It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A bad day for justice in the UK

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
2 news stories that show what a complete joke the justice system is, and how we have been let down by our peers.

First off, im sure everyone knows about the Tomlinson case, where a someone died as a result of police brutality. He was found NOT GUILTY despite having a lengthy record of bad behaviour, which has a court order banning any reporting of.

www.bbc.co.uk...

So basically this sends the message that the police are ABOVE the law and can do whatever they like to us with no fear of punishment.

Secondly, during the riots last year, 3 men were hit by cars and killed. Those accused were found NOT GUILTY.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The law is screwed up. This country is screwed up. Its bad enough as it is now, imagine whats going to happen when it is privatised.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Firefly_
 


I am not surprised by the decision in the Ian Tomlinson case. To my mind, the Police Officer was clearly guilty but how many times do we see this sort of decision? Just think of all the times the Police get away with causing death and injury through dangerous driving - they are almost never found guilty, even when shown to be at extreme fault.

The second case, however, is a massive surprise. I am sat here scratching my head at that one.......



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
But it was the juries in both cases who found the accused innocent. In the first case the jury took four days to reach its verdict, and it's quite possible Tomlinson's heavy drinking also contributed to his death. Plus there was no way the policeman could have expected Tomlinson would have died as a result of his actions.

What would you replace the jury system with?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by XeroOne
 


The juries were obviously rigged. There is no other explanation. This is not justice, its a joke.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_
reply to post by XeroOne
 


The juries were obviously rigged. There is no other explanation. This is not justice, its a joke.


Another explanation is the jury members were randomly selected, they spent hours a day sitting in a court room looking at evidence and hearing testimonies (as opposed to reading a BBC article), and arrived at a verdict by consensus based on that.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The Tomlinson case is disturbing, a policeman with a history of violence and going off it on the job, killing a man and getting away with it.

The car murder case is a strange one too.

expect Gary Mckinnon (autistic, looking for ufos and aliens in NASAs website) to be extradited to the good old USA where he'll probably be put in guantanamo bay.


Justice in the UK died a long time ago it seems.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by XeroOne
 


Every single member of the jury who voted "not guilty" is either completely incompetent, or completely corrupt, or the evidence presented at the trial was edited. There is no other explanation. They have let the country down and this is a very dangerous result that basically puts the message across that cops can do whatever they like and they will get away with it, even if it goes to court.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Just caught that on the news. Not guilty for murdering Mr Tomlinson. The officer had 10 previous violent assault alergations on his record. Including a road rage incident. He was allowed to retire then taken back on as a civilian. A year later he was then reinstated as a uniformed officer.
This verdict is a complete joke . Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police with his hands in his pockets. He was then attacked from behind, for what reason? A normal guy who had fininshed work an was walking home. What about the duty of care? He was employed by Mr Tolinson to stop a breach of the peace. Thats his job. Same with the riots. The riots started after the police shot an unarmed man and when the people asked them why they shot him. They made up a load of lies. Hence the riots.
We need to evict these crooks from office. Because lads ` we are all in it togeather` and we the people are not in the same gang as the crooks in govt.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
This is why I joined FoWL.

I started networking today and have already joined AnonWestMidlands.

We're gunna start a movement hopefully.

It amazes me about the UK, apart from our breif occupy London, we sit around and moan but *do* naff all



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
If its OK for the Police to shoot an innocent man seven times in the head it makes sense that to kill an innocent man by assault is OK .
A sad but inevitable verdict



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
But it was the juries in both cases who found the accused innocent. In the first case the jury took four days to reach its verdict, and it's quite possible Tomlinson's heavy drinking also contributed to his death. Plus there was no way the policeman could have expected Tomlinson would have died as a result of his actions.

What would you replace the jury system with?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


I wouldn't. Personally, i love the jury system. It is by the far best guarantee of a fair trial, provided the rules of law are followed correctly. And by this i mean proper enforcement of reporting restrictions before trial, etc, rather than judicially trained juries.

The problem with the Tomlinson case is that we have all seen the video in question - it has been played on media enough over the years. My other problem with it is that the Police always get away with it in cases like this. If Officers have been found to be abusing their powers, like recent cases highlighting things like rogue officers targetting women victims of crime for sex, they are always tried properly.

