I think this story was done at the time.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484
Now found not guilty, the family will now go for a civil action.
|
|
The Met seem to be distancing themselves from him...
|
...The Met seem to be distancing themselves from him...
He's previously been given a convenient retirement after an allegation of misconduct.
He's now got out from under a manslaughter charge.
I think he would be wise to distance himself from police work.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 19 Jul 12 at 18:30
|
|
He seems to have returned to the Met by a back door route.....be interesting to see how they deal with him.
|
....be interesting to see how they deal with him...
I'd put him back on the streets in the hope he kills a proper criminal next time. :)
|
>> I'd put him back on the streets in the hope he kills a proper criminal next time. :)
>>
Or the roles are reversed! He's a wrong un.
|
>> He's previously been given a convenient retirement after an allegation of misconduct.
>>
>> He's now got out from under a manslaughter charge.
>>
>> I think he would be wise to distance himself from police work.
>>
+1
|
|
Having just viewed a video again of 'the push' I think that the Sad Copper deserved to go down. I hope he gets proper justice.
|
Mind you, the bloke was taunting the coppers, moving along deliberately slowly almost obstructive in his manner.
Either way, the cops a wrongun.
|
|
Yes, he's definitely a wrong 'un. There are plenty of other less forceful options to deal with an alcoholic, shuffling, 'obstructive' man. One officer each side walking him backwards from the armpits would have been more than sufficient. I've looked at that video several times and I simply cannot see how he could possibly justify 'minimum necessary force'. It may not be murder or manslaughter but it's an assault every day of the week.
|
|
I'm surprised that the CPS didn't cover their bases given the circumstances by charging him with an assault as well as the primary offence, given what was reported about his medical condition. Would have been enough to get him out of the Police.
|
I think the 'statute of limitations' for an assault charge was passed by the time all the fannying about had happened.
Manslaughter was a bit of a push (pardon the pun) when cause of death was ambiguous.
|
|
This incident has done untold damage to the force. I feel it will run......
|
|
That's always the trouble.
|
...I feel it will run...
The camp followers will want to keep it going as long as possible.
In cases like this, I wonder where they were when the bloke was alive and in need of help.
|
>> The camp followers will want to keep it going as long as possible.
>>
>> In cases like this, I wonder where they were when the bloke was alive and
>> in need of help.
Interesting to note that the ex-coppers on here are not willing to defend the Officer.
As to the victim IIRC the evidence was that family tried to support him but he lived in a hostel rather than at home. Alcoholics can be astonishingly unwilling to accept help.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 20 Jul 12 at 09:45
|
>> Interesting to note that the ex-coppers on here are not willing to defend the Officer.
Only in that some of it is indefensible.
The basics are that the police were given briefings that there would be robust policing used, if required, to ensure the demonstration on that day did not descend into some of the violence and destruction that previous demonstrations had. The necessary force envisaged/used is perfectly lawful (with safeguards) and forms part of the regular training the officers get.
A difficult man, an alcoholic with significant medical issues, who had often slept rough or in hostels, because he'd fallen apart from his family...got wrapped up somehow in the demonstration. He may/may not have been difficult when confronted by police. Alternatively, his alcohol intake may have left him less than with it and somewhat confused or slow to react.
He was pushed by a police officer and fell to the ground....then shortly afterwards died.
So far, i'd be supportive of the police officer, doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances, using lawful tactics of force and perhaps being unlucky/unfortunate that the person pushed was so unwell (I bear in mind the victim's family weren't concerned enough about their dear old dad to actually look after him whilst he was ill/difficult).
Then you hear the background of the officer...and this is the bit that is indefensible. With his history, he should not have been in the Territorial Support Group (riot squad) or even in the police at all. Would another officer have shown more constraint, been less confrontational, been more patient?
If the jury had known all the information, they may well have convicted him. Same principle as rape defendants with 3 previous convictions, now on the 4th trial, but the jury knows sod all about the previous ones.
|
>
>> He was pushed by a police officer and fell to the ground....then shortly afterwards died.
>>
>> So far, i'd be supportive of the police officer, doing a difficult job in difficult
>> circumstances, using lawful tactics of force and perhaps being unlucky/unfortunate that the person pushed was
>> so unwell (I bear in mind the victim's family weren't concerned enough about their dear
>> old dad to actually look after him whilst he was ill/difficult).
The push or shove was fine, robust maybe but within guidelines. (Just bad luck he fell awkwardly and died of a pre-existing condition). The use of the batton (shown in some videos) was neither.
|
>>
>> The push or shove was fine, robust maybe but within guidelines. (Just bad luck he
>> fell awkwardly and died of a pre-existing condition). The use of the batton (shown in
>> some videos) was neither.
>>
Wasn't the pre-existing condition dismissed as it came from a patholigist that was discredited?
|
>> Wasn't the pre-existing condition dismissed as it came from a patholigist that was discredited?
First, discredited, path report suggested naturally occurring heart attack. Later PMs concluded internal injury.
|
>> This incident has done untold damage to the force. I feel it will run......
>>
So you sense a disturbance in the force?
;-)
|
|
As with this case, some of the Not Guilty verdicts returned these days really do take some swallowing.
|
>> As with this case, some of the Not Guilty verdicts returned these days really do
>> take some swallowing.
