I’d wager a fair sum on “regrettable incident; lessons have been learned; no charges to be brought; business as usual to continue”.

I guess the police will get away with this….

Same as they got away with the killing of De Menzes and Ian Tomlinson.

The respect for police is going down and soon the police will have a huge problem on there hands and i cant wait for that day to happen.

Look on youtube on police brutality and you will see more events

Chaise Guevara

The “lessons will be learned” saying will be used again, if that’s the case why have no lessons been learned from the other times.

The “lessons will be learned” quote is a saying the government love to use and now the same words spread to the police but we know the facts and soon the same quote will be used again and again

1. Chaise Guevara – “I’d wager a fair sum on “regrettable incident; lessons have been learned; no charges to be brought; business as usual to continue”.”

So would I. Because I fail to see the police did anything wrong. He broke the cordon. What were they supposed to do? Ask him nicely to go back? They did not break his legs. He simply suffered a chipped tooth.

Still, if the government wants to waste a few hundred thousand investigating such claims, they are more than welcome to I suppose.

2. John – “I guess the police will get away with this….”

Get away with what? First there would have to be some evidence of anything they have done wrong in order for them to get away with. I love how the normal presumption of innocence goes out the door when the police are involved.

“Same as they got away with the killing of De Menzes and Ian Tomlinson.”

They did not get away with anything. Those were well within legal and moral norms.

“The respect for police is going down and soon the police will have a huge problem on there hands and i cant wait for that day to happen.”

Golly. Such radicalism.

Britain’s police is not what it was. But it is still pretty much the best police force in the world. Normally civil and distinctly not inclined to violence. And if anyone would care to disagree perhaps they could nominate their preferred country and we can compare? Syria? China? Cuba? The US? Italy?

john.2 the police havent ‘ got away with Jean Charles demenez killing ,Ian Blair resigned and they lost tehir health and safety court case, Ian Tomlinson wasn’t killed, he had a heart attack P.C Harwood faces an enquiry into whther it was common assault to push him ,on march 28th.

@ 4 So Much For Subtlety

“So would I. Because I fail to see the police did anything wrong. He broke the cordon. What were they supposed to do? Ask him nicely to go back? They did not break his legs. He simply suffered a chipped tooth.”

It’s entirely possible that the cops did nothing wrong, and if it turns out that way, fair enough. But I’ll object if – just to pick a random example – the investigators find that the police broke the law, but wait until the statute of limitations runs out before saying so. Or dig up some weird rule that says violent behaviour that would land anyone else in jail is ok when the police do it. Or conclude that the police “did the best they could” if there’s evidence of gratuitious violence.

“Still, if the government wants to waste a few hundred thousand investigating such claims, they are more than welcome to I suppose.”

It has been alleged that a crime has taken place – if we’re not going to investigate crimes, may as well shut the entire police force down now. I have no idea why it would cost a six-figure sum to look into, but if it does then I suspect there’s something wrong with the process – either how the investigation is carried out, or how the police record and report their activities.

6. Chaise Guevara – “It’s entirely possible that the cops did nothing wrong, and if it turns out that way, fair enough.”

So let’s wait until they do shall we? Before we start denying other people basic civil liberties like the presumption of innocence. Half this thread wants to hang them already.

“Or dig up some weird rule that says violent behaviour that would land anyone else in jail is ok when the police do it.”

Actually a lot of violent behaviour is OK when police do it and yet would land anyone else in jail if they did it. Boy George did jail time (and actually quite indefensible jail time in Petonville) for assault and false imprisonment. But police officers do that sort of thing every day. It is their job.

“Or conclude that the police “did the best they could” if there’s evidence of gratuitious violence.”

We would have to see the evidence of the gratuitous violence. What we can say so far is that this boy shows no evidence of any gratuitous violence whatsoever.

“It has been alleged that a crime has taken place – if we’re not going to investigate crimes, may as well shut the entire police force down now.”

Sorry but the police do not investigate every allegation of crime. Nor should they. If I alleged you snuck into my house and put monitoring devices in my underwear I would not expect the police to spend much time on it. They have to pick and choose. Why bother with this one except the newspapers will beat it up. If you will forgive the expression.

“I have no idea why it would cost a six-figure sum to look into, but if it does then I suspect there’s something wrong with the process – either how the investigation is carried out, or how the police record and report their activities.”

An inquiry involving, say, ten officers all with legal representation. You don’t think it would take them weeks to rack up those sorts of legal bills?

@ 7 SMFS

“So let’s wait until they do shall we? Before we start denying other people basic civil liberties like the presumption of innocence. Half this thread wants to hang them already.”

There’s nothing wrong with half-arsed conjecture as long as it isn’t presented as a definite prediction of the future, and I’m not doing that. Nor would I ever suggest reversing presumption of innocence in a criminal case.

“Actually a lot of violent behaviour is OK when police do it and yet would land anyone else in jail if they did it. Boy George did jail time (and actually quite indefensible jail time in Petonville) for assault and false imprisonment. But police officers do that sort of thing every day. It is their job.”

Of course the cops need special rights when it comes to making arrests and so forth. But I have seen people try to defend a previous case of genuine violence by saying that the rules don’t apply to the police.

“We would have to see the evidence of the gratuitous violence. What we can say so far is that this boy shows no evidence of any gratuitous violence whatsoever.”

Sure. Like I said, I’m not saying I know how it’ll turn out.

“Sorry but the police do not investigate every allegation of crime. Nor should they. If I alleged you snuck into my house and put monitoring devices in my underwear I would not expect the police to spend much time on it. They have to pick and choose. Why bother with this one except the newspapers will beat it up. If you will forgive the expression.”

It would be very odd indeed if an allegation of assault and ABH went uninvestigated unless the police had very good reasons to think the alleged victim’s account was untrue. And if allegations against the police aren’t followed up, things get very suspicious indeed.

“An inquiry involving, say, ten officers all with legal representation. You don’t think it would take them weeks to rack up those sorts of legal bills?”

Why ten officers? Witnesses don’t need representation. I’d be surprised if ten people were in the frame here – my guess would be more like one, maybe two at the most.

Two police officers were recently dismissed from my local force in Merseyside for assaulting members of the public during arrest. Both separate incidents. The police are not afraid to get rid of bad apples as long as the evidence comes up to proof? But equally they should not shy away from keeping officers who after a thorough investigation by the IPCC, the clue being Independant, shows that the officers acted appropriately in the circumstances.

well said scooter

john_p_reid who said: “Ian Tomlinson wasn’t killed, he had a heart attack”….

You are WRONG. The heart attack ‘version’ was given by Freddy Patel, the pathologist under investigation for several other screw ups and who has since been suspended and is expected to be struck off the register.

He got rid of the blood samples and the coroner (Paul Matthews) refused to allow the IPCC to attend the post mortem while it was being conducted.

It was only after video footage was released showing the unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson (who was walking AWAY from Pc Harwood) that a second post mortem was carried out, and a third. The results were that Tomlinson died because of internal bleeding caused by a blow with a blunt instrument (the baton).

If no video footage had been released, no one would be any the wiser. The coroner picks a dodgy pathologist who shouldn’t have even been on the Home Office list, and the IPCC took seven days before they got involved and treated it as a homicide. Always covering up for police brutality, but in this case the evidence was caught on film.

If you’ve bothered to follow the trial, you’ll have noticed that Harwood, who initially claimed he was being attacked with flying bottles and missiles and was in ‘fear’ for his life has had to back down and admit those things didn’t happen.

The guy’s a LIAR and it’s been PROVED from the video footage.

Also, the police claimed there were no CCTV cameras in the area, funny that, since it was discovered there were SIX.

Truth is that police brutality will always be covered up whenever possible since they have to pretend to be lawful members of humanity, yeah, right. That’s why they shot Jean-Charles de Menezes SEVEN times in the head and then LIED about how he was aggressive when they approached him, so they HAD to shoot him. Yet ALL the witnesses claim JC did nothing because he was frozen in fear. More lies from the police as always, and as always, they’ll get away with it.

SMFS,

“Same as they got away with the killing of De Menzes and Ian Tomlinson.”

They did not get away with anything. Those were well within legal and moral norms.

Rubbish.