Harwood was asked why he did not record his strike and push on Tomlinson in his notes. He replied, to tuts from the public gallery: "It was not significant for me at the time."
I think that alone tells you everything you need to know. Not only did he use excessive and unreasonable force on an innocent member of the public, he didn't even bother thinking about covering his tracks by making any record of the incident in his notebook. (As even his shameless, shambolic employer would have required him to do.)
Quite why the jury decided not to convict only they can say. (They would have if the trial had been at Snaresbrook rather than Southwark - Snaresbrook has a bit of history for juries being anti-police). I wonder how the Court was chosen?
There will be a civil case which will cost the Met (that is, us tax payers) a lot of money to defend plus costs if not in actual damages. (I suspect Mr Tomlinson's family will find that the court will decide that the life of an elderly lowly-paid alcoholic will not merit the payment of very much money at all.) Still, yet another matter that can be added to the very, very long list of incompetence, fraud, dishonesty and illegal activities by officers of the Metropolitan Police.
BTW, I see that they seem to have changed their strapline motto from "Working together for a safer London" (which presumably even they could see wasn't quite appropriate) to "Total Policing". Total Morons more like.
I dont think he was bewildered. He had finished work as Standard seller (apparently) and gone to have a look at what was going on. He was pissed and making a nuisance of himself by not leaving the area when he had been asked. Most people had left bar the protestors.
That said that Harwood's response was completely over the top and unnecessary and now we find out that he shouldnt have been in the police service at all.
But that is the point curb_it it was over the top. The previous trial it had been established that he had been unlawfully killed, so who killed him?. And are we going to say that someone a bit pissed, hanging around should be treated like this. No sorry, the copper used unreasonable force in my opinion. Let's not try and defend something that is wrong. How would people feel if this had happened to a member of your family. As I say in England we have a right to protest, and providing it is peaceful to demonstrate. Of course it is a pain for the police, but that is there job to protect the public, and uphold the law, not lash out at some poor random individual passing by. Who would not be perplexed and confused in this situation, which is the definition of bewildered that I was using in this context, and I did state 'bit'. Frankly I feel sorry for his family, and the dreadful position they are in, I hope they have the courage to fight on a get this copper off our streets.
I don't get some of you lot with your outlook on the police service.
Don't you? Here's a small example; there are numerous others: "An internal audit discovered 1,183 Metropolitan Police employees broke rules governing the use of American Express charge cards. Senior officers were so overwhelmed by the number of cases they decided the card holders would not be punished. Instead the staff, the vast majority of whom worked in counter terrorism and other specialist crime inquiries, were given "training and guidance".
One senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods."
I used to work for a large organisation which had investigatory powers (More draconian ones than the police as it happens). We used amex credit cards for business. Not once was there any fraud. In fact the only instances of illegal activity at all that I can recall in over 30 years was one case of misuse of a cheque which resulted in dismissal. There were two other dismissals I recall. One for someone inviting a journalist into the building and having sex with her on the Chairman's desk. (That was deemed a breach of security). And a girl who was dismissed for appearing in a porn mag. She was dismissed for failing to notify her employer that she had a second job.
I can find no excuse at all for the appalling behaviour of vast numbers of police officers in the Met and the fact that in the main they just get away with it.
"Love doing football games, extra overtime & if we're lucky a chance to cause some trouble & whack a few people, love it"
"It's like a competition in the winter, leave the station & nick the first person we can so we can get back to the station and write up a lengthy report to keep in the warm"
A man doing his job in a stressful situation confronted by a twat who refuses to do as he is told. Too many people confront the police because they feel the police can do nothing about it. This bloke came unstuck as the police he confronted were highly charged and operating under stress. Tough luck. Didn't deserve to die, and the copper maybe shouldn't have shoved him. At the end of the day, tough. Am shocked at the attitude to the police. Can only imagine a lot of people on here don't travel far.
Sorry guys but we do have some right queens here, what happened happened the copper was found not guilty. All this talk about coppers in 'modern Britan' get real it isn't like every day a police officer is killing a innocent person. I would hate to see some of you guys living in Mexico, China or South Africa where they have a REAL problem with corrupt police officers and innocent people being killed by the police on purpose.
At the end of the day, tough. Am shocked at the attitude to the police. Can only imagine a lot of people on here don't travel far.
Yeah, tough. Can only wonder what your or your families reaction would be if you were confronted by a stroppy copper (who shouldn't have been involved in the first place) and are given a right hander - sorry, gentle prod with a baton - that puts you on the deck.
Am shocked at the defence of the police in situations like this one. I travel plenty and I know a fair few policeman/women and have experienced some of their behaviour on duty and it's not pleasant. As far as I'm concerned they pick the soft targets and go for the easy life. Not all granted, but some. I think that they've forgotten their prime duty tbh.
Sorry guys but we do have some right queens here, what happened happened the copper was found not guilty. All this talk about coppers in 'modern Britan' get real it isn't like every day a police officer is killing a innocent person. I would hate to see some of you guys living in Mexico, China or South Africa where they have a REAL problem with corrupt police officers and innocent people being killed by the police on purpose.
I agree that police officers in those countries may well be brutal and corrupt. Thank god I do not live there, and that distinguishes us from those oppressive regimes, and states is the quality of the freedom that the individual has. I moan about the police as much as the next person and probably more, but they do have a demanding job, where they are held to account, and I only hope that he is dismissed from the force with the forthcoming complaint he has to face. The actions of this policeman were those of a bully, and from I have heard on the news and other sources the police may well review this type of individual being able to be a serving officer. I also hope that the CPS review the case, and seek fresh evidence to retry this individual. I get the impression that the family will pursue this matter as well, probably as a private prosecution.
A man doing his job in a stressful situation confronted by a twat who refuses to do as he is told. Too many people confront the police because they feel the police can do nothing about it. This bloke came unstuck as the police he confronted were highly charged and operating under stress. Tough luck. Didn't deserve to die, and the copper maybe shouldn't have shoved him. At the end of the day, tough. Am shocked at the attitude to the police. Can only imagine a lot of people on here don't travel far.
I'm tempted to print this post off and save it for the next time you run up against authority - whether a policeman whacking you or a family member or a jobsworth pulling rank and then say "tough".
Harwood was a highly trained and experienced police officer who was wearing riot gear and had several similarly attired police officers around him. Against them there was one overweight, slightly drunk man with his hands in his pockets who posed no conceivable threat to them or the peace. We all know that Harwood was throwing his weight around and hiding behind the badge and that his response was at best disproportionate and at worst constituted an illegal act. Somewhere several hundred posts ago I posted the requirements for a conviction for constructive manslaughter (aka involunatry manslaughter) - to remind you the act must be dangerous, illegal and result in the death of the victim or be a substantial cause of death. Striking someone with a baton while their back is turned is not just a dangerous act it is illegal and to boot the actions of a coward. It is irrelevant whether Harwood intended to kill or seriously injure Tomlinson - his intention was to commit the act which led to the death of the victim.
If we lived in Mexico, China or South Africa our attitudes to Police brutality would be completely different, the situation is we reside in the UK and have to live according to civilised laws set by the government.
Our legal system is more advanced which possibly paved the way for Harwood's acquittal, unfortunately it does have it's disadvantages. Post trial Harwood's dubious character is revealed, had the court known prior would the verdict have been different.
These are countries that where the populations very often have to take the law into their own hands, something we can't do here without being penalised.
If Harwood had performed as he did in any of these countries there is a good possibility he wouldn't have stayed alive long enough to face trial. Lucky for him this is Britain.
