Ian Tomlinson case. PC Harwood Not Guilty.

[severnside gull]

The system will always side with the pigs unless there is direct political intervention.

Really don't think the system has anything to do with a trial by jury - after all you could be on the jury couldn't you and then he'd have been well f***ed.

I do however think that there is an element of understanding for the police when they are attacked and threatened in what is effectively a riot. If their response is inappropriate and unfortunate and even when, at its extreme as in this case, it results in injury and death it is still a response to the overall situation rather than the individual incident. I think juries sometimes accept that there is mitigation related to public disorder and the upholding of order which would never be accepted in other circumstances. In truth I don't agree with the jury in this case but I can understand how they might have come to their conclusion.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Unbelievable. Actually, no, par for the course; entirely believable and predictable.

The police are literally are a law unto themselves.

I know some individual coppers are decent (our very own Edna K. for example), but as an institution, I can't respect or trust them; they seem to get away with far too many things that the rest of us would (rightly) be locked-up for.

This decision disgusts me, but, sadly, it doesn't surprise me.

Appreciate your opinion on this particular subject, but I would honestly say it's not "some" coppers are decent, but "most" of them. The vast majority.

But unfortunately we all pay for it when the odd idiot slips through the net, because people only remember their behaviour and not the good stuff, and therefore adopt a default position of ACAB, which makes negotiating any situation difficult, no matter how much you want to help.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Cant see how the mans health is an issue. did the judge direct the jury to a verdict?

I don't think so. And his health is an issue here.

Under the law, it would have to be proved that the accused's actions were beyond reasonable doubt, a contributory factor (it doesn't even have to be THE single contributory factor) in a person's death.

I'm sort of guessing that in this case, the defence team have argued that it cannot be proved that Ian Tomlinson dying from an internal bleed was definitively caused by the accused. Because as I said before (hopefully some medical brain will confirm this) chronic alcoholics are prone to such bleeds without warning or apparent reason. That's what alcohol does to you in large quantities. It's not uncommon. Therefore all the defence had to convince the jury is "can you be absolutely certain that that medical condition hadn't already happened, and wouldn't have killed him anyway, regardless of our client?".

If that makes sense? (not asking you to agree, just trying to explain one possibility!).

 

[catfish]

Private Eye reported the road rage allegations last year but obviously an injunction was issued as neither they or the rest of the media printed them again. Guilty or not he's a nasty piece of work.

 

[Aadam]

An interesting outcome. I think most people that saw what happened didn't think he would get away with it.

To be fair to the policemen who killed Ian Tomlinson, there was absolutely no evidence, apart from that film of him doing it.

 

[Hillian1]

Appreciate your opinion on this particular subject, but I would honestly say it's not "some" coppers are decent, but "most" of them. The vast majority.

But unfortunately we all pay for it when the odd idiot slips through the net, because people only remember their behaviour and not the good stuff, and therefore adopt a default position of ACAB, which makes negotiating any situation difficult, no matter how much you want to help.

This, my brother in law is a Sussex plod and he is one of the most ethical people I've ever met, a good egg, a decent copper.

One bad apple really does seem to spoil the whole batch in the case of the Police.

*Disclaimer, the copper in question is not a bad apple as has been proved in a court of law.

 

[Bozza]

*Disclaimer, the copper in question is not a bad apple as has been proved in a court of law.

I think the fact that PC Harwood was found to have unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson qualifies him as a bad apple, nomatter what happened today.

 

[Mellotron]

Appreciate your opinion on this particular subject, but I would honestly say it's not "some" coppers are decent, but "most" of them. The vast majority.

But unfortunately we all pay for it when the odd idiot slips through the net, because people only remember their behaviour and not the good stuff, and therefore adopt a default position of ACAB, which makes negotiating any situation difficult, no matter how much you want to help.

Try being a Christian. Ruddy priests.

 

[looney]

Really don't think the system has anything to do with a trial by jury - after all you could be on the jury couldn't you and then he'd have been well f***ed.

I do however think that there is an element of understanding for the police when they are attacked and threatened in what is effectively a riot. If their response is inappropriate and unfortunate and even when, at its extreme as in this case, it results in injury and death it is still a response to the overall situation rather than the individual incident. I think juries sometimes accept that there is mitigation related to public disorder and the upholding of order which would never be accepted in other circumstances. In truth I don't agree with the jury in this case but I can understand how they might have come to their conclusion.

I dont know how they came to the verdict, maybe one of the pigs had a word with them about sending down coppers. Maybe the judge ordered them to aquite, maybe the prosecution lawyers where handpicked trainees?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I think the fact that PC Harwood was found to have unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson qualifies him as a bad apple, nomatter what happened today.

I would agree. I don't think there's any issue with saying that.

Regardless of the legal verdict, I would be amazed if the Met didn't drop him like a hot potato come the inevitable internal disciplinary investigation that will now take place.

 

[terryberry1]

There's a surprise. Any ordinary member of the public would go to prison for years for what he did. Absolute wanker

 

[strings]

Regardless of the legal verdict, I would be amazed if the Met didn't drop him like a hot potato come the inevitable internal disciplinary investigation that will now take place.

I believe the disciplinary will be held in public, such is the interest.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I dont know how they came to the verdict, maybe one of the pigs had a word with them about sending down coppers. Maybe the judge ordered them to aquite, maybe the prosecution lawyers where handpicked trainees?

If the judge orders a jury to acquit, it's on the public record. So that didn't happen.

And the "prosecution lawyers", as you call them, would have been highly experienced QCs. As were the defence barristers.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I believe the disciplinary will be held in public, such is the interest.

Doubt it. It's an internal disciplinary investigation between the organisation & their employee. I don't think there's any precedent for that being held in public. Only the outcome.

 

[Bozza]

I would agree. I don't think there's any issue with saying that.

Regardless of the legal verdict, I would be amazed if the Met didn't drop him like a hot potato come the inevitable internal disciplinary investigation that will now take place.

Indeed.

To some degree I feel sorry for Harwood*. He clearly was not suitable for the job and there had been more than enough warnings for one to expect that he would have been discharged from the force some time ago. He clearly could not cope with some of the more extreme pressures the job brings, so should not be expected to deal with them.

(* unless, of course, it turns out that he's just an evil so-and-so in which case I withdraw my sympathy.)

 

[dingodan]

The police are like a gang in uniform.They will always put protecting their own before justice.

Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none | UK news | The Guardian

 

[User removed 4]

Indeed.

To some degree I feel sorry for Harwood*. He clearly was not suitable for the job and there had been more than enough warnings for one to expect that he would have been discharged from the force some time ago. He clearly could not cope with some of the more extreme pressures the job brings, so should not be expected to deal with them.

(* unless, of course, it turns out that he's just an evil so-and-so in which case I withdraw my sympathy.)

People like harwood join the job precisely so they CAN behave in that manner .

 

[hans kraay fan club]

One thing I find hard to agree with, is the way that the defendants previous record is hidden from the jury (in all cases).

I UNDERSTAND the logic, of course, that they are being tried for one specific offence, and that the record is not disclosed, so as to not lead any pre-judgement of the person's character, but I struggle to agree with it.

I sat on a jury a few years ago, for an ABH case - three lads accused of serioously assaulting two others on a night out in Basingstoke. The 'chief' defendant stood in court in his Dad's suit, with sad-and-vunerable expression fixed permanently on his face. He was very clearly guilty from the evidence presented to us, but very nearly got off, as it was difficult to persuade a couple of gullible women amongst us, that this 'poor lad' could possibly be guilty of such nastiness.

After the guilty verdict, they read out his rap sheet, which included TWENTY FOUR separate violent offences.

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

He clearly was not suitable for the job and there had been more than enough warnings for one to expect that he would have been discharged from the force some time ago.

He wasn't assigned to be policing on the front line. He was assigned to drive a police van. They clearly thought that he wasn't suitable to be dealing with the protesters face to face, I suspect, he just manipulated a situation whereby he could confront protesters and generally be a bully. He must have been rubbing his hands when he saw someone sauntering away from the police lines not running away in fear.

PIG.

 

[Husty]

Seems the jury have gone with the medical "evidence" that it can't be connected with the blow to him from the copper and his later "heart attack".

Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver following a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents."

In 2000, five years after he joined the Met, PC Harwood was involved in what was described at the inquest as a "road rage" incident. He was off-duty at the time and the other driver complained of unlawful arrest and abuse of authority,PC Harwood denied the accusation but the Met wanted him to face a disciplinary hearing. However, the following year he retired on medical grounds before it took place. As a result, there was never a finding. An earlier and separate allegation of assault against the officer also went unsubstantiated.
Three days after his medical retirement, he became a civilian member of police staff in Croydon. Then, in 2003, he successfully reapplied to become a constable with Surrey.
While he was at Surrey, there was a further unsubstantiated complaint that he had used excessive force in a raid, allegedly punching a man twice in the face.
In late 2004, PC Harwood rejoined the Metropolitan Police. Scotland Yard's vetting unit had considered the road rage incident but the coroner was told it had not reviewed the full file.
The coroner heard that PC Harwood had been the subject of seven more complaints following rejoining the Met, three of which were against him alone. Two were allegations of improper force.
The third complaint was of improper use of the Police National Computer to check up on a driver involved in an accident with his wife. Ian Tomlinson's coroner was told that the officer had received a written warning In all, Pc Harwood was the subject of 10 complaints over 12 years, but only the PNC incident was found against him.
A spokesman for Surrey Police told the BBC that when Harwood asked to join the force, the Met told it that there had been a "previous misconduct investigation" but no further action had been taken. He's a typical bully boy copper, and should be in a cell, if the situation were reversed, tomlinson would be, instead hes in a box.

f***. I agree with Bushy!