As Libyan diplomats across the world have resigned in protests of the blatant attacks by Gaddafi on his own people we have seen some ambassadors refuse to step down and back the regime, in particular I’m thinking of the head of the UN mission Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham, what happens to these diplomats diplomatic protection if the regime itself falls?
Surely they are complicit in the crimes against humanity being committed against their own people by their administration. So if the regime falls would it be possible for them to be arrested and held with a view to charging them for that complicity?
I’m interested in anyone’s thoughts on the topic in the comments below.
I’m usually quite a fan of Fraser Nelson, but his blog posting for the Spectator today is simply misleading and an example of the kind of sloppy journalism that editors are meant to be employed to prevent happening (see here).
It was written in response to the following tweet by John Rentoul (see here):
Where is @frasernels when you need him? The 50p income tax rate has brought in a ton of money; he said it would probably reduce revenue.
Fraser begins his argument by chiding John Rentoul and stating:
Were John self-employed, he’d know that the tax paid last month was in respect of the 2009-10 tax year – when the top rate of tax was 40p.
The argument that he then makes is basically advanced on this premise. Unfortunately this premise is quite simply not true and if he’d looked at his own return he’d of known that.
The payments made on 31st January by millions of people filing Self Assessment Tax Returns include the first of two payments on account relating to the current tax year 2010-2011, so do include the 50p in the £ tax rate.
Now this can be bit confusing, so maybe instead of intentionally misleading his readers rather than admitting he might of been wrong, maybe Fraser just got a bit confused. So this is how it works:
1. The tax year runs from 06 April to 05 April each year, currently 06 April 2010 to 05 April 2011.
2. You file your return by the 31st January after the year has ended, so your 2010-2011 return would be filed by 31 January 2012 at the latest.
Now you might assume you just pay all of your tax liability for that financial year, which is generally true if you’ve only been filing returns for one year, but if you’ve not, that’s not true. What happens is:
1. When you filed your return on 31 January 2011 for the year 2009-2010 the HM Customs & Revenue estimates, based on that return, your future income for the financial year you are presently in (2010-2011).
2. It breaks this payment down into two equal amounts the first of which you pay immediately on 31 January 2011, the second of which you pay by 31 July 2011.
3. Your payment on 31 January 2012 will include the difference between these Payments on Account and your actual tax liability determined by your return, plus the newly determined first Payment on Account for the current financial year (2011-2012).
If you want to read more (perhaps you’re tired and would like something to send you to sleep or your intentionally masochistic) you can do so here on the HMRC’s website.
Perhaps in the future the Spectator or Fraser himself could do some basic fact checking or research into the topic concerned before mouthing off.
–
* This post has been updated to make the following corrections:
The term ‘self-employed people’ has been changed to ‘people filing Self Assessment Tax Returns’ after commentator BigC correctly pointed out that not only self-employed people file SA Tax Returns.
References to the ‘Inland Revenue’ have been changed to ‘HM Customs & Revenue’ or ‘HMRC’ as commentator BigC pointed out the Inland Revenue and HM Customs merged in 2005 into a single entity.
I’ve updated the link to the HMRC to point to the most recent document discussing Payments on Account, which I discovered whilst researching my reply to BigC.
The student protests in London last night demonstrate the final and complete failure of police tactics. Policing in Britain has always been policing by consent but the tactic of kettling and the use of mounted police against protesters that are largely unarmed, excepting occasional flares, does nothing but provoke the kinds of violence we have seen where protesters trapped and under attack defend themselves.
There remains a clear bias in the reporting by the conventional media, who are quick to tell us how many police have been injured in the violence and slow to tell us how many protesters were injured or how many normal people who happened to be caught up in the protests due to the police’s tactics of kettling were injured. This is simply not right.
What has begun to change is that through services like twitter we are able to get live feedback of what is happening on the streets. Yesterday by following a few protester accounts @UCLOccupation and the hashtag #demo2010 I was able to get a real picture of what was happening on the streets and it differed greatly from BBC24’s live reporting and the statements of the police.
It was clear from the live comments of the protesters that they felt they were prevented from taking the route as agreed in advance with the police by the police themselves. It is hardly surprising then that they headed for Parliament Square the traditional venue for protest and it is clear from the deployment of police that they expected, maybe even wanted, protesters in this containable location.
