Police Officer to be prosecuted over Ian Tomlinson's death

[scottycelt]

You presumably haven't been following the reports of the case? There has been a considerable amount of 'new' evidence, some of it arising from various police officers who were present. When I have time later I'll track down some of the news reports (from the Guardian, which I know wil render it worthless in your eyes, but I will try & find something from the Telegraph)

I don't read the Telegraph either, I'm afraid, Floss ... the only newspaper worth reading, imv, is the Financial Times, but it's far, far too expensive ..

We are not all of the Right or Left ... some of us have a tiny semblance of a brain and can just about manage to think for ourselves.

[scottycelt]

I see ahinton has reverted to more familiar style.

It's a pity he didn't read #24 before posting such utter drivel.

[amateur51]

I don't read the Telegraph either, I'm afraid, Floss ... the only newspaper worth reading, imv, is the Financial Times, but it's far, far too expensive ..

We are not all of the Right or Left ... some of us have a tiny semblance of a brain and can just about manage to think for ourselves.

Spoken like a True Believer

Oh scotty, you are a splendid bundle of contradictions

[Flosshilde]

some of us have a tiny semblance of a brain and can just about manage to think for ourselves.

Have you provided any evidence of that?


No doubt even the FT will have reported the new evidence you seem doubtful of.

[french frank]

I just don't like the "smell" of this decision. Calum didn't focus 'on the key point', he, and others, have already found the police officer guilty as charged!

I don't know whether CdJ has already come to a verdict or not.

The fact as far as I am concerned is that the inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, rather than misadventure or accidental death. That implies that someone killed IT unlawfully and it's right that the person most closely implicated should therefore stand trial.

Without prejudging , there is a fairly strong likelihood that the evidence which resulted in the verdict of 'unlawful killing' will be strong enough also to procure a guilty verdict. So far, nothing unremarkable.

The interesting point then will be - what will be judged a fair punishment? It will be for the court to decide on the extent of criminal intent. If, on the evidence, the verdict was that there was no criminal intent but an unacceptable degree of recklessness, the sentence handed down may not be severe. And in those circumstances that would seem to me to be a just decision.

[amateur51]

The interesting point then will be - what will be judged a fair punishment? It will be for the court to decide on the extent of criminal intent. If, on the evidence, the verdict was that there was no criminal intent but an unacceptable degree of recklessness, the sentence handed down may not be severe. And in those circumstances that would seem to me to be a just decision.

Agreed, french frank. And perhaps, if the sentence is more severe than you suggest, the police officer may then appeal against his sentence and the review may suggest also that his immediate superiors and those above them in the chain of command should be reprimanded for employing these sort of tactics, i.e., kettling etc. Who knows?

[scottycelt]

The fact as far as I am concerned is that the inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, rather than misadventure or accidental death. That implies that someone killed IT unlawfully and it's right that the person most closely implicated should therefore stand trial.

Without prejudging , there is a fairly strong likelihood that the evidence which resulted in the verdict of 'unlawful killing' will be strong enough also to procure a guilty verdict. So far, nothing unremarkable.

The interesting point then will be - what will be judged a fair punishment? It will be for the court to decide on the extent of criminal intent. If, on the evidence, the verdict was that there was no criminal intent but an unacceptable degree of recklessness, the sentence handed down may not be severe. And in those circumstances that would seem to me to be a just decision.

Yes, these are fair points and I agree that your argument is logically sound.

However, the Inquest verdict of 'Unlawful Killing' suggests the policeman's shove was the actual cause of Mr Tomlinson's death which is difficult, if not impossible, to prove though common sense might dictate it was at least a contributory factor.

While I readily understand that the police officer concerned should expect some form of punishment for what appeared to be an unprovoked assault, putting him on trial for 'killing' Mr Tomlinson is surely a different matter altogether.

However, what I think is unimportant, the only thing that really matters is that the full truth emerges and a correct and just verdict is duly delivered at the trial which will now take place.

[french frank]

Many things are possible.

By the way, even in these lawless days of internet comment and flouting of the law, I believe a case is considered sub judice from the moment that a person is charged [McNae's Essential Law for Journalists says it can apply when proceedings are 'pending or imminent', (Ch 16: Contempt of Court)]. If so, it then can become a matter of contempt of court to publicly discuss or speculate on that case

[Paul Sherratt]

Yikes ff !
And with this site searchable in hours if not minutes as well ...

http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sa=N&hl=en&tab=lw#hl=en&xhr=t&q=scottycelt+tomlinson&cp=20&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=webhp&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=scottycelt+tomlinson&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5fad916892c4afcf

[ahinton]

I see ahinton has reverted to more familiar style.

It's a pity he didn't read #24 before posting such utter drivel.

I did indeed read post #24 before making my most recent post and I have little problem with that particular one, but until you clarify what it is with which you so vehemently disagree in my most recent post, I cannot comment on your remark here beyond stating that my "style" has not changed one iota during the course of my contributions to this thread.

[ahinton]

Yes, these are fair points and I agree that your argument is logically sound.
the Inquest verdict of 'Unlawful Killing' suggests the policeman's shove was the actual cause of Mr Tomlinson's death which is difficult, if not impossible, to prove though common sense might dictate it was at least a contributory factor

It's that common sense that pertains here, I think, because - to me, at least - that verdict is less suggestive of the notion that "the policeman's shove was the actual cause of Mr Tomlinson's death" than that his death would not have occurred had the policeman not shoved him.

While I readily understand that the police officer concerned should expect some form of punishment for what appeared to be an unprovoked assault, putting him on trial for 'killing' Mr Tomlinson is surely a different matter altogether.

But is it, given that Mr Tomlinson did die and would not have done had the police officer not acted as he did? I am not a criminal lawyer specialising in matters of murder, manslaughter and the like (and I doubt that you are one either), but it seems to me difficult if not impossible - and certainly inappropriate - to try to separate the policeman's action and its consequence from the act of "killing", particularly as the principal difference in law between murder and manslaughter is that of whether or not the perpetrator of the act has an intent to kill (and no one is suggesting that the police officer intended to kill Mr Tomlinson, otherwise he's be up on a murder rap rather than a manslaughter charge).

However, what I think is unimportant, the only thing that really matters is that the full truth emerges and a correct and just verdict is duly delivered at the trial which will now take place.

In that I'm sure that we all agree with you - except, perhaps, Mr Pee, who would probably consider the trial costs and anciallry expenditure to be a waste of public money...

[scottycelt]

I think FF's intervention suggests it might now be wiser to close or even delete this thread, don't you ... ?

[Paul Sherratt]

>>In that I'm sure that we all agree with you - except, perhaps, Mr Pee,


Mr Pee, the artist ?

[Mahlerei]

My 19y/o son has just applied to become a Special Constable with the Met, and although I'm concerned he will be in harm's way I would expect him to treat others in a tolerant and dignified way. As for the present case, due process has revealed that - on the evidence presented - there is a case to answer. All this loose talk of scapegoats simply overlooks the fact that this is a verdict of unlawful killing reached not in a Whitehall office but in an open coroner's court. It may be that the Pc in question is found not guilty but that process has to continue until it is exhausted.

It's all about a duty of care, surely, and for those in positions of power that must be the highest priority.

[ahinton]

I think FF's intervention suggests it might now be wiser to close or even delete this thread, don't you ... ?

That's not up to me; all that I would venture to suggest is that, if you yourself believe that there is a case for its closure and/or deletion, your continuing to contribute to it might appear to run counter to that belief...