dont_do_it_doug. Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 We are run by a dictatorship it's that simple.... Indeed and all we ever get to do is choose which dictatorship erodes our civil liberties even further next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I saw a man being cruelly, utterly needlessly and dangerously pushed to the ground by an idiot who should never have been in the force. I heard the coroners evidence which didn't provide a firm link between that and the man's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I heard the coroners evidence which didn't provide a firm link between that and the man's death. :? The coroner's report had already recorded a verdict of 'unlawful killing'. Did you mean the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Ah, the pathologist. The wonderful Freddy Patel. He is no longer registered on the Home Office list of forensic pathologists, and has been suspended twice by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of conducting botched postmortems and falsifying his CV. In one case, Patel is suspected of having conducted an autopsy on the wrong body. I understand the police specially requested him to do the autopsy, though he wasn't on the list from which the pathologist should have been drawn. They also concealed from the IPCC the fact that three police officers had made statements against Harwood. And when the video evidence of the incident was eventually shown to the family, the police tried to tell them it might have been a demonstrator who had stolen a police uniform. I can accept that the police failure to remove Harwood from the force, allowing him to escape disciplinary action in previous years, allowing him to resign and then be readmitted three days later but without the pending disciplinary action being pursued, letting him join another force without finding out his record, failing to perceive or assess the importance of a sequence of complaints against him (including by other police officers) over the course of several years for violence and falsifying records in support of his lies, and letting such a manifestly unsuitable and violent person become part of the riot police, all stem from incompetence and systemic organisational failure. But the attempts to hush up this death amount to deliberate subversion of the course of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I thought the coroner's role was to call for an enquiry/post mortem and present the results of in a report. Anyway whatever the procedure, yes I meant the post mortem results. The first and supposedly most reliable concluding he had died of coronary artery disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 20, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 20, 2012 We are run by a dictatorship it's that simple.... Indeed and all we ever get to do is choose which dictatorship erodes our civil liberties even further next. Think outside the box man, you aren't restricted to the options on the ballot paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 yes I meant the post mortem results. The first and supposedly most reliable concluding he had died of coronary artery disease. He is no longer registered on the Home Office list of forensic pathologists, and has been suspended twice by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of conducting botched postmortems and falsifying his CV. In one case, Patel is suspected of having conducted an autopsy on the wrong body...His findings in relation to Tomlinson were contradicted by three other forensic pathologists, all of whom agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding in the abdomen. But Patel – who conducted the first and most important autopsy and discarded the bloody fluid found in Tomlinson's abdomen – was the key witness. It is impossible to know what swayed the jury in their deliberations, but his evidence must have had a bearing on their considerations.The small community of forensic pathologists privately expressed surprise when it first emerged that such a high-profile autopsy had been entrusted to Patel. Most reliable? Certainly not in terms of professional competence. Perhaps he was thought most reliable in another sense. Why was he specifically brought in by the City of London police to do this, when he wasn't on the list of pathologists to use? Why did he destroy evidence by discarding body fluids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I thought the coroner's role was to call for an enquiry/post mortem and present the results of in a report. Anyway whatever the procedure, yes I meant the post mortem results. The first and supposedly most reliable concluding he had died of coronary artery disease. You are PC Simon Harwood, and I claim my five pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 yes I meant the post mortem results. The first and supposedly most reliable concluding he had died of coronary artery disease. He is no longer registered on the Home Office list of forensic pathologists, and has been suspended twice by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of conducting botched postmortems and falsifying his CV. In one case, Patel is suspected of having conducted an autopsy on the wrong body...His findings in relation to Tomlinson were contradicted by three other forensic pathologists, all of whom agreed that the cause of death was internal bleeding in the abdomen. But Patel – who conducted the first and most important autopsy and discarded the bloody fluid found in Tomlinson's abdomen – was the key witness. It is impossible to know what swayed the jury in their deliberations, but his evidence must have had a bearing on their considerations.The small community of forensic pathologists privately expressed surprise when it first emerged that such a high-profile autopsy had been entrusted to Patel. Most reliable? Certainly not in terms of professional competence. Perhaps he was thought most reliable in another sense. Why was he specifically brought in by the City of London police to do this, when he wasn't on the list of pathologists to use? Why did he destroy evidence by discarding body fluids?yeah I was reading about it last night, in light of what I read, it all seems very suspicious indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Absolutely disgraceful decision. A violent man whose history shows he isn't fit to be a policeman is filmed assaulting somebody, and gets off. Things like this just make me lose all faith, they really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The police are cowards. When it's peaceful students protesting they like to rough them up and assert their authority. When it's ghetto urban youths rioting and looting they stand there and watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Wikileaks thread seems to have been pruned so will chuck this in here: Julian Assange: UK issues 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder The UK has issued a "threat" to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange, Ecuador's foreign minister has said. Ricardo Patino said a decision on the Wikileaks founder's asylum request would be made public on Thursday. Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies. The Foreign Office says the UK has a legal obligation to extradite him. At a news conference in Quito on Wednesday night, Mr Patino said: "Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our Embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange. "Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication." 'Hostile act' He said such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilized and rule abiding country". "If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond," he said. "We are not a British colony". A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK remained "determined" to fulfil its obligation to extradite Mr Assange. "Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said. "We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution." The law which Britain is threatening to invoke in the Assange case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic immunity of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange. On Monday, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said a decision would be made this week after he held a meeting with his advisers. Mr Patino said that a decision on Mr Assange's asylum request had been made and that an announcement would made on Thursday morning at 07:00 Ecuadorian time (13:00 BST). Mr Assange's Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly the US in 2010. The 41-year-old Australian says he fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, he may be sent later to the US and could face espionage charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Wikileaks thread seems to have been pruned so will chuck this in here: This is utterly astonishing. International law on this states It is an absolute rule that the premises of the mission are inviolable and agents of the receiving state cannot enter them without the consent of the mission. (referenced here). Assange is accused that he initiated and participated in sex which, having started as consensual, at some point became non-consensual because consent hinged on the use of a condom and at some point it either failed, came off, or was not used. It is a charge he should answer. It is not by the wildest leap of the imagination something for which centuries of custom, practice and international law regarding embassies, diplomats and missions can be so casually overturned. The real agenda is that the US want to capture him and either kill him or imprison him for life in their notoriously inhumane conditions, for having embarrassed them by revealing many unwelcome but true things about what they do. Sweden, once a principled and respectable state but recently less so, is suspected of being ready to roll over and extradite him, to please their lords and masters across the water. And we, coming late to the party, seem to want to show how far we will go in aping the USA's casual disregard for law, rights, morality, and pretty much anything else that once separated us from thuggish bully states. Sick, unacceptable, and a sign of the moral degradation of the spivs and chancers running this pathetic government, who have managed to fall even further in my estimation than I considered possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 ...a sign of the moral degradation of the spivs and chancers running this pathetic government, who have managed to fall even further in my estimation than I considered possible. I don't disagree with the rest of your post but I do think this is wrong - I think this is symptomatic of the kind of government that we have had for a couple of decades (Tory, Tory lite and Tory yellow) and with which we are stuck until, well, forever perhaps - I'm not really sure whether we will ever be able to shake this kind of thing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 How would Assange actually get to Ecuador without a load of rozzers jumping him the moment he leaves the embassy? Is that the plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 How would Assange actually get to Ecuador without a load of rozzers jumping him the moment he leaves the embassy? Is that the plan? Nope. His 'Plan' seems to be hiding out in their embassy, foreva! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Here's his real plan. + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 How would Assange actually get to Ecuador without a load of rozzers jumping him the moment he leaves the embassy? Is that the plan? I've seen some discussions about the practicalities of what might ensue if/when he tries to leave the embassy including the poissibility of smuggling him out of the embassy to an airfield in a 'diplomatic bag'. Also, taxis for Mr Assange have apparently been turning up at the embassy throughout the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 He should've went to the Venezuelan embassy, Chávez would be loving this. It annoys me how one-way the UK/US 'special relationship' is. They'll probably extradite that UFO hacker who has Asperger's and lock him up in a maximum security jail for a few decades. Things aren't looking good for the TVshack chap either. I'm led to believe the US aren't so forthcoming when their citizens are required to face British justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 ...a sign of the moral degradation of the spivs and chancers running this pathetic government, who have managed to fall even further in my estimation than I considered possible. I don't disagree with the rest of your post but I do think this is wrong - I think this is symptomatic of the kind of government that we have had for a couple of decades (Tory, Tory lite and Tory yellow) and with which we are stuck until, well, forever perhaps - I'm not really sure whether we will ever be able to shake this kind of thing off. Yes, it's a fair point. I suppose the most striking extradition case with the last government was where they refused extradition, ie Jack Straw deciding that mass murderer Pinochet should not be extradited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts