Forum menu
PC Simon Harwood found not guilty of manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at G20 protest
Blimey
Yup. Wow.
"i was wrong". No you weren't.
Good.
A non Daily Mail link for online activists who wish to deny them the advertising revenue:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484 ]BBC[/url]
If that had been a pedestrian and not a cop, he'd be in prison now.
Reasonable force?
In what way?
Given that
During the trial, the police officer accepted he was "wrong" to have hit and pushed Mr Tomlinson.He said that, had he realised at the time that Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him".
Good.
Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it. And death is an acceptable punishment.
Well he's been cleared by a jury so what's the problem?
Well he's been cleared by a jury so what's the problem?
If only it were that simple.
[img] 
[/img]
Dunno why, but there's something about his face that would make me find him guilty if I were on a Jury.
theres a big surprise
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....
imagine if hed done something really bad like stolen a bottle of water
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....
Can't recall a single instance of a serving cop being convicted of murder. Remind me?
Doctors though. That Harold Shipman killed a few of his patients so I reckon doctors are all killers.
Jury weren't told about this
PC Simon Harwood has a disciplinary record littered with complaints of aggressive behaviour and misconduct and once admitted being sent into "red mist mode", it can be disclosed today.
Bloody hell.
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....Can't recall a single instance of a serving cop being convicted of murder. Remind me?
ermmm... er... that's the point
This.Bloody hell.
ermmm... er... that's the point
The point being they are innocent.
If only there was some way of assessing the applicable evidence by a number of independent observers and reaching a conclusion as to whether or not he was guilty of the crime with which he'd been charged.
We could call the process a 'trial', and those observers a 'jury'.
[i]Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it[/i]
Thanks, I'll be sure to keep away from police lines during any protests in the future.
Seems fair. Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do. I would say just an accident and a bad situation for all involved
ernie_lynch - MemberGood.
Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it. And death is an acceptable punishment.
Well said.
ermmm... er... that's the pointThe point being they are innocent.
No, the point being that they were not convicted.
Blair Peach? fatally assaulted by a police officer. We know that, yet none were convicted of his murder. Does that mean they were all innocent?
Agree with Woody74.
I'll be sure to keep away from police lines during any protests in the future.
A much safer bet would be not to protest at all - stay at home and watch the telly instead.
Well this is clearly an outrage.
I think we should take a leaf out of the EU's book and try and re-try him until we get the result that we wanted in the first place based on whatever prejudice we happened to have about the police.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do.
They do, but unfortunately there are plenty of not "sensible" people around such as homeless alcoholics who don't/can't respond quickly to police orders.
I cannot see how pushing a bloke on his face can be lawful.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
I decided not to bring an umbrella to work today, when most sensible people would have. Do I deserve to be pushed over by the police?
You do have to wonder what he was still doing in uniform though. There's enough of a pattern of behaviour there that I'm surprised Surrey Police picked him up after he left the Met.
PC Simon Harwood has a disciplinary record littered with complaints of aggressive behaviour and misconduct and once admitted being sent into "red mist mode",
You see, I knew he looked like a wrong un!
However, three weeks after the charging decision was ratified, in August 2001, PC Harwood was retired on medical grounds because of ongoing problems arising from a 1998 car accident. A note was added to his record to say that he would not be disciplined.
Three days later he was reemployed by the Met as a member of civilian staff.
In April 2003, PC Harwood applied for a job with Surrey Police as an officer. Despite his record, he got the job and in January 2004 another complaint was made about alleged aggressive behaviour, this time by one of his own colleagues.
This sucks.
I think we should take a leaf out of the EU's book and try and re-try him until we get the result that we wanted in the first place based on whatever prejudice we happened to have about the police.
It's not about prejudice though, is it? It's about seeing an assault that led to a man's death.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you .......
It didn't look like a "riot" to me.
No one seemed to be attacking the police. Or do you automatically describe any situation where the police attack demonstrators (and passerbyers) as a "riot" ?
Handy for the police that.
The assault didn't lead to his death. Hence the verdict!
[i]There's enough of a pattern of behaviour there that I'm surprised Surrey Police picked him up after he left the Met.[/i]
Yep, they should've asked a bunch of random mountain bikers for advice on their employment policy.
Bloody hell.
Bloody hell indeed.
What do you actually have to do to get fired from the police? One of those incidents would be enough to get me fired from my job!
Can't have been a riot if it didn't look like one to you? Ridiculous!
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
Fair point, except that I don't think there was a riot going on and the guy in question was trying to leave the area.
However, the counter balance to that is that complaints against Police are a daily occurance in the job, and rather like Harwoods file appears to be, the vast majority are vexatious and either not pressed when the complainant sobers up/comes down whatever, or are simply un proven. If not employing an officer was on the basis of this sort of thing you will not have much of a Police force at all.
Overall, Harwood has gone through the mangle, he will in all probability lose his career over it, because the forces own investigation will have been suspended with the criminal case being brought. He may well have been heavy handed, but I don't think years of self abuse with alcohol can be blamed on him. So at the end of the day if he gets the boot from the force but not done for manslaughter I would say thats about right.
