Merrick
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 27, 2010, 13:43
|
|
I agree with you, but he shouldn't be hung out to dry on his own. What he did was what thousands of cops did that day, and at countless other events. It was standard practice. There is footage of all those too, the only difference being that the victims didn't die after those other assaults.
|
Toni Torino
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 27, 2010, 13:54
|
|
But he should be hung out to dry, alone or not. F*ck him. Maybe as a publicity super-charged test case this could change something to the good, legislation perhaps, or police practices when policing protest events, or, god forbid, even police attitudes. Something has to change somehow.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 28, 2010, 20:54
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. I just meant that I'm wary of the police's 'one bad apple misbehaving, aren't we good for weeding him out' option.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 29, 2010, 01:42
|
|
I understand what you are saying, but in this case, I believe the responsibility is with "Command and Control". The person who shot Jean-Charles was just a "remote gun"...he/she had engagement orders, with the relevant command/control escalation procedures in place, to back it up. I believe "the other" Blair is responsible for this unlawful killing..
|
stray
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 29, 2010, 09:19
|
|
Merrick wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. I just meant that I'm wary of the police's 'one bad apple misbehaving, aren't we good for weeding him out' option.
I concur. However they are trying to say they're doing more than that. I was listening to some bloke from the IPCC the other day who was making assurances that in the light of what happened at G20 changes have been made in the way such events are policed. Um.... What changes ? Can we have the details ? I mean they had four independent investigations into G20 that I heard about, but I can't find any of their recommendations, nor a list of what changes the met have made. What I have found is the recommendation that
"All items of equipment worn by police should have the officer's shoulder number attached and clearly visible." It would make a change if they wore numbers at all frankly. Oh and that officers should have 8 hour rest breaks between shifts *shrug*. Is there anything else do you know of ? I'm having trouble finding owt.
Also, have the family of Ian Tomlinson received the report from the IPCC about the officers conduct which they said they'd give yet ?
|
Toni Torino
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Jul 29, 2010, 13:58
|
|
Merrick wrote: Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you.
Shit, my career as a Polemicist is over before it began!
All that is necessary for good to triumph is for evil men to do nothing. No, wait...
To be honest at this stage if there were mass prosecutions of Rozzers the fallout would be such that I'd be afraid to step out of my front door.
If only one were to "take one for the team" but real change were to come of it, I could live with that. Almost a plea bargain.
|
Merrick
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Aug 19, 2010, 10:27
|
So, the reason they didn't prosecute the cop was because the first pathologist's autopsy conflicts with the two subsequent ones.
Today, we find out that the first pathologist wasn't qualified to do the autopsy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705
|
machineryelf
|
Re: Ian Tomlinson cop: no charges
Aug 19, 2010, 12:48
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/7904804/G20-riots-profile-of-Dr-Freddy-Patel.html
Considering that this was obviously going to be a high profile case you wonder why this man was ever involved, big job in the public eye that is going to be picked over with a fine toothcomb, I'd be inclined to put my best man on the job, not someone with a prior bad record
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-story-justice-denied
from this article
'Leading forensic pathologists say privately that they were astounded to learn such a controversial postmortem would be entrusted to an expert who was no longer thought to be actively dealing with suspicious cases.
Patel has since been barred from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and from carrying out postmortems in "suspicious death" cases.
Matthews has declined to say why he chose Patel. One theory was that the coroner was recommended Patel's services by City of London police. The force has declined to comment.'
more fuel for the conspiricist theories, this article doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the police either
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5749486/Officer-under-investigation-over-Ian-Tomlinsons-death-should-not-have-been-working-for-Met.html
as has already been pointed out . whatever angle you view this from it does the police no favours at all.
|
