 sj |
||
|
||
BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Mr Happy Date: 20 Jul 12 - 09:14 AM I've begun a new thread as the other one's title is misleading. thread.cfm?threadid=130936&messages=31 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Stu Date: 20 Jul 12 - 09:37 AM Appalling verdict. I know the coppers always get away with it, but this case was so blatant it was ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:38 AM Yes, it bothers me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:40 AM And Liddle Towers bothered me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:49 AM As it was all captured on camera, and the poor chap was obviously attacked for no reason and with UNreasonable force, I can't see how the perpetrator was exonerated. Also, I'm worried that smug and too-violent police officers may take this as a carte-blanche for more of the same. We did have a long and proud tradition here in UK for Police restraint and common sense. But Thugs Rule now, it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Mr Happy Date: 20 Jul 12 - 10:51 AM BBC News page doesn't have this among main stories, you have to search for it, why am I not surprised? Democracy, justice, where? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Stu Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:12 AM "We did have a long and proud tradition here in UK for Police restraint and common sense." That died at Orgreave. It was pronounced dead in a beanfield in Wiltshire a year later. They've not been on our side since, and respect needs to be earnt. Fuck the lot of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:14 AM The guy was walking away when this thug with a long history of abusing his position (and people), attacked him from behind. Even without knowing the PC's violent history, WTF did they find him not guilty. IT WAS SO BLATANT!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Dave Hanson Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:17 AM Simon Harwood has a history of violence, he's got away with it 5 times out of seven now, do the police and the ' establishment ' not care what he does ? I cannot believe this verdict, Ian Tomlinson was walking away from Harwood, clearly no threat, no reason to attack him at all. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 20 Jul 12 - 11:38 AM lets hope the civil action by the victims family is more succesful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Penny S. Date: 20 Jul 12 - 02:20 PM I went up to London on the day of the big union rally, later than the march, walked out of Charing Cross station and saw a policeman pushing someone violently in a way very similar to Harwood, but without truncheon. Couldn't film it as it was just a moment. Couldn't get the guy's number as I wasn't near enough. The person he was hitting was a "crusty" type of activist from a small group of similar people held between the station and Trafalgar Square by two lines of police. Not exactly kettled, as ordinary members of the public were able to walk past as if nothing were going on. He seemed OK. I had no idea what to do, I was on my own. I don't like feeling that I can't trust a policeman. This verdict is appalling. And last week it was revealed that the military can take over our homes any time security demands (I thought that was banned in Magna Carta. Did she die in vain?). How did this happen? Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Jul 12 - 03:41 PM The responsibility for this lies with the way the investigating authorities seem to have colluded in attempts by the police to muddy the ground so as to ensure that an acquittal could be ensured. For example the job of carrying out a initial post-morten was given to a very dodgy pathologist (since struck off) who came up with a finding of "heart attack" and destroyed the evidence which would have proved whether this was the case, when a more competent pathologist carried out a second post-mortem. This meant that the jury was faced with having to decide between two contradictory findings of the cause of death. It is not surprising that the jury found it impossible to exclude a "reasonable doubt" that the death of Ian Tomlinson was caused by the violent assault carried out on him by Harwood, which was not even denied. It seems pretty certain that Harwood will be driven out from the police, and very likely a civil case against him will result in large fines which he will be unable to pay. But it seems very unlikely that the people who tried to shut the whole case down will be punished in any way, or even inconvenienced in their careers. And the same goes for those who failed to spot (or even covered) up his career of violence in the police, and so enabled him to be re-employed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Jul 12 - 03:57 PM There is still (unfortunately) a fortress mentality among the police, and a 'Them and us' attitude prevails. So they close ranks, and protect their own, even though the person concerned may have committed the most heinous of crimes. It's a bit like the protection by the Catholic church of paedophile priests. It doesn't matter what they did, they're one of us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Leadfingers Date: 20 Jul 12 - 07:25 PM Hopefully , if nothing else , the Nonexistent checks on past behaviour will be updated , so that anyone with a record of assault will never be admitted to the police ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: CET Date: 20 Jul 12 - 07:56 PM How likely is it that the police deliberately steered the case to a corrupt pathologist with the intention of having him falsify his autopsy? A heart attack doesn't seem that far fetched. What I don't understand is why the heart attack should make a difference. Wasn't the heart attack obviously precipitated by the attack? He didn't just up and have a heart attack because PC Harwood looked at him. Also, why no charge of assault causing bodily harm or the English equivalent? At least he could go to jail for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: YorkshireYankee Date: 20 Jul 12 - 08:24 PM McG of H: But it seems very unlikely that the people who tried to shut the whole case down will be punished in any way, or even inconvenienced in their careers. Spot on, sir! I have had experience of this kind of thing myself -- though (fortunately) not on the same scale (i.e.death). My husband and I fought a speeding ticket; my husband knows his physics and realised that the camera which "caught" us speeding was set on a curve, which made its calculations inaccurate. We didn't have a lot of money (couldn't afford a solicitor), but