SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Ian Tomlinson
Author Message
ForestHillier


Posts: 490
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #1
23-07-2010 09:38 AM

So what do we all think about the fact that there is no case

I for one, think the police have really shot themselves in the foot with this, yes they do a good/hard job and on this day, there were many people out just to casue trouble, however dont really think that you can just start pushing people out of the way just because they may be a bit tipsy

Find all posts by this user Reply
Snazy


Posts: 1,495
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #2
23-07-2010 10:01 AM

I think the one part that is really a crunch point is the no charge for common assault.
Reading and listening to the CPS statement the rest is pretty clear cut.
Very unfortunate incident, and one that will haunt the Met for years.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Redalways


Posts: 85
Joined: Mar 2007
Post: #3
24-07-2010 09:50 AM

This is really bad.

Even if Tomlinson was a demonstrator then it didnt justify the treatment he received. Frankly the way the financial markets and Banks acted i am surprised there wasn't more trouble than a RBS window being smashed.

Of even greater worry is the way the Police and the Establishment closed ranks and spun lies just to protect a piece of vermin. I hope that the people in the community of Carshalton where this man, Simon Harwood, lives make him pay for it by ostracising him.

It makes me ashamed of our country.

Find all posts by this user Reply
dbboy


Posts: 201
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #4
24-07-2010 10:17 AM

It's disgraceful, the police know exactly what they did and are GUILTY off, but its one set of rules for them.and another for us.

At the very least charges of assult, GBH and ABH and something about murder resuulting from assult (sorry, don't konw the techical term for this) should have been brought against the policemen.

He should have been charged, gone to court and prison and served the sentance. I'm sure if a member of the public had done the same to a policeman who subsequently died as a result, we'd be straight up in court on a charge of murder.

The met needs to hang its head in shame, it's not the first time something like this has happened (i.e. Blair Peach) and it won't be the last. Everytime the police get off scott free. It's Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Poppy9560


Posts: 273
Joined: Aug 2008
Post: #5
24-07-2010 11:31 AM

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_...osecution/

" ...............

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. As the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by PC 'A' pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. It also follows that there is also no realistic prospect of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or misconduct in public office.

The Coroner will now be informed of this decision so that he may move to an inquest. At the conclusion of the inquest the matter will be reconsidered by the CPS in the light of any evidence which may be presented."

dbboy - did you actually read the statement? you say the officer should have been charged with manslaughter but it is quite clear from this statement there is no realistic prospect of conviction. It is still open for a prosecution following the inquest if new evidence comes to light.(tried to cut and paste whole stateemnt but too long)

Find all posts by this user Reply
Redalways


Posts: 85
Joined: Mar 2007
Post: #6
24-07-2010 02:01 PM

Poppy - have you served on a Jury ?

I have. I have had to balance two conflicting expert's evidence. Juries do that all the time. They weigh the credibility of the evidence and the credibility of the witness.

In this case, the pathologist who believed Mr Tomlinson died from natural causes was never told of the assault and his credibility could be open to question if he still stuck to his original view in open court, notwithstanding that 2 other pathologists (including one appointed by the Police Officer) maintain Mr Tomlinson died from his injuries - internal bleeding. In our system a jury is quite capable of weighing the conflicting evidence. I would imagine that questions would be asked on why the Police didn't let the Pathologist Mr Freddie Patel know about the assault and indeed why the Police recommended to the Coroner the choice of Mr Patel as pathologist in the first place given his reputation.

I understand that Mr Patel, is to be struck off the Home Office list for pathologists because of lack of competence. A Jury may therefore find he lacks credibility and that would be brought out in open court.

Of course Mr Starmer made this decision himself, for his own reasons, and for now the case has not been put to a jury. However, I understand the family are trying to raise the funds to mount a private prosecution in order to get justice for their father.

If i were the Government/Police senior management I would be praying that they the family are able to do this as I really believe that the criminal justice system will be dealt a heavy blow if yet again there is no trial. Remember 1,000 people have died in Police custody without a single man or woman being convicted - the majority of these deaths the Police are not culpable, but i find it difficult to believe that in all cases the police have acted without culpability.

I have no axe to grind - against the Police - i fully support them, but only if they get rid of bad apples.

Mr Tomlinson's family, PC Harwood and Freddie Patel - none of them have had their day in court in order to clear their name or otherwise. That can't be a satisfactory situation.

