Hope this doesn't trigger more idiots rioting this summer though.

 

From BBC News:

 

A police officer who hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton and pushed him to the ground at the G20 protests has been found not guilty of manslaughter.

 

PC Simon Harwood, 45, of south London, denied the manslaughter, in April 2009, of Mr Tomlinson, 47.

 

Mr Tomlinson, was pushed as he walked away from a police line in the City of London. He later collapsed and died.

Edited July 19, 201212 yr by Common Sense

Why would it trigger rioting? :mellow: It's not as if passions around the case are exactly boiling-point.

Why would it trigger rioting? :mellow: It's not as if passions around the case are exactly boiling-point.

 

Well people on other forums think it'll all kick off again like last year.

Well people on other forums need to get a sense of perspective.

Oh, what a blooming surprise, found "innocent" in spite of the blatant video evidence.. Funny how video evidence is emphasised when it's in favour of the establishment but when it favours the general population against the establishment or the law enforcement agencies, all of a sudden, it becomes "unreliable"....

 

This is such crap.... There will almost certainly be more riots on the streets though, maybe not on the back of this, but there are so many other things to be pissed-off about with regards to cuts to services, the tinkering with the NHS and, ironically, the Police service privatisation plans, then I reckon it's a case of when, not if.....

This bit of the article says it all...

 

"It has emerged that, in 2000, five years after he joined the Met, PC Harwood was involved in what was described at Mr Tomlinson's inquest as a "road rage" incident but his employment record was kept from the jury.

 

He was off-duty and the other driver complained of unlawful arrest and abuse of authority.

 

PC Harwood denied the accusation but retired on medical grounds in 2001 before a disciplinary hearing took place.

 

He rejoined the Met in late 2004 - Scotland Yard's vetting unit had considered the road rage incident but had not reviewed the full file."

 

So, Harwood has previous for violence and abusing authority, but, plays the "jump before he's pushed" trick, the Met lets him back in without properly vetting him and, surprise, surprise, he ends up finally killing someone.... What a f***ing disgraceful institution the Metropolitan Police "service" is.....

Oh, what a blooming surprise, found "innocent" in spite of the blatant video evidence.. Funny how video evidence is emphasised when it's in favour of the establishment but when it favours the general population against the establishment or the law enforcement agencies, all of a sudden, it becomes "unreliable"....

 

This is such crap.... There will almost certainly be more riots on the streets though, maybe not on the back of this, but there are so many other things to be pissed-off about with regards to cuts to services, the tinkering with the NHS and, ironically, the Police service privatisation plans, then I reckon it's a case of when, not if.....

 

Exactly. Did we think there would be any verdict other than this?

 

Hubby's first reaction was 'was the jury made up of 12 policemen?'

 

Kath

Exactly. Did we think there would be any verdict other than this?

Hubby's first reaction was 'was the jury made up of 12 policemen?'

 

Or, they likely drafted in the same jury from the Rodney King trial....

 

The fact is there are too many people in this country (mainly Daily Mail or Express readers) who seem to think the Police can do no wrong, and just completely forget any line of critical thinking where the Police are concerned...

 

That drunk Tomlinson shouldn't have been loitering and goading the police into moving him. It was reasonable force IMO.

That drunk Tomlinson shouldn't have been loitering and goading the police into moving him. It was reasonable force IMO.

 

Pardon? He wasn't drunk or loitering! :huh:

 

I think you need to learn to stay quiet.

 

 

Pardon? He wasn't drunk or loitering! :huh:

 

I think you need to learn to stay quiet.

 

He was well known as an alky and he was staggering down the street, ignoring the requests to move from the brave riot offcers.

Illiterate Craig clone? YAY. Griff, you're right but you could have phrased that better.

The jury agreed with me so it is clear which of us is right. What kind of forum is this where someone stating an opinion, which agrees with a jury in a recent trial, is told " you need to learn to keep quiet"?

 

Is this a discussion forum or not?

Edited August 16, 201212 yr by charsui

The jury agreed with me so it is clear which of us is right. What kind of forum is this where someone stating an opinion, which agrees with a jury in a recent trial, is told " you need to learn to keep quiet"?

 

Is this a discussion forum or not?

No they didn't. The jury concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to say that the injuries sustained when he was pushed over directly caused his death. There is no doubt that he was shoved by a police officer unless you believe the film was fake.

No they didn't. The jury concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to say that the injuries sustained when he was pushed over directly caused his death. There is no doubt that he was shoved by a police officer unless you believe the film was fake.

 

Not to mention the fact that wasn't a (fairly long) list of the officer's previous, lets just say for want of a better phrase 'strong arm' tactics made public after the verdict was announced.

 

However - its just so obvious this charsui chappie has just posted for effect (I wouldn't be surprised if its someone who's been banned from here and has now got a new ip address even). I've just put him on ignore. I've no wish to accidently come across what this chappie writes.

No they didn't. The jury concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to say that the injuries sustained when he was pushed over directly caused his death. There is no doubt that he was shoved by a police officer unless you believe the film was fake.

 

I am not claiming he wasn't shoved. How many people do you think are shoved during riots? That isn't my point. The jury declared the officer NOT GUILTY and I agree with them. I can't think of a less controversial opening gambit in a thread, and yet I am told I must learn to be quiet.

 

Do you agree that I should just shut up and that on a discussion forum my view, which concurred with the legal process, shouldn't be heard? Is this a forum or a party conference?

Edited August 16, 201212 yr by charsui

Not to mention the fact that wasn't a (fairly long) list of the officer's previous, lets just say for want of a better phrase 'strong arm' tactics made public after the verdict was announced.

 

However - its just so obvious this charsui chappie has just posted for effect (I wouldn't be surprised if its someone who's been banned from here and has now got a new ip address even). I've just put him on ignore. I've no wish to accidently come across what this chappie writes.

 

You accuse me of being a previously banned user and urge people to put me on ignore because I agree with a jury's verdict?

I am not claiming he wasn't shoved. How many people do you think are shoved during riots? That isn't my point. The jury declared the officer NOT GUILTY and I agree with them. I can't think of a less controversial opening gambit in a thread, and yet I am told I must learn to be quiet.

 

Do you agree that I should just shut up and that on a discussion forum my view, which concurred with the legal process, shouldn't be heard? Is this a forum or a party conference?

 

It's a forum, but when you make inane posts expect to be confronted. You said he was drunk and loitering, nothing about the police being technically innocent.

It's a forum, but when you make inane posts expect to be confronted. You said he was drunk and loitering, nothing about the police being technically innocent.

 

 

I said it was reasonable force in my very first post.

 

He was a drunk. He had been drinking most of that day. He was in the policeman's way during a riot and refused to move when asked. The force was reasonable. The fact he died later cannot even be conclusively linked to the shove. A jury agreed with me so to call my view inane makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If I had turned up in this thread claiming that Tomlinson attacked the officer then you might have a point, but I didn't. My view is reasonable and shared by a jury. it is certainly no less deserving to be posted on this forum than your view.

I said it was reasonable force in my very first post.

 

He was a drunk. He had been drinking most of that day. He was in the policeman's way during a riot and refused to move when asked. The force was reasonable. The fact he died later cannot even be conclusively linked to the shove. A jury agreed with me so to call my view inane makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If I had turned up in this thread claiming that Tomlinson attacked the officer then you might have a point, but I didn't. My view is reasonable and shared by a jury. it is certainly no less deserving to be posted on this forum than your view.

And what about the all too familiar attempts by the police to mislead Mr Tomlinson's family and the public immediately after the event? Like their claim that people attempting to treat Mr Tomlinson were pelted with bottles? A claim that proved to be a complete lie. All too often the police make initial claims that delay the start of a proper criminal investigation. If it hadn't been for the fact that someone happened to film the incident the Tomlinson family might still have been expected to swallow the lie that he died of a heart attack and the thug of a police officer who shoved him to the ground would have been left free to do the same to somebody else.