my husband firmly believed that the British system of justice is one of the best in the world, and was sure that we would get a fair hearing. I won't bore you with all the gory details, but what we experienced was a real eye-opener, and included a number of... "irregularities". Here are just a few: • withholding of evidence (of various types) the laws say we were entitled to. • justifying this withholding of evidence by quoting case law which, when looked into, actually said the opposite of what was claimed. • a member of the RSS (Road Safety & Support) who also was testifying (for the Prosecution) as an "independent" expert witness. (Then there was his colleague, who said (in a radio interview) "Let's leave the laws of physics in the classroom, where they belong." (I am not making this up.)) • a CPS prosecutor who dropped her guard and admitted that the case against us was being co-ordinated by the above-mentioned member of RSS. • The engineering head of the speed camera company being called as another "independent" expert witness. • This witness lied under oath a number of times, some of them more obvious than others (as in "No, your Honour, there are no charts (in the manual I wrote) showing that the placement of the speed camera on a curve might affect the accuracy of its reading," when a quick look at page thirty-something of the manual shows that is precisely what is there). • a form (on the back of a paper we were sent; I'm sure we were not meant to see it) making it clear that if the CPS wins, the speed camera company's "independent" expert witness gets paid (by the defendant, as part of the costs), but if the CPS loses, then it's a freebie. • a photo (pretty much ignored) which showed that a certain crucial measurement was taken in a spot at least a meter from where this expert witness originally testified it was taken. Now... if we had done any of these things ourselves, do you think it would have gone un-noticed? Or would we have had the book thrown at us for perjury, collusion to pervert the course of justice, etc.? We were found guilty and ordered to pay £15,000 court costs (~£12,000 of which were the speed camera company's fee for the "independent" witness they provided). When we appealed -- armed with a recording of this witness later saying the exact opposite of what he'd said under oath -- this was completely ignored. Fortunately, there is a very commendable law which says that the prosecution must supply the defendant with any relevant material which might "be useful to" them. Unfortunately, guess who gets to decide whether or not that material has anything in it which might "be useful to" the defendant... No, not the defendant. Guess again. We kept fighting/appealing (against the advice of both sets of parents) because we believed it would be wrong to just knuckle under -- even when we began to see just how overwhelmingly the deck is stacked against the regular punter. BTW, we contacted I-don't-know-how-many newspapers and news programmes, almost sure that the media would take an interest in such a blatant miscarriage of justice, but they are only interested if you win (unless there is a death involved, I guess). Otherwise you end up in "News of the Weird/Daft/Silly" (which I now know to read with a I realise that what happened to us is nothing compared to what happened to Mr Tomlinson and his family, but the stress, anger and feelings of injustice have stayed with us for years (6 or 7) since it first happened (although, come to think of it, the bankruptcy I ended up declaring last September is still in effect for another month or two) and affected our lives to an extent you might find difficult to believe. I apologise for the rant; I have considered posting here about it many times before now but held off... let's just say that when I hear about various instances of police (and many other institutions) corruption, I am not surprised. After seeing the lengths they went to in a non-criminal court case, how could I be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 20 Jul 12 - 09:00 PM Manslaughter was always going to be a big ask, since 9 times out of ten the violence used in this instance would have come nowhere near to causing death. And there was sufficient muddle (conflicting pathology reports etc) to allow the possibility that the violence in this case was not the sole cause of death. Without a doubt the cop would have been convicted on a lesser charge, say actual bodily harm. We can in any case be satisfied that the cop is finished. Any civil case will surely be won, and here is reason to hope that some person or persons higher up the line will be disciplined for that fact that Harwood was allowed back into the police force at all, let alone deployed on a potentially volatile front line, such is his deplorable service record. Both the police and the police watchdog will also have questions to answer about their initial and protracted reluctance to investigate the assault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: CET Date: 21 Jul 12 - 09:51 AM As long as the violence is a contributing cause of death, that should be enough for manslaughter. In any case, the causal link looks fairly clear here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jul 12 - 10:03 AM How likely is it that the police deliberately steered the case to a corrupt pathologist with the intention of having him falsify his autopsy? How likely? Very probable indeed. The pathologist would have been seen not as "corrupt" but as "reliabe" or "helpful". Unlikely to make waves. The post-mortem was carried out before the video evidence of the assault emerged, at a time when the police were issuing press guidance that the cause of death was probably the result of uprest in the crowd and that no police officers were involved. The expectation would have been that the whole thing would blow over. It was only after video evidence was published by the Guardian that the Independent Police Complaints Commission reversed its refyusal to get involved, and that a second post-mortem was set up, by which time vital evidence had been destroyed by the initial pathologist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 22 Jul 12 - 05:43 AM The jury at the earlier inquest returned the verdict of 'unlawful killing' yet the jury returned a 'not guilty' verdict at the criminal trial. This seems incompatible to me; 'different levels of proof' are talked about but this is just semantics. Juries are very reluctant to return a guilty verdict against a serving police officer: witness a series of similar cases over the years. The jury in the very sad Sally Clark case found her guilty of murdering her two children, being swayed by the evidence of expert witness Roy Meadows who showed a lamentable knowledge of genetics and statistics. Although the verdict was eventually overturned Ms Clark never recovered from her experience and this led to her early death. Here the jury was impressed by Sir Professor Doctor Meadows; well he must be right, musn't he? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with jury trials. Police officers, expert witnesses, clever laywers all sway juries; can this be right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Jul 12 - 06:43 AM Ah, the jury system is, as Churchill said of democracy, the worst system possible ~~ apart from all the others! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jul 12 - 08:48 AM AFAIK there have been something like 1500 deaths in or connected with police custody - and NO police convicted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST Date: 22 Jul 12 - 09:43 AM Yes ~M~, but there are some who are so stupid or biggoted who shouldn't serve. Richard, it would be interesting to compare these deaths with other countries. 'Inquest' was unable to supply the information. According to a colleague, the armed French police do not have this appalling record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Mr Happy Date: 22 Jul 12 - 09:50 AM So its not just 007 with a licence to kill! What can be done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 Jul 12 - 11:44 AM Here you go: 1433 relevant deaths since 1990! http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Jul 12 - 11:45 AM Doc J [presume you to be unidentified Guest above] ~~ But how could the desirable outcome of excluding such people be achieved? Interference with the composition of juries, notionally ordinary people randomly chosen to provide the sort of cross-section needed to make such an entity work at all, would probably bring more problem in its wake than it would solve. Intelligence tests, profiling, &c, would defeat the object of the organisation, surely? I am not in any way defending the system; just pointing out that for all its shortcomings, nobody seems to have contrived to come up with a better one. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jul 12 - 01:07 PM I'd be very surpised if the record of the French police is any better - Death in police custody in France |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 22 Jul 12 - 02:27 PM The outcome looks like killing is ok, as long as it is done with reasonable force! So I would like to know where the borderline is in case I need to kill somone in trhe future!!!!!!!! Before the secirity services break down my door this is IRONY and I have no intention of ever killing someone. I am not a nasty, evil, violent thug like Harwood and unlike him I can never take pleasure from putting the boot in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 22 Jul 12 - 03:48 PM Yes ~M~ I was 'guest' who forgot to fill the form in! I really don't know and it is a problem that needs considerable thought. But the problem remains that jurors will not convict a police officer and are impressed by (so called) expert witnesses. I believe the latter is being looked into. I suppose voting is similar; perhaps newsagents should report to some committee which newspapers we buy! Not so funny - we are 'registered' when we buy a television. Seriously how can we call ourselves a democracy when the government is chosen by the floating voters in the marginals; apart from having hereditary peers and a number of bishops in the House of Lords. The government refused to do anything about the former and constantly drag their heels about the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Owen Woodson Date: 23 Jul 12 - 05:21 AM Deaths in Police custody. Let's be a little objective. I'd guess the death rate would be higher than the per capita average because of circumstances which often surround the detention of suspects. I'm thinking EG of drunks passing out in the cells and choking on their own vomit, or fighting mad thugs who decide to take the whole station on etc. But 1433 deaths since 1990, with not a single charge being brought against any of the officers connected? Come on. In case there's anybody who can't do simple division, that's more than one a week. I still refuse to believe that every single serving police officer is a violent thug who kicks the shit out of every single suspect they bring in. But what I do believe is that there is an all embracing culture of corruption within the service, and a conspiracy of silence. Moreover, that corruption and that culture go all the way to the very top, and that's why the Simon Harwoods of this world are allowed to get away with it. The whole rotten mess needs busting wide open. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Mr Happy Date: 23 Jul 12 - 06:49 AM Makes you wonder if Harwood knows too much? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Owen Woodson Date: 23 Jul 12 - 07:40 AM No. I don't think it's a case of the higher ups being frightened because of what Harwood might have on them. I think it's a case of the police don't wash their dirty linen in public. Or maybe it's a case of the devil looks after his own. I strongly suspect in fact, that retiring culpable personnel on spurious ill health grounds is a standard way of hushing things up and hiding the mess. After all, it would never do for the general public to get wind of corruption in the police force, would it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: GUEST Date: 23 Jul 12 - 07:59 AM That is how Harwood slipped through the disciplinary net in the first place: he was allowed to retire from one force where there were unresolved disciplinary issues, and then he found employment at the Met. Either their checks did not pick this up or it was considered unimportant. If the police force were a nationally regulated profession (like doctors, nurses, social workers etc who have a registered body with whom employers must share disciplinary information) then there would have been a greater chance that this important information would have been passed on to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: UK Police kills innocent man:Aquitted? From: Owen Woodson Date: 23 Jul 12 - 09:55 AM This was no administrative error. Harwood indulged in a deliberate and nasty assault which should have cost him his job, and probably a jail sentence. It was a clear case of collusion in which the Met deliberately moved him out the way until the dust settled. And these are the people who are supposed to be safeguarding our legal rights and making sure we sleep safely at night!!! |
