Patel case when listing the reasons why a "retired or serving judge" should preside over the inquest in his place.


----------



## winjer (Sep 7, 2010)

More incompetence? I can't quite see why if the police did ask for a special post-mortem he didn't ask them for explanation/evidence, rather than refusing.



> In a detailed statement, released at a pre-inquest review hearing, the City of London coroner Paul Matthews said Tomlinson's body was transferred to St Pancras mortuary the day after his death at the G20 protests.
> 
> City of London mortuary had been closed since 2002, he said, and the authority had contracted post-mortem services to Camden authority, which ran the St Pancras mortuary. Matthews said Patel "regularly" attended St Pancras mortuary to carry out "routine post-mortems". "So I instructed Dr Patel to carry out the routine post-mortem on Ian Tomlinson's body, and it was fixed for that afternoon," he added.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/07/ian-tomlinson-coroner-defends-pathologist-appointment


----------



## winjer (Sep 7, 2010)

Plot thickens: I'm told the coroner said that after the CoLP request the post mortem was done under s19 'to higher standard of special post mortem'.


----------



## ymu (Sep 7, 2010)

The guy's all over the place. How he can possibly claim that there were no grounds to treat it as a suspicious death when it occurred in the middle of a summit protest which the police had predicted would turn violent, let alone refusing CoLP and IPCC requests to treat it as such - especially when he is a self-declared non-expert in criminal cases.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 7, 2010)

winjer said:


> More incompetence? I can't quite see why if the police did ask for a special post-mortem he didn't ask them for explanation/evidence, rather than refusing.


Absolutely.  If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it.  Although it _is_ the decision of the Coroner, I have _never_ known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.

It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the _fuck_ he was left in charge of the City of London area ....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolutely.  If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it.  Although it _is_ the decision of the Coroner, I have _never_ known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.
> 
> It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the _fuck_ he was left in charge of the City of London area ....


so you agree that it was a crooked verdict then?


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 7, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so you agree that it was a crooked verdict then?


If you want an answer then I'm afraid you'll have to ask a more specific and understandable question.  I am afraid I haven't got ther faintest idea what "it" you are referring to and I have no idea what "verdict" you are referring to.  I am unaware of there being any "verdict" in this case at all.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you want an answer then I'm afraid you'll have to ask a more specific and understandable question.  I am afraid I haven't got ther faintest idea what "it" you are referring to and I have no idea what "verdict" you are referring to.  I am unaware of there being any "verdict" in this case at all.


the verdict that not one police officer is to face charges for killing an innocent man, apparently because a bent pathologist was employed by the coroner, with the agreement of the city of london police. ring any bells?


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 7, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the verdict that not one police officer is to face charges for killing an innocent man, apparently because a bent pathologist was employed by the coroner, with the agreement of the city of london police. ring any bells?


That wasn't a "verdict".  It was a decision by the CPS.

I have clearly stated my position in relation to the issue on a number of occasions.  I have no intention of doing so again.  If you are interested you can go and read what I have posted.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2010)

> A separate postmortem into the death of Ian Tomlinson carried out on behalf of the policeman filmed hitting him at the G20 protests last year has been withheld from the authorities, it has emerged.
> 
> The postmortem, the third on the newspaper seller's body, was jointly conducted by the forensic pathologist Ben Swift at the request of lawyers for PC Simon Harwood, who is shown striking Tomlinson in a video revealed by the Guardian.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/08/ian-tomlinson-postmortem-withheld-coroner


----------



## Corax (Sep 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That wasn't a "verdict".  It was a decision by the CPS.


 
Are you perhaps being a wee bit pedantic db?



> verdict [ˈvɜːdɪkt]
> n
> 1. (Law) the findings of a jury on the issues of fact submitted to it for examination and trial; judgment
> *2. any decision, judgment, or conclusion*


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

Corax said:


> Are you perhaps being a wee bit pedantic db?


In relation to deciding how to answer the question, no.  In view of the continuing efforts of posters to derail threads in which I am involved I have to be _very_ careful to make sure that I know exactly what is being asked.  In the context of the short original question, I did not understand what was being referred to and so asked for clarification.  

If the question had made clear that it was the CPS decision on the case to which reference was being made, I would not have made any mention of the fact that they had used the word "verdict" instead of decision.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

In relation to the latest disclosure that the details of the post-mortem carried out on behalf of the defence has not been disclosed to the prosecution, be careful what you wish for.  It is usually the case that _anything_ done by, or for, the defence is not disclosed to the prosecution and that has led to _lots_ of miscarriages of justice (primarily in my experience in relation to mental health issues where manslaughter is being argued as an alternative to murder on the basis of mental illness - the worst case I was personally involved in had the defence approach *eight* different forensic psychiatrists before they found one who said what they wanted and disagreed with the two prosecution experts ... with the jury _never_ being told that there were another seven who agreed too!).

Any precedent set in this case is likely to be applied in other, non-police cases ... and that would, I think, be a serious backward step in our system of criminal justice.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2010)

Who said they're wishing for anything? Stop misrepresenting.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who said they're wishing for anything? Stop misrepresenting.


Please stop posting content-free rubbish (aka trolling) in a clear attempt to precipitate the derailing of this thread and then blaming me for doing so.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2010)

Hold on, you're getting precious because someone's called you on misrepresenting the thread? I'd advise you not to make the misrepresentative statements and oversimplistic, surplus strawmen in the first place.

Who did say they were wishing for some new coroner regulations then? Why use such a loaded, leading  phrase in the first place?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolutely.  If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it.  Although it _is_ the decision of the Coroner, I have _never_ known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.
> 
> It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the _fuck_ he was left in charge of the City of London area ....


so you agree that it was a crooked decision then?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You _entirely_ fail to understand the nature of the evidential problem here.  It is not that "he was dying anyway" it is that the force used cannot be shown to have caused his death.



If he'd have been seen to have no contact with a policeman but simply tripped over the kerb and fall to the ground, would you now be saying, "the trip over the kerb cannot be shown to have caused his death."

?


----------



## winjer (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolutely.  If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it.  Although it _is_ the decision of the Coroner, I have _never_ known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.


Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may have taken the view that he couldn't arrange a s20 examination, as mentioned at 7.28 here:
http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/tr_page.asp?ID=127


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so you agree that it was a crooked decision then?


I have repeatedly posted what I think of the decision.  It is there for you to read if you are genuinely interested ... which I doubt you actually are.  Now please stop attempting to derail this thread, no doubt intending to blame me if it happens.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he'd have been seen to have no contact with a policeman but simply tripped over the kerb and fall to the ground, would you now be saying, "the trip over the kerb cannot be shown to have caused his death."
> 
> ?


If the pathology evidence was the same, yes.  There would still be _exactly_ the same issue over what the actual cause of death was and unless you could demonstrate it was internal bleeding, caused by awkwardly hitting the ground, you couldn't give it as the cause of death where there were alternative causes which (a) _could_ be proven to exist and (b) _could_ have led to death in and of themselves.

Why wouldn't I?


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

winjer said:


> Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may have taken the view that he couldn't arrange a s20 examination, as mentioned at 7.28 here:
> http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/tr_page.asp?ID=127


As paragraph 7.27 makes clear, Coroners order special post-mortems all the time, whether they have decided to hold an inquest or not.  He really does appear to have fucked up big time.

And the practical situations has changed beyond all recognition since the Coroners Act 1988 - police homicide / unexplained death investigation has been professionalised massively and if there is the _slightest_ suggestion that there may be any criminal causation then a special PM is ordered.  The modern "special PM" is also now far more than simply an ordinary PM and some samples sent off for tests, involving specialist police crime scene examiners, an exhibits officer, photographers and video operators and even, if necessary, specialist forensic scientists.  The idea is that if the cause of death is unknown and it _may_ yet turn out to be suspicious it is treated as such until the contrary is decided ... if samples are taken, etc. that it turns out aren't needed they can be thrown away and all that has happened is that we have wasted a few quid and some officers time ... whereas if they are not, and t turns out it _was_ probably murder there is no going back ... (as is patently obvious from this case)


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If the pathology evidence was the same, yes.  There would still be _exactly_ the same issue over what the actual cause of death was and unless you could demonstrate it was internal bleeding, caused by awkwardly hitting the ground, you couldn't give it as the cause of death where there were alternative causes which (a) _could_ be proven to exist and (b) _could_ have led to death in and of themselves.
> 
> Why wouldn't I?



No reason not to charge for ABH though, is there? The competent pathologist has been very clear on this point.



> But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.
> 
> He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.
> 
> ...


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> No reason not to charge for ABH though, is there? The competent pathologist has been very clear on this point.


This is now the fourth thread on which I have pointed out that I have no intention of ever engaging directly with you again.  So please stop quoting my posts and making inaccurate comments designed to goad me into a response which you can then use to derail the thread and blame me, as you have done on numerous previous occasions.

You are _seriously_ obsessed and need help.

Leave me alone and take your cross-thread trolling somewhere else.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

She's allowed to have a point of view even if you don't like it d-b. And if you don't like it and don't want to talk to her; then don't answer or put her on ignore or something.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Cheers ces.

I'll make a point on a thread whenever I like. If the individual posters whose posts I am responding to don't/can't respond to what I say, that's entirely up to them, but they don't get to choose who posts what. That's not how a forum works.


----------



## pk (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This is now the fourth thread on which I have pointed out that I have no intention of ever engaging directly with you again.  So please stop quoting my posts and making inaccurate comments designed to goad me into a response which you can then use to derail the thread and blame me, as you have done on numerous previous occasions.
> 
> You are _seriously_ obsessed and need help.
> 
> Leave me alone and take your cross-thread trolling somewhere else.


 
Oh grow up you twat. If you can't handle it here - fuck off somewhere else.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

pk said:


> Oh grow up you twat. If you can't handle it here - fuck off somewhere else.


Please stop derailing this thread with content-free, off-topic posts.


----------



## pk (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please stop derailing this thread with content-free, off-topic posts.


 
Please stop embarrassing yourself, you impotent tragic little man.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have repeatedly posted what I think of the decision.  It is there for you to read if you are genuinely interested ... which I doubt you actually are.  Now please stop attempting to derail this thread, no doubt intending to blame me if it happens.


so you aren't prepared to agree on any kind of summary decision then? you simply continue to obsfucate and avoid the point in hand. previously you wriggled because i mentioned a verdict. you told me it was a decision. so i asked what your simple opinion of the decision is. and you, as usual, begin to attack the poster in question. typical cop. i'm afraid to say.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> and you, as usual, begin to attack the poster in question.


I'm not "attacking" anyone.

It's just that I HAVE posted what you are asking repeatedly previously and (a) it is tedious beyond belief to keep posting the same thing just because other posters are too idle to go read the whole thread; (b) various members of The Collective repeatedly ask me the same question, even though they know perfectly well that I have answered it as a tactic to provoke a response they can then use as an excuse to derail the thread and blame me and (c) any slight discrepancy between my previous posts and my latest answer (no matter how trivial and irrelevant) and endlessly pored over and used to allege that I am lying.

