Ian Tomlinson

Venom was S019 not part of the Met Police. I am sure it was/is not much consolation to his family and friends that he was killed by S019
and not by the Met Traffic Police.

Do you think on hearing about S019 they said that o/k thank God it was them.

If something else had happened Neil Lennon, I am sure his partner and family would say "wasn't it great that the nearest policeman who was the only police man
in the stadium was, watching for rude gestures from Celtic fans on the other side of the field." Those close to Neil would have been delighted that that policeman
may have stopped some young Celtic fan shouting up the RA as something gruesome could have been happening to Neil.

 

Obviously they are part of the MET. But they receive training more akin to military personnel rather than that of traditional police officers.

Being honest I'm not wanting to get into any kind of point-scoring with you SH. It would be like doing Chinese arithmetic with a broken pencil and a severe mental disability.

 

Venom, SO19 are only trained within the Met. They don't have any training from any military.

SH, regarding Stockwell, as far as they were concerned, SO19 were dealing with a terrorist who was very probably on a suicide mission. They followed the instructions and information they were given to the best of their ability. It was the information they were given that was at fault, not their actions. They put themselves into a situation and did a job that a hell of a lot of people would cower from.

 

"More akin"

I at no point said they received training from the military.

Read before you post.

 

"Outside influences" - could you elaborate as to what these were? This is what the CPS have said:-

"24/05/2011

Mr Ian Tomlinson: Final decision - Statement by Keir Starmer QC

On 3 May this year I announced that the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson would be reviewed in light of the verdict of unlawful killing returned by the jury at the inquest into Mr Tomlinson’s death. That review is now complete and I have this morning met Mr Tomlinson’s family to tell them the outcome.

The difficulty facing any prosecution in relation to the death of Mr Tomlinson lies in the conflicting medical evidence about the cause of death. That difficulty remains. A criminal trial is different to an inquest and it is my duty to ensure that a prosecution is only brought where there is evidence available to the prosecution that provides a realistic prospect of a jury being able to satisfy themselves beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. For that reason very careful consideration is required where there is conflicting medical evidence.

However, matters have moved on in two ways since the original decision was taken in this case. First, new medical evidence was presented at the inquest. Second, the various accounts and opinions given by the medical experts, including Dr Patel, were tested in extensive questioning at the inquest; this has changed the basis upon which the case falls to be considered. But for the inquest, the significant conflicts in the evidence that had previously existed could not have been addressed; and the inquest process, which is less confined than a criminal trial, has allowed a degree of clarity to emerge.

We have considered the new evidence adduced at the inquest and the final positions adopted by the medical experts very carefully indeed. We have also taken the advice of leading counsel, Mr Tim Owen QC, on the critical medical issues that remain.

Having done so, we are satisfied that the position in relation to the medical evidence about the cause of death has clearly changed. The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain.

Taking the evidence as it now stands, we have concluded that, even with those remaining difficulties, there is now sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of successfully prosecuting PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson. That being the case, it is clearly in the public interest that criminal proceedings be brought.

Accordingly, a summons charging PC Harwood with the manslaughter of Mr Tomlinson has been obtained from the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He will appear before that court on 20 June 2011.

Can I remind all concerned that PC Harwood now faces a charge of manslaughter, and proceedings are now active. He has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice his trial.

Keir Starmer QC
Director of Public Prosecutions"

The 'new evidence', obviously, carried sufficient weight to persuade the inquest jury to determine that Mr Tomlinson was 'unlawfully killed'.
The question then arises as to who was responsible for the unlawful killing. It would appear that this new evidence pointed to the police officer, given that the CPS have charged him with manslaughter. Whether or not he is found guilty remains to be seen and I am certainly not making any judgement on the matter.

Apart from the tragedy which befell Mr Tomlinson and his family in their loss of him, I think this is an interesting case. I am not interested in conjecture or prejudging whether or not the police officer is guilty. From a purely legal perspective, however, I am interested in the outcome and in seeing all of the evidence when it has been revealed.

 

I think the telling statement is "it is clear that real difficulties remain".

As for the "outside influences" please understand i'm not being sarcastic when I ask how long you have lived in Spain?

Every time some crusty with a dog on a string gets shouted at in a "Peaceful" protest in England you can guarantee a legal case will begin. It's always the fault of the Police as people like Superhoops will tell you, members of the public never do anything untoward.

As I said, Tomlinson did not deserve to die but he was according to the video footage i've seen "acting the goat" and on a purely personal level I tend not to have much sympathy for people who get injured when a decsion they make goes pear shaped.

 

As opposed to say, oh i dunno the _ _ _?

 

Suicide by Cop they call it in the US.

 

Very cute, not getting into it your hypocrisy is clearly exposed it really is that simple.

Weights

Bath

Bed

Have fun.

 

What about Harry Stanley? He had a chair leg in a bag. How do you figure out if it is a shotgun or not? Let him point it at you and give him a chance to fire at you? It might be too late to save your's or your colleague's life by that point. Would you be happy to risk your life or your colleague's and wait to find out? I think it's fair to say that the officer that shot him would rather the whole thing hadn't happened, but maybe not as much as the member of the public who provided the information that the police were working from.

DeMenezes. Would you put yourself on that tube train trying to stop what you have been led to believe is a man involved in suicide attacks on London?Very few would. The information given to them was flawed in the extreme, but the fact is the officers can only go on what they are told and they did the best they could in the circumstances. I'm sure that those officers didn't go out that day planning to kill an unarmed man, unlike certain rebels in Ireland's history that have been involved in killing unarmed people. They are heroes to some. They even sing songs about them. At football matches, of all places.

 

The CPS statement certainly does appear to cover them should their prosecution fail but it seems plausible to me, on the face of it. I tend to try to keep an open mind on incidents and I am uncomfortable with stances which blindly and continuously come down on one side for whatever reason. I do think that the police officer's actions in striking and knocking Mr Tomlinson to the ground were reprehensible but whether those actions amount to him being found guilty of manslaughter remains to be seen. In any case, I look forward to seeing all of the evidence upon which the jury will have decided the matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your post appears to express a somewhat cynical outlook and a stance which tends to favour the authorities? I prefer a healthy dose of scepticism and believe it best to take each case on its merits if at all possible!

 

I have a cynical outlook (perhaps a realistic one) towards crime and punishment, whether or not the Cop in this case is guilty or not matters not a jot to me, I really don't care and as I have explained, or at least tried to, I am merely giving my view on how the law will look at this case.

I believe he will be acquitted, please do not confuse that with me wanting him found innocent because I don't really give a damn one way or t'other but what does grind my gears is that as far as the "protester brigade" go, the jury is already in and he has been found guilty.

Have you ever been involved in a riot or a large scale protest? I have and I can assure you that even the calmest of people can totally lose it when faced with aggression and insults, Tomlinson may well have been treated very badly indeed by the officer, but speaking as one who has had to endure what the Cops did on that day in London, I suspect he (the Cop) had long since reached breaking point and lashed out at the first person who gave him lip. For that maybe he should be punished, maybe he's not fit to be a Copper, I sincerely doubt that he should be classed as a killer though.

 

I personally thought the De Menezes killing was outrageous, having come from a background of Military and Police I understand the strain that firearms officers are under and can sometimes sympathise but in this case I cannot for the life of me understand what "Rules of Engagement" the officers were adhering to. Obviously they were on some "super" state of alert and new ROE had been brought in to cover eventualities such as suicide bombers, but I personally think this was a major **** up and that someone should have been brought to account.

As for Harry Stanley, as far as I am aware he was a career criminal with a track record for violence involving firearms, he had recently been diagnosed with cancer (perhaps terminal, no one seems to know). The story of how he came to be shot stinks to high heaven of a man who has a loathing of the police, using them to bring about his own death in an attempt to get his family compensation.

For starters, who carries a wooden table leg about wrapped in plastic? Who phoned the Police and said an Irishman was carrying a shotgun? It may very well have been Harry himself, many suspect it was. And witnesses state that when he was challenged by Police he took up a "Shooting" stance and refused to follow the instructions given him by "Armed" police.

Nothing I have read about Stanley's case leads me to believe he was a victim of a police conspiracy. Quite the opposite.

I'll be honest and say my information may be out of date though, maybe events have overtaken us and the facts I have given have been proved to be false.

 

I've not read any of this thread but for the record I hope the copper gets the book flung at him. Some of the stuff I witnessed first hand in Manchester was disgusting, course you'll never see the CCTV footage of any of that will you