# Police officer to stand trial for manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson



## George & Bill (May 24, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/24/tomlinson-police-officer-manslaughter-trial

Perhaps I'm not up to speed with this, but why was he not charged with some lesser offense, relating to the fact that he obviously made an unprovoked attack, even when the evidence linking the attack to Tomlinson's death seemed to shaky to bring the charge of manslaughter?

Don't think there is a thread on this, apols if there is.


----------



## Quartz (May 24, 2011)

What lesser offense would that be?


----------



## George & Bill (May 24, 2011)

I don't know - but I'm guessing that hitting someone with a baton and pushing them to the ground constitutes some sort of offense, no?


----------



## bi0boy (May 24, 2011)

slowjoe said:


> I don't know - but I'm guessing that hitting someone with a baton and pushing them to the ground constitutes some sort of offense, no?


 
Manslaughter? 

Thread here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...g-to-the-truth-the-death-of-Ian-Tomlinson-RIP


----------



## George & Bill (May 24, 2011)

Thanks for the link to the other thread - this one can be abandoned.

Quartz & Bio - I didn't make myself clear; I mean why, even before the decision to prosecute for manslaughter (which I heartily support) was made, was some other charge, say of assault, not brought? Even if the evidence wasn't there linking the assault to Tomlinson's death (which happily seems no longer to be the case).


----------



## via-strass (May 24, 2011)

There was some bullshit reason cooked up by the CPS as I recall - they couldn't prosecute for GBH until some other part of the investigation had completed. Then after that happened (before the inquest) they decided that there wasn't a good enough chance of proving GBH, and they couldn't prosecute for ABH as it had been longer than x months after the crime,


----------



## OneStrike (May 24, 2011)

via-strass said:


> There was some bullshit reason cooked up by the CPS as I recall - they couldn't prosecute for GBH until some other part of the investigation had completed. Then after that happened (before the inquest) they decided that there wasn't a good enough chance of proving GBH, and they couldn't prosecute for ABH as it had been longer than x months after the crime,


 
Yes, thats about right.  The bullshit changed from week to week so i'd have to re-read the timelines, basically they dithered until the 6month period passed for a lesser charge to be allowed, then declared insufficient evidence for the charge they then made 2 years later, having being forced to ackowledge the evidence in court recently.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (May 25, 2011)

via-strass said:


> There was some bullshit reason cooked up by the CPS as I recall - they couldn't prosecute for GBH until some other part of the investigation had completed. Then after that happened (before the inquest) they decided that there wasn't a good enough chance of proving GBH, and they couldn't prosecute for ABH as it had been longer than x months after the crime,


Actually, the injuries inflicted on Tomlinson (if you can't prove they killed him) don't even come close to GBH and don't qualify as ABH under the CPS's established charging guidelines. The only out-of-time offence was common assault, which would have required the CPS to make the charge less than two months after receiving the file from the IPCC and would have prevented Harwood being prosecuted for any further offences stemming from the act of pushing Tomlinson to the ground.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 16, 2011)

Date set for trial - October 2012.

No rush then ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/16/ian-tomlinson-death-police-trial


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 15, 2012)

Trial starts on Monday.



> *Trial of PC Harwood, charged with the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson, begins on Monday 18 June*
> 
> 10am Monday 18 June 2012
> Southwark Crown Court, 1 English Grounds, London, SE1 2HU
> ...



http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/category/press-releases/press-releases-2012


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)

> The trial has begun of Simon Harwood, the police constable accused of killing Ian Tomlinson, who died shortly after he collapsed amid a major Metropolitan police operation around the G20 summit in London in April 2009.
> 
> Harwood, 41, denies the manslaughter of the 47-year-old newspaper vendor, who was attempting to make his way home through the police cordons on the evening of 1 April when he collapsed.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/18/trial-begins-police-ian-tomlinson


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2012)

Please note that as this trial is ongoing, it is not permissible to post up opinions of guilt or unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 19, 2012)

Will the jury be allowed to bring a lesser verdict, like ABH or GBH?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm not a lawyer but I think ABH (bruising, small cut etc) can't happen as his liver had been ruptured. I think GBH can't happen because he's dead.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 19, 2012)

I was thinking that they might separate the death from the attack. Anyway, we shall see. Let not only be justice done, but be seen to be done.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 19, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I was thinking that they might separate the death from the attack.


The second was caused by the first so I don't think that can happen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2012)

If someone rushed a copper to the ground from behind and got a couple of digs in with a weapon, that man would be in jail. If the copper had died after the assault that man would probably be looking at 15 years. Or more.

And there was the fantastic line of ever shifting bullshit from the met as per. Anyway, if he gets a custodial I'll be pleasantly suprised but I don't see it happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> If someone rushed a copper to the ground from behind and got a couple of digs in with a weapon, that man would be in jail. If the copper had died after the assault that man would probably be looking at 15 years. Or more.
> 
> And there was the fantastic line of ever shifting bullshit from the met as per. Anyway, if he gets a custodial I'll be pleasantly suprised but I don't see it happening.


i would prefer it if he never made it to a custodial. but sadly that's unlikely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Please note that as this trial is ongoing, it is not permissible to post up opinions of guilt or unsubstantiated claims.


surely it's alright to post up OPINIONS of guilt (as in, 'i think yer man's guilty as sin') as opposed to STATEMENTS of guilt (as in 'yer man's guilty as sin')?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> surely it's alright to post up OPINIONS of guilt (as in, 'i think yer man's guilty as sin') as opposed to STATEMENTS of guilt (as in 'yer man's guilty as sin')?
> 
> after all, what nearly got the manson trial prematurely ended wasn't charles manson showing the jury a newspaper with nixon saying 'i believe him to be guilty' but a headline saying something along the lines of 'MANSON GUILTY: NIXON'


We'd be happier if posters didn't. I really don't want to be trawling through posts trying to work out if we are jeopardising a trial or not. Plus the Manson case is different because as I understand it, Americans can say what the fuck they like because the law is different there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> We'd be happier if posters didn't. I really don't want to be trawling through posts trying to work out if we are jeopardising a trial or not. Plus the Manson case is different because as I understand it, Americans can say what the fuck they like because the law is different there.


it's not entirely different, as becomes clear from vincent bugliosi's book 'helter skelter'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2012)

I think value judgements are ok? So I believe in my heart SNIP

[Sailing far too close to the wind...this is precisely the sort of statement than can scupper a trial]


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I think value judgements are ok? So I believe in my heart  SNIP
> 
> [Sailing far too close to the wind...this is precisely the sort of statement than can scupper a trial]


i wouldn't like to suggest backhanders were involved.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> surely it's alright to post up OPINIONS of guilt (as in, 'i think yer man's guilty as sin') as opposed to STATEMENTS of guilt (as in 'yer man's guilty as sin')?


 
I wouldn't take any risk at all.  Personally.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jun 19, 2012)

On a completely different topic, can anyone tell me on the occasions they have caught the person who was videoed assaulting a police officer - how long it took to bring them to be charged and brought to trial. And was it considerably speedier or slower if the assaulted police officer died as a result? Would it be longer than say - picking a time entirely at random - 3 years 6 months?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2012)

look up Freddy Patels illustrious career btw.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I think value judgements are ok? So I believe in my heart SNIP
> 
> [Sailing far too close to the wind...this is precisely the sort of statement than can scupper a trial]


 
Whilst I am as keen as any of us to see the man shown the secure wing and as such have no interest in jeapordizing the potential for this to happen by posting stuff that would be detrimental to a case that is sub judice, nothing contained in what a mod snipped is not already out in the public domain, documented, published stuff.

in light of the ongoing nature etc I'll refrin from cunting harwood off till a conviction is secured or isn't. Wrong fucking charge anyway.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 21, 2012)

The Guardian coverage has been pretty good imo (for anyone who's interested).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Whilst I am as keen as any of us to see the man shown the secure wing and as such have no interest in jeapordizing the potential for this to happen by posting stuff that would be detrimental to a case that is sub judice, nothing contained in what a mod snipped is not already out in the public domain, documented, published stuff.


 
If you think reprising material "already out in the public domain" means you avoid the possibility of committing a contempt of court, then you misunderstand the sub judice rule. Moreover it would not just be you held liable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> If you think reprising material "already out in the public domain" means you avoid the possibility of committing a contempt of court, then you misunderstand the sub judice rule. Moreover* it would not just be you held liable.*


 

aware of this- can you explain to me why things already documented in the press become verboten while the case is ongoing? Not being sarcastic here, I obviously don't get the sub judice restrictions if as you say that which is already a matter of public record must not be mentioned during an ongoing trial?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2012)

I would imagine it's as much rooted in practicalities as anything. A judge can direct a jury not to research the background of a defendant and reasonably expect them not to do so; but if all sorts of dirt from the past is being aired on the front pages of newspapers, discussed on the radio, being repeated across bulletin boards and such like whilst the trial is ongoing, then it's considerably harder to keep their minds fresh and untainted for only the evidence heard in court.

It's not just during the trial, either; it's whilst there are criminal proceedings - so, for example, certain commentary after someone has been charged but before trial could be construed as contemptuous.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2012)

ah, getting it. That which is documented but unrelated to the case as presented in court should not be allowed to cause the 12 to make a decision or be influenced in judgement by things not directly related to the case put forward.



but he isn't on trial for anything other than manslaughter and so I'll stfu about it till the inevitable 'not guilty'


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 22, 2012)

I seem to recall the thread at the time having a lot of input from DB.  Inbetween telling everyone to cunt off he was explaining that this case could be very difficult to prosecute due to the nature of the victim's existing medical conditions.  Of course at the time most assumed he was just defending the cops, but it'll be interesting to see how this trial pans out.  I also seem to recall Kier Starmer saying there were considerable problems with it but it was in the public interest to prosecute.  I fear legal technicalities may play a big part in the eventual outcome.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 22, 2012)

Untill the video came forward the met we still claiming 'no contact' with the man. Thats an outright fucking lie. brazen bullshit. I said I'd stfu so I will, and if the post gets snipped cos I've crossed a line, then so be it. tb fucking continued.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 22, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I seem to recall the thread at the time having a lot of input from DB. Inbetween telling everyone to cunt off he was explaining that this case could be very difficult to prosecute due to the nature of the victim's existing medical conditions. Of course at the time most assumed he was just defending the cops, but it'll be interesting to see how this trial pans out. I also seem to recall Kier Starmer saying there were considerable problems with it but it was in the public interest to prosecute. I fear legal technicalities may play a big part in the eventual outcome.


The problem with the case is evidential rather than legal. The second and third coroners based their conclusion that the assault was a cause of death on a part of Patel's report that he later 'clarified'. Juries tend to show cops the benefit of the doubt as it is; the squabbling coroners will probably push them to acquit.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 22, 2012)

Probably doesn't need mentioning but wiki has a very in-depth article on Mr Tomlinson.

(Is that ok?  just delete it if it's not)


----------



## Quartz (Jun 22, 2012)

Paging the mods!

Would it be permissible for those interested in discussing this to discuss it in a Conversation (which would be private) rather than the thread?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Paging the mods!
> 
> Would it be permissible for those interested in discussing this to discuss it in a Conversation (which would be private) rather than the thread?


I can't see your conversations, nor can the judge, and more importantly, not the jury.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2012)

Just been found not guilty.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

I'm astonished


----------



## andy2002 (Jul 19, 2012)

WTF?!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm astonished


 
Quite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

So, an 'unlawful killing' and the copper who did it is 'not guilty' of the 'unlawful killing'.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2012)

what a fucking surprise


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

So, the most he can now get is losing his job or, potentially a claim for damages against him/the Met?  Sickening but predictable.  Cunt'll be working for G4S within the month.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, an 'unlawful killing' and the copper who did it is 'not guilty' of the 'unlawful killing'.


 Quite. An unlawful killing committed by thin air.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2012)

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Fuckers.


----------



## Riklet (Jul 19, 2012)

Cleared.  Fucking scumbag.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 19, 2012)

> 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 after 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.


 
from the Guardian. Psycho Harwood already had a bit of a reputation it seems.


----------



## miktheword (Jul 19, 2012)

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 after 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.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson

same burden of proof as in the inquest where IT was unlawfully killed



damn!   beaten by Goldencitrone


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 19, 2012)

BBC news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

'Had I realised he was walking away from the police line, I wouldn't have hit him'.

How can you not realise when someone's walking away from you?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> from the Guardian. Psycho Harwood already had a bit of a reputation it seems.


 The irony is (if irony is the right word), that if the family get anywhere with a claim, it will be on these grounds. 'Poor personnel procedures and management' rather than actually the poor bloke being killed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

One of the other coppers up for high profile stuff over the last few years had also quit just before a disciplinary and then joined another force - can't remember which one.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 19, 2012)




----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> One of the other coppers up for high profile stuff over the last few years had also quit just before a disciplinary and then joined another force - can't remember which one.


 Just 'canteen culture'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

we all knew it was on the cards but it still takes the royal piss. Lets not forget harwood had found his way back into policing after being kicked out for arresting someone violently during a road rage incident when he was supposedly off with a bad back. Came back later as backroom staff, later to become copper again. He was a known bad apple who volunteered for his role in policing the protest. Then the omnishambles of a ME freddy patel, who did not have the right to be carrying out home office work at the time, who has some spectacular fuckup previously and is basically the mets pet pathologist fucked up again. This whole case from start to finish stinks of shit.

What really does my nut is that Tomlinson was not involved. Not that those involved deserve the harwood treatment, but even so. A paper seller, not a perfect background but no real villain- liked a drink, liked the football. Mr. Ordinary working class- and harwood gets off for an assault which led to his death. Object lesson in who the law serves here.


----------



## chainpunch (Jul 19, 2012)

I suspect with the current need of police officers for the Olympics, this case was always going to be dealt with lightly so as not to upset them.
To be acquitted was no surprise especially when taking into account the larger picture.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> So, the most he can now get is losing his job or, potentially a claim for damages against him/the Met?


 
Or being promoted, I think you've forgotten that one.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 19, 2012)

ACAB


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> BBC news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484
> 
> 'Had I realised he was walking away from the police line, I wouldn't have hit him'.
> 
> How can you not realise when someone's walking away from you?


he's a thick cop from carshalton


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

> 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. The jury was not told that Patel has twice been suspended by medical authorities for mistakes in other postmortem examinations and is no longer on the Home Office's register of approved pathologists.
> No police officer has been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed while on duty since 1986.


 
Not mentioning Harwood's previous attacks on members of the public was to be expected, but not letting the jury hear that Patel was incompetent is astonishhing.  Goes not only to his incorrect diagnosis of the cause of death but also the Met's initial strategy of spinning it as an accidental death.  Absolute fucking scum.  Last sentence (from the guardian) says it all.  However much the Met have absorbed PR messages, talk the language of training and other managerial shite, nothing has changed in terms of what they do, the real mindset of the officers and their willingness to act as attack dogs for their political masters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

I think iirc the inquest saw harwoods incompetence thrown out at bronze level- he was not present in the van for briefing and so on.

a neat disconnect which allows the met and their drafted in footsloggers from other regions to go on without addressing the violent and sloppy behaviour of their colleagues- another bad apple


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 19, 2012)

how the fuck can this be a defense for unlawfully killing someone

"well i could  of shot him"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Not mentioning Harwood's previous attacks on members of the public was to be expected, but not letting the jury hear that Patel was incompetent is astonishhing. Goes not only to his incorrect diagnosis of the cause of death but also the Met's initial strategy of spinning it as an accidental death. Absolute fucking scum. Last sentence (from the guardian) says it all. However much the Met have absorbed PR messages, talk the language of training and other managerial shite, nothing has changed in terms of what they do, the real mindset of the officers and their willingness to act as attack dogs for their political masters.


it's not (imo) just for their 'political masters' but because a) they can & b) they enjoy it.

there is, i submit, nothing else which can explain the assault on the gaza demonstrators in the hyde park underpass at the start of 2009.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> how the fuck can this be a defense for unlawfully killing someone
> 
> "well i could of shot him"


i will remember to use that should i ever be up for topping a cop (or anyone else).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

Fuller details of this pricks previous here.



> Ten allegations had been made against the officer during his career before his encounter with Mr Tomlinson, who later died.
> Six of these were deemed "serious" and _some were made by his own colleagues._


 
Including:



> The officer admitted using the Police National Computer after being "caught red-handed" attempting to access the database after his wife was involved in a road accident, an incident which he said had sent him into "red mist mode".


----------



## the button (Jul 19, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> how the fuck can this be a defense for unlawfully killing someone
> 
> "well i could of shot him"


Exactly, it's "Could *have* shot him."


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> he's a thick cop from carshalton


That's beyond thick though. Waaaaaaaay beyond.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

wonder if we will hear of the mythical rain of missiles that prevented officers from treating him- you know the one that turned out to be a plastic bottle from the back of the crowd and those in front calling a stop to any more shit being thrown emphatically.

Or a repeat of the mets 'no contact' claim which was exposed as a brazen lie when the video footage came forward.

This is how police do it. Apologists at the time should hang their fucking heads. 

No doubt a glorious career with G4S awaits simple simon.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 19, 2012)

Harwood was the subject of 10 complaints over 12 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18851486


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> That's beyond thick though. Waaaaaaaay beyond.


it's out round sutton


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Fuller details of this pricks previous here.


 Clearly, 'lessons to be learned', 'need for robust monitoring and training of officers'.  May even be some 'best practice' to be shared.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Clearly, 'lessons to be learned', 'need for robust monitoring and training of officers'. May even be some 'best practice' to be shared.


Yes, _going forward._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2012)

Protest Scotland Yard 6 pm.


----------



## idumea (Jul 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Protest Scotland Yard 6 pm.


 
I will be there.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not (imo) just for their 'political masters' but because a) they can & b) they enjoy it.


 I'd put good money on him being the kind of officer who had contempt for other police involved in community liaison, domestic violence etc.  Pretty much an old style thug, able to sit easily in the Modern Met (largely because the managerial discourse around policing and communities is really just a political discourse that allows the police to do what they've always done, but with bigger words).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

idumea said:


> I will be there.


i'll see you there: i'll be the one being carried off kicking and screaming


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

Its known that OB were behaving savagely on that day- no wonder a man died. Good fortune to all at SY this evening.


----------



## shaman75 (Jul 19, 2012)

disgusted.  again.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Family going for Civil Case according to guardian banner.  If the Met had even a shred of decency they wouldn't contest this.  Yeah, I know...


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

Even the BBC were being fairly scathing about this verdict (not in so many words). One of the complaints was brought by a fellow officer involved with him and even that seemed to get ignored.
I don't understand how an unlawful killing as ruled by a coroner can therefore not be manslaughter at lease?


----------



## rekil (Jul 19, 2012)

From a couple of hours ago on their twitter



			
				@metpoliceuk said:
			
		

> The MPS has been named Overall Public Sector Winner in the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion Awards


Deranged thugs and liars especially well accommodated apparently.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

fucking arseholes. 

Gutted 

I really thought we were gonna get justice this time.

Has a copper EVER been convicted of killing anyone in this country?

Basically if you're a copper it appears you can legally kill someone. Even when you're caught red handed on camera.

Totally gutted for the family, and for the relatives of every poor fucker who has been killed by the police.

ACAB.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jul 19, 2012)

according to sources on twitter, there's a demo happening outside scotland yard at 6pm this evening. absolutely fucking disgraceful verdict - we all saw him do it!


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Clearly, 'lessons to be learned', 'need for robust monitoring and training of officers'. May even be some 'best practice' to be shared.


Lesson To Be Learned #1: don't go around killing defenceless protesters


----------



## framed (Jul 19, 2012)

It's a fucking joke.

Immediately after the verdict it was revealed that the cop had been transferred back and forth between forces due to his questionable behaviour. According to the BBC, he's had ten separate complaints made against him for unnecessary use of violence, although only one was upheld.

The police can do no wrong, juries are conditioned along these lines.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

editor said:


> Lesson To Be Learned #1: don't go around killing defenceless protesters


He wasn't even a protester, just some poor sod  trying to get home.


----------



## xes (Jul 19, 2012)

aaww, but he's got a really hard job


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Protest Scotland Yard 6 pm.


I'll be there too.


----------



## dolly's gal (Jul 19, 2012)

as someone on twitter put it:



> It's a tough job in the police. Sometimes you have to murder innocent people that are walking away with their hands in their pockets


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I think iirc the inquest saw harwoods incompetence thrown out at bronze level- he was not present in the van for briefing and so on.
> 
> a neat disconnect which allows the met and their drafted in footsloggers from other regions to go on without addressing the violent and sloppy behaviour of their colleagues- another bad apple


 
Despite Tim Williams and others at the inquest painting a picture of Harwood as something of a hotheaded, perhaps even slovenly, officer no Met manager addressed the point that they were happy with him acting in that way right up until he was forced by circumstance to identify himself as the killer of Ian Tomlinson.

Nor did they address the fact that they were equally happy with their other TSG thugs doing the same, that they specifically train them in this way, that they deploy such officers operationally in this way as a matter of course, and that they themselves act in this brutal fashion, without fear or concern.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> He wasn't even a protester, just some poor sod trying to get home.


 

of course the mail was straight in there with claiming him to be an alcoholic drifter estranged from his family.

Turned out he was in touch with his family, his alcoholism was mild and he went to meetings, and 'drifter' amounted to 'has had housing issues in the past'. I can claim check on all three of those, I suppose in the fails eyes I am also a worthy target for a cowards rush from behind, from a known violent case tooled up with armour and weaponry and his mates in blue on hand. The silence from the force over this was deafening. Total complicity


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

Harwood is getting his defence costs paid for out of the public purse


----------



## dolly's gal (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> of course the mail was straight in there with claiming him to be an alcoholic drifter estranged from his family.


 
yeh cos of course it's ok to murder alcoholic drifters who don't talk to their families


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> of course the mail was straight in there with claiming him to be an alcoholic drifter estranged from his family.
> 
> Turned out he was in touch with his family, his alcoholism was mild and he went to meetings, and 'drifter' amounted to 'has had housing issues in the past'. I can claim check on all three of those, I suppose in the fails eyes I am also a worthy target for a cowards rush from behind, from a known violent case tooled up with armour and weaponry and his mates in blue on hand. The silence from the force over this was deafening. Total complicity


Yeah I remember them getting a good smear of the victim in at the time.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Hope today's demo goes beyond 'the usual suspects' (by which I mean people like me - I'd be there if I was in London).  Might be bit soon for a mass demo today, but it will be good for the family if this or later ones get a healthy turnout.  Could be some links made to the Mark Duggan family and supporters?  A 'good time' to get something together for all victims of police violence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

I wonder what Harwood's two sons feel about all this. I wonder what his wife Helen thinks, the lights off at night, alone with him in their bedroom.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I wonder what Harwood's two sons feel about all this. I wonder what his wife Helen thinks, the lights off at night, alone with him in their bedroom.


 Daddy's keeping us safe from environmentalists and newspaper sellers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

just to rub it in.





Brixton Hatter said:


> Harwood is getting his defence costs paid for out of the public purse


 
just to rub the salt in


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 19, 2012)

This fucking country disgusts me sometimes


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

Remember, it's not just one fat-fingered thug from Carshalton who has got away with murder here - besides Simon Harwood there are others with blood-stained hands, commissioners of crimes of omission, intent, neglect, inaction and untruthfulness.

Timothy Williams, Alex Robertson, Steve Discombe, Alan Palfrey, Andrew Moore, Kerry Smith, Nick Jackson, Jon Bish, Trevor Stevens, Clive Wilkinson, Colin Nye, Carl Small, Ryan Cowlin, Andrew Massey and others - all share in the culpability of the acts that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson, and in the acts that prevented the timely and accurate investigation of the circumstances of his death.

All uniformed police officers.

All off scott-free.

RIP Ian Tomlinson. Rest in Peace all victims of police violence.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Incompetent police response to student protest, clear political guidance to attack the G20 demonstrators, a force that (re)employs a psycho.  Recipe that could have led to the death of anybody out that day - but only the baton wielder gets anywhere near a court.  No surprise, if anything it's the regularity of this that depresses most.  Really don't know whether the family and their lawyers were expecting this result, but it must feel truly sickening.  Poor sods.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 19, 2012)

cunt literally gets away with murder grrrrrrr


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 19, 2012)

Harwood seems to have got away with it by claiming that it was in the middle of widespread disorder on they day - that he and his collegues were dealing with rioutuous mobs and it was a 'heat of the moment' thing.

Thats bullshit - other than a crowd breaking through a police cordon and the windows of RBS getting put through much earlier in the day, there was no 'widespread disorder' or rioting on the part of the protestors.

I was there and the police were aggro cunts all day. I was in the vicinty when Ian Tomlinson was killed. The police had set up several kettles and were constantly aggresively clearing different areas (including the use of dogs and frequnet use of batons and shields) - despite vitrually no aggro by the protestors other then people shouting and throwing the occaional plastic bottle after police had attacked people. All the footage showing the events in and around the killing bare this out.

Harwoods behavour was utterly typical of the TSG on the day - aggressive, hyped up and extremely keen to meet out unprovoked violence. Harwood was enthusiasticlly doing exactly what he'd been instructed to do.

Fucking angry. Hope theres a good turnout at the protest.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)




----------



## dylans (Jul 19, 2012)

Its a perk of he job. If you work in an office you get endless supplies of free copy paper and you can sneak use of the printer. If you work in boots you get discount medicine and sunscreen. If you are a cop you get to murder people


----------



## Quartz (Jul 19, 2012)

My first thought is that I'm utterly disgusted by the verdict; it seemed plain as a pikestaff. My second is that you are presumed innocent until found guilty, and the standard is _beyond reasonable doubt_.  My third is that this may set a legal precedent, for good and ill.

I'm still utterly disgusted.


----------



## JHE (Jul 19, 2012)

I don't know quite why he has been acquitted, but I doubt this is a vindication of this rather aggressive plod's behaviour.  Perhaps the jury was not convinced that it was Harwood's aggressive behaviour that caused Tomlinson's death.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

When considering the disconnect between the jury verdicts at the inquest and at the criminal trial, one might note the absence of involvement of the CPS in the former.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

JHE said:


> I don't know quite why he has been acquitted, but I doubt this is a vindication of this rather aggressive plod's behaviour. Perhaps the jury was not convinced that it was Harwood's aggressive behaviour that caused Tomlinson's death.


 

given that they were not allowed to hear of freddy's sketchy fuckup shouldn't even have been doing the job past, its entirely possible that they took his report as valid


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 19, 2012)

Just been reading the article in the Guardian and I can;t believe that this scumbag even managed to keep his job after all the previous violence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Harwoods behavour was utterly typical of the TSG on the day - aggressive, hyped up and extremely keen to meet out unprovoked violence. Harwood was enthusiasticlly doing exactly what he'd been instructed to do.


 
This is an important point. It wasn't just Harwood who was out of order that day, the entire fucking met declared open season on protestors with one minor (and quite possibly staged) act of vandalism as justification. To the best of my knowledge, no coppers have been convicted of any crime based on the events of that day despite a death, countless serious injuries, unlawful mass detentions, police statements since proven to be outright lies and the heartwarming moment when the coppers prevented a medical student from treating a man dying on the pavement.

In order to function as a means of social control, the police must be feared. For this, their require near-total impunity. It is not the legal system or the politicians which are to blame for this bullshit, it is the very concept of having a police force. If the police were genuinely required to obey the same laws as the rest of us they would be effectively paralysed. The police themselves can't even be blamed for this state of affairs; they are conditioned, trained, _designed_ to be nasty, ignorant, violent pieces of shit. That is what they have to be to fulfill their purpose. I don't think all coppers are bastards, I just don't think they count as real people.

There is no point trying to reform the police. They must be done away with, together with the system they serve and the idea of helpless, timid dependance on a higher power which they embody.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just been reading the article in the Guardian and I can;t believe that this scumbag even managed to keep his job after all the previous violence.


 
You obviously weren't paying attention to the article. His job is being a _policeman. _An ice cream salesman would scarcely lose his job for selling ice cream, a professional thug is not going to lose a job for behaving like a thug.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 19, 2012)

Just hope Ian Tomlinson's family get some justice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2012)

The family is considering a civil action. 

Good for them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

they'll win it, given the evidence and the inquest verdict. A large payout from our tax money to cover yet another met fuck up is in the offing.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 19, 2012)

My understanding is that the chances of a successful conviction for manslaughter charge were actually quite low for various reasons but that if it had been an assualt charge then that was a nailed on certainty. So the question is why did the CPS go ahead with a charge that they knew could not be made to stick ? If you want to see were the complicity of the system is in ensuring that nobody gets prosecuted for what happened to this man then its within that decision.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

The Met, the IPCC and the CPS had let the clock run out on an assault charge.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

If by any chance anyone here has the misfortune to be nicked, when in the interview they try to cajole you into answering their questions and pursue the "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to lose" by talking line, feel free to point out that their colleague in Carshalton observed his right to silence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> My understanding is that the chances of a successful conviction for manslaughter charge were actually quite low for various reasons but that if it had been an assualt charge then that was a nailed on certainty. So the question is why did the CPS go ahead with a charge that they knew could not be made to stick ? If you want to see were the complicity of the system is in ensuring that nobody gets prosecuted for what happened to this man then its within that decision.


 
It's almost as if the plod and the CPS were somehow in cahoots...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

dolly's gal said:


> yeh cos of course it's ok to murder alcoholic drifters who don't talk to their families


Mail in "serial killer logic" shock.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> The Met, the IPCC and the CPS had let the clock run out on an assault charge.


 
In fairness to the IPCC, they referred the case to the CPS in August '09 i.e. in plenty of time for the CPS to consider a charge pf common assault.  They didn't let the clock run out.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2012)

I have been listening to this on the news. I still do not understand how attacking someone who hasn't done anything can be called 'reasonable force'. I just cannot see how that can be so, if there was no need for force to be used, how can it be reasonable?

i sincerely hope the family gets the justice they deserve one day - one way or another.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> If by any chance anyone here has the misfortune to be nicked, when in the interview they try to cajole you into answering their questions and pursue the "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to lose" by talking line, feel free to point out that their colleague in Carshalton observed his right to silence.


 
When they tried this line on me I pointed out that as I had nothing to hide, I had nothing to gain by talking to them either. Given that they had wasted my time by arresting me, I argued, it seemed only fitting that I should allow them to waste theirs looking for evidence that didn't exist. 

The police are never interested in finding evidence of someone's innocence. What they want from you is something that might help them prove your guilt, or that of someone you know. And they'd naturally prefer that it was you who was guilty because they've already got you in the cells so it's less work all round. A copper, knowing that this is how the process works, would of course do the only sensible thing and withhold any comment.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

I suppose there's two elements to the offence: the unreasonable force, and the causation of the death. We will never know why the jury acquitted i.e. whether they thought the force was reasonable, or that it was unreasonable but didn't cause the death (because of the uncertainty around the medical evidence).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

krink said:


> I have been listening to this on the news. I still do not understand how attacking someone who hasn't done anything can be called 'reasonable force'. I just cannot see how that can be so, if there was no need for force to be used, how can it be reasonable?
> 
> i sincerely hope the family gets the justice they deserve one day - one way or another.


 
Proportionate is another good word. Surely the only thing that is proportionate to no violence is more no violence? Mathematically speaking I'm pretty sure that's how proportionality works.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

justice would be harwoood on the nonce wing with the beasts and the touts.

A few quid and a very public roasting of the met will have to do.

ITV of all sources laid in hard on the met in tonights coverage and shoed that damning footage of tomlinson getting smashed to the ground while walking away


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 19, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> When they tried this line on me I pointed out that as I had nothing to hide, I had nothing to gain by talking to them either. Given that they had wasted my time by arresting me, I argued, it seemed only fitting that I should allow them to waste theirs looking for evidence that didn't exist.
> 
> The police are never interested in finding evidence of someone's innocence. What they want from you is something that might help them prove your guilt, or that of someone you know. And they'd naturally prefer that it was you who was guilty because they've already got you in the cells so it's less work all round. A copper, knowing that this is how the process works, would of course do the only sensible thing and withhold any comment.


I remember a video of a US lawyer explaining in detail why it is never in your interests to say anything to the police. It relates to the US of course but the logic is easily transferrable.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2012)

My thoughts go out to the Tomlinson family. What a fucking kick in the guts 

No Justice, No Peace, Fuck the police.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> In fairness to the IPCC, they referred the case to the CPS in August '09 i.e. in plenty of time for the CPS to consider a charge pf common assault.  They didn't let the clock run out.


The IPCC investigator told the family Harwood might have been a protester in a stolen uniform.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

I saw what the thug did to that man

Fucking brutal scumbag


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 19, 2012)

krink said:


> I have been listening to this on the news. I still do not understand how attacking someone who hasn't done anything can be called 'reasonable force'. I just cannot see how that can be so, if there was no need for force to be used, how can it be reasonable?
> 
> i sincerely hope the family gets the justice they deserve one day - one way or another.


Look how long it took for the Lawrence family to get justice.But they got it in the end


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

I saw them shit their pants during the Enfield riots waiting for orders to steam in

Then I saw them criminally bashing fuck out of doors mob handedly and dragging sleeping folks out on to the street .. falling over each other in the process

After they blew a guy's brains who had a gun in one sock and a bullet in another and nearly shot each other in that process


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 19, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Look how long it took for the Lawrence family to get justice.But they got it in the end


 
I was thinking that. Harwood is a marked man.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

rorymac said:


> I saw them shit their pants during the Enfield riots waiting for orders to steam in
> 
> Then I saw them criminally bashing fuck out of doors mob handedly and dragging sleeping folks out on to the street .. falling over each other in the process
> 
> After they blew a guy's brains who had a gun in one sock and a bullet in another and nearly shot each other in that process


 
that gun in a sock was found ten feet away, behind a wall- IE the fuckers planted it


----------



## Quartz (Jul 19, 2012)

Hmm... double jeopardy no longer applies. Can the State appeal the verdict?


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> The IPCC investigator told the family Harwood might have been a protester in a stolen uniform.


 
That's a different criticism.  And far less serious than the suggestion that they deliberately ran the clock down to prevent Harwood from facing charges.  After all, they did see fit to refer to the CPS, and did so in time for the CPS to charge with common assault.  It was the CPS which chose not to.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Harwood is a marked man.


 
Indeed. I suspect the only pushing he'll be doing again is pen pushing in a back room. Woe fucking betide if he ever walks back into a TSG role.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> That's a different criticism. And far less serious than the suggestion that they deliberately ran the clock down to prevent Harwood from facing charges. After all, they did see fit to refer to the CPS, and did so in time for the CPS to charge with common assault. It was the CPS which chose not to.


 
IMO it's more serious. The IPCC exists to investigate possible crimes by the filth, to open their investigation with the thought in mind that the killer dressed as a pig could be a protester in a stolen uniform would be way off beam. I note the Met haven't considered that Yvonne Fletcher committed suicide.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> That's a different criticism.  And far less serious than the suggestion that they deliberately ran the clock down to prevent Harwood from facing charges.  After all, they did see fit to refer to the CPS, and did so in time for the CPS to charge with common assault.  It was the CPS which chose not to.


Tell the Tomlinsons it's "less important" that the supposed independent investigator is palming the family of the victim off with police bullshit.

I didn't claim the IPCC deliberately ran the clock down.

Filing charges eventually doesn't suddenly make the IPCC the White Hats in this.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Hmm... double jeopardy no longer applies. Can the State appeal the verdict?


Second bite of the apple can only happen when there is substantial new evidence.

And I don't think the Met or anyone else from 'the State' is going to be digging up the Harwoods' garden looking for machetes twenty years on.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> IMO it's more serious. The IPCC exists to investigate possible crimes by the filth, to open their investigation with the thought in mind that the killer dressed as a pig could be a protester in a stolen uniform would be way off beam. I note the Met haven't considered that Yvonne Fletcher committed suicide.


 
Well, I don't know what was said, or the context.

But the fact is that their investigation was completed in time for the CPS to bring a common assault charge.  So the suggetsion that they ran the clock down to protect Harwood is false.

And we should remember that the IPCC gathered enough evidence for an inquest jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing, and for Harwood to stand trial for manslaughter.  It was the jury that acquitted.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I didn't claim the IPCC deliberately ran the clock down.


 
Then I must have misunderstood you when you wrote: _The Met, the IPCC and the CPS had let the clock run out on an assault charge._

I think it's easy to point the finger at the IPCC. But the prosecution was conducted by the CPS and the not guilty verdict was returned by the jury.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 19, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Hmm... double jeopardy no longer applies. Can the State appeal the verdict?


 
Do you think they would be likely to? Given the fact they appeared to have engineered the first trial to ensure there was little chance of a conviction?


----------



## Corax (Jul 19, 2012)

Just seen the verdict.

Despite the fact that this was the only possible outcome of the trial of a police officer, I'm still fucking sickened and angry.  There must still be some fragment of a naive idealist hiding inside me.

Fucking murdering cunts, the fucking lot of them.  Complicity is guilt.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> Well, I don't know what was said, or the context.
> 
> But the fact is that their investigation was completed in time for the CPS to bring a common assault charge. So the suggetsion that they ran the clock down to protect Harwood is false.
> 
> And we should remember that the IPCC gathered enough evidence for an inquest jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing, and for Harwood to stand trial for manslaughter. It was the jury that acquitted.


 
Here's a decent read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts

Highlights include:

There have been 1,433 deaths in police custody or following contact with officers, documented by the monitoring group Inquest, since 1990, among them Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan. Not a single police officer during that period has been convicted of manslaughter.

For seven days after Tomlinson's death, the watchdog resisted calls to open a full investigation

The inquiry was initially left to detectives at City of London police, which had jurisdiction over the Square Mile. The IPCC held back from independently investigating the death, even after discovering witnesses had come forward to say they had seen Tomlinson attacked by a police officer, and photographs had emerged showing the newspaper seller lying at the feet of riot police.
When the Guardian released video footage of the incident, the IPCC at last took over the inquiry, but not before visiting the newspaper's office with a City of London police officer to ask for the video to be removed from the website. They argued that the footage would jeopardise any future investigation, and it was upsetting the family. Neither claim turned out to be true.

The following day, Tomlinson's widow and children were called to a meeting with the IPCC and City of London police, where the video was replayed to everyone present. Crampton warned the distraught family about the difficulties in identifying a man whose face was concealed behind a balaclava, and whose badge number was not showing. He suggested Tomlinson's attacker may have been a member of the public who had stolen a police uniform. An IPCC investigator, Chris Mahaffey, would endorse the comment, saying the theory the man attacking Tomlinson was a police impersonator was a valid one that "needed to be explored". The family, on the other hand, saw it as a bizarre, almost incomprehensible comment, which led them to question the impartiality of the nascent inquiry.

etc.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Here's a decent read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts
> 
> Highlights include:
> 
> ...


 
Fair dos. I'm not defending the IPCC generally, or with regard to the conduct if this investigation. But merely in respect of the specific suggestion that they deliberately ran the clock down.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> Fair dos. I'm not defending the IPCC generally, or with regard to the conduct if this investigation. But merely in respect of the specific suggestion that they deliberately ran the clock down.


 
OK


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

It's not just harwood, there's an augean stales at new scotland yard which needs to be cleansed


----------



## Corax (Jul 19, 2012)

Quartz said:


> My first thought is that I'm utterly disgusted by the verdict; it seemed plain as a pikestaff. My second is that you are presumed innocent until found guilty, and the standard is _beyond reasonable doubt_. *My third is that this may set a legal precedent, for good and ill.*
> 
> I'm still utterly disgusted.


The precedent was set a long time ago.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> that gun in a sock was found ten feet away, behind a wall- IE the fuckers planted it


 

New one on me DC and no idea .. course it could well be true

My daughter's best mate knew that kid and said he was just a plain and simple drug dealer .. he carried a gun for his own safety

Either way wtf re the police .. yellow bellied bastards hadn't the decency to talk to the family after blasting his head off 

ps have you seen the video of plain clothes coppers smashing fuck out of a car with an ikea worker in .. same area

All they had to do was go to ikea and question the guy


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It's not just harwood, there's an augean stales at new scotland yard which needs to be cleansed


 
How did the protest go/going? Big turnout?

Is Harwood on holiday yet?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

None of the "plain and simple" dealers i've known had carried a gat


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> How did the protest go/going? Big turnout?
> 
> Is Harwood on holiday yet?


Disappointingly small, maybe 100


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> None of the "plain and simple" dealers i've known had carried a gat


 

Well no .. he was a drug dealer
It was his living .. he was a serious drug dealer but plain and simple

Fucking semantics


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

He did have a gun in his sock and a bullet in another .. it was to do with his brother .. a seperate issue

He didn't have a loaded gun and his brains were blasted out by violent thugs

Cowardly scum


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Here's a decent read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts


 Crucial general point in that piece is just how witless and pro-police the IPCC mindset was in the early period, accepting everything they were told, even the shite about a protestor in police uniform.  It's probably an indication that they come to most other investigations with the same assumptions.  The Guardian writer suggests that if they'd done their job from day 1, Patel wouldn't have been appointed by the coroner.  Good chance that the dispute between Patel and the proper pathologist provided the reasonable doubt that got Harwood off (or was at least a major contribution).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

Duggans case is discussed at length on another thread, where several supposedly left wing people show up their innate hatred of the proletariat.

This is about Ian Tomlinson, a standard geez who drank a bit, liked a match and had zero involvement in anything dodgy (not sure duggan did either but his blackness and associations condemn him OBV). Tomlinson got a nasty beating and then died. From behind at that! it would have been unacceptable regardless but the veneer of yellowness from an attack on a man who was walking away with hands in pockets is particularly galling. It just defies logic and enters the realm of vindictive cuntishness. And if he had survived that assault nobody would know about it except his mates.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Anybody goet to the demo?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2012)

So, a cop with a history of violence against the public can kill harmless citizens for kicks/because they thought they were "being cheeky" and get away with it.

My faith in British justice is restored. Or rather, my worst assumptions are once again confirmed.

What a bunch of corrupt bastards.


----------



## Nice one (Jul 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Here's a decent read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts


 
good read. Wondering why difference in verdict if both juries received basically the same info from prosecution/defence barristers in trial and inquest


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Crucial general point in that piece is just how witless and pro-police the IPCC mindset was in the early period, accepting everything they were told, even the shite about a protestor in police uniform. It's probably an indication that they come to most other investigations with the same assumptions. The Guardian writer suggests that if they'd done their job from day 1, Patel wouldn't have been appointed by the coroner. Good chance that the dispute between Patel and the proper pathologist provided the reasonable doubt that got Harwood off (or was at least a major contribution).


 
The IPCC doesn't appoint the pathologist.  That's for the Coroner.  And, at the time of the post mortem, Patel was still a Home Office approved pathologist.  To try to pin Patel's failings on the IPCC seems desperate, since it did not appoint him, had no power to prevent his appointment, and, given that he hadn't been struck off at that stage, had no reason to seek do so.

The IPCC can do little more than gather the evidence, and it would appear that in this case they didn't do a bad job.  After all, there was enough for an inquest jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing within three hours.  I think we should be asking why the differing verdict in the manslaughter trial, despite the similarity of the evidence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Anybody goet to the demo?


Yes


----------



## Nice one (Jul 19, 2012)

was anybody carried off kicking and screaming?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> they'll win it, given the evidence and the inquest verdict. A large payout from our tax money to cover yet another met fuck up is in the offing.


 
Be nice if it was enough to fund some summary "justice" on Harwood.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Be nice if it was enough to fund some summary "justice" on Harwood.


 
We're probably about to pay for his holiday away for a few weeks. 

I hope the cunt drowns in the hotel pool.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

I hope every priviliged little bastard and scumbag violent thug quakes in their pants

Fucking humpty dumpties betta realise .. we can find out where they live

Cunts !


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> The IPCC doesn't appoint the pathologist. That's for the Coroner. And, at the time of the post mortem, Patel was still a Home Office approved pathologist. To try to pin Patel's failings on the IPCC seems desperate, since it did not appoint him, had no power to prevent his appointment, and, given that he hadn't been struck off at that stage, had no reason to seek do so.
> 
> The IPCC can do little more than gather the evidence, and it would appear that in this case they didn't do a bad job. After all, there was enough for an inquest jury to return a verdict of unlawful killing within three hours. I think we should be asking why the differing verdict in the manslaughter trial, despite the similarity of the evidence.


 There was strong speculation at the time that the Met had got the Coroner to appoint Patel as a tame pathologist. I can't find the original story, but there's this about what a shocking appointment it was:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified

The point about the IPCC is that if they had taken the investigation over straight away, the Met would have been in less of a position to lever an incompetent fool into what was a very high profile job.  Ultimately of course, there's a fair chance that led to Harwood being out rather than inside tonight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Indeed. I suspect the only pushing he'll be doing again is pen pushing in a back room. Woe fucking betide if he ever walks back into a TSG role.


 
Prediction:
Some time in the next 3 years Harwood will either
1) Take a stress-related ill-heath retirement on a partial pension, or
2) He'll be back in a front-line role.

I'm reckoning on 2, because the OB really do have that much contempt for us.


----------



## Nice one (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> There was strong speculation at the time that the Met had got the Coroner to appoint Patel as a tame pathologist. I can't find the original story, but there's this about what a shocking appointment it was:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified
> 
> The point about the IPCC is that if they had taken the investigation over straight away, the Met would have been in less of a position to lever an incompetent fool into what was a very high profile job. Ultimately of course, there's a fair chance that led to Harwood being out rather than inside tonight.


 
the thing about patel was he was 'leant on' by the police in those early stages to provide the correct version of what caused tomlinson's death. This came up in the inquest and was persued successfully by tomlinson's family barrister.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

Patel was not lent on, he's been doing this shit for years


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It's not just harwood, there's an augean stales at new scotland yard which needs to be cleansed


 
Agreed there's almost certainly a shedload of other Met coppers with as bad a record as you state.

But your point is surely _especially_ highlighted right now by Harwood's truly shocking list of previous, even SkyTV News in the pub this eve was presenting a shortish version of this (presumably Harwood's background was released to the media only after the verdict?).

So, Harwood. A list of thoroughly dodgy 'temporary' suspensions/transfers/reappointments, within and between more than one force, well that would have led to a big-scale disciplinary hammering, then unavoidable sacking, in any other occupation.

And I haven't even *halfway* caught up with the full details of today's news yet


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Nice one said:


> the thing about patel was he was 'leant on' by the police in those early stages to provide the correct version of what caused tomlinson's death. This came up in the inquest and was persued successfully by tomlinson's family barrister.


 In terms of his greatest hits, that's up there with him doing a postmortem on the wrong body:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/03/freddy-patel-pathologist-autopsy


----------



## southside (Jul 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Prediction:
> Some time in the next 3 years Harwood will either
> 1) Take a stress-related ill-heath retirement on a partial pension, or
> 2) He'll be back in a front-line role.
> ...


 
Or he'll be found dead on Streatham common clutching a bottle of thunder bird wine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Surely highlighted by Harwood's shocking list of previous, even SkyTV News in the pub was presenting a shortish version of this (presumably released only after the verdict?).
> 
> A list of thoroughly dodgy 'temporary' suspensions/transfers/reappointments, within and between more than one force, would have led to a big-scale disciplinary hammering then unavoidable sacking in any other occupation.
> 
> And I haven't even *halfway* caught up with the full details of today's news yet


 

this was all known at the time btw


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2012)

All a bit predictable really, but that doesn't make it any less galling.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> this was all known at the time btw


 
In detail? To all of us? Publicised in the mainstream?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> In detail? To all of us? Publicised in the mainstream?


 


to all of us, public domain. Same as freddy boys record


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

southside said:


> Or he'll be found dead on Streatham common clutching a bottle of thunder bird wine.


 
Which will have nothing to do with me.

I just thought I'd make that clear, and any rumours that I'm going to start carrying a bottle of T-Bird in my daypack just in case I see Harwood in the area is pure speculation!


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> this was all known at the time btw


 Yes, Harwood's history and the Patel stuff, though it would all have reverted to sub judice at some point?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2012)

southside said:


> Or he'll be found dead on Streatham common clutching a bottle of thunder bird wine.


 
Shurely on the coast of Malaga or somewhere, after far too much very expensive food and champagne, latter funded by the 'stress-justified' pension.

Not *ALL* old school 'Costa-del-Crime-Essex boys-need-swimming pools-and-sunshine' types are _that_ inclined to get pally with iffy coppers ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yes, *Harwood's history* and the Patel stuff, *though it would all have reverted to sub judice at some point?*


 
Which is why I failed to pick up on that probably.

Patel I did know about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Patel was not lent on, he's been doing this shit for years


 
He was the "go to" pathologist if you wanted a contradictory (to the evidence) finding. That much was shown at the inquest, and by what people of his professional acquaintance said about him.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 19, 2012)

Did the judge give the option of convicting him for a lesser crime?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> In detail? To all of us? Publicised in the mainstream?


 
Lots of it in the media at the time of the inquest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yes, Harwood's history and the Patel stuff, though it would all have reverted to sub judice at some point?


 
Once the manslaughter case was in train.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

See is we lived in a fair society you could rehabilitate that prick .. but cos we don't it all gets swept under the carpet

A bunch of cunts get to carry on being cunts

The level of intelligence decreases and WE put up with it

We ought to hang our heads in shame for putting up with this shit

We need new unions and we need them now

<keels over>


----------



## Nice one (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Patel was not lent on, he's been doing this shit for years


 
without doubt. But at the inquest it came out that senior police officers spoke to patel (in fact were present at the post mortem with him) to ensure he would 'eliminate' any possibility police could have caused the injuries to tomlinson's body. This is where we get patel recording that bruising that looks distinctly a baton strike is suggested tomlinson possibly falling awkwardly against a building.

It also raised questions that senior police knew tomlinson had come into contact with police and had prior knowledge of ther fact before the video footage emerged.

and the dog bite as something equally absurd


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lots of it in the media at the time of the inquest.


 
About Patel, which I remember, or about Harwood, which I fail to?


----------



## Nice one (Jul 19, 2012)

.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

rorymac said:


> See is we lived in a fair society you could rehabilitate that prick .. but cos we don't it all gets swept under the carpet
> 
> A bunch of cunts get to carry on being cunts
> 
> ...


 
What we need to do is remind the government and the Old Bill that we are only governed and policed on sufferance.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 19, 2012)

There was loads about Patel.  I never saw the other stuff and I'm pretty good at reading the papers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He was the "go to" pathologist if you wanted a contradictory (to the evidence) finding. That much was shown at the inquest, and by what people of his professional acquaintance said about him.


 

Oh aye, Detective Boy gave me a roasting for calling him the mets pet pathologist while also stating that he was a known incompetent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> About Patel, which I remember, or about Harwood, which I fail to?


 
About Patel, and some about Harwood, i.e. about him having been likely to have been sacked from the Met for his little "road rage" incident, but taking an ill-health retirement, and then joining the Surrey constabulary a couple of years later, then transferring back into the Met a few more years after that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Oh aye, Detective Boy gave me a roasting for calling him the mets pet pathologist while also stating that he was a known incompetent.


 
He's probably beating himself off right now, thinking how the "cunt collective" have taken one in the eye.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

Anybody willing to believe the appointment of Patel was anything other than astonishing and deliberate should read these few paras - the guardian link I put up before. I didn't hear the R4 prog it refers to but I do remember there was more detail going round about who in the met was involved in getting Patel appointed by the Coroner.



> The forensic pathologist who claimed that Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack at the G20 protests was not qualified to be on a Home Office list of forensic experts, a BBC investigation will claim.
> Dr Freddy Patel conducted the first postmortem examination on Tomlinson two days after he collapsed and died in the City of London in April last year. Moments earlier, he was filmed being struck to the ground by PC Simon Harwood, a Met officer.
> The officer, a member of the Met's controversial Territorial Support Group, is to face an internal disciplinary charge, but will not be charged over the death. Justifying its decision not to prosecute Harwood, the Crown Prosecution Service cited a conflict between the postmortem examinations carried out after the death by Patel, and the conclusions of two other forensic pathologists, who found he died of internal bleeding.
> Patel, whose professional conduct has repeatedly been brought into question over the last decade, is under investigation by the General Medical Council, where he stands accused of failings in several postmortem cases. He was suspended from the Home Office register of forensic pathologists last year and is banned from working in suspicious death cases.
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It's not just harwood, there's an augean stales at new scotland yard which needs to be cleansed


 
Burned down, more like.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 19, 2012)

They don't give a fuck about us .. the police are thick fucking mercenaries

The government are pawns of capitalists and from the right stock

It's fucking disgusting

They have it down to a tee .. capitalists own the media .. they own the government

The middle class are shitting their pants (good news) .. the working class are a joke

Why we need to fight back .. we need serious riots from serious youths


----------



## audiotech (Jul 19, 2012)

The Telegraph piece.

He's up for misconduct hearing in September.

The IPCC: 'Re-employed by the Met, "completely staggering"'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Harwood-cleared-of-killing-Ian-Tomlinson.html


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> How did the protest go/going? Big turnout?





Wilf said:


> Anybody goet to the demo?


 


Pickman's model said:


> Yes


 
I was there. I'd say about 80-100, plus loads of journalists/camera crew. Small, but lively when the chanting got going. A few usual faces from recent protests. Numbers a bit disappointing I guess, but it was organised at two hours notice. Best bit was when the BBC went live and (so I am told) "No Justice, no peace, fuck the police" was clearly audible on the telly. The presenter look pretty ruffled when that happened.

Pickmans - I would have come and said hello, but I don't know what you look like! Maybe next time.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 19, 2012)

miktheword said:


> same burden of proof as in the inquest where IT was unlawfully killed


Inquests aren't to the criminal standard, and it's easier for a jury to reach a verdict when no-one will actually be imprisoned as a result (particularly when the defendant is a cop, who juries are extremely reluctant to convict for offences committed while on duty).



Stoat Boy said:


> My understanding is that the chances of a successful conviction for manslaughter charge were actually quite low for various reasons but that if it had been an assualt charge then that was a nailed on certainty.


Assault is a summary-only charge with a six-month maximum sentence, and the magistrate wouldn't be allowed to take the death into account when passing sentence because it hadn't been proven. A non-custodial sentence for an assault conviction wouldn't have been that unlikely.



Quartz said:


> Did the judge give the option of convicting him for a lesser crime?


He couldn't have. The time limit for charging common assault (knocking Tomlinson over) had long passed, and the only other options would have been ABH or GBH. The only way to prove those charges would have been to show that Harwood caused Tomlinson's internal injury, in which case the proper charge is manslaughter because Tomlinson died.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 19, 2012)

audiotech said:


> The Telegraph piece.
> 
> He's up for misconduct hearing in September.
> 
> ...


 Yeah, but they still can't stop themselves, can they, even in a piece about Harwood:



> It can now be revealed that Harwood's attack on the *homeless alcoholic* marks the lowpoint of a police career blighted by violent outbursts


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 19, 2012)

Anyone who is a Facebook friend of mine - I posted an ill though out comment on this earlier, trying to say  that this verdict didn't represent the kind of world I want to live in. Someone has replied about the justice system in this country being for etc. I'd cut and paste but tbh i'm a bit drunk and on my phone. I've tried replying - badly - but don't know what to say. If you have any suggestions or would like to reply please do. Thanks


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Agreed there's almost certainly a shedload of other Met coppers with as bad a record as you state.
> 
> But your point is surely _especially_ highlighted right now by Harwood's truly shocking list of previous, even SkyTV News in the pub this eve was presenting a shortish version of this (presumably Harwood's background was released to the media only after the verdict?).
> 
> ...


What it reminded me of was the way the catholic church shuffled paedo priests about: how many other harwoods are out there?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

here's a few photos


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Clearly, 'lessons to be learned', 'need for robust monitoring and training of officers'. May even be some 'best practice' to be shared.


did anyone see the PR pig come out and virtually give that speech outside the court in reference to Harwoods previous ? Think there may even have a been a 'going fwd ' involved.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 19, 2012)

Is it not a step forward that it went to court at all?  I'm sure that for the family, that's not much consolation, but I can't remember another case even going to court.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

Wilf said:
			
		

> There was strong speculation at the time that the Met had got the Coroner to appoint Patel as a tame pathologist. I can't find the original story, but there's this about what a shocking appointment it was:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified
> 
> The point about the IPCC is that if they had taken the investigation over straight away, the Met would have been in less of a position to lever an incompetent fool into what was a very high profile job.  Ultimately of course, there's a fair chance that led to Harwood being out rather than inside tonight.



To be honest, I don't know enough about the way in which pathologists are appointed to comment on whether or not the course of events about which you speculate could have occurred. 

If, for instance, the post mortem is carried out by whoever is on call, or if different pathologists each have their own geographical area, it's hard to see how anyone could manipulate Patel's appointment

But, as I say, I don't know. Anyone have any knowledge?


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

Damarr said:
			
		

> Inquests aren't to the criminal standard, and it's easier for a jury to reach a verdict when no-one will actually be imprisoned as a result (particularly when the defendant is a cop, who juries are extremely reluctant to convict for offences committed while on duty).
> 
> Assault is a summary-only charge with a six-month maximum sentence, and the magistrate wouldn't be allowed to take the death into account when passing sentence because it hadn't been proven. A non-custodial sentence for an assault conviction wouldn't have been that unlikely.
> 
> He couldn't have. The time limit for charging common assault (knocking Tomlinson over) had long passed, and the only other options would have been ABH or GBH. The only way to prove those charges would have been to show that Harwood caused Tomlinson's internal injury, in which case the proper charge is manslaughter because Tomlinson died.



You're wrong. The inquest jury have to believe it's beyond reasonable doubt to return a verdict of unlawful killing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 19, 2012)

There was a guy at the demo - maybe in his early 60s, smart, in a suit - who confronted the crowd after the chants of 'fuck the police' etc. He said his brother had been killed by the police 25 years ago. He was pointing to the coppers at the demo and saying "it's not THEIR fault, don't take it out on the THEM. Not all the police are bad." He got shouted down a bit by the crowd, then a few people ended up having a decent, lengthy conversation with him. Then the TV interviewed him. Anyone know who he was?


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> You're wrong. The jury have to believe it's beyond reasonable doubt to return a verdict of unlawful killing.



The standard of proof in the coroner's court is the civil standard I.e. balance of probabilities.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2012)

cesare said:
			
		

> The standard of proof in the coroner's court is the civil standard I.e. balance of probabilities.



Not to return a verdict of unlawful killing. They can only return such a verdict if they are persuaded beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## cesare (Jul 19, 2012)

Athos said:


> Not to return a verdict of unlawful killing. They can only return such a verdict if they are persuaded beyond reasonable doubt.



Ah, OK, cheers


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 20, 2012)

Prior to the inquest the CPS were not going to charge Harwood - arguing that it would be to hard to prove that Harwoods assualt led to to Ian Tomlinsons death. After the inquest jury found that it did - 'beyond reasonable doubt' they had to prosecute - precisely becasue the inquest verdict of 'unlawful killing' demanded the same burden of proof as a criminal trial.  

The whole episode is  a fucking travesty - police lieing about the circumstances of his death, cops stopping medical students from treating Ian Tomlinson, bullshit stories about officers being pelted with bottles as they tried to help the victim, the dodgey post mortem (carried out with the cops present), the IPCC deliberately delaying their involvement and colluding with the police in bullshiting his family ('could well have been a protestor in disguise') and trying to get the gaurdian to remove the video evidence. The smeering of the victim. The footdragging so that no assualt charge was possible. The CPS having to be forced to prosecute for manslaughter and now the cunt walks free.

But lessons have been learnt and it time to move on. And please ignore the rancid stench of our murderous and corrupt criminal justice system.

Of course it no suprise - this has happened time and again. But it still makes me fucking sick and angry that they can do this to us so blatantly and  still get away with it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 20, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> But lessons have been learnt and it time to move on. And please ignore the rancid stench of our murderous and corrupt criminal justice system.
> 
> Of course it no suprise - this has happened time and again. But it still makes me fucking sick and angry that they can do this to us so blatantly and still get away with it.


 
The bottom line is, the state needs its hired thugs, its muscle, its killers. Without them, it would soon be swept away.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2012)

this is why it is an object lesson in who the law serves. Harwood is caught on video violently assaulting a man. That man died. Harwood is exonerated. Despite the findings of an inquest which ruled unlawful death.

Can you imagine if the boot had been on the other foot? OB would have lifed the man off without blinking.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 20, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> this is why it is an object lesson in who the law serves. Harwood is caught on video violently assaulting a man. That man died. Harwood is exonerated. Despite the findings of an inquest which ruled unlawful death.
> 
> Can you imagine if the boot had been on the other foot? OB would have lifed the man off without blinking.


 
Stealing a bottle of water. Six months. Assault on someone leading to their death. Zilch.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 20, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> The bottom line is, the state needs its hired thugs, its muscle, its killers. Without them, it would soon be swept away.


 
And more to the point here: if policemen get convicted of serious crimes in the pursuit of duty they will lose the motivation and therefore the ability to keep public order.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 20, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What a bunch of corrupt bastards.


 
Not really, they're only doing their job.

At times of social unrest, eg the '80s and now, that job obviously includes crushing protests and deterring dissent with violence.  It would be hypocritical of the state to convict them for doing their jobs too well.


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 20, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I remember a video of a US lawyer explaining in detail why it is never in your interests to say anything to the police. It relates to the US of course but the logic is easily transferrable.


 
I love the way the ex-cop immediately admits "everything he says is true..."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2012)

Nice one said:


> and the dog bite as something equally absurd


 
Was probably a protesting cat who'd nicked a police dog's uniform.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 20, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts?CMP=twt_gu



> For five days they were denied details about the bruise and puncture marks on Tomlinson's legs – now known to have been caused by a baton strike and dog bites


----------



## shifting gears (Jul 20, 2012)

Well, this sorry episode has at least clarified my understanding of the 'justice' system in this country - one rule for us, one rule for the boys in blue. 

I was chatting to a mate in the pub in the other day - older than me, with background in the anarcho/punk scene, about the likelihood of a conviction: my view was that they couldn't realistically acquit given the inquest findings etc, but he just looked at me wearily and replied 'coppers never go to jail'. 

Sadly it appears he was right.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2012)

shifting gears said:


> Well, this sorry episode has at least clarified my understanding of the 'justice' system in this country - one rule for us, one rule for the boys in blue.
> 
> I was chatting to a mate in the pub in the other day - older than me, with background in the anarcho/punk scene, about the likelihood of a conviction: my view was that they couldn't realistically acquit given the inquest findings etc, but he just looked at me wearily and replied 'coppers never go to jail'.
> 
> Sadly it appears he was right.


 

That's how it is.

Office police line: There is no statute of limitations on murder. Hence the current jolly to Libya by murder squad bods investigating WPC Yvonne Fletcher.

*cough, Blair Peach, cough*


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2012)

Blair Peach, Cherry Groce, Harry Stanley, Smiley Culture, Cynthia Jarrett, Ian Tomlinson... how many more?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2012)

Smiley Culture  stabbed himself with Surrey Police in his house.

At around the same time like this lady jumped to her death, with Surrey Police in her house: http://www.elmbridgetoday.co.uk/News/Walton-flat-fall-woman-named-0000001321.aspx


----------



## articul8 (Jul 20, 2012)

Apparently there have been over 1500 verdicts of unlawful killing directly involving the police since 1970.  And convictions?  O.  Nil.  Zilch.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 20, 2012)

A must read


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Burned down, more like.


 
Yeah, but that *would* cleanse them, wouldn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2012)

cantsin said:


> did anyone see the PR pig come out and virtually give that speech outside the court in reference to Harwoods previous ? Think there may even have a been a 'going fwd ' involved.


 
There was.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 20, 2012)

> PC Simon Harwood’s house falls down after he uses ‘reasonable force’ to open front door
> 
> Read more: http://newsthump.com/2012/07/19/pc-...nable-force-to-open-front-door/#ixzz219nrfaMw


----------



## teqniq (Jul 20, 2012)

A friend of mine is doing a fundraiser for Ian Tomlinson's family (for legal fees that will be incurred in the civil case). You can buy one of her tracks at the following link:-

http://auntiefarr.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/fundraising-after-the-appalling-ian-tomlinson-verdict/


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 20, 2012)

Anyone fancy giving PC Harwood a piece of their mind... https://www.facebook.com/simon.harwood.7140


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 20, 2012)




----------



## toggle (Jul 20, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> View attachment 21294 A must read


 
that's not really all that rougue. anyone who ahs spent any time druinking in the same establishment as certain elements of the london police will find that not ponly all to familiar, but less concerning than the stuff they happily admit after a few beers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2012)

toggle said:


> that's not really all that rougue. anyone who ahs spent any time druinking in the same establishment as certain elements of the london police will find that not ponly all to familiar, but less concerning than the stuff they happily admit after a few beers.


you've spent some time drinking recently, from the looks of things.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 20, 2012)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> View attachment 21294 A must read


 

thats pretty shocking - I know this is obvious, but how the fuck is he still a copper ?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 20, 2012)

Presumably sending him away for manslaughter would be 'bad for police morale' at a time when the ruling class needs all the violent thugs it can muster.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 20, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> thats pretty shocking - I know this is obvious, but how the fuck is he still a copper ?


As an adjunct to nino's post:

Tomlinson case: Met police tried to hide PC Harwood's disciplinary record


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Anyone fancy giving PC Harwood a piece of their mind... https://www.facebook.com/simon.harwood.7140


I have sent mr harwood a message.   I think it's legal


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I have sent mr harwood a message. I think it's legal


post it up here so we can determine that


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2012)

!


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2012)

teqniq said:


> As an adjunct to nino's post:
> 
> Tomlinson case: Met police tried to hide PC Harwood's disciplinary record


ffs!



> Arguing the files should be kept secret, the force said: "Disciplinary records concern the private employment data of an individual."





> Eventually, the Met was instructed to share the files with interested parties. When lawyers from Tomlinson's family were able to inspect the disciplinary records – *which filled five lever-arch folders* – they discovered detailed complaints containing several allegations of physical assaults.



5 folders! count em


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 21, 2012)

More importantly, I assume this individual is still employed by the Met? If so, why? 

I am only thankful that the UK police forces do not carry guns.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> thats pretty shocking - I know this is obvious, but how the fuck is he still a copper ?


That's the question on everyone's lips. Ordinarily those are grounds to declare a candidate as unsuitable. It seems the Met has different ideas to the rest of us when it comes to suitability.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2012)

Out of interest if I violently pushed someone over in the street and they had (say) a heart condition and died, what would the charge normally be?  Would it be assult or would it be manslaughter?

Also does anyone know why there is a time limit on an assualt charge?



equationgirl said:


> More importantly, I assume this individual is still employed by the Met? If so, why?
> 
> I am only thankful that the UK police forces do not carry guns.


 
They do sometimes 



nino_savatte said:


> That's the question on everyone's lips. Ordinarily those are grounds to declare a candidate as unsuitable. It seems the Met has different ideas to the rest of us when it comes to suitability.


 
They look after their own?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2012)

Odd this eh?

Rioters say anger with police fuelled summer unrest



> Widespread anger and frustration at the way police engage with communities was a significant cause of the summer riots in every major city where disorder took place, the biggest study into their cause has found.
> 
> Hundreds of interviews with people who took part in the disturbances which spread across England in August revealed deep-seated and sometimes visceral antipathy towards police.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2012)

8115 said:


> Out of interest if I violently pushed someone over in the street and they had (say) a heart condition and died, what would the charge normally be? Would it be assult or would it be manslaughter?
> 
> Also does anyone know why there is a time limit on an assualt charge?
> 
> ...


 

They do - disgraced cops usually depart on Health grounds with a full pension to avoid any tricky questions - this needs to stop - they have to be treated as any normal employee - its utterly fuckin corrupt and rotten


----------



## Greebo (Jul 21, 2012)

ddraig said:


> ffs!
> 
> 5 folders! count em


So, not only has he more or less got away with it this time, he's got form.  WTF?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2012)

If Harwood loses his job with the Met, he can always take up a job in Bahrain like John Yates did.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> More importantly, I assume this individual is still employed by the Met? If so, why?
> 
> I am only thankful that the UK police forces do not carry guns.


One cannot help but wonder how many more people would be dead if all police were routinely armed.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> If Harwood loses his job with the Met, he can always take up a job in Bahrain like John Yates did.


My ex brother in law is in Bahrain. He was a Chief Inspector, retired on ill health which it was alleged would cause him to become seriously invalided within five years. There must be something in the air over there, he's made quite a startling recovery. Perhaps it was a miracle.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 21, 2012)

dessiato said:


> My ex brother in law is in Bahrain. He was a Chief Inspector, retired on ill health which it was alleged would cause him to become seriously invalided within five years. There must be something in the air over there, he's made quite a startling recovery. Perhaps it was a miracle.


The same type of miracle which cured Ernest Saunders of Alzheimer's, no doubt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> More importantly, I assume this individual is still employed by the Met? If so, why?
> 
> I am only thankful that the UK police forces do not carry guns.


 
I don't think he'd have been the type to shoot. He comes across as sadistically-aggressive, a bully. He likes to see the fear and pain he causes. He gets off on having power over people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> If Harwood loses his job with the Met, he can always take up a job in Bahrain like John Yates did.


 
Bahrain, one of the dependent territories, he's got lots of choice. You just know he isn't going to drop out of some sort of policing role, because he needs his jollies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

dessiato said:


> One cannot help but wonder how many more people would be dead if all police were routinely armed.


 
That would depend pretty much entirely on what sort of inquiry structure was in place to deal with firearms use incidents. If it was a rubber-stamp job, then I suspect we'd have a significant deathcount, many of whom would be shot in the back "while trying to escape".


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bahrain, one of the dependent territories, he's got lots of choice. You just know he isn't going to drop out of some sort of policing role, because he needs his jollies.


Yep, I'm sure the Falklands would love to have him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep, I'm sure the Falklands would love to have him.


 
And I'd love him to have the Falklands!


----------



## Quartz (Jul 21, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Yep, I'm sure the Falklands would love to have him.


 
ITYM South Georgia.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't think he'd have been the type to shoot. He comes across as sadistically-aggressive, a bully. He likes to see the fear and pain he causes. He gets off on having power over people.


The chosen tool of sadistic bullies in the US police seems to be the taser. I hope it never gets to the point where those are issued routinely here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The chosen tool of sadistic bullies in the US police seems to be the taser. I hope it never gets to the point where those are issued routinely here.


 
They're already on their way to being at least carried in all police vehicles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

Quartz said:


> ITYM South Georgia.


 
If he tried bullying the penguins he'd be well-fucked. They're vicious.


----------



## Corax (Jul 21, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> thats pretty shocking - I know this is obvious, but how the fuck is he still a copper ?


*Because* he's a copper.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 21, 2012)

If he had got off on some narrow technical ground of inability to prove causality of his actions, it would still have been depressing - but that he got off basically on the grounds that his actions constituted reasonable force - which seems to mean, any force necessary to achieve any objective he may have had, however non-critical - is breathtaking. We know that the police always get maximum wriggle-room, bit this is more like being cut free from charges that were about as bang-to-rights as they come.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 21, 2012)

"It's ok for a copper to use lethal force if he thinks you're being cheeky" or something ...


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 21, 2012)

slowjoe said:


> If he had got off on some narrow technical ground of inability to prove causality of his actions, it would still have been depressing - but that he got off basically on the grounds that his actions constituted reasonable force - which seems to mean, any force necessary to achieve any objective he may have had, however non-critical - is breathtaking.


We don't know why the jury acquitted him - it could have been that they didn't think the attack was an assault or because they didn't think the assault caused the death.


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

slowjoe said:
			
		

> If he had got off on some narrow technical ground of inability to prove causality of his actions, it would still have been depressing - but that he got off basically on the grounds that his actions constituted reasonable force - which seems to mean, any force necessary to achieve any objective he may have had, however non-critical - is breathtaking. We know that the police always get maximum wriggle-room, bit this is more like being cut free from charges that were about as bang-to-rights as they come.



We don't know whether he was acquitted because the jury believed that the force was reasonable, or because they couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the force caused Ian Tomlinson's death. I suppose that there's a third option: that they felt the force was unreasonable and that it caused the death, but, for whatever reason felt sympathy for him, so acquitted.


----------



## savoloysam (Jul 21, 2012)

Or the judge prepped them for a not guilty verdict.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 21, 2012)

Right, my misunderstanding then. Given that no police officer has been convicted of manslaughter while on duty since the mid-80s, perhaps in retrospect it was a bit of a tactical faux pas on the part of prosecution even to bother with that charge - if they could have got him for GBH, at least we wouldn't have to be calling him an innocent man.


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

slowjoe said:


> Right, my misunderstanding then. Given that no police officer has been convicted of manslaughter while on duty since the mid-80s, perhaps in retrospect it was a bit of a tactical faux pas on the part of prosecution even to bother with that charge - if they could have got him for GBH, at least we wouldn't have to be calling him an innocent man.


 
The prosecution would still need to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the push caused the injuries.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2012)

What injuries?


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What injuries?


 
The injuries upon which a charge of GBH would have to be based i.e. the serious ones e.g. internal bleeding, rather than bruising etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2012)

Athos said:


> The injuries upon which a charge of GBH would have to be based.


So bruising around the area that he was hit and so on - and that he was caught hitting on film. Sounds easy.


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So bruising around the area that he was hit and so on - and that he was caught hitting on film. Sounds easy.


 
Sorry, my edit crossed with your post.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 21, 2012)

Well, something lesser than TBH then - the point is that the CCTV evidence must have him fairly inescapably on something.


