From BBC News:

 

 

An officer who was filmed pushing a man to the ground during the G20 protests will not face charges over his death.

 

Ian Tomlinson, 47, died minutes after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April 2009 in the City of London.

 

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no realistic prospect of conviction.

 

The incident and its aftermath was caught on video.

 

Mr Starmer said that there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Mr Tomlinson.

 

Mr Tomlinson's son Paul King described the decision as "outrageous".

 

The officer, a member of the Metropolitan Police's territorial support group, is currently suspended.

Ian Tomlinson filmed as he was apparently pushed to the ground Ian Tomlinson was pushed to the ground as he made his way home from work

 

Mr Tomlinson, a newspaper seller who was not involved in the protests, was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration.

 

The video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and then pushed to the ground.

 

He was seen moving away after the incident but was found collapsed 100 metres away in Cornhill.

 

Mr Starmer said: "After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the CPS has decided that there is no realistic prospects of a conviction against the police officer in question for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him.

 

"In the face of this fundamental disagreement between the experts about the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death, the CPS embarked on a detailed and careful examination of all the medical evidence and held a series of meetings with experts in attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the areas of disagreement.

 

"This inevitably took some considerable time," he added.

Witness statements

 

Lawyers have examined the video footage as well as CCTV images, photographs and witness statements.

 

Three post-mortem examinations were conducted on Mr Tomlinson's body leading to different conclusions.

 

The first found the father of nine died of natural causes, the second of internal bleeding and the results of the third, conducted on behalf of the officer, were not made public.

 

Following the death the Independent Police Complaints Commission completed their inquiry in August 2009 and handed a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

 

On the first anniversary of Mr Tomlinson's death his family and campaigners criticised the CPS for the delay in reaching a decision.

Edited July 22, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Right decision in my opinion but there's due to be a protest outside the Met. HQ this afternoon.

 

 

Here's a link to the DPP website where there's a staement as to how they reached their decision.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_de...on_prosecution/

Edited July 22, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Right decision in my opinion but there's due to be a protest outside the Met. HQ this afternoon.

Here's a link to the DPP website where there's a staement as to how they reached their decision.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_de...on_prosecution/

 

Don't need to read anything ... we all knew that no prosecutions would be made. Apart from perhaps a posthumous prosecution of the dead man maybe.

 

Norma

CPS stands for Copper's Protection Service if you ask me...

 

An absolute fukkin' disgrace this is... But, no surprise that Crazy Chris finds this decision "correct".. Tell, me Chris, why is it that you cant do anything to a copper without being arrested and put on trial for it, but a copper can clearly do what the fukk they like to YOU and get away with it... Christ, no wonder Raoul Moat went on a rampage, frankly, I can understand why someone would want to go out and kill coppers today, all this palaver over a Facebook page for Moat, I just wonder what David Cameron and all the other MPs who got their moral knickers in a twist think of this outrageous decision.... <_<

 

Well, it's clear now that it's not just Irish Catholics, Afro Caribbean, Brazilian immigrants or Asians that the pigs can get away with killing now, it's white, working class people as well... Heed the words of George Galloway well on Question Time last Thursday - "There is a seething mass of...working class people in this country, who are disenfranchised, who are anti-authority, anti police...". Yeah, and quite a lot of them signed up for the Raoul Moat tribute page too... So, who reckons this decision will lead to more or less situations such as Moat's rampage... Personally, I think it's gonna be "open season" on the filth now when the sh"t goes down, and it wont just be the Black neighbourhoods such as Brixton or Peckham that'll be rioting, it's gonna be Dagenham, Barking, Romford. You can bet there is gonna be an almighty backlash coming, especially when the Tory cuts really bite and it'll be Open Season on the Police, just as it was in the 1980s.....

 

Well, if coppers do die in the riots, dont say I didn't warn you, the CPS had the chance to do the right thing here and make the Police accountable for their actions, anything bad that happens is on their head....

 

 

 

 

There were three post-mortems. The first concluded that he'd died merely of a heart attack but the pathologist was discredited and even faced disciplinary procedures fron his professional body. The second showed internal bleeding and that's the one that the family take as correct now. The third was carried out at the request of the copper but those results have never been disclosed publicly. Wonder why?

Edited July 22, 201014 yr by Common Sense

There were three post-mortems. The first concluded that he'd died merely of a heart attack but the pathologist was discredited. The second showed internal bleeding and that's the one that the family take as correct now. The third was carried out at the request of the copper but those results have never been disclosed publicly. Wonder why?

 

For a start, I believe it was a private post-mortem, I could be wrong though.... But, yes, the results should be released regardless... Even IF Tomlinson died of a heart attack, it would have been clearly brought on by the shock and stress of being assaulted... I believe that there's a case where several youths were charged with manslaughter when a pensioner they were robbing keeled over from a heart attack... So, there IS judicial precedent somewhere to charge this copper with manslaughter even if it was a heart attack...

 

Manslaughter is unintended killing, I think we can say that this WAS manslaughter.... The copper did not intend for Tomlinson to die (so it's not murder), but his actions nevertheless caused it to happen, whether it was the heart attack or through internal bleeding....

Well well well read this then!

 

From The Telegraph:

 

The policeman being questioned over the death of passer-by Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April had been wrongly re-employed by the Metropolitan Police after leaving while facing a serious disciplinary charge.

 

Ian Tomlinson, 47, a newspaper seller who was not part of the protests, died shortly after he was pushed to the ground by the officer as he attempted to walk home from work.

 

The officer left the force several years ago under a cloud, only to be re-employed once again because of failures in the vetting process.

 

He had faced a misconduct hearing in connection with an alleged off-duty road rage incident during his earlier term of employment, but instead retired on medical grounds, according to the reports.

 

However he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker despatching officers to calls and later applied to work as a constable with Surrey Police, where he worked for some time. He then successfully reapplied to transfer to the Met.

 

The force's vetting process appears to have failed to pick up on the unresolved disciplinary matter, which should have prevented him from becoming a uniformed officer.

Edited July 22, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Hmm. Sounds like a bad apple, violent guy if he was, allegedly involved in a road rage incident.

Well well well read this then!

 

From The Telegraph:

 

The policeman being questioned over the death of passer-by Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April had been wrongly re-employed by the Metropolitan Police after leaving while facing a serious disciplinary charge.

 

Ian Tomlinson, 47, a newspaper seller who was not part of the protests, died shortly after he was pushed to the ground by the officer as he attempted to walk home from work.

 

The officer left the force several years ago under a cloud, only to be re-employed once again because of failures in the vetting process.

 

He had faced a misconduct hearing in connection with an alleged off-duty road rage incident during his earlier term of employment, but instead retired on medical grounds, according to the reports.

 

However he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker despatching officers to calls and later applied to work as a constable with Surrey Police, where he worked for some time. He then successfully reapplied to transfer to the Met.

 

The force's vetting process appears to have failed to pick up on the unresolved disciplinary matter, which should have prevented him from becoming a uniformed officer.

 

you realise of course that post now discredits your earlier post when you said 'they got it right'...dont you, and hands the argument over to scott whos views seem well founded and correct.

 

you realise of course that post now discredits your earlier post when you said 'they got it right'...dont you, and hands the argument over to scott whos views seem well founded and correct.

 

 

Yes well I've only just seen that through a DS link. I hold my hands up and admit I was maybe wrong. With computerisation of records and everything no cop should slip through the net like that at all. It's ridiculous. You could maybe excuse it 30 years ago but not now.

Edited July 22, 201014 yr by Common Sense

This is an absolute bloody sham, a serious disgrace. It's quite clear, as Grimly said, that this was manslaughter because his actions OBVIOUSLY caused the reaction... And you just know, if this guy had been in the riots, and he'd accidentally knocked over a copper and caused HIS death, he'd be on the stand for murder without a second thought :rolleyes:

Well well well read this then!

 

From The Telegraph:

 

The policeman being questioned over the death of passer-by Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April had been wrongly re-employed by the Metropolitan Police after leaving while facing a serious disciplinary charge.

 

Ian Tomlinson, 47, a newspaper seller who was not part of the protests, died shortly after he was pushed to the ground by the officer as he attempted to walk home from work.

 

The officer left the force several years ago under a cloud, only to be re-employed once again because of failures in the vetting process.

 

He had faced a misconduct hearing in connection with an alleged off-duty road rage incident during his earlier term of employment, but instead retired on medical grounds, according to the reports.

 

However he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker despatching officers to calls and later applied to work as a constable with Surrey Police, where he worked for some time. He then successfully reapplied to transfer to the Met.

 

The force's vetting process appears to have failed to pick up on the unresolved disciplinary matter, which should have prevented him from becoming a uniformed officer.

 

Un-fukkin-believable....

 

Well, I'll see that, and I'll raise you the Dodgy Doctor Patel..... <_<

 

How the case against a police officer over Tomlinson death fell apart

CPS admits decision not to prosecute rested on evidence of reprimanded pathologist Freddy Patel

Source - The Guardian

 

Dr Freddy Patel, who carried out the first, crucial examination of Ian Tomlinson, concluded that he died of a heart attack. Photograph: Mark St George/Rex Features

 

The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted that the decision not to prosecute a police officer for the death of Ian Tomlinson rested on the evidence of a pathologist who has been officially reprimanded and is facing 26 further charges of sub-standard practices, including incompetently carrying out a number of earlier autopsies.

Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel, known as Freddy Patel, carried out the first, crucial examination of Tomlinson, who died after being pushed to the ground during the G20 demonstrations in London last year. The CPS found that Patel had written ambiguous notes in his findings, failed to carry out vital tests and had not retained key evidence.

 

Patel, who carried out the autopsy with no other medical expert present, concluded that Tomlinson had died of a heart attack as a result of natural causes, consistent with coronary artery disease.

 

In doing so the doctor, who is appearing before a disciplinary hearing for allegedly conducting four other autopsies incompetently, implied that the 47-year-old's death was unrelated to any injuries sustained when he fell to the pavement.

 

Patel's conclusions were later contradicted by two other pathologists and he has been suspended from carrying out Home Office work. The CPS said that because he was the only person to see Tomlinson's intact body, they did not have a "realistic prospect of conviction" despite the judgments of the two other examinations

 

Prosecutors said an "irreconcilable conflict" between Patel and the other two doctors would undermine any prosecution against the police officer involved.

 

A detailed document released by the CPS today revealed the list of questions raised over Patel's examination of Tomlinson's body.

 

Investigators criticised Patel's notes and said he failed to examine or retain three litres of fluid discovered inside Tomlinson. The fluid was vital because if it was mainly blood, it would have indicated Tomlinson died as a result of bleeding from an internal rupture.

 

During interviews with prosecutors, he defended his actions, saying that his previous medical experience enabled him to identify it as being mainly other fluids stained with blood. Because he had disposed of the liquid, it was impossible for later examinations to question his conclusion.

 

A second autopsy, conducted by Dr Nat Cary and commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, found the cause of death was more likely to be abdominal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma – an injury consistent with a fall or assault.

 

A third autopsy of Tomlinson, conducted on behalf of the officer, agreed with the findings of the second postmortem.

 

The confusion about the fluid and the improperly kept records largely swings on a single word, according to the CPS report. In his first report, written on 3 April 2009, Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 31 with small blood clot". This, the CPS notes, would have accounted for around 60% of Tomlinson's blood volume and would "have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death".

 

But three days later, Patel wrote a new report in which he claimed that he had found "intraabdominal fluid WITH blood".

 

In its report today, the CPS admitted that other pathologists examining the case "inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this [later] finding to inform their own opinions".

 

When the discrepancy in Patel's records came to light and Patel was asked by the prosecution to prove his later assertion, he said he "had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites".

 

Coincidently, at his GMC disciplinary hearing, Cary, who conducted the second postmortem examination on Tomlinson's body, today criticised Patel over the case of a five-year-old girl.

 

The GMC panel was told that Cary was called to examine the exhumed body of the child after concerns were raised about the initial recorded cause of death. Patel had concluded there were "no significant marks of violence" on the child's body without checking the results of a hospital investigation into her injuries.

 

Cary, giving evidence as a witness to the inquiry, said the death was due to a severe head injury likely to have been inflicted by the actions of a third party. "My view was that it was highly unlikely that a fall on stairs could have caused this type of injury," he said. "I feel it was of great concern that it had been basically accepted that this could have been the result of a fall on the stairs."

 

Patel is also accused of concluding that a woman died from opiate poisoning without considering bruising on her body or discussing with police the possibility that she was asphyxiated. The pathologist was reprimanded in 1999 by the GMC after he discussed medical details about the death in police custody of Roger Sylvester, 30.