Actually BFR it was not the baton strike which was said to have led to Mr Tomlinson's death but the subsequent push which resulted in his fall to the ground. As for Ken's query whether 'the CPS will review the case and seek fresh evidence to try (PC Harwood) this is not possible. He was acquitted by a jury after a full trial and that is the end of criminal proceedings. This is not a case where the CPS will be able to seek a re-trial.
Typical thick coppers in that video. Everything seems to be fine one minute , then they start pushing some fella about and the whole atmosphere changes instantly. Morons.
Even if there is compelling new evidence as under the Lord chief justice in the Lawrence case If reliable, the new scientific evidence would place Dobson in very close proximity indeed to Stephen Lawrence at the moment of and in the immediate aftermath of the attack, proximity, moreover, for which no innocent explanation can be discerned. I thought that appeal court could in certain circumstances, as those above order a retrial........ There is also now, a reference to If reliable,I thought that the 2003 Criminal justice act allowed evidence of bad character to be admitted provided it had substantial probative value........ as in the case of Stephen Lawrence. I am not challenging your expertise legal, just thought that in these circumstances, it might be possible........
Ken - the CJ Act allows for a verdict to referred to the Appeal Courts only where there is "new and compelling" evidence that would very possibly have changed the verdict had it been known at the time.
In the Stephen Lawrence case that evidence revolved around clothing, blood and hair fibres belong to the victim being found on the clothes of the accused which suggested that they were at the crime scene, something they had previously denied. Theoretically I think it might be possible here but but the evidence would have to be staggering - something along the lines that Harwood knew that Ian Tomlinson had a weak heart or he boasted before the event that was going to give someone a twatting with the baton, but that is stretching things considerably.
Typical thick coppers in that video. Everything seems to be fine one minute , then they start pushing some fella about and the whole atmosphere changes instantly. Morons.
This comment sums up the whole problem. "Everything seems to be fine". FFS, can someone point out what is wrong with this comment.?
Ive lost the will to live anymore in this thread. I guess the police service who put there lives on the line daily should cease no more and we should just let everyone fight it out.
Typical thick coppers in that video. Everything seems to be fine one minute , then they start pushing some fella about and the whole atmosphere changes instantly. Morons.
This comment sums up the whole problem. "Everything seems to be fine". FFS, can someone point out what is wrong with this comment.?
I'm fairly certain maiscat doesnt live in this country so he probably departed with a rosy view of old England. Unfortunately those of us that live here know how flawed the country is, yet how great it is too
Comments
Harwood was asked why he did not record his strike and push on Tomlinson in his notes. He replied, to tuts from the public gallery: "It was not significant for me at the time."
I think that alone tells you everything you need to know. Not only did he use excessive and unreasonable force on an innocent member of the public, he didn't even bother thinking about covering his tracks by making any record of the incident in his notebook. (As even his shameless, shambolic employer would have required him to do.)
Quite why the jury decided not to convict only they can say. (They would have if the trial had been at Snaresbrook rather than Southwark - Snaresbrook has a bit of history for juries being anti-police). I wonder how the Court was chosen?
There will be a civil case which will cost the Met (that is, us tax payers) a lot of money to defend plus costs if not in actual damages. (I suspect Mr Tomlinson's family will find that the court will decide that the life of an elderly lowly-paid alcoholic will not merit the payment of very much money at all.) Still, yet another matter that can be added to the very, very long list of incompetence, fraud, dishonesty and illegal activities by officers of the Metropolitan Police.
BTW, I see that they seem to have changed their strapline motto from "Working together for a safer London" (which presumably even they could see wasn't quite appropriate) to "Total Policing". Total Morons more like.
However, you should also read the rest of my posts.
errr, id hate to be a wooden spoon in your kitchen.....
The conduct of the officer was very wrong. However the male in question was not just taking a stroll around.
Not guilty means not guilty. He will face a misconduct charge next.
I don't get some of you lot with your outlook on the police service.
"An internal audit discovered 1,183 Metropolitan Police employees broke rules governing the use of American Express charge cards.
Senior officers were so overwhelmed by the number of cases they decided the card holders would not be punished.
Instead the staff, the vast majority of whom worked in counter terrorism and other specialist crime inquiries, were given "training and guidance".
One senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods."
I used to work for a large organisation which had investigatory powers (More draconian ones than the police as it happens). We used amex credit cards for business. Not once was there any fraud. In fact the only instances of illegal activity at all that I can recall in over 30 years was one case of misuse of a cheque which resulted in dismissal.
There were two other dismissals I recall. One for someone inviting a journalist into the building and having sex with her on the Chairman's desk. (That was deemed a breach of security). And a girl who was dismissed for appearing in a porn mag. She was dismissed for failing to notify her employer that she had a second job.
I can find no excuse at all for the appalling behaviour of vast numbers of police officers in the Met and the fact that in the main they just get away with it.
"Love doing football games, extra overtime & if we're lucky a chance to cause some trouble & whack a few people, love it"
"It's like a competition in the winter, leave the station & nick the first person we can so we can get back to the station and write up a lengthy report to keep in the warm"
"Yeah when its a dull day we sit around in patrol car and play hide and seek with our mates in the other patrol car"
Am shocked at the attitude to the police. Can only imagine a lot of people on here don't travel far.
Am shocked at the defence of the police in situations like this one. I travel plenty and I know a fair few policeman/women and have experienced some of their behaviour on duty and it's not pleasant.
As far as I'm concerned they pick the soft targets and go for the easy life. Not all granted, but some. I think that they've forgotten their prime duty tbh.
Harwood was a highly trained and experienced police officer who was wearing riot gear and had several similarly attired police officers around him. Against them there was one overweight, slightly drunk man with his hands in his pockets who posed no conceivable threat to them or the peace. We all know that Harwood was throwing his weight around and hiding behind the badge and that his response was at best disproportionate and at worst constituted an illegal act. Somewhere several hundred posts ago I posted the requirements for a conviction for constructive manslaughter (aka involunatry manslaughter) - to remind you the act must be dangerous, illegal and result in the death of the victim or be a substantial cause of death. Striking someone with a baton while their back is turned is not just a dangerous act it is illegal and to boot the actions of a coward. It is irrelevant whether Harwood intended to kill or seriously injure Tomlinson - his intention was to commit the act which led to the death of the victim.
Our legal system is more advanced which possibly paved the way for Harwood's acquittal, unfortunately it does have it's disadvantages. Post trial Harwood's dubious character is revealed, had the court known prior would the verdict have been different.
These are countries that where the populations very often have to take the law into their own hands, something we can't do here without being penalised.
If Harwood had performed as he did in any of these countries there is a good possibility he wouldn't have stayed alive long enough to face trial. Lucky for him this is Britain.
Send him to Honduras!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a5egm0maQlQ
If reliable, the new scientific evidence would place Dobson in very close proximity indeed to Stephen Lawrence at the moment of and in the immediate aftermath of the attack, proximity, moreover, for which no innocent explanation can be discerned.
I thought that appeal court could in certain circumstances, as those above order a retrial........
There is also now, a reference to If reliable,I thought that the 2003 Criminal justice act allowed evidence of bad character to be admitted provided it had substantial probative value........ as in the case of Stephen Lawrence.
I am not challenging your expertise legal, just thought that in these circumstances, it might be possible........
In the Stephen Lawrence case that evidence revolved around clothing, blood and hair fibres belong to the victim being found on the clothes of the accused which suggested that they were at the crime scene, something they had previously denied. Theoretically I think it might be possible here but but the evidence would have to be staggering - something along the lines that Harwood knew that Ian Tomlinson had a weak heart or he boasted before the event that was going to give someone a twatting with the baton, but that is stretching things considerably.
No
this country so he probably departed with a rosy view of old England. Unfortunately those of us that live here know how flawed the country is, yet how great it is too