Guest sibon Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 The correct decision has been made ,and common sense has been used. That man was clearly seen ignoring police orders to move out of the way on many occasions . So, Mr DOW, do you think that it is ok for a police officer to attack a member of the public in such a way, when all they are doing is walking down a street? Is it ok for them to attack a man so severely that he subsequently dies? Can you think of a more appropriate course of action for the officer to take? Do you still live on Festive Road? I think that the forum deserves some answers from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoddyHolder Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 if you watch the video again you can clearly see Mr Tomlinson deliberatly walking slowly with hands in pockets to cause a confrontation or a push, which is exactly what happend, i doubt at all that he was an innocent bystander and nothing to do with the protest, what is the T-shirt he has on over another shirt?? i cant quite read it but it maybe a protest logo shirt? why was he there in the first place then? and why didnt he move very quickley out of harms way? altogether though a very unfortunate incident and a sad outcome. he was wearing a Millwall football shirt and over it a grey Tshirt with the words..Neil Harris all time leading goal scorer . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 The CPS in it's wisdom decided that a prosecution couldn't go forward because of discrepancies in the autopsies. Didn't they take into consideration that the 1st autopsy was carried out by a pathologist who is currently under investigation by the GMC for irregularities (and I'm being fair with the word "irregularities") The 2nd autopsy carried out by pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma. The third examination agreed with the findings of the second examination. That 3rd examination was conducted on behalf of the officer. Considering the first pathologist is up before the GMC for gross misconduct/negligence wouldn't the evidence of the other two pathologists warrant further action by the CPS? The criteria for the CPS is a more than likely 50% chance of a conviction rate. With the medical evidence and the footage..seems to me they had a pretty good case. Or should I say that with evidence like that, under any day to day criminal situation the CPS would have gone in like hungry hounds at a free meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 So, Mr DOW, do you think that it is ok for a police officer to attack a member of the public in such a way, when all they are doing is walking down a street? Is it ok for them to attack a man so severely that he subsequently dies? Can you think of a more appropriate course of action for the officer to take? Do you still live on Festive Road? I think that the forum deserves some answers from you. Oh fer God sake don't encourage him...please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just thought I would put my protest post us about this load of crap out come for this family. In the interview after the court case one of the family summed it up when he said 'your up against the old bill' Your chances are slightly slimmer under these circomstances of getting a just out come but given it happened during the G20 and the embarracment of it all I think had a lot to do with it. I mean you can imagine world leaders saying yeh but he was doing his duty and protecting us ect. I bet the out come of this was done behind closed doors a long time before the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadnBad Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It's a clear case of manslaughter as far as i can see, and why is it they can open an old cold case and still get convictions on crimes that happened many many years ago and this crime which is recent is suddenly too old. And i wouldn't think evidence gets much better than video footage of the event and two agreeing autopsy results and one conducted by a pathologist under investigation which i would think could safely be ignored. It is clearly a whitewash the fuzz are just looking after each other as usual in circumstances like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just in case there are people who haven't seen the vide footage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-cps-ruling Without this video there wouldn't even have been an investigation, remember. Note that the police officer (who has previous) has his badge removed and his face covered. Note that Mr Tomlinson is just walking away with his back to them Note also that his is bitten by a dog and hit with a baton before being pushed violently to the ground from behind. Remember that he died very shortly afterwards and that the two pathologists who haven't been suspended agree that he died from internal bleeding, and that one of those pathologists did a post mortem on behalf of the police officer. Wonder, if you will, what the outcome would have been if Mr Tomlinson had pushed the police officer from behind with no provocation and that the police officer had died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuteWitness Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just in case there are people who haven't seen the vide footage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-cps-ruling Without this video there wouldn't even have been an investigation, remember. Note that the police officer (who has previous) has his badge removed and his face covered. Note that Mr Tomlinson is just walking away with his back to them Note also that his is bitten by a dog and hit with a baton before being pushed violently to the ground from behind. Remember that he died very shortly afterwards and that the two pathologists who haven't been suspended agree that he died from internal bleeding, and that one of those pathologists did a post mortem on behalf of the police officer. Wonder, if you will, what the outcome would have been if Mr Tomlinson had pushed the police officer from behind with no provocation and that the police officer had died. Some people might think the police were trying to cover up what had happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Some people might think the police were trying to cover up what had happened! Good grief, I can't believe that. P.S. How is the 31 year cover up into the killing of Blair Peach going ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 He's got to take a stand, in my opinion. He rightly called Labour on their pathway to a police state, eroding our freedoms, now he is in a position to do something about it. I wouldn't think it would be appropriate for the government to get involved in whether individual cases are prosecuted or not. Good post B Trautmann I hope this isn't the last we have heard about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.