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 🙂
Oh Z-11 has turned up and predictably wants to turn it into a political issue. Time to move on.
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!
I don't disagree with any of that.
I've just watched the video again and I cannot even dream up a remotely believable (and legal) justification for hitting the bloke.
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!
Yet a different jury has already decided (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was unlawfully killed. So where does that leave us?
120 plus arrests can not be a lawful protest can it?
So thousands of people turn up on a protest, 120 plus are arrested and you say its an unlawful protest?
It is not wholly lawful as was being made out.
Nah Ernie, Just sitting here more than happy to see that Justice has been done...
and that some of us 'loons' who said he had a pretty strong defence of reasonable force at the time he was charged, when the usuals already had him hung drawn and quartered.
Ransos - stuck with our wonderful legal system.
Anyway, if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
Indeed, just like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four 😉
Anyway, if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
what about the jury in the STW kangaroo court?
