No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
Zod said:
Me too. It's a mess, thanks to the CPS, but even so it will not be acceptable for nobody to be found guilty when a jury has returned an unlawful killing verdict.
CPS, pathologists, mentioning unsubstantiated complaints in a court?It all serves to muddy the water so that I think it will be very difficult for a satisfactory outcome to be had.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Zod said:
eggshell skull rule.
Absolutely. You are a decent lawyer though I bet you'd be able to introduce doubt on causal link based on environment. The vagueness of time passed and the ip's drunken state ( common for drunk people to fall over). Most eggshell stuff is quite clear cut with limited opportunity for intervening acts.
ExChrispy Porker said:
Might be a struggle with the intent though.
Thw whole thing is a right balls-up.
Yep. If they'd have run with manslaughter at the outset he'd probably have been found not guilty because the medical evidence was so inconclusive at first, that would have caused even more outrage.Thw whole thing is a right balls-up.
He's got it to do to avoid being charged and convicted of manslaughter now that the Coroner has come up with unlawful killing. If they can show his use of force on Tomlinson was unlawful and that as a result of the force he received the injury that killed him then he'll be unlikely to get off with it I'd have thought.
That said, there's a million and one things to crop up in a criminal trial that could change things.
BlanketyBlank said:
ExChrispy Porker said:
Might be a struggle with the intent though.
Thw whole thing is a right balls-up.
Yep. If they'd have run with manslaughter at the outset he'd probably have been found not guilty because the medical evidence was so inconclusive at first, that would have caused even more outrage.Thw whole thing is a right balls-up.
He's got it to do to avoid being charged and convicted of manslaughter now that the Coroner has come up with unlawful killing. If they can show his use of force on Tomlinson was unlawful and that as a result of the force he received the injury that killed him then he'll be unlikely to get off with it I'd have thought.
That said, there's a million and one things to crop up in a criminal trial that could change things.
As I say, its a balls up all round.
Deva Link said:
don4l said:
One minute earlier, PC Harwood had assaulted a BBC camerman, Tony Fallshaw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8
PC Harwood was supposed to be at the wheel of a police van when these incidents took place.
Some of the other videos linked from that one don't make comfortable viewing - is that really also PC Harwood bashing someone's head into a van door? Then it gets nasty as he's a bit isolated from his colleagues, while in the foreground some other copper is punching and kicking another protestor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8
PC Harwood was supposed to be at the wheel of a police van when these incidents took place.
On the other hand, we have enough evidence that suggests that PC Harwood was on a bit of a power trip that afternoon. He had assaulted a BBC cameraman a minute before he assaulted Ian Tomlinson. Why wasn't he charged with the assault on the (very obviously BBC) cameraman?
Don
--
Sir Hugh Orde was interviewed by Evan Davis this morning on the Today programme at about 7.40am. I'll listen to it again.
People are showing hatred for the police?
1. The push could have resulted in able bodied person that was also nothing to do with the demonstration falling and being seriously injured or killed.
2. Look at all the fuss about the Americans changing the story about their little adventure to Abbottabad? Didn't the story change about how Tomlinson had died? Heart Attack?
3. If there wasn't video footage from a private individual that works in the City of London would this even got this far?
When we have cold case reviews and more advanced DNA securing rape convictions for rapes committed in the 70s and 80s why should this case have just been left?
Normal criminals can have old cases reviewed and looked at again. That's the way it is.
Lloyds TSB one of those banks we own have been told to look at their books for cases where people may have been misold PPI on their credit cards, why should the police expect closed cases that have seemingly been dealt with not to be re-examined and re-considered?
4. How does the death or Tomlinson or the way it was dealt with help the police 'brand'?
5. Has automatic prosecution by camera aided a 'them and us' culture or mentality?
There can only ever be two camps? Anyone that dares offer an alternative view or opinion must by default be a rabid police hater?
People are showing hatred for the police?
1. The push could have resulted in able bodied person that was also nothing to do with the demonstration falling and being seriously injured or killed.
2. Look at all the fuss about the Americans changing the story about their little adventure to Abbottabad? Didn't the story change about how Tomlinson had died? Heart Attack?
3. If there wasn't video footage from a private individual that works in the City of London would this even got this far?
When we have cold case reviews and more advanced DNA securing rape convictions for rapes committed in the 70s and 80s why should this case have just been left?
Normal criminals can have old cases reviewed and looked at again. That's the way it is.
Lloyds TSB one of those banks we own have been told to look at their books for cases where people may have been misold PPI on their credit cards, why should the police expect closed cases that have seemingly been dealt with not to be re-examined and re-considered?
4. How does the death or Tomlinson or the way it was dealt with help the police 'brand'?
5. Has automatic prosecution by camera aided a 'them and us' culture or mentality?
There can only ever be two camps? Anyone that dares offer an alternative view or opinion must by default be a rabid police hater?
Tallbut Buxomly said:
I give up. The mentality on here is that the officers action in this individual case are absolute and clearcut that he intentionally set out to kill or maim Mr Tomlinson and none of you will hear otherwise.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
I must have missed the posts that suggested that PC Harwood meant to kill or maim Mr. Tomlinson. Could you direct me to one of these posts, please?The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
Harwood was out to "beat up some hippies", as it were. He was part of a division that specialised in "beating up hippies", as it were. And he got a bit excited.
If he'd knocked down a couple of twentysomething guardian readers in the same manner, I doubt there would be this much of a hoo-hah. But he knocked over a BBC cameraman (which is a bit obvious since he was carrying a camera with "BBC" written on it), and then knocked over a confused and possibly slightly drunk middle aged man.
Neither of those people were protesters, rather obviously, and yet he still knocked them over. I can accept that in a riot you might knock someone down accidentally, but looking at the videos there don't seem to be that many petrol bombs raining down, and not much in the way of pressure.
Psychological testing has shown that power can corrupt some, and perhaps Harwood revelled in the power a bit too much.
It's a good thing that this will get worked through in court though.
If he'd knocked down a couple of twentysomething guardian readers in the same manner, I doubt there would be this much of a hoo-hah. But he knocked over a BBC cameraman (which is a bit obvious since he was carrying a camera with "BBC" written on it), and then knocked over a confused and possibly slightly drunk middle aged man.
Neither of those people were protesters, rather obviously, and yet he still knocked them over. I can accept that in a riot you might knock someone down accidentally, but looking at the videos there don't seem to be that many petrol bombs raining down, and not much in the way of pressure.
Psychological testing has shown that power can corrupt some, and perhaps Harwood revelled in the power a bit too much.
It's a good thing that this will get worked through in court though.
don4l said:
I must have missed the posts that suggested that PC Harwood meant to kill or maim Mr. Tomlinson. Could you direct me to one of these posts, please?
If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
Steady on Don. That's too much sense for the joke that this thread has become.If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
don4l said:
I must have missed the posts that suggested that PC Harwood meant to kill or maim Mr. Tomlinson. Could you direct me to one of these posts, please?
If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
Ironically the time that is harked back to for a period of respect is actually when there was far more violence used, more rules broken, less laws existed to protect individuals and more minor corruption as well as cover ups a plenty. If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
So how should this respect be achieved? Return to policing of the 60's and 70's?
The irony is it is by being transparent and open that has lead to more distrust.
In this case there has been no cover up ( despite claims) there is however now a huge mess and I don't think any criminal trial will be seen as a safe conviction.
They need to look at the whole conduct of the officer and another way to deal with his conduct on the day.
Night Runner said:
don4l said:
I must have missed the posts that suggested that PC Harwood meant to kill or maim Mr. Tomlinson. Could you direct me to one of these posts, please?
If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
Steady on Don. That's too much sense for the joke that this thread has become.If you are unable to direct me to one of these posts, then I would humbly suggest that you reconsider your position.
As I see it, PC Harwood illegally assaulted an innocent member of the public. The MOP died as a result of this illegal assault. That appears to be manslaughter.
The Met initially denied that there had been any contact between the Police and Mr Tomlinson. After a week, a video appeared that showed that the Met had been lying. I've no idea if the coppers had lied to their bosses, or if was the the Met that took an official decision to lie about the incident. Either way, public support for the Police is adversely affected.
We need a police force that has the respect of the general public.
Don
--
ExChrispy Porker said:
And of course if he had been charged with manslaughter at the outset, the inquest would have been held after the trial. For obvious reasons that do not need repeating.
As I say, its a balls up all round.
But it is more likely now that the person responsible for an illegal killing will get his just desserts, it's a balls-up but at least now justice is served. We are all the better for that at least.As I say, its a balls up all round.
Edit ... pudding error!
Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 6th May 11:34
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Ironically the time that is harked back to for a period of respect is actually when there was far more violence used, more rules broken, less laws existed to protect individuals and more minor corruption as well as cover ups a plenty.
So how should this respect be achieved? Return to policing of the 60's and 70's?
[b]The irony is it is by being transparent and open that has lead to more distrust.[\b]
In this case there has been no cover up ( despite claims) there is however now a huge mess and I don't think any criminal trial will be seen as a safe conviction.
They need to look at the whole conduct of the officer and another way to deal with his conduct on the day.
I strongly disagree with the bit that I have highlighted. I remember the 70's and the issues that surrounded police misconduct. The Police were responsible for investigating alleged misconduct, and they were blatently biased. The IPCC was formed because the Police had very clearly failed to keep their own house in order.So how should this respect be achieved? Return to policing of the 60's and 70's?
[b]The irony is it is by being transparent and open that has lead to more distrust.[\b]
In this case there has been no cover up ( despite claims) there is however now a huge mess and I don't think any criminal trial will be seen as a safe conviction.
They need to look at the whole conduct of the officer and another way to deal with his conduct on the day.
The police were forced to become more open because there were so many cases of blatant cover ups.
I wonder if, before the 70's, the Police used to be more willing to accept that there were some rotten apples in the barrel? If so, then they would have been able to deal with miscreants on the quiet, and so maintain public respect.
You say that there was no cover up in this case. That isn't how it looks to the general public. It took a week for the video to emerge. During that week the Police insisted that there had been no contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police.
Several other officers witnessed the assault, so it should have been easy to ascertain the truth. Also, why did the other officers not stop Harwood after the assault on the BBC cameraman? He should have, at the very least, been sent back to his van.
Of course, there are also all sorts of external factors that influence the situation. My 75 year old neighbour was incensed when he got done for 36 in a 30 by a camera. It was 6:30 in the morning on a wide street (Sunningdale). He blames the police for this outrage.
Don
--
It doesn't compare with the woman being dragged through Melksham police station?
In both cases their colleagues should have taken them to one side and told them to 'calm down dear'?
I know it sounds like so much MBA course psychobabble but everytime someone from an organisation talks to somebody isn't that company, or its reputation being created all over again for that company?
Those of us that deal with the police don't build up our image or opinion of them from those interactions?
Haven't our elected representatives chosen to take the path where the public are customers and the police provide a service? Hasn't that had some impact on the way the public view the police at the moment?
Speeding?
Well there's the policy to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving.
Is it?
A motorist parking in the wrong place, or caught speeding faces far harsher punishment than some beered up lout that assualts a stranger in the street. Perhaps that has something to do with the relationship between the public and the police?
What proportion of interactions between the public and the public are over 'motoring' offences?
In both cases their colleagues should have taken them to one side and told them to 'calm down dear'?
I know it sounds like so much MBA course psychobabble but everytime someone from an organisation talks to somebody isn't that company, or its reputation being created all over again for that company?
Those of us that deal with the police don't build up our image or opinion of them from those interactions?
Haven't our elected representatives chosen to take the path where the public are customers and the police provide a service? Hasn't that had some impact on the way the public view the police at the moment?
Speeding?
Well there's the policy to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving.
Is it?
A motorist parking in the wrong place, or caught speeding faces far harsher punishment than some beered up lout that assualts a stranger in the street. Perhaps that has something to do with the relationship between the public and the police?
What proportion of interactions between the public and the public are over 'motoring' offences?
carinaman said:
It doesn't compare with the woman being dragged through Melksham police station?
In both cases their colleagues should have taken them to one side and told them to 'calm down dear'?
I know it sounds like so much MBA course psychobabble but everytime someone from an organisation talks to somebody isn't that company, or its reputation being created all over again for that company?
Those of us that deal with the police don't build up our image or opinion of them from those interactions?
Haven't our elected representatives chosen to take the path where the public are customers and the police provide a service? Hasn't that had some impact on the way the public view the police at the moment?
Speeding?
Well there's the policy to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving.
Is it?
A motorist parking in the wrong place, or caught speeding faces far harsher punishment than some beered up lout that assualts a stranger in the street. Perhaps that has something to do with the relationship between the public and the police?
What proportion of interactions between the public and the public are over 'motoring' offences?
Direct interaction probably more criminal matters. Indirect more motoring. In both cases their colleagues should have taken them to one side and told them to 'calm down dear'?
I know it sounds like so much MBA course psychobabble but everytime someone from an organisation talks to somebody isn't that company, or its reputation being created all over again for that company?
Those of us that deal with the police don't build up our image or opinion of them from those interactions?
Haven't our elected representatives chosen to take the path where the public are customers and the police provide a service? Hasn't that had some impact on the way the public view the police at the moment?
Speeding?
Well there's the policy to make speeding as unacceptable as drink driving.
Is it?
A motorist parking in the wrong place, or caught speeding faces far harsher punishment than some beered up lout that assualts a stranger in the street. Perhaps that has something to do with the relationship between the public and the police?
What proportion of interactions between the public and the public are over 'motoring' offences?
I understand your position but you have made a fundamental cock up. One oft repeated.
Getting 3 points and 60 pound fine is bot the same as a caution or criminal cOnviction for assault. Far from it.
