Verbal Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 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. There may be the same burden of proof, but there are still many differences between the rules of a coroner's court and that of a criminal court. For example, the jury in the criminal case were not - as is standard - permitted to know of Harwood's appalling disciplinary record, and in particular his involvement in incidents that turned violent. (Incidentally, the Met has now admitted that his disciplinary record meant that he should never have been re-employed.) A coroner's jury, on the other hand, is permitted to know this kind of important information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers 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. Erm.....I've never offered an opinion on what I think the verdict in this case should have been. I've simply commented on the logicistics of the judicial process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 This is correct, I mean the Big Issue seller bit... MLG-esque pedentry alert but I believe he worked on the newspaper stand outside Monument Tube Station and as such would not have sold The Big Issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 There may be the same burden of proof, but there are still many differences between the rules of a coroner's court and that of a criminal court. For example, the jury in the criminal case were not - as is standard - permitted to know of Harwood's appalling disciplinary record, and in particular his involvement in incidents that turned violent. (Incidentally, the Met has now admitted that his disciplinary record meant that he should never have been re-employed.) A coroner's jury, on the other hand, is permitted to know this kind of important information. Even if you gave exactly the same information to 2 groups of 12 people there's no guarantee that they would come to the same conclusion. (said Trousers stating the somewhat obvious) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Even if you gave exactly the same information to 2 groups of 12 people there's no guarantee that they would come to the same conclusion. (said Trousers stating the somewhat obvious) But if the jury had known about Harwood's past, what's your guess as to the outcome? Remember, even in ignorance of this, the jury was deadlocked for four days, and in the end were only able to deliver a majority verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug187 Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Shocked at the verdict. Joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 But if the jury had known about Harwood's past, what's your guess as to the outcome? Remember, even in ignorance of this, the jury was deadlocked for four days, and in the end were only able to deliver a majority verdict. Surely they should be coming to a conclusion to the facts of that particular case..... Not sentence him for past wrongs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Surely they should be coming to a conclusion to the facts of that particular case..... Not sentence him for past wrongs?? Exactly. I'm not disputing that, just addressing the inconsistencies between the two cases (coroner's and criminal), and the Met's admission today that Harwood was not suitable for re-employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Slightly off topic but I thought all servicemen and women are programmed to obey orders because if they don't obey they are on a charge and risk all kinds of punishment. I thought basic training was the method used to get rid of all previous civillian thoughts so that the armed forces orders would be followed without question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 July, 2012 Share Posted 19 July, 2012 Slightly off topic but I thought all servicemen and women are programmed to obey orders because if they don't obey they are on a charge and risk all kinds of punishment. I thought basic training was the method used to get rid of all previous civillian thoughts so that the armed forces orders would be followed without question. You might be confusing the military with the Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 MLG-esque pedentry alert but I believe he worked on the newspaper stand outside Monument Tube Station and as such would not have sold The Big Issue. I can only apologise......but being mentioned in the same light as MLG is an honour. Perhaps the Big Issue is an innocent man walking to his death at the hands of those whose job it is to protect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 A shameful episode. Our justice has failed to deliver justice once again. The Met's reputation remains and the long tradition of perception of corruption and brutality is still intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Slightly off topic but I thought all servicemen and women are programmed to obey orders because if they don't obey they are on a charge and risk all kinds of punishment. I thought basic training was the method used to get rid of all previous civillian thoughts so that the armed forces orders would be followed without question. Well. If I was ordered to go into Asda and shop lift. Do I obey it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 as for the family, Tomlinson was homeless for years and years, where were they then? As soon as the TV cameras turn up and there is the smell of compensation, they all come out of the woodwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Well. If I was ordered to go into Asda and shop lift. Do I obey it? Definitely not. If they offer John Lewis then negotiate what your cut is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMondo Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 There may be the same burden of proof, but there are still many differences between the rules of a coroner's court and that of a criminal court. For example, the jury in the criminal case were not - as is standard - permitted to know of Harwood's appalling disciplinary record, and in particular his involvement in incidents that turned violent. (Incidentally, the Met has now admitted that his disciplinary record meant that he should never have been re-employed.) A coroner's jury, on the other hand, is permitted to know this kind of important information. Except they weren't, in this case. According to the Guardian article, the judge at the inquest ruled that the previous allegations should not be disclosed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Except they weren't, in this case. According to the Guardian article, the judge at the inquest ruled that the previous allegations should not be disclosed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings You're right. It seems the allegations and Harwood's record were discussed in the pretrial hearing, but the coroner ruled, unusually, that the information should not be disclosed. It seems, however, that not even the coroner was given a full and accurate description of the sheer scale of Harwood's past behaviour - had it been, i doubt it'll have been excluded. Having said that, the coroner's case verdict of unlawful killing seems the right one. The rules are much more restrictive in a criminal case, nonetheless - not even pretrail hearings about past record are permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 What surprises me is that he resigned from the Met "on medical grounds" before he could face a disciplinary hearing, re-joined the Surrey police (his medical condition had obviously cleared up) and then transferred back to the Met with a clean slate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 What surprises me is that he resigned from the Met "on medical grounds" before he could face a disciplinary hearing, re-joined the Surrey police (his medical condition had obviously cleared up) and then transferred back to the Met with a clean slate. Yep, it stinks. Still, Ian Tomlinson's family have a civil suit coming up, which presumably now more than ever will enjoin the Met. At least they should get some decent compensation. I only hope it goes to a full hearing - the Met are very adept at avoiding these by coming to a pretrial settlement that includes no admission of fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 as for the family, Tomlinson was homeless for years and years, where were they then? As soon as the TV cameras turn up and there is the smell of compensation, they all come out of the woodwork. Where there's a blame...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Well. If I was ordered to go into Asda and shop lift. Do I obey it? Yes you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Yes you do NO, we don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 20 July, 2012 Share Posted 20 July, 2012 Im shocked at these revelations. If he was medically retired by the police previously Im assuming he got a generous pension and payment. hes allowed to join another police force 18months later and no doubt was allowed to keep his pension etc Has he duped the previous police force and if so he may well have commtted a fruadulent acitivity. Did he disclose his past medical history to the new medical adviser . if not then he should be sacked . if he did then clearly due dilligence was not undertaken during the second recruitment process. I wonder who his references were from . not his previous bosses unless there was some form of Compromise agreement signed. I have seen this in Education and the Fire service . Teachers seem to get retired on work related stress, then get another teaching job in another aothority or work fulltime on supply at the same school they have been retired from Sadly there is a lot of abuse of sickness and retirement schemes in the public sector much to the detriment of genuine cases. I could say something about the police up here but I will not 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