BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged

Subject: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:03 AM

Somewhat predictably, the thug who was instrumental in the death of Ian Tomlinson looks like he's going to get off with a slap on the wrist from the coppers old boy network, as he's not going to face criminal charges.

Tossers like this give the police a bad name, and he should have been convicted of manslaughter at least.

Guardian report with video here<./a>

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Stu
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:28 AM

The pathologist who conducted the first post mortem is Freddy Patel, who has a history of incompetence and has been involved in some pretty nasty cases, which took a bad turn because of his seeming sloppiness: Ian Tomlinson pathologist accused of incompetence over autopsies.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 08:49 AM

I've just watched the police swaggering along on this video (again) and the whole thing disgusted me as much as it did the first time round. The CPS is spineless and the police authorities are absolutely without honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:06 AM

Surprise, surprise...

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 09:17 AM

He said there was enough evidence to charge the officer who hit Mr Tomlinson with assault but that a six month time limit to do so had expired.

That is ridiculous. The only reason that there was no prosecution for assault within that time limit is that more serious charges were being "considered". The six months limit clock should only have started ticking at the time it was decided not to prosecute for manslaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 02:32 PM

A six month time limit for serious assault charges? Does this apply to everyone, or just the police?

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 03:18 PM

I cannot see any reason why a formal charge of assault could not have been made within the six momnths period, and adjourned until the decison about whether to [proceed with more serious charges had been made.

Or rather I can see a reason - to stop any such charge ever being heard in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 03:54 PM

July 22nd. Five years to the day since police fired seven bullets into the head Jean Charles de Menezes, while he was held down in his seat on the Tube. And walked free.

I see the policeman who isn't going to be charged with anything for his part in the death of Ian Tomlinson has been identified in a BBC news item as being PC Simon Harwood.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM

Miscarriages of justice like this, are precisely what make broken people like Moat into popular anti-establishment "hero's".

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Emma B
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 06:06 PM

It wasn't lost on me either that this news came out on the anniversary of the unlawful killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

I stand by what I said on the thread about Raoul Moat that the police, like all public servants, MUST be accountable for their actions whatever any apologists might declare.

Earlier this year, after a period of a mere 31 years, a previously secret report concluded that Blair Peach 'almost certainly' died after blow from member of special patrol group.

The 33-year-old teacher from New Zealand's skull was crushed by a single blow to the head during a protest against the National Front in Southall, west London, on the evening of 23 April 1979; no officers were ever charged over his death

In a Guardian report in April this year it was reprted -

"The Met agreed to release the documents last year in the aftermath of the death of Ian Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller who died after being attacked by police at the G20 protests in London. The officer filmed striking Tomlinson was a member of the territorial support group, which replaced the disbanded SPG in 1987.

The Crown Prosecution Service is still considering whether to charge the officer with manslaughter."

full report

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Seayaker
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:30 PM

There are a couple of Facebook Groups on this. I've signed up to the one that says that the Officer should be charged.

It may do some good.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Jul 10 - 07:55 PM

The dubious qualifications of the initial pathologist sort of SCREAM " Cover Up" to me !!

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Big Phil
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 03:03 PM

One rule for them - another for the masses. FACT.

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: greg stephens
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 03:28 PM

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes". This problem has ben around for a long while! Isn't it infinitely depressing that precisely the same thing happens over and over again, and nobody does anything about it of any use whatever. I first saw the police doing this 50 years ago in CND days,and nothing has changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 03:53 PM

And every few years they do a retrospective "apology", admit that disgraceful things were done in the past, and lied about and covered up "but of course nothing like that could happen these days" - and yet the very same things and the very same coverups are happening, not just behind our backs, but before our eyes.

"And nothing has changed", as Greg said.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: mauvepink
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 06:12 PM

Do not make the mistake of tarring all Police with the same brush. I am sure many Police Officers are as sickened by this as many of us.

Even if the man in question was not responsible for this poor man's death, he is certainly guilty of what the video shows him doing: attacking an innocent passer by. It's beyond me how the Police can possibly not take action against him. I quite agree. The charge of common assault could have been made within the timespan and then adjourned. How can anyone with honour now work with that man knowing what he is capable of and likely to drag them into in the future?

I feel so sorry for the dead man and his family :-(

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 23 Jul 10 - 07:15 PM

My understanding is that it's not a cover up but a "technicality".

