MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
inexcusable behaviour by the officer in question.
Renews your faith in the judiciary
in other news - sherlock holmes still constipated
I have a slight feeling of "there but for the grace of God goes many a good cop"
Its too glib and simplistic to blame the cop for their actions in the heat of the momnet. Failures go much further than that. Training, briefing, management, all have a part to play as does luck. How many folk were pushed back and given a thwack when they refused that day? Every day cops restrain people far more aggressively than that.
Was the cop acting in accordence with their training and instruction?
I would far prefer to see full disclosure and thus real lessons learnt that attempting to hang a cop out to dry which causes the police to close ranks and makes it had to get full disclosure
I just hope that justice will be done for Ian and his family!
teej - agreed (a bit) but I think the change in behaviour will come from the rank & file, not from above. Next time someone in authority tells a group of trainees or a squad to rough-up a crowd if necessary, they'll likely all have this in mind. All the more so if they screw this pc over.
TJ, the video says it all for this case. The officer was clearly out of order. If it hadn't been for the multiple videos of this act then it would not have gone this far. I do accept however that the MET have some vicious sods in their ranks and violence against the public is more common than it should be.
Would a young man egged on by his mates to lash out at a stranger, leading to his victims death get same level of sympathy TJ?
Front line cops have got to be responsible for their acts of unwarranted violence just as much as the rest of socioty. Sometimes "training, briefing and management" can be the scapegoat to excuse out of control front line thugs.
You can train someone as much as you like but if he/she is prepared to run up behind and assault a person walking away and not presenting a threat to you or the public then he/she deserves to be placed in a court to answer their actions. Try it yourself, run up behind someone, hit them with a baton, push them to the floor and see where you end up.
Teh point I try to make is that by hanging the individual out to dry its hard to actually get to the roots of what happened as both the individual and the service will close ranks to try to protect him. thi is only natural.
We don't know the stress and strain that cop was under, we don't know what they had been briefed, we don't know if they were a suitable person to be in the police force.
I am only asking the questions here that need to be asked. Does the responsibility go far wider than the individual cop? I think it might well do
Is it more a case of "corporate manslaughter" by the Met? if the recruitment, training, briefing was up to scratch this ideath may not have happened?
We have had this happen too many times and the lessons are not beig learnt? Why not?
Yes there is a problem in the MET of thuggish behaviour. But what about individual responsibility?
I have no issue with the cop being charged if he has behaved outside his training and instruction and there is a realistic chance of a prosecution
i want to see the senior officers there alongside him to explain how he came to be there in that mood and took those actions
TJ is right
It's not just senior police though, where do they get their instructions from do you think?
The containment and actions in dispersing the climate camp have been deemed unlawful also.
All coppers should be ashamed to support a system that allows this to happen.
TJ, I agree with you on that. I suppose my assumption is that his official training would never sanction that behaviour. However custom and practice may be entirely different and this may be normal behaviour. Doesn't make it ok though.
Maybe its time he spoke out about tactics and instructions, you would have hoped a mans death would have been enough incentive for the people we give power and authority to, supposedly to protect us. Hundreds of cops would have known of the instructions and tactics that day, its quite horrendous to think not one of them has the decency to actually act in the best interest of the public and actually be honest.
yossarian, I think we may be about to get banned from STW. Isn't there something in the T&C's about not being allowed to agree with TJ? That's two agreements in the space of 5mins. We might break the Internet.
CHB - I am not sure he did act outside his training and instruction - you see - or not by a lot. Just his misfortune that Tomlinsons insides were like a rotten tomato ready to burst.
Its the desire to cover up that leads to such things as the Patel autopsy and the cop lying under oath - now if the individual feels safe they are not going to be hung out to dry if they are honest and have acted honestly then we have a much better chance of getting to the truth and preventing this happening again.
The PC had a Duty of Care to uphold on that day the same as you and i have to each other when we walk / drive/ cycle past each other in the street, i believe and i hope a jury agrees with me that he breached that duty of care.
That's why I said "assumed".
TJ whether his insides were like a rotton tomato is of no consequence, you take your victim as you find them in law.
Aye but any other man in that crowd would not have died
Breached his duty of care - negligence? wasn't careful enough when he pushed him away? Seems reasonable. Not going down for that tho
How do you know?
For all I know I may have a undiagnosed heart problem. Can't tell til you push me over and I die.
They may have banged their head and suffered a bleed, the PCs blow may have fractured a rib leading to a punctured lung we dont know, but the question to answer is why the PC felt his actions were justified and as a man died as a result of those actions a courtroom would seem a fair place to discuss it.
It has been decided the Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.
What should now be decided (at trial) is whether Harwood is criminally responsible.(IMO he most certainly is). To gain a conviction the prosecution need to prove intent to cause harm or recklessness (as to whether harm would be done). Negligence would not come into it.
Its not like the met havent done this kind of thing before and got away with it. Blair Peach.
1. the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
2. the defendant breached this duty;
3. the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
4. the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.
Negligenge is not criminal (although there are certain exeptions).
His actions would be fairly easy to prove criminal IMO. Manslaughter should be the charge he faces.
Harwood had attacked 5 people, including a BBC cameraman, in the 8 minutes before attacking Tomlinson. However I can't see the DPP making a case against him since he was only doing his job.
TandemJeremy - MemberWe don't know the stress and strain that cop was under,
But we do know he chose to be where he was, rather than where he was supposed to be, and that when asked to explain that he lied as to his reasons.
Saw an interview with a BBC cameraman who was filming a protester being hit with a baton. He was grabbed from behind and thrown to the floor by this same officer, CCTV footage showed it also.
Sounds like he lost control after 14 hours in the midst of the protest (and probably a lot of provocation); some body died and now he has to live with that.
Anyone who has had the misfortune to encounter the TSG or any other incarnation of these bully boy outfits will know that they are never far away from this kind of tragedy.At least this time there antics were caught on CCTV and he even had his numbers on.
I am in agreement with the decision we can debate the copper when he faces charges
Sounds like he lost control after 14 hours in the midst of the protest (and probably a lot of provocation); some body died and now he has to live with that.
He hasn't shown any remorse or told the truth, so he seems to have been living with his actions quite comfortably, hopefully that will now change.
Well I also agree with much of what TJ has said.
I don't think any of us understand what these cops have to deal with during these protests (I'm not defending what happened in this case with this statement as I'm sure there are cops looking for a ood fight as well). There are some pretty nasty manipulative people on the other side of the protest as well who abuse the right to protest (IMO). I bet it's a wee bit diffiuclt in the heat of the moment to decide what sort of person you have facing you. I also bet quite a few normal people caught up in the protests can (understandably) get a bit bolshie with the police as well.
This particular cop may well have been out of order but I do think we need to have a very hard long think about the balance between freedom of speech, impact on local people in the vicinity and the cost of policing the demonstrations. I don't have the answers but I don't think the status quo is sustainable, there are many people out there abusing the right to protest because it makes them feel big rather than for any legitmate hope of changing something. There's plenty of ways to protest that don't involve shutting down and destroying a city centre. Some of them even work.
MSP - the way the system is now he cannot admit guilt or show remorse or he is in peril of prosecution. He has to claim he did not wrong. He cannot say
" I was tired and fed up, my boss had told me to be ruthless, I had beentrained to push people and I over reacted in the heat of the momnet"
I don't have the answers but I don't think the status quo is sustainable, there are many people out there abusing the right to protest because it makes them feel big rather than for any legitmate hope of changing something. There's plenty of ways to protest that don't involve shutting down and destroying a city centre. Some of them even work.
Well put.
It might be well put, but it is factually incorrect - no city centre was 'destroyed'. The biggest problems occurred in connection to the tactics used by the police.
[i]In the days leading up to the summit, the Metropolitan police warned protest groups that the protests on April 1 would be "very violent" and that they were "up for it, and up to it" in the event of trouble.
