So the Met police get away with muder once again!

[Stillhomewardbound]

Nobody doubts the the challenge faced by officers in the frontline and that clearly weighed heavily on the minds of the juries in the recent case against PC Simon Harwood. However, this particular police officer could be said to have had a unique appetite for the front line.

Despite resigning from the Met on health grounds he was then well enough again to rejoin another constabulary, and even more well recovered to bounce back into the embrace of the Met.

As I say, clearly inspired in his quest be to on the front line, he then applies for the TSG, the ulitmate front line. However, at the time of the situation in question he is actually assigned as a vehicle driver on that day. Somehow, then, he becomes separated from his unit and gravitates once more to the front line.

Well, yes, it is a tricky job on the front line. Not an enviable one, some might say, but isn't there a case to be raised against those who are so keen to place themselves at the heart of the action.

Many police officers on the day in question had very difficult calls to make. Undoubtedly they were obliged, in certain circumstances, to act forcefully; and yet the one officer that ends up being embroiled in a fatality, given the allegations we know now, could be characterised as 'police officer most likely to cross the line'.

How on earth could this person's known record of allegations be considered prejudicial and non-submittable and he allowed to appear before the court as an upstanding member of the Metropolitan, while Ian Tomlinson's detailed history as an alcoholic was openly aired and used to suggest that he was somehow something of a problem case?

FW Pomeroy's statue of 'Justice' above the Old Bailey depicts the law as being blind, and that should surely be its virtue. Blind to the colour of a person's skin, blind to hearsay and insinuation, blind to malign prosecution, hoorah.

Surely though, this particular jury was entitled, at least, to a stop off at the nearest branch of Specsavers the better able to survey ALL the relevant facts.

[Ariosto]

Some very well thought out replies to my rather provocative thread starter! Of course one must come to expect the odd lunatic putting words into people's mouths about all the police being bastards. I suppose it's par for the course ...

[french frank]

How on earth could this person's known record of allegations be considered prejudicial and non-submittable and he allowed to appear before the court as an upstanding member of the Metropolitan, while Ian Tomlinson's detailed history as an alcoholic was openly aired and used to suggest that he was somehow something of a problem case?

There is an underlying principle that it's better for the guilty to get off than for the innocent to be wrongly convicted.

There are certain rules which are applied automatically and not revealing a defendant's criminal record is a fundamental of the justice system. Defendants are being tried for a particular crime and the only relevant evidence is what relates to the circumstances of that particular crime.

In this case it happens that a police officer was the accused. But what happens where police, in the full knowledge of a man's criminal record, consider him a likely culprit and arrest and charge him on that basis? Yes, tell the jury all about what a villain he is? How he's charged with theft and has a string of convictions for theft? With a bit of "luck" they may even persuade him to confess

[Flosshilde]

Your memory hasn't failed you.

A quick google of "PC Harewood van driver" revealed this BBC News item.

Thank you John - not as difficult to find as I thought!

[french frank]

while Ian Tomlinson's detailed history as an alcoholic was openly aired and used to suggest that he was somehow something of a problem case?

I think the evidence suggests that he was 'something of a problem case'. But the alternative case would be that he was part of the protest, obstructing the police and defying a police instruction, and that the force used upon him was justifiable.

It was the fact that he was apparently a harmless passer-by in a befuddled state who inadvertently got caught up with the crowd that has incensed people.

[amateur51]

I think the evidence suggests that he was 'something of a problem case'. But the alternative case would be that he was part of the protest, obstructing the police and defying a police instruction, and that the force used upon him was justifiable.

It was the fact that he was apparently a harmless passer-by in a befuddled state who inadvertently got caught up with the crowd that has incensed people.

He clearly wasn't a problem case to his large family who have been through hell and back to ensure that justice is done for him.

Nor was he a problem case for the newspaper vendor with whom he had spent the afternoon getting gently steadily stewed. "I loved him to bits" says this man and he goes on to regret that Ian Tomlinson only left his company that afternoon because the newspapers had run out. "If only I'd rung for more, perhaps Ian would still be alive"

That sad figure tottering apparently blithely through the chaos around him, trying to be homeward bound, his hands in his pockets thus appearing almost entirely passive. And then the bully-thug seized his chance and the rest is history.

Let us not forget also that the only reason that Harwood ended up in court was that two passers-by thought to film the incident on their mobile phones. As I understood it, a law has been passed that it makes it an offence to film the police. If the death of Ian Tomlinson has a lesson to teach the public it is that this law should be flouted as an act of civil disobedience and that a campaign should be mounted for the law's repeal.

Ian's Law, anyone?

[french frank]

He clearly wasn't a problem case to his large family

He clearly was 'something of a problem' to his large family, if you read the comments of his widow and stepson.

Your fourth paragraph I agree with completely in sentiment, though I wasn't aware of the law being passed to stop people filming the police. This appears to be the current law:

"Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

"There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful."

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

[amateur51]

He clearly was 'something of a problem' to his large family, if you read the comments of his widow and stepson.

I hadn't read that before, french frank so many thank. It reads to me that on balance whatever 'problem' he was, the underlying reasons for it were understood and his wife had sorted it out from the family's point of view. Mrs Tomlinson seems to me to be a very caring understanding person who greatly loved her husband when he was 'straight' and who understood his demons when he wasn't. They appear to have been a remarkable family which he had to leave from time-to-time.

Your fourth paragraph I agree with completely in sentiment, though I wasn't aware of the law being passed to stop people filming the police. This appears to be the current law:

"Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

"There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful."

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Re photography please see legislation referred to in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008

[Flosshilde]

He clearly was 'something of a problem' to his large family, if you read the comments of his widow and stepson.

I don't think that the comments quoted suggest anything of the sort - he clearly had problems, which might have caused some difficulties for his family, but they were clearly devoted to him. And, pace Lat's (?) comment about him 'having nine children' in a post above, he had actually fathered four; the other five were his wife's from a previous relationship.

[Lateralthinking1]

He clearly was 'something of a problem' to his large family, if you read the comments of his widow and stepson.

So he didn't father nine children but became a father to five of someone elses. I take back my earlier comments on that point.

Was there along with heavy alcohol use a deeper psychological problem? Some with alcohol problems disappear for nights. Not all have a home three streets from where they end up sleeping.

A point about interpretation. One person's 'posture of defiance' could be another's 'freezing in the headlights'. Fear and confusion might have been involved. It remains unclear to me whether the 'defiance' was really in posture or an interpretation of someone not moving when being told to move. That, I think, should be one area of difference between an experienced police officer and an ordinary citizen nipped by a dog. The former should be trained in understanding such visual cues and respond appropriately.

The established culture involving police activity towards the genuinely homeless is one that has concerned me for a long time. The procedure, authorised by the Home Office or those in the police who are accountable to the Home Secretary, is 'move them on'. I have seen this done sympathetically by police officers on many occasions in Central London. However, if you were to remove the police and the homeless as the main elements of such activity, it would be hounding, harassment, even stalking. It is no way for a civilised country to treat a sector of its population as a general rule.

Whatever the heightened emotional atmosphere near to the Tomlinson death, and the policy in those circumstances, there is alas the potential for a carrying across of this attitude to sundry others - those on drink or drugs, the mentally ill, the dishevelled, the ones with a shuffling gait, those in the wrong place at the wrong time and those who don't look like Theresa May or her husband.

[Ariosto]

"Theresa May or her husband."

You mean someone married that ...

As far as alcohol is concerned the Met police are intolerent towards anyone who has even just had one glass of wine. And yet they as a group tend to drink heavily and misbehave under the influence quite badly when off duty.

On demonstrations I've seen them take a can of beer off a couple who were just starting their lunch. Generally there seems to be a lot of dislike towards the general public who they view as a nuisance. Of course there are good coppers who have a much more tolerant and healthy attitude, but there are enough bad apples to spoil the barell.

I dare say Ressurection man will want to come back on this one. (Ex copper?)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there are no circumstances in which Mr Tomlinson should have been pushed in such a manner, no matter what the consequent outcomes and no matter the quality of his life and character ...

nor should that sergeant beat protesters with his truncheon in the way shown on tv last year

we have a difficult public order problem with a relatively small number of career protesters who use the language of this thread title to provoke and promote thuggery during public protest ... they are as damaging as any police force to our freedoms of expression and protest ... these career thugs are used by the police as the justification for the repression of the mass of ordinary non violent protesters ...by kettling and shoving and thwacking with telescopic truncheons etc ... [the logic is exactly parallel to the terrorist case]

that it was deemed ok to re-employ the pc in the case suggests that the mind set is not tuned to the problem in the Met, and they are a very disturbing outfit these days in their apparent policies, senior personnel and operational performances .......

[french frank]

I don't think that the comments quoted suggest anything of the sort - he clearly had problems, which might have caused some difficulties for his family, but they were clearly devoted to him. And, pace Lat's (?) comment about him 'having nine children' in a post above, he had actually fathered four; the other five were his wife's from a previous relationship.

There are two separate issues: the first being how loved a member of a family is - for all sorts of positive reasons connected with the good aspects of that person's character. But I was using the phrase 'something of a problem' to his family in exactly the same way that you used 'caused some difficulties for his family'. I don't know what other interpretation could have been put on my words.

All of this is largely irrelevant to the character of the police constable and his actions prior to the day of the tragedy (and of course it was a tragedy for the family). Nor is there any reason to lessen the Met's responsibility for employing that officer.

I was merely responding (originally) to SHB's query as to why the officer's record was not admissible evidence during the trial, while Mr Tomlinson's history was. In the circumstances, the state that Mr Tomlinson was in at the time was relevant; Harwood's actions and record before the event were not. And it was Harwood who was being tried.

He may have been cleared of this charge (rightly or wrongly in terms of natural justice). But I doubt he will be allowed to continue in his job just as before - and it would be a scandal if he were.

[Lateralthinking1]

there are no circumstances in which Mr Tomlinson should have been pushed in such a manner, no matter what the consequent outcomes and no matter the quality of his life and character ...

nor should that sergeant beat protesters with his truncheon in the way shown on tv last year

we have a difficult public order problem with a relatively small number of career protesters who use the language of this thread title to provoke and promote thuggery during public protest ... they are as damaging as any police force to our freedoms of expression and protest ... these career thugs are used by the police as the justification for the repression of the mass of ordinary non violent protesters ...by kettling and shoving and thwacking with telescopic truncheons etc ... [the logic is exactly parallel to the terrorist case]

that it was deemed ok to re-employ the pc in the case suggests that the mind set is not tuned to the problem in the Met, and they are a very disturbing outfit these days in their apparent policies, senior personnel and operational performances .......

I do agree but Tomlinson's condition is also symbolic of a wider malaise. The law defends the strongest most, eg the rich, average citizens the next and the vulnerable the least. One reason is that the middle category is inclined to think that many categories of the vulnerable have only themselves to blame, eg addiction. I could prove this with a straw poll. I could ask a hundred average people "was the police officer's action wrong?" and then ask them "would it have been wrong had Tomlinson pushed someone in the vicinity?" The two results would be very different and little allowance would be made for the latter's befuddled state.

Whether it is elderly people or the mentally ill being treated badly in a care home, the homeless being moved from pillar to post or arrested for vagrancy, the physically handicapped having benefits withdrawn or addicts being routinely arrested, the biggest crime in this country is not being a criminal. It is not surviving among the fittest. And the biggest problem for the vulnerable is that they are not simply more vulnerable to crime than Joe Public but unlike Joe Public there is no sense of support from the authorities. In that way, they are vulnerable to two kinds of criminal, as defined metaphorically if not legally. The thing about Joe is that he wouldn't be able to cope with that situation. By contrast, we expect the vulnerable to cope with it. That's asking the impossible.

I note the distinction between attitudes in the police towards their officers and, just to take one example, society's attitudes towards schizophrenics, not that I accept that the latter category is anything other than a dubious societal invention. Of the two cases, it is only the latter in which huge artificial distinctions are made on whether someone is a shrinking violet or a potential axe wielding maniac. Even ordinary members of the public are adjudged on the basis that to be human is to have numerous grey areas but the vulnerable are not permitted such character subtleties. Actually, our authoritative institutions are stuffed to the gills with people who have significant problems. Only the fact that they are employed in so-called respected professions enables those problems to be dismissed as trivial. The consequence is that they can potentially in some circumstances get away with murder.

Without providing sympathy to Harwood, I think a persistently violent police officer is more vulnerable than bad. The only things that prevent that vulnerability being depicted for what it is in reality are a wish on the part of the police to brush over it, thereby enabling his ongoing position to imply strength and a view among some of the public that the police are all bad. Additionally, I must say that I am less inclined to judge a crime according to its nature and more inclined to judge it according to whether it was premeditated. I would link the severity of penalties to the latter. In these days of road rage and crowds of drunken teenagers on every street, the organisers of society have a lot of culpability for what happens in moments. But someone who habitually thieves from houses or sits in an office deciding to fix the Libor Rate is surely a real hardened sort of criminal in the traditional sense.

[Roehre]

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

????????????????????????????????

Conspiracy theorists have a field day, someone said