Ian Tomlinson - No Charges

bails87

Anyone else surprised by this?

"You have a case like this, and it seems watertight. You've got some 300 witnesses and CCTV footage.

"Most of the expert evidence suggested Ian died of internal bleeding and the only pathologist who disagreed with it was Patel [the original pathologist, currently suspended due to an investigations into his competency], whose credibility is clearly questioned. You've got all that, and then a video showing how Ian was the victim of an unprovoked attack, and still they won't prosecute. If the CPS won't prosecute an officer in those circumstances, when will they?

So we've got video of an innocent man being attacked by a police officer. A few minutes later he was dead. But it seems like the only reason he hasn't been charged with manslaughter is because there were "sharp disagreements" between pathologists. When the only pathologist to disagree is now facing a GMC hearing for "conducting autopsies incompetently", could be struck off and has already been taken off the Home Office's approved list.

He wasn't charged with ABH because of an "factual mistake" in the system.

He wasn't charged with common assault because it has to be done within 6 months of the alleged offence.

Frankly, I'm tempted to agree with Tomlinson's family that it's a "f*cking disgrace".

blister pus

it is, but some of us already predicted the outcome because it's par for the course and aren't really that surprised.

the heart of the state is scum cancer, always has been, always will be.

MacAndCheese

Not surprised.

bails87

Well no, I'm not completely surprised. I didn't expect a murder/manslaughter charge. But assault and a suspended sentence or something. Still a disgrace. Although the officer has now been named, I think he was just "Officer A" before.

MacAndCheese

bails87 wrote:

Well no, I'm not completely surprised. I didn't expect a murder/manslaughter charge. But assault and a suspended sentence or something. Still a disgrace. Although the officer has now been named, I think he was just "Officer A" before.

I don't think it's something they could do half-arsed, ("just" do him for assault) because I guess that admits that he did something wrong and i'm guessing their (rubbish) argument is something along the lines of he didn't do anything wrong because it was in the heat of the moment on duty blah blah blah....

Graeme_aberdeen

if this where south central LA!!!!!

Stevo_666

Can't the family bring a civil case against 'Officer A' as then they would only need to show it was 'on the balance of probabilities'? It looks to me like they are trying to get off the hook by claiming that where it's a criminal case, you have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that a good lawyer would get him off?

hyperman

if it had been a member of the public that assaulted the guy i'm pretty sure there would have been a different outcome....

IcarusGreen

You can't just take that one incident into consideration. If you've ever spent all day being harassed, having bottles thrown at you and generally intimidated you might have a different view on the situation.

Don't get me wrong, it's unfortunate that he died and what the officer did was not right but when your in a built up stressful situation for a long period of time your nerves became fraid and your temper shortens.

Unless you ever been on the police / armys side of a riot don't even try to understand how the coppers were feeling / acting at that point.

bails87

IcarusGreen wrote:

You can't just take that one incident into consideration. If you've ever spent all day being harassed, having bottles thrown at you and generally intimidated you might have a different view on the situation.

Don't get me wrong, it's unfortunate that he died and what the officer did was not right but when your in a built up stressful situation for a long period of time your nerves became fraid and your temper shortens.

Unless you ever been on the police / armys side of a riot don't even try to understand how the coppers were feeling / acting at that point.

Erm, he attacked an innocent man who was absolutely no threat to him.

Yes, they're 'only human'. But they're well trained and their job is to keep the peace and serve the public. Not attack them for no reason.

IcarusGreen

You say no reason,

You can see the police are shouting at him to move,

He was in the area of a riot. This means that the police cannot take the risk of him not being a protester as he could just turn on them. If he had listened to the commands being shouted at him he would have hurried out of the area that the police were advancing into.

Then the police would have had no reason to push him.

bails87

IcarusGreen wrote:

You say no reason,

You can see the police are shouting at him to move,

He was in the area of a riot. This means that the police cannot take the risk of him not being a protester as he could just turn on them. If he had listened to the commands being shouted at him he would have hurried out of the area that the police were advancing into.

Then the police would have had no reason to push him.

I think he just wanted to go home.

But if there's a chance that he might commit that most heinous of crimes, having a *gasp* protest, then I suppose the Police were right to stop him going about his peaceful business.

I still don't think there was any need for the violence. He was no threat, he was hit, now he's dead. That's not what the police are for.

Even if he was a protestor, so what? Peaceful protest (which it was for the most part, I think calling it a riot is a bit excessive) is an incredibly important part of democracy, if the police can just 'kettle' and attack people trying to have a peaceful protest then innocent people, protestors or not, will get hurt.

I always thought the role of the police was to facilitate peaceful protests anyway, not stop them.

IcarusGreen

I think he just wanted to go home.
He could have gone a different way


But if there's a chance that he might commit that most heinous of crimes, having a *gasp* protest, then I suppose the Police were right to stop him going about his peaceful business.
He was peaceful but in them situations (A RIOT) they can not take the risk and should have hurriedly moved on when told to.

