Friday, July 23, 2010

Why Dizzy Still Rules

THIS blogpost on the CPS decision not to prosecute in the Ian Tomlinson case demonstrates, in my humble opinion, why Dizzy remains one of the best bloggers around.


James said...


A blogger who assumes anyone who disagrees with him is a leftie is, IMHO, an idiot. That seems to be Dizzy's case.

Why is the prosecution required to call Patel as a prosecution witness? He is discredited and surely a defence witness to be ripped to pieces by a half competant prosecutor.

If the rules state that he must be a prosecution witness even though he undermines the prosecution case, the rules must be changed and Harwood then prosecuted.

This isn't a coverup. But it is a disgrace (as the family says) and it brings justice, the CPS and the Met even more deeply into disrepute. Those that support the CPS over this help to further erode justice.

And I am a conservative Hannanophile. Unlike Dizzy, we don't side with the state apparatus against the little people. What is left wing about that?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Dizzy's comments, but that does not prevent an internal polkice diciplinary procedure. At the very least this policeman was guilty of making all police look like thugs and he had no excuse for using his stick.

The guy was being obstructive and he could and should have been moved along better or in fact arrested there and then.

I am guessing I know, but I assume there were countless instances of protesters violence going uncaught and unpunished as well.

Maverick Ways said...

It may be the law - but justice it ain't.

Nigel said...

Dizzy's arguments are cogent, but conveniently ignore some of the complicating facts.

The IPCC considered that there was sufficient evidence to bring a manslaughter charge.
The second pathologist (one of the ones not under investigation for professional misconduct) has stated that the CPS made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

Setting aside the quite understandable public disgust over this case (and the fact that the police seemed quite happy to re-employ someone who according to today's Times had previously retired on medical grounds while under investigation for thuggery), it is not at all clear cut that the CPS acted properly.

Mirtha Tidville said...

Iain I agree, Dizzy has spelt this out, carefully and correctly. Its probably the most accurate piece of reporting I have read so far...If you want to see what total blood letting is then read Old Holborn, or probably best you dont...

The CPS are between a rock and a hard place. Patel has to be called as a Prosecution witness and that cannot be changed.His evidence, in a nutshell, undermines the Prosecution case and as such forces the CPS to take the line they have..

I find the howls of outrage to be somewhat predicable and typical of the kneejerk Daily Mail,lynchmob mentality you find these days.

What concerns me more is how the hell do you retire someone on medical grounds(when they are under a cloud) then re employ them in not one but TWO forces including the original that got rid of him???????..Now that does require some further answers. In short the accused should not have been in the job...Full Stop

Jess The Dog said...

If the police - and others - were more willing to follow internal disciplinary routes, then there would be fewer expensive and time consuming inquiries, private prosecutions, scandals etc. It's plain as day why they aren't in this case...not to protect the officer or because there is insufficient evidence (balance of probabilities); it is because the Police Federation would be all over the Met for breaching H+S and manning (etc) regulations and that's the last thing they want!

Bardirect said...

so there is apparent doubt about the cause of death.

that by no means means that there cannot be a prosecution for assault, misconduct in public office, or indeed a public order offence.

Vijay said...

I've still not had it adequately explained that even if the medical evidence wasn't there for manslaughter, why a prosecution for Actual Bodily Harm wasn't brought; I don't believe that the statute of limitations has yet been reached for that.

JamesW said...

If one of us whacked someone with a stick, and the victim died, would we get off Scot free, or would we be charged and looking at a long stretch? How can a policeman get away with it because our rulers employ an incompetent coroner?

Osama the Nazarene said...

Dizzy may be right on the legal technicality but I agree with Senor Portillo on yesterday's "This Week" that it is scandalous that the policeman cannot be prosecuted for assault because 6 months has elapsed. This 6 month limit should be removed without reservation.