Thursday, 12 August 2010

Where's The Difference?


How come the CPS have decided that they can charge 4 of the Met's "finest" with beating the shit out of some bloke they were arresting back in 2003, but they can't bring charges against another fine upstanding member of the TSG for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson?

The Penguin

7 comments:

Old Nick said...

Hear Hear! Well said.

My post on this disgrace to the police uniform recieved more hits than anything else I have posted to date. Clearly the public is not impressed and nor should they be!

Catosays said...

The answer's obvious. He's a Muzzie who was supposed to have been extradited to the States on other Terrorism charges when the ECHR decided he could not be.


One law for Muzzies and another for Whitey.

The Last Of The Few said...

Tomlinson does not have the added assistance of 40,000 screaming Islamic nutters threatening all sorts, and the added help of some Politically Correct arse kisser assisting the same said 40,000.

Therefore you do not need to make a token display of authority to pacify the screaming herd.

Simple really

Oldrightie said...

Keir Starmer is the disgrace behind a CPS politicised by Labour and very convenient for Cameron.

FuckingSickOfEm said...

The CPS is unfit for purpose. The government of the UK is unfit for purpose. The town hall lackeys are unfit for purpose. There's a certain symmetry to thos in authority in the UK - they are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE

John R said...

The answer is prety obvious to most of us.

Justice may be blind - but she's not colour blind.

SpiteK said...

Becaue dear Ian isn't a fucking raghead, that's why.