Alleged racist remarks made during London riots.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....n---London-riots.html

If the Crown Prosecution Service initially decided not to charge PC MacFarlane or two other officers, why have they now decided to assess the file again just because the man’s lawyers have complained?

After a fresh decision taken by a senior lawyer with no previous involvement in this matter, will they dare to once again decide not charge these officers, in view of the seemingly damming evidence against them?

[sp1814]

Because when you call a black man a n1gger, you're letting down the force, and giving young black men ammunition in their idea that the police are institutionally racist (and I don't believe they are).

The CPS reconsiders case files when upon the request of the plaintiff, if it is felt that not all the facts were originally taken into consideration.

For instance, it's entirely possible that the CPS ruled the recording as inadmissible in a court of law, which would have a detrimental effect on the plaintiff's case.

Sort the responses on the mail link into best rated order.

It so thoroughly depressing that the outrage felt is not I'm support of the arrested man.

...actually...what we need is full disclosure. Why was he arrested? We're charges brought? was he convicted?

This shouldn't have a bearing on the matter, but there are those (particularly when you read the Mail readers feedback) for whom this will be pertinent.

[jno]

I hope not. As with the case in Florida, it looks as if the problem isn't just the initial assault but the indifference of the authorities to doing anything about it.

[sp1814]

rov1100

Not meaning to be rude...but do you mean that, or is that tongue in cheek? So much subtlety gets lost with the printed word.