Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Ian Tomlinson's death 'not caused by Simon Harwood'?

100 replies

Solopower · 19/07/2012 15:42

No doubt the court that acquitted SH of IT's death had access to more information. I know it's simplistic, but I wonder if Ian Tomlinson would have died if he hadn't been pushed?

He said he was scared of the crowd at the time and his blood was up after having been humiliated by someone who wrote graffiti on a police van. So that's understandable then.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18851486

OP posts:
Solopower · 19/07/2012 22:38

Because that is what the police are for, isn't it? To protect us?

OP posts:
GoldMedalTeakozy · 19/07/2012 22:42

Mr Tomlinson's family were more dignified than I would've been, given the circumstances. Harwood is a thug, and hopefully the IPCC enquiry that's being set up will recognise this and kick him out of the Met.

Ponders · 19/07/2012 22:43

If there wasn't enough evidence to connect SH's actions with IT's death then the jury had no choice

but the inquest jury said there was enough evidence. were they wrong? Confused

Solopower · 19/07/2012 23:06

Don't know, Ponders. But I don't think you can blame the jury.

Blame Harwood. And his employers for not checking him out (although they have apologised).

OP posts:
Madondogs · 19/07/2012 23:52

A complete travesty of justice. My heart goes out to the Thomlinson family.Yet again a police thug has escaped justice. For all the internal police enquiries we have had over the last 20yrs it does seem that a vast majority of the police are thugs and bullies.

VivaLeBeaver · 20/07/2012 06:49

I think he got off with it by convincing the jury he had enough reason to be scared of Mr Tomlinson to justify his actions.

SardineQueen · 20/07/2012 10:31

All the footage shows that mr tomlinson was slowly wandering around and not doing anything scary at all.

It's a revolting verdict.

kizzie · 20/07/2012 17:45

Just for info re 'double jeopardy' and whether you can or cant be retried for the same crime:

Post-2003Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."[26]

These recommendations were implemented?not uncontroversially at the time?within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[27][28] and this provision came into force in April 2005.[29] It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".[30] Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg?whose killer, William Dunlop, was initially acquitted in 1991 and subsequently confessed?also contributed to the demand for legal change.[31][32]

On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Julie Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[32][33][34] Dunlop pled guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and having sex with her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[35]

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009?Thompson's blood on Weston's boots?he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.[36]

kizzie · 20/07/2012 17:47

Sorry - thats from wikipedia - thought it said it on there

SardineQueen · 20/07/2012 20:52

YY can be retiried if there is new evidence. Which seems more than fair to me.

Can't see any way that new evidence is going to emerge in this case though.

edam · 20/07/2012 20:55

Appalling but sadly not surprising. How useful for the defence to be able to hide Harwood's record. A defendant's record can be disclosed to the jury - why wasn't his? Clearly relevant to this case. Goes to his character and his integrity. And why the fuck was someone with such a shit record a. in the police at all and b. policing a ruddy demo where there was a risk things would kick off?

And the day after Group 4 goons got away with killing that poor deportee as well. Yet again, according the CPS, not worth taking a death in custody to court. They only changed their minds in the Tomlinson case when video footage was handed to a newspaper.

Solopower · 20/07/2012 21:03

Are you sure about that, Edam? I thought a defendant's record could not be shown to the jury.

According to Helena Kennedy (Any Questions, Radio 4) the jury were shown evidence (about IT's internal bleeding) that the coroner's court hadn't seen.

But agree why was someone like him in the police??

I can't remember the figures but there have been over 100 deaths in custody and not a single police officer held to account. What happened to those people?

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 20/07/2012 21:23

Yes their past record / actions / stuff like that can be revealed to jury if there is relevance and reason to.

As I understand it.

edam · 20/07/2012 21:36

Sardine's right.

The internal bleeding evidence - let's not forget that the police originally got the post mortem done by a dodgy bloke who would give the result they wanted - someone who was known to be incompetent.

