So you think there's no extremists there now?
Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Cut and paste of the timeline:
"In July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided that no criminal charges would be brought against individual police officers, largely because it was considered too difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the firearms officers who shot de Menezes had not genuinely believed they faced a lethal threat from a suspected suicide bomber. Although mistakes were made in the operation, the CPS concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate criminal conduct on the part of any individual.
However, the Metropolitan Police Service itself was prosecuted for – and in November 2007 found guilty of – breaching health and safety laws. This successful prosecution resulted in a £175,000 fine. At the inquest into de Menezes’ death, which ran from October to December 2008 the coroner excluded unlawful killing from the verdicts open to the jury, meaning that the options were lawful killing or an open verdict. The jury returned an open verdict. In April 2009, the CPS confirmed that following the inquest there remained insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual.
The family of Jean Charles de Menezes confidentially settled a civil claim against the police in November 2009, but continued to challenge the lawfulness of the decision by the CPS not to prosecute any officers for the killing of de Menezes. The application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was brought by Patricia da Silva Armani, one of the cousins who lived with de Menezes in London in July 2005."
So, the then DPP in 2006 stated there were no grounds to pursue the coppers who killed Menezes; in the wake of that his family successfully prosecuted the Met of negligence in Menezes' killing; that gave hope that the DPP (at this point Starmer) would reopen the proceedings to prosecute the coppers who killed him, but he wasn't having any of it.
You're either thick or being deliberately obtuse if you cant see that a leader of the LP who is now *championing* the Black Lives Matter campaign in his party is being a huge hypocrite in allowing a state assassination, conducted by the police, to go through unpunished and is now calling for US law enforcement agencies to look to themselves and reassess their own decision making.
Broadband Communism, they said
www.theguardian.com
Give 1m UK children reliable broadband or risk harming their education, MPs say
Coronavirus lockdown has ‘exposed digital divide’ with 700,000 unable to complete schoolwork
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
That scumbag McDonagh post election attacked "Labour's manifesto, which was clearly rejected".Broadband Communism, they said
Give 1m UK children reliable broadband or risk harming their education, MPs say
Coronavirus lockdown has ‘exposed digital divide’ with 700,000 unable to complete schoolwork
It seems the daft get has had a change of heart on some of it.
I cant believe that the left were in charge of the party for 5 years and failed to push through the deselection of oxygen thieves like her.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
You omitted to say, dave, that the person who gave the final order to go in and kill, Cressida Dick, was never taken to task for a fatally incorrect judgement call, and was in fact later promoted...
EDIT: 'Poor language removed' is actually the officer's surname...! lol
Yyou should copy and paste more than a select part of the article.
Jean Charles de Menezes: one more chance for justice denied – The Justice Gap
www.thejusticegap.com
Because the rest of it discusses that in engaging the original decision and the review of the prosecuting solicitor and in lieu of the inability to return an unlawful killing ruling verdict by the coroner the ECHR says there was no ground for prosecution under Article 2.
The application from the De Menezes family considered:
'...the decision not to prosecute any individuals for her cousin’s death. In this regard, she alleged that the evidential test used by prosecutors to determine whether criminal charges should be brought – namely, that the prosecutor must consider that a conviction was more likely than not – was too high a threshold, particularly in cases concerning the use of lethal force by State agents'.
Which will have been the original question posed to McDonald, then reviewed by Stephen O'Doherty in conjunction with the Coroner which Starmer used to determine if the threshold was met.
The conclusion stated:
"The Court noted that the facts of the case were undoubtedly tragic and the frustration of Mr de Menezes’ family at the absence of any individual prosecutions was understandable. However, the decision not to prosecute any individual officer had not been due to any failings in the investigation or the State’s tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts; rather, it had been due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and
concluded that there had been insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute in respect of any criminal offence.
In conclusion, having regard to the proceedings as a whole, the Court found that the domestic
authorities had not failed in their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an
effective investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes which had been capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used had or had not been justified in the circumstances and of identifying and – if appropriate – punishing those responsible."
That's why they used H&S Legislation to prosecute instead, because the IPCC investigation revealed systematic failings, if not failings of individual officers. And it would be hard to know who to specifically charge under corporate manslaughter legislation.
Or the complexity of the case and the constraints of the legal system in considering a prosecution.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
And do you think that the killings of the black men in the States dont have similar judgements that insufficient evidence exists to prosecute a trigger happy copper?Yyou should copy and paste more than a select part of the article.
Jean Charles de Menezes: one more chance for justice denied – The Justice Gap
Because the rest of it discusses that in engaging the original decision and the review of the prosecuting solicitor and in lieu of the inability to return an unlawful killing ruling verdict by the coroner the ECHR says there was no ground for prosecution under Article 2.
The application from the De Menezes family considered:
'...the decision not to prosecute any individuals for her cousin’s death. In this regard, she alleged that the evidential test used by prosecutors to determine whether criminal charges should be brought – namely, that the prosecutor must consider that a conviction was more likely than not – was too high a threshold, particularly in cases concerning the use of lethal force by State agents'.
Which will have been the original question posed to McDonald, then reviewed by Stephen O'Doherty in conjunction with the Coroner which Starmer used to determine if the threshold was met.
The conclusion stated:
"The Court noted that the facts of the case were undoubtedly tragic and the frustration of Mr de Menezes’ family at the absence of any individual prosecutions was understandable. However, the decision not to prosecute any individual officer had not been due to any failings in the investigation or the State’s tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts; rather, it had been due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and
concluded that there had been insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute in respect of any criminal offence.
In conclusion, having regard to the proceedings as a whole, the Court found that the domestic
authorities had not failed in their obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an
effective investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes which had been capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used had or had not been justified in the circumstances and of identifying and – if appropriate – punishing those responsible."
That's why they used H&S Legislation to prosecute instead, because the IPCC investigation revealed systematic failings, if not failings of individual officers. And it would be hard to know who to specifically charge under corporate manslaughter legislation.
Starmer hid behind that in the UK and yet calls for the US to examine their policing and judicial methodology....which is why he is a hypocrite.
And he stood by as DPP when the CPS decided that there was no case to answer for a systematic operation of coppers infiltrating campaign groups in this country. With that, he affirmed the ability for the state to use political policing with impunity.
It's little wonder they knighted him He is the establishment.
Last edited:
ForeverBlue92
Player Valuation: £80m
I know you're a Labour man Dave - would you ever consider voting Lib Dems if the only alternative is Starmer and Johnson?
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
No. Not ever.
We need the unions to break free of Labour and fund a mass based alternative to them. That would get my and a lot of other people's votes.
I'm not sure he hid behind it so much as took a decision within the parameters he was given...justice, unfortunately for you, doesn't work by shouting 'MURDERERS' at people.
The US justice system is very different to the UK and a decision not to prosecute could be a safe decision within the law, but not 'justice' as far as what should reasonably happen...its first year university jurisprudence. What I do know is that if the decision is contrary to what reasonably should be the case, you're better off influencing from inside that system rather than out of it.
As far as undercover police, there were definitely failings across numerous parties involved in that saga, including Starmer, but we weren't talking about that were we.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Let me remind you that the issue here is Starmer's inconsistency in carrying out his own position as DPP, where he failed to address state killing of an innocent man and pursue a prosecution, with his own demands of the US judicial process with regard to the same matter.
The fact you wont accept that as the issue, but choose instead to hide behind 'parameters' of what was capable underlines where you stand on the issue of the murder of innocent black people on both sides of the Atlantic.
The idiom 'cant see the wood for the trees' applies to you...and not just on this matter.
Let me remind you that the point I raised you on was as follows:
I haven't really offered any opinion on anything else in this conversation, BLM or American prosecution system, so stop attributing arguments to me I haven't stated purely so you can knock them down.
I'll repeat my assertion, and the ruling of the ECHR, he didn't fail to 'address state killing of an innocent man' he approved a decision by a prosecuting solicitor that there was statutorily insufficient new evidence to pursue a prosecution against individual police officers following the initial CPS decision to not to prosecute in 2016 and the 'cannot be unlawful killing' ruling from the coroner.
Perhaps a better example could be the decision to prosecute in the case of Ian Tomlinson, where the CPS decided to prosecute and the officer was acquitted by the Jury.
It's not common that police officers are convicted in front of juries, up until Tomlinson case no police officer had been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed while on duty since 1986. So as the DPP you might be asking yourself 'what's the point?'
@JEBUS_LIVES has bummed you here Dave. Best to lie down on your back with some frozen peas and don't for the love of god turn over and present yourself again.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
It's a great line, but the wrong call.
Starmer's consistency in "taking the knee": that was the issue. His own career calls on the matter of police shoot to kill and black lives makes him a massive hypocrite.
That's all there is to see here.
- Status