Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Its classified and outside of the public domain as far as the police are concerned, and yes it goes on - there have been too many witnesses to discount. So it hasn't been demonstraby shown to be untrue - as you blindly assume.

You wouldn't know police justice if you were batoned in the face, but admittably that's discounting the possibility that it might actually knock some sense into you.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Erm no. The case and his testimony was investigated, and it was found there was no substantive evidence that he had inserted song titles, which means it was pretty much proven he hadn't (innocent until proven guilty etc). Which just leaves the comment to the senior officer, which for all we know may have been an attempt at humour. Poor judgment, and he's facing misconduct charges over that.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:41 ----------

Erm ok, so that one is ambiguous, but doesn't make much sense in your reading. This one isn't though:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes but that statement is immediately followed by "However, he did make a comment to a senior officer to the effect that he had".

Additionally there was substantive evidence that he had, or had in concert with others (not necessarily police officers), inserted song references into his testimony - the reference to "Faith" by George Michael refers.

The devil is in the detail. It's all to do with the wording of the IPCC statement - which I'm sure they could have amended anytime from March 4th up until now had they wanted to avoid any possible ambiguity.;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Why don't you drop them a line? I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Perhaps I already have and that's why I'm familiar with the context.;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Must be all that spare time from giving up smoking... :)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Gotta keep myself occupied somehow!;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Hmmm....I've had a search around and can find nothing about this allegation, regarding a lump of concrete. Where did you hear about it? I thought the IPCC were still investigating.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

It's not an allegation as such just an alternate explanation ,it could have been a brick or a lump of wood if proven that it wasn't a trunction .

I think the fact the police have charged him means they have proof that he was hit with something other than a trunction ,but conspiracy theorists and cop haters will no doubt call it a vendetta against him for daring to complain against the police

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

There seems to be a few of those.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

As discussed earlier in this very thread there is little or no merit in considering the two issues as interdependant. You saying that you think that he has been charged because they may have proof that he was hit by a missile actually makes you look like a conspiracy theorist.

That said, the subsequent silence on the matter of how the injury was caused is very unusual.

Both parties have had considerable time to make / state the facts as known to them and corroborated by medical evidence (x-rays, surgeons, doctors, paramedics, etc) together with other sources such as camera and phone video footage - yet neither have.

There is also the matter of the IPCC still appealing for witnesses to the incident.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I think they are being treated as interdependant to an extent ,i'm not saying that is the correct way to do it though .The police and the IPCC will be fully aware that all eyes are on them in how they deal with this situation .I doubt if the police would have charged him unless they have a lot of proof that he was involved in some misdemeanour ,probably gleaned from the cctv footage they where going through looking to see what hit him on the head .

The police have 2 choices imo regarding this matter
A) They can uphold the law and charge him with any offence he has committed regardless of any complaint under investigation ,treating the two incidents totally seperate which is right and proper imo
B) They can wait untill they know the likely outcome of the inquiry and then follow through with any prosecution for offences committed knowing they are in the clear so to speak ,which i will grant is the wrong way to do it imo .The polce do not have the luxury to decide who they prosecute so the can spare their blushes or limit damage to the force

Cases like this can very easily be turned into a damage limitation exercise ,by finding the smallest thing to charge him with the police can use that as justification for using force ..not something i think they will be doing ..i hope ,i am merely using that as an example of a way they could be treating this as interdependant

I agree that it is peculiar that the IPCC are still asking for witnesses which suggests that the investigation is still in the early stages .Also i do not know if the police will get any advance warnings of results or if they are released to the public at the same time .

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

As I mentioned earlier I found the timing, not simply his being charged, of him (and the others) very unusual. They were all, apparently, banned from Westminister and its surrounding areas for a short period of time - just enough time to see out the royal wedding today.

It'll certainly be interesting to learn the outcome of the IPCC investigation and I would hope to find therein the reasons behind this apparent wall of silence / lack of information in the public domain on the matter of how the injury was received / caused.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I agree ,secrecy and silence in these types of cases does no-one any favours .

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Sorry, I thought Derek said there was proof. I was wondering what form that proof took. He also implied the investigation was completed, so I am now wondering where the details of this completed investigation are.