Shocking decision by the jury
The guy is a nut job
Yep, they should've asked a bunch of random mountain bikers for advice on their employment policy.
Or to use the more commonly applied term.........."the public".
You know, the people whom the police are there to serve, and who pay their wages of course.
[i]Shocking decision by the jury[/i]
Wrong decision by jury shocker!
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
First big may-day riots in the centre of London about 10 years back I walked around taking photos. When the police advised me to leave an area I did and I avoided big crowds too. My assumption was that if I was doing no harm and followed instructions nothing bad would happen to me. That was true for me but not for Ian Tomlinson
Wouldn't argue with you on that esselg
andymc06 - Member
The assault didn't lead to his death. Hence the verdict!
Wrong:
April 2009: Further post-mortem tests find cause of death was abdominal bleeding, caused by blow
andymc06 - MemberCan't have been a riot if it didn't look like one to you? Ridiculous!
So what did you see ? ......the police being attacked ? missiles being thrown ? looting ? tell me.
I saw a demonstration. Demonstrations are not automatically riots. Even when they are opposed to government policies.
I cannot see how pushing a bloke on his face can be lawful.
It isn't. But unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt it caused death then it isn't manslaughter.
The baton strike and push on a man walking away was completely unjustifiable. It's assault though, not manslaughter if it didn't cause the death.
The issue of cause of death saw the testimony of the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, who reasserted his belief that Tomlinson died from heart failure, placed against that of Dr Nat Cary, who told the court that even a relatively small amount of internal bleeding would have caused death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson
I'm surprised he was still in the job after being found guilty of unlawful use of the police national computer. That is a sacking offence in many forces.
Shocking decision by the jury
Is it better to set a man who may be guilty free, or convict a man who may be innocent?
Saw it where? On the telly?
He may well have been heavy handed, but I don't think years of self abuse with alcohol can be blamed on him.
Nobody is suggesting that the PC forced beer down Mr Tomlinsons neck FFS.
Assuming that every person you encounter is in full possession of their faculties is a massive mistake, as proved here.
It's assault though, not manslaughter if it didn't cause the death.
A jury has already found that Ian Tomlinson was [u]unlawfully killed[/u].
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-unlawfully-killed-inquest ]Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed, inquest finds[/url]
[i]"The police officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests could be prosecuted for manslaughter after an inquest jury ruled [u]that he unlawfully killed the newspaper seller[/u]".[/i]
Hang on, bloke was 'unlawfully killed'
The world knows who did it; everyone has seen.
How could these two things not add up to guilty.
If half of that article is correct the guy is a nutter and should not have even been there .
andymc06 - MemberSaw it where? On the telly?
I don't know where woody74 saw it for him to decide that it was a "riot", why don't you ask him ?
April 2009: Further post-mortem tests find cause of death was abdominal bleeding, caused by blow
Source? Also, what blow? The blow to the head, the blow when he hit the pavement? There has to be a causal link between the assault and the cause of death.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484 ]source[/url]
Blow when he hit the pavement I guess. I've not read the post-mortem results, have you?
Sauce?...
[img] 
[/img]
No. But I'm not on here quoting them and saying people are wrong. 😆
You don't even know what you are talking about! Just quoting random snippets!! 😆
It's the internetz 🙄
You don't even know what you are talking about! Just quoting random snippets!!
Piffle!
My research was both indepth and accurate.
Ernie
The definition of riot is 10 or more people acting together, unlawfully, with a common purpose in a given area.
An incident is not formally termed a riot unless absolutely necessary as under statute this bestows certain obligations on government (total cost of damage for instance). Below riot, you have violent disorder and the public order incidents. None of these have any link to whether or not a demonstration is going on.
There is no question that a riot took place that day. Hence your statement, assessing whether or not there was a riot from what you saw of it, is ridiculous. Unless of course you have some expertise in this area or were actually there.
Perhaps bring some facts to the table instead of left wing anti-police prejudices.
I'm out 🙂 (in a Dragon's Den kind of way!)
andymc06 - Were the police officer's actions justifiable if there was a riot, then?
Go and push a copper tonight. I think you might find that you will be arrested.
There is no question that a riot took place that day. Hence your statement, assessing whether or not there was a riot from what you saw of it, is ridiculous. Unless of course you have some expertise in this area or were actually there.
It's not often I agree with ernie but if anyone believes that Tomlinson is even doing an impression of a threat, they are delusional.
The fact that a riot had happened (maybe earlier or even elsewhere) does not give the police the right to knock people around.
In fact, even if it was a riot; the police don't have the automatic right to smack people around.
I'm not left wing, anti police nor did I support the riots/protests. The police need to obey the law. The PC was no more entitled to wallop Tomlinson than Tomlinson was entitled to whack him.
A jury has already found that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.
An inquest operates on the balance of probability standard. A criminal case requires the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
We can all have our own opinion based on news reports but the jury heard all the evidence and did not think the case was proved. End of.
