Riot police stopped medical student giving lifesaving first aid to Ian Tomlinson

[edam]

Just heard that on Radio 4 news, from the inquest. Bastards.

Isn't on the website yet but this story does point out the copper is still lying even when confronted with the video footage.

Lots of reporting on the inquest here, including the video.

The first post mortem was arranged by the the first coroner - the pathologist (Freddy Patel) wasn't the last resort but actually the regular pathologist used at the mortuary despite the fact that he shouldn't have been on the home office pathologist list because he didn't comply with registration requirements. He hasn't been struck off either - just suspended from the medical register for a few months because of previous mistakes made in post mortems.

K999 - he was bitten by a police dog, struck with a baton (to the leg) and then pushed to the ground within the space of a minute or so.

There is no established cause of death yet - that is the purpose of the inquest and a matter for the jury to determine! The discredited pathologist, Freddy Patel, is due to give evidence at the inquest on Monday morning - there is a bit of space in the public gallery if anyone wants to go along (70 Fleet Street), should be an interesting morning of evidence!

"Egg-shell skull principle says a defendant must take his victim as he finds him. So if a person negligently injures someone by running them over, for example, they cannot complain if the injuries they have caused turn out to be more serious than expected because the victim suffered from a pre-existing weakness such as an unusually thin skull or a weak heart." here

CCC, have u followed any of this court case?!

It is widely accepted by everyone but Harwood that Tomlison was an innocent bystander. This copper was videoed on a number of occasions that day throwing his weight around. He is a disgrace to his uniform and I'm stunned u can defend him.

K999, CCC's 'two sides to a story comment' is insulting in this particular case where there is no doubt at all that Mr Tomlinson was a. killed and b. was an entirely innocent victim.

It's also hardly news. CCC was being patronising, wielding a tired old cliche as if it was a blinding revelation in order to smear an innocent victim. Goodness gracious me, two sides, huh? Never heard that before. In other news, when you drop something it tends to fall down, not up...

Tomlinson was entirely innocent - just walking home from work. To suggest there is another side to his behaviour is ridiculous.

Sorry. I didn't realise he was walking home from work and was an innocent bystander. I thought he was part of the protest.

He sold newspapers and was his way home after work

What about the footage of that officer from earlier in the day when he pulled a BBC camera man over (who had his back to him) and then dragged him across the ground.

that footage alone is proof enough for an assault if it was anyone other then a rozzer and why was that footage not shown before, it's a damning insight into that guys mentality.

but then it's often been said that those who are turned down by the army for being too violent/hot headed often join the police.

Tomlinson was a newspaper seller trying to get home after shutting up shop. Its Stockwell all over again the lies they said about that poor guy, seen with wires sticking out of his coat, running from police, jumping the barrier, fighting with police on the train before he was shot in the head 11 times etc.

Thank god for CCTV if it wasn't for that we wouldn't see the truth thru the METs lies, such a shame they are still above the law and never get brought to justice for their actions, if they where held to account they would try harder at doing the job properly (especially in the Stockwell incident caused by a chain reaction of shear ineptitude on many levels).

K999 - so would it have been OK for the police to assault an innocent protester who was walking away from them? Mr Tomlinson's status as a bystander makes police wrongdoing even more obvious, but actually no officer has the right to assault anyone, whether they are on a demo or not. The law says police officers can use proportionate force, they can't just lash out at anyone. And there isn't a clause saying, except if they are on a demo. Although officers appear to believe there is - remember that footage of the guy with cerebral palsy who was dragged out of his wheelchair?

Giddy - quite right on Tomlinson and of course all police aren't bastards. I know several very nice decent coppers. Doesn't excuse not only the bad apples but systemic problems with attitudes to democratic protest. Or investigating the Screws of the World, come to that. Or investigating serial rapists like Warboys.

toughasoldboots...no i dont think you are missing something.

The truth is no matter how much media coverage we have seen that cannot be trusted as "evidence" we the public havnt seen it evidentially, weve only seen it presented by people who make money from its sensationalism.

please dont misunderstand im not making excuses for Pc Harwood, far from it, but would it not be more productive for MNers to discuss the challenges The police officers, Protesters and innocent by passers have to contest with in order to provide a society where free protest is tolerated correctly.

i find it a bit repulsive we are quick to call Pc Harwood evil based on his actions in that moment in time. we (and the evidence) may disagree with the way he perceived the incident and with the way he acted, it may mean he is wrong but that dosnt mean he is a liar or a bad person. Have any of you who call him evil taking any steps to look at evidence of any of his other deeds (good or bad) in his life? i know i havnt so what makes you any more qualified to provide a character assessment than anyone else?

if it turns out that day he went out with the intention to murder someone then i will of course hang my head in shame for this post. if however it turns out he was prepared to stand and do his duty and in doing so made a horrible mistake then i for one will continue to feel as sorry for him as anyone else in this tragic story. that of course cannot excuse him from criminal proceedings if his actions through intent or recklessness were proven to be criminal. but surely its not excuse for sharpening the pitch forks and greasing the ducking chair is it!?!

hellodave, PC Harwood also assaulted a BBC cameraman - before attacking Mr Tomlinson. And he has lied repeatedly about Mr Tomlinson and persists in lying even when confronted with the video evidence. These are not the actions of someone who is sorry or repentant.

You can be a criminal even if you didn't get up in the morning and think 'I know what, I'll have a brawl today'. People are responsible for their actions.

has the word 'evil' been used anywher in this thread apart from in hellodave's post?

Hellodave, as edam said he has lied and lied and lied again so I absolutely stand by my accusation he is a liar.

But I'm sure you're right and he usually a fine upstanding member of the community who was just having a bad day .

ok good case in point.."evil" isnt in this thread sorry not intentional i read it somewhere else. im not lying just got it wrong.

Please dont misquote me or get me wrong as i said in my post, im not defending him he needs to justify his own actions its that simple.

if you really think its as simple as a bad egg who is prone to being violent then fine. i however think theres a lot more at work here and a far bigger and more concerning issue of poor leadership and management of people doing that job.

it may not be your point of view but if we held the same opinion then this wouldnt be much of a discussion thread would it?

I was brought up (in the 50s) to see the police as good and reliable. That if you needed help they'd be there. Maybe it wasn't always true then either, but I think mostly you could rely on it. If you were in trouble and saw an officer you'd think "it will be okay now"

I'm not sure what happened, but something did change. Perhaps many of the good ones left. Disillusioned by the lack of appreciation and the way courts started treating criminals as victims.

Even now I'm sure there are many who are true to their principles. However after lots of contact (mostly on behalf of others as I'm not a criminal) I now feel they are just as unpredictable and potentially dangerous as the other gangs round here.

That's just my personal experience and not proof of any kind. The incidents in the media could also be isolated incidents, but the way they are dealt with suggests otherwise.

Remember that the chasing down Jean Charles de Menezes and killing him in front of dozens of witnesses was deemed simply a Health and Safety violation. That says more about the force than the actions of those few who killed him.

In this particular case I thought the statement that Mr Tomlinson looked "almost defiant" very revealing. In any future dealings with the police remember to look properly subservient to be on the safe side.

hellodave, yes, I think everyone on this thread knows there's poor management and leadership that tolerates or encourages aggression.

Friend of ours joined the Met. From being a fairly relaxed web developer, he turned into someone who divided the world into 'scum' and 'not scum'. Rather worrying, although I'm sure daily contact with some of the people he has to deal with does tend to make you take a jaundiced view of humanity.

onager, btw, I was taught as a child that if you were in trouble you could approach a police officer. Equally when I saw graffiti about Blair Peach my Mother explained in age-appropriate terms so I knew it wasn't as simple as 'all police officers are always good and always do the right thing'.

edam, interesting that you say that about your friend. I too have a friend of 25 years standing who has changed beyond measure in the 10 years since he joined the police and, yes, he is very much scum vs not scum.

Interesting about Harwood, Twinkle. The TSG as a group has form. Wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately recruit thugs. Or turn the people they recruit into thugs.

AyeRobot, I used to work in a part of London where I saw a lot of crime every time I went out to get a sandwich. And police officers behaving badly. Searching a homeless guy on the street, pulling his trousers down in full view of passers-by. I guess my friend and yours probably think people like him are 'scum', sadly.

twinkletoes - thanks i didnt know his discipline record was either bad or in the public domain..any ideas where thats been released to?

Again i'm not defending this man and i'm certainly not putting down to a bad day at the office but id rather sit and wait till i hear the verdict rather than form an opinion on media coverage which is all i''ve personally seen. i dont overly trust the media, theres to much money in a good story. i prefer a good old chin wag with MN to get the facts

I guess the point i'm trying to make is that despite the horrific nature of what happened the far more important point - to me - is that if the officer behaved inappropriately or violently then how on earth was it allowed to happen in the first place?, if he was unsuitable for that work what was he doing there?, surely if we dont answer that question we cant stop this happening again. Mr Tomlinson is dead, its horrific but it cant be changed however if i was his son, or brother etc then i would want answers as to how this can be prevented from happening again and while its hard to put yourself in that position i don't think i would be happy with the answer "well we will sack that officer and pursue a criminal investigation its all his fault"

Quite, hellodave. We need to know what orders the TSG were following.