I am writing you regarding the disturbing circumstances surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson (Report, 23 July). If you or I launched an unprovoked attack on a fellow member of the public, in front of numerous witnesses, and the act was captured on film, would we face prosecution? If this does not merit a criminal charge, what exactly would a UK policeman have to do in order to face legal sanction? It seems, in light of these events, impossible to resist the conclusion that the police are above the law.
Aside from the fact that an innocent man is dead, and his family will receive no justice, the most depressing facet of this is that this outcome was not surprising. The police will, given the option, always protect their own. Presumably, the almost certain knowledge that he would face no legal sanction, was one reason the officer in question felt free to administer an unprovoked, vicious and cowardly beating to Mr Tomlinson.
I do not fear crime or terrorists; they do not impinge upon my daily life. However, I now hesitate to express my freedom of speech by attending political demonstrations, for fear of the violence and intimidation of the police. Is this paranoid? We now know that the police are free to strike innocent members of the public (whether engaging in protests or simply walking home as Tomlinson was) without sanction; worse, the police know this too.
How can politicians ask us to engage in politics, when political demonstrations are met with extreme violence, and the police are beyond the law?
Dr Anders Ingram
Edinburgh
• The failure to prosecute the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson is bad for everyone. The family are denied justice, the officer himself will become a pariah, the public will have their view that the police are above the law confirmed and the Metropolitan police, and the law-abiding majority of officers who are horrified by the actions of the few will have their reputation shredded.
If the commissioner acts quickly he may be able to retrieve some credibility, but does he have the courage to do what is needed? The officers involved in the attack must be sacked and the territorial support group disbanded. Indeed all those who tried to hide their identity on the day by covering their numbers should be demoted, fined and/or suspended.
Bernie Doeser
Helston, Cornwall
• In listening to the convoluted reasoning given by Keir Starmer to explain his decision to recommend no prosecution of any kind in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson, it became clear how effective is the Crown Prosecution Service in saving public money. Whether – in its arrogation to itself of the traditional function of a jury, to determine innocence or guilt in the light of all evidence – it is as effective in serving the interests of justice is another matter altogether. Justice delayed is justice denied: justice denied to the public in their dealings with public officials is becoming a regrettable phenomenon in 21st-century English justice.
Dr John Fletcher
Bourton on the Hill, Gloucestershire
• While the technical evidence may not permit the obvious charge of manslaughter, many people will feel that the evidence of an unprovoked attack on an innocent bystander could not be a clearer case of misconduct in public office. It's equally hard to see why a charge of simple assault is not made. Apart from the manifest injustice in this case, the lasting damage will be the reinforcement of the view in many people's minds that the judicial system is incomprehensible, unjust and alien to the needs and understanding of ordinary people.
Ian Reissmann
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
• It is impossible to imagine the Crown Prosecution Service taking the same decision if a police officer had collapsed and died minutes after being struck by a demonstrator. That says it all.
Celia Berridge
Rodmell, East Sussex
• The DPP must provide a full explanation why the six-month limit for a common assault prosecution was missed. If he cannot, he should resign.
John Wiggins