So if you're that interested, go read the thread.  It's all there.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 19, 2010)

the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control agreed the statement below inprinciple at their conference in Lesvos recently, although extra phrases maybe added by activists is if necessary - "_____________ could consider adding a further sentence regarding political protest if felt appropriate.
 [For Further information please see http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk]"

http://www.europeangroup.org/

"As members of the European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control we unequivocally condemn the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring charges against the police officer involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.  This pronouncement emphasises a wider unwillingness to hold the Police Service to account and a failure to fully acknowledge responsibility for the harmful actions of individual officers. We call upon the British government to institute a full, independent inquiry into how this decision was arrived at.  We also offer our full support to the family of Ian Tomlinson in their desire to see justice done".


----------



## TopCat (Sep 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This is now the fourth thread on which I have pointed out that I have no intention of ever engaging directly with you again.  So please stop quoting my posts and making inaccurate comments designed to goad me into a response which you can then use to derail the thread and blame me, as you have done on numerous previous occasions.
> 
> You are _seriously_ obsessed and need help.
> 
> ...



This wanker still here? I don't speak on behalf of any collective but can I just say, "go and fuck off you apologist for the police and all their evilness"?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 21, 2010)

You can say it, but it doesn't really help


----------



## TopCat (Sep 21, 2010)

I will prod the killers apologist no more. Well not on this thread anyway. For a bit mind.


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 21, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You can say it, but it doesn't really help


 
I can see the truth in what TC says.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> This wanker still here?


Please stop attempting to precipitate a slanging match to derail this thread (and then no doubt blame me for doing so).



TopCat said:


> I will prod the killers apologist no more. Well not on this thread anyway. For a bit mind.


Why such overt admissions to trolling and breach of the FAQs is allowed to go unsanctioned continues to amaze me.


----------



## ymu (Sep 21, 2010)




----------



## glenquagmire (Sep 21, 2010)

No doubt there are those on this thread who won't be there, but for anyone who wants to support the campaign this Sunday...

Benefit for Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign 
Sunday 26 September 2010 19:30 

The Grosvenor
Sidney Road 
Stockwell
7.30pm £5/4.00

ACOUSTIC INSURGENCY presents a benefit for the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign


----------



## Urbanblues (Sep 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not "attacking" anyone.


 
That's the stock response from policemen the world over - the old ones are the best, eh?


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 23, 2010)

Urbanblues said:


> That's the stock response from policemen the world over - the old ones are the best, eh?


Please stop attempting to provoke an off-topic spat which will derail the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please stop attempting to provoke an off-topic spat which will derail the thread.


 
please stop trying to paint yourself as wholly innocent


----------



## winjer (Sep 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> please stop trying to paint yourself as wholly innocent


Strawman's model? FFS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> Strawman's model? FFS.


 
quiet day at the news front then


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

i see freddy patel crops up in the mark saunders case too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ice-three-times-drinkdrive-limit-2085209.html


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> please stop trying to paint yourself as wholly innocent


Please stop attempting to provoke an off-topic spat which will derail the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please stop attempting to provoke an off-topic spat which will derail the thread.


 
it would be nice to see you post something on-topic on this thread this week.

you CAN do it if you try: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-want-quot?p=11082790&viewfull=1#post11082790


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 23, 2010)

> i see freddy patel crops up in the mark saunders case too: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ice-three-times-drinkdrive-limit-2085209.html


The poster _could_ have added: "having been instructed by Mark Saunder's wife and family" ... but, of course, they didn't, choosing instead to imply more police fuck-up / cover-up / conspiracy ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The poster _could_ have added: "having been instructed by Mark Saunder's wife and family" ... but, of course, they didn't, choosing instead to imply more police fuck-up / cover-up / conspiracy ...


there was no implication, no one's disputing (i hope!) what killed mark saunders.


----------



## winjer (Sep 23, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> there was no implication, no one's disputing (i hope!) what killed mark saunders.


Oh, get a room.


----------



## winjer (Sep 23, 2010)

"Miss Karaviotis says she was told by doctors at the Whittington that her mother died from a blood clot, probably caused by the cast. An interim death certificate gave the cause of death as a pulmonary embolism.

However, Dr Patel concluded that she died of a brain haemorrhage, giving the cause of death as natural causes. After a three-year legal battle, a coroner reversed his findings."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...logists-mistake-caused-three-years-of-hell.do


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The poster _could_ have added: "having been instructed by Mark Saunder's wife and family" ... but, of course, they didn't, choosing instead to imply more police fuck-up / cover-up / conspiracy ...


Actually it does mention the police...which you _could_
 have mentioned.



> The former officer is serving a four-year jail term for corruption after he was convicted of attempting to frame an Iraqi web designer for assault in February.


:dibble-eyes:


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> Oh, get a room.


 
below your usual standard winjer


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Actually it does mention the police...which you _could_
> have mentioned.
> 
> :dibble-eyes:


Please explain how the involvement of Ali Dizaei as Gold Commander for this operation is in the slightest way connected with the involvement of Freddy Patel.

Or, alternatively, please stop trying to pick a fight to derail the thread and then, no doubt, blame me for doing so.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2010)

Or, alternatively, please stop digging up a week old thread in order to carry on a fight.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Or, alternatively, please stop digging up a week old thread in order to carry on a fight.


I have not been here for almost a week.  Check your records if you don't believe me.  So this is not "digging up a week old thread to carry on a fight".  It is responding, at my first subsequent visit, to a post directly addressed to me, on a thread on which I had been posting.

How come _everything_ I do is challenged / criticised / sanctioned by you Mods and yet you allow plainly trolling shite (such as the very post I am responding to) pass entirely unchallenged?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Oct 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have not been here for almost a week.  Check your records if you don't believe me.  So this is not "digging up a week old thread to carry on a fight".  It is responding, at my first subsequent visit, to a post directly addressed to me, on a thread on which I had been posting.
> 
> How come _everything_ I do is challenged / criticised / sanctioned by you Mods and yet you allow plainly trolling shite (such as the very post I am responding to) pass entirely unchallenged?


