skinz Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Why is it interesting............? Because our new fwiend can read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 There has been cases of police being charged with manslaughter in similar circumstances, why would private company staff be any different? The same company responsible for a number of embarrassments including the Olympic fiasco and the tagging scandal. Who or why some one was being restrained does not justify the methods if they are lethal. No, but being a "dirty foreigner" certainly does in the mind of some posters on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 But restraining techniques do not eliminate all risk and as such there will always be some deaths. It will be interesting to see whether the CPS change of heart is down to new evidence or new political pressure. If they really did something dangerous and unnecessary then that is one thing but if the prosecution is going to be based on second guessing the techniques used, with the advantage of hindsight, then that is wrong. They were forced to reconsider due to the evidence and verdict of the inquest. ---------- Post added 21-03-2014 at 12:13 ---------- I take it the plane load of people were fellow deportees, who cannot be deported now as the need to give evidence at this trial? or are fellow guards giving evidence against workmates? No. The plane was a scheduled civilian BA flight. There were 143 other passengers on the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 They were forced to reconsider due to the evidence and verdict of the inquest. Yes, they were forced to reconsider due to the verdict of the inquest but it doesn't necessaily mean the evidence originally considered by the CPS was any different. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yes, they were forced to reconsider due to the verdict of the inquest but it doesn't necessaily mean the evidence originally considered by the CPS was any different. Time will tell. Think you will find an 8 week inquest would offer the opportunity for the cps to review the evidence, especially how witnesses came across and how it might play out in a trial. That's harder to do from just reading witness statements. the basic ebidence doesnt have to have changed but the strength of arguments and implications drawn, can. An unlawful killing verdict is unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yes, they were forced to reconsider due to the verdict of the inquest but it doesn't necessaily mean the evidence originally considered by the CPS was any different. Time will tell. So given the 'unlawful killing' outcome of the inquest what course of action would you have followed subsequently? To assist in your deliberations imagine it was one of your family members who lost their life in the custody of the security services rather than an immigrant being deported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Think you will find an 8 week inquest would offer the opportunity for the cps to review the evidence, especially how witnesses came across and how it might play out in a trial. That's harder to do from just reading witness statements. the basic ebidence doesnt have to have changed but the strength of arguments and implications drawn, can. An unlawful killing verdict is unusual. I don't disagree. It is just hard to have confidence that the CPS have not succumbed to political and media pressure when it happens so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I don't disagree. It is just hard to have confidence that the CPS have not succumbed to political and media pressure when it happens so often. The CPS have succumbed to the possibility that they made a mistake in not proceeding with a criminal prosecution in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 how can this be right that this deportee Jimmy Mubenga g4s guards can be charged with manslaughter? surely if the deportee had been peaceful and calm when put on the plane he would not have had to be restrained? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26665039 The same way that a police officer could be charged if they use more than reasonable force to restrain someone and cause their death. Do you think that private security firms should be able to kill people simply because they resist being put on a plane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 So given the 'unlawful killing' outcome of the inquest what course of action would you have followed subsequently? To assist in your deliberations imagine it was one of your family members who lost their life in the custody of the security services rather than an immigrant being deported. There is always risk when restraining someone and it must be difficult having a job where you have to do it. Imagine one of your family members had a job like that and whilst restraining someone with a criminal record for violence the person died. You'd hope that they'd be given the benefit of the doubt and spared the added stress of a trial for manslaughter unless there was hard evidence of wrongdoing. I didn't say there shouldn't be a trial because I've not seen the evidence and can't judge. I said I hoped there really was new evidence and that the evidence isn't going to rely on second guessing the restraining tactics used unless there were clearly disporportionately dangerous and clearly avoidable. ---------- Post added 21-03-2014 at 13:32 ---------- The CPS have succumbed to the possibility that they made a mistake in not proceeding with a criminal prosecution in the first place. That might be true but neither of us can say for sure. The fact is the CPS has a track record of changing its mind following political, media or lobbying pressure only for the not guilty verdicts to roll in. You can't blame people for being a bit sceptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.