...back in April 2009, when I posted on the Ian Tomlinson case.
Not totally wrong. I wasn't wrong about the fact that the police have a tough job to do, and face unwelcome attention from all sides of the public divide when things go wrong. But I was certainly wrong to place any kind of faith in the justice system to see justice done.
We know now that that simply isn't to be. Either through incompetence or design (or both? I could well believe it!), the CPS have chosen not to proceed with the case.
The officer still faces internal disciplinary charges. Big deal. It's not enough. It never should be, when uniformed agents of the crown are seen to be above the law.
How did the police blogs react to this? Well, so far, most haven't. But Inspector Gadget waded in, in a post of such spectacular crassness that it fair takes the breath away.
In fact it's hard to see how it could be bettered unless, the next time a plane nose-dives into a mountain and flight-recorder tapes emerge of flight crew incompetence ("Hey, co-pilot! Hold my beer and watch this!"), the airline company immediately displays yesterday's flight schedule on its website and says 'See! Look at all the ones that don't crash!'...
Update: As a palate-cleanser after reading Gadget's post, I recommend this.
All fucking POlice must fucking die
ReplyDeleteI would not like to be a police officer of the crown tonight when most upstanding citizens will know that what has been suspected for a long time is true........
ReplyDeleteFUCK THE poLICE
ReplyDeleteBBC's front page.....vets are cruel to our pets
ReplyDeleteand then, and then, and then
btw the police blogs will remain silent because they have the right to remain silent and kill you.....
ReplyDeleteDisgusting.
ReplyDeleteA bystander was attacked from behind, with a weapon, on film for all the world to see, dies and there's no case to answer? Seriously?
Contrary to Anonymous, above, I believe we do need a police force and legal system but we absolutely do not need the ones we have now. I just despair at this country sometimes ...
Anonymous @ 18:08
ReplyDeletePerhaps one day in the distant future it will be possible to conduct ourselves without need of police - but for the time being they remain an essential feature of a civilised society. That being so, it is essential police have our trust and confidence. Where are we now that the law abiding have lost all respect for them?
Every citizen was humiliated today by a cruel neglect of justice for ordinary men, coincidental with the most widespread mistrust of police in our history. Those very serious situations require appropriate government action; no more inquiries, promises and commissions if you please, Mr Cameron.
Many dismiss the possibility of any major civil unrest arising from today's news but what is more certain is a new haste to reach that critical tipping point.
That's why I stopped visiting Gadgets blog some time back. Too much congratulatory back slapping from his colleagues.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know they have a pretty shit job to do, but no one forced them to take that line of work. And to pretend that they never make an error of judgement is just absurd.
Millions of people do wonderful things every day with little praise. Occasionally they f**k up, and get jumped on from a great height. Why should the police be treated any differently than we would in the same situation?
And the timing, too, just a week after iDave's handwringing and lipcurling over the Facebook/Moat debacle, followed by that vacuous Big Society schtick. Can he not see that the Great Unwashed connect these events?
ReplyDeleteSo the Police have got away with lying and perjuring in the Menendez case, and they have got away with lying and perjuring in this case.
ReplyDeleteIt would take a great deal of evidence to make me side with Raoul Moat, but the Metropolitan Police seem determined to provide it
.
You do not need to be a PC in order to save a small child's life, just a human. You could (if you are a PCSO) stand by and watch children drown though, if you like.
ReplyDeleteYou do, however, need to be a PC to be able to inflict injuries on an old man, whilst covering your face and having illegally removed you ID numbers, to such an extent that he dies from internal bleeding, minutes later, even though he walking away from you, with his back to you, with his hands in his pockets. You do need to be a PC to obtain a false Post Mortem report to show that no internal bleeding was present, and the man in fact died of a heart attack. You do need to be a PC to get your mate Kier Starmer to avoid the issue for over a year, and then not press charges OF ANY KIND, even though excellent video footage exists.
Imagine if the roles were reversed; if the old man had pushed a copper, and hit him with a metal bar around the legs. No charges? Not likely, is it?
People like Gadget are the reason that people like me will go out of way NOT to assist the Police in any way whatsoever, when just 15 years ago I would have done almost anything for them.
The only difference (I'm REALLY serious) between the Police 'Service' in the UK and the SA in '30's Germany is the colour of the uniforms.
My heart goes out to the family and loved ones of this real victim of crime, and if he were my father, justice would be done. Repeatedly.
It would have cost a lot the tax payer a lot of money but the Officer being found Not Guilty in a Court rather than Not guilty by CPS might have brought a better sense of closure.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there was a CPS/IPCC cover up, but the circumstances of the case are likely to make some people think otherwise.
A message for Gadget (who btw has closed comments)
ReplyDeletewhat if that was your dad who was face planted by one of the Met's finest?
To protect and serve (themselves)?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296122/Police-spend-time-holiday-work.html
ReplyDeleteI say that I don't believe that the CPS would have gone through with a prosecution because of the conflicting medical reports, no matter how many '...Barbecue a cop, I hate the police but I am too scared to identify myself' type morons might like the idea of one of the Met's finest ending up in the dock.
ReplyDeleteThis introduced an element of doubt, sufficient in my view for those charged with defending the police officer in court in a subsequent trial to successfully argue that he should not be found guilty. That is a harsh, but true fact of life, but perhaps the family and the public at large might have preferred that he was in fact tried before a jury, on a charge of manslaughter. The Metropolitan Police would not then have suffered another PR disaster, having fouled up, albeit in more understandable circumstances, with DeMenezies. The CPS also fouled up badly by failing to examine the case within a six month period so that at the very least they could consider Common Assault, however prosecutions for offences of this nature MUST be commenced within six months and even in this simple task, they failed. I am not surprised, having been the recipient of some very poor case handling by them.
I note that in one medical report the late Mr. Tomlinson was noted to have cirrosis of the liver - and he was reportedly an alcoholic and inebriated at the time of death) Given his poor state of health, he could perhaps have pegged it at any time, unfortunately, he chose to do so just after some numbskull had clouted him with a baton, for no reason. Rules for using batons are unequivocal. He should not have been struck. Who is to say that the trauma of that incident resulted in him suffering a collapse? Perhaps his understandable agitation at being so treated was the catalyst? The 'egg-shell skull' rule - a legal principle - you take your victim as you find him - appears to apply here, so I am very surprised that they did not run the case on a manslaughter basis, for all the positive PR reasons I elucidated earlier... Having said all of the above, I doubt very much if the officer will cling on to his job. All police officers are subject to a 'double jeopardy' regime of the law and the Discipline Regulations. The burden of proof in many instances is not the criminal burden, the civil burden applies and I believe that he will be found guilty of misconduct in public office, or some other similar offence and booted out.
Gadget has closed the comments on the link you give. If it was that one about the little girl having a fit, then it has a curious symmetry with the Penny Mellor post. Mellor has provided research sifting for numerous cases based around children having fits.
ReplyDeleteWhat normally happens in these cases if it concerns very small children, is that the mother or carer is accused of harming the child.
If the child dies e.g. Henderson, Holdsworth, and several others involving specifically fits, the expert witnesses then look for the "triad" symptoms which are supposed to indicate SBS (shaken baby syndrome).
Some experts argue these symptoms can be caused by other events which are not shaking. Other experts argue that they are infallible signs of inflicted injury.
The CPS seems to be saying that if there is a dispute about the precise cause of death, then it mustn't go to a jury in the first place. Well, OK, but why then did the CPS press adhead with prosecutions of Suzanne Holdsworth (murder conviction overturned on appeal, acquitted at retrial), Marianne Williams(*) (acquitted at retrial), Ian and Angela Gay(*)(acquitted at re-trial), Linda Wise (case discontinued on instructions of judge, who said he became aware that the evidence being presented was simply not strong enough to be put before the jury).
Most recently, Keran Henderson's manslaughter conviction was upheld on appeal. The court made it clear that it was upholding the right of the jury to construe meaning on the evidence in front of it,
but carefully repeated that it couldn't see any explanation for why Henderson must have 'cracked'.
The point is: the CPS proceeded with the cases although it knew the experts would not agree with each other. Mere disagreement is not normally regarded as a reason for pulling a case.
*Williams and Gay were both salt cases rather than SBS. How the salt got in to them is the disputed issue.
So PC purposefully anonymous, you have the right to remain silent but you are a murdering mother fucking cunt.
ReplyDeleteThe parallels drawn between other state terrorists are not valid because our police fuck everyone without prejudice, most state thugs are ordered to target some group identified by religion, ethnicity, age, sex or creed. In this case, for no personal or professional gain, simply because we are forced under law to pay for the police to hate us, all of us.
If your thinking of joining the police believe this: you will have to treat yourself and your colleagues the same as everyone else in law or fucking die.
