So the Met police get away with muder once again!

[Lateralthinking1]

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.

I think you did very well but are you able to elaborate? When you refer to your neighbour's behaviour and how it could have contributed to his demise, are you thinking of the immediate psychological or long-term physical impacts of his behaviour?

Incidentally, I think the main blame in the Tomlinson case rests with the person in the police force who decided to re-appoint him specifically to public order duties. I think that there are questions there about institutional character. There are also to my mind questions about the character of the officer, Tomlinson and indeed the protesters. The policy makers too, if not more so.

[amateur51]

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.

According to Clive Coleman on the Today programme this morning, we have to go back to 1970 to find a case where a policeman was convicted of murder/manslaughter, this out of over 1,000 court cases.

And no-one has said 'all police are bastards' have they, RM?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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

Except that, in the video footage shown, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police cordon, and the thug in the uniform (including helmet and truncheon) came after him from behind:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

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.

And this is not an "all police are bastards" point: just this particular individual.

[french frank]

I think you did very well but are you able to elaborate? When you refer to your neighbour's behaviour having contributed, are you thinking of the immediate psychological or long-term physical impacts of his behaviour?

I meant simply how my neighbour appears to strangers. The PC described Mr Tomlinson in a very similar way, misread his attitude and lost patience (which no police officer should do, ever, with the public).

But the bravest thing I did was picking the dog up - a Jack Russell - and marching back to his house with him, the only thing which persuaded the now lachrymose neighbour to go back home.

Incidentally, I think the main blame in the Tomlinson case rests with the person in the police force who decided to re-appoint him specifically to public order duties. I think that there are questions there about institutional character but there are also to my mind questions about the character of the of officer, Tomlinson and indeed the protesters.

Exactly. The Met does have some guilt in the matter.

The problem with public protests is that - I believe - a police officer does have the authority to order people to do things, but it's not in the nature of mass protesters to obey. It could be argued that if people engage in civil disobedience which threatens public order they can't expect to be treated gently.

I'm reminded of a more potent similarity:

The Bristol Riots of 1831: one Christopher Davies, while drunk, got caught up in the rioting crowd, entered the spirit of the situation and marched about waving his umbrella and shouting: "Pull down the churches and mend the roads with them."

He was arrested as a 'ringleader', was tried, found guilty and hanged. He reportedly admitted that he had deserved no better, since he had been a bad husband and father ...

[amateur51]

An aspect of poor Ian Tomlinson's death is his apparently total disregard for his own safety and his determination to get home. He walked around and through a riot, tottering as he went; he was shouted at and re-directed quite forcefully by police; and after he had been assaulted by Harewood he was tended by members of the public, got up & staggered on, only to collapse and die a few yards further along.

He was clearly not in any danger from the public. He was clearly not in danger from most of the police who were looking out for him but found him to be a nuisance. And then he encountered PC Harewood, a man totally unsuited to the role his superiors had put him in.

And there's the nub of the problem - Harewood should never have been there. Those that made it possible should face some stiff questioning in a thorough review. I know people will say that it's a waste of money, it won't bring Mr Tomlinson back, but the Met' as so often, has to learn the lessons that only the best can serve the public and thugs do not deserve a second chance.

Second chance? Where have I heard that before?

[Lateralthinking1]

To follow up on my previous post, I do not find Tomlinson a sympathetic character. I try to get an overall view of responsibility patterns in individuals. They can be grey. Did he not sire nine children? There isn't a law against it but it creates an impression. At least it does to me. A troubled man who owns a dog, presumably cares for it to the extent of walking it, and possibly needing it for comfort, creates a different impression, disruptive and irritating to the neighbourhood though he may be.

This was a jury decision based on all the evidence. It is a brave person who questions the outcome not having seen it. Hopefully we can be sure that rules were followed!!!!! I think though we need to be cautious in our assessment of the alcohol impaired. If someone is physically weakened by alcohol use over a long period - let's say that in medical terms his heart is weakened - I don't believe that he should have a lesser case under the law if pushed than one who has a heart condition not linked to alcohol use.

I fear though that society lumps in these cases wrongly with Saturday night revellers. It also tends to be even more negatively judgemental towards them. Many of the bullying great and the good alas can identify with having thrown up outside Sainsburys before fighting with with mates - that is normal!! - whereas a long-term condition apparently is reprehensible. Well, yes, attacking an illness and at the same time pretending your past misdemeanours away is self-reassuring and easy. It's also lame.