 
They are all in a bad mood today.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2010)

Don't mind you bumping old thread, just - everybody, if that's all possible - do so without making it personal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2010)

...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> ... just - everybody, if that's all possible - do so without making it personal.


So why not actually challenge the personal shite posted by others _before_ I have to deal with it myself, usually resulting in you lot then wading in and slagging me off?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have not been here for almost a week.


how pleasant the past week's been


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why not actually challenge the personal shite posted by others _before_ I have to deal with it myself, usually resulting in you lot then wading in and slagging me off?


 
you can't "deal with it" you only seem to be able to inflame it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> you can't "deal with it" you only seem to be able to inflame it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2010)

You're no better


----------



## Onket (Oct 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why not actually challenge the personal shite posted by others _before_ I have to deal with it myself, usually resulting in you lot then wading in and slagging me off?


 
To be fair, you don't 'have' to deal with it. You can ignore their pathetic, childish views and laugh at them. 

Instead, you bite every time, which is exactly what they want you to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You're no better


 
i am. i was back at work for the first time in a few days.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> you can't "deal with it" you only seem to be able to inflame it.


I wish I didn't have to ... but you won't / can't for some reason.

If I do not respond to posts directly addressed to me they just continue to post alleging that I am avoiding answering ... and that derails threads in and of itself.

By responding with a polite request that they desist from attempting to precipitate the derailing of the thread all other posters know that I am not avoiding giving an answer and so it prevents them derailing the thread with constant repeated posts.

And it is nice to see that you consider my polite requests to be "inflaming" the situation ...

So deliberate (and often admitted) content-free, personally abusive trolling = "OK" but polite requests that they desist = "inflaming the situation" in your book, eh?  Nice to see rampant double standards still alive and well ...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

Onket said:


> Instead, you bite every time, which is exactly what they want you to do.


Please link to _any_ example of me "biting" since I was banned for doing so ...

All I do is post a polite request that they desist (though it appears the mods are now "doing a Blair" and preparing to criminalise this ... ).


----------



## tarannau (Oct 1, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> By responding with a polite request that they desist from attempting to precipitate the derailing of the thread all other posters know that I am not avoiding giving an answer and so it prevents them derailing the thread with constant repeated posts.


 
The problem here is that you're now using this daft standard approach even towards posters that clearly aren't trolling. In fact, quite a lot of the time, they're posting stuff that merely queries aspects of your post or your assumptions. People are meant to be able to discuss and debate on here. Folks are equally generally expected to be able to control themselves without having to resort to some cookie-cutter seven steps to anger approach which waffles on about 'precipitation' and other guff.

It's all a bit overblown and precious a lot of the time. I've hardly posted on threads with you on for months, partly because there's little point with your histrionics, but I fully expect you to consider me part of some shadowy collective that sets out to draw you in some way. I suspect you now even think the mods are in on it against you or something.

The truth here is that most posters, myself included, here would prefer the more, constructive and balanced version of DB that you were capable of - I've happily stuck up for you and the content of your posts in the past. But there's no way on earth that I can pretend that you're not generally being a paranoid ninny with a hair trigger temper of late either. You'll largely get the reaction your posts deserve, a few people excepted.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 1, 2010)

tarannau said:


> You'll largely get the reaction your posts deserve, a few people excepted.


This thread is about the Ian Tomlinson case.  So far as I can see your post contains no substantive, on-topic content.  If you want to have a go at me and how I am now trying to deal with my victimisation, please feel free to start a new thread*.  But please do not attempt to derail this one.

(* I realise that such a thread, being a call-out thread, would usually be against the FAQs, but there is precedent that such threads _are_ allowed if they are directed at me)


----------



## tarannau (Oct 1, 2010)

Ah, and now the guileless hypocrisy again. Was your post to Crispy on topic then? If you achieved anything approaching consistency with your own 'forum rules' then people would give you less of a hard time. Your standards don't seem to apply to yourself.

Accept some blame, drop some of the needless paranoia and treat others as equals. And I almost guarantee that things would be better for you, us, the world in general. It might be an idea to consider laying off the rolleyes and furious faces a little too fwiw.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 1, 2010)

Fuck him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 1, 2010)

this is like the online jeremy kyle show ffs......

*holds head in hands*


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 1, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> this is like the online jeremy kyle show ffs......



Only funnier.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 1, 2010)

nurse nurse my sides.....

*cuts own head and hands off in complete despair*


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 2, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck him.


This is the third consecutive thread I have looked at on which you have posted content-free, trolling shite directed at me.  Please stop stalking me around the boards attempting to precipitate the derailing of threads, no doubt intending to then blame me for doing so.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2010)

Just fucking ignore it. Responding, even politely, won't fix anything. Fucks sake


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 2, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> how I am now trying to deal with my victimisation,


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 2, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Just fucking ignore it.


You are content for trolls to derail threads with post after post after post of off-topic shite.

And you intend to do nothing about it (apart from having a go at anyone who challenges them about their behaviour).

Great.  No wonder this place has become the way it is, with the trolls and the bullies of The Collective pissing decent people off right, left and centre.

Pathetic.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 10, 2010)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 11, 2010)

i deeply sympathise with sir paul. it must be a real  pain in the arse for the plod to have to spend so much time preparing for the defence of any particular lawsuit, only to be exonerated completely from any guilt at the earliest opportunity. clear waste of their time eh?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 11, 2010)

Whilst there are some civil claims against the police that are entirely without merit, there are adequate provisions within the Civil Law Procedure to deal with them.

There is no way in a million years that the police should be provided with any general immunity from civil action.  It is fuckwitted of Stephenson to suggest otherwise.  He would be _far_ better off addressing the source of people's desire to sue the police, many cases being perfectly capable of resolution outside Court if only they would accept that they had got things wrong immediately in cases where it is patently obvious that they have (which may, or often may not, involve any wrongdoing by officers - sometimes, quite often,  things are done with the best possible intentions and they just go wrong), negotiating swift and appropriate compensation and, perhaps more importantly, issuing genuine and thorough explanations and apologies.

