[Closed] Ian Tomlinson - another police stitch up

[i]Did anyone expect anything different? [/i]

not really.

saw this today, they just can't help themselves, it would seem;

[url= http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/6801 ]http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/6801[/url]

I've not seen video evidence of the incident soI'd struggle to pass judgement.

In January, a photographer who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eight hours when he tried to take pictures of a road accident won more than £5,000 in damages and an apology from Thames Valley Police.

Police in covering there own backs shocker!

under-resourced.. over-zealous.. and even the tall ones have short man syndrome..

ho hum

I would rather a few of these questionable incident passed through the net than the over worked, over scrutinised, over paperworked police force we have these days.

I suppose you would like to spend a couple more million pounds investigating this matter. Then we could give all police officers put in a riot situation an observer just in case they put a foot wrong in future. Maybe spend another £20k per person kitting them out with state of the art recording equipment. Oh and then we get to the rioters human rights. lets set up a multi billion pound fund to protect their rights and to pay out if they break a toenail. We could also make sure we pay out millions to their no win no fee solicitors whilst we are there.

Or maybe we could just say the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and if he had any sense he shouldnt have been in the middle of a riot situation.

5K damages for being detained for nothing.

Im gonna be rich!

[url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/ ]CPS[/url]

It was the CPS who made this decision not the Police.

Hobo - like you'd be saying that if he was your brother?

And there was no link between the him being pushed and dying of a heart attack but never let facts get in the way of having a go at public sector workers.

[i]two further autopsies agreed that death was result of abdominal haemorrhage caused by blow in assoc with cirrhosis of liver[/i]

not quite as clear cut as that Drac...

I wonder if any of those poor rioters in Belfast got hurt?

stop talking shite hobo

the police have gotten away with it again, its no real surprise but I am slightly confused as to how the CPS can say there is no realistic proposition of prosecution when the act is on film.

I hope some other evidence comes out at the inquest - the guy was walking home and would still be alive now if it had not been for an over-zealous police officer knocking him to the ground for no apparent reason.

Same with Blair Peach, Kevin Gately and these are just a few which made it to the press. Take a look at the facial expressions of the armed police during the Moat episode, they speak volumes.

Imagine if a member of the public had been caught on video battering someone around the head with a baton, in a totally unprovoked attack, who subsequently died?

Imagine if the person they battered were a police officer?

I'm sure they wouldn't be facing prosecution either, would they?

[i]cynic-al - Member
Hobo - like you'd be saying that if he was your brother?[/i]

My brothers have the sense to avoid areas where riots are taking place. Makes sense to me.

[i]yossarian - Member
stop talking shite hobo

the police have gotten away with it again, its no real surprise but I am slightly confused as to how the CPS can say there is no realistic proposition of prosecution when the act is on film.[/i]

And if i were to ask you to stop talking shite would it make me any more correct about my opinion?

seems like it is the independant CPS lawyers who have made the decision not to prosecute NOT the police

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.

Take a look at the facial expressions of the armed police during the Moat episode, they speak volumes.

You can convict folk on facial expressions? All police must appear calm in that situations? Jeez!

i do believe that it's important that the police aren't allowed to [s]beat people to death[/s] push old people over who have their hands in their pockets.

yes, i expect high standards from the police

Right, let's be clear about Keir Starmer's statement. PC "A", as far as the CPS is concerned, assaulted Mr Tomlinson. There was no justification in law for the attack, which is well evidenced from the video footage. He could not be charged with common assault because such a charge has to be brought within 6 months of the incident.

PC "A" assaulted Mr Tomlinson, who died shortly afterwards. Medical evidence on the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death was contradictory. As a result there was not a good likelihood of a prosecution for maslaughter succeeding, because proving the direct causal link between the assault and the subsequent death would have been difficult.

He was not charged with misconduct in public office, because that's a biggie and (the CPS rightly thinks) not to be used as a substitute for other offences simply because a public servant is involved.

Anyone who thinks that the police officer's conduct was acceptable, fine, the CPS does not agree with you. What the CPS says is that it isn't able to prosecute him for manslaughter because of contradictory medical evidence, and isn't able to prosecute the assault because it's out of time.

And there, I think, we can close that particularly sorry and sordid incident. 😐

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.

I don't get how the two things are linked easygirl. Whilst i can undertsand that the conclusions of the various autopsies make a manslaughter prosecution unviable how is that connected to the two other charges? There is clear evidence of an assault on the victim by a police officer.

EDIT: BD's summary has answered that question I guess 🙁

hobo - your attitude towards the death of an entirely innocent man indicates a lack of empathy towards your fellow man, poor you

Hobo you really need to consider the evidence before making ludicrous pronouncements. There was no riot, the police were 'kettling' peaceful protesters i.e. containing them in small groups with riot shields for hours on end. Tomlinson was there because he was a newspaper vendor. Deary me.

For crying out loud get over it!! Not enough evidence (despite massive scrutiny and video taken and 3 post mortems) so you CAN'T go to court. Are at all aware of how the law works?

Or are you happy we go ahead and start prosecuting and convicting people without sufficient evidence - just because people are outraged the "target" should be banged up?

You'll be screaming "burn the witch!" next. 🙄

BillMC, I don't hink you can compare split second photos of a state of armed urgency where Police surrounded an armed man who had already killed and wounded several people with the film of an overzelous spooked riot officer.

I'm sure a few snaps of troops in combat might show them shouting and running and possibly not maintining the rigid disciline of the parade ground too.

However I am no apologist for the Ian Thomlinson case.

roddob - the problem is an assault took place - I don;t think anyone denies this. The fact that there was such a huge delay on the whole thing meant that the officer can't be prosecuted for assault (and insufficient evidence for anythign more serious).

That's what upset people - some bloke was batoned for no reason and the person who did it has received no punishment despite their identify being known almost from day one.

Beating a guy with his back to you and his hands in his pockets is "putting a foot wrong"?

Since when has not having the sense to be in the wrong place at the wrong time been deserved of a battering?

DOH!

And the massive media interest/protesting probably didn't help in bringing the case for assault in under 6 months. I find it hard to do my simple cases in 6 months.

I believ Mr Moats family are questioning his autopsy results. They want to blame the police for tazering him to death rather than him blowing his head off. The police have to be able to protect the public with an element of imunity otherwise we will never get control of our ferrel society

it is a very depressing state of affairs

was the first post mortem a stitch up (no pun intended)?

why were the details of the 3rd post mortem never publicised?

why did it take so long to come to this conclusion, conveniently making it impossible to prosecute the police officer?

the entire thing stinks of the system looking out for its own, just like demenezes

Hobo, I think the late Mr Tomlinson was in the wrong place and was trying to get away from it. He was not part of the protest, he was trying to earn a living.

Uneasy reading easygirl, will we need two medical experts at every PM; blimey, like [i]Silent Witness[/i].

[i]hobo - your attitude towards the death of an entirely innocent man indicates a lack of empathy towards your fellow man, poor you [/i]

Haha, i dont need your sympathy. And you wont get my sympathy when the police fail to turn up when you are getting bum raped by big bubba in some dark alley whilst your wife is getting a portion off 5 other gang mates. All because they are scared to respond in case someone is watching them on video and claims they were a little heavy handed when they acosted the rather horny fellows

Is it lunchtime? I think it is.

I just feel sorry for the family of Mr Tomlinson. While he wasn't a well man, he didn't deserve to die in such circumstances. The injustice is the fact that the officer who struck a man walking away with his hands in his pockets presenting absolutely no threat, will never receive any form of punishment, which he truly deserves. So, the officer has 'got away with it'. The ins and outs of what charges should have been made, are now irrelevant. The justice system has failed to bring to account an individual who has clearly broken the law.

In truth, the very public nature of this particular case detracts from many other incidents of police brutality. By the same token, how many football hooligans etc have escaped prosecution, for comitting offences far worse than at the G20 demonstration?

Cases such as this, Blair Peach, Colin Roach, Harry Stanley and many others do little to instill faith in the justice system when it comes to violent police officers. But on the flip side, the killer of PC Keith Blakelock has never been brought to justice either. Although we can expect perhaps greater efforts to be made in that particular case, than in a case like Blair Peach.

The Moat case and the Tomlinson case a completely different and in no way should be linked or confused!

In the Tomlinson case the law is clearly an ass!

In my view, the way we go about policing demonstrations is completely wrong. The police seem to act illegally at demonstrations on a fairly regular basis, and get away with it. Considering the restrictions we have on the right to demonstrate, that's pretty impressive.

I think The Littlest Hobo is taking things to extremes just a little.

[i]Hobo, I think the late Mr Tomlinson was in the wrong place and was trying to get away from it. He was not part of the protest, he was trying to earn a living.[/i]

I know that and i think if you read my original post i dont really dwell on the rights and wrongs of the case. I rather imply that these things will happen from time to time given the nature of todays society. I firmly believ that over analysing these types of incidents and over regulating the police force is do much much more damage to the standard of policing on the wholse than a few incidents where it is questionable about the polices actions over the last 10-15yrs.

Haha, i dont need your sympathy. And you wont get my sympathy when the police fail to turn up when you are getting bum raped by big bubba in some dark alley whilst your wife is getting a portion off 5 other gang mates. All because they are scared to respond in case someone is watching them on video and claims they were a little heavy handed when they acosted the rather horny fellows

?

two further autopsies agreed that death was result of abdominal haemorrhage caused by blow in assoc with cirrhosis of liver

not quite as clear cut as that Drac...

Both further autopsies made conclusions based on a mistake in the report of the first. None of the autopsies found evidence of any rupture in the abdomen.

how come the CPS document doesn't comment on the fact that the guy was an alcoholic and was suffering from alcohol-related disease and that was a contributory factor in his death, and was p*ssed at the time?
or is that not considered when deciding whether to prosecute?
.
this is not necessarily my opinion, but just wondering why it's not mentioned.

the fact that the guy was an alcoholic and was suffering from alcohol-related disease and that was a contributory factor in his death, and was p*ssed at the time?

That he was an alcoholic, ill or pissed is irrelevant to whether PC "A"'s strike was an assault. It isn't legal to hit people just because they're pissed.

Whether these facts have any bearing on the cause of death is a matter for the medical evidence. The pathologists' reports refer to the state of his liver. The medical evidence does not suggest that he died of being drunk, but it does not establish well enough to prosecute that he died of being hit.

Or maybe we could just say the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and if he had any sense he shouldnt have been in the middle of a riot situation.

Why did the cps wait so long

I'm not 100% sure, but if the victim is already dead I don't think you can prosecute someone for a common assault immediately, and then later prosecute for manslaughter for the same incident. So if they'd gone for the assault charge they'd have got a conviction, but couldn't then have prosecuted for manslaughter even if the medical evidence had been in better shape. I'm not sure anyone would have welcomed that outcome particularly, although with hindsight it would have been an improvement.

Just like life there are all sorts of people in the Police force some good, some bad. What is different though is that in the Police your decisions will have outcomes way beyond those in most peoples jobs. What is also different is that their actions are routinely scrutinsied by independant external organisations. Generally I'm comfortable with that, especially when I don't want to do their job myself. Likewise I'm comfortable with those who abuse their position to face the penalties for theior actions just like everyone else has to. Thats does appear to be the case here.

Regarding Tomlinson, the investigation has taken a great deal of time and trouble to review all of the evidence, (not just that which suits a particular bias), and has come to a reasoned conclusion. Personally I'm on the side that says if something looks like its going to be trouble then its probably good sense to go the other way. Tomlinson didn't and to that extent, and perhaps due to his alcoholism put himself into harms way. Not right to die for that error of judgement, but definately didn't help himself.

Regarding Moat. There is no comparision. Mad, bad or sad, he has killed, maimed and brutalised viciously and without justification. Once more I don't want me or mine to have to deal with that, and I'm gald that there are people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to do so on my behalf. They will be fully investigated as a matter of course, which is also right and proper. Good luck to them, and I hope that they come away unscathed in every sense should they deserve to.

It isn't legal to hit people just because they're pissed.

that's what I figured, but the fact that he was pissed might have led to him being hit.
but I guess that would be discussed if the case had gone to court rather than using it as a decision to prosecute.
.
in my opinion, the main problem here is the 6 month rule, I wonder how this came about and what the basis for it is...

It is legal to use force to move someone willfully obstructing the police though...

I've watched for more than 20 yrs the police serving the community to serving their own ends.
I've watched the police body slam into the ground suspect who have surrendered and are standing with their hands raised,PC plod then slams into them because it seems a suspect standing up is a risk and the only way to reduce it is to have their suspect lying face down with their hands cuffed behind them[usually in a stress position]
I do blame the Government for some of these changes but the police tactics themselves must take most of the blame
Kettling.Against the European human rights ruling,but the police still do it and despite their denials has been proven by several highstanding HR lawyers and broadsheet journalists
So they break human rights and are aware they are doing so.This suggests that they would break other human rights laws if instructed to 😕
"Just following orders Guv"
Highly trained armed response teams that cant distinguish between a Glock and umbrella and a table leg,and believe a man with a knife is of such great danger to the armed officer to justify shooting him from 30yrds away,what is he going to do?? Throw it! 😯
Police tactic
Why bust a drug dealer?,that only gives you one arrest statistic
Sit just down the road and bust the customers as they come out gives you a whole raft of arrests and helps meet set targets without having to do that much[and every junkie busted still needs his fix so will probably commit another crime to pay for it
Dearer still operating and for every junkie with his stuff taken off him is an extra crime is commited.
Dont start me on them using WHATEVER legislation to justify their actions
Busting grannies on some terrorist laws,preventing journalists from reporting using the same laws
Give the beat cop guns and theyll only use it to kill first ask questions later,we see this with the tazer.suspect on the ground wont stop struggling,tazer the ****er,that will sort him out.

Report a crime and get involved
Not bloody likely

I am confirdent enough in my ability to avoid a situation like this. As i said, i would rather take my chances of this happening to me and a less restrained police force doing a good job.

the fact that he was pissed might have led to him being hit

It has literally no bearing on whether it was legitimate to hit him. Police officers can hit people for pretty much the same reasons you and I can. I'm sure the officer was annoyed by Mr Tomlinson, and no doubt the fact (if such it is) that Tomlinson was the worse for wear contributed to that. But the issue is whether the actions of PC "A" were legally justified. The CPS conclusion is that:

At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC 'A' or any other police officer. 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.

As i said, i would rather take my chances of this happening to me and a less restrained police force doing a good job.

Well i can only hope an unrestrained copper beats some sense in to you or gets carried away and removes you from the gene pool.

Lets all have a round of applause for Hobo for his undoubted abilities.

And his charm

[applauds]

[claps slowly]

Ok, ready for a bit of a flaming but here goes...

First time today i have seen the footage of Mr Tomlinson and as far as I see it:

1. He was clearly not listening to the Police and walking around like a little school boy deliberately going slowly to provoke them.

2. Police officer pushes him to move him on and he falls over

3. Don't see any use of a baton or being smacked with this, was just a shuve.

Its a tragic event but if the fall was accountable for Mr Tomlinsons death then it looks very apparent that it was unintentional and a tragic accident.

Personally I'm on the side that says if something looks like its going to be trouble then its probably good sense to go the other way. Tomlinson didn't and to that extent, and perhaps due to his alcoholism put himself into harms way. Not right to die for that error of judgement, but definately didn't help himself.

Bloody hell, this was just a protest, they happen all the bloody time in London. It was a bunch of grumpy hippies, and a load of police. It was bang in the middle of London in the day. It wasn't like he wandered into a dodgy estate in Elephant & Castle at 3am in the morning and moaned that he got mugged. The very supposed professionals that were supposed to keep him safe actually decided to beat him up, and the evidence suggests there wasn't any provocation even (not that a police officer beating someone to death is justified even with provocation obviously).

Regarding Tomlinson, the investigation has taken a great deal of time and trouble to review all of the evidence, (not just that which suits a particular bias), and has come to a reasoned conclusion.

The reasoned conclusion it came to is that the police officer involved was blatantly guilty of assault, but that due to legal complications they couldn't get him on that, and was quite likely guilty of manslaughter, but they didn't have a chance of conviction, due to the medical experts disagreeing. That is hardly saying the police are squeaky clean.

Haha, i dont need your sympathy. And you wont get my sympathy when the police fail to turn up when you are getting bum raped by big bubba in some dark alley whilst your wife is getting a portion off 5 other gang mates. All because they are scared to respond in case someone is watching them on video and claims they were a little heavy handed when they acosted the rather horny fellows

Right, the point where you lost me, and I just thought what an unfeeling scumbag bastard you must be, was the point where you equated police brutality on innocent bystanders at a (not very violent otherwise) protest, to police handling of rapists in dark alleys. It is really depressing that anyone can really think that the job police are supposed to do at protests is in any way similar to the job police are supposed to do when responding to a violent crime.

Joe

Can anyone ever recall a high profile case of brutality/excessive force/ unlawful killing that has actually gone against the police ?

They usually just get away with it don't they ?

I'm a bit concerned about why The Littlest Hobo has imagined such a horrible scenario, actually. Do you fantasise about situations like that a lot?

Lunchtime over. Back to the grindstone.

so they didn't baton him eh?

[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-video [/url]

erm......

I was going on this video which shows no baton.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274 ]BBC News[/url]

Interesting, they choose not to proceed because autopsy's 2 & 3 (which apparently agreed with each other) did not agree with the findings of the first autopsy.

Seems a genuine basis for not being able to secure a conviction, until you consider that autopsy number 1 was performed by a possibly-soon-to-be-discredited coroner...

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/pathologist+faces+misconduct+charges/3716682

You'd have at least thought they'd wait for the findings of the GMC hearing?

[i]I'm a bit concerned about why The Littlest Hobo has imagined such a horrible scenario, actually. Do you fantasise about situations like that a lot?[/i]

Actually because another person (Who i respect) used a similar example when discussing another topic with me on another site. It made me think again about my comments and discuss the matter without my blinkers on. It didnt work on this site but then i should have known that. If you can move on from the comment my point remains. The police are in a no win situation i dont believe all this over analysing of incidents is good for future policing.

How often do we get threads on here about the police using motoring convictions as easy policing and cash earners? Maybe its because actually getting there hands dirty brings with it a very high risk of being held accountable.

I would prefer everything to be honest and above board, but i dont live in a world like that. I live in a world where people are only out for themselves and if they can work the system to their own advantages then they will. The police need a little slack to be able to effectively police it.

If you just want to dwell on the comment i made, well there you go

[i]Right, the point where you lost me, and I just thought what an unfeeling scumbag bastard you must be, was the point where you equated police brutality on innocent bystanders at a (not very violent otherwise) protest, to police handling of rapists in dark alleys. It is really depressing that anyone can really think that the job police are supposed to do at protests is in any way similar to the job police are supposed to do when responding to a violent crime.

Joe
[/i]

If i was a fellow police officer i would be questioning my own actions in everything i did. If someone was in a rape situation i would therefore question my actions before jumping in. What i was getting at is that as a civilised citizen i want my police force to have an element of act first, think later.

Ok, better example. How many reports have we seen of police watching people drown because health and safety reasons wont allow them to jump in after the person. In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery. These days he would get a written warning.

We cant have it both ways.

[i]In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery[/i]

or going home in a box with a medal pinned to it anyway, which is what the rules are there to prevent.

If you can move on from the comment my point remains.

No, it doesn't. In your scenario, a crime is being committed, people are in danger. In Mr Tomlinson's case, no crime was being committed. Mr Tomlinson was not part of some "feral society" that needed Judge Dredd style summary justice meting out to it, he was just a bit annoying and in the way. Sophisticated policing ought to be able to discriminate between two such different situations. Stopping a violent rape taking place is always going to be a legitimate use of force, and there is considerable latitude to use quite a lot of force. Lashing out at someone who isn't committing a crime and poses no threat does not assist in any sane objective of policing.

What do you think a police force is [i]for[/i] that "over-analysis" of a blatant assault on a member of the public hinders it doing its job?

Interesting, they choose not to proceed because autopsy's 2 & 3 (which apparently agreed with each other) did not agree with the findings of the first autopsy.

Seems a genuine basis for not being able to secure a conviction, until you consider that autopsy number 1 was performed by a possibly-soon-to-be-discredited coroner...

Have you read the report? Both the second and third autopsy based their findings on a mistake in the report of the first autopsy. There is no evidence of an abdominal haemorrhage.

There are other aspects of the whole police attitude to peaceful protests that are deeply worrying. This just highlights the extremes. It is law that the police have to display their numbers on their uniform so they can be individually identified. The police involved in protests have taken to removing them as a matter of course.

Now.... what legitmate reason can they have for doing this? Unless its to avoid being identified? And I'm sorry... but the Ian Tomlinson case is the inevitable result of all this. We have a poice force that now thinks its above the law and can opporate however it likes with complete impunity.

Todays decision just reinforces that impression to every serving officer. Zero accountability to the public they are allegedly there to 'serve'

How many reports have we seen of police watching people drown because health and safety reasons wont allow them to jump in after the person

Er... None that I recall though I'm sure that one could be dug up. H&S is generally used as an excuse not to do things rather than being the real reason. Eg quite understandably, a Policeman might choose not to do something really risky to save someone even though in a perfect world, they may be brave enough to do it irrespective.

[i]Sophisticated policing[/i]
pmsl.

And at what point do you think we are capable of this?

We are a near bankrupt country
We have a police force which will take a selection of our society which has already proven itself to be less than moral
We limit our police at every oppertunity
We prosecute our police at every oppertunity
We then expect them to be sophisticated.

Yeah right, ok then.

[i]In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery

or going home in a box with a medal pinned to it anyway, which is what the rules are there to prevent.[/i]
You roll your dice you take your chances. As someone pointed out earlier, if that was your child drowning, which way would you prefer the policeman to act.

Have you swallowed a copy of the Daily Mail or something? There is not some terrible "PC/Human Rights/Liberal/Elf'n'safety" agenda that must be taken as a whole or rejected entirely. It's a false dichotomy.

To my mind, there's no reason why the police should be shoving anyone over for dawdling along in front of them. If he's committing a crime, then they can nick him. If not, leave him alone. I think most people feel that way about the Police. They want people who aren't committing crimes to be left alone.

On the other hand, the police would be perfectly within their rights to use physical force in the event of a violent attack against a person, as would you or I. These eventualities are covered under our existing law.

It's not an either / or situation where we can have efficient policing or we can have human rights. There is a trade off, much as there is between surveillance and security. Anyone presenting the argument that we can only have one or the other is very wide of the mark.

[i]Er... None that I recall though I'm sure that one could be dug up[/i]

You have got to be kidding. I read about it all the time. Police/fireman refused to help due to risks to their own safety (ie health & safety)

On the other hand, binners, I think you're being quite hysterical about it all. If Tomlinson had been shown to have died as a result of the Policeman's actions (say, he'd fallen, broken a rib, punctured lung, etc - extreme but possible) by a coroner's report then the outcome would have been quite different. I suspect that the police will be quite aware of that. As BD explained, while it doesn't seem right, the legal processes we have in place meant that [b]in this case[/b] the policeman got away with it. In many others, he'd have been done for assault or potentially something more serious.

Links please Hobo. Otherwise it's just Daily Mail type hysteria over H&S.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2512401.ece

Link doesn't work for me.

I searched myself and found two examples (oddly enough, both in the Mail...) that seemed to be the main ones (eg I found the same stories a few times)
http://www.****/news/article-1165634/Girl-5-loses-fight-life-house-killed-family-police-held-neighbours-desperate-help.html
http://www.****/news/article-1247048/Health-safety-stopped-police-saving-drunk-man-killed-motorway.html

I didn't find loads of them though, certainly not enough to read about them all the time unless you were endlessly repeating the same story to suit your own agenda.

Further searching found the article below which I reckon is about right.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100026591/its-not-health-safety-that-holds-back-todays-police-its-cowardice/

The whole g20/tomlinson issue goes to the heart of how we are policed in the 21st century.

As far back as 2004 the Met were in the shite for hiding their ID numbers at protests in London and the use of kettling to disrupt and fragment largely peaceful protests has been in use for a least a decade. I think that the underlying reason for the attack on IT was the orders from Whitehall to the police to ensure that the protest was actively and agressively managed to prevent negative publicity in the shadow of the summit taking place down the road.

The police on the ground will follow orders, the question that will now stay unanswered is who told them to do what on that day.

We then expect them to be sophisticated.

Yeah right, ok then.

Sorry, I've now completely lost Hobo's point. As I now understand it, the police should be allowed to hit innocent people without being prosecuted, because if they can't there's no possible way they could be expected to stop gang rapes. It is impossible (despite the fact that 99% of them do all the time) to expect police officers to respond appropriately to different situations. This unpalatable situation is [i]caused[/i] by the recent financial crisis, and also by the fact that policemen are generally immoral.

I think the applause was premature, the encore is just getting better.

Sorry, I've now completely lost Hobo's point.

a comment made pricipally to insult based on a flawed argument now defended to the death seems to be a starter?