Hardwood found not guilty
Discussion
XCP said:
Rovinghawk said:
I agree, but some here are still attempting to defend his actions.
As I said, I must have missed those.Derek Smith said:
if you were there despite having the opportunity to leave you are part of the problem.
That sounds very much to me as if Tomlinson was to be considered fair game & Harwood was acting in accordance with common practice.RH
There could be another thread about the issue besides this one:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=2&a...
See don4l's post on page 22.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=2&a...
See don4l's post on page 22.
fluffnik said:
Elroy Blue said:
He was put before a Jury
Thanks to (at best) incompetence in the "justice" system not all the evidence that should have been available was...Can't find another thread to post in, so apologies if there is one.
Snowboy said:
a drunk angry bloke
Walking away, hands in pockets.Snowboy said:
a genuine mistake
Which? The covering up of ID, the baton strike, the push, the 30-odd other officers just standing there watching it happen, the denial of touching him until video showed different, the Patel cock up, the destruction of pathology evidence or the fact that someone with Harwood's record was employed in the first place?Snowboy said:
unexpected consequences
The relevant legal case for this is Smith vs Leech brain- very interesting reading.Snowboy said:
a financial payout probably linked to a 'stfu now' clause so the story can end.
Or possibly because the police officer killed an old man for no good reason?Ffs please stop quoting little specific bits of peoples posts.
It totally breaks the context of the original post, it's a horrible way of trying to have a conversation.
Try and put forward a few interesting paragraphs of your own rather than just sniping at specific bits of others posts.
It totally breaks the context of the original post, it's a horrible way of trying to have a conversation.
Try and put forward a few interesting paragraphs of your own rather than just sniping at specific bits of others posts.
Snowboy said:
Ffs please stop quoting little specific bits of peoples posts.
It totally breaks the context of the original post, it's a horrible way of trying to have a conversation.
Try and put forward a few interesting paragraphs of your own rather than just sniping at specific bits of others posts.
He quoted just about the whole of your post in bits to rebut each part.It totally breaks the context of the original post, it's a horrible way of trying to have a conversation.
Try and put forward a few interesting paragraphs of your own rather than just sniping at specific bits of others posts.
Zod said:
fluffnik said:
Thanks to (at best) incompetence in the "justice" system not all the evidence that should have been available was...
Harwood did nothing wrong, which must be why the Police have now apologised and paid compensation. 
fluffnik said:
Zod said:
fluffnik said:
Thanks to (at best) incompetence in the "justice" system not all the evidence that should have been available was...
Harwood did nothing wrong, which must be why the Police have now apologised and paid compensation. The CPS should be taking another look at this case.
Zod said:
Yes, my complaint was directed at certain individuals who posted in this thread in Harwood's defence.
The CPS should be taking another look at this case.
It strikes me as a political apology.The CPS should be taking another look at this case.
I'm not defending Hardwood here, I'm just saying that I think the police would write pretty much anything in a letter if it meant this story would come to an end.
I think there is a certain amount of sympathy with Hardwoods actions in terms of giving an annoying drunk a shove.
But, the 'cover up' has put a very different shape to it, AFAIK Harwood had nothing to do with the doctors and their dodgy findings.
Where many people could have perhaps accepted Harwoods actions as a stressed cop making a mistake the medical findings made it look like a massive cover up.
As for his silence, I'd take a guess that was something advised by his 'lawyer'.
Harwood is to blame for the shove and hit, but there's a lot more to the story that was out of his hands.
Snowboy said:
I think this is a mixture of an overly angry cop, a drunk angry bloke, a genuine mistake, unexpected consequences and a financial payout probably linked to a 'stfu now' clause so the story can end.
There are apologists for misbehaviour in every walk of life, but you are clearly very special.Snowboy said:
Where many people could have perhaps accepted Harwoods actions as a stressed cop making a mistake the medical findings made it look like a massive cover up.
Harwood is to blame for the shove and hit, but there's a lot more to the story that was out of his hands.
There are too many 'convenient' circumstances, from the denial of ever touching Tomlinson to the alleged lack of CCTV to the series of pathology issues to the initial inability to identify the officer. Maybe not one big cover-up but an awful lot of little ones.Harwood is to blame for the shove and hit, but there's a lot more to the story that was out of his hands.
Harwood is scum but the rest have hardly covered themselves in glory on this one.
Snowboy said:
I'm just saying that I think the police would write pretty much anything in a letter if it meant this story would come to an end.
The Met had been facing legal action from Tomlinson's family. I would imagine the 'apology' was a form of words agreed with Tomlinson's family, along with a fat cheque, in order to settle the dispute.Don't think for one second the Met just upped and thought one morning; "Oh, I think today we should mostly be apologising for stuff what we done".
Zod said:
No, there is not. Harwood shoved Tomlinson. Tomlinson died.
Yes.Edited by Zod on Monday 5th August 15:13
But, Harwood didn't falsify the medical report or try to hide the cause of death.
Harwood should not have pushed Tomlinson.
But he did, and Tomlinson died.
It was a stupid action from Hardwood, he did it deliberately, but it was a mistake of judgement during a day of riots.
I am not defending his actions - just trying to diferentiate them from a deliberate and pre meditated assault intending to cause injury.
It went to court and he was tried for manslaughter and found not guilty.
He was fired from the police.
I think the police force is better without him.
I think the whole story has ended about as well as it possibly could.
Snowboy said:
I am not defending his actions - just trying to diferentiate them from a deliberate and pre meditated assault intending to cause injury.
Are we including or excluding smacking him with a baton? That might be considered a deliberate & premeditated attack.Also, as you said he did it deliberately, how can it be differentiated from a deliberate act?
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 5th August 15:43
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
I am not defending his actions - just trying to diferentiate them from a deliberate and pre meditated assault intending to cause injury.
Are we including or excluding smacking him with a baton? That might be considered a deliberate & premeditated attack.If you had read and quoted the paragraph(s) before that one you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff