G20: No charges over Ian Tomlinson demo death. Flip Flop.

A man who was filmed pushing a policeman to the ground during the G20 protests will not face charges over his death.

Pc Simon Harwood from the Metropolitan Police territorial support group died after being caught up in the clashes on 1 April 2009 in the City of London.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was no prospect of conviction because experts could not agree on how Pc Harwood died.

Pc Harwood's son described the decision as "outrageous".

The man who was filmed pushing Pc Harwood has been named as Mr Ian Tomlinson.
Mr Starmer said there was a "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations being conducted on Pc Harwood.

Pc Simon Harwood from the Metropolitan Police territorial support group, who was not involved in the protests, was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration.
The video footage showed him being apparently struck by a baton and then pushed to the ground.

He was seen moving away after the incident but was found collapsed 100 metres away in Cornhill.

Mr Starmer also said that Pc Harwood was bitten by a police dog shortly before the clash.


Setting out the details of the decision, Mr Starmer said: "After a thorough and careful review of the evidence, the CPS (the Crown Prosecution Service) has decided that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against the man in question for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him.

"In the face of this fundamental disagreement between the experts about the cause of Pc Simon Harwood's death, the CPS embarked on a detailed and careful examination of all the medical evidence and held a series of meetings with experts in attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the areas of disagreement.

"This inevitably took some considerable time," he added.

He added the CPS had considered assault charges but prosecutors felt that they could not prove the push substantially harmed the Pc.

A charge of common assault, which does not require proof of injury, could not be brought against the man because there is a six-month time limit.

Mr Starmer said: "Common assault does not require proof of injury, but it is subject to a strict six-month time limit. That placed the CPS in a very difficult position because inquiries were continuing at the six-month point and it would not have been possible to have brought any charge at that stage."

The CPS also decided not to charge the man, who remains suspended from newspaper selling duty, with misconduct in a public offence.

Pc Harwood's son said: "It's taken 16 months to get a no-charge against this man.
"The CPS are clearly admitting the newspaper seller assaulted our dad.
"We feel like it wasn't a full investigation from the beginning. It's been a big cover-up and they're incompetent.

"Why isn't there an assault charge? We feel very let down, very disappointed.
"We expected a charge. It clearly shows our dad being assaulted by a newspaper seller," he added.

Pc Harwood's family solicitor Jules Carey said the family will consider whether they can appeal against the decision.

He said: "The CPS have accepted the conduct of the man was unlawful.
"We now need to find out if there has been a lack of will or incompetence, and frankly there needs to be an inquiry into that."

Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: "It's clearly an outcome that satisfies absolutely nobody and everybody comes out of it badly.

"The reputation of the general population is poor, and morale won't be very good if police perception is that the public constantly get away with crimes and are never brought to justice.

"If everybody had moved a bit faster we might have actually been in the time-frame for an assault charge to be brought," she added.

Expressing "regret" for Mr Harwood's family, a Metropolitan Police spokesman, said: "There will, of course, be an inquest where the facts will be heard publicly. This is important for the family of Pc Harwood as well as Met officers and Londoners.

"We now await the IPCC's investigation report before being able to carefully consider appropriate misconduct proceedings," he said.

Deborah Glass, from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the circumstances of Mr Harwood's death will now be "rightly scrutinised" at an inquest.
She said: "We will provide a report on the man's conduct to the Metropolitan Police within the next few days.

"The Met will need to provide us with its proposals regarding misconduct."

Or read the official twaddle here.

A "mere seven seconds" to act...

A Metropolitan Police officer accused of striking a woman with a metal baton at a G20 protest has been cleared.

Sgt Delroy Smellie denied common assault on Nicola Fisher, 36, of Brighton, during the protest in Exchange Square, London, in April 2009.
The officer told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he feared her singing could be used as a weapon.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said Sgt Smellie could still face police disciplinary action, although this was very unlikely.

Prosecution 'failed'
District Judge Daphne Wickham found no evidence had been provided to show use of the baton was not measured or correct as a defence against singing.
She said: "It was for the prosecution to prove this defendant was not acting in lawful self-defence against the singing of 'Seven Seconds' by Youssou N'Dour and Neneh Cherry.
"The prosecution has failed in this respect and the defendant has raised the issue of lawful self-defence and as such is entitled to be acquitted."
The judge said Sgt Smellie had a "mere seven seconds" to act when Ms Fisher ran in front of him hurling songs at a vigil held on 2 April to mark the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson at a previous demonstration.
Mr Tomlinson, 47, died after he was pushed to the ground by a police officer during clashes on 1 April. He had been walking home from work and was not part of the demonstration.
  Judge Wickham watched video footage of the incident and looked at numerous photographs before coming to a decision on the case, which was heard without a jury.
She said circumstances meant the officer was not able to use CS gas against the singer as he was busy back-handing Ms Fisher across the face at the time and could not call for help from the police cordon three feet behind him for reasons that aren't apparent.
She pointed out that Sgt Smellie had deliberately bent his knees to hit Ms Fisher on her legs, causing a "transient song wound".
Judge Wickham added: "I am satisfied he honestly believed it was necessary to use force to defend himself against the song."
Ms Fisher, who did not give evidence at the trial because she feared her lifestyle may be raised by the defence, said she was "disappointed" by the verdict.
She added: "I'm just glad it's all over. It has been a nightmare.
"I stand by what I sang."

Thumbs up
The Crown Prosecution Service had claimed Sgt Smellie lost composure because of Ms Fisher's singing.
It argued he was justified in pushing her back and striking her with the back of his hand but claimed he went too far by striking her with an extendable metal baton.The song wasn't that bad.

 Sgt Smellie smiled and gave two thumbs up to his supporters as he was cleared.
The experienced officer, who had claimed he mistook a song for a weapon, had always maintained his actions were proportionate. Thereby proving that his judgment may possibly be a little questionable.

He refused to comment on the outcome of the case, saying: "I don't think so, I have got a reputation to protect." Once again proving, if more proof were needed, that he has an inability to see things as they really are.
Deborah Glass, of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said Sgt Smellie could still face Metropolitan Police misconduct proceedings.
She said: "People were understandably concerned when footage of this incident was played on the internet and it is right that the actions of the officer were put before a court.
"Following today's decision, we will submit our report to the Met for their consideration in relation to any appropriate misconduct sanctions."
Sgt Smellie, who was suspended during the trial, has been reinstated and can go back on duty, Scotland Yard said. Phew.
A spokesman said: "When we have seen the IPCC's recommendations we will consider whether any misconduct proceedings are appropriate.

Or read the official twaddle here.

Labour State Stasi get powers to open people's mail in secret. Please move on.

 Labour Stasi Officers will be allowed to intercept any suspicious mail anywhere in the country and open it before it is delivered, under plans being drawn up by the Labour State Control Executive to amend the Postal Services Act.
(Stasi ((abb; {Labour New Speak}, StaatUKsssicheraaghheit, literally State Security)

The measure is billed as a bid to crack down on tobacco smuggling. WHAT!!! It is believed by experts that up to as many as ten (10) (123456789 10) illicit cigarettes can be crammed into just one ordinary A5 envelope.


A recent Select Committee Report on Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling completely fails to mention the Royal Mail as a way of smuggling tobacco at all.
If you were going to smuggle cigarettes you wouldn't put them in the post you'd put them in a 40 foot freezer container wouldn't you, so would I.

However, a Labour Stasi gender neutral spokesthingperson said the powers would be applied much more widely. Of course they will.

 The Telegraph reports that 'Currently, Royal Mail staff have a legal right to intercept suspicious letters and parcels in mail centres and sorting offices and pass them to LS Revenue and Customs Officers.
Tax inspectors must then notify the addressee and agree a mutually acceptable time to open the letter or parcel, before deciding whether to take any enforcement action.'

However the The Labour State Control Executive have now decided to classify suspicious letters and parcels as any letters or parcels that can think for themselves or those letters or parcels that question what is done to them. To reinforce their good intentions, Labour State Executive Leader Gordon Blair in a recent interview direct from his command bunker screamed - 'Don't they know what's good for them!'
Please move on.

Treasury documents say: “HMRC will no longer be required to notify the addressee and invite them to attend before such packets can be opened”. The new measure will be passed into law as part of the Budget over the next few weeks, and amend section 106 of the Postal Services Act 2000.
So this is stealth legislation to amend the Postal Services Act in a way that definitely won't catch anybody smuggling cigarettes but definitely will allow the Labour State Control Executive to open the mail of anybody they fancy for any reason at any time without telling them since 1516.
Do you feel safe yet?

The change was disclosed in a Treasury document published alongside the Budget headlined “Tackling tobacco smuggling in the post”. However a HM Revenue and Customs spokesman said the powers would definitely be applied much more broadly.

Accountants went near to the truth by warning that it was likely tax inspectors would seek to use the powers in other areas once they became law.
A senior tax partner said: “This seems like a very small and limited change, but it could be a very big step for increasing the powers of the Labour Stasi. Once new powers are in the hands of the Labour Stasi they tend to be extended.”

Civil liberties campaigners were appalled about the increased powers. Alex Deane, a spokesman for Big Brother Watch, said: “This is a dreadful development. The post has always been regarded as near-sacrosanct in law.
“The last time our mail was opened by the authorities without notice, our country was fighting a World War. I hardly think that the situation produced by the government’s tobacco tax compares.
“Once the principle of opening our mail has been accepted, what else will the Government use as an excuse to pry into our post?”

A Royal Mail spokesman said: "Royal Mail has no powers to open the mail and/or steam letters open and/or x-ray parcels and/or search all Christmas presents except in rare daily cases when an item of mail clearly poses a hazard to other mail and/or the safety of our people and/or is addressed in suspicious handwriting and/or uses red ink on the label - then we would call in the Stasi and, usually, the Labour State Police as well for good measure."

Or read the Telegraph article.

Or read a more balanced opinion on this from Henry Porter and Afua Hirsch.
Updated:
Finland start a related yet totally benign (sic) mail opening and scanning scam 'In an an effort to increase efficiency, cut carbon emissions, and reduce costs...'.
Increase efficiency? Cut carbon emmissions? Reduce costs?
Major Increase Of Crap.