No charges in G20 death of Ian Tomlinson - Pc Harwood found not guilty.

[harvey19]

Because the coroners reports suggested that he died from cirrhosis of the liver along with internal bruising brought on by falling on his elbow and nothing to do with any strikes from any weapons, so they couldnt prove conclusively that the PC was to blame, in a nut shell.

 

So the cause of death could have been cirrhosis of the liver and the internal bruising would not have caused his death.

[jongo]

They decided there was no case to answer because the case had not been brought within 6 months.... that is an admission not just of the fact that the CPS were in the wrong but also that there was a case to answer.

 

Is that so, how ?

 

Also it seems that Keir Starmer disagrees with you

 

On 22 July 2010, Keir Starmer, director of the CPS, announced there would be no prosection because of the medical disagreement between the three pathologists.

 

But then again I am sure you are in a better position than him to know the ins and outs of it, after all, you read The Guardian

[jongo]

So the cause of death could have been cirrhosis of the liver and the internal bruising would not have caused his death.

 

Sorry I meant to say internal bleeding, I will go back and edit that bit.

As to your question, I don't know.

[jongo]

And that internal bruising was brought about by the fall we can all see in the video.

 

And you know that, how ?

How do you know it wasnt from earlier, how do you know that that isnt why he was walking so slow.

Alcoholics do have a tendency to fall now and again.

[Wildcat]

Is a LibDem MP a superior person that I should believe at all costs ?

This means nothing to me.

"When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,'"

 

Who said you should believe it at all costs?

 

I merely said you can't discount the LibDems views as that of an anarchist... unless you want to look like a raging right wing nut job.

[jongo]

Who said you should believe it at all costs?

 

I merely said you can't discount the LibDems views as that of an anarchist... unless you want to look like a raging right wing nut job.

 

A statement of what was said to him is hardly someones views.

Nut job, eh.

[Wildcat]

Is that so, how ?

 

Also it seems that Keir Starmer disagrees with you

 

On 22 July 2010, Keir Starmer, director of the CPS, announced there would be no prosection because of the medical disagreement between the three pathologists.

 

But then again I am sure you are in a better position than him to know the ins and outs of it, after all, you read The Guardian

 

What about when he said:

 

"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 inquiries were continuing at the six-month point and it would not have been possible to have brought any charge at that stage."

 

The implication being there is evidence now, but that the CPS were too slow to get their act together. In fact we can all see the evidence with our own eyes.

 

As for the disagreements between the pathologists.... that raises another issue with why the first one was used at all considering his history. He should have been struck off years ago and not let anywhere near a case like this. They could not have found a less credible pathologist if they had tried. He even destroyed some of the evidence.

[Wildcat]

A statement of what was said to him is hardly someones views.

Nut job, eh.

 

It is when he is repeating them as a part of what happened in the media and in Parliament.

 

And yes nutjob.... LibDems are a long way from being anarchists.

[jongo]

What about when he said:

 

 

 

The implication being there is evidence now, but that the CPS were too slow to get their act together. In fact we can all see the evidence with our own eyes.

 

As for the disagreements between the pathologists.... that raises another issue with why the first one was used at all considering his history. He should have been struck off years ago and not let anywhere near a case like this. They could not have found a less credible pathologist if they had tried. He even destroyed some of the evidence.

 

What evidence is there now WC ?

 

What is it exactly that you want the officer charged with ?

[jongo]

It is when he is repeating them in public.

 

If he said "I believe that" etc, then I would consider it his view, as it is he was just repeating what someone in a crowd told him, that to me is not someones views.

 

Oh, and dare I ask if you have ever known a politician to tell an untruth ?