There's a lot of quibbling here over whether it was manslaughter or assault, Tomlinson could have died because of years of Alcohol abuse, but was the catalyst what Harwood did to him? He was charged with manslaughter, or should it have been assault?
It was also captured on Video for all the world to see, and what they saw was a man walking away from a Police line posing no threat get attacked by Harwood. The public will no doubt be outraged not only by the not guilty verdict, but also the behavior of a Police officer on an innocent man.
There is no question that a riot took place that day.
There was some rioting that day, I hope you are not using this to justify what happened to Tomlinson as acceptable.
Serious questions need to asked about how Harwood considering his record was even let back into the Police, a lot of the accusations against him were "unproven", but the frequency of such alleged incidents should surely have set some alarms bells ringing.
End of.
Not by a long chalk.
9 complaints of violence, 1 written warning for accessing the police national computer and causing the death of a person by use of a baton.
a great advert for British Policing.
a copper being a violent bully.
Another steriotype being reinforced.
Copper breaking the law and getting away with.
Yet again, reinforcing a lot of peoples opinions.
Perhaps bring some facts to the table instead of left wing anti-police prejudices.
What a truly ridiculous comment.
Whilst I am undeniably left-wing I have not expressed any anti-police prejudices whatsoever. Indeed I am a particularly strong supporter of the British police and have on many occasions spoken highly favourably of the police on this forum. I have in fact previously stated on here that the BBC and the police are the last two remaining institutions which Britain can still be truly proud of, and with which it provides an excellent example to the rest of the world.
PC Simon Harwood has previously been found by a jury to have been responsible for the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson, the only issue remaining imo was whether it was murder or manslaughter, the fact that it was unlawful had already been established. For him to get away scot free doesn't seem like justice to many people, it has nothing at all to do with "anti-police prejudices".
Neither does it do the police any favours. Or instil confidence felt by the general public towards them. Something which actually matters to me.
Wrecker
Not sure why you have quoted me. I was explaining that there was a riot. At no time did I make any assertion regarding the level of threat posed by Tomlinson. Nor did I suggest that the presence of a riot gave police the right to use force. I agree police must operate within the law.
Ernie had tried to make out that the police were operating in an environment of lawful protest and nothing else. Are you agreeing with that? Police can use reasonable force in given circumstances based on their honestly held belief of the the threat posed or danger they are in. It is down to the individual to justify it and the judge and jury to decide if they were right or wrong. They have decided, whilst in possession of all relevant facts allowed under our current legal system.
As IRC rightly says - End of.
An inquest operates on the balance of probability standard. A criminal case requires the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury that found he was unlawfully was operating on the same standard of proof as this trial - beyond reasonable doubt.
Ernie had tried to make out that the police were operating in an environment of lawful protest and nothing else.
Of course it was a lawful protest. Why weren't the police making arrests at the scene of Ian Tomlinson's attack if people were acting unlawfully ? Why wasn't Ian Tomlinson arrested ?
BTW andymc06 I'm getting the impression that your opinions are primarily motivated by an anti left-wing prejudice, the clue being your reference to "left-wing", am I right ?
Ernie had tried to make out that the police were operating in an environment of lawful protest and nothing else. Are you agreeing with that?
andy, I'm saying it is irrelevant. The particular incident did not occur in a riot scenario. Things weren't being thrown, smashed, walloped etc. The police were mincing along. Certainly not a "combat" scenario.
Police can use reasonable force in given circumstances based on their honestly held belief of the the threat posed or danger they are in.
That copper did not believe he was in danger. He hit the bloke because he was slow to comply, demonstrating impatience and a predisposition towards violence (which we have recently discovered is indicative of his character).
End of.
It may be for the criminal proceedings but [i]we[/i] can discuss it for however long [i]we[/i] please.
You really don't know much about it do you? 🙂
You really don't know much about it do you?
Know much about what? It's really not that complicated.
Wrecker. I'm not saying that you are wrong per se
I just don't think we can assume things we don't know about.
Don't get me wrong, that copper should never have been on the streets and Tomlinson was not posing a threat to my mind. But it's not my opinion that matters in court!
The above post was for Ernie!
I just don't think we can assume things we don't know about.
New here, aren't we?
Is it obvious??? 🙂
So, the usual suspect Lefties were wrong, the right wing loons were right, normality resumes 😀
I'm interested to hear how the Lefties are going to spin this whilst still upholding the absolute sanctity of the ability of a jury to return a not-guilty verdict 😉
So, the usual suspect Lefties were wrong, the right wing loons were right, normality resumesI'm interested to hear how the Lefties are going to spin this whilst still upholding the absolute sanctity of the ability of a jury to return a not-guilty verdict
How is this a left Vs right argument? Pillock.
Ernie
120 plus arrests can not be a lawful protest can it?
Police do not arrest immediately during public order scenarios as it can inflame the situation and reduces officers on the ground.
I am completely neutral politically and religiously 🙂