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 08:52 AM

Outrageous but expected. This is one of a whole series of police killings over the years and no police officer has ever been charged for any of them. Harry Stanley is another killing which comes to mind. Visit http://inquest.org.uk/for further information. The police are 'punished' by being suspended on full pay; the coroners instruct the jury that they cannot bring an 'unlawful killing' verdict. Justice, democracy - not in the UK.
Our unarmed police have been on quite a killing spree over the years but a French colleague tells me she knows of no incidence of the armed French police killing anyone. Does anyone have any further information about this? It would seem the armed police treat their firearms as part of the job but our armed units are like little boys with toys.
Then there are the deaths in custody.
PC Dixon was fiction!
Doc John
I must try assaulting a patient - just a little slap, of course. Perhaps I'll be suspended on full pay for six years which just about takes me to retirement....some hope!

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 10:09 AM

The only thing now to be settled is whether the PC keeps his job, after his thuggish behaviour has been displayed in front of millions of the people he is employed to protect.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 24 Jul 10 - 05:46 PM

What annoys me is that if a young soldier, who may be 18 or 19 and may well be in a very stressful and potentially deadly situation, fires and kills someone, who may or may not be innocent, he has the book thrown at him. The police are rarely, if ever, faced with these situations and we see the result time and time again; thuggish, murderous and lying behaviour and never a prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:59 AM

It is all too easy to come into a forum and gripe about the way things have fallen out time and again over a problem which is in the public power to fix.

Thuggish. Of course not all officers are thuggish, but some turn so easily when they are sent in groups however small to investigate a problem or keep the peace. Mob mentality can easily take over even the most devout pacifist. It is basic survival instinct thing I think.

What needs doing:

1. The public must feed their displeasure directly back to the police and the courts. Especially after a ruling. Demand that if officers are caught (i.e. more than one witness or video evidence) behaving inappropriately that officer will be dismissed from field duty permanently, regardless of court rulings. This should go a long way to buidling public confidence.

2. Better training (including refreshers) must be in place to teach officers exactly how to manage various scenarios. This training should be provided by an external entity and officers must pass theory and practical exams before being permitted to work. An external entity would be able to provide an objective assessment of each officer's mental suitability to the job prior to hire.

3. Train team leaders to enforce appropriate behaviour among their peers. If any officer steps out of line s/he is dismissed from the field with immediate effect and suspended without pay until supervision, training, etc. is successfully completed.

4. Frequent friendly police presence in everyday situations. More approachability when encountered walking the beat so to speak. More visits to schools, and places of work. Unfortunately for the police officer, s/he is associated with trouble it colours everyone's regard.

4. Public needs to be friendlier in kind.   When you encounter police on the street, nod and say hello. Just acknowledge him/her. Must be rough going through the day with most everyone you encounter looking askance. The more an individual (officer and citizen) experiences this interchange the more it will colour future actions on both sides. Expect the best of every person and s/he will usually deliver it.

ok... idealistic, maybe.... but it is true a little respect on both sides can go a long way and if you want something to change you have to be willing to write the letters and make the calls to tell police and courts when you feel something is not right. Complacency is what lets the bad stuff repeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Stu
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:38 AM

"It is all too easy to come into a forum and gripe about the way things have fallen out time and again over a problem which is in the public power to fix."

With all due respect VirginiaTam I think that is being a little naive (and it's what the forum is for). The problem is not one of the police feeling under siege or hard done to, that their job is tough (we know it is) the problem is a systematic lack of respect and concern for the people they profess to serve. Even then, the police are one part of the issue: the CPS, IPCC, The Home Office and the judiciary are all complicit in creating a police force that would have been unrecognisable 30+ years ago, one which eschews community policing and places the police above the law.

If a protester at the G20 summit had been caught on camera hitting a police officer, pushing him to the ground leading to the death of that officer within minutes and two of three pathologists established a cause of death consistent with these facts, then is there any doubt at all that person would have been convicted of manslaughter or, as may be more appropriate, unlawful killing? That's before we get to eye witnesses etc Would the CPS still be putting a case together 16 months after the event? Would the 6-month assault charge have been delayed deliberately until such a time as a prosecution can't be brought? It's an unthinkable scenario.

We have coppers looking like soldiers, covering their faces with balaclavas, covering their numbers (which is illegal and has been happening for years i.e. Battle of The Beanfield), the routine use of violence to subdue people, the filming of legitimate protesters etc etc.

