badgerx16 Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633 PC "used excessive and unreasonable force" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 From following the case it was difficult to see how they could have reached any other verdict. Not that it will necessarily change anything, I still doubt that PC Harwood will face trial. They'll be some sort of arrangement between the MET and the CPS and Harwood will retire on 'medical grounds'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 Justice is served. I also doubt that the PC will stand trial though. Another innocent man unlawfully killed by the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 Justice is served. I also doubt that the PC will stand trial though. Another innocent man unlawfully killed by the police. I hope he is held to account for his brutal actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 You only have to see the footage to conclude that it was unreasonable force, if the roles had been reversed then I am certain that the met would have thrown the book at Mr Tomlinson. PC Harwood was seen on numerous occasions trying to throw other protesters around as if they were rag dolls. If he can't handle a bit of provocation (assuming there was any) then he's in the wrong job. I really don't see why this was never the verdict from the met in the first place. It beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 The genie was let out of the bottle during the miner's strikes in the 1980s. Very difficult to put it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 3 May, 2011 Share Posted 3 May, 2011 I believe i am correct in think this very same police officer was under internal investigation for another matter also. I hope the CPS bring a criminal investigation,i suspect they won't however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Not guilty... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I am not surprised........this does not do the police any favourz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I am not surprised........this does not do the police any favourz why....he was found not guilty.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 It just seems inevitable that he would be found innocent. I have seen the film over and over. I will be interested to read the judge's direction to the jury... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeovil Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Because what this jury's decided is that any policeman, for any reason whatsoever, can decide to shove you to the ground and cause whatever injury they like, up to death, and that is considered reasonable force. Policing only works if there's consent to be policed, the normal law-abiding population shouldn't need to be frightened of a bunch of thugs in uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 It just seems inevitable that he would be found innocent. I have seen the film over and over. I will be interested to read the judge's direction to the jury... no matter what evidence...no matter what was said...any not guilty result would have got this reaction it seems you have made him guilty without ever knowing all the facts, sit on the trial..you just want your pound of flesh against the "establishment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Because what this jury's decided is that any policeman, for any reason whatsoever, can decide to shove you to the ground and cause whatever injury they like, up to death, and that is considered reasonable force. Policing only works if there's consent to be policed, the normal law-abiding population shouldn't need to be frightened of a bunch of thugs in uniform. well, he clearly used legal force that the law of the land finds acceptable......it was tragic that it resulted in a death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 well, he clearly used legal force that the law of the land finds acceptable......it was tragic that it resulted in a death Then maybe we live in a police state then.....most right minded people would i am sure, think the policeman in question was guilty... Its only a few months ago that the lad who stole a bottle of water during the riots got 6 months. Luckily for me I am law abiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 (edited) Then maybe we live in a police state then.....most right minded people would i am sure, think the policeman in question was guilty... Its only a few months ago that the lad who stole a bottle of water during the riots got 6 months. Luckily for me I am law abiding. we don't live in a police state do we...stop being dramatic they don't carry guns, they get questioned at what seems every time the pull someone over they use probably less force than any in the western civilised world take the baton away from them then say hello to the water cannon, rubber bullet etc etc I am also law abiding, I have also been caught up in the middle of a May day riot and was amazed how restrained the police were whilst humans (if you could call them that) were throwing human shyt at their faces...people were curling one down in the middle of the street and throwing it at the police. what happened to the fella who died was a tragic accident...it seems also, why does finding him guilty by TV make you "right minded"...? Edited 19 July, 2012 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 It is not melodrama......if someone can get carried away and steal a bottle of water but still get 6 months, whilst a policeman gets carried away and knocks a man down who subsequently dies is freed, something is wrong. Of course it was a tragic accident....but had the policeman not strike him with a baton, he would probably be here today. One man's life versus one bottle of water... Trouble is Delldays, you are programmed to obey orders and to not question authority, it seems like I am the opposire of you in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I think from now on, before doing any policing, every policemen should ask for full medical history from every single person they speak to. Maybe bung in dental records as well. 'I would like to ask you to stop rioting, but could you please fill in this 10 page questionnaire , before I can decide whether to bop you over the head with my truncheon' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Um Bongo Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 It is not melodrama......if someone can get carried away and steal a bottle of water but still get 6 months, whilst a policeman gets carried away and knocks a man down who subsequently dies is freed, something is wrong. Of course it was a tragic accident....but had the policeman not strike him with a baton, he would probably be here today. One man's life versus one bottle of water... Trouble is Delldays, you are programmed to obey orders and to not question authority, it seems like I am the opposire of you in this regard. Stealing a bottle of water and pushing someone during a public order incident are two different things. You can't really compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 well, he clearly used legal force that the law of the land finds acceptable......it was tragic that it resulted in a death The thing that seems "inconsistent" with the whole thing is that the inquest into Tomlinson's death found that he was unlawfully killed, and that inquest requires the same burden of proof as a criminal trial. If we take the inquest's verdict as just - which seems reasonable to do - it seems a bit strange that Harwood could be found not guilty of manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Trouble is Delldays, you are programmed to obey orders and to not question authority, it seems like I am the opposire of you in this regard. what a patronising comment that is.... when was the last time you wore a uniform..