Ian Tomlinson

[Ian_W]

Why is that?

Well because PC Harwood was just doing his job, okay he was a little over zealous with Tomlinson but it was the G20 Summit at the end of the day and tensions were running high!

 

How do you know that - were you there?

 

Or is it the same 'doing their job' that allows many police officers to be above the law and if it was a member of the public doing the same thing they would be arrested and charged.

 

There are many decent officers that do a difficult job, but there are many who think they can do what they like, say what they like, and act like a bully. That has always been the case, and will probably always be the case.

 

'Tensions were running high', does not give someone an excuse.

 

Of course if he is innocent he has nothing to fear.

 

However if he is hit by a baton for no reason, that in itself is an unprovoked attack - and I guarantee that if Tomlinson had done that to the officer he would have been in prison by now.

 

So tell me Rhodes, why should the police have a different law to you and I?

[missunderstood]

Why is that?

Well because PC Harwood was just doing his job, okay he was a little over zealous with Tomlinson but it was the G20 Summit at the end of the day and tensions were running high!

 

 

PC Harwood is not being charged with" being a little overzealous", Ian Tomlinson was killed by a thug in a police uniform and he quite rightly going to be tried for manslaughter. The fact that it was the end of the day, and tensions were running high was irrelevant as the British taxpayer pays generously to have our police officers trained to react in a correct manner in these circumstances.

[Loose]

The inquest returned a verdict of "Unlawful Killing", the DPP feels confident that there is enough to gain a conviction, there should be a price to be paid for the useless loss of life and we don't pay our policemen to attack citizens in the street whatever excuses people like to make up for them.

[Eastside Urchin]

No,we pay police to keep the streets safe from total idiots who want to deface our country at every opportunity.I certainly wouldn't want to do it and nor do many others,especially when the great unwashed gather on our capitals streets to protest about things that in 20 years time when they have grown up into the real world,they will be the ones on the other end of the protest.

If you walk into the middle of a riot,plastered and get yourself in a bit of a situation when the rest of the south east knew not to go in to London that day then I am afraid that's a bit stupid

[Loose]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with Mental. Are you saying that we DO pay our police to attack citizens in the street?

 

I doubt it in all honesty so not sure what your point has to do with anything much of anything.

[Hookey]

From the footage I've seen on the TV, at the time of the incident they were not in the "middle of a riot", people were just ambling around and moving along. When they were rioting, the police were nowhere to be seen, certainly not when the idiots were kicking in the windows of the RBS.

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

Not what I saw on tv.If you want to blame anyone,round up those smashing us the buildings,attacking the police or the heads of the protest and charge them with murder.

[missunderstood]

Not what I saw on tv.If you want to blame anyone,round up those smashing us the buildings,attacking the police or the heads of the protest and charge them with murder.

 

 

If you took off those rose tinted glasses you might get a better view of your TV screen. The vast majority of protesters were behaving in a responsible manner, and in a democracy protesting is still a lawful way of registering your displeasure at what you consider to be injustice. Thank goodness thuggish police officers attacking innocent members of the public is still illegal, and thats why PC Harwood is facing a manslaughter charge.

 

Its also worth remembering that for the police to be effective they need the wholehearted support of the public at large, and actions like those of PC Harwood can only harm or destroy the little confidence the police currently enjoy from the public.

[Eastside Urchin]

Perhaps the police should be able to police properly over the past 20/30 years then they would be respected and actually feared by the feral youth which seem to have no respect for anyone and who turn up at any opportunity hoping it kicks off. Let's face it,labour and their softly softly approach to crime over the last 15 years are as much to blame as anyone

[Loose]

The police have come a long way in some respects, in other ways they don't spend enough time policing but again, we shouldn't be paying our police force so we can fear them. Casting around to blame others is a bit of a pointless exercise when three police officers saw PC Simon Harwood push Ian Tomlinson over, they knew it was wrong and they said so, they didn't try to cover it up, hush it up as officers might have done in the past, they spoke up. We deserve an open and responsible police force and one idiot in a uniform doesn't shame them thank god.

[missunderstood]

Perhaps the police should be able to police properly over the past 20/30 years then they would be respected and actually feared by the feral youth which seem to have no respect for anyone and who turn up at any opportunity hoping it kicks off. Let's face it,labour and their softly softly approach to crime over the last 15 years are as much to blame as anyone

 

 

Don't think that Labours approach was any different to the current administrations, although I do accept that by condemning anyone that suggested there was/is a problem regarding crime committed by a small minority of Eastern European immigrants, and black youngsters from the inner cities was a big mistake.