Solopower · 20/07/2012 21:41

Out of interest, why isn't a person's past record revealed in rape cases, then? (I don't think it should be, btw - just asking). When a woman's past behaviour/appearance/clothes etc are all considered very relevant.

And in SH's case - how could his past misconduct not be relevant to a murder case?

However, I still think it's better not to reveal it ...

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 20/07/2012 21:45

It is a lot of the time.

The rules changed so that women's past sexual behaviour / what underwear they were wearing could not be held up as a reason she was raped. For pretty obvious reasons. Clearly what pants a woman had on under her clothes is entirely irrelevant and the practice of holding them up in court was putting women off reporting.

Anyway, the defence can still apply to get this overturned on a trial by trial basis and apparently this is the first thing they always go for and if they can get it overturned then they know they are onto a winner. i read a thing ages ago can try to find it.

In the policeman's case it relates as it shows anger issues and abuse of power and that he was sacked took early retirement (how early he looks about 35) and so on

SardineQueen · 20/07/2012 21:49

Oh also they banned the right for people accused of rape to represent themselves, to prevent the extensive questioning of victims by their attackers in court.

Solopower · 20/07/2012 21:53

So much that does not make sense in this case ...

But I know that what actually happens in a court room can be very different from how it gets reported by the papers.

OP posts:
McPhee · 20/07/2012 22:01

The basic facts make it obvious he should at least be convicted of manslaughter. Why should he be any different to anyone else. The british law is a farce, as is the rights of the victims. I don't understand this country, really I don't.

You 'sir' murdered an innocent man - I hope you can live with yourself.

edam · 20/07/2012 22:49

I hope he can't live with himself, tbh.

echosierra99 · 20/07/2012 22:50

While agree that this was a tragic incident and 100% avoidable, I can't help but be bewildered by some of the comments that have been posted on this thread: 'vast majority of the police are thugs and bullies' - are you serious? What a mindless insult to make about thousands of people that serve this country and protect you on a daily basis.

I acknowledge that some police officers are bullies, these are the people that abuse the uniform, not to mention the trust of the nation. These people represent a tiny number of the national force.

A word about complaints, I have had 2 complaints made against me:

  1. A man that threatened to rape me and 'watch the light leave my eyes' as he 'cut my fucking pig throat' complained that I used excessive force when I applied his cuffs.
  1. After finding a boy of 12 outside a night club at 2am on a saturday night, I drove him home. His mother opened the door and I explained where I had found her son she told me to 'mind my own fucking business'. She made a complaint stating that she felt judged and discriminated against as a lone parent.

As for the deaths in custody, please don't forget that a large number of people that are held in custody are either drunk, on drugs or both. They may have been in a fight, car crash or foot chase. They may be suicidal.

Questioning this case is understandable but in my opinion making sweeping statements about people you know nothing about is rather ignorant.

edam · 20/07/2012 23:03

deaths in police custody: 333 officers convicted: non. And that's two years ago, so the numbers will be higher now.

People on drugs/drunk/who have been injured: it's the job of the custodians to look after them. That's what custodian means. You don't just leave someone to die because they have been injured/are drunk/high!

edam · 20/07/2012 23:03

none even

limitedperiodonly · 20/07/2012 23:03

edam I thinkyou and i both know he will be able to live with himself.

'echosierra' I don't think most police officers are like this. However, I do think a number of thugs are attracted to jobs in the police, armed forces and security and gravitate towards units such as the one Harwood ended up in.

He is a dangerous thug who is only not in prison because juries want to give officers doing difficult jobs the benefit of the doubt.

The blame lies with very senior officers for appointing people who enjoy a violent ruck and are just about smart enough to realise if they join the poilice they can do it with impunity and hide behind the respect for decent officers.

A couple of officers spoke out against him. If only more would do it.

edam · 20/07/2012 23:06

sadly I think you right, limited, he will justify himself and believe that it was reasonable to attack an innocent member of the public who was walking away with his hands in his pockets.

Swipe left for the next trending thread