In terms of behaviour on the day, alcohol can affect judgement. Often this is detrimental to the person concerned. A sober person whose dog has bitten someone is in a stronger condition (a) to control a dog in the first place and (b) to take a legal action against an individual who assaults him should it come to that situation. Ditto clear decision making about whether or not to be in the vicinity of a crazed crowd. What would our view be if the individual was autistic or of low IQ? Would they be less responsible for their actions than an alcoholic? I don't think so and I don't think that they should have more sympathy than an addict.

And I doubt it takes any of those things to be in a situation where a dog bites someone else or someone is in the wrong place at the wrong time. I might argue that the sober and the sane should be held more responsible under the law for their actions than the fragile rather than less. I would even say that the police officer in question has behaviour patterns that aren't exactly the norm. That is why it is so important that those who do - senior police officers or rioters - have some thought of the wider picture. It is their often highly dubious sane and sober decisions which affect all the vulnerable badly. If they can't be trusted, who can be?

[amateur51]

I meant simply how my neighbour appears to strangers. The PC described Mr Tomlinson in a very similar way, misread his attitude and lost patience (which no police officer should do, ever, with the public).

But the bravest thing I did was picking the dog up - a Jack Russell - and marching back to his house with him, the only thing which persuaded the now lachrymose neighbour to go back home.Exactly. The Met does have some guilt in the matter.

You did well, french frank - I imagine that you were a little 'high' on adrenaline but well done nonetheless

The problem with public protests is that - I believe - a police officer does have the authority to order people to do things, but it's not in the nature of mass protesters to obey. It could be argued that if people engage in civil disobedience which threatens public order they can't expect to be treated gently.

While I understand your point, turn it round. While a police officer does have the right in a riot to treat people forcefully, should they overstep the mark should they not expect to be treated gently by the crowd nor the subsequent courts? Sauces for geese & ganders I think.

I'm reminded of a more potent similarity:

The Bristol Riots of 1831: one Christopher Davies, while drunk, got caught up in the rioting crowd, entered the spirit of the situation and marched about waving his umbrella and shouting: "Pull down the churches and mend the roads with them."

He was arrested as a 'ringleader', was tried, found guilty and hanged. He reportedly admitted that he had deserved no better, since he had been a bad husband and father ...

What a poignant tale, quite new to me, french frank - many thanks

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

apart from their ineptitude in re-hiring a dissiplinary failure [admitted on tv news last night] the issue is more about The Met and its crowd and demonstration control policies; it has become an anti democratic establishment and uses dangerous methods ... however criticism of their approach and the court case about kettling [sadlly they won] may have led to their initial 'hold back' last summer when the riots took off ...

i agree pretty much with the view that the trial was an open and valid operation of our justice system, that the charge was overstated, that there is no recompense for being so unlucky as Mr Tomlinson in encountering that PC who should not have been in uniform ... this is what a bad accident looks like .... not a conspiracy ... and not a police whitewash ... and shouting of that sort will do nothing to bring the Met to account .... or change its appalling tactics ...

[Lateralthinking1]

I would like to add that the case brings up wider societal issues for me. The vulnerable are just not being protected by the comparatively strong who either enforce the law or seek its assistance. I think it is about time that those who are comparatively strong started acting in a more consistently robust way themselves and stopped scape goating people who are less than able.

First, the police really need to get to grips with their knee jerk defences against being sued. Rather than joining ranks and covering up difficulties whenever there is a problem with a member of staff, they need to take appropriate actions. If an officer exhibits aberrant behaviour, address it through counselling. Then don't just place him on the same old duties or automatically dismiss him. Find him another role. It isn't rocket science although it does require a certain bigness of character that many can't muster.

Next, Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, one woman, drunk at 8.30am, had hurled racial abuse on a train, effectively taking on tens of people there, a history of suffering from anxiety, had recently lost her job, and jailed for 21 weeks. I'm sorry but I really, really disagree with it. While I don't condone her behaviour in any way and I would not wish it to represent behaviour more generally, which incidentally it wouldn't, frankly it is nothing in comparison to bludgeoning someone with a truncheon. And I do think that ordinary members of the public need to seriously ask themselves about their own abilities to place their reactions in context.

Let us say that you have travelled abroad as a part of a coach party of 30 Brits. You are all on a day out in Paris and have piled onto a train on the Metro. It is breakfast time. One French woman, drunk and bizarre, starts hurling abuse about British people, telling you all to go home. Do all 30 of you (a) Feel absolutely outraged, permanently damaged emotionally, and demand as a group that she is arrested and then imprisoned or (b) Experience a little anxiety for ten minutes, talk amongst yourselves, later laugh the incident off, and feel sorry for her that she is clearly someone who is disturbed for some reason and hope that she can get help?