The police used the crowd-control tactic known as containment or the “kettle”, to hold 5,000 people inside a police cordon without food, drink or lavatory facilities. This combined with riot police pushing into crowds with shields and batons. [/i]
The Met police had decided [u]before[/u] the event that there would be trouble. As we now know, by far the most violent party during the protests was the Met Police themselves. Indeed according to the Daily Mail:
[i]"The Metropolitan Police said just one arrest - for drunk and disorderly - had been recorded by 4.40pm. Police estimated the crowds at around 35,000".[/i]
[url= http://www.****/news/article-1165382/35-000-protesters-turn-G20-march-London---police-arrest-just-one.html ]35,000 protesters turn out for G20 march in London ... but police arrest just one[/url]
And yet the police had kettled thousands of people and attacked them with batons and shields.
As TJ suggests, the senior officers who had promised that the protest would be "very violent" and had hyped up their men with macho talk about being "up for it" should be held accountable when the unsurprising consequence is that an innocent person dies. Senior officers get extremely high salaries and expect to take the credit when things go right, they should be forced to carry the can when things go wrong. I can't see how anyone can argue against that.
I bet it's a wee bit diffiuclt in the heat of the moment to decide what sort of person you have facing you.
Ian Tomlinson was walking away from his killer, posing absolutely no threat whatsoever, when he was pushed over.
Not that difficult to work out that a man walking away from you with his hands in his pockets isn't actually posing any real threat, is it?
Let the killer face the same justice as anyone else.
There are some pretty nasty manipulative people on the other side of the protest as well who abuse the right to protest (IMO)
Yep.
Not that difficult to work out that a man walking away from you with his hands in his pockets isn't actually posing any real threat, is it?
I dunno, I've never been a cop at a demonstration.
Not defending the officer but have you never ever lost your temper?
It's not about 'losing your temper'.
Was this the only reported assault by the police that day?
Take a spin around the Internet. Watch the videos of how the climate change camp was attacked, watch protesters sitting on the floor chanting 'this is not a riot' and still getting struck by batons and shields. Read the articles about how the containment has been ruled as unlawful.
Etc
The grunts on the ground act on orders received. Senior police officers (especially the met) do as they are told by Whitehall.
Remember that Obama was on town at the G20? The police were undoubtedly told to snuff out trouble to avoid a PR disaster. Their actions were unlawful. That's it really.
What I mean (and should've said it in the first instance) is have you ever lost it only to find the consequences way worse than they should've been? He, the officer, lost it completely, the victim was unlucky to bear the grunt of being "the chosen one". [u]The attacker[/u], as that's who he is here - not the copper, [u]should go down[/u] but the big result should be mental and psychological scanning of the force.
I'm not sure he did lose it though. Having watched the footage a number of times it looks like the officer was acting aggressively for sure but it didn't look uncontrolled to me.
the officer, lost it completely, the victim was unlucky
You obviously have never seen the video of the attack - I suggest that you watch it before making anymore comments.
You will discover that PC Harwood was completely calm, cold, and calculating, without any hint of anger, as he launched into a lethal attack against an elderly man walking away from him with his hands in his pockets and his back turned to him.
Presumably that's the conclusion the jury also came to when they decided, after seeing all the evidence including the the video, of unlawful killing.
Of course it is possible that you have in fact already seen the video, and any disagreement on this thread is purely down to the usual Daily Mail suspects, as always, defending the actions of the police no matter what.
[img] 
[/img]
it is perfectly legal to protest in this country, it is not legal for armed men paid by the government to beat (and sometimes kill) civilians in the street. the police are completely out of control when it comes to dealing with protesters, maybe they should stop recruiting people who were bullied at school and want revenge on the world.
Let the killer face the same justice as anyone else.
I quite a agree with that, but I do hope it is the [b]SAME[/b], and as TJ says not a sacrificial lamb hung out to the slaughter.
i don't think this case is as clear cut as the argument above suggests. It goes beyond whether Harwood is an unlucky scapegoat or just a thug.