Sadly this is just more evidence of why Stephenson is not the right person for the job he has ...


----------



## TopCat (Oct 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No wonder this place has become the way it is, with the trolls and the bullies of The Collective _pissing decent people off right, left and centre_.
> 
> Pathetic.


 
Who are decent people you speak of? Its just you eh? On yer own.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Topcat - please don't inflame things.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

So to summarise: ,indulgent whinges, paranoid self-aggrandising accusations and slurs about a non-existent 'collective' are fine, but only if they come from ex-policemen

But other people will be accused of 'inflaming' the situation if they even comment on these unpleasant fights of fancy, laughable bullying accusations and the like. Why should folks have to ignore these continual, thread diverting, histrionics and be expected to carry on if nothing has happened. It's simply not a plausible or healthy state of affairs.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

No, all bullshit is bullshit, regardless of who it comes from.

EDIT: I make one little comment along the lines of "play nicely" and you interpret it as "you love my enemy, and you're telling him it's ok to do that thing I don't like!" - please, get some perspective.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Topcat - please don't inflame things.


 
Please excuse me.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Excused.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

There's nothing to interpret really - I just find it strange that you're indulging these fantasies and essentially asking for others to stop 'inflaming' the uncontrolled paranoidiac in the room.

It's a bit like asking others not to tread with kid gloves and not mention vaccines around Jazz in case they 'provoke' him in some way. That's not play nice - that's make special allowances time


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

And I tell DB not to fly off the handle. Yet he does, and yet people continue to provoke him, and yes it's deliberate provocation/windup in many cases. The only equitable thing to do is ban everyone involved in this self-perpetuating little clusterfuck. Or get down on my knees and pray to any god that's listening that posters will learn to get along with one another despite their differences.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

It's not the flying off the handle I'm too fussed with tbh. That's almost healthy compared to the paranoid gibberings about the 'Collective' and other assorted claims, positioning himself as a decent foil against the rest (of us conspiring scumbags)

But cut to here and you're essentially asking for some kind of special protection from a largely inocuous comment that could apparently 'inflame' the uncontrollable one, giving the bloke some kind of weird justification for his martyr complex. I just find it difficult to see how that does anything other than reinforce the problem in the longer term.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

What alternative solution do you have? I'm all ears, genuinely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> And I tell DB not to fly off the handle. Yet he does, and yet people continue to provoke him, and yes it's deliberate provocation/windup in many cases. The only equitable thing to do is ban everyone involved in this self-perpetuating little clusterfuck. Or get down on my knees and pray to any god that's listening that posters will learn to get along with one another despite their differences.


 
a) Not backed up in action and b) 'The only equitable thing to do' very arguable.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> What alternative solution do you have? I'm all ears, genuinely.


what's happened to the rest of you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

> And I tell DB not to fly off the handle.



Can you not see how even typing this neutral sounding guff means that you've taken a side, that you're siding with a narrative that has him being attacked rather than him him being the moustached pitbull more often than not.

if you're going to mod, then mod.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

How about treating him like a normal poster rather than a special case? I'm not suggesting that I have all the answers by any means, but the principle that others should tread carefully incase they 'inflame' the aggressive consparanoid one makes me deeply uncomfortable. It also reinforces DBs behaviour and self awarded martyr status.

Nobody ever said this modding lark would be easy...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

One law for all!


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> One law for all!


 
Well, that would result in a LOT of bans. Yours included, mr angry.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

So do it. Be a mod.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

No, I'm soft and lazy.


----------



## laptop (Oct 12, 2010)

All Bastards Are Coppers!


----------



## TopCat (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> What alternative solution do you have? I'm all ears, genuinely.


 

Whist I was a drunken admin on another board I used a certain facility to change certain words automatically into other words. I suggest you change DB's use of "cunt" to "silly billy".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> No, I'm soft and lazy.


 
If you don't want to be a mod then do the decent thing. _Resign_. You seem to want all the power but nothing else.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Then we should all resign, because none of us like touching this shit with a bargepole.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Then we should all resign, because none of us like touching this shit with a bargepole.


 
You _don_'t touch it is the point.  Not how well you like it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Are you saying we _shouldn't_ intervene?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

I'm saying the opposite. If you want to be a mod, then mod.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

tarannau said:


> So to summarise: ,indulgent whinges, paranoid self-aggrandising accusations and slurs about a non-existent 'collective' are fine, but only if they come from ex-policemen
> 
> But other people will be accused of 'inflaming' the situation if they even comment on these unpleasant fights of fancy, laughable bullying accusations and the like. Why should folks have to ignore these continual, thread diverting, histrionics and be expected to carry on if nothing has happened. It's simply not a plausible or healthy state of affairs.


That's about the size of it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I'm saying the opposite. If you want to be a mod, then mod.


 
No, what you're saying is "if you want to be a mod, then mod the way I think you should mod"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

No i'm not. I'm responding to your own claim to be too lazy to do your job and the inept way you do it when you can be bothered. Resign.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Thanks for your advice, I'll consider it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Off he goes.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

Well, you're a cheery soul Butch. I don't blame Crispy for taking an easy path fwiw - my concern is that it's actually the least helpful route in the longer term. And tbh he's one of the few mods willing to put his head above the parapet and take any action at all. But I would agree with your view of the effect of his actions and the 'narrative' impression that is left by his comments.

FWIW I think there's some middle ground between resigning and this unhelpful bias towards treating DB as a special 'kid gloves' case, even when he acts like a ludicrously paranoid flapjack


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

I don't blame him for taking the choice to take the easy route either. He should not get the power to tell us what's going on if he does though. You're in or you're out.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Again, thanks for your advice, but I'd say my attitude is representative of all the mods here. We try to be deliberately hands-off, because over-moderation stifles discussion. This is evident everywhere on the net, and we think it's something that differentiates urban. But it's precisely this attitude that makes it so much harder to intervene when push comes to shove. So, I am sorry that I'm not the hard man you want me to be, but that's the price you pay for the permissive environment.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> No, what you're saying is "if you want to be a mod, then mod the way I think you should mod"


That's not what he's saying at all. d-b is repeatedly destroying threads with his paranoid histrionics and is being allowed to get away with it, repeatedly. Your response is to blame everyone else for winding him up.

moon23 has been getting a much, much harder time recently than I have ever seen d-b get. He's handling it pretty well. He's not responding by shitting all over every thread he can find. If anything, since the last big blow up, d-b's been trying to provoke a reaction by running around posting his paranoid little mantra regardless of context. It's not like he's even responding to abuse - it's very rarely in response to abuse in fact. He does this every time someone questions what he's posted, every time someone suggests that maybe he didn't get it 100% accurate, every time someone asks him to explain what he meant.

Noone here apart from d-b is behaving in a way that is not absolutely normal for urban - challenging posts and not necessarily being particularly kind with their language when they do so. This is not a bannable offence, it's not even a warnable offence. Yet he's shitting all over threads, chucking out paranoid accusations and using literally any post to bounce this kind of crap off, and you decide that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other? It's fucking unbelievable. And the reason it's fucking unbelievable is that you're all decent mods. You don't normally let this kind of shit go down, and whilst it's impossible to be 100% fair you demonstrably do try to be.

I know it's difficult when he's a long-established poster, has posted some really useful stuff on occasion, and is personally known to and liked by one of the mods. But he is having a mental breakdown all over the boards and not only do you expect us to put up with it, you won't even let us comment on it. It's not doing him any favours, and it is destroying some very decent threads where it is becoming impossible to have a decent conversation because they are just swamped by his histrionics.

Sort it out, please.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Again, thanks for your advice, but I'd say my attitude is representative of all the mods here. We try to be deliberately hands-off, because over-moderation stifles discussion. This is evident everywhere on the net, and we think it's something that differentiates urban. But it's precisely this attitude that makes it so much harder to intervene when push comes to shove. So, I am sorry that I'm not the hard man you want me to be, but that's the price you pay for the permissive environment.


 
Apply the rules to one and all - don't need to be a hard man. You're not doing that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

You should _resign_ btw. If you don't want to do mod stuff don't be a mod.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Ok, I'm going to have to leave this thread for a bit cos I'm close to losing my cool, but

1. Not all moderation happens in public.
2. DB has not been shitting all over threads recently
3. I have genuinely read and listened to your post, ymu, and it's made me think. Thank you.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Jesus christ, I can understand why he loses it sometimes. Remind me never to spill your pint, butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

Paragraphs - always a winner 

Resign!


----------



## TopCat (Oct 12, 2010)

Aw Butchers be nice to Crispy, he is a good guy. Just think at least how DB's attitude convinces doubters that all coppers are bastards!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

An amazing lesson in the reception of truth though - it doesn't matter until **** says it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Aw Butchers be nice to Crispy, he is a good guy. Just think at least how DB's attitude convinces doubters that all coppers are bastards!


 
I have no doubt he's a nice bloke. In fact i know he is. DB does a great job you're right. (Seeing you next week?)


----------



## TopCat (Oct 12, 2010)

I do look forward to seeing you next week, it's been far too long. 

Personally I think DB's increasing tendency to fly off the handle and express paranoia about the "collective" shows he is losing his edge, maybe his mind.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Personally I think DB's increasing tendency to fly off the handle and express paranoia about the "collective" shows he is losing his edge, maybe his mind.



He fuckin' lost it way back.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> 2. DB has not been shitting all over threads recently


Precisely.

Whereas this last couple of pages, yet again derailing a sensible discussion ...


----------



## tarannau (Oct 12, 2010)

But you have. See the hypocritical (derailing) whinge about 'the collective' a page or few back and fatuous, continual accusations of others trolling you. 

It's a just a different method of shitting over threads and curtailing discussion, no matter how you wrap it up. The remarkable thing is that you're almost seeming to get away with it, simply because expectations are so criminally low about your conduct on here. I think we're meant to be grateful that you're not calling everyone a cunt and abusing people left, right and centre.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Please, please, please, *nobody* escalate this any further.


----------



## ymu (Oct 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Please, please, please, *nobody* escalate this any further.


 
Don't you think that the relatively low volume of crap recently is precisely because that is what we have been doing?

But no, you carry on asking us to do even less of what we've not been doing. And he'll carry on as he always does and threads like this will carry on getting abandoned because of it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 12, 2010)

Yes, and I think db has been holding himself back too, and he's said as much.

The statement i made in my last post was purely pre-emptive. If he doesn't kick off and if others don't _deliberately_ wind him up, then everything will be ok. Challenging potions of view is ok. Saying that you disagree with someone is ok. Making these points in  a personal manner, second guessing your opponents motivations, surrounding your arguments in abuse - these are the things that ruin threads.

I can give examples in quotes from previous episodes, if any of that needs clarifying.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

You want examples. I've posted examples already, one morning when I found he was stalking me all over the boards making hysterical accusations because I'd committed such crimes as pointing out that he'd made a circular argument.

Perhaps you could actually read these examples and tell me where I went wrong?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm not saying you're wrong.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

You just don't dare say I'm right? Not worth the wrath it would incur? Or are you just being non-committal?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2010)

I prefer "diplomatic"
I have to tread carefully, i hope you understand?


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I prefer "diplomatic"
> I have to tread carefully, i hope you understand?


So you're saying she _is_ right but you think it'd make me kick off then.

(For the record she's talking shite (and the last few pages have shown to any genuinely independent observer who are the obsessives here) and if you really think she isn't you are not taking a balanced look at what has happened / is happening but, beyond saying that, I really couldn't give a fuck).


----------



## TopCat (Oct 13, 2010)

It's really hard not to have a go.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 13, 2010)

Yep, you've succeeded in killing off the discussion and now you get to pontificate about how beastly and unfair everyone is to you, yet again. Once again I expect that everyone else will be told not to inflame you and asked to treat you differently, or there'll be some arbitrary bannings again. Fuck diplomacy - this is just a staggeringly shit state of affairs. People have bent over backwards to indulge you

Take the paranoid fantasies elsewhere, please. There is no collective, nor do folks need independent observers to see that you're acting like a self important prannet


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you're saying she _is_ right but you think it'd make me kick off then.
> 
> (For the record she's talking shite (and the last few pages have shown to any genuinely independent observer who are the obsessives here) and if you really think she isn't you are not taking a balanced look at what has happened / is happening but, beyond saying that, I really couldn't give a fuck).


 
Hey, you've been pretty good recently, so try and keep it that way please.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

TopCat said:


> It's really hard not to have a go.


 
It is. But we've all done very well in recent weeks and I think we all deserve a big pat on the back for it.


----------



## tarannau (Oct 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Hey, you've been pretty good recently, so try and keep it that way please.



Eh? He swears less perhaps, but he still uses seemingly every other thread to grandstand his paranoid fantasies about 'the collective' and continually makes groundless accusations about trolling - ymu's examples are just the tip of the iceberg, as you well know. And yet he is allowed to this without any real comment or sanction, whereas those understandably annoyed by the curtailing and sidetracking of any discussion are asked to pipe down, not to inflame, or are somewhat arbitrarily banned when everything blows up

To be honest, it's worse than it is before. Less swearing, but also much less discussion and some ludicrous double standards. And here you are indulging his paranoid witterings about 'independent observers' and the like, as if we should all be grateful that he can control his pottymouth for a change.

I have no idea what diplomacy goes on beneath the surface, but it's clearly not making much difference


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Hey, you've been pretty good recently, so try and keep it that way please.


I'm quite happy to.  As I said, I couldn't really give a fuck.

But you may consider why I am getting a yellow card after a single post when we are two pages further on from others derailing this thread without _any_ posts from me either initiating such action on their part (the thread had been dead for ten days, someone bounced it and I made a perfectly reasonable, on-topic post) or even responding to the outrageous comments contained therein ("having a mental breakdown all over the boards" for fuck's sake ... ) despite the fact I would have been entirely justified in doing so.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I couldn't really give a fuck.


 
You seem to give an almighty purple throbbing fuck most of the time.

You're not being yellow carded, just everybody being reminded that there are repeating patterns of behaviour, with certain triggers and responses, that everybody could learn from and grow as human beings etc. One love


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> It is. But we've all done very well in recent weeks and I think we all deserve a big pat on the back for it.


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

@ both those last two posts.


----------



## winjer (Oct 15, 2010)

Samo: _CPS 'not altering' decision over Ian Tomlinson death_
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11544777


----------



## TopCat (Oct 15, 2010)

No Justice No peace....


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 15, 2010)

winjer said:


> Samo: _CPS 'not altering' decision over Ian Tomlinson death_
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11544777


No surprises there then.  Only those with no understanding of the basis of the CPS decision would ever have expected that there may be any change in the situation just because Patel had now been suspended.  (In fact, if anything, it made it MORE likely that there would be no prosecution as not only would the subsequent pathologists be reliant on the observations of Patel in reaching their opinions but it would not be possible to demonstrate that they were reliant on the observations of an incompetent ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2010)

The opposite surely? That it would be a piece of cake to demonstrate they _were_ reliant on the observations of incompetent clown. You actually say that yourself as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No surprises there then.  Only those with no understanding of the basis of the CPS decision would ever have expected that there may be any change in the situation just because Patel had now been suspended.  (In fact, if anything, it made it MORE likely that there would be no prosecution as not only would the subsequent pathologists be reliant on the observations of Patel in reaching their opinions but it would not be possible to demonstrate that they were reliant on the observations of an incompetent ...


 
surely you wouldn't want to demonstrate they were reliant on the observations of an incompetent? or perhaps you do...


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Only those with no understanding of the basis of the CPS decision would ever have expected that there may be any change in the situation just because Patel had now been suspended.


It's always nice when your posts are proved correct ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Oct 15, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's always nice when your posts are proved correct ...


you're replying to yourself now....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ...as not only would the subsequent pathologists be reliant on the observations of Patel in reaching their opinions but it would not be possible to demonstrate that they were reliant on the observations of an incompetent ...



?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's always nice when your posts are proved correct ...


yes. please let us know when it happens to you.


----------



## Neutron (Oct 17, 2010)

*Violent and corrupt police.*



detective-boy said:


> ...would not be possible to demonstrate that they were reliant on the observations of an incompetent ...



But everyone knows that is why he was there in the first place!


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

Neutron said:


> But everyone knows that is why he was there in the first place!


No.  "Everyone" does not "know" that at all.  People whose default position is ACAB (which judging from your tone you may well be) might claim that.  But anyone who has actually taken the time to understand in detail how he was appointed to conduct the first post-mortem, what the normal procedure for doing so is and the difference between the procedures for normal and special post-mortems will have a different view.  Whilst they will probably have some very significant questions about the sequence of events, they will primarily be directed at the Coroner and not the police who, at the end of the day, have little or no actual role in selecting which Coroner does what. 