 

He was suspended from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and barred from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases. Patel, who qualified in Zambia in 1974, was registered to practise in Britain in 1988. He quit academic and NHS posts in the late 1990s to become a private pathologist on the Home Office register.

 

Patel refused to comment today but he has previously defended his work. The GMC hearing is scheduled to end on 10 September. Patel denies misconduct.

 

The GMC said it could not comment during an ongoing tribunal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, does anybody think that there isn't anything about this case which doesn't smell like a week old kipper left out in the hot sun....? How does this guy even GET to fukkin' well practice medicine in the first place and in the second place manage to get onto the Home Office register FFS....? <_<

 

The Crap Prosecution Service are banging on about the "irreconcilable differences", but I reckon a Jury is savvy enough to know that the first autopsy was a load of sh"t, especially given the clear incompetency of the pathologist... The subsequent TWO autopsies agree with one another, including the one requested by the copper, so two out of three is not really at all that confusing tbh, especially when you throw the fact that the pathologist in the first autopsy is an incompetent fukkwit who should be struck off the medical register....

 

Oh, and another thing, the fact that they took so bloody long over this also means that the six month deadline to prosecute for common assault ran out ages ago... How convienient for the Police..... <_<

 

Can we even trust the Police "service" any more, or the CPS....? Given the facts in this case.....

Un-fukkin-believable....

 

Well, I'll see that, and I'll raise you the Dodgy Doctor Patel..... <_<

 

How the case against a police officer over Tomlinson death fell apart

CPS admits decision not to prosecute rested on evidence of reprimanded pathologist Freddy Patel

Source - The Guardian

 

Dr Freddy Patel, who carried out the first, crucial examination of Ian Tomlinson, concluded that he died of a heart attack. Photograph: Mark St George/Rex Features

 

The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted that the decision not to prosecute a police officer for the death of Ian Tomlinson rested on the evidence of a pathologist who has been officially reprimanded and is facing 26 further charges of sub-standard practices, including incompetently carrying out a number of earlier autopsies.

Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel, known as Freddy Patel, carried out the first, crucial examination of Tomlinson, who died after being pushed to the ground during the G20 demonstrations in London last year. The CPS found that Patel had written ambiguous notes in his findings, failed to carry out vital tests and had not retained key evidence.

 

Patel, who carried out the autopsy with no other medical expert present, concluded that Tomlinson had died of a heart attack as a result of natural causes, consistent with coronary artery disease.

 

In doing so the doctor, who is appearing before a disciplinary hearing for allegedly conducting four other autopsies incompetently, implied that the 47-year-old's death was unrelated to any injuries sustained when he fell to the pavement.

 

Patel's conclusions were later contradicted by two other pathologists and he has been suspended from carrying out Home Office work. The CPS said that because he was the only person to see Tomlinson's intact body, they did not have a "realistic prospect of conviction" despite the judgments of the two other examinations

 

Prosecutors said an "irreconcilable conflict" between Patel and the other two doctors would undermine any prosecution against the police officer involved.

 

A detailed document released by the CPS today revealed the list of questions raised over Patel's examination of Tomlinson's body.

 

Investigators criticised Patel's notes and said he failed to examine or retain three litres of fluid discovered inside Tomlinson. The fluid was vital because if it was mainly blood, it would have indicated Tomlinson died as a result of bleeding from an internal rupture.

 

During interviews with prosecutors, he defended his actions, saying that his previous medical experience enabled him to identify it as being mainly other fluids stained with blood. Because he had disposed of the liquid, it was impossible for later examinations to question his conclusion.

 

A second autopsy, conducted by Dr Nat Cary and commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, found the cause of death was more likely to be abdominal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma – an injury consistent with a fall or assault.

 

A third autopsy of Tomlinson, conducted on behalf of the officer, agreed with the findings of the second postmortem.

 

The confusion about the fluid and the improperly kept records largely swings on a single word, according to the CPS report. In his first report, written on 3 April 2009, Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 31 with small blood clot". This, the CPS notes, would have accounted for around 60% of Tomlinson's blood volume and would "have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death".

 

But three days later, Patel wrote a new report in which he claimed that he had found "intraabdominal fluid WITH blood".

 

In its report today, the CPS admitted that other pathologists examining the case "inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this [later] finding to inform their own opinions".

 

When the discrepancy in Patel's records came to light and Patel was asked by the prosecution to prove his later assertion, he said he "had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites".

 

Coincidently, at his GMC disciplinary hearing, Cary, who conducted the second postmortem examination on Tomlinson's body, today criticised Patel over the case of a five-year-old girl.

 

The GMC panel was told that Cary was called to examine the exhumed body of the child after concerns were raised about the initial recorded cause of death. Patel had concluded there were "no significant marks of violence" on the child's body without checking the results of a hospital investigation into her injuries.

 

Cary, giving evidence as a witness to the inquiry, said the death was due to a severe head injury likely to have been inflicted by the actions of a third party. "My view was that it was highly unlikely that a fall on stairs could have caused this type of injury," he said. "I feel it was of great concern that it had been basically accepted that this could have been the result of a fall on the stairs."

 

Patel is also accused of concluding that a woman died from opiate poisoning without considering bruising on her body or discussing with police the possibility that she was asphyxiated. The pathologist was reprimanded in 1999 by the GMC after he discussed medical details about the death in police custody of Roger Sylvester, 30.

 

He was suspended from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and barred from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases. Patel, who qualified in Zambia in 1974, was registered to practise in Britain in 1988. He quit academic and NHS posts in the late 1990s to become a private pathologist on the Home Office register.

 

Patel refused to comment today but he has previously defended his work. The GMC hearing is scheduled to end on 10 September. Patel denies misconduct.

 

The GMC said it could not comment during an ongoing tribunal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, does anybody think that there isn't anything about this case which doesn't smell like a week old kipper left out in the hot sun....? How does this guy even GET to fukkin' well practice medicine in the first place and in the second place manage to get onto the Home Office register FFS....? <_<

 

The Crap Prosecution Service are banging on about the "irreconcilable differences", but I reckon a Jury is savvy enough to know that the first autopsy was a load of sh"t, especially given the clear incompetency of the pathologist... The subsequent TWO autopsies agree with one another, including the one requested by the copper, so two out of three is not really at all that confusing tbh, especially when you throw the fact that the pathologist in the first autopsy is an incompetent fukkwit who should be struck off the medical register....

 

Oh, and another thing, the fact that they took so bloody long over this also means that the six month deadline to prosecute for common assault ran out ages ago... How convienient for the Police..... <_<

 

Can we even trust the Police "service" any more, or the CPS....? Given the facts in this case.....

 

you make a case which leads to an uncomfortable conclusion... and begs the question 'what can we do about it'?

DELETED. Never mind.

Edited July 24, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Chris, your post has just made me want to punch my insides. I'm not going to excite your pathetic trollish nature with an angry response, but I think it's best if you refrain from posting in this forum.

Chris, your post has just made me want to punch my insides. I'm not going to excite your pathetic trollish nature with an angry response, but I think it's best if you refrain from posting in this forum.

 

 

Fine. I've deleted my post. :rolleyes: I wasn't trolling in this instance at all but was merely exploring a possibility and inviting discussion on it. I backed up my suggestion with reasoning which is what the mods here want. ;)

 

I have a copy of the post so if Rob or Scott want me to PM it to them so they can see it then I'm happy to do so. Nothing wrong with it, my viewpoint and suggestion, all backed up and reasoned out. :)

Edited July 24, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Fine. I've deleted my post. :rolleyes: I wasn't trolling in this instance at all but was merely exploring a possibility and inviting discussion on it. I backed up my suggestion with reasoning which is what the mods here want. ;)

 

You are a troll... FULL. STOP. :(

 

What is the post? Go ahead and repost it, I wish to be angry as well.

I think you have to accept that the police will be judged by slightly different rules from the rest of the population. Otherwise, nobody would want to perform certain police tasks. However, it is outrageous that not a single police officer has ever been charged with offences relating to someone's death. This case raises the question "If this doesn't warrant any charges, what will? What does a police officer have to do to risk facing murder or manslaughter charges?"

I think you have to accept that the police will be judged by slightly different rules from the rest of the population.

 

Hmmm, not sure I agree with that tbh... You cant really have coppers being above the law in any respect, they're the ones who're suppose to enforce it after all... Can you give any specific examples...?