Firstly there is Harwood's own conduct in the case this was covered in detail at the inquest .He was tasked as van driver to remain with his van to facilitate rapid redeployment of his team . For some reason he abandoned his post and then had a series of violent interactions with members of the public. One "protesters" head came in to contact with a van door one cameraman ended up on his back and ultimately we all saw what happened to Tomlinson. He must as an individual answer for those actions. Personally having read the reports of his evidence and some of the transcript He was a bored thug who did not like the non active roll assigned and went looking for some action . he suggested a series of incidents drew him away stage by stage from his post.
Secondly there training is command and control as exercised By the Met over the protest. Here there can be a clear debate over keeping the peace vs the right to protest , crowd control vs the rights of the individuals in the crowd and the degree of force the police should use in the face of peaceful disobedience. personally in this debate i am a whining middle class liberal.
Thirdly there is the police collective conduct as the incident unfolded. No officer at the scene could have viewed Harwoods use of force on Tomlinson as lawful not one stepped in then or came forward later to identify him or stop him. members of the public who went to assist Tomlinson were pushed away . when he collapsed officers refused to talk to the ambulance service . A police kettle blocked an ambulance attending the scene .A police report of the crowd preventing medical assistance by throwing missiles was found to be at best a massive exaggeration. The suggestion was made that Tomlinson had not had any contact with police officers that there was no CCTV and his character was attacked. All of this smacks of a failure as an organisation to take responsibility and an attempt to avoid or divert a blame.
i don't think this case is as clear cut as the argument above suggests. It goes beyond whether Harwood is an unlucky scapegoat or just a thug.
I don't think anyone has suggested that he might be just "an unlucky scapegoat". Anyone who does think he might be used as a scapegoat, doesn't appear to be denying that he is a thug........it isn't a case of one [b][i]or[/i][/b] the other.
I think the point here is that if the individual PC is hung out to dry, the bigger issues will get swept under the table. FOr my money I object very strongly to my rights being impinged upon whether it be by the actions of the boys in blue or by the rent an anarchist mob who roll up uninvited to every major demonstration nowadays. Policing should be about the active consent of the public. If that is not the case you end up rapidly in a Polcie state situation, so what start out as small issues actually have a significacne far greater than that of the simple actions on the ground.
Its too glib and simplistic to blame the cop for their actions in the heat of the momnet. Failures go much further than that.
I'm fairly sure that the police don't train their staff to knock unarmed, defenseless, drunk, quiet non-threat individuals to the floor with full body force, while they're walking away. Could be wrong, of course.
I'm fairly sure that the police don't train their staff to knock unarmed, defenseless, drunk, quiet non-threat individuals to the floor with full body force, while they're walking away. Could be wrong, of course.
Apparently don't train them not to either!
"I'm fairly sure that the police don't train their staff to knock unarmed, defenseless, drunk, quiet non-threat individuals to the floor with full body force, while they're walking away. Could be wrong, of course."
The gist of Harwoods evidence was that is what his training said he could do and that it was no part of his training to offer or secure first aid to people he injured in the process.
[i]lethal attack against an elderly man[/i]
He was the same age as me
I'm fairly sure that the police don't train their staff to knock unarmed, defenseless, drunk, quiet non-threat individuals to the floor with full body force, while they're walking away. Could be wrong, of course.
Pc Harwood apparently believes that all of his actions at the G20 demonstration were in keeping with his training
At the Ian Tomlinson Inquest, Matthew Ryder QC :
[b][i]Q. I can ask you again. You said this morning, and I am quoting what you said: “My training tells me, if somebody is not a threat, I can baton them.”[/i][/b]
Pc Harwood :
[b][i]A. Yes.[/i][/b]
Matthew Ryder QC :
[b][i]Q. Are you saying that, in certain circumstances, you may use force in order to enforce a power, is that what you are saying?[/i][/b]
Pc Harwood :
[b][i]A. Possibly.[/i][/b]
Matthew Ryder QC :
[b][i]Q. But do you accept that all of your training has taught you that the level of force must be proportionate to the threat?[/i][/b]
Pc Harwood :
[i][b]A. Yes.[/i][/b]
Pc Harwood clearly believes that all of his actions were within the parameters of his training. Now I suspect that he might lying, but I wasn't at his training sessions, and I'm guessing that you weren't either.