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I think from now on, before doing any policing, every policemen should ask for full medical history from every single person they speak to. Maybe bung in dental records as well. 'I would like to ask you to stop rioting, but could you please fill in this 10 page questionnaire , before I can decide whether to bop you over the head with my truncheon' Maybe if Ian Tolminson was actually rioting, your point might be valid. But he was an innocent bystander with his back turned. Police need to be able to not lose their heads in situations like this. It's a disgraceful verdict and I hope his family can get justice soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I'm just stunned how you can say it is disgraceful when all you have done is watch a few seconds clip on telly you wanted the copper guilty, regardless of what the law says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 It's a disgraceful verdict He was tried by his peers. A system that has been in place for centuries. Disagreeing with the opinion of 12 people doesn't make it a "disgraceful" verdict. It simply makes it a different verdict to the one you would have come up with. Just my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I'm just stunned how you can say it is disgraceful when all you have done is watch a few seconds clip on telly you wanted the copper guilty, regardless of what the law says The law has already said it was an unlawful killing. And not at all, I want a fair verdict that is consistent. And please do not act like I am some anti-authority rebel or something. I have the up most admiration for the police, and fully support them nearly all the time, but I also keep an open mind when individuals make a bad decision. You can't as a police officer, lose your cool like he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 The law has already said it was an unlawful killing. And not at all, I want a fair verdict that is consistent. And please do not act like I am some anti-authority rebel or something. I have the up most admiration for the police, and fully support them nearly all the time, but I also keep an open mind when individuals make a bad decision. You can't as a police officer, lose your cool like he did. well, now it has not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 And please do not act like I am some anti-authority rebel or something. We've all seen the indy checked hoody. The standard garment for the rebelious QT audience member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 well, now it has not.... The CPS said it was unlawful. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings - seems this losing of his cool isn't a one off thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 what a patronising comment that is.... when was the last time you wore a uniform..?[/QUOTE] That's what it alway comes down to with you, only those that have served in the armed services are deemed worthy of having an opinion, everyone else (those that pay your wages) aren't allowed to question, or have an alternative point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 The CPS said it was unlawful. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings - seems this losing of his cool isn't a one off thing. the CPS also said terry was guilty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 We've all seen the indy checked hoody. The standard garment for the rebelious QT audience member. I did laugh at this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 what a patronising comment that is.... when wasthe last time you wore a uniform..? That's what it alway comes down to with you, only those that have served in the armed services are deemed worthy of having an opinion, everyone else (those that pay your wages) aren't allowed to question, or have an alternative point of view. not at all...but to come out and say "you are programmed to obey orders" is something I would like to challenge. and still waiting for an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 The law has already said it was an unlawful killing. Indeed. So, we have one jury that thought he was guilty and another jury that thought he wasn't. So, overall, divided opinion. Just because one verdict happened chronologically before the other doesn't automatically give the first verdict any precident over the second, and of course visa versa. All we're looking at here is different opinions of different human beings, not some kind of cataclysmic breakdown of the legal system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Indeed. So, we have one jury that thought he was guilty and another jury that thought he wasn't. So, overall, divided opinion. Just because one verdict happened chronologically before the other doesn't automatically give the first verdict any precident over the second, and of course visa versa. All we're looking at here is different opinions of different human beings, not some kind of cataclysmic breakdown of the legal system I largely agree with you, but I still disagree with the verdict. I can't agree with the indifference you show towards it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I largely agree with you, but I still disagree with the verdict. I can't agree with the indifference you show towards it. One man's indifference is another man's pragmatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 As I alluded to earlier in this thread ,this officer had a catalogue of disciplinary hearings before him. perhaps if the jury was aware of his extremely chequered employment history,inc road rage ,violence,perhaps the outcome would have been different. he should have been found guilty. he caused the death of an innocent man,anyone else, nothing less than a custodial sentence would have sufficed. all IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Interesting piece in the Guardian on deaths in police custody or with police contact. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data?newsfeed=true I have a lot of respect for the jury system, but it's not infallible. Juries can be directed. Prosecution might not go balls to the wall in a case like this either. Think this may well be a case where the authorities have looked after one of their own, probably not for his sake - more to prevent the political fallout and/or permanent stain on the reputation of the Metropolitan police. Shambles really, as anyone with functional eyesight can attest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Interesting piece in the Guardian on deaths in police custody or with police contact. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data?newsfeed=true I have a lot of respect for the jury system, but it's not infallible. Juries can be directed. Prosecution might not go balls to the wall in a case like this either. Think this may well be a case where the authorities have looked after one of their own, probably not for his sake - more to prevent the political fallout and/or permanent stain on the reputation of the Metropolitan police. Shambles really, as anyone with functional eyesight can attest. My thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Interesting piece in the Guardian on deaths in police custody or with police contact. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data?newsfeed=true I have a lot of respect for the jury system, but it's not infallible. Juries can be directed. Prosecution might not go balls to the wall in a case like this either. Think this may well be a case where the authorities have looked after one of their own, probably not for his sake - more to prevent the political fallout and/or permanent stain on the reputation of the Metropolitan police. Shambles really, as anyone with functional eyesight can attest. Deaths in police custody seems to average about 60 per year. tbh Im surprised its not more when you compare that to the 1.3 million people arrested each year. People do die suddenly and unxepectedly, especially those who are off their face on various chemicals or have pre existing medical conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeovil Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Trousers and TheDellDays, aren't you worried that if the police get a privileged status of being allowed by law to assault anyone they want, that will attract people who want to be allowed to assault anyone they want to join the police. If people are to have confidence that the police will make society better, then the police will have to work much harder to not let thugs join up. Not all police are thugs, but it's not as uncommon as apologists would like to suggest, there was one PC at Shirley station in the 80s that was particularly notorious as being "a little short-tempered". It's in the police's own interests to clean up it's act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Trousers and TheDellDays, aren't you worried that if the police get a privileged status of being allowed by law to assault anyone they want, that will attract people who want to be allowed to assault anyone they want to join the police. If people are to have confidence that the police will make society better, then the police will have to work much harder to not let thugs join up. Not all police are thugs, but it's not as uncommon as apologists would like to suggest, there was one PC at Shirley station in the 80s that was particularly notorious as being "a little short-tempered". It's in the police's own interests to clean up it's act. they don't assault anyone they want....this fella used force that the law of the land state is acceptable.. he hardly dragged him to the ground and stomped on his head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 they don't assault anyone they want....this fella used force that the law of the land state is acceptable.. he hardly dragged him to the ground and stomped on his head Acceptable, yes, but only when circumstance deems it so. I would have sympathy with the police officer if Mr. Tolminson was actually rioting/posing any threat whatsoever at all. He was just an innocent trying to get home from work who(and it can happen easily in these circumstances, have seen it myself on student protests) got caught up in a kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Well if London wants a repeat of last August its going the right way about it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Acceptable, yes, but only when circumstance deems it so. I would have sympathy with the police officer if Mr. Tolminson was actually rioting/posing any threat whatsoever at all. He was just an innocent trying to get home from work who(and it can happen easily in these circumstances, have seen it myself on student protests) got caught up in a kettle. was he bo!!ox. OK he wasn't rioting, he didn't need to be there at all, he was being an awkward ignorant little sod. Asked to move and deliberately moved slowly to antagonize the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 He was just an innocent trying to get home from work who got caught up in a kettle. was he bo!!ox. OK he wasn't rioting, he didn't need to be there at all, he was being an awkward ignorant little sod. Asked to move and deliberately moved slowly to antagonize the police. I thought he was a alcoholic Big issue seller who had been drinking and had no idea what what going on. The police thought he was a protester being awkward but he was just ****ed and out of it, hence failure to respond to instructions and the heavy fall after being hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 One man's indifference is another man's pragmatism. "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." - Martin Luther King, Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 they don't assault anyone they want....this fella used force that the law of the land state is acceptable.. he hardly dragged him to the ground and stomped on his head But what was his motive in that one particular instance? It's not as if Ian Tomlinson was 'getting in his face' or provoking him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 But what was his motive in that one particular instance? It's not as if Ian Tomlinson was 'getting in his face' or provoking him... To do what, push him to the ground? The copper never started smashing him aroun the head till he killed him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 was he bo!!ox. OK he wasn't rioting, he didn't need to be there at all, he was being an awkward ignorant little sod. Asked to move and deliberately moved slowly to antagonize the police. Rubbish, just half an hour earlier he tried to get out and the police said no. Did it not occur to you in your wisdom that perhaps he was hanging back closer to the police line because he didn't want to walk into the riots after getting caught up in it. I have seen this before. At one of the student protests, an old man who clearly was not at the protest had been caught up in the kettle and asked to get out saying he had a heart problem. Obviously, I don't know if that is true or not, but the fact remains he would hardly be a cause for danger outside the kettle. Suffice to say, they turned down his request and when they decided to make the kettle even smaller they pushed him along unnecessarily causing a lot of anger in the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 I thought he was a alcoholic Big issue seller who had been drinking and had no idea what what going on. The police thought he was a protester being awkward but he was just ****ed and out of it, hence failure to respond to instructions and the heavy fall after being hit. This is correct, I mean the Big Issue seller bit...the policeman had no obvious motive..force used was not proportionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now