Equality is at the heart of this issue and until there is genuine equality which only the authorities have the power to enact, when a copper and an ordinary citizen can expect unhindered justice then this represents at best an abuse of power, at worst a drift towards the sort of totalitarianism that people have whispered about for years and we are blindly drifting into.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:30 PM

Jack... I did not mean to denigrate the discussion on Mudcat and I did say I am an idealist at the end of the post. Still what needs doing is more public feedback to lawmakers, courts and to police.

It is just that Mudcat is such an insular place. It is great for discussing views.   But what you've said so well in this thread shouldn't stop here. It should also be fed back to police, courts, your local MP, local newspapers. Regardless of how seemingly pointless it is to make your views known to those who are in a place to progress them.

If enough people complain, then the powers that be must change or face a dismantling of power, either by vote or by revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:40 AM

Rubbish

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:37 AM

"If enough people complain, then the powers that be must change or face a dismantling of power, either by vote or by revolution."

It will never happen.

We've all been turned into somnambulistic consumer drones who are far more interested in what we might lose were we to challenge the status quo rather than what we might gain. This is a result of our almost complete indoctrination into the capitalist system; true equality has no place in the capitalist system and this carries over from selling tat we don't need, accepting rule by an unelected elite and not questioning the motives and methods of those in authority who claim to serve us, but in reality are serving the unaccountable grandees of unregulated free market economics.

Look back at the English Civil War, look at the debates and the depth of discussion that went on between the people and their representatives. We simply do not have that depth of debate and feeling now in our cosseted and safe little worlds. The whole thing went tits up when those in power realised that they had a lot to lose and it could actually happen, the proles were getting to close and so they closed the whole thing down, firstly with the establishment of the Lord Protector then by the restoration of the monarchy.

I agree that ideally the people would rise up and take these charlatans and snake-oil salesmen and hold them to account, but I think it's too late. They don't like us demonstrating against our 'leaders' and their corruption as it is - there's no chance they would sit down and discuss this with us, we'll be facing lines of paramilitary coppers with nightsticks, CS gas whose faces will be covered, numbers will be covered and who will use whatever force they wish to subdue even peaceful protestors.

Their next target? The BBC, which is already taking a pasting for no reason than reporting what it sees. This important bastion of free speech needs defending to the last, or the next time some copper kills and innocent man we won't even know about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Big Phil
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:45 AM

BBC - Bliar

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Big Phil
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:46 AM

BBC - Bliar Broadcasting Corporation

Phil*

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Mr Happy
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 06:58 AM

It's official now!

The British police can lawfully? kill anyone as long as they use 'reasonable force'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=simon+harwood

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 08:27 AM

From this morning's Times
Jim Carroll

LONG LIST OF FATALITIES, BUT THE POLICE ARE RARELY FOUND GUILTY
Analysis Sean O'Neill

The last time police officers were convicted in connection with a death stemming from their actions while on duty was in 1971. Two officers were jailed for assaulting David Oluwale, a Nigerian whose body was found floating in the River Aire, Leeds, in 1969. Manslaughter charges had been dropped.
Their trial was told that the officers had regularly subjected Mr Oluwale to harassment and violence, and beat him with their truncheons on the night he disappeared.
Since then there has been a long list of cases and campaigns surrounding deaths after police contact and in police custody.
No one was ever held to account for the death of Blair Peach, the anti-fascist campaigner who was hit by police in Southall, West London, in 1979. The Metropolitan Police expressed "regret" in 2010.
Harry Stanley was shot dead by police in Hackney, East London, in 1999 when they acted on information that he was carrying a gun; it turned out to be a chair leg. An inquest verdict of unlawful killing was overturned in the High Court.
A clutch of West Midlands Police officers were tried over the death of Mikey Powell, who died in police custody in 2003. All were cleared.
The death of Azelle Rodney, shot by the Met in 2005, will be the subject this year of a judicial inquiry that holds public hearings. The Met was convicted of health and safety offences over the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes the same year but no individual officers were charged.
The cases of Roger Sylvester, Robin Goodenough and Joy Gardner gave rise to political agitation, but not to convictions.
Deborah Coles, of the pressure group Inquest, has long campaigned for justice over deaths at the hands of the police and prison authorities, and says there are "systemic problems" that mean "deaths following police use of force are not treated as potential crimes".
She added: "It is vital that the rule of law is upheld and applies equally to all, including police officers, and that they do not believe that they can act with impunity.
"For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect and yet no police officer either at an individual or senior management level has been held responsible."

