Viewing 22 posts - 41 through 62 (of 62 total)
  • Ian tomlinson
  • geoffj
    Full Member

    Harwood should be up for Manslaughter and Freddy Patel should be struck off as a doctor.

    If you want to see the full misery of this, there is a video on the Guardian website which shows all Tomlinson’s movements right up to where he is bein stretchered away, presumable dead. Very very sad.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-last-words-g20

    chewkw
    Free Member

    GUILTY as charged!

    He was walking away.

    midlifecrashes
    Full Member

    That footage is very clear and close-up, so it’s the one shown most. Viewed from the side though, it’s clear that the “shove” lifted him clear of the ground and sent him sprawling a couple of feet away, after hitting his head hard too. He then got up and moved away before crumpling and hitting his side hard on the back wall before collapsing fully, so more occasions for injury. Grim.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz3xfWJVeIk&feature=related[/video]

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    BillMC
    Full Member

    I saw footage earlier today of Harwood also pushing over a cameraman. He will get off in the same way that the killer of Blair Peach got off. Britain’s finest, eh?

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    was it assault without any shadow of a doubt it was assault
    Did it cause the death – probably but hard to prove and made even harder by the police and CPS
    The subsequent cover up and behaviour of the state is reprehensible.
    This would never have happened if Tomlinson had pushed over the copper and he died. The coppers account is not even a defence.
    Shameful day for the police and the country

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    I think it would a mistake to automatically assume that PC Harwood, and him alone, is responsible for the assault on Tomlinson. We don’t know what the Territorial Support Group were told in their brief on that morning and how psyched up they had been made. Certainly iirc senior Met officers had been making very bellicose comments before the G20 summit. And we know for a fact that senior officers at the very least, fully tolerated PCs on duty without their numbers on display.

    I suspect that the feedback from the senior officers to the lower ranks was very likely to be “go get’em lads”. I also suspect that PC Harwood did no more than what he believed was expected from him, sadly with tragic consequences. Blaming it all on PC Harwood and stopping there, without knowing the full facts is a cop out imo. I think senior Met officers have a lot to answer for, specially as they are so ready to take the credit when things go right, as well as the very generous salaries.

    They could also explain why they were so readily feeding the media with false information until the first video was discovered.

    geoffj
    Full Member

    Ernie – You are probably right about the senior officers, but ‘only following orders’ is not a valid defence for Harwood.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    having read the cps report again I cannot folow their logic

    If, as we have concluded, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the push and Mr Tomlinson’s death because of the conflict in the medical evidence, it follows that actual bodily harm cannot be proved either.

    well it must have been one or the other unless they want to suggest there is no link between falling and injuring yourself then dying a few minutes later. Surely it would be a juries job to decide which one of these it was after being presented with the evidence. They seem to be saying yes he injured him but as we are not sure how badly we best not charge him. Piss poor they should be charged as well

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    ‘only following orders’ is not a valid defence for Harwood.

    It might not be a valid defence for PC Harwood, but it’s a cop out to automatically blame him solely. The troops on the sharp end are always expected to carry the can for the tactics and strategies decided by the those who have the responsibility, for deciding the tactics and strategies.

    The huge demo on the 26 March just gone, went without incident (apart for some unrelated trouble). A great deal of the reason for that was because of the tactics decided by senior Met officers. It wasn’t because all the officers in the Territorial Support Group suddenly decided to behave on that day.

    I don’t think it’s right for PC Harwood to be treated as a scapegoat.

    crankboy
    Free Member

    Ironically if Harwood had been only obeying orders it would never have happened he was a van driver and ordered to stay by his van. He appears to have wandered off from his post looking for a bit of action.

    pullfaces
    Free Member

    Who ever directs us in anyway, surely we are all responsible for our own actions unless we’ve been physically coerced or threatened with violence. PC Harwood is responsible for his own actions, he wasn’t bullied into hitting anyone with a baton. What anyone else has said to him is a separate subject.
    He’s supposed to be a policeman, not some kind of nazi stormtrooper.
    He killed Ian Tomlinson. I can believe he didn’t mean to, but his actions ultimately did.
    How much respect can people be expected to have for the police if they can seemingly get away with murder?

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    What anyone else has said to him is a separate subject.

    Of course it isn’t, it’s the same subject. The level of PC Harwood’s culpability is depend to an extent on how he and other officers in the Territorial Support Group, had been told to behave, and what was expected from them.

    For example, PC Harwood claims that he believed he could use his baton when not under threat “in some circumstances”. Do we know for a fact that no TSG officer has never had that suggested to them by their superiors ? I certainly don’t know that. Neither do I know, as I’ve already mention, what they were told at their brief – I’m fairly sure that what was “expected of them” will have been discussed though. How far did PC Harwood stray from that, if at all ? All part of the same subject imo.

    No matter how ‘guilty’ PC Harwood is, it doesn’t mean that others are blameless. And yet everyone appears to be concerned solely with PC Harwood’s alleged guilt, and nothing else.

    EDIT : Of course the converse is true, ie, if PC Harwood and other TSG officers had been told to go “softly softly” on that day, and specifically, for example, not to use their batons on anyone who wasn’t posing a clear threat, then PC Harwood’s culpability is even greater.

    pullfaces
    Free Member

    They are issues that should be treated separately.
    He should personally be guilty of some charge of the cause of death of Ian Tomlinson.
    Anyone else might be guilty of incitement. And that will be a separate charge.
    If PC Haywood is that naive he shouldn’t be a police officer in the first place. He should know the law, it’s his job.

    konabunny
    Free Member

    grum – I also remember those comments…”Its a shame a man died but to blame it all on the police isn’t realistic. He could have walked away quicker…” and so on.

    If PC Haywood is that naive he shouldn’t be a police officer in the first place.

    That Simon Harwood shouldn’t have been a police officer in the first place seems a strongly arguable case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/7905549/G20-riots-Policeman-who-struck-Ian-Tomlinson-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html

    (blah blah blah typical leftie police-hating bullshit from the…Daily Telegraph)

    kimbers
    Full Member

    dodgy pathologist claims police asked him to clear them of blame
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/12/tomlinson-inquest-pathologist-freddy-patel

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    No, he didn’t claim that at all – You clearly don’t understand the difference between being “asked if he could rule out the possibility of assault or crush injuries as a result of public order?” and being “asked to rule that the injuries could not have been caused by assault or crush injuries”

    edit – exact quote:

    “I would have been informed by the coroner’s officer that they would like to rule out if he had suffered any injuries as a result of an assault – and there was a big crowd there, whether he suffered any crush injuries related to the protesters in the public disorder.”

    Thats really not the same as being asked to cover it up is it?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    “was requested by the police to rule out any assault or crush injuries as a result of public order?” Patel replied: “Yes. That’s right.”

    is what they asked him acoording to the guardian transcript

    cant see how thats a healthy thing. myself

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    All the Met had to ask the pathologist was to establish the cause of death.

    I can’t see why they needed to point him in any direction.

    The reference by the police of a “public disorder” situation was completely irrelevant to the pathologist.

    Margin-Walker
    Free Member

    “Tomlinson, 47, a father of nine” FFS !! (and an alchoholic)

    ‘London Weighting’ for newpaper vendors must be more than I thought.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    “Tomlinson, 47, a father of nine” FFS !! (and an alchoholic)

    Makes you wonder why it took the police so long to kill him, eh ?

    BermBandit
    Free Member

    Looks a lot like “The system” works then!

    kimbers
    Full Member

    will see if the cps prosecute

Viewing 22 posts - 41 through 62 (of 62 total)

The topic ‘Ian tomlinson’ is closed to new replies.