>>
You're advocating the end of trial by jury and replacing it with summary execution? Or what?
Or are you merely stating - having not been in court to see the evidence - that the man who was acquitted by law, and therefore innocent, is not guilty.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 20 Jul 12 at 10:22
|
>> As with this case, some of the Not Guilty verdicts returned these days really do
>> take some swallowing.
Majority verdict (10-2) after 4 days consideration. Defence may have been able to create sufficient doubt over whether Harwood's actions definitely caused the internal bleed. I guess an alcoholic with a grossly enlarged liver is potentially a ticking time bomb.
Guardian report gives a bit more background:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-case-simon-harwood-cleared
|
|
Yeah, they were reaching for a charge too high there, far too much doubt about cause of death.
|
...Majority verdict (10-2) after 4 days consideration...
We don't report acquittals as majority verdicts, only that the person is not guilty.
The reason is there is deemed to be a small risk of libel, because the inference is that some of the jury think the defendant is guilty.
No problem in reporting guilty verdicts as by a majority, because the fact that a couple of jurors think the defendant is not guilty cannot harm his reputation which is that of a convicted criminal.
|
>> The reason is there is deemed to be a small risk of libel, because the
>> inference is that some of the jury think the defendant is guilty.
Don't see why, isn't it a matter of fact and public record?
|
...Don't see why, isn't it a matter of fact and public record?...
It is, but I believe someone in the distant past managed to get some damages because his not guilty verdict was (correctly) reported as by a majority.
The BBC reports I've seen of this case have not mentioned it was by a majority and I'm fairly sure the reason is risk of libel.
Extra care needed because police officers - and their federation - are notoriously quick to litigate.
The Guardian reported the majority verdict, I'm sure they will have known of the risk, but decided they would take it.
I don't think they have anything to worry about, but what I think won't help them should a writ land.
|
What a ghastly case. Nothing good in it for anybody.
1. A man who was an alcoholic, sleeping rough.
2. A family who did not care about him.
3. A police officer with a history of being possibly more firm than necessary.
4. A force who reappointed '3' above.
5. A force who then sent him into a fight, probably significantly because he was a tough officer.
6. And it all went horribly wrong:
a) A dead man
b) A neglectful family revealed
c) The Met in disgrace
d) The officer now subject to a public ordeal. Repeatedly.
And all because a man was trying to do his job, got over-excited, should possibly never have been doing the job in the first place - so some of the blame lies with the force.
|
The family isn't necessarily 'neglectful', Mapmaker. The indications are that Ian Tomlinson was the neglectful one. He wasn't particularly old but was in a pretty appalling state. It really looked like his doing.
The family has behaved so far in a quite dignified manner without the obvious insincerity sometimes seen in similar cases. Granted, they have it in for PC Harwood, but you can't blame them for that.
Impossible to know for sure of course with everything filtered through the media. But I think you're being unjustifiably harsh towards them.
|
>> The family isn't necessarily 'neglectful', Mapmaker. The indications are that Ian Tomlinson was the neglectful
>> one. He wasn't particularly old but was in a pretty appalling state. It really looked
>> like his doing.
>>
>> The family has behaved so far in a quite dignified manner without the obvious insincerity
>> sometimes seen in similar cases. Granted, they have it in for PC Harwood, but you
>> can't blame them for that.
>>
>> Impossible to know for sure of course with everything filtered through the media. But I
>> think you're being unjustifiably harsh towards them.
Thank's for that post AC. I too was wondering where the evidence was for family neglect. Alcoholics are pretty ungrateful to those who try to lead them away from the drink.
|
Alcoholics are pretty ungrateful to those who try to lead them away from the drink, but are generally grateful to those who feed and house them and indulge their passion.
In my experience, anyway.
|
My experience too MM but indulging their passion (for drink) brings problems of its own. Not just fact that it facilitates their downward slide but their behaviour while in drink can be intolerable, particularly if kids are involved.
Advice to shape up or ship out and willingness to proceed that way may be lesser of evils for family who have multiple caring roles.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 20 Jul 12 at 14:45
|
>> but are generally grateful to those who feed and house them and indulge their passion.
There's quite a difference between a 'passion' and a serious substance addiction.
Extreme alcoholics can be very difficult to live with and risky too. They can inadvertently set your house on fire. Indeed I know of a case where one did, not on purpose of course but because he was hopelessly out of it. The house wasn't insured either and its owners hardly knew the guy (I did, a bit, and had learned to avoid him because he was a galloping pain in the bum although highly intelligent and to most people charming). There may be dedicated amateur psychiatric social workers but most people haven't the time, energy or courage for it.
Tony Benn famously allowed a bearded alky bum to live in the dustbin shelter outside his house at the top of Holland Park Avenue. I used to see him there sometimes when I lived nearby. No doubt he used to slip him something to eat or the odd quid too. But it's a pretty safe bet that even the saintly Benn didn't let him into the house.
|
|
i used to work with a guy in an engineering capacity....he was a skilled precision engineer....but couldnt leave the bottle alone, he was hit by a car one lunchtime coming back to work from the pub, the second time he wasnt so lucky, he still has to be fed with a straw...this is ongoing 15 years now, what a shame
|
PC found not guilty - R.P.
