PC Simon Harwood 'not guilty' Options

[Andy Capp]

...

[Simon Kirby]

You don't blame Harwood for "being brutal" to someone? He (Tomlinson) wasn't being uncooperative, he was just trying to get home and was walking away from the police when he was attacked.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. In my view PC Harwood was unnecessarily brutal - I said that - and that's not acceptable.

[Andy Capp]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. In my view PC Harwood was unnecessarily brutal - I said that - and that's not acceptable.

I think Strafin felt your post was ambiguous.

If Mr Tomlinson was drunk - it was reported that he was an alcoholic and had been drinking, and he certainly looked slow on the up-take - then that might explain why he didn't get along, but I wouldn't blame a train driver if her train ran down a drunk on the line, and to some extent I can't blame PC Harwood if he was brutal to, what to him, was an uncooperative protester - he was after all on riot duty and that inevitably raises the threat-level quite some notches.

That said I think PC Harwood was unnecessarily brutal, and apart from anything else I'd suggest that was recklessly poor policing on a day that called for a steady nerve.

[Newbelly]

I'm sure the meaning is that it is assumed the police tell the truth, that is to say, the polices' word means more than a member of the public. So if they say they do things by the book, then they do do things by the book.


I don't think that they are inferring that all deaths are a conspiracy, only that some of us are sceptical that there is no conspiracy. Like the PC Harwood case: how many police officers reported that PC Harwood had 'come into contact' with Mr Tomlinson after it was reported that Mr Tomlinson had collapsed and died?


Mr Kugli was allegedly an alcoholic and 'known to the police'. Although Mr Kugli looked intimidating, most that knew him thought him to be reactively harmless and friendly.

Thanks for trying at add a slightly more reasonable take on this.

I am not saying that Police malpractice and closing ranks does not take place. All police misconduct should be investigated and exposed. In a professional capacity, I have myself challenged the police and their evidence.

But it is also important that untruths are not banded about and reported as fact.

Squelchy has given us the situation of a man walking into a police station, sufferring a grevious injury at the hands of the police which leads to his death. His body is found in a police cell, but because he was never arrested(?) or was de-arrested just before he died, it is not a “death in custody”, “not logged” and the police appear to get away with what may appear to be a murder.

Squelchy infers that this has occurred in Newbury and again in Leicester; dead bodies being handed over by police but the situation not being considered to be a “death in custody” due to some “technicality” of procedural process caused by some fancy paperwