Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that this not guilty verdict is a travesty

76 replies

DreamingofSummer · 19/07/2012 14:49

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

Caught on camera but still not guilty

OP posts:
DuelingFanjo · 19/07/2012 16:34

statement from the family.

DuelingFanjo · 19/07/2012 16:35

and from the family's lawyers "It is a terrible truth that in the last 30 years there have been over a thousand of deaths in custody and after contact, there have been many unlawful killing verdicts but there is not one case of an officer convicted for manslaughter"

Nancy66 · 19/07/2012 16:36

The guy is just a thick thug drunk on his little bit of power.

I really rate the IPCC so hopefully he'll end up being drummed out of the force.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 19/07/2012 16:43

It think the problem may be (this is speculation on my part) that you have to show that someone committed an unlawful act that caused harm. It is difficult to show that a member of the police has committed an unlawful act in using force when they are permitted to use force in certain circumstances. I assume Harwood would have argued that at the time he perceived Ian Tomlinson to be a threat and therefore it was reasonable for him to use force and that the force he used wasn't excessive.

Perhaps the rules on use of force by the police need looking at?

DuelingFanjo · 19/07/2012 17:06

and yet previously a verdict of un-lawful killing was reached?

Baffledandbewildered · 19/07/2012 17:08

Hardwood should be locked up. He Is supposed to uphold the law and protect the public. This man is a thug in uniform. hopefully karma will catch him up

squeakytoy · 19/07/2012 17:09

"The Tomlinson family have said that they will pursue a civil case against Harwood. I for one would be happy to contribute to a legal fund"

I am a bit Hmm at this. No doubt they will be seeing compensation. For the death of a man who was at the time of his death living on the streets or in hostels for the homeless.

DuelingFanjo · 19/07/2012 17:15

"For the death of a man who was at the time of his death living on the streets or in hostels for the homeless."

not sure I follow you?

Dawndonna · 19/07/2012 17:16

I am a bit at this. No doubt they will be seeing compensation. For the death of a man who was at the time of his death living on the streets or in hostels for the homeless.

So you have no rights if you are homeless?

Original poster
DreamingofSummer · 19/07/2012 17:18

Squeakytoy

It's not about compension - I'd be happy to donate to the legal costs concerned with taking out a civil action.

Dawn

totally agree with you

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 19/07/2012 17:19

So his life was worthless?

Viviennemary · 19/07/2012 17:19

Is being a policeman an excuse for acting like a thug? He has brought the the whole policeforce into disrepute. Disgraceful and shameful verdict.

happygilmore · 19/07/2012 17:23

I would normally be the first to say that we all didn't sit through the trial and hear the evidence etc

but bloody hell. What an absolute joke.

fireice · 19/07/2012 17:23

Isnt the question that people are asking whether the family should be getting compensation given that they don't sound to have been that involved before, rather than saying that homeless people have no rights/value.
I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I think that is the point that is being made.

RubyFakeNails · 19/07/2012 17:25

Don't understand Squeakys point.

I personally am quite Hmm about the IPCC I think they are far to linked with the police and should be more of the independent body they claim to be. As far as I know it's extraordinarily difficult trying to get and unlawful arrest complaint through the IPCC yet alone an unlawful killing.

In relation to this case have read up on a few bits and bobs, it seems nearly 1500 deaths have occurred in custody/as a result of police contact since 1990, which is I think, a worrying figure. A larger proportion of these are black males which is again worrying, as well as the fact black males are more likely to experience police brutality than any other group. Add to this the increased use of tasers, I think there should be real concern about the 'force' the police are allowed to use and also about who the police are.

DuelingFanjo · 19/07/2012 17:25

it's a crass point then.

in fact, even though he was in a homeless shelter (Had been there for 6 months) this doesn't automatically mean he had no contact with his family nor that they didn't love him.

The point being made is crass and based on stupid assumptions.

Fireandashes · 19/07/2012 17:33

I took Squeaky to be saying that she thought Tomlinson's family weren't necessarily there for him when he was alive (as he was living rough) but are now hoping to get compensation following his death.

Not saying I agree, just that's how I interpreted her point.

While I agree in principle with what Nigel and Chaz have said, I will add that ten years in the Criminal Justice System left me with no faith in the ability of some juries to reach a verdict which reflected the evidence - and I spent much of that time sitting in court rooms listening to every word.

EdgarAllenPimms · 19/07/2012 17:36

the point is: compensation is usually based on loss of income. you are going to get very little for the death of a person who wasn't supporting you/ had no/ small income.

that's the system.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 19/07/2012 17:37

Dueling I agree the two verdicts are difficult to reconcile. The slight distinction is that an inquest does not directly apportion blame / responsibility whereas a trial does seek to blame a specific individual or individuals. Perhaps there something about the way the evidence was presented that made the difference.

This verdict doesn't sit comfortably with me but when you look at the number of convictions relating to deaths in police custody etc there is clearly a much wider problem about the use of force by the police.

squoosh · 19/07/2012 17:38

YANBU. Unfortunately this result wasn't a huge shock.

The man is clearly a thug. The video footage proved that beyond doubt.

BeanieStats · 19/07/2012 17:39

After four days of careful deliberation, after hearing the many complex legal arguments from many expert legal authorities and under the careful guidance of an experienced judge and within the framework of a legal system over a thousand years old, a jury of my peers has found this man not guilty.

You'll understand if i have more faith in this than an eighty word post from someone whom almost certainly has no experience of the police or the law or this case specifically.

squoosh · 19/07/2012 17:43

Good for you Beanie having faith in their verdict. I and many right minded people have absolutely no faith in this outcome.

HokeyCokeyPigInAPokey · 19/07/2012 17:43

YANBU it's a disgrace.

My thoughts are with his family.

Dawndonna · 19/07/2012 17:45

Yes, Beanie.
Strangely though, the evidence demonstrated otherwise.

EdgarAllenPimms · 19/07/2012 17:45

being a thug wouldn't mean he was guilty of manslaughter in this instance, there is a specific definition to the crime and i'm not sure if the act shown on camera is included. he could be convicted of abh/ assault though, surely?