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 08:41 AM

This thread is weird. The dates of the posts are all over the place, and the title is way out of date. If as I suspect some clone may have amalgamated a couple of different threads. may I suggest that they also amend the thread title, to something more current, and/or relevant!

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 08:58 AM

Sorry, just noticed the age of the earlier posts. The thread is still wrongly titled in view of what has happened since.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Owen Woodson
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:40 AM

An appalling verdict and an absolute whitewash. Everyone will know by now about the eight previous complaints against Simon Harwood, and about how he escaped to a chairbound civilian desk job with Surrey police, and how he returned to the Met when the dust had settled; ill health problem cured of course.

I feel sick to think that I share the same planet with this crud, and breathe the same fresh air.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 Jul 12 - 02:24 PM

I suspect that there are some police who feel the same. Feel free to decide which word to stress.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 02:00 PM

Yes, there are police who feel the same: officers had reported the actions of this recent thug but to no avail; I suspect, however, they are in the minority. The IPCA - normally about as vigorous and effective as the PCC - has come out strongly on the many aspects of this case, not just the 'unlawful killing' but the apalling series of incidents in the career of this particular officer.
English jurors seem reluctant to convict an on duty police officer, even though in this particular case the judge would have accepted a majority verdict.
It's not just the thuggish behaviour of the police that shocks me but their incompetance: witness their actions over, for example, Ian Huntly and the tragedy that their lack of communication and general incompetance in this case alone led to.
Are we seeing the collapse of all the monoliths that should serve the public but only serve themselves: MP's, the press,the banks, the police? Sadly I fear it will all just fizzle out and then it will be business as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 03:59 PM

The judge did accept a majority verdict - but only two jurors were unwilling to acquit.

The trouble is that the evidence had been so muddied that a conscientious juror could have been been likley to think that, though Harwood was a thug, and his violent behaviour was probably the cause of Tomlinson's death, there was still a reasonable doubt that the cause of death might have been by a heart attack that coincided with the attack, and that the stress that brought that about was caused by a number of other factors on that day in addition to Harwood's behaviour,

"Probably guilty" is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 05:00 PM

The questions that occurs to me are:

(1) If sufficient force to cause internal injuries that lead to what the verdict of an inquest called unlawful killing is reasonable, then what is unreasonable?

(2) Is it now a precedent in law that any individual can unlawfully kill any other individual as long as they do it with reasonable force?

(3) Is unlawful killing permitted as long as it is with reasonable force for only certain occupations, and if so, what are they?

(4) Did the jury consider the circumstances whether Harwood was justified in using force in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jul 12 - 05:40 PM

The jury did not decide that Harwood's force was reasonable or legal. That wasn't what they were there to decide.

The question before them was whether in the circumstance there was any reasonable doubt that his behaviour, however thuggish and illegal, was the cause of Ian Tomlinson's death.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jul 12 - 03:52 AM

We sincerely holpe you don't, Tim.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 25 Jul 12 - 01:37 PM

A disgrace ... Ian Tomlinson was moving as fast as he could, he was not doing anything wrong, he was harmless and defenceless ~ all he was trying to do was get home. He had already been stopped from going other routes home and it is noticeable from some videos of this incident that Simon Harwood had already attacked various other people that day for no reason at all. Thankfully, a Police Misconduct hearing which is scheduled to take place in September will be held in public.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 12:16 PM

Ah. Thank you YY.

Subject: RE: BS: Ian Tomlinson Officer not charged
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jul 12 - 01:45 PM

My last post was in reply to a suggestion by Yorks Yankee about the meaning of John Mackenzie's last, tying in with a post from one Tina, whom some denounced as a troll or a BNP supporter, to whom I had previously tried to respond rationally.

The whole of that correspondence has been deleted. WHY? Tina didn't seem to me to say anything outway outrageous, but mdrely to express a slightly controversial pov; the responses to her were reasonably moderate. Who decides there are posts which are so intolerable that all ref to them must be obliterated? ~~ apart from my previous one, immediately before this; which now stands as a meaningless hole-in-the-air.

If you must be so needlessly officious, mods ~~ at least endeavour so to do with some semblance of efficiency, why can't you!

~M~