I am also aware that none of the countless police officers who witnessed the incident reacted in a way which you might expect them to react if one of their colleagues had behaved in a manner not in keeping with their training. They appear to be hugely comfortable with the situation, and Pc Harwood returns to his post in a relaxed manner not betraying any hint of concern that he has just landed himself into serious trouble.
DezB - Member[b]"lethal attack against an elderly man"[/b]
He was the same age as me
You don't get awarded extra points for being elderly on here you know.......but thanks for letting us know anyway 🙂
Did the Policeman hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton or did he just push him over? The videos i've seen just seem to show a push.
[i]You don't get awarded extra points for being elderly on here you know[/i]
I was just awarding you extra points for sensationalism. 😉
Would you prefer "giffer" dez ?DezB - Member
lethal attack against an elderly man
He was the same age as me
(I is so slow at this stuff 🙁 )
I was just awarding you extra points for sensationalism.
Well **** me..........I just checked his age, I did indeed think he was an elderly man.........he looked ****ing rough for a 47 year old 😯
So yes, guilty as charged on "sensationalism" allegation......it's a fair cop.
And kids, don't let drink ruin your life.......and your good looks 😐
I also wouldn't die if a cop tapped me with his baton and shoved me over. I also wouldn't stroll in front of a line of mean looking cops in riot gear with my hands in my pockets.
I also wouldn't be a copper.
He struck him on the thigh with his baton prior to pushing him over LHS.
So was it actually the push that killed him? He sounded like he was about to die anyway, no?
I also wouldn't stroll in front of a line of mean looking cops in riot gear with my hands in my pockets.
Why not ? It's an excellent example of body language which conveys the message that you are not intending to threaten anyone.
Would you prefer to stroll in front of a line of mean looking cops in riot gear with your hands in a more aggressive fighting stance ?
Good for you for not dying if a copper hits you with a truncheon and pushes you over btw. Presumably you don't wear a helmet when riding a bike because your head is so hard that if you crack it on a curbstone there is no risk of lethal brain injury ?
This particular cop may well have been out of order but I do think we need to have a very hard long think about the balance between freedom of speech, impact on local people in the vicinity and the cost of policing the demonstrations. I don't have the answers but I don't think the status quo is sustainable, there are many people out there abusing the right to protest because it makes them feel big rather than for any legitmate hope of changing something. There's plenty of ways to protest that don't involve shutting down and destroying a city centre. Some of them even work.
Maybe, but then the police shouldn't use tactics which massively inflame situations and hugely increase the likelihood of violence.
For me the worst part about all this (apart from the sad death of course) is the cover-up. I wonder how many more instances like this there have been over the years that don't happen to have been caught on video.
Pc Harwood clearly believes that all of his actions were within the parameters of his training. Now I suspect that he might lying, but I wasn't at his training sessions, and I'm guessing that you weren't either.
I wasn't at his either, but I've done the same training elsewhere, in two different police forces, and I share your suspicions that Harwood is talking shite - I cannot believe he's ever been taught that that level of force would be justified in those circumstances. Tomlinson was no threat to his own, his colleagues or any member of the public's safety as far as I can see (and if there was any evidence he was we'd have heard it by now).
Notwithstanding that, even if we were to be generous and conclude that he has simply misjudged the threat, it's completely illogical to interfere with someone who is walking in the direction you want them to go.
So was it actually the push that killed him? He sounded like he was about to die anyway, no?
Two, possibly 3 (if there were 4) of the pathologists agreed with the conclusion that as he fell, his elbow got stuck underneath him, causing the blow to his abdomen that did the fatal damage to his fragile liver. That's the gist of it anyway, his elbow effectively struck a fatal blow to him because he fell.
About to die anyway? Who knows. The straw that broke the camel's back perhaps? (Probably wouldn't have been fatal for anyone with a healthy liver).
[i]Why not ? It's an excellent example of body language which conveys the message that you are not intending to threaten anyone.[/i]
Because it's a f%$king stupid place to be.