All the information you need is on this and other threads.  Why not take the time to educate yourself and come back with a more meaningful critique than an ACAB rant ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

It's amazing how a _might be acab_ turns into a _posted an acab rant_. Revealing. How they work themselves up into it.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing how a _might be acab_ turns into a _posted an acab rant_. Revealing. How they work themselves up into it.


Please stop stalking me from thread to thread, posting nothing but content-free attempts to precipitate a fight.

Why the mods allow you to continue with this without intervention is beyond me.

I have no interest in engaging with you.  I have told you that a dozen times.  For you to continue to stalk me is _clearly_ intended to harrass me and as you frequently state or imply things which are simply not true about my posts, my views and other issues it is beginning to do so.

Please stop.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2010)

When you're both already on the same thread, you can't really call it stalking, can you./


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm just here waiting on clarification of post #1529. Some things are hard to miss when you're waiting though.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> When you're both already on the same thread, you can't really call it stalking, can you./


Check out the patterns:  

(a) I post on a thread, this idiot appears with content-free shite.  
(b) This idiot posts on a thread, I ignore them.

They are stalking.  I am not.  Simply to say "Oh you are both on a thread so it can't be stalking" is fuckwitted - by definition we are both going to be on a thread regardless of who is stalking who.  What matters is the _pattern_ and _content_ of postings.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2010)

Replying to a post on a* public* bulletin board in _any way the poster sees fit_ is not 'stalking' ffs. If you don't want people to reply to your posts then choose some other activity that prevents them from doing so such as watching television or mowing the lawn.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Check out the patterns:
> 
> (a) I post on a thread, this idiot appears with content-free shite.
> (b) This idiot posts on a thread, I ignore them.
> ...


 
The pattern of your postings is 2 or 3 quotes from a rule book followed by 'fuck off, cunt' followed by demented ramblings about conspiracies and a demand that the mods do something.

Well I'm demanding that the mods do something now, I've kept out of it long enough - the agreement was that no-one goes out of their way to wind him up.  But he *actively* looks for it in every post.  Every thread is being destroyed in the politics forum involving the police.

Why the fuck should I have to avoid threads just because some fucking police spokesman wants to bully everyone and stifle debate *about criticism of the police and their associates?* 

Threatening language, threatening libel action, threatening all the time.

Get this tosser out of here, enough is enough.

I've been avoiding all of these threads...why should I...why should that kind of behaviour be rewarded, eh?   dibble absolutely refuses to use the ignore function, deliberately pressuring the mods, insulting absolutely everyone and let me stress *absolutley6 looking for occasions to do it*.

From the noye thread.



			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what:  I'll swear at a poster who isn't.
> 
> Fuck off, cunt.



So.......


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Replying to a post on a* public* bulletin board in _any way the poster sees fit_ is not 'stalking' ffs.


Absolute shite.  Stalking can include harassment on a bulletin board (and has been found to do so in several criminal cases).


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolute shite.  Stalking can include harassment on a bulletin board (and has been found to do so in several criminal cases).



So were you stalking me when you harassed me by calling me a 'fuckwit' then failing to apologise once I posted a source for what I was saying? Because if you'd spoken to me like that in a pub I would have put you on your arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Hang on, the feminism thread is that way -->


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because if you'd spoken to me like that in a pub I would have put you on your arse.


Oooooh!  You proper fucking hard man you.  

Pathetic internet loser.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2010)

Step away from the thread please db.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oooooh!  You proper fucking hard man you.
> 
> Pathetic internet loser.



Stop stalking me.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2010)

And stop winding him up, too, please.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Step away from the thread please db.


I will continue to make on-topic posts and engage with anyone interested in discussing the issues.

If you want to ban me for that then go right ahead.


----------



## Wilson (Oct 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> And stop winding him up, too, please.



aw come on Crispy, it's Sunday afternoon, what do you expect people to do? besides he loves it, thats why he always comes back for more, 's like crack innit


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will continue to make on-topic posts and engage with anyone interested in discussing the issues.
> 
> If you want to ban me for that then go right ahead.


 
Clarify post 1529 then please.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will continue to make on-topic posts and engage with anyone interested in discussing the issues.
> 
> If you want to ban me for that then go right ahead.


 
You keep it on topic and civil and that won't have to happen


----------



## ymu (Oct 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> And stop winding him up, too, please.


 
Who's winding him up? 

It is true that replying to d-b with anything less than respectful doff of the cap does wind him up, but that isn't anyone else's problem but his. Now, is it?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2010)

Nobody is, which is good 

Questioning and criticising peoples posts is fine.


----------



## ymu (Oct 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Nobody is, which is good
> 
> Questioning and criticising peoples posts is fine.


 
So that was a preemptive warning based on something noone was doing. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Neutron (Oct 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  "Everyone" does not "know" that at all.  People whose default position is ACAB (which judging from your tone you may well be) might claim that.  But anyone who has actually taken the time to understand in detail how he was appointed to conduct the first post-mortem, what the normal procedure for doing so is and the difference between the procedures for normal and special post-mortems will have a different view.  Whilst they will probably have some very significant questions about the sequence of events, they will primarily be directed at the Coroner and not the police who, at the end of the day, have little or no actual role in selecting which Coroner does what.
> 
> All the information you need is on this and other threads.  Why not take the time to educate yourself and come back with a more meaningful critique than an ACAB rant ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAB

In case anyone didn't know, like me.

Would people hate the Police if they weren't bastards and scum?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Check out the patterns:
> 
> (a) I post on a thread, this idiot appears with content-free shite.
> (b) This idiot posts on a thread, I ignore them.
> ...


 this seems to me to be an admission that you are unable to clarify your post 1529.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 18, 2010)

This has got to stop. If DB thinks he can call all and sundry (including mods) cunts and fuckwits, well, it's rare for me to say this but just ban the man.


----------