It is also completely unsurprising that there was violence given that the police confronted unarmed protesters with riot gear and more disturbingly mounted police. I surely can’t of been the only person watching the live coverage who was shocked by mounted police charging protesters, much earlier than the point at which the press seems to be reporting a change of mood in the crowd.
It is also clear that as the Duchess of Cornwall becomes the image of the violence that this attack itself could of been avoided. Police might claim that the route was clear minutes before, but twitter’s live feed doesn’t lie as it reported much earlier that protesters forcibly evicted from Trafalgar Square were heading towards Oxford Street and reforming there:
What is clear to me is that that the violence seen yesterday was created by the aggressive, uncompromising approach of the police in dealing with the protest. There are literally hundreds of tweets, all public, which told the police exactly what was going on in the crowd, exactly how the mood was changing and from the police? Silence.
Engagement with the protesters should not be at the end of a baton nor under the feet of a charging horse nor in the forcible detention of hundreds of protesters for hours on end, many of whom were young teenagers who now will have a negative view of the police making it more likely that future protests will end in violence.
It is clear from listening to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the Radio 4 Today Program this morning, where he described the Royal Protection Officers as showing great restraint in not shooting protesters (something that really has to be heard to be believed) that he is not the man to lead any investigation into the protests nor is he likely to effect any change.
Where have all the principled politicians gone? I’m starting to suspect that they’ve largely died off and that perhaps the present hegemony of the inter-war and post-war generation (I roughly have those born from around 1930 to 1960 in my sights here), which has controlled our political system for my entire life, never had any principles; other than perhaps that they are always right: forget the lessons of the past, forget the critics and of course forget the people (this one being a personal gift of Tony Blair).
If you haven’t already guessed, like most people I’m upset about the proposed cuts our delightful coalition government has decided to force upon our country (assuming that is they can pass such measures through the Commons, never mind the Lords and of course that the coalition doesn’t collapse after the Spending Review). In particular, it’s the wholesale, unashamed attack on the principle of universality, be it in benefits or in the education system all under the guise of essential savings that need to be made to cut “the deficit”.
As a historian, by education (BA (Hons) History, UCL, 2002), I’m very familiar with the old distinction that the Victorians drew between the “Respectable” and the “Non-Respectable Poor” that enabled gentile Victorian society to turn a blind eye to the burgeoning squalor that had grown-up in England’s towns and cities and pat themselves on the back for the meager and insufficient support they provided to the “Respectable Poor”, whilst largely letting the “Non-Respectable Poor” rot in the circumstances they found themselves.
It took the better part of a century for the British political establishment to transition from the laissez-faire model that had dominated the nineteenth century and justified those Victorian attitudes towards the poor to the more progressive, interventionist model that is now considered the cornerstone of the British and European political systems. This transition was pioneered by men of principle (Booth, Rowntree) and the legislative cornerstone for the model was laid by the Liberal Party following their election in 1906 and re-election in 1910 (twice: Jan & Dec).
It is perhaps hard for people to appreciate the depth of the poverty endured by most of Britain’s population in the century preceding this landmark legislation passed by this government (though you can get a vivid picture of it by picking up any of Dickens works) or of the stigma that was attached to having to petition the parish for assistance under the old Poor laws that they replaced, however, the very fact that these reforms have effectively removed poisonous terms like “the Respectable Poor” from our collective memory is a testament to their success.
And it is my firm opinion that these changes have become so intrinsically established in the British mindset due to the underlying principle of universality that would come, by the time of the post-war reforms, to unify them and that they stand and fall on the basis of their universality, because without this universal element your access to these benefits be it education or health care or simply the right to have a roof over your head becomes about one thing and one thing alone: the amount of money at your disposal.
Thatcher laid what I consider to be the first blow against the principle of universality in 1970 when she earned the moniker: “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” for her removal of the entitlement to free school milk for children over seven years old. Though it is worth noting that in her autobiography she had this to say with regard to this reform:
“I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit.”
And it seems that despite her sage observation, albeit from a self-serving political angle rather than a principled realisation of the wrong she had wrought, it is a lesson that goes ignored by the present coalition government.
Which brings me to the current raft of coalition reforms, which have been announced on an almost daily basis since the party conference season and threaten almost every aspect of the daily lives of everyday people up and down the country. More importantly they seem to disproportionately disadvantage the most vulnerable in our society, as well hitting as women and children in particular. (I wonder if anyone else has noticed the underlying misogynistic streak in these reforms?)
I was moved to write this post by a conversation I had with my step-brother’s mother last Friday, concerning the proposed reforms to Child Benefit, which as I am sure you will know propose the introduction of what is effectively a means testing system based on the tax code of a the parents. Accepting the clearly ridiculous position of a family unit where if a single income exceeds £44,000 a child would not be entitled to the benefit, but if both incomes were £1 less that this they would (or combined £87,998) the child would be entitled, she broadly supported the change.
And this is where we parted company because though in our conversation I indicated a that I might support the measure if it was against the actual higher rate of tax (technically it’s rather stupidly called the “Additional Rate“) of 50% on earnings above £150,000 per year rather than the middle rate of tax on reflection I simply can’t support the measure at all because to do so is effectively the thin end of a very dangerous wedge that threatens to fundamentally undermine the principle of universality inherent in this benefit, a benefit that effectively equalises all children.
And it is this principle that the government should be seeking to support not destroy because it has the fundamental effect of enabling mothers of all financial backgrounds to relate to each other as mothers, rather than to look at their financial differences. Once we start to means test and thereby limit this type of benefit how long will it be before those who no longer receive Child Benefit begin to question whether others slightly less well off than them should receive it and from there it is a very slippery slope.
And once you start to think in this manner it quickly becomes apparent how many of the reforms proposed by this government in the name of “essential cost cutting” are simply thinly disguised attacks on the principles of the universality that fundamental underpins of our social settlement and of the truly dangerous return this might herald to the days of the “Respectable” and “Non-Respectable Poor”. The Liberals of 1906 who so bravely implemented the first of these fundamental changes to our settlement are more than likely turning in their graves.
And before I sign off I ask you to reflect upon this: if it is so essential to cut these costs now, why wait until 2013-14 to enact the changes? Now where is the logic in that?
Over the weekend I managed to get myself engaged in a small disagreement about a proposed redevelopment of the local seaside town Redcar with Steven Goldswain, Joe Anderson and by extension put myself somewhat in the middle of an argument they are having with the local Liberal Democrat MP Ian Swales.
A Little Background
For those of you who are not locals, Redcar is a once proud Seaside resort that is now in a slow, steady decline; despite it having one of the best beaches in the North East, a beach that stretches some 12 miles, all the way to my current home in Salburn-by-the-Sea. Over the past decade that my father has lived in Saltburn and I have been a regular visitor, then resident, we have watched its decline with dismay.
The sandy beaches of Redcar.
Acting like a feudal overlord the local council, Redcar & Cleveland, has made decisions time and time again for the town without real consideration and regard for the residents, public opinion or the long term impacts of these decisions. All of them have been grand in scope, few, if any, have succeeded and those that have, have actually hastened the town’s decline (see here).
The latest of these grand follies is the so-called “vertical” pier:
A view of the
which is intended to replace the two piers original piers:
Coatham Pier was problem struck from day one and after a devastating boat strike in 1891 the pier itself was abandoned and replaced at the Pier head by a glass house for concerts, which in 1928 became the New Pavillion Theatre and in the 1960s was converted in the locally popular Regents Cinema.
The Original Redcar Pier
Redcar Pier fared much better, though was not without problems suffering boat strikes in the 1880s and 90s, it survived WW2 despite being weakened by a mine explosion and being sectioned. In the 1970s and 80s it suffered for a lack of maintenance after storm damage and was pulled down in 1981.
So now the very same council that demolished the pier now wants to undo the harm it did to Redcar nearly thirty years ago, for want of spending £155,000 then by spending upwards of £30m now or even as much as £50 million by the construction of this newly proposed “vertical” pier.
Saltburn's famous Ha'penny bridge being demolished.
And Now…
It seems to me that the “vertical” pier itself is a grand, egotistical statement by the Council that I believe is a reaction to the shaming humiliation the Council experienced at the hands of local protesters who fought them all the way to the Supreme Court of England to stop earlier plans to renovate Redcar by selling off part of the town’s seafront to Persimmion Homes for a controversial development. (See here).
And from the tone of Steven Goldswain’s tweets it seems that the council is having somewhat of a struggle putting together the funding for their folly and Mr. Goldswain has launched (or is promoting a site and a facebook fan page) that is petitioning the local MP Ian Swales to ask Mr. Cameron for the money to complete their folly. It was the content of this website that provoked my ire. And this is why:
The site starts by saying:
Whilst Ian Swales’ Liberal Democrats claim they want Redcar to have a pier, they are unwilling to find the money to build one.
and goes on to say:
This group has done some independent research of its own. The Lib Dems have been misleading people on the cost of a ‘traditional pier’. Cllr Chris Abbott claims a pier would only cost £3.1 million; yet, in reality, a pier with facilities comparable to those of the proposed ‘Vertical Pier’ would cost an amount close to £50,000,000. Weston-super-Mare’s replacement pier, recently built, cost over £51,000,000. Perhaps the figure of £3.1 million cited by the Lib Dems is little more than a political ploy?
“We can’t afford a pier unless MP Swales can get £50,000,000 for Redcar from his government”, said deputy council leader Sheelagh Clarke.
Thought they say they’ve done “independent” research of their own, they don’t provide any of this “independent” research on the site, instead prefering to rely on their own assertions and a statement from the deputy council leader; nor do they permit comments on the site or on the facebook fan page wall, both of which I found suspicious. So what of their claims?
The dismissal of of Cllr Chris Abbot’s assertion that a new traditional pier would only cost £3.1 million to build, this actually seems reasonable if you’re a local and recall that the Saltburn Pier was entirely dismantled and restored in 2000 at a cost of £1.2 million (see here). They go on to justify this assertion by comparing the new “vertical” pier to the rebuilt Western-Super-Mare Pier, which they say costs some £51 millions to restore.
At this point they justify their assertion by saying that the “vertical” pier will have “facilities comparable” to that of Western-Super-Mare, though I didn’t see any details of a theme park being planned for the “vertical” pier, which cost £8-9 millions at Western-Super-Mare, within the council’s press release. The Guardian also reported the cost of the rebuild as £30 millions (see here), not £51 millions, and they had to deal with restoring a grade II listed pier.
There does indeed seem to be a lot of political smoke going about, however, it seems to be coming from this group and the Labour cabinet member; perhaps still smarting from the last election result where Mr. Swales was swept into power in one of the most significant swings in recent years against Labour in a traditional stronghold.
So what would I do?
Well I think if we have to have a pier, why can’t local residents have a traditional or rather a true pier (by definition) back? Personally I can say that it’d look quite handsome from my balcony’s sea view of Redcar, even though it might provide some competition for Saltburn. Even if it cost £3.1 millions, or even £5 millions, which I doubt, that’s a tenth of the cost of this project.
A birds eye view of the original Redcar pier.
Some of the money saved from the original budget could then be spent on improving the cohesion of Redcar overall by tying the town and the high street back into the sea front, something perhaps akin to the re-development proposed by local architects DKS during the competition. The council could also actively work with owners of derelict and closed properties along the front to help bring them back to life through generous loans and grants.
What I think Redcar needs is a helping hand, over a long period of time that would help businesses to get themselves back on their feet and make the seafront an attractive place to visit again. Such small, considered investments would not only be affordable but they would be infinitely more likely to succeed than a grand folly to this council’s arrogance.
In a move that may bring hope to the Tomlinson family the Crown Prosecution Service has charged four police officers with assault over the December 2003 arrest of Mr. Babar Ahmad, an IT support analyst, in Tooting, South West London.
It is particularly shocking, however, that it took seven years from the date of the assault for the CPS to make this decision, though it did involve at least one reversal of a previous decision not to prosecute. Also the police officers remained on active duty throughout.
How is it right to have for either Mr. Ahmad or the police officers accused that this process took so long to be resolved? It doesn’t seem fair on either the alleged victim or the accused and demonstrates the problems at the heart of our justice system.
It also speaks to how long the problems with the Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group, the same group from which the officer that assaulted Ian Tomlinson came from, maybe it is time that the Met abolish this group.
Wow. In a definite blow for Freedom of Information the whistle-blower site Wikileaks has provided the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel access to the American Army’s War Logs for the Afghanistan war, totalling over 90,000 documents, from 2004 to 2010.
This is a breaking story, with the Guardian’s specialist site only going up under an hours ago. And I expect it will run and run and run… and now we know wikileaks have this information we can only ask what else do they have?
Thanks to @iankatz1000 for breaking the story on twitter.
Update
The BBC has finally caught up (how did it take them a couple of hours?) Read their coverage here:
At times it’s difficult to maintain hope that our corrupt, incompetent political systems might be reformed. This is one of those days.
The statement this morning by Kier Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), is one that instills sheer disbelief and irreparably damages the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Police and if they don’t respond it an appropriate way later today the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson has been a disaster from start to finish. From the IPCC’s initial refusal to intervene in his case and their backing of the City of London Police to conduct the investigation for the vital first week; to the IPCC’s humbling climb down 1 following the release of crucial video evidence to the Guardian2 and later additional evidence from Channel 4 news3; to the months of delays, broken promises and finally the announcement that no charges were to be made on the 5 year anniversary of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the London Metropolitan Police4;.
Fortunately it seems that the one thing that DPP realised is that his decision would cause disbelief and outrage amongst the general public and he has therefore published, for our consumption, his reasoning into why he felt that he would not be able to secure a conviction if the evidence had been placed before a jury to decide.
It is the DDP’s reasoning I now propose to examine, following the headings of the document itself. (Read it in full here.)
The Introduction
“It is important to appreciate and keep in mind the questions that the CPS has addressed in this case, namely whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.”
This is the most crucial sentence in the introduction, laying down the aims of the investigation, and can briefly reduced to:
Is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction?
Is a prosecution required in the public interest?
These are the two facts that we have to keep in mind as we follow through DPP’s reasoning in reaching in his decision not to prosecute.
The incident in Royal Exchange
This section details the incident itself and is to my mind riddled with inaccuracies, poor definitions and lack of plainly stated facts, which considering the investigation has taken 16 months to bring us a verdict is, to be frank, wholly unacceptable of public official. Take for example,
“On 1 April 2009 a summit of financiers, bankers and leaders of industrial countries took place in central London. The event was known as ‘G20’ because of the number of countries represented.”
Not only is this not accurate, the official definition of the G20, can be found by spending less than a few seconds googling their website5;:
The G-20 is made up of the finance ministers and central bank governors of 19 countries… The European Union, who is represented by the rotating Council presidency and the European Central Bank, is the 20th member of the G-20.
How is it that the DPP is not able to accurately define the G20? And if he’s not capable of it, why did he not just do exactly what I have and google it. In my mind this kind of sloppy drafting does not bode well as an indicator for the soundness of the DPP’s reasoning.
And it goes on,
“…there were reports that over 30 police officers suffered injury during the events of the day…”
Surely after 16 months it possible to not rely on report of injuries suffered by the police, but actually have accurate figures from quotable sources that can be substantiated. And surely if the DPP is prepared to speculate on the number of police injuries he should also have reported the number of protesters injured, so we are given a better picture of the events of that day, rather than one which is already biased towards the police, as the injured party.
He goes on to say,
“Mr Tomlinson had no connection with the demonstration on 1 April 2009. He had been in the general area for much of the day and appears to have been trying to get back to his residence but, because of the police cordons, was finding it difficult to do so.”
This sentence seems to suggest that Mr. Tomlinson was simply hanging around the area for most of the day, rather than stating that he had been working as a Evening Standard Vendor, as it is the fact, and was just trying to get home at the end of his working day. It does however infer that the police were failing in their attempt to redirect pedestrians that were not part of the protest away from the protest area, which they were trying to contain, in a now widely condemned police practice.
This conclusion is further strengthened by the DPP going on to say,
“He can be seen on CCTV pictures at various points in the area approaching police officers, and at one stage being moved by police officers because he was standing in the way of a police vehicle. At just after 7pm he was in Royal Exchange when the police started to move pedestrians out onto Threadneedle Street.”
followed by,
“At about 7.15pm, a senior police office gave an order for officers to form a cordon and move people from the junction with Cornhill out onto Threadneedle Street.”
It was this decision, which the IPCC will presumably examine when it finally publishes its report, that was to prove fatal for Mr. Tomlinson; whether foul play was involved or not.
The DDP then goes on to describe the moments that lead up to Mr. Tomlinson’s death. Although for any of you in doubt as to the precipitating cause, I invite you to watch the video provided to the Guardian, by an American banker visiting London, once more:
The medical evidence
The DDP begins by stating:
“The Coroner for the District appointed a pathologist, Dr Patel, to carry out a post mortem. He did so on 3 April 2009. No other medical expert was present.”
He omits from this reasoning the reports, repeated by Jon Snow on this evening’s C4 News, that Dr. Patel denied the IPCC access to the original autopsy when it was carried out. As well as omitting wholesale from the reasoning that Dr. Patel was already under investigation for misconduct in multiple other autopsy’s at the time he performed Mr. Tomlinson’s autopsy, thereby potentially calling his conclusions into doubt6;.
He goes on to state,
“[Dr Patel] concluded that Mr Tomlinson’s death was “consistent with natural causes” and he gave the cause of death as “coronary artery disease“.”
But that the second pathologist concluded that,
“[Dr Cary] concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary’s view that when Mr Tomlinson fell, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.”
And that the third pathologist,
“Dr Shorrock agreed with Dr Cary’s conclusion.”
So far that is two pathologists, with unblemished careers, one of whom represented the Metropolitan Police and the Police Officer under investigation, that agree that there was a causal link between the assault of Mr. Tomlinson and his death.
He goes on to reference,
“Other expert evidence was obtained from Dr Wilson, Professor Williamson, Dr Alexander and Dr Sheppard. Their evidence related to accident and emergency procedures, issues relating to the liver and microscopic changes to tissue.”
But fails to tell us if the expert evidence provided by those four other doctors sided with Dr. Patel’s interpretation of the events or the interpretation of Drs Cary and Shorrock. If they did indeed support the conclusions of Drs Cary and Shorrock then surely there was adequate evidence to proceed with a prosecution and let the jury weigh up the dispute.
The disagreement between medical experts
The basic disagreement between the medical experts, is quite simple: it’s about missing evidence.
“In his first report, Dr Patel reported that he had found “intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot.” This had been interpreted by the other medical experts to mean that he had found 3 litres of blood in the abdomen.
If Dr Patel had found 3 litres of blood, this would have been approximately 60% of Mr Tomlinson’s blood volume and would have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death.”
However, Dr. Patel amended his report three days after the autopsy (06 April 2009), by which time a public furor was already building into Mr. Tomlinson’s death and it was clear that it was not going to be quite the straightforward case that Dr. Patel might have first presumed. We are not told by the DPP how many alterations were made to this report, however, this is the crucial change:
“intraabdominal fluid with blood about 3l with small blood clot“
The DDP goes on to say,
“Since Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock inevitably depended on Dr Patel’s notes of this finding to inform their own opinions, the significance of this more recent description of Dr Patel’s findings had to be clarified with Dr Patel and discussed with the other experts.”
This was because,
“[Dr. Patel] had not retained the fluid nor had he sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood because, he said, he had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites.”
If this was the case why did his original report not say this? Why did it need to be amended three days later, when significant publicity was growing around the case? And why if the IPCC had initially asked to be able to attend the original autopsy did he not, as an experienced home office pathologist, think to keep a sample of the fluid? These are questions that need answering.
Otherwise are we just left to draw our own conclusions. As there are only ten home office registered pathologists available in Greater London 7; how can we be expected to believe that the coroner appointing Dr. Patel wasn’t aware of his current circumstances? How was he selected? What was the reasoning?
Although earlier the DPP stated,
“Because Mr Tomlinson had walked some distance from the incident in Royal Exchange before collapsing in Threadneedle Street, the two events were not immediately linked…”
Are we seriously expected to believe that the police, the paramedics, the doctors, all those involved in helping Mr. Tomlinson in his final moments, as well the inevitable press coverage that began the same night didn’t cause them to stop and think that the events might, just might be connected and that it might be best to take extra care. In appointing this pathologist it is beyond reasonable doubt that such reasonable caution was not followed.
In conclusion to this section the DPP states,
“It is clear from this that even after the extensive exercise of examining all the notes and findings recorded carefully, and meeting with the experts on several occasions, there remained an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death.”
Possible Charges
“The first issue that the CPS considered was whether the actions of PC ‘A’ were lawful. Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC ‘A’ in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC ‘A’ or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.”
So the DDP agrees that there was sufficient evidence to charge PC ‘A’ with assault, drawing his conclusions from the video evidence provided. However, he chose not charge PC ‘A’ with assault at this time pending possible additional charges, to following, and instead chose to,
“…[consider] the possible criminal charges.”
Unlawful act of manslaughter
This was the most serious charge that PC ‘A’ could of faced. However, from the outset it seems that to gain a conviction for this charge the CPS would have to prove,
“a causal link between the alleged assault on Mr Tomlinson and his death.”
And as the DPP had previously asserted there was, in his considered opinion a fundamental disagreement on the medical circumstances of Mr. Tomlinson’s death. However, this conflict must have been apparent within the first month of Mr. Tomlinson’s death, when all three autopsies had been completed. And although the DPP goes into detail about the considerations he does not convincingly explain why he didn’t to the conclusion that,
“…there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.”
earlier. How could the formation of this opinion have taken 16 months? Surely the DPP and the CPS have experience with such cases and therefore can be expected to draw conclusions much more promptly. For example, the decision no to prosecute in the Jean Charles de Meneze case only took 4 months, despite involving a much larger group of people and being infinitely more controversial.
Assault
“Two types of assault charge were considered: assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.”
By the first paragraph we find the same legal conundrum for assault occasioning actual bodily harm as we had found for the unlawful act of manslaugher,
“the conflict in the medical evidence prevents this [proving actual bodily harm]”
The DPP goes on to say that,
“If the push caused Mr Tomlinson’s death, the appropriate charge would be manslaughter, not assault occasioning actual bodily harm.”
So in reality the DPP could never of considered the charge of occasioning actual bodily harm, as if they had been able to prove that, they would have been able to prove the unlawful act of manslaughter. So the inclusion of this charge can only be seen for what it is: a smoke screen.
Now whilst we are led to believe that the DPP was carefully considering the evidence for these possible charges the simpler charge of common assault, already conceded as chargeable by the the DPP was subject to the following,
“Common assault does not require proof of injury, but it is subject to a strict six month time limit.”
Unbelievably he then goes on to say,
“That placed the CPS in a very difficult position because enquiries were continuing at the six month point and it would not have been possible to have brought any charge at that stage.”
So PC ‘A’ wasn’t charged because the DPP was unable to complete his enquiries in time? Seriously? Does he expect us to accept that reasoning? And if there was any doubt as to the possibility of being able to charge PC ‘A’ under the more serious of the two charges, which there apparently was from within the first month, then why was PC ‘A’ not charged under the lesser charge? At least whilst the more serious charge was investigated?
Misconduct in public office
This entire element of the reasoning seems to be a smoke screen. Please feel free to read it in full here. The only point worth mentioning is that,
“The CPS is aware that comment has been made about the time taken to reach a decision… He is satisfied that the CPS acted as quickly as was consistent with the thorough and careful review of the evidence that was necessary.”
Well I have to say the DPP has a lower standard of satisfaction than I would have or I would expect of an individual holding office. After all by the time he makes this statement he has already conceded that he cannot charge PC ‘A’ with the only charge he concludes is legally possible because he spent so much time examining charges that he now considers not legally possible. Amazing work.
Update
Blogger Jack of Kent has written an excellent blog post examining the charge of misconduct in a public office: read it here.
Conclusion
The DPP concludes with the following,
“In this case there has always been and, despite the efforts of the prosecution team to resolve issues, there remains an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death. As the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson’s death was caused by PC ‘A’ pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. It also follows that there is also no realistic prospect of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or misconduct in public office.”
At no point in this conclusion does he deal with the fact that the delays in time cost the Tomlinson family the only opportunity they had for a successful prosecution of PC ‘A’ nor does he really explain why it took so long to reach this conclusion. The only thin sliver of hope he offers the family is,
“The Coroner will now be informed of this decision so that he may move to an inquest. At the conclusion of the inquest the matter will be reconsidered by the CPS in the light of any evidence which may be presented.”
I cannot imagine the suffering and pain that this process and the delays after delays have put the Tomlinson family through, but they must be unbearable. And it was clear from watching them give statements after meeting him that he had simply failed to explain to them why a common assault charge could not have been pressed, nor does he seem to have consulted them during his deliberations, as he surely must have know that this deadline was approaching.
I think the only reasonable thing a member of the public could call for at this point is his resignation, as he is clearly unsuitable for the post he holds. And to offer the Tomlinson family my thoughts in this difficult time. And if they need it what money I can spare so that they can mount a private prosecution of PC ‘A’ and let a jury decide on the medical issues of the case.
So. After many years of political apathy, with my thoughts only impressed upon family and close friends and occasionally shouted at the TV whilst watching Newsnight (come on we know you all do it) I have decided, in honour of the so called “New Politics”, to give my ideas a more public sounding by publishing them here on this little blog.
So I hope you enjoy my output in the days and months ahead. And more than that I’d like to think that it might provoke some thought, perhaps some heated debate and possibly just possibly challenge mine, and you the readers, views on a range of different topics.