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

slowjoe said:


> Well, something lesser than TBH then - the point is that the CCTV evidence must have him fairly inescapably on something.


 
Not sure how satisfied people would have been with, say, a common assault charge, though. I guess its a balance between choosing a charge that has a seriousness commensurate with the actions and consequences, and a lesser charge which might have more chance of a conviction.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2012)

By the time they decided to press charges it was too late for an assault charge.  There's a time limit, or something, on bringing assault.  I don't *think* I've dreamed this bit.


----------



## Athos (Jul 21, 2012)

8115 said:


> By the time they decided to press charges it was too late for an assault charge. There's a time limit, or something, on bringing assault. I don't *think* I've dreamed this bit.


 
Yes.  Six months for common assault.  The file was submitted to the CPS by the IPCC in August, though; that's about four months after the incident.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2012)

Athos said:


> Yes. Six months for common assault. The file was submitted to the CPS by the IPCC in August, though; that's about four months after the incident.


 
Maybe the wheels turn slowly at the CPS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> "It's ok for a copper to use lethal force if he thinks you're being cheeky" or something ...


 
That's the last time I look at a copper's pint, then!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

savoloysam said:


> Or the judge prepped them for a not guilty verdict.


 
Not very reliable, though, given the propensity for juries to reach verdicts that the legal profession deem "perverse".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2012)

8115 said:


> Maybe the wheels turn slowly at the CPS.


 
Only when the CPS want them to.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 21, 2012)

slowjoe said:


> Right, my misunderstanding then. Given that no police officer has been convicted of manslaughter while on duty since the mid-80s, perhaps in retrospect it was a bit of a tactical faux pas on the part of prosecution even to bother with that charge - if they could have got him for GBH, at least we wouldn't have to be calling him an innocent man.


 
I don't think GBH would have been possible.  If his injuries and death were caused by Harwood then it would be murder or manslaughter and if they weren't it could only be assault.  And as the CPS seem to let the clock run down on assault it was either manslaughter or nothing.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 21, 2012)

Surely the doubt is, he was quite unwell (paper said in and out of hospital for alcohol related problems, can't remember what).  Hence the doubt about the appropriate charge?  Because, you or I would maybe have walked away from that with a massive bruise and been a bit sore for a while, someone who is (as Tomlinson was, I think) in poor physical shape in fact died.  I think it's quite a legally and probably medically complex issue and that may be one of the reasons why Harwood got a not guilty.  If he'd beaten a fully healthy person harder and they died I suspect he'd have found it more difficult to get off.  It's quite hard to kill someone.

Is it ok to discuss this btw?  If there will be a civil case?


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2012)

are you being serious?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2012)

So basically you are saying "I didn't pay attention to any of the actual evidence at either the inquest or the trial, but here's my ill-informed opinion anyway"?


----------



## shaman75 (Jul 21, 2012)

Bit late with the pics, but went to the protest.  Was quite small and good natured.  I guess the late notice didn't help.









more pics: http://entoptika.co.uk/protests-over-ian-tomlinson-killing-verdict/


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 22, 2012)

PC Simon Harwood’s house falls down after he uses ‘reasonable force’ to open front door

*PC Simon Harwood, who was found not guilty of causing the death of Ian Tomlinson despite video evidence showing him doing it, has narrowly avoided serious injury after using what he decribed as ‘reasonable force’ to open his front door.*
PC Harwood described how his front door had obstructed him in the course of getting into his house by failing to comply with his request for entry.
“The door was deliberately getting in my way,” he said.
“I asked it to open, but depite repeated warnings it continued to ignore my requests.”
“It was at this point that I took reasonable steps to gain access to my property by commandeering a double decker bus and forcing the door open at high speed.”



Pc Harwood denied that his actions were excessive by insisting that the door had been causing problems earlier in the day.
“I was cleaning up my kitchen after I smashed up the sink following an incident involving a stubborn lid on a jar of marmalade.” he explained.
“There was a disturbance coming from the hallway that sounded like a knocking coming from the door.”
“The wife had forgotten her key, so I had to throw the television set through the living room window to let her in.”
After he was found not guilty of manslaughter, PC Harwood, 45, was also involved in an altercation with a bottle of champagne.
“The cork refused to come out,” he said
“So I burned down an off license.”


http://newsthump.com/2012/07/19/pc-...-he-uses-reasonable-force-to-open-front-door/


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> ITYM South Georgia.


He'd have only 12 scientists, elephant seals and reindeer to bully. Poor lamb.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 22, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> He'd have only 12 scientists, elephant seals and reindeer to bully. Poor lamb.


 
Reindeer? ITYM penguins.

Anyway, I'd like to see anyone try to bully a bull elephant seal.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Reindeer? ITYM penguins.
> 
> Anyway, I'd like to see anyone try to bully a bull elephant seal.


No, reindeer were introduced to South Georgia by Norwegian whalers as a source of meat. Unfortunately, they're about to be culled because of 'overgrazing'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer_in_South_Georgia

Here's a vid


----------



## Quartz (Jul 22, 2012)

Good heavens! They really don't look very healthy, do they?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 22, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Good heavens! They really don't look very healthy, do they?


 
They're being moved to the Falklands. 
There's some great footage of elephant seals too.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 22, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> So basically you are saying "I didn't pay attention to any of the actual evidence at either the inquest or the trial, but here's my ill-informed opinion anyway"?


 
Well, sorry I only read the papers and watch the news, and don't have access to the presumably completely unbiased media which you do.

I think it is a messy case, and no matter how much you want to fit the facts to your view of the world, how you'd like things to be, personally I'm a bit more interested in the the truth.

Blaming one person, although it may satisfy your desire for vengance, and I'm not saying Harwood was blameless, far from it, but wanting a scalp is convenient for the police to, given the way that they prepared for and acted in the run up to the G20 protests, talking about being "up for it" and all that. The whole, one bad egg thing is fine but I think it's along way from the truth. It was an accident* waiting to happen, in my view.

I'm just not clear about what the correct charge would have been in the circumstance, legally not morally.

*not an accident.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> Well, sorry I only read the papers and watch the news, and don't have access to the presumably completely unbiased media which you do.
> 
> I think it is a messy case, and no matter how much you want to fit the facts to your view of the world, how you'd like things to be, personally I'm a bit more interested in the the truth.
> 
> ...


 Do you think those who wanted Harwood to be convicted are going with some kind of 'one bad apple line'?


----------



## Corax (Jul 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> Surely the doubt is, he was quite unwell (paper said in and out of hospital for alcohol related problems, can't remember what). Hence the doubt about the appropriate charge? Because, you or I would maybe have walked away from that with a massive bruise and been a bit sore for a while, someone who is (as Tomlinson was, I think) in poor physical shape in fact died. I think it's quite a legally and probably medically complex issue and that may be one of the reasons why Harwood got a not guilty. If he'd beaten a fully healthy person harder and they died I suspect he'd have found it more difficult to get off. It's quite hard to kill someone.
> 
> Is it ok to discuss this btw? If there will be a civil case?


Google "thin skull rule"

Applies to tort - I don't know how it fits with criminal law, but someone on here might.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> It's quite hard to kill someone.


have you ever tried?


----------



## 8115 (Jul 22, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Do you think those who wanted Harwood to be convicted are going with some kind of 'one bad apple line'?


 
No not necessarily, but I think it might help the police avoid looking any further.



Corax said:


> Google "thin skull rule"
> 
> Applies to tort - I don't know how it fits with criminal law, but someone on here might.


 
Thanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 22, 2012)

When I was temping at the probation service, there was a case I saw where a street drinker had pushed another drinker off a wall, who hit his head on the pavement and died. He was convicted for murder. He didn't even remember doing it. I am however fairly sure he wasn't a copper.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> When I was temping at the probation service, there was a case I saw where a street drinker had pushed another drinker off a wall, who hit his head on the pavement and died. He was convicted for murder. He didn't even remember doing it. I am however fairly sure he wasn't a copper.


that was the problem, you see. if he'd been a copper he'd have been well away.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> Well, sorry I only read the papers and watch the news, and don't have access to the presumably completely unbiased media which you do.


 
Clearly you didn't read very hard.

The medical evidence was not as you described it, and it went into the possibilities in great depth. The medical evidence at the inquest was widely reported.

All the evidence from the inquest is easily accessible.

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/tomlinson/


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2012)

8115 said:


> No not necessarily, but I think it might help the police avoid looking any further.
> 
> .


 Doesn't it follow that the police would be in more trouble if one of their number was found guilty of manslaughter whilst on duty, policing a demo?  Wouldn't that throw the spotlight onto the instructions given by politicians about the day, the actions of his managers and his team?  That will come into view if the family succeed in a case for damages, but with much less impact.  Committing manslaughter by acting as instructed would provide the brightest spotlight on police actions since Scarman.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 22, 2012)

Um.  Maybe.  I don't know.

It's actually all a bit terrifying.  I read some of the inquest notes.  I was surprised by how different a picture I got from that than even from reading the reports in the Times and the Guardian generally.  Talk about disinformation.


----------



## Corax (Aug 11, 2012)

Just been having a look at the Police Oracle thread on this. Amongst the expected party line, I was surprised to find these posts:



> I'm in the minority here but I think the sooner we are rid of him the better. I do agree that the right verdict was reached re the criminal charges. However his action on that date and on previous occasions leave a lot to be desired. I have seen his like before, he is the cop im sure we all know is never going to see out his full 30. We just pray that when they go they they don't take a good cop with him. I'm actually quite surprised at the support being given to him on here





> Have to agree with you.





> The problem with some police officers is that they take loyalty to other colleagues to the enth degree. There have been many cases in the past where officers fail to report colleagues who are bullies, or just plain 'bent', because they are worried about being called 'snouts', or being vilified by other officers. Rumour has it that some of the officers who were with Harwood during the incident did not give evidence on his behalf, why was that, because they thought what he had done was wrong, or didn't see it, which is strange, because the five standing a few feet away were all looking in his direction, why did none of them feel threatened. 14 years ago we had an officer come on RPU who had a reputation for thumping people, he did it one day and the officer working with him, reported the fact to his Inspector, he was gone within three weeks. Half the group patted the reporting officer on the back and said, ''Well done'', the other half sent him to coventry, and rifled his locker, damaged his kit, and basically called him a 'turncoat', and made his life hell for almost a year. He is still in the job and is a Chief Inspector, and a good man. He was recently posted back to RPU, working with some of those who made his life 'hell'. Funny how many of those suddenly asked to be transferred off RPU. I don't happen to have any sympathy for Harwood, you can read between the lines and work out what type of man he is, not the type we need in the job, IMHO.


 
More amusingly, there's a poster named 'oldcopper' with the same avatar as Pickman's Model. Who is that btw?

ETA: PM's old avatar. Just seen it's changed since the one I remembered.  Black and white photo of a beardy fella.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2012)

Freddy Patel found 'unfit to practice' on Guardian breaking news ticker feed? Now there is a surprise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19334292#TWEET201763http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19334292#TWEET201763



> The pathologist who conducted the first post-mortem tests on Ian Tomlinson is not fit to practise, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service says.
> Dr Freddy Patel had found the newspaper seller, who was pushed to the ground by Pc Simon Harwood at G20 protests in 2009, died of coronary artery disease.
> The tribunal said this was wrong. It will now decide what sanctions to take.
> Meanwhile, Pc Harwood, who was cleared of manslaughter, now faces disciplinary proceedings on 17 September.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 21, 2012)

> The pathologist who conducted the first post-mortem tests on Ian Tomlinson is not fit to practise, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service says.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19334292
and the form in b&w


> Last year, Dr Patel - who is currently suspended - was given a four-month ban for dishonesty and omitting key findings after examining the body of a murder victim who he said had died from natural causes.
> He has also served a three-month suspension for failings in other cases and is no longer on the official register of approved forensic pathologists.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 21, 2012)

"Meanwhile, Scotland Yard has said that Pc Harwood's gross misconduct hearing will take place in front of a panel of three people including a senior officer and a lay person.
It is expected to last up to four weeks.
It comes after the Independent Police Complaints Commission ordered that Pc Harwood should face the internal hearing in public."
Where would this hearing be held? How does one access it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Where would this hearing be held? How does one access it?


 
The answer appears to be "it depends":



> *Misconduct Hearings in Public*
> 
> 2.180 Where a misconduct hearing (not misconduct meetings) arises from a case where the IPCC have conducted an independent investigation (in accordance with paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act) and the IPCC considers that because of its gravity or other exceptional circumstances it would be in the public interest to do so, the IPCC may, having consulted with the appropriate authority, the police officer concerned, the complainant and any witnesses, direct that the whole or part of the misconduct hearing will be held in public.
> 
> 2.181 The IPCC have published criteria for deciding when such cases will be held in public and a copy of this is available from the IPCC or the IPCC website at www.ipcc.gov.uk.


 
From p48, 'Home Office Guidance: Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance And Attendance Management Procedures' (PDF)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 21, 2012)

TopCat said:


> "
> Where would this hearing be held? How does one access it?


 
...And looking at the IPCC website, it seems that Commissioner Deborah Glass determined last month that the Harwood hearing should be carried out in public (though no details on the when/where etc in that document).

PDF: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/documents/inv_rep_commissioner_decision_on_public_hearing.pdf


----------



## JHE (Aug 21, 2012)

Harwood will be kicked out.  He's too much of an embarrassment to the Met.

If he had any sense, he'd resign.  Come to think of it, isn't that the trick he pulled before?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 21, 2012)

JHE said:


> Harwood will be kicked out. He's too much of an embarrassment to the Met.
> 
> If he had any sense, he'd resign. Come to think of it, isn't that the trick he pulled before?


 
Yes but it's unlikely to work again now his name is all over the papers. I'm sure G4S will give him a job, as head of corporate accountability or something...


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2012)

JHE said:


> Harwood will be kicked out.  He's too much of an embarrassment to the Met.
> 
> If he had any sense, he'd resign.  Come to think of it, isn't that the trick he pulled before?



Yes. He'll sneak back in an admin role, and fast foot it back to crowd control within 3 years tops, I reckon.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 21, 2012)

TopCat said:


> "Meanwhile, Scotland Yard has said that Pc Harwood's gross misconduct hearing will take place in front of a panel of three people including a senior officer and a lay person.
> It is expected to last up to four weeks.
> It comes after the Independent Police Complaints Commission ordered that Pc Harwood should face the internal hearing in public."
> Where would this hearing be held? How does one access it?


 
Four weeks? Is that really necessary? I think his disciplinary hearing should go like this:

-Did you hit that bloke?
-Yes
-Did you have any legitimate reason for hitting him?
-No
-Right, you're fired. Off you fuck then.

Simple really. Then again perhaps it would take that mouth breather Harwood a few days to get his head round such complicated questions.


----------



## cesare (Aug 21, 2012)

What's a mouth breather?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 21, 2012)

cesare said:


> What's a mouth breather?


 
Broadly speaking, a stupid person.


