SURPRISE, SURPRISE...
19 July 2012, 08:48 PM
#1
SURPRISE, SURPRISE...
Ian Tomlinson death: PC cleared
Now, why didn't that surprise me.
Be a copper (or a banker, politician) everyone - it seemingly grants you full immunity from the law.
Okay, I know he's had a 'fair' trial with a 12 person jury, etc... but christ!
Seriously?!
Now, why didn't that surprise me.
Be a copper (or a banker, politician) everyone - it seemingly grants you full immunity from the law.
Okay, I know he's had a 'fair' trial with a 12 person jury, etc... but christ!
Seriously?!
19 July 2012, 08:50 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 July 2012, 09:17 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
19 July 2012, 09:26 PM
#7
Presumably then, the CPS do the same for any other defendants who have 'previous'.
...You know, just so as to keep it all fair for everybody.
This blatent bias towards the police seriously boils my ****! They're supposed to be civilians, subject to exactly the same due process as any other member of society.
...You know, just so as to keep it all fair for everybody.
This blatent bias towards the police seriously boils my ****! They're supposed to be civilians, subject to exactly the same due process as any other member of society.
Last edited by joz8968; 19 July 2012 at 09:31 PM.
Trending Topics
19 July 2012, 09:36 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
he has been afforded the same rights as anyone else in his position should do
no more no less
that is as it should be tbh
he does look like a nasty piece of work though
but the arc of justice does not run true all the time – that’s life, in an imperfect world
no more no less
that is as it should be tbh
he does look like a nasty piece of work though
but the arc of justice does not run true all the time – that’s life, in an imperfect world
19 July 2012, 09:55 PM
#10
Yeah I know. But this particular verdict, on the face of it at least, seems just plain wrong.
The original inquest said IT was "unlawfully killed". Even SH said had he realised at the time Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him". Ergo, an error of judgement which directly brought on IT's death. Where's the justice for the consequence of one's actions? It's not as if PW accidentally/'inadvertently' pushed him.
Surely, at the very least, manslaughter in anyone's book?!
The original inquest said IT was "unlawfully killed". Even SH said had he realised at the time Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him". Ergo, an error of judgement which directly brought on IT's death. Where's the justice for the consequence of one's actions? It's not as if PW accidentally/'inadvertently' pushed him.
Surely, at the very least, manslaughter in anyone's book?!
Last edited by joz8968; 20 July 2012 at 11:04 AM.
19 July 2012, 11:32 PM
#11
Hodgy has it right in that for the vast majority of cases the past has no bearing on the present.....he could have been a mercenary / assassin for sale to the highest bidder and this would have been hidden from the Jury.
The Civil case will take the above into account, the fact he has previous and evaded justice by resigning......
The Law, as they say, is an ***
Shaun
The Civil case will take the above into account, the fact he has previous and evaded justice by resigning......
The Law, as they say, is an ***
Shaun
19 July 2012, 11:44 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real question, that will never get properly answered, is how an officer with a history like his was allowed to be on the front line in a likely riot situation.
No doubt that will never be mentioned or there will be an enquiry the conclusion to which will be 'lessons will be learned'.
What a wonderful country this is!
No doubt that will never be mentioned or there will be an enquiry the conclusion to which will be 'lessons will be learned'.
What a wonderful country this is!
19 July 2012, 11:48 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 serious complaints from fellow officers.
That has got to be very unusual. Any police officers on here who can verify if this is unusual.
Makes you wonder/worry how many other 'mentals' are still in the police force.
Don't get me wrong.I am generaly 100% behind the police & wouldn't do their job in this day and age.
All the abuse & idiots getting away from court with very little justice.
But an officer with this record surely should have been kicked out.
Last edited by legb4rsk; 19 July 2012 at 11:54 PM. Reason: Added info.
20 July 2012, 01:36 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably then, the CPS do the same for any other defendants who have 'previous'.
...You know, just so as to keep it all fair for everybody.
This blatent bias towards the police seriously boils my ****! They're supposed to be civilians, subject to exactly the same due process as any other member of society.
...You know, just so as to keep it all fair for everybody.
This blatent bias towards the police seriously boils my ****! They're supposed to be civilians, subject to exactly the same due process as any other member of society.
I must admit, in my experience, police officers normally get treated more harshly than regular civilians. In this case, obviously not.
20 July 2012, 10:20 AM
#17
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That policeman is a proper **** if you look at his record so no surprise that he's happy to shove some old codger to the floor. Tbf though I doubt he intended to kill the guy so definitely an accident ... is that manslaughter? I genuinely don't know how it is defined.
TX.
TX.
20 July 2012, 10:58 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
I'm not defending the guy, but all he did was push Ian Tomlinson. And let's not forget how many threads there are about the police being too soft and not dealing harshly enough with genuine scumbags
20 July 2012, 11:08 AM
#20
As an ex-cop, I am disgusted at this. I know that if I'd even looked at the victim in the wrong way, I'd have been disciplined. He seems to have got away with it due to others messing up. Data should have been shared, just as the inquiry after Huntley's actions recommended.
I must admit, in my experience, police officers normally get treated more harshly than regular civilians. In this case, obviously not.
I must admit, in my experience, police officers normally get treated more harshly than regular civilians. In this case, obviously not.
I can't susbstantiate the claims made by those protesters, but let's assume they're in the correct ballpark.
Not a pattern emerging?
Last edited by joz8968; 20 July 2012 at 11:11 AM.
20 July 2012, 11:11 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: romford
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian Thomlinson was walking away from the police with in hands in his pocket , He was no threat to anybody, I can honestly say I am so dissapointed that the thug in the police uniform got away with his actions, I have lost all respect for both the police and the legal system allowing this copper getting away with at least an assualt.
The police in future will have no moral support from me !!!
The police in future will have no moral support from me !!!
20 July 2012, 11:12 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a member of the public hit someone in the street, pushed them over, then the person dies from a result of injuries sustained during that assault would it be manslaughter at least? Yes.
How you can defend Harwood I have no idea.
20 July 2012, 11:21 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's certainly not the sort of person I work with
So far as Simon Harwood is concerned, his troubles are only just beginning. He will, undoubtedly, be sacked in September and the Mayor’s Office will almost certainly go for seizure of part of his pension. The Tomlinson family will pursue him to the grave. They have already said that they will sue him in the civil courts, which means a retrial but under a level of proof that only requires proving on ‘the balance of probabilities’. Neither the Met nor the Federation will cover his legal expenses because by that time he will be a dismissed ex-police officer.
The Tomlinsons will ask for (and no doubt get) punitive damages against him, which will mean his house and all his assets, which will bankrupt him. His future from here on in will be a nightmare.
Considering how rabidly proffesional standards in my farce go after the slightest hint of something it does show the Met in a bad light - but then again the Met doesnt have the greatest reputation.
Lots of folks i know that couldn't get into their local force applied and got into the Met, but to be fair to them they are the biggest force in the country
So far as Simon Harwood is concerned, his troubles are only just beginning. He will, undoubtedly, be sacked in September and the Mayor’s Office will almost certainly go for seizure of part of his pension. The Tomlinson family will pursue him to the grave. They have already said that they will sue him in the civil courts, which means a retrial but under a level of proof that only requires proving on ‘the balance of probabilities’. Neither the Met nor the Federation will cover his legal expenses because by that time he will be a dismissed ex-police officer.
The Tomlinsons will ask for (and no doubt get) punitive damages against him, which will mean his house and all his assets, which will bankrupt him. His future from here on in will be a nightmare.
Considering how rabidly proffesional standards in my farce go after the slightest hint of something it does show the Met in a bad light - but then again the Met doesnt have the greatest reputation.
Lots of folks i know that couldn't get into their local force applied and got into the Met, but to be fair to them they are the biggest force in the country
20 July 2012, 11:53 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
No he struck him with his baton then pushed him over. In all likelihood the guy then died from internal bleeding as a result of the assault, the problem was the pathologist did a poor postmortem so the cause of death can be disputed.
If a member of the public hit someone in the street, pushed them over, then the person dies from a result of injuries sustained during that assault would it be manslaughter at least? Yes.
How you can defend Harwood I have no idea.
If a member of the public hit someone in the street, pushed them over, then the person dies from a result of injuries sustained during that assault would it be manslaughter at least? Yes.
How you can defend Harwood I have no idea.
I have, however, always questioned just what Tomlinson was thinking to put himself in that position though. If I saw a line of riot police on active duty I'd have the common sense NOT to get myself into such close proximity. There's surely an element of sheer stupidity in what Tomlinson did.
20 July 2012, 11:59 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously stated, i don't understand how such a volatile individual could be put on the front line to control a riot. I bet he was gagging for a bit of action, and this is the closest he could get to it. Adrenaline + tense atmosphere = unfortunate death.
I would like to think the Met will review this carefully, surely they must be highly embarrassed now that his aggressive history is out in the open. If they deployed him specifically because he would get the better of any protester, then shame on them. They have enough powers without relying on officers taking the law into their own hands, in my opinion.
I would like to think the Met will review this carefully, surely they must be highly embarrassed now that his aggressive history is out in the open. If they deployed him specifically because he would get the better of any protester, then shame on them. They have enough powers without relying on officers taking the law into their own hands, in my opinion.
20 July 2012, 12:04 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Its not though. Far from it, and for good reason.
The law did not consider what the PC did to be unlawful or negligent and therefore the resultant death was not technically manslaughter.
Hence he was cleared. Had he been charged with something else he may not have got off.
But as TB has posted above, the Met have questions to answer - there's clearly negligence on their part here.
TDW - Its not just down to the autopsy. Three forensic pathologists testified that he most probably did of internal bleeding caused by injury sustained in he fall.
Last edited by Devildog; 20 July 2012 at 12:05 PM.
20 July 2012, 12:10 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not defending him at all.
I have, however, always questioned just what Tomlinson was thinking to put himself in that position though. If I saw a line of riot police on active duty I'd have the common sense NOT to get myself into such close proximity. There's surely an element of sheer stupidity in what Tomlinson did.
I have, however, always questioned just what Tomlinson was thinking to put himself in that position though. If I saw a line of riot police on active duty I'd have the common sense NOT to get myself into such close proximity. There's surely an element of sheer stupidity in what Tomlinson did.
Having seen the initial video it's clear to me that IT was kind-of taking the **** the way he was retreating from the coppers. However, he was retreating, however slowly, even if it was with a slouchy "Wimpey walk".
J.
20 July 2012, 12:15 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Most probably\' leaves reasonable doubt. If the postmortem had been done properly that would not have been the case.
20 July 2012, 12:19 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
So that part was already beyond doubt as far as the manslaughter trial was concerned.
He didn't get off because of the cause of death. He got off because in the eyes of the law his actions prior to the fall were not deemed to be unlawful or negligent in the circumstances.