This country has got all of its priorities wrong, mainly because those who have the benefit of being reasonably strong can't recognise their own good fortune, and have significant strands of deep unpleasantness in themselves. That should concern us all.

[johnb]

The fact that PC Harwood was allowed to continue being employed by the Met, as a civilian, after resigning due to ill health (but in reality resigning to avoid disciplinary charges) strikes me as indicating collusion within the Met to look after 'one of their own'. No surprise there.

[LHC]

I think the verdict was correct in this case, but as others have said, the real concern is that Harwood should never have been allowed to rejoin the police, having previously retired on ill-health grounds in order to avoid disciplinary action.

However, although these wider concerns about the Met's employment and disciplinary practices are legitimate, they don't make Harwood guilty of this particular offence.

Incidentally, I understand he may still be subject to disciplinary action by the Met and could well be sacked. It is clear he used disproportionate force in this case, even if he wasn't guilty of manslaughter. I just hope he doesn't claim ill-health again and retire once more on a full-pension. Now that really would be a travesty.

[MrGongGong]

According to Clive Coleman on the Today programme this morning, we have to go back to 1970 to find a case where a policeman was convicted of murder/manslaughter, this out of over 1,000 court cases.

And no-one has said 'all police are bastards' have they, RM?

Indeed
the knee jerk reaction from some along the lines of
"so you think it's ok to be a terrorist then?" as happened when they murdered De Menezes just reinforces the belief that while all police might not be "bastards" they are entirely untrustworthy and dangerous to have around.

[amateur51]

i don't know if this has been covered elsewhere but Harwood was not entirely alone when he attacked Tomlinson. Did any of his colleagues remonstrate with him?

[Flosshilde]

. And then he encountered PC Harewood, a man totally unsuited to the role his superiors had put him in.

And there's the nub of the problem - Harewood should never have been there. Those that made it possible should face some stiff questioning in a thorough review.

I have a vague memory - it would need extensive trawling through newspaper reports to confirm - that Harewood was there as a van driver, & wasn't deployed as part of the 'front line', & left his van & decided to wade in. If that's the case, then his actions were even worse in that he abandoned his assigned role & took things into hi own hands.

[Lateralthinking1]

I think the verdict was correct in this case, but as others have said, the real concern is that Harwood should never have been allowed to rejoin the police, having previously retired on ill-health grounds in order to avoid disciplinary action.

However, although these wider concerns about the Met's employment and disciplinary practices are legitimate, they don't make Harwood guilty of this particular offence.

Incidentally, I understand he may still be subject to disciplinary action by the Met and could well be sacked. It is clear he used disproportionate force in this case, even if he wasn't guilty of manslaughter. I just hope he doesn't claim ill-health again and retire once more on a full-pension. Now that really would be a travesty.

Yes. A significant part of my concern about PC Harwood and his managers is that wriggling. It is so reminiscent of politicians, bankers etc. But my argument would be that had the institution been more sound, that questionable manoeuvring might not have been necessary. There were at least ten allegations against him over a period of time. Let us say for the sake of argument that all those allegations applied to another police officer and every one was substantial. Surely you need procedures and not simply disciplinary ones at the outset. There has to be an established step-by-step process by manual in the institution.

An accountant makes a hash of a contract. The manual requires you as his manager to ask if it was something about the way in which he was asked to undertake the job, if it happened because of work stresses, if it revealed a difficult period in his wider life, if it was something about his life generally, if he just had an off day or if if it was a case of him simply not being able to add up. If it appears to you to be a long term issue, it then requires you to ascertain if he can be helped to improve or if improvement on the evidence is impossible. If it is impossible, you then have to see if his talents can be better utilised elsewhere in the organisation.

Why should the police be any different? There might of course be some sort of parallel disciplinary action going on where his behaviour has involved aggression with the public. I still don't think we should leap in too quickly to condemn a personal trait just because it fits our own pen picture of the post de Menezes police, tempting as it might be. If there is a trait in an individual, then there are responsibilities too among those in the force who place him. They need to work to adequate procedures. If I were recruiting a fireman, I would hope that he could go into a burning building. If he couldn't, I would ask if he could potentially be, say, a fantastic trainer of others or a genius in running IT systems. That, I think, is the human and indeed the sensible way.

Incidentally, if police forces ever do become more measured, methodical and straightforward towards police officers with difficulties, there is a fair chance that we might see a bit of an improvement in the way that policing of the public is undertaken.