Students Rioting in London.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

Even as you try to grasp the moral high ground with lofty sermons about the need to remember 'innocent until proven guilty', you can't help but recite little tidbits of protestor mythology that are so blindly assumed to be true you manage to miss the fact that they are demonstrably not.

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.

If you don't mind, I won't be taking any lessons about the course of justice from you.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Like I did say earlier, his word against everyone elses. Why would he have said such a thing to a senior officer if he hadn't deliberately added in those comments. Instead of allowing the police investigation make your mind up for you, why not look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

While we're on the subject of pedantics....

Actually it doesn't clearly say that.

What it says verbatim is "The investigation found however that on the balance of probabilities he, neither acting alone or in conspiracy with other officers, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence."

What that means as it reads is that he, not acting alone or with another police officer but quite possibly with another individual, deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence.

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

The investigation concluded that AZ8 had not deliberately inserted song titles into his evidence

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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:

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.

[danielf]

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

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

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

[danielf]

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

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

Gotta keep myself occupied somehow!

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek

Muah wah haha

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur26/page03.htm



Now would it be beyond the realms of possibility that this is the same Alfred 'Alfie' Meadows who ended up with a lump of concrete shaped bump on the back of his head yet his mother claimed he was an angel and was not involved in any trouble and the big bad Met batoned him causing the injury.

Funny how she soon shut up when it became clear he was a violent wee thug and the injury was an 'own goal' from the protestors and not a Police inflicted injury.

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.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

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

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

but conspiracy theorists and cop haters will no doubt call it a vendetta against him for daring to complain against the police

There seems to be a few of those.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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 .

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

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 .

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.