|
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:42:48 +0000 (UTC), "Matt"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
...as opposed to Mikey Stone, who will stove your head in with a hammer.
Hmmm, tough choice, but i'll take my chances with the copper.
I doubt Harry Stanley would agree
--
Cynic
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:39:58 +0100, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:42:48 +0000 (UTC), "Matt"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
I doubt Harry Stanley would agree
It is 5 years this month since Harry Stanley was killed by two police
gunmen. The CPS refused to prosecute on grounds a jury would find them
innocent.
Still going on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1302028,00.html
"A British Muslim man arrested during a terrorism raid suffered 50
separate injuries after being repeatedly kicked, punched and stamped
upon, according to a medical report seen by the Guardian.
The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday announced that no officer
would be charged for allegedly assaulting Babar Ahmad, who was
arrested in December 2003 at his south London home.
Mr Ahmad was released after six days without charge and made an
official complaint about the alleged assault. He claims that as kicks
and punches rained down on him he was taunted by an officer
But last month he was arrested again, after the US requested his
extradition, alleging he ran a support network for terrorists in
Chechnya and Afghanistan........
After Mr Ahmad's first arrest he was examined by a consultant in
accident and emergency medicine, Manolis Gavalas, from University
College London hospital.
The report found that Mr Ahmad, 30, had been left with blood coming
from his ear and in his urine after being arrested, and with injuries
to his face, torso, arms and legs.
Mr Gavalas said "excessive force" was used on Mr Ahmad, who claims he
did not resist arrest. The consultant also said the beating had been
"controlled" and designed to cause pain rather than life-threatening
injuries.
The CPS said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any
officers, following an investigation by the Met itself.
That inquiry was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority and,
after it was abolished, by the Independent Police Complaints
Commission.
A source with knowledge of the process that led to the CPS decision
said the Met investigation had not uncovered any forensic evidence
substantiating Mr Ahmad's claims.
The source added: "If it came to trial it would be one person's word
against that of three police officers and it would be very unlikely
that a jury would think a case proved beyond a reasonable doubt." "
The CPS and the police.
Judges, Juries and executioners.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:42:48 +0000 (UTC), "Matt"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:
I doubt Harry Stanley would agree
Now you're getting all mixed up. That'd be a different question, wouldn't
it. The question to that answer would be "who would you trust more with a
gun pointing at your head, a copper or Michael Stone?".
Guess what ... it'd still be the copper. ;-)
|
| |
| |
|
