Forum menu
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.
I wouldn't trust anyone called Freddy Patel anyway, I mean, it's not like it's a proper name.
so there wasn't really anything ongoing to then react to
I think you'll find that there was an injured man who required assistance, he was helped by bystanders but coppers a few feet away seemed hugely unconcerned by the incident, and totally ignore the perpetrator - presumably they thought everything was fine and tickety-boo ?
Would they have reacted in exactly the same way if Ian Tomlinson had been assaulted by a protester ? I somehow doubt it and reckon they reacted in the way they did because they believed that everything which had occurred was acceptable.
But was it just incompetence, or did he collude with the police to give the verdict they wanted?
I think if you look into el Freds background you will find that incompetence looms fairly large. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion anywhere of collusion with the Plod. [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g20-summit/7904804/G20-riots-profile-of-Dr-Freddy-Patel.html ]Try this for example[/url]
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.
...... Lie not challenged before contrary evidence comes to hand shocker!
What do you suggest they should have done with the perpetrator then? Arrested him? All turned their backs on the protesters to argue with him? I don't know, maybe they did think it was ok. I just don't think you can draw any conclusion from what we saw. To be fair, you did acknowledge that you were only presuming that they condoned his actions. Are the transcripts of their evidence available yet, that might give a more accurate insight into their views than just making assumptions?
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.
I personally know of other cases where one officer was violent/out of order and the other officer with them stood around looking non-committal until asked by a passing mmember of the public if officer 1 should be doing that. They replied no and then officer 2 started asking officer 1 to stop, only when questioned by the public.
I suspect the training does not strictly say "only when someone is causing trouble is it OK to use a baton" etc, it's called common sense and that is a personal fault for which he should be held responsible.
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.
The riot wasn't exactly close to this incident though was it, and he was clearly intoxicated. Both of these facts should have been taken into consideration by the police who instead chose to shove him to the floor when they could see he was clearly incapable of stopping himself and not causing any harm. I'm all for giving violent protestors a kicking if they're using violence against someone else, but this case is clearly not even close to that. The police are trusted with a difficult task, they are employed and trained for their abilities to do that. IF they can't do that they should not be police.
What do you suggest they should have done with the perpetrator then? Arrested him? All turned their backs on the protesters to argue with him? I don't know, maybe they did think it was ok.
Pull him back and take him away, or at least attempt to help the guy up, are you suggesting the police are incapable of doing anything about a rogue officer? How are they meant to cope with riots if they can't pick the right course of action in this instance? IIRC it is on record that the rest of the officers did not think this was an OK course of action.
I'm not sticking up for them, just trying to be fair.
I've watched the video again. The officer hits him with the baton, then pushes him, then runs away all within 2 or 3 seconds. That's not time for any other officer to get hold of him, and once he's run away, how can they take him away?
Fair point on helping him up, although there were two guys helping him within a second or two of him falling, and within 12-15 seconds he was back up on his feet.
The point is that its not right for fellow officers to just stand by, presuming thats what they did. This guy apparently threw a photgrapher to the floor a few minutes earlier, then he welted Tomlinson with a baton, then he pushed Tomlinson to the ground.
The simple fact is had any of his colleagues remonstrated with him it is entirely possible that Tomlinson may still be alive and importantly in respect of the "macho, all boys together, must back up my mates" culture, Harwood may not be facing losing not only his career but quite possibly his liberty over acting like a cock..... and lets face it if that were a hanging offence on its own who amongst us would still be in work without our mates pointing out the error of our ways to us at some point or other in our lives?)
Senior police were told 48 hours after Ian Tomlinson's death that officers had witnessed a colleague push him to the ground at the G20 protests, but the information was withheld from the police watchdog.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back
Looks like some officers did speak out, but there was a cover-up....
Collusion? Patel was told by the police to rule out any reference to violence or civil disorder from his coroner's inquiry.