I still don't think there was any need for the violence.
Agreed, but I class the push as him being forcefully made to hurry up

Do you think the violent attack on that man was justified?
You have to put it into the context of the full day. Hitting and pushing a man just walking along, defiantly not, hitting and pushing a man who is not doing what the police are telling him to do in the middle of a violent day when a riot is going on is a VERY grey area (hence NO CHARGE)

Even if he was a protestor, so what? Peaceful protest (which it was for the most part, I think calling it a riot is a bit excessive) is an incredibly important part of democracy, if the police can just 'kettle' and attack people trying to have a peaceful protest then innocent people, protestors or not, will get hurt.
you wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever been in on the police / army side

I always thought the role of the police was to facilitate peaceful protests anyway, not stop them
this is from that day, still think it was peaceful?

blister pus

IcarusGreen wrote:

I always thought the role of the police was to facilitate peaceful protests anyway, not stop them
this is from that day, still think it was peaceful?

and how do you know that isn't TSG / MI5 agent provocateurs stirring the sh!t? virtually every demo I ever went on the police / security services were at the heart of the trouble either instigating by force or covertly posing as demonstrators. It's been standard covert operating procedure in western 'democracies' for years to subvert legal and legitimate protest at contentious marches like G8/20 protests.

IcarusGreen

blister pus wrote:

and how do you know that isn't TSG / MI5 agent provocateurs stirring the sh!t? virtually every demo I ever went on the police / security services were at the heart of the trouble either instigating by force or covertly posing as demonstrators. It's been standard covert operating procedure in western 'democracies' for years to subvert legal and legitimate protest at contentious marches like G8/20 protests.

CROCK OF SH!T

But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making about the pressure the police are under and the fact that you have to understand how it feels to be on the receiving end of a riot and that if you were the person on the receiving end how you would react to the situation. I'm just trying to open peoples eyes to the fact that it's not as black and white as "a copper hit and pushed a man in the back who had his hands in his pockets". There's a hell of a lot more to it.

supersonic

Wasn't Mr Tomlinson drunk too? He certainly looked a little dazed and unaware, even before he was pushed.

blister pus

IcarusGreen wrote:

blister pus wrote:

and how do you know that isn't TSG / MI5 agent provocateurs stirring the sh!t? virtually every demo I ever went on the police / security services were at the heart of the trouble either instigating by force or covertly posing as demonstrators. It's been standard covert operating procedure in western 'democracies' for years to subvert legal and legitimate protest at contentious marches like G8/20 protests.

CROCK OF SH!T

yeah, i'm sure you'd like to believe so, and so would i these days, except i've seen it with my own eyes. but i accept your reaction and it's understandable if you're a genuine stand up type with military indoctrination.

IcarusGreen wrote:

But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making about the pressure the police are under and the fact that you have to understand how it feels to be on the receiving end of a riot and that if you were the person on the receiving end how you would react to the situation. I'm just trying to open peoples eyes to the fact that it's not as black and white as "a copper hit and pushed a man in the back who had his hands in his pockets". There's a hell of a lot more to it.

get a new job if you can't handle those situations

better still. change the way demonstrations are policed......but i believe that's already being looked at off the back of Tomlinson's death, we will see.

blister pus

supersonic wrote:

Wasn't Mr Tomlinson drunk too? He certainly looked a little dazed and unaware, even before he was pushed.

what's your point.

alexj2233

I'm with bails on this. You can see from the video that that is clearly not a riot situation, the police are not under attack from protesters and the presence of normal police not just riot police emphasises that.

Maybe he should have hurried along where he was walking, however, he was not causing a direct threat to the police.

I still don't think there was any need for the violence.
Agreed, but I class the push as him being forcefully made to hurry up

That's BullSh!t. He was properly shoved after the officer swung at him with a baton.

The police maybe under a lot of pressure in those situations and it is difficult for them but if they can't keep a level head whilst there they should be working as a riot officer.

It makes me sick that this man has received no form of punishment at all. I wouldn't have expected a manslaughter charge but assault definetly. Just because you have a uniform and some power (note not authority) does not instantly give you the right to deck anbody that comes within swinging range of you. [/quote]

supersonic

blister pus wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Wasn't Mr Tomlinson drunk too? He certainly looked a little dazed and unaware, even before he was pushed.

what's your point.

Is an observation, which may have contributed to any handling of him prior to what we saw on that video, and certainly afterwards regarding treatment.

Anonymous

i think the filth getting away with this is no suprise.

icarusgreen: you're being a bellend, exactly how many riots , real actual riots have you been in in the reme? i call bullshit.

people who are expected to deal with crowd control are trained and should be disciplined, if they cant do that, they shouldnt be doing the job, simples.

that copper is a disgrace, he couldnt cntrol himself and for that reason has no place on a base line.

Splottboy

Found that most of the "Special Patrol" coppers were the "A Type" Personality, more Macho, louder, bullyish, aggressive, something to prove...

However, there were some who were as "normal" as me and you...
These were sort of a Leveller who tended to keep the idiots in check.

Think the total bad situation got to the officer who struck/pushed him over.
Felt pressured, threatened, whether this was Real or just Perceived.

However, his past training should have prepared him for the Stresses involved.

No excuse for what he did...

Anonymous

Splottboy wrote:

However, his past training should have prepared him for the Stresses involved.

No excuse for what he did...

it pains me to do this but:

i agree.

Splottboy

RESULT!!!
And my boss called me in the office the other day, and said...
"I'm very impressed with your work in the PHG..." ( Admin/Office thingy..)

( Covering for a female staff member who bust-up her arm. )

Double Result...and,

"Newport State of Mind" the most watched Youtube video yesterday,

So..."Wos occurin wiv you's like?"

Anonymous

the Big D seal of approval is quite an accolade so you have done well there sir.

Splottboy

Diolch...Thanks.

stubs

IcarusGreen wrote:

blister pus wrote:

and how do you know that isn't TSG / MI5 agent provocateurs stirring the sh!t? virtually every demo I ever went on the police / security services were at the heart of the trouble either instigating by force or covertly posing as demonstrators. It's been standard covert operating procedure in western 'democracies' for years to subvert legal and legitimate protest at contentious marches like G8/20 protests.

CROCK OF SH!T

.

Dont know if Police undercover operatives were involved in that particular riot but at a protest I was invoved in they certainly were. Several big lads were pointed out to me by a friend. Watch them he said they will be mouthing off acting tough and winding people up and taking pictures but when it gets rowdy they will disappear. This happened exactly as he said there was a bit of pushing and shoving by both sides and the big lads disappeared when not a mouse could have squeezed through the police cordon.

We are still struggling for the right to freely assemble and protest in this country its as if the Peterloo massacre had never happened. If you dont believe me try and organise a protest/demonstration in your local town and see what happens. Stalinism might be too strong a word but our laws of assembly certainly arent liberal.

Anonymous

stubs wrote:

IcarusGreen wrote:

blister pus wrote:

and how do you know that isn't TSG / MI5 agent provocateurs stirring the sh!t? virtually every demo I ever went on the police / security services were at the heart of the trouble either instigating by force or covertly posing as demonstrators. It's been standard covert operating procedure in western 'democracies' for years to subvert legal and legitimate protest at contentious marches like G8/20 protests.

CROCK OF SH!T

.

Dont know if Police undercover operatives were involved in that particular riot but at a protest I was invoved in they certainly were. Several big lads were pointed out to me by a friend. Watch them he said they will be mouthing off acting tough and winding people up and taking pictures but when it gets rowdy they will disappear. This happened exactly as he said there was a bit of pushing and shoving by both sides and the big lads disappeared when not a mouse could have squeezed through the police cordon.

We are still struggling for the right to freely assemble and protest in this country its as if the Peterloo massacre had never happened. If you dont believe me try and organise a protest/demonstration in your local town and see what happens. Stalinism might be too strong a word but our laws of assembly certainly arent liberal.

the real problem is that the filth need a reason to batter hippies so the best way to circumvent those rules to incite some violent behaviour, i can see the logic, who wouldnt want to batter a protesting hippy?

Raymondavalon

IcarusGreen is the only person with a logical outlook on this
The guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and he was pushed, not beaten to a pulp with a Tonfa.
It's obvious that this Thread is about the fact that someone has to "pay" for what happened, well they don't. Crowd control is a volatile environment, he was in the way, got pushed and landed on his hands. He didn't bang his head, land on his stomach or back.
He died about ten minutes later, well he was a weakling and natural selection came into play. The weak die, it happens and no matter how many people rant about it, it isn't going to bring him back.
It's sh!t and it happens, get over it and rant about something a little more relevant like the lack of civil rights in Africa or the fact that mixed herbs spice bottle refill packs contain less weight than a new bottle does and is marginally cheaper. Important stuff...

Anonymous

Raymondavalon wrote:

IcarusGreen is the only person with a logical outlook on this
The guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and he was pushed, not beaten to a pulp with a Tonfa.
It's obvious that this Thread is about the fact that someone has to "pay" for what happened, well they don't. Crowd control is a volatile environment, he was in the way, got pushed and landed on his hands. He didn't bang his head, land on his stomach or back.
He died about ten minutes later, well he was a weakling and natural selection came into play. The weak die, it happens and no matter how many people rant about it, it isn't going to bring him back.
It's sh!t and it happens, get over it and rant about something a little more relevant like the lack of civil rights in Africa or the fact that mixed herbs spice bottle refill packs contain less weight than a new bottle does and is marginally cheaper. Important stuff...

hmm, you sound a bit bellendy

Raymondavalon

If you insist, but perhaps I should start a Gulf War 2 rant about the atrocities and senseless killings committed to keep the oil price in check?
Perhaps the masters and servants of what even the UN termed as an "Illegal War" should be brought to book, right from Tony Blair to the little foot soldiers that attacked a nation who's only crime was the fact it floated on oil