[Basil-Don]

lets get down to the bare facts here-tomlinson was a stupid c--- who in a drunken state decided to walk in front of the police with his hands in his pockets,should he have died for this act of stupidity? of course not but the policeman didnt mean to kill him he just gave him a push,hardy a act of police brutuality, are people on here that stupid or are certain individuals just adopting a contradictory position just to play 'devils advocate' ?

[Loose]

Gosh, he had his hands in his pockets! He had had a drink. He must have presented quite a threat to keeping the peace eh?

 

 

Facts are already stated, the inquest recorded a verdict, the DPP is charging the PC based on that. Perhaps you can make a contradictory "position" on that but only if you ignore the laws of this land.

 

People are still allowed to express an opinion on here aren't they? Shame people feel so threatened by a little discussion these days.

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

he didn't mean to kill the bloke,the bloke was obviously being a nuisance and to be honest i have seen police do far worse.

It was an unfortunate ACCIDENT not aimed at anyone losing their life and it was in an intensely vicious atmosphere

[Big J R]

Gosh, he had his hands in his pockets! He had had a drink. He must have presented quite a threat to keeping the peace eh?

 

 

Facts are already stated, the inquest recorded a verdict, the DPP is charging the PC based on that. Perhaps you can make a contradictory "position" on that but only if you ignore the laws of this land.

 

People are still allowed to express an opinion on here aren't they? Shame people feel so threatened by a little discussion these days.

 

 

 

 

The above two posts are correct in that Mr Tom. had had a drink, and had his hands in his pockets.

 

What you DON'T say is that he was walking AWAY from the officers, and was struck from BEHIND, thereby unable to expect the blow or defend himself.

 

Then there the other two incidents involving the PC concerned, prior to this incident, one concerning a TV cameraman, also caught on CCTV.

 

'Guilty as charged, Me Lud !!'

Edited May 25, 2011 by Big J R

[Hookey]

Gosh, he had his hands in his pockets! He had had a drink. He must have presented quite a threat to keeping the peace eh?

 

 

Facts are already stated, the inquest recorded a verdict, the DPP is charging the PC based on that. Perhaps you can make a contradictory "position" on that but only if you ignore the laws of this land.

 

People are still allowed to express an opinion on here aren't they? Shame people feel so threatened by a little discussion these days.

 

 

 

 

The above two posts are correct in that Mr Tom. had had a drink, and had his hands in his pockets.

 

What you DON'T say is that he was walking AWAY from the officers, and was struck from BEHIND, thereby unable to expect the blow or defend himself.

 

Then there the other two incidents involving the PC concerned, prior to this incident, one concerning a TV cameraman, also caught on CCTV.

 

'Guilty as charged, Me Lud !!'

 

Yep, no mention of the crack across the legs with the PC's extended baton just seconds earlier. None of his colleagues were as fired up as he was and they also reported him, suggesting they too thought he over-reacted.

[Eastside Urchin]

Sadly the bloke lost his life,but that wasn't anyones intention.

Seems to me that he was being a bit of an irritant in a place he and any normal person shouldn't of been (regardless of the fact we are entitled to go anywhere we like,any sane person wouldn't be near the place).It also seems that perhaps the copper in question probably just thought he would teach him a bit of a lesson with some 70's style policing.I don't go for this "he was an innocent victim" apparantly him and his family are well known to police as repeat offenders.

[Rhodes]

he didn't mean to kill the bloke,the bloke was obviously being a nuisance and to be honest i have seen police do far worse.

It was an unfortunate ACCIDENT not aimed at anyone losing their life and it was in an intensely vicious atmosphere

I think the above post says it all which is why I'm sure 'scapegoat' PC Harwood will get off with a slap on the wrist, anything worse than that will be unjust!

[Hookey]

Sadly the bloke lost his life,but that wasn't anyones intention.

Seems to me that he was being a bit of an irritant in a place he and any normal person shouldn't of been (regardless of the fact we are entitled to go anywhere we like,any sane person wouldn't be near the place).It also seems that perhaps the copper in question probably just thought he would teach him a bit of a lesson with some 70's style policing.I don't go for this "he was an innocent victim" apparantly him and his family are well known to police as repeat offenders.

 

 

I think we can all agree that there was no intention to cause Mr Tomlinson any serious damage.

[Rhodes]

Hookey - Well exactly so why does poor PC Harwood have to carry the can. It's exactly the same as the Policeman who shot Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station in 2005, Menezes asked for what he got due to the way he was behaving!