----------



## Firky (Aug 21, 2012)

I hope he does get back in the force, I hope he gets recognised in his uniform and gets the shit kicked out of him.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 21, 2012)

You are all too trusting of the system. No way will Harwood be dismissed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2012)

TopCat said:


> You are all too trusting of the system. No way will Harwood will be be dismissed.


 
This is my fear too. I am wondering though whether now that his 'record' is known that this will be less likely to happen?


----------



## JHE (Aug 21, 2012)

TopCat said:


> You are all too trusting of the system. No way will Harwood will be be dismissed.


 
One function of the disciplinary procedure is to protect the police and that's (at least one reason) _why_ Harwood will be kicked out. The disciplinary procedure has no way of portraying Harwood as anything better than a callous thug, so it will protect the Met by insisting that Harwood's behaviour is at odds with the Met's standards. He has to go, so that the others can look better.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 21, 2012)

He will be exonerated. They are utterly shameless. The only sop to a liberal society will be that Harwood "will receive words of advice".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 22, 2012)

> *Ian Tomlinson pathologist Freddy Patel guilty of misconduct and dishonesty*
> 
> GMC panel rules Dr Patel's 'closed mindset' in sticking to original postmortem findings brought profession into disrepute


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/freddy-patel-guilty-misconduct-tomlinson


----------



## cesare (Aug 22, 2012)

Dire


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 22, 2012)

Doctor Freddy Patel, waving his career goodbye, yesterday:







Seriously baby, I can get you any cause of death you want.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2012)

firky said:


> I hope he does get back in the force, I hope he gets recognised in his uniform and gets the shit kicked out of him.


how many pints does hope buy these days?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2012)

I wish Detective Boy was still here so I could get my gloat on. He made out that Freddy 'fuckup' Patel was known to be incompetent but not a go to guy for the verdict wanted by the Met. And called me a cunt. Obviously.


I believe the second inquiry concluded that there was nothing to see here because the pathologists disagreed, both the second one and the one from the family. Whole thing stank rotten from day one. And now we've got an unlawful killing but nobody who did it as harwood is off the hook. Good job we livein a free society, not like china where they can murder people and get away with it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2012)

Patel's been struck off.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19355106



> In total, 68 failings were identified by the service in Dr Patel's work on the case of Mr Tomlinson.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 23, 2012)

Great news.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Great news.


 
Bit fucking late, though. It's not like this cunt didn't have form a decade or more ago. You've got to wonder how many of his previous cases favoured the OB and, that being the case, how much time and money is going to have to be spent double-checking to make sure that people didn't falsely get turned over based on the crooked cunt's findings.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bit fucking late, though. It's not like this cunt didn't have form a decade or more ago. You've got to wonder how many of his previous cases favoured the OB and, that being the case, how much time and money is going to have to be spent double-checking to make sure that people didn't falsely get turned over based on the crooked cunt's findings.


 
I expect it's going to be a nice round figure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2012)

Quartz said:


> I expect it's going to be a nice round figure.


 
Not small and round, either.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2012)

Guardian banner saying Harwood accepts a charge of gross misconduct.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Guardian banner saying Harwood accepts a charge of gross misconduct.



He accepts that his actions amount to gross misconduct,according to other news agencies. He doesn't admit that it contributed to his death.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> He accepts that his actions amount to gross misconduct,according to other news agencies. He doesn't admit that it contributed to his death.


Whilst at the same time questioning the basis on which he is even before the board - suggesting there is malevolent intent in any discussion of causation (i.e to provoke a re-trial). Astonishing.


----------



## malatesta32 (Sep 17, 2012)

gobsmacked. he killed tomlinson.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Whilst at the same time questioning the basis on which he is even before the board - suggesting there is malevolent intent in any discussion of causation (i.e to provoke a re-trial). Astonishing.



I haven't seen that part, but it wouldn't surprise me. Accepting that it amounts to gross misconduct for the purposes of a disciplinary, whilst maintaining that he used reasonable force for the purposes of the criminal court. A lower standard of proof required for this hearing, but even so I wonder what the rationale is going to be. I.e. at what point did "reasonable force" tip over into gross misconduct.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Thing is, now he's admitted it it's all down to the panel to come up with all that stuff - good sense from the scummers side i feel.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Devil in the detail innit. Accepting that your actions amount to [the charge of] gross misconduct is not admitting that they were. Wriggle room.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

And the actual gross misconduct charge appears to be bringing the Met into disrepute (for which there are a wide range of sanctions) not conduct resulting in the death of a bystander. 

Can feel the red mist rising again, going to get a cup of tea.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

According to the Beeb's article, Harwood accepts that his behaviour amounts to gross misconduct and that it brought discredit to the Met, but he denies that his behaviour contributed to the death of Ian Tomlinson. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627 ) That distinction at least makes sense and, if it cannot be shown that his behaviour caused Tomlinson's death, he is not guilty of manslaughter.

However, if it is true that at his trial he claimed to have used only reasonable force, I think he has shifted his position.  I don't see how a policeman's use of reasonable force could count as gross misconduct.

So... he's a slimey creature as well as a thug.  The Met will have to throw him out, but apart from that, he'll get away with it, I reckon.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Even if he's sacked his pension is safe.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Even if he's sacked his pension is safe.


 I was just about to suggest that - and when the details emerge of his final 'settlement', it will be the final kick in the teeth for the family.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't know very much about police pensions (apart from them usually getting them, come what may) but I notice that there is provision for forfeiting pension for actions " liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service" : 
http://www.dppf.org/pdf/regulations/Pensions_Handbook_2006.pdf (K5 page 97)

I might have misread that though, and in any event, I doubt they'd invoke it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

wondering how this might affect a civil case brought by the family?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Looking like Harewood's team have played a blinder - over today/tmw rather than a four week investigation. Made them expect something else -  a battle - then withdrew.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> And the actual gross misconduct charge appears to be bringing the Met into disrepute (for which there are a wide range of sanctions) not conduct resulting in the death of a bystander.


 
This is getting increasingly bizarre. First we learned that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed but the man who killed him didn't break the law, now we learn that Harwood didn't kill Tomlinson at all and yet he brought the met into disrepute by doing so.

Bringing the met into disrepute also suggests that the met were at some point out of disrepute, which is another logical leap too far for me.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

The Independent has the best write-up so far (much better than the BBC): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rwood-guilty-of-gross-misconduct-8144324.html


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is getting increasingly bizarre. First we learned that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed but the man who killed him didn't break the law, now we learn that Harwood didn't kill Tomlinson at all and yet he brought the met into disrepute by doing so.
> 
> Bringing the met into disrepute also suggests that the met were at some point out of disrepute, which is another logical leap too far for me.


They didn't consider the allegation that Harwood's actions contributed to Ian Tomlinson's death. He admitted to 3 of the 4 charges, basically. Tis covered in that Indie link.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

> Harwood has a controversial police disciplinary record, but this was not considered as part of the hearing because the accusations are more than two years old.
> 
> A number of allegations were made against Harwood over a 12-year period and he was allowed to retire from the Met on medical grounds in 2001 despite unresolved disciplinary proceedings.


 
Met wanted a long case so it could point its finger at him to say that _they_ find this and that unacceptable - he pulled the rug from under  them. Note the way that these played out by forcing the met and the family onto the same seeming side. Rats everywhere.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> They didn't consider the allegation that Harwood's actions contributed to Ian Tomlinson's death. He admitted to 3 of the 4 charges, basically. Tis covered in that Indie link.


Bloody hell, I knew that he'd had disciplinary stuff, but had no idea he'd already left the force and then re-employed....




			
				Independent said:
			
		

> A number of allegations were made against Harwood over a 12-year period and he was allowed to retire from the Met on medical grounds in 2001 despite unresolved disciplinary proceedings.
> He was accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct over an incident when he allegedly shouted at another driver and knocked him over his car door, before announcing that he was a police officer and arresting the motorist on a common assault charge.
> But the proceedings were discontinued when he retired.
> Later, Harwood rejoined the force as a civilian worker before becoming a police officer for Surrey.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Bloody hell, I knew that he'd had disciplinary stuff, but had no idea he'd already left the force and then re-employed....


They missed out improper access and use of the police database.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

This way, Harwood gets off with just being sacked. The Met don't consider the main charge and it gets done and dusted quickly & leaving Harwood with little chance of a sufficient case for an ET where it would all be gone over again in the public gallery. Edit: a public gallery where the Met couldn't control the evidence and who heard it.

Sounds like a plea bargain lol


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2012)

Retired on medical grounds. Funny how often coppers develop medical complaints concurrently with their conduct and their ability to do their job being called into question.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Bloody hell, I knew that he'd had disciplinary stuff, but had no idea he'd already left the force and then re-employed....


Yep, that disciplinary record and rejoining came out in the few days following Ian Tomlinson's death.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

_ Ian Tomlinson's son Paul King has accused Met Police of a "cover up" & "whitewash" over #Harwood disciplinary hearing_

Maybe he could do with hooking up with one of the Hillsborough campaigns.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

I wouldn't mind betting that Harwood agreed to admit the 3 charges in return for the 4th one being dropped plus the Met not invoking K5 pension forfeit.

The Met looks as though it's delivered swift "justice" by sacking him, together with lots of "unacceptable" "one officer's actions" etc etc etc.

Meanwhile there's a compromise agreement setting out that he won't make a claim in the ET in return for dropping charge 4 and K5.

Ian Tomlinson's family very unhappy


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ian Tomlinson's family very unhappy


I'm not in the least surprised


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm not in the least surprised


Exactly


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wouldn't mind betting that Harwood agreed to admit the 3 charges in return for the 4th one being dropped plus the Met not invoking K5 pension forfeit.
> 
> The Met looks as though it's delivered swift "justice" by sacking him, together with lots of "unacceptable" "one officer's actions" etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


 
Even if he had been found guilty on all four counts he would have kept what part of the pension he has managed to accumulate up to this point, they could only seize it if he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence.


----------



## xes (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> they could only seize it if he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence.


shame that'll never happen then.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Don't buy into the narrative here of vengeance against Harewood - the met wants that. They were the ones who let him leave come back and do all this shit - the pension stuff is a side issue, as is another trial - not going to happen. The Met is what should be under the light that this offers for now.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

agricola said:


> Even if he had been found guilty on all four counts he would have kept what part of the pension he has managed to accumulate up to this point, they could only seize it if he had been convicted of a serious criminal offence.


You know better than me, of course. K5 (4) says "OR to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service" (my emphasis). But it's in the context of imprisonment and certification by the Secretary of State, so yeah.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Don't buy into the narrative here of vengeance against Harewood - the met wants that. They were the ones who let him leave come back and do all this shit - the pension stuff is a side issue, as is another trial - not going to happen. The Met is what should be under the light that this offers for now.


The whole point of (what looks like) this plea bargain is for the Met to avoid further criticism.


----------



## paolo (Sep 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Bloody hell, I knew that he'd had disciplinary stuff, but had no idea he'd already left the force and then re-employed....


 
It did come out here quite some time ago, but wasn't repeated (by luck or judgement, re: sub-judice) once the legal process started.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

He's now dismissed and family say will go for civil trial.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's now dismissed and family say will go for civil trial.


At least with a civil trial they can try and get disclosure of any deal that the Met have done with Harwood re employment. Properly pisses me off that they have to privately sue him (and hopefully the Met) in order to do it. Maybe Mansfield will take it on pro bono. edited for stupidity because he's a defence lawyer.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm guessing he's had some level of police protection or a relocation since his name came out, or at least since the trial verdict.  Wonder if this will continue and who will pay for it now he's been sacked?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> At least with a civil trial they can try and get disclosure of any deal that the Met have done with Harwood re employment. Properly pisses me off that they have to privately sue him (and hopefully the Met) in order to do it. Maybe Mansfield will take it on pro bono. edited for stupidity because he's a defence lawyer.


He's done advice stuff for one of the Hillsborough groups.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He's done advice stuff for one of the Hillsborough groups.


Hopefully he'll assist here too.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

So what do we reckon Harewood has picked up from the tax-payer in total since killing Tomlinson - about 200 grand? How about with legal fees? Closer to a million?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So what do we reckon Harewood has picked up from the tax-payer in total since killing Tomlinson - about 200 grand? How about with legal fees? Closer to a million?


 
If the alternative is paying his wages as a copper for another ten years then it's cheap at twice the price.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> If the alternative is paying his wages as a copper for another ten years then it's cheap at twice the price.


It's not though, is it? And way to miss the wider point.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

with any luck a civil case will rinse him to bankruptcy. And then in 23 years time the org as a whole might get held to account for allowing the conditions for this cunt to act in.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> At least with a civil trial they can try and get disclosure of any deal that the Met have done with Harwood re employment. Properly pisses me off that they have to privately sue him (and hopefully the Met) in order to do it. Maybe Mansfield will take it on pro bono. edited for stupidity because he's a defence lawyer.


Simon Walsh? He'd love to hang out the Met to dry and he's done it before.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 17, 2012)

Harwood's barrister defended me once. He's good. Very, very good.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Harwood's barrister defended me once. He's good. Very, very good.


Who is he? On what?


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 17, 2012)

A civil case will cost a pretty penny will they able to raise the money


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> A civil case will cost a pretty penny will they able to raise the money


 

well upthread there is suggestion that a very competent barrister might fancy pro bono on this one


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Harwood had a silk for the disciplinary hearing though. Probably needs more than a competent barrister.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who is he? On what?


Patrick Gibbs QC.

On what? You mean what was the case in which he defended me?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Patrick Gibbs QC.
> 
> On what? You mean what was the case in which he defended me?


Yes.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 17, 2012)

HMRC


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

that's not a case.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

drug importation or little bit weeee on the invoicing front?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

Wouldn't be HMRC on the first.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Customs?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

I'd have thought that importation of drugs does fall under revenue and customs purview but I am no expert. Our man has said he's done the India trail before...its so cheap there and so expensive here for insanely satisfying hash!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

On 2nd thoughts Let's not.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm sure his deal with the met includes some suitable employment at a later date with someone, someplace and will probably take into account any possible civil action awards against him (although representation costs are probably covered by his prev police contract as it happened while on duty).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd have thought that importation of drugs does fall under revenue and customs purview but I am no expert. Our man has said he's done the India trail before...its so cheap there and so expensive here for insanely satisfying hash!


 
K is what you bring back from India, in your hand luggage is easiest, just remember not to get dehydrated on the flight and take a healthy slug of 'Evian'.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm sure his deal with the met includes some suitable employment at a later date with someone, someplace and will probably take into account any possible civil action awards against him (although representation costs are probably covered by his prev police contract as it happened while on duty).


 
I don't really understand what you are suggesting the Met has offered him.  They - I mean the people who run the Met - want him out. They can't, and have no reason to want to, offer him a job.  The interest the Met has in this is to present themselves as a decent organisation and the thug as an aberration that will not be tolerated.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> I don't really understand what you are suggesting the Met has offered him. They - I mean the people who run the Met - want him out. They can't, and have no reason to want to, offer him a job. The interest the Met has in this is to present themselves as a decent organisation and the thug as an aberration that will not be tolerated.