Find all posts by this user Reply
lillam


Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #7
25-07-2010 12:00 PM

Just to be clear Ian Tomlinson was walking along the road, the police came up from behind him and pushed and struck him from behind - he didnt know anything about it until he was on the floor.

The fact is the police in Britain are immune for prosecution in such cases - if someone dies at police hands no police officer ever gets prosecuted. No policeman has been found responsible for the death of a civilian in Britain in the last 50 years. That includes all kinds of incredible cases of death whilst in a police cell, not forgetting more high profile shootings, clubbings and get run over. The police have become a law unto themselves in Britain.

If anyone is outraged by it, and would like to show the family some support meet at DPP at ROYAL COURT 2 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE SE1 9HS between noon and 2pm on Friday forthcoming. I know it is hard if you are at work, but thats the nature of these things...

---------
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’

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #8
01-08-2010 02:37 PM

The establishment always wins and will continue to do so as long as we don't have a proper written constitution. To be honest people die in custody all the time and at the hands of the police in other circumstances but the public just turns a blind eye as its not easy to believe that sometimes these people are totally innocent victims; in Ian;s case it was patently so due to it being recorded by so many people but even that hasn't done much good.

The decision is shameful and I for one would like to support this family;anyone any suggestions as to the best way?

A close family member of ours died because of a breach of a duty of care within the NHS and coroner did not even assign appropriate responsibility to the hospital. As a result we are similarly aggrieved at the failure of the state to hold its institutions accountable. Had we been able to afford legal representation and subscribe to the pension fund of a law firm the position might have been different. The law is clearly an ass and thats putting it politely.

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #9
02-08-2010 02:18 PM

It's a bit concerning that you seem to be basing your "facts" upon innaccurate information about police accepting responsibility for death ins custody et al. and a tiny portion of a wider incident you saw on youtube or the telly...bottom line is the protesters, a significant number of whom were not there to protest peacfully but to cause trouble, pushed the police to a horrendous straining point and their job is hard enough as it is - they didn't have the time, inclination or responsibilty to mollycuddle every one in the area or check to see if they are protesters, drunk, sober or whatever. Mr Tomlinson was, as I understand it, a chronic alcoholic who was drunk on the day and had already disobeyed a police request to move on that eventually required 4 riot officers to move him (20 mins or so before the filmed incident) because he was being very belligerent - the Guardian won't report that though because it's just not sensational enough. I think we need the full facts of the case - but the press are sensation hungry monsters who will only show you what they want you to see... and that seems to be that the police are bad people who go around murdering people for no reason whatsoever...a view propogated by your spurious allegations and inaccurate and unsubstaniated reporting on police accountability in civilian deaths - I've yet to see a single protester say "actually, we kinda contributed to his death by being unable to protest repsonsibly, or hurling abuse at the police, smashing in windows and attacking innocent people - taking away very valuable resources from a a police presence we had already stretched to the max"... but hey, that's just my view

Find all posts by this user Reply
sandy


Posts: 189
Joined: Oct 2006
Post: #10
02-08-2010 02:30 PM

Malcs, why is your version any more convincing that Roz's? How much evidence is there in the words 'as I understand it'?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #11
02-08-2010 08:00 PM

The guy was pushed over by a police officer without due cause. That is a fact which was plain for all to see. I believe thats common assault . How exactly was that justified by belligerent behaviour 20 minutes earlier or by officers 'under stress'?

From what you say I assume that you consider that people do not have the right to lawful protest. Perhaps they should all have beaten within an inch of their lives just for taking up police resources which should probably have better spent on some Royal walkabout.

The recent report of the Bloody Sunday enquiry perhaps sums up extremely clearly the depths to which the Establishment will sink to murder civilians in cold blood and then work extremely hard to cover it all up in order to protect itself.Then there is the Menezes case but perhaps Jean Charles was also beligerent to an official that morning so clearly deserved to be shot dead on a tube train with the police subsequently fabricating a story about his jumping over barriers and running away therefore creating panic and uncertainty amongst their officers and hence contributing to his own death.

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #12
03-08-2010 12:12 PM

Sandy I never said it was more convincing. My point is that we don't have enough informed facts to start levelling accusations of mass corruption and police brutality as an endemic feature of the Met - and the qualification of "as I understand it" clearly serves to demonstrate that I acknowledge this. Roz gives the best example in his/her response that states with some authority that Mr Tomlinson was "pushed over by a police officer without due cause". Roz's previous post suggests, even more alarmingly - that the push caused Mr Tomlinson's death - assumptions both of which he/she provides no evidence for. It's these uninformed assumptions that I am really highlighting and the extradordinary interpretation of what is published (here and elsewhere) that Roz seems to arrive at. For example, one of the headlines Roz takes from my comments is that I "consider that people do not have the right to lawful protest" - and I'm not sure that asserting this an assumption means that Roz recgonises it as such. A reasoned interpretation of it would be that I do not consider that people who turn up at protests to cause trouble should be allowed to protest (and I have no problem admitting that I don't believe they should be allowed to "protest") or, more accurately, that the protesters as whole stretched the Met to their limits...which I don't think is really disputed by those who protested or the Met themselves. Just so there is no room for ambiguity - I am 100% for peaceful organised protest - even if it shuts down half of London for the day - I most certainly am not for vandalism, violence and civil disobedience to the point of endangering others. As to Roz's comments on Bloody Sunday and De Menezes - it's again interesting to see his/her interpretative skills at work - the Bloody Sunday report is relied upon as an extremely clear summation of facts that support Roz's arguments, but his/her reliance on the De Menezes inquest doesn't recognise that the accounts given of De Menezes jumping over the barrier appear to have been given by eye-witnesses and the pathologist - not the police who it seems actually briefed JCD's family that he had NOT vaulted the barriers. The police do not seem to have fabricated any such story - contrary to Roz's assertions. Nor do they address the fact that none of the officers invovled in the JCD killing were found guilty of murder - the inquest returned an open verdict - so interesting to see how Roz will rely upon one Official Report (Bloody Sunday) for one purpose but reject another (the JCD inquest findings and the Tomlinson case) when it doesn't accord with his views. It's that I take umbrage with...I am all for evidence rational debate - but reading Roz's posts on this subject was like reading the Daily Mail!

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #13
03-08-2010 09:18 PM

None of this deals with the issue. A police officer pushed an innocent man to the ground. That man died a short time later. No police officer was held to account. Sometimes actual cause of death is hard to determine but get rid of all the legal c**p, apply some logical deduction, and what are you left with.

A young Brazilian man was shot by the police in cold blood due to an identification mix up when another officer was off having a pee.No police officer was held to account.

The police, sorry, the state, held all the cards and had the better lawyers, and the onus of proof was on the victims families which is always the harder place to start from.

Thats about all there is to say ,really.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Redalways


Posts: 85
Joined: Mar 2007
Post: #14
03-08-2010 10:38 PM

There is little doubt that Ian Tomlinson was pushed over by a Police Officer without due cause. Even the DPP concedes that Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC Harwood or any other police officer and he found that the officers actions were disproportionate and unjustified. Being Grumpy and bad tempered is not an excuse for a professional officer to strike out at anyone. We give the Police rights - but we also give them responsibilities.

The issue is that the Police are now so removed from the Public that they see any demonstration as being criminal and a public order issue - they were brutal with the countryside alliance for example, as they were on the G20. It effects all people. The irony is the more they do this the more they alienate people. The solution is more beat officers walking around on their own thereby being compelled to talk to the community rather than their partner mate talking "police" all day.

When the police start to behave as if they are above the law - pushing and striking people at will or moving people on who are exercising their right to protest or kettling people who want to go about their business, they become an undisciplined rabble and further lose the respect of people. I was on a jury with a shopper who was kettled by the Police in Oxford Street. The experience turned a supporter of the Police to a deeply cynical individual. Needless to say that individual was very sceptical of the Police evidence in the case they were trying.

The big loser in the DPP decision was the Police themselves. They are now more isolated.

Malcs the relevance of whether Ian Tomlinson was allegedly an alcoholic is what exactly ..the smearing of a dead man ?

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #15
04-08-2010 08:10 AM

Roz the reason no police officer was held to account is because there is absolutely no proof that being pushed to the ground killed him. The JCD case is sad, very unfortunate and a result of an extremely incompetent operation. But again, there is absolutely no proof that his death was contrived with any malicious intent. You base your theories on conspiracy, conjecture and tabloid rhetoric - so really no point in trying to argue the issue with you.