[i]Would you prefer to stroll in front of a line of mean looking cops in riot gear with your hands in a more aggressive fighting stance ?[/i]
No, but if I did fall over (or get pushed) (there's a riot going on, man!) I would like to be able to break my fall with my hands. Call them protective.
[i]Good for you for not dying if a copper hits you with a truncheon and pushes you over btw. Presumably you don't wear a helmet when riding a bike because your head is so hard that if you crack it on a curbstone there is no risk of lethal brain injury ?[/i]
I didn't see the bloke get hit on the head.
BTW, I have no hidden views on this subject, just those expressed.
Perhaps that's why this thug in uniform had been given the task of driving the van! Probably gets his kicks from striking people with his baton and was being kept out of the way due to previous indiscretions. His arrogance when confronted with the evidence was truly astounding.
Because it's a f%$king stupid place to be.
He had been trying for a while to get home, he wanted nothing to do with the demonstration or the police. There is nothing "stupid" about that, and to somehow try to shift some of the blame of what Pc Harwood did, onto Ian Tomlinson himself, for apparently being "stupid" is quite frankly deplorable.
I would like to be able to break my fall with my hands. Call them protective.
If you actually look at the video you will see that Ian Tomlinson did precisely that - he broke his fall with his hands. Have you seen the video ?
I wonder how many more instances like this there have been over the years that don't happen to have been caught on video.
+1
I would bet on loads.
I wonder how many more instances like this there have been over the years that don't happen to have been caught on video.
Probbly loads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Roach
That happened 28 years ago, and still there has been no public enquiry.
And Jean Charles De Menezes was murdered, yet his killers have never faced proper justice. That's an utter disgrace.
Steven Waldorf anyone? A bit more extreme but still a flagrant disregard for their fellow man! I suppose they were going to say he pulled a gun on them.............oops wrong man!!
I know its taken time and all that, but to be honest I'm quite happy with the way this has gone. Overall its not been kneejerk, it has been left to independant sources to decide and I think cover up is a bit harsh. Remember a lot of the so called cover up is down to incompetence on the part of one Freddy Patel, not the Police, The IPC or the courts. Once they accepted that Harwood would not be charged by the CPC, the Police did then institute their own disciplinary proceedings against the guy. That all takes time, and remember he has rights too, including the right to a fair hearing.
Personally I think the complete lack of reaction to Harwoods behaviour by his colleagues speaks volumes, and the bigger picture needs looking into pretty carefully IMHO.
Remember a lot of the so called cover up is down to incompetence on the part of one Freddy Patel, not the Police, The IPC or the courts.
But was it just incompetence, or did he collude with the police to give the verdict they wanted?
Also, am I right in thinking - the officer in question falsely claimed to have had no contact with Tomlinson, and this version of events wasn't contested until the video footage came out?
I wonder how many more instances like this there have been over the years that don't happen to have been caught on video.
Its precisely because there has been loads that I want to get a full disclose into the wider issues which requires a good understanding of why Harwood acted as he did. Now while he is having to defend himself he and his colleagues will tend to hide the truth when it reflects badly upon him. Take away the element of blaming the individual and it becomes easier to find out exactly what happened and why.
edit - Patel - chosen to do the first PM as he was a safe pair of hands he has previous
I don't think police officers facing justice makes it any harder or easier to find the truth about the wider issues. Change never comes from within the force, it always has to be forced upon them.
I'm not sure you can read too much into the reaction of the other officers. The strike and the shove took all of a few seconds. By the time they've seen that the one who did it was back in the line, so there wasn't really anything ongoing to then react to. It would be different if he went on to give the man a shoeing on the floor, you'd expect them to react to that obviously. You'd hardly expect them to all stop what they were doing to wag their fingers and shout at him would you, not there and then in front of a crowd. One of the articles in the guardian printed details of the evidence of a WPC who was there and she was very blunt in rebutting Pc Harwood's claim that he was a threat. I don't think it's fair to read anything one way or the other into their reactions at the time.