I didn't say he'd get a job with them, only that his future employment would be secured/


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 17, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> K is what you bring back from India, in your hand luggage is easiest, just remember not to get dehydrated on the flight and take a healthy slug of 'Evian'.


 

dude you aren't allowed to take liquids on hand luggage these days. They don't just frown on it,they refuse you travel


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I didn't say he'd get a job with them, only that his future employment would be secured/


 
Not secured by the Met.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> dude you aren't allowed to take liquids on hand luggage these days. They don't just frown on it,they refuse you travel


 


With my fucking job too





Mate of mine, Deidre who used to work for the Big Issue, she'd go twice a year and come back with 10 litres of 'rose water'. Made a fucking fortune she did.

Fell down the stairs on K at a squat party and died


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Not secured by the Met.


I'm saying...the'll fix it so he has a decent job someplace.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm saying...the'll fix it so he has a decent job someplace.


 
Why would they?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Why would they?


 
When G4S will already have been on the blower?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Why would they?


They? The firm? They won't. The extended series of supporters will. Until he fucks that up and puts some uninsured nightclub out of business.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> When G4S will already have been on the blower?


 
Why on earth would G4S have any interest in recruiting this currently infamous thug? If they want ex-plod they can employ much more sensible, senior and unknown ex-plod. The Met doesn't want Harwood and until and unless everyone forgets his name, no security firm bollocks will either. I don't know what he'll do. Take up mini-cabbing perhaps or emigrate?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

> no security firm bollocks will either


Lol is it that they say? lol?


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Why would they?


It's only what I think they think and I'm not them.

I think they look after each other.  If someone has to resign/be sacked for 'doing their duty' I'm sure they'll get a job with someone who has a Met contract or something like that.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

Prisoner transportation with G4S, I reckon. But won't need the Met's help to get it.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> It's only what I think they think and I'm not them.
> 
> I think they look after each other. If someone has to resign/be sacked for 'doing their duty' I'm sure they'll get a job with someone who has a Met contract or something like that.


 
You think that they _really_ think he was 'doing his duty'.  I don't.  I think they have no respect for him, regret ever having employed him and want the sacking to tell people the Met doesn't behave like that.  That is not necessarily because they are genuinely indignant about such nasty unprovoked thuggery, though some may be.  It is because (especially now in the age of camera phones etc) he is plainly a bloody liability who has done a great deal of harm to their image.  I don't think they'll look after him at all.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> You think that they _really_ think he was 'doing his duty'. I don't. I think they have no respect for him, regret ever having employed him and want the sacking to tell people the Met doesn't behave like that. That is not necessarily because they are genuinely indignant about such nasty unprovoked thuggery, though some may be. It is because (especially now in the age of camera phones etc) he is plainly a bloody liability who has done a great deal of harm to their image. I don't think they'll look after him at all.


Aren't you forgetting the lengths they went to to cover it up?   I'm sure 'they' got a 100% accurate picture of exactly what happened from plods on the ground and they put in place the normal routine, false press release about people throwing bottles, friendly autopsy and an ipcc clean sheet iirc.


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Prisoner transportation with G4S, I reckon. But won't need the Met's help to get it.


 
It's a slow news day. The editor has half a page to fill. Ah ha... You remember that shitty security firm, run by greedy disingenuous halfwits, that almost fucked up the Olympics. Apparently, the silly fuckers have employed that ugly thug who battered Ian Tomlinson and then managed to get acquitted of manslaughter. They're not very good at PR, are they?

G4S may be run by idiots, but they have no reason to want Harwood.


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> It's a slow news day.  The editor has half a page to fill.  Ah ha... You remember that shitty security firm, run by greedy disingenuous halfwits that almost fucked up the Olympics. Apparently, the silly fuckers have employed that ugly thug who battered Ian Tomlinson and then managed to get acquitted of manslaughter.  They're not very good at PR, are they?
> 
> G4S may be run by idiots, but they have no reason to want Harwood.



You might be right, but it doesn't really matter either way. I don't think the Met as an org will help him in any event. His ex-colleagues might do though.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> It's a slow news day. The editor has half a page to fill. Ah ha... You remember that shitty security firm, run by greedy disingenuous halfwits, that almost fucked up the Olympics. Apparently, the silly fuckers have employed that ugly thug who battered Ian Tomlinson and then managed to get acquitted of manslaughter. They're not very good at PR, are they?
> 
> G4S may be run by idiots, but they have no reason to want Harwood.


You have no idea how many people they employ and what they do.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2012)

A shitload of shit all over the planet


----------



## cesare (Sep 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You have no idea how many people they employ and what they do.




They're everywhere, aren't they? I had no idea until relatively recently. A bit like ATOS or Capita in that respect.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 17, 2012)

@ba importation yes. No further comment unless by PM!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 21, 2012)

Woman who identifies herself as (ex) PC Simon Harwood's mother-in-law blames Ian Tomlinson for Ian Tomlinson getting killed by (ex) PC Simon Harwood:




> My son in law lost his job on Monday because a drunk would not walk away and kept insisting on going through the lines, the police lines...
> 
> My son in law pushed him, he was so drunk and so ill that unfortunately he died.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-law-blames-drunk-vendor-over-G20-death.html#


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 21, 2012)

There's nothing like speaking ill of the dead to get you in the nation's good books eh?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

> *Ian Tomlinson's family win apology from Met police over death in 2009*
> 
> Four-year battle by newspaper seller's family ends with financial settlement and admission that officer used 'excessive force


 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/05/ian-tomlinson-apology-met-police


----------



## ddraig (Aug 5, 2013)

so now simon should get done for it
(yes i know it's not going to happen)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/05/ian-tomlinson-apology-met-police





> The Metropolitan police have issued an apology to the family of Ian Tomlinson and admitted for the first time that he was unlawfully killed by one of their officers who used "excessive force" during the G20 protests in London in 2009.
> 
> ...an embarrassing climbdown by the Met...
> 
> ...


 
TOTAL BACKTRACKING


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

Proper shit.

Watching that video made me feel sick. Harwood's crusade that day was truly fucking shocking. The murdering bastard.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

ddraig said:


> so now simon should get done for it
> (yes i know it's not going to happen)


 
What Simon Harwood did was disgusting and wrong and brutal and contemptuous and cowardly, but he did what he was (i) trained to do, (ii) ordered to do and (iii) expected to do.

Simon Harwood was 'unlucky' in that his actions killed Ian Tomlinson, whereas the similarly disgusting, wrong, brutal, contemptuous and cowardly actions of other officers - that day, before that day and after that day - 'luckily' have not resulted in deaths of people who have come into contact with the police in similar circumstances.

Blaming a single idiot thug-cop - long since cut loose - lets off the hook the many others involved.

Commander Bob Broadhurst. Chief Superintendent Mick Johnson. Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson. Detective Superintendent Anthony Crampton. Detective Inspector Eddie Hall. Inspector Tim Williams. Sergeant Emma Shaw. Sergeant Tim Slade. Sergeant Neal Kemp. PC Alan Palfrey. PC Steve Discombe. PC Jon Bish. PC Nick Jackson.  PC Alex Jackaman. PC Andrew Hayes. PC Kerry Smith. PC Clive Wilkinson. PC Trevor Stevens. PC Andrew Moore.

And any, many more.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

That dirty cop statement in full:



> *The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis wishes to announce that all the litigation between him and the members of the Tomlinson family arising out of the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson has been resolved. An out of court settlement has been agreed that acknowledges the suffering Julia Tomlinson and the family have endured with dignity over the last four years.*
> 
> *In view of the physical and mental distress caused to the members of the family by these events and the understandable publicity and press interest, it has been agreed that it is in the best interests of the family that no further statement will be made, either by them or the Commissioner, regarding the terms of the settlement.*
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

> The Commissioner also apologies to the family for ill-considered comments made in the media in the immediate aftermath of Mr Tomlinson’s death which served to distract attention away from the investigation into the death.


 
Bullshit. They were _well-considered words_, which "served to distract attention away from the investigation" into the killing of Ian Tomlinson.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2013)

> we have taken steps to put in place new procedures that will improve public confidence.


 
I take these are not going to be outlined to the  public




> Sergeant Emma Shaw.


 
DaveCinzano - is Sgnt. Shaw the officer who delivered the briefing in the van that harwood was not present for?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

> ...we are satisfied that the officer’s actions were inadvertent, and not designed to mislead the pathologists...


Bullshit. Senior detectives like DI Eddie Hall don't _accidentally_ give pathologists in contentious police contact death cases wholly inaccurate narratives unsupported - then or subsequently - by evidence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> DaveCinzano - is Sgnt. Shaw the officer who delivered the briefing in the van that harwood was not present for?


 
Shaw was in charge of van U413, for which Harwood was designated a van driver. There were two briefings by serial commander Inspector Williams, one on Sunday 29 March - which Harwood missed - and then a second one, early on Wednesday 1 April (which Harwood was present at).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 5, 2013)

Tomlinson family statement:

http://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/tomlinson-family-statement-5-8-13/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

Repost:

Darryl Cunningham sums up the Met, Simon Harwood, his killing of Ian Tomlinson, and police accountability (or lack thereof) in comic strip form


----------



## TruXta (Aug 5, 2013)

Brilliant cartoon that, Dave.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Brilliant cartoon that, Dave.


Last Hours also put out a collection of strips about this and other police-related issues, entitled* Excessive Force*, which is well worth reading.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Bullshit. They were _well-considered words_, which "served to distract attention away from the investigation" into the killing of Ian Tomlinson.


 
And if those remarks happened to prejudice any court cases which followed, well that's just a happy accident.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> PC Alan Palfrey.


 127EK - seen him 'economical with the truth' in court before, denying till he was blue in the face what a police video clearly showed.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> 127EK - seen him 'economical with the truth' in court before, denying till he was blue in the face what a police video clearly showed.


 


He does have the air of someone you wouldn't ask to babysit for you. Or look after your bag in the pub whilst you went to the toilet. Or ever willingly strike up a conversation with. Or lend money to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> View attachment 38621
> 
> He does have the air of someone you wouldn't ask to babysit for you. Or look after your bag in the pub whilst you went to the toilet. Or ever willingly strike up a conversation with. Or lend money to.


if i'm not much mistaken that was taken at the put people first march shortly before the g20. - oh, and the cop facing away at the left of the picture is, i think, graham wettone who was partnered with the wpc - whose name i can't recall - that day.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if i'm not much mistaken that was taken at the put people first march shortly before the g20.


 
That's right.



Pickman's model said:


> oh, and the cop facing away at the left of the picture is, i think, graham wettone who was partnered with the wpc - whose name i can't recall - that day.


 
TW107 or maybe U3191?









Anyway, isn't Wet One a completely impartial Sky News pundit now?



Who wouldn't trust a man with a face like that?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 5, 2013)

Does anyone know what, if anything, happened to the officers (at least five) who witnessed Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson? If they did not report the incident they are guilty of conspiracy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2013)

fuck all happened


----------



## ddraig (Aug 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Does anyone know what, if anything, happened to the officers (at least five) who witnessed Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson? If they did not report the incident they are guilty of conspiracy.


 
nothing as usual
bootboys need to be kept sweet to do the bidding init


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 5, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Does anyone know what, if anything, happened to the officers (at least five) who witnessed Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson? If they did not report the incident they are guilty of conspiracy.


 
Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, but not unlawfully killed by any actual person. Ergo there was nothing for any of the other coppers to witness.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 5, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, but not unlawfully killed by any actual person. Ergo there was nothing for any of the other coppers to witness.


 
And I though I was cynical.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> View attachment 38621
> 
> He does have the air of someone you wouldn't ask to babysit for you. Or look after your bag in the pub whilst you went to the toilet. Or ever willingly strike up a conversation with. Or lend money to.


 
He's got a twat-beard too.  If there's one thing I hate, it's people who have twat-beards. If you're going to have facial hair, have a proper faceful, for fuck's sake!!!


----------



## Nice one (Aug 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Does anyone know what, if anything, happened to the officers (at least five) who witnessed Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson? If they did not report the incident they are guilty of conspiracy.


 
On the anniversary of the killing of Ian Tomlinson by police at the G20 protests PC Discombe of the notoriously incompetent and unreliable Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) was supposed to be appearing at Ian Tomlinson’s inquest. Instead a short statement was read out to the court about Discombe’s recollections of the day. In witnessing PC Harwood violently strike Tomlinson and shove him to the ground Discombe said only this: “the baton strike was delivered in an almost perfect training stance”. 

He offered no further information about Tomlinson’s killing. 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/477148.html


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> View attachment 38621
> 
> He does have the air of someone you wouldn't ask to babysit for you. Or look after your bag in the pub whilst you went to the toilet. Or ever willingly strike up a conversation with. Or lend money to.


 
Or piss on if he was on fire. Even if it was you that had set him on fire in the first place.


----------



## xes (Aug 6, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> Does anyone know what, if anything, happened to the officers (at least five) who witnessed Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson? If they did not report the incident they are guilty of conspiracy.


have a fucking guess.

the fucking filthy dirty fucking cunts who allegedly stand for peace and justice, do fuck all, and get fuck all when they do abismal things like this. They are fucking scum, and that is ALL they will ever be.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 6, 2013)

xes said:


> have a fucking guess.
> 
> the fucking filthy dirty fucking cunts who allegedly stand for peace and justice, do fuck all, and get fuck all when they do abismal things like this. They are fucking scum, and that is ALL they will ever be.


 
This is Xes at his finest.


----------



## xes (Aug 8, 2013)

Ithangyewverymuch


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 8, 2013)

Yesterday's _Standard_ had a bit more detail on two previous payouts made by the Met in relation to Harwood's pattern of aggressive behaviour (the road rage incident and subsequent attempts to falsify evidence, and the violent racial abuse of the kid and her dad):

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/simon-harwood-met-made-two-previous-payouts-8749774.html


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 11, 2013)

Wife of bystander-slaughtering, road-raging, evidence-tampering, racial assaulting cop Simon Harwood bemoans how her beloved spouse has been branded as a killer:



> 'We're very surprised at what they said – to say I'm disgusted is an understatement.
> 
> 'My husband was found not guilty of manslaughter so Scotland Yard is effectively calling him a murderer.
> 
> ...


 
Boo-fucking-hoo.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 11, 2013)

'put it behind us and move on'  the fucking GALL!


----------



## teqniq (Aug 11, 2013)

My heart bleeds.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 11, 2013)

This whole case sickens me to the absolute fucking core.

I bet Harwood walks away with a tidy pension, smug psychotic cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Wife of bystander-slaughtering, road-raging, evidence-tampering, racial assaulting cop Simon Harwood bemoans how her beloved spouse has been branded as a killer:
> 
> 
> 
> Boo-fucking-hoo.


 
I see that she speaks fluent cliché.


----------