"All fucking POlice must fucking die"
ReplyDeleteI can't see that as a sensible suggestion, frankly. Try again.
"I would not like to be a police officer of the crown tonight when most upstanding citizens will know that what has been suspected for a long time is true........"
Maybe it could be argued, for the denser members of the force, that if they thought it was a case of 'us and them' before, they haven't seen nothin' yet?
So, chaps - still consider this the right verdict?
"BBC's front page.....vets are cruel to our pets"
And yet over at Gadget's, they are convinced that the BBC is 'out to get them'...
"btw the police blogs will remain silent because they have the right to remain silent and kill you....."
Not all of them are. But then, those that blog are likely to be a tiny minority. And maybe unrepresentative?
"Contrary to Anonymous, above, I believe we do need a police force and legal system but we absolutely do not need the ones we have now."
Something needs to change. We CANNOT carry on like this. iDave's 'Big Society' seems further away and more unlikely than ever now...
"...for the time being they remain an essential feature of a civilised society. That being so, it is essential police have our trust and confidence. Where are we now that the law abiding have lost all respect for them?"
That's what needs to be repaired. Not the police-hating anarchists and the criminals - they are never going to like or trust the police.
But 'middle England'? They are the ones that need to be won over, and yet the state seems to be on a deliberate collision course with them.
"Millions of people do wonderful things every day with little praise. Occasionally they f**k up, and get jumped on from a great height. Why should the police be treated any differently than we would in the same situation?"
ReplyDeleteI see Gadget's continuing with the 'Look at us doing our jobs and not killing anyone!'
Well, if he wants to take that tack, fine. Yes, there are plenty of examples of that.
But they are fast being outweighed by all the other examples. They are news. Sadly, the others are not. He's in a race he can't win.
"And the timing, too..."
As Old Holborn pointed out, five years since De Menezes too...
"It would take a great deal of evidence to make me side with Raoul Moat, but the Metropolitan Police seem determined to provide it"
Sadly, that seems to have become their new mission statement!
"You do not need to be a PC in order to save a small child's life, just a human."
Agreed. And the newspapers will print 'good news' items. Yes, even when someone is doing their job.
But they'll print the opposite just as happily.
"It would have cost a lot the tax payer a lot of money but the Officer being found Not Guilty in a Court rather than Not guilty by CPS might have brought a better sense of closure."
Agreed. Most people would accept that. It's the ruling out of that approach that sticks in the craw. Plus the bizarre reference to the conflicting expert evidence.
As WoaR points out, that doesn't usually stop the CPS, does it?
"The CPS also fouled up badly by failing to examine the case within a six month period so that at the very least they could consider Common Assault, however prosecutions for offences of this nature MUST be commenced within six months and even in this simple task, they failed."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they seem to be saying 'Oh, well, you WOULD all come and give evindence, and that made our job garder, and so we ran out of time and this is therefore all YOUR fault' isn't going to help matters, is it?
"Having said all of the above, I doubt very much if the officer will cling on to his job. All police officers are subject to a 'double jeopardy' regime of the law and the Discipline Regulations. The burden of proof in many instances is not the criminal burden, the civil burden applies and I believe that he will be found guilty of misconduct in public office, or some other similar offence and booted out."
I've little doubt. But that's not going to be accepted by the wider public. Particularly not as, according to a Tweet I got yesterday, he already had a bad record regarding conduct.
"Gadget has closed the comments on the link you give. If it was that one about the little girl having a fit, then it has a curious symmetry with the Penny Mellor post."
I hadn't noticed that!
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2075192_duo_sent_back_to_jail_10_years_after_pensioners_death
ReplyDeleteOh Look: a jury can cope with this kind of thing. Who'd have guessed it?
Further to my comments yesterday - it seems that the officer has something of a dubious past, per the Daily Telegraph today - as regards disciplinary matters - left the Met under a cloud, whilst suspended over an off duty incident, rejoined as a 'civvie' computer programmer, then joined Surrey as a PC, then rejoined the Met... Hmmmm! I can hear the knives being sharpened as I type this!! BTW, I am not the same Anonymous as the cretin who posts on this blog, whose vocabulary seems to revolve around the 'F' word. He says all police are 'M%4£&*&* C&*^$%' and are paid to hate people. I don't hate anyone, even you, old chap and I am not alone in that. Not all of us are bullying racists, the equivalent of some sort of modern day SS. Now please go and take your medication, you are clearly a very disturbed individual and need help. I abhor this officer's behaviour.
ReplyDelete