Lots of police officers ( many on duty) have points for speeding. I've had parking tickets. My partner also a police officer had 6 points for a while.
It's all about perceptions. No one really challenged the police in the 60's 70's etc. People feared them.
Now people dnot fear the police. They however confuse fear with respect in the past and then judge criminal activity based on what they see or their perceptions. The BCS says crime has halved in the past 20 years. Yet people refuse to believe that.
Perception is not always the same as reality. The police are in a no win situation these days. Handcuffed by procedure and policy and lambasted for being soft yet strung up when they are 'hard'. Mostly by people who wouldn't do the job.
don4l said:
I strongly disagree with the bit that I have highlighted. I remember the 70's and the issues that surrounded police misconduct. The Police were responsible for investigating alleged misconduct, and they were blatently biased. The IPCC was formed because the Police had very clearly failed to keep their own house in order.
The police were forced to become more open because there were so many cases of blatant cover ups.
I wonder if, before the 70's, the Police used to be more willing to accept that there were some rotten apples in the barrel? If so, then they would have been able to deal with miscreants on the quiet, and so maintain public respect.
You say that there was no cover up in this case. That isn't how it looks to the general public. It took a week for the video to emerge. During that week the Police insisted that there had been no contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police.
Several other officers witnessed the assault, so it should have been easy to ascertain the truth. Also, why did the other officers not stop Harwood after the assault on the BBC cameraman? He should have, at the very least, been sent back to his van.
Of course, there are also all sorts of external factors that influence the situation. My 75 year old neighbour was incensed when he got done for 36 in a 30 by a camera. It was 6:30 in the morning on a wide street (Sunningdale). He blames the police for this outrage.
Don
--
One The police were forced to become more open because there were so many cases of blatant cover ups.
I wonder if, before the 70's, the Police used to be more willing to accept that there were some rotten apples in the barrel? If so, then they would have been able to deal with miscreants on the quiet, and so maintain public respect.
You say that there was no cover up in this case. That isn't how it looks to the general public. It took a week for the video to emerge. During that week the Police insisted that there had been no contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police.
Several other officers witnessed the assault, so it should have been easy to ascertain the truth. Also, why did the other officers not stop Harwood after the assault on the BBC cameraman? He should have, at the very least, been sent back to his van.
Of course, there are also all sorts of external factors that influence the situation. My 75 year old neighbour was incensed when he got done for 36 in a 30 by a camera. It was 6:30 in the morning on a wide street (Sunningdale). He blames the police for this outrage.
Don
--
don4l said:
I strongly disagree with the bit that I have highlighted. I remember the 70's and the issues that surrounded police misconduct. The Police were responsible for investigating alleged misconduct, and they were blatently biased. The IPCC was formed because the Police had very clearly failed to keep their own house in order.
The police were forced to become more open because there were so many cases of blatant cover ups.
I wonder if, before the 70's, the Police used to be more willing to accept that there were some rotten apples in the barrel? If so, then they would have been able to deal with miscreants on the quiet, and so maintain public respect.
You say that there was no cover up in this case. That isn't how it looks to the general public. It took a week for the video to emerge. During that week the Police insisted that there had been no contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police.
Several other officers witnessed the assault, so it should have been easy to ascertain the truth. Also, why did the other officers not stop Harwood after the assault on the BBC cameraman? He should have, at the very least, been sent back to his van.
Of course, there are also all sorts of external factors that influence the situation. My 75 year old neighbour was incensed when he got done for 36 in a 30 by a camera. It was 6:30 in the morning on a wide street (Sunningdale). He blames the police for this outrage.
Don
--
Dear God the corruption was far wider and far reaching. The officers in the scandals mostly joined in the 50's and 60's. The police were forced to become more open because there were so many cases of blatant cover ups.
I wonder if, before the 70's, the Police used to be more willing to accept that there were some rotten apples in the barrel? If so, then they would have been able to deal with miscreants on the quiet, and so maintain public respect.
You say that there was no cover up in this case. That isn't how it looks to the general public. It took a week for the video to emerge. During that week the Police insisted that there had been no contact between Mr. Tomlinson and the Police.
Several other officers witnessed the assault, so it should have been easy to ascertain the truth. Also, why did the other officers not stop Harwood after the assault on the BBC cameraman? He should have, at the very least, been sent back to his van.
Of course, there are also all sorts of external factors that influence the situation. My 75 year old neighbour was incensed when he got done for 36 in a 30 by a camera. It was 6:30 in the morning on a wide street (Sunningdale). He blames the police for this outrage.
Don
--
The police force of today is (despite the perception) far less corrupt and far more accountable than ever. You are also far less likely to be assaulted or severely injured or locked up On a whim and will actually have some rights!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff