Police Officer to be prosecuted over Ian Tomlinson's death

[ahinton]

I would be the first to admit that the police have a very difficult job to do, paid for by public funds.

I also have a very difficult (albeit also very different) job to do, not paid for by public funds.

However, at least if I don't do mine as well as I should, no one is likely to risk getting killed...

[scottycelt]

I've lived in many parts of the UK for quite a few decades now and have hardly ever even noticed the police never mind been intimidated by them ...

Have I just been fantastically lucky ... ?

[french frank]

I think Calum focuses on the key point: the inquest verdict was one of unlawful killing, so unless you're accusing that part of the judicial system of being lefty liberal, I can't see what problem anyone would have with a resulting prosecution.

[ahinton]

I think Calum focuses on the key point: the inquest verdict was one of unlawful killing, so unless you're accusing that part of the judicial system of being lefty liberal, I can't see what problem anyone would have with a resulting prosecution.

Nor can I - although it may sadly not be beyond the bounds of possibility that Mr Pee does consider the British judicial system to be "lefty liberal" (whatever that means, if anything); if I am wrong in that assumption, Mr Pee will no doubt correct me - but in that case I would be left wondering what problem he has with this and, to this end, I have asked him if he considers the police to be entitled to exoneration from prosecution for any civil or criminal offence and await his response.

If I had accidentally killed someone, I would feel as remorseful as the police officer concerned is said to feel; would that fact alone entitle me to exemption from the due process of law? No - of course not! I, however, am not a trained professional police officer on duty from whom such a risk ought to be far smaller as a consequence of the police training for which the public pays large amounts of tax, thank you, Mr Pee...

[scottycelt]

I think Calum focuses on the key point: the inquest verdict was one of unlawful killing, so unless you're accusing that part of the judicial system of being lefty liberal, I can't see what problem anyone would have with a resulting prosecution.

We'll all have to wait and see what startling new evidence has suddenly come to light that apparently wasn't around in the intervening years since the incident ... unless you're accusing another arm of the law of previously withholding that evidence in order to protect one of their own, and are only now acting due to the Inquest verdict?

I just don't like the "smell" of this decision. Calum didn't focus 'on the key point', he, and others, have already found the police officer guilty as charged!

The problem with this case is that, apart from the officer and his family, it will suit everyone concerned if this policeman is found guilty, including the top brass in the police who can then blame the whole tragic death of Mr Tomlinson on " a rogue officer" and finally and conveniently put the matter to bed once and for all. Can PC SImon Harwood, therefore, reasonably expect a fair trial?

I continue to hold my nose ...

[MrGongGong]

The problem with this case is that, apart from the officer and his family, it will suit everyone concerned if this policeman is found guilty, including the top brass in the police who can then blame the whole tragic death of Mr Tomlinson on " a rogue officer" and finally and conveniently put the matter to bed once and for all. Can PC SImon Harwood, therefore, reasonably expect a fair trial?

That's what we have a legal process for
or are you seriously suggesting (in the style of mrP) that somehow the police should be immune from prosecution (oops they seem to be if they shoot people by "mistake" ...............) ?

its not the job of the police to shove people about or to tip people out of their wheelchairs when they are making a legitimate protest , nothing to do with left or right ........ though its interesting how it seems to be ok to protest in Egypt but not in London

[amateur51]

I've lived in many parts of the UK for quite a few decades now and have hardly ever even noticed the police never mind been intimidated by them ...

Have I just been fantastically lucky ... ?

And the point you're making is ....?

[ahinton]

We'll all have to wait and see what startling new evidence has suddenly come to light that apparently wasn't around in the intervening years since the incident ... unless you're accusing another arm of the law of previously withholding that evidence in order to protect one of their own, and are only now acting due to the Inquest verdict?

I just don't like the "smell" of this decision. Calum didn't focus 'on the key point', he, and others, have already found the police officer guilty as charged!

The problem with this case is that, apart from the officer and his family, it will suit everyone concerned if this policeman is found guilty, including the top brass in the police who can then blame the whole tragic death of Mr Tomlinson on " a rogue officer" and finally and conveniently put the matter to bed once and for all. Can PC SImon Harwood, therefore, reasonably expect a fair trial?

I continue to hold my nose ...

I wrote of the due process of law; that does not, in my book, include finding anyone guilty or not guilty as charged in advance of a trial and I have no doubt that Calum doesn't either. A trial is supposed to be part of that due process. If, of course, you assume that this trial will be a sham because a police officer is involved and too many people (including those "top brass" in the police) therefore have their own agendas various, then so be it, but that would be quite another matter - that of having no faith in the British judicial service, a distrust of the police service or both.

I do not know why it has taken as long as it has to being this officer to trial and that is one issue that ought to be investigated if it has not been already; that said, an inquest verdict is an inquest verdict and, unless you are seeking to challenge that as having been fixed, just as you appear to assume a subsequent trial might be fixed, then that's a matter for you, but it is an issue separate from the subject here.

[scottycelt]

I wrote of the due process of law; that does not, in my book, include finding anyone guilty or not guilty as charged in advance of a trial and I have no doubt that Calum doesn't either. A trial is supposed to be part of that due process. If, of course, you assume that this trial will be a sham because a police officer is involved and too many people (including those "top brass" in the police) therefore have their own agendas various, then so be it, but that would be quite another matter - that of having no faith in the British judicial service, a distrust of the police service or both.

I do not know why it has taken as long as it has to being this officer to trial and that is one issue that ought to be investigated if it has not been already; that said, an inquest verdict is an inquest verdict and, unless you are seeking to challenge that as having been fixed, just as you appear to assume a subsequent trial might be fixed, then that's a matter for you, but it is an issue separate from the subject here.

Yes, quite, though, at the same time, the views expressed by some here are not exactly consistent with a man being innocent before being properly tried and possibly found guilty. I'm not referring to you in this particular instance. I'm also not suggesting any sort of 'fixing', more a case of possible expediency on the part of the authorities and, with all the previous publicity, the unlikelihood of the defendant now being afforded a truly fair trial.

As you correctly say, we'll now simply have to await the outcome of the legal process that's currently under way.

I fervently hope that my strong gut feeling about these latest developments (and I readily admit that's all it is) is totally unfounded.

[MrGongGong]

which views in particular Scotty ?
Its hard to have much sympathy with the police in a case like this but they DO deserve a fair trial

[amateur51]

Yes, quite, though, at the same time, the views expressed by some here are not exactly consistent with a man being innocent before being properly tried and possibly found guilty. I'm not referring to you in this particular instance. I'm also not suggesting any sort of 'fixing', more a case of possible expediency on the part of the authorities and, with all the previous publicity, the unlikelihood of the defendant now being afforded a truly fair trial.

As you correctly say, we'll now simply have to await the outcome of the legal process that's currently under way.

I fervently hope that my strong gut feeling about these latest developments (and I readily admit that's all it is) is totally unfounded.

In spite of what scotty says about 'left-wing liberals' (whatever that may mean in his considerable pantheon of contempt) all I am concerned about is that the due process of the law is followed, for the sake of the family of the dead man primarily, and to show to the police and to the public that no-one is above the law.

Simples

[MrGongGong]

Part of the problem with this which seems to have missed the politicians is that the police , through their behaviour HAVE lost the support of even the people who would have instinctively jumped up to defend them. Two examples....... my father , in his 70's lifelong Tory supporter would now cross the road to avoid them.
My brother who is one of the most conventional middle class respectable people I know, steady job in an insurance company , married to a primary school teacher, three children, mortgage , people carrier etc etc advised his son who is at university that "if you go on a student demonstration stay as far away from the police as possible". These aren't "left wing bohemians" (I might admit to one of those tags at times !) but ordinary people........ if these things were happening in another country then we would quite rightly be making a big fuss about it.

and does this

"Of course the Police Officer was wrong in his actions (easy for me or any other to say) and indeed he has repeatedly expressed deep regret at Mr Tomlinson's death. "

mean that when non police kill people they get prosecuted
and the police just have to "express regret" then they can get promoted ????????

[Flosshilde]

We'll all have to wait and see what startling new evidence has suddenly come to light that apparently wasn't around in the intervening years since the incident ... unless you're accusing another arm of the law of previously withholding that evidence in order to protect one of their own, and are only now acting due to the Inquest verdict?

You presumably haven't been following the reports of the case? There has been a considerable amount of 'new' evidence, some of it arising from various police officers who were present. When I have time later I'll track down some of the news reports (from the Guardian, which I know wil render it worthless in your eyes, but I will try & find something from the Telegraph)

[amateur51]

You presumably haven't been following the reports of the case? There has been a considerable amount of 'new' evidence, some of it arising from various police officers who were present. When I have time later I'll track down some of the news reports (from the Guardian, which I know wil render it worthless in your eyes, but I will try & find something from the Telegraph)

Praps items from The People's Friend might be more worthy in scotty's eyes, Flossie

[ahinton]

One problem for some people is that, when it suits them, they are apparently willing to dismiss the possibility that new evidence about an incident might come to light some time after it took place; there has been no shortage of examples of this, in some cases where vital evidence is unearthed many years after the event, particularly as a consequence of technological advances. Selectivity of approach to this is a dangerous stance; those prepared to adopt it would do well to be mindful of that fact.

I am also unaware that anyone here, or indeed elsewhere, has sought to "accuse another arm of the law of previously withholding (any new) evidence in order to protect one of their own and are only now acting due to the Inquest verdict"; if anyone does indeed feel inclined to publish such accusations, I can only hope that they have ample credible and incontrovertible evidence in support of them.

If certain attitudes expressed here by the likes of scotty and (especially) Mr Pee were typical of British society en masse (which, most fortunately, is far from the case), the chances that the police officer - or indeed anyone else charged with a civil or criminal offence - would get a fair trial would be so vanishingly small as to make a mockery of British justice. Yes miscarriages of justice are no more unknown than various interferences with the judicial process (jury nobbling and the like), but that is hardly the point here, is it?...