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #16
04-08-2010 09:11 AM

I actually agree with a lot of what you say Redalways. But the opinion of the DPP is not a finding of fact by independent and impartial tribunal. The DPP may be convinced that there was a case to answer and a reasonable prospect of success - but we all know why, in all probability, that statement was made. As nice as it is the DPP formed an opinion on the resonable prospects of success (which is always pretty much 50/50 anyway) in obtaining an assault conviction against PC Hayward - the fact remains they were not convinced enough to press charges against him. So I do have do have to disagree that there is little doubt as the legality or illegality of PC Hayward's actions. For the record though purely on what I have seen and read - I tend towards the assault argument - but I'm not about to hang a man's reputation on my own personal leanings nor drag him through the internet court on a charge of murder based on Keir Starmer's opinion - as compelling as it may be.

My point about Mr Tomlinson's alcoholism (it's not alleged - he was an acloholic) was nothing like an attempt to smear a dead man but to illustrate that there are a lot more factors to the case to consider than simply what appears on a 5 second youtube clip. It goes to other points too, but I think it better to leave those alone.

I'm not an apologist for the police, nor am I unsympathetic that a man died - but I do feel quite strongly when we act as judge, jury and executioner with no evidence. It's becoming a daily thing - every time someone trips these days we first look to which police force or government agency we can blame instead of asking "well were they watching where they were going?" the JCD case is a case in point - where the inaccurate accounts of independent eyewitnesses were somehow skewed into being some sort of conspiracy theory by the police to cover everything up! That's really the point I am trying to make -and I really didn't mean to start a huge heated debate on it or to offend anyone.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,200
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #17
04-08-2010 10:27 AM

Malcs Wrote:
...the fact remains they were not convinced enough to press charges against him


The reason they did not press charges of assault was due to the 6 month time limit on assault charges passing during the enquiry.

DPP Wrote:
Common assault does not require proof of injury, but it is subject to a strict six month time limit. That placed the CPS in a very difficult position because enquiries were continuing at the six month point and it would not have been possible to have brought any charge at that stage.


So the officer only escaped being charged on a technicality. Given that he cannot be tried for assault in a court of law, justice can never be done even in the 'internet court'.

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #18
04-08-2010 10:46 AM

acknowledged Michael, and a very good point well taken. My comment was perhaps unfortunately worded - perhaps I should have said that they did not have enough evidence to convince them at the relevant time to press charges - even though this appears to have been because of a technicality in the IPCC still having the files. Regardless of this though we are still talking about the opinion of the DPP - and they do not decide a person's guilt or innocence - merely whether or not to prosecute. And it still doesn't deal with the manslaughter charges - which is a much bigger issue that the one that people seem to have honed in here which is whether or not he was assaulted. PC Hayward could simply have placed his hand upon Mr Tomlinson and been guilty of common assualt - we're splitting hairs over the lesser charge now. [/i]

Find all posts by this user Reply
Redalways


Posts: 85
Joined: Mar 2007
Post: #19
04-08-2010 11:27 AM

Nobody is suggesting there should be an Internet Court.

The issue is whether the case should be put to a Jury with the normal rules of Evidence in open court or whether an individual appointed by a politician (the DPP) should decide in a closed office.

Other issues are whether the case was dealt with with zeal and lack of bias (the IPCC seemed to be unaware that there were CCTV cameras in the area of the incident !) and whether, if a member of the public pushed a PC and struck him with a baton in the same circumstances that the member of the Public would be teated the same as PC Harwood.

Find all posts by this user Reply
malcs


Posts: 15
Joined: Aug 2010
Post: #20
04-08-2010 11:45 AM

I did not suggest there should be an internet court - i suggested we should not be trying PC Hayward in one which basically seems what ahs happened in some of the posts in this thread.

The case hasn't been dealt with by the DPP Redalways - the decision as to whether or not to prosecute has though - and that is the remit of the DPP's office. They decided not to prosecute for manslaughter because there is no real prospect of conviction (which makes perfect sense) and that they can't prosecute for the assault charge because of the statute of limitations (which I personally find a little absurd).

I don't see that the transposition of police officer and member of the public has anything to do with this. If it is assault, it is assault whether it is a police office or a member of the public. That the police officer is acting in his role as a police officer means you can't transpose the two because a member of the public would not be acting in that role as a member of the public. The question really should be did the police officer, acting in his role as a police officer, assault a member of the public (or alternatively, was he acting as a police officer when (and if) he assaulted a member of the public).

Equally, with the exception of the assault charge - which is out of time anyway and therefore not really relevant to a bias or zeal argument, I don't see how the CCTV cameras are relevant here either.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields