Ian Tomlinson – another police stitch up

Surprise surprise! No police officer will face any charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

So you cover your police numbers up, you lamp someone around the head with a baton, who is walking away from you with their hands in their pockets. Whose posing no threat to anyone, let a alone you.

And you walk away to carry on your life and police career. Another total whitewash. Did anyone expect anything different?

Did anyone expect anything different?

not really.

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

http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/6801

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.

And folk moan about policing – perhaps they are a bit under-resourced?

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!

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.

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…

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?

cynic-al – Member
Hobo – like you'd be saying that if he was your brother?

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

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.

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 beat people to death 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 Silent Witness.

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

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.

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 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.