The thing is, that now that £12,000's worth of riot kit has been stolen, how will the police know who is police and who are demonstrators dressed up as police?
If the police don't wear their numbers and wear masks like thay did on 1st April then they will be easy to impersonate.
Did they not mention that covering their faces is against the rules at the sub-committee?
The policeman charged with manslaughter had his face covered.
I have just been in Beds Police hq to have some elimination fingerprints done. Whilst I was there I was reading a Police magazine that was praising the G20 protests Policing. Do we live in the same world as these people or what????
DTS XXX XXX
The sub-commitee heard about previous demon-strations where terrified shoppers cowered inside as the shop windows were smashed.
As I posted the police inspector claimed that they had good intelligence that similar occurences had been planned, which was why the policing was as it was.
Well that will explain the heavy handed tactics that killed an innocent man and resulted in 96 complaints against the fuzz. Police intelligence now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.
Now don't get me wrong I actually think the Police do a good job, in most cases, however the policy for dealing with peacefull protests needs to be reviewed and calmed down a lot. Just my humble opinion pips.
DTS XXX XXX
DTS XXX XXX
The media needs to accept a share of the blame too. Even the supposedly more respectable elements such as the BBC, will always focus on any violence at a demonstration - sometimes to the complete exclusion of the vast majority of peaceful demonstrators. In fact, that last phrase is often the only clue you get in some media outlets, to the fact that out of a demo of (say) 50,000, there were only 10 nutters.
The media coverage should be proportionate: most of the coverage should be given over to the peaceful part of a demo.
Without wishing to cause offence to any police officers on the forum, our force is a joke. With the exception of some individuals who do a cracking job, it's largely a huge joke. In my experience of them...pathetic. I have heard things from an ex chief of police that made my blood run cold in terms of responses and what crimes he would deploy officers to. It has nothing to do with the severity of the threat to an individual or the severity of the crime, but everything to do with government KPIs and the 'need' to meet them.
I know someone who made 2 '999' calls within 10 minutes. Now, according to an ex-force member, protocol prevents the police from ignoring repeat '999' calls. Therefore it should have been bumped up the priority list and officers deployed. Instead, she was accused of hoax calling. How outrageous is that?
Which force are you talking about ? The MET ?
Policing should not be run on statistics, it should be run based on need and best use of the resources. Its outrageous to think that local policing is steered by crime figure "targets".With the exception of some individuals who do a cracking job, it's largely a huge joke. In my experience of them...pathetic. I have heard things from an ex chief of police that made my blood run cold in terms of responses and what crimes he would deploy officers to. It has nothing to do with the severity of the threat to an individual or the severity of the crime, but everything to do with government KPIs and the 'need' to meet them.
They clearly thought it was a hoax call, otherwise why suggest it? What was it about ?I know someone who made 2 '999' calls within 10 minutes. Now, according to an ex-force member, protocol prevents the police from ignoring repeat '999' calls. Therefore it should have been bumped up the priority list and officers deployed. Instead, she was accused of hoax calling. How outrageous is that?
Last edited by Dreadful Scathe; 28th-April-2009 at 11:54 AM.
Revisited in the light of the CPS decision today:
It can't be healthy when the standard belief (on both sides of the equation) is that the police will never, ever be prosecuted for events like this.
If the Raoul Moat facebook page was still up, I bet you'd be seeing a huge surge in members today.
Sadly this leaves people in the clear position of feeling that should they ever find themselves in a situation where they are vulnerable to the police, they must assume their life is in danger and defend themselves accordingly.
The police had a difficult job before, now they've made it harder for themselves.
Here's hoping the family bring a private prosecution - there seems sufficient evidence for a jury to convict. Lets see the CPS try taking it over and blocking it on a public interest basis...
The family don't have the money for a private prosecution. Even if they did, there'd still be the problem of Dr Patel - who clearly, at best, can't find his backside with both hands, a flashlight and a big sign saying "here's your backside" - giving evidence for the defence and likely raising reasonable doubt for the jury.
There's no current mechanism for the family to receive justice. Just a faint hope that there may be something at the end of the inquest. But I'm not holding my breath.
And the CPS can't be blamed for the mistakes of Freddy "blood? I see no blood?" Patel, but I think it should be asked why it did not immediately prosecute PC Harwood for assault - that is, before the 6-month limit expired.
I suspect that the funds could be found. There were a *lot* of people offering to donate on the Guardian comments thread.
Slightly less of a problem if he gets struck off or censured by the GMC (having already been barred from examining suspicious deaths); a lot of people think the timing of the CPS decision was partly based on a desire to quash the charges while Dr Patel still had any credibility whatsoever.Even if they did, there'd still be the problem of Dr Patel - who clearly, at best, can't find his backside with both hands, a flashlight and a big sign saying "here's your backside" - giving evidence for the defence and likely raising reasonable doubt for the jury.
As for DPP Keir Starmer saying "there was no realistic prospect of conviction", I note that even on those well known left wing websites The Daily Mail and Sky News the vast majority of people consider this decision an outrage.
In fact, a more realistic CPS objection would be that it would be difficult to find a jury who wouldn't convict, regardless of the medical evidence put forth. Although under the 'eggshell skull' rule, I'm personally struggling to see how any medical evidence could affect the decision.
One of the (many) things that sticks in my craw: we've had all these delays because of examining the medical evidence, we've had two additional autopsies, and yet from the CPS statement, the die was effectively cast from the moment Dr Patel ruled natural causes. In other words, whatever the results of the additional autopsies, they weren't going to consider it sufficient for manslaughter.And the CPS can't be blamed for the mistakes of Freddy "blood? I see no blood?" Patel, but I think it should be asked why it did not immediately prosecute PC Harwood for assault - that is, before the 6-month limit expired.
In which case the need to spend over 6 months considering the matter so that an assault charge couldn't be mounted seems just a little, um, convenient.
Erratum to the post above:
Actually, the reason things were delayed past the 6 month point is that the IPCC (Independent Police Coverup^h^h^h^hComplaints Commission) failed to provide needed evidence about Met guidelines on the day of the protest within the deadline.
We've also now got the 2nd Pathologist Nat Cary, saying "he has no doubt PC's actions contributed to the death".
So, we have a police officer who according the CPS say assaulted a member of the public, and Britain's top pathologist says that "the shove by the officer caused Tomlinson to fall to the ground, and the impact led to internal bleeding that killed him within minutes".
And no charges placed. Lovely.
I'm not sure about private prosecutions generally - and something paid-for by the media feels like a bit of a lynching, you know?
Well, the victim was a white working-class male...
Yes... I never thought about it that way. That's the logical conclusion of their argument, isn't it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks