So the Met police get away with muder once again!

[Guest]

The only people who can carry out murder and be cleared in a British court are the police.

[Nick Armstrong]

Can't see this thread lasting long

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...and nor does it deserve to ..

a jury verdict reached in an open trial ....

a most unfortunate occurrence with possibly a civil option but not manslaughter and murder was not an option

[johnb]

The history, that has now been revealed, of the police officer concerned is 'interesting' to say the very least. Of course the jury weren't aware when they arrived at their verdict.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Of course the jury weren't aware when they arrived at their verdict.

well natch that is how it is done innit ..... tried on the evidence not your reputation ....

[Flosshilde]

Rather more than 'reputation' -

Harwood's prior disciplinary record, ... includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver after a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.

He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.

His acquittal is a travesty - I hope that Tomlinson's family's private prosecution is successful.

Ands this one - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...on?INTCMP=SRCH

But it shouldn't be left to individuals to bring private prosecutions - fighting the power of the Met (or other forces) is an unequal battle.

[decantor]

This verdict was largely predictable. It was always going to be tricky to establish a beyond-reasonable-doubt link between Harwood's actions and Tomlinson's death.

A more interesting question is whether the DPP was right to bring a charge of manslaughter. The CPS might well have been influenced by public outrage and the Tomlinson family's feelings, but the public interest might have been better served by a lesser charge referring to the (apparently) disproportionate and unprovoked use of force, as seen in the video evidence. We might all agree that Harwood seems to have neither the temperament nor judgement required of an officer in a high-tension situation - more so now that we know his record. A conviction would have removed him from service, possibly resulted in the retribution for which the public bayed, and given cause for a rethink to the superiors who chose to put him in that position.

On this basis, those who enjoy a good conspiracy-theory could have a field-day!

[Serial_Apologist]

Does this mean he is now unlikely to be charged with e.g. assault?

[Resurrection Man]

Ok..so let me get this straight and just to add a bit of balance...here we have a police officer who was found not guilty in a proper trial but then as soon as his past record is revealed we suddenly get posts here implying that 'the court case was a travesty' etc. OK...we are all entitled to that view if we so wish.

Now then...where are the threads about other miscreants, drug dealers, rapists etc who again are found not guilty in a proper trial and then their past record comes into view after the trial and they have been found guilty of many other similar charges in the past....

So why aren't you posting about them? Could it be because it doesn't fit your 'all police are bastards' bigoted viewpoint? Just a thought.

[Serial_Apologist]

Ok..so let me get this straight and just to add a bit of balance...here we have a police officer who was found not guilty in a proper trial but then as soon as his past record is revealed we suddenly get posts here implying that 'the court case was a travesty' etc. OK...we are all entitled to that view if we so wish.

Now then...where are the threads about other miscreants, drug dealers, rapists etc who again are found not guilty in a proper trial and then their past record comes into view after the trial and they have been found guilty of many other similar charges in the past....

So why aren't you posting about them? Could it be because it doesn't fit your 'all police are bastards' bigoted viewpoint? Just a thought.

For starters, no one on here has said all police are bastards...

And surely even you can see that an "unlawful killing" perpetrated by a member of the police stands in a different order of offending than one by a member of the public who is not?

[teamsaint]

Anybody care to hazard a guess as to what proportion of senior (or even middle ranking) police officers are masons?

[scottycelt]

It is pretty obvious from the video evidence at the time of Mr Tomlinson's death, and now the revelations of his past record, that this officer should never have been in the police force. Even a fellow police-officer had complained about his excessive use of force when dealing with a member of the public in a separate case. A thug is a thug whether in uniform ot not and the officer's treatment of a cameraman prior to his assault on Mr Tomlinson was plainly nothing short of thuggish.

However I think a manslaughter charge was always likely to fail and a bit OTT, tbh. Whilst I have nothing but sympathy for Mr Tomlinson's family and the deep hurt they must understandably feel I consider a lesser charge of assault and battery would have been the correct one in this instance. It is has been impossible to prove whether Mr Tomlinson later died because of the assault, though obviously common sense dictates it almost certainly must have been a contributing factor. Nevertheless, 'common sense' is not proof.

I sometimes get the impression that the prosecuting authorities occasionally respond to media pressure rather than the real nature of the incident, with the result that proper justice is not done in the end, and, in this case, has made matters even more distressing for the Tomlinson family.

[Flosshilde]

Ok..so let me get this straight and just to add a bit of balance...here we have a police officer who was found not guilty in a proper trial but then as soon as his past record is revealed we suddenly get posts here implying that 'the court case was a travesty' etc. OK...we are all entitled to that view if we so wish.

Now then...where are the threads about other miscreants, drug dealers, rapists etc who again are found not guilty in a proper trial and then their past record comes into view after the trial and they have been found guilty of many other similar charges in the past....

So why aren't you posting about them? Could it be because it doesn't fit your 'all police are bastards' bigoted viewpoint? Just a thought.

It might be 'just a thought' but you haven't really thought it through, have you? The police's role is to 'protect communities' (as the mission statement of my local force has it); the Metropolitan Police seems to have forgotten this & acts almost as a lower tier army, protecting the state. It's one of rather more cases than one would like where the behaviour of members of the Metropolitan Police isn't what one would expect - including racism, wrongful arrest, assault, fiddling evidence, not pursuing cases adequately. Sometimes it looks like the entire force should be disbanded & a new one formed, although it would, inevitably, contain many of the previous Met.

[MrGongGong]

Why am I not surprised ?
The fact that this horrible man is a violent bully should be enough to get him kicked out of the police, which is NOT to say that ALL police are bastards. As with Jean Charles De Menezes there is no justice.

[french frank]

Relevant to Scotty's #12, I witnessed an uncannily similar situation earlier this week. A nearby resident is, sadly, in an almost permanent state of inebriation. From the room where I was working I heard the usual combination of sounds: raised voices and small dog barking. The scene was as I expected: two men (one of them my neighbour) facing each other up and neighbour's small dog nearby barking. I then saw the other man give my neighbour a violent push and sent him sprawling on the pavement.

When I went out and told the man the neighbour was an alcoholic, his attitude changed, and he walked off. I told my neighbour to go back into his house and take his dog (who had apparently nipped the passer-by) with him. I can only describe his attitude as 'insolent' and he just stared back at me. I know that it wasn't 'insolence': it was that he was drunk and in that state he hardly seems able to grasp what people are saying to him.

Now, he was able to get to his feet, fully conscious, as Mr Tomlinson was, but supposing he'd been taken ill later and died, do I think the passer-by should have been charged with manslaughter? I don't think so. I would have considered my neighbour's behaviour as having contributed to what happened to him - in the circumstances. Any sober person whose dog had 'bitten' a passer-by would have apologised and removed the dog and himself from the scene as quickly as possibly. But he looked back 'insolently' and this was misinterpreted by the passer-by.

I suspect that the behaviour of Mr Tomlinson, also apparently drunk - as usual - was taken as having contributed to what happened to him.

That said, I agree with scotty that it looks as if the PC should have been turfed out of the force before that, with his record, and the fact that he wasn't means that others should share the blame for the incident.