If, however, it is for wrongdoing in the line of duty (such as this case or smashing into other cars) they are never found guilty. I find that hard to believe - the law of averages say at least some should be found guilty. For example, there was a case near where i live over a decade ago. Police car responding to call (alleged by Police but never proven in court) smashed into the back of a car stopped at traffic lights. Lights can be seen for at least 1/2 mile away, so no excuse they couldn't see the car during the "response". Some people in car killed, case thrown out of court. Plenty more details to it but, in effect, it was a very straightforward case. If a normal member of public had done the same (or an Ambulance Driver), they would have faced jail. This case was simply thrown out.

There are a myriad other such examples and that is where my problem with decisions like these comes into play.

All that said, we come back to juries. And i wouldn't do away with juries. The question then to be answered should be how did they come to a not guilty verdict? In instances like this, the verdicts and the decision process should be explained. Otherwise it seriously opens questions about whether or not the jury was "leant on" to come to this decision.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by juniorchubbs
 


Why poor Gary McKinnon? I just do not understand that argument. You don't want extraditing to another country, then don't hack their Defence Files. The Asberger's argument doesn't wash. If your condition doesn't stop you breaking the law then it doesn't stop you serving your sentence.

Simple really.

And sorry for going off topic OP.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

edit on 19-7-2012 by Flavian because: delete - double post



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Firefly_
 


yeah I realized that everything from religion to courts have been made a joke so we lose faith in all forms of society. Then when it all fails from our own efforts against it, THEY swoop in and make the changes we all know are logical and sane.

Then we say....oooh thank you...it took you to get it right,,

Just like Hitler. The economy was shot, he came in and did what everyone was already saying since day one.....

Instant hero.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
The police in the UK have been getting away with brutality for years, When i was 12 i was picked up for trespassing (i was taking a shortcut via a car showroom where public are allowed to walk to view the cars) The police where local to my area and did know me as i was a bit of a tearaway but nothing bad, no violence and never stole a car in my life!!
The police put me in the back of the police car and said they was taking me home, they decided to take a scenic route and drove into some local woods near where i live, they started verbally abusing me so as a little tearaway i answered back, with that one of the officers turned round and started punching me in the head, when i arrived home in tears still with the police my dad saw all the marks on my face so i told him what had happened he went mad grabbed one of the officers and had to be stopped from punching him, i put a complaint in had pictures taken of the bruises went to court and hey got kicked out!!!
sorry if this was long winded but had to explain



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by saddlesee
 


Hmm, i do not condone Police brutality but at the same time i am old enough to remember the local bobby giving you a clip round the ear for vandalism, cheek to the Police, etc. Then marching you home and your dad and / or mum doing exactly the same thing!

The thing is, there was without doubt much less vandalism and anti social behaviour then so maybe there was some method to the madness?

That said, a clip round the ear is totally different from a kicking from a grown man.

I do know a couple of Policemen that have a particularly s***y patch in West Yorkshire where every now and again they get smackheads trying to stab them with dirty needles. They usually throw them in the back of the van and give them a thorough kicking - it is hard to find a problem with that to be honest.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


That's where I agree, but the problem there isn't the legal system itself, but the fact many serious cases aren't even tried in a criminal court when they should be. Look at the child molestation trials involving the Church and high-profile suspects - they're all being tried as civil cases and not criminal cases. Why is that?
Why are there 'inquiries' into the News of the World hacking scandal, when a criminal offence was committed?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
business as usual. no surprise at all that Simon Harwood got off. that's how the police roll. video evidence and past history of aggression be damned! he's one of the good guys!



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by XeroOne
 


I think specific to the hacking scandal that it is simply because the abuse was endemic. Therefore rather than a trial where potentially all politicians, senior police, myriad of celebrities, etc could be embroiled it is actually far simpler to have a public enquiry, draw a line under it and implement new rules. Then any subsequent breaches would be dealt with in a criminal court. Plus, no way was it only News of the World involved. Large scale by the media in general, every week journalists are being brought in to it from other areas. Focus on News of the World because every case like this needs a patsy (like Barclays in the Libor case - it is impossible for someone that doesn't have controlling share of a market to manipulate that market without the other big players being up to their necks in it).

Totally get your point though. Criminal matter equals criminal court. You would think it would be fairly simple.......



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Ive just heard the news on the Tomlinson case and come straight to ATS to have my say.

I am sick that this man is free to kill again. I read that the family are going to take him to civil court and i hope they bloody do. How you can get off with manslaughter because your simply wearing a uniform is ridiculous. The courts might not punish him for his crime but i have faith that the good people of England will recognise this scum bag and give him a piece of their mind. Perhaps maybe even use "reasonable force" to eject him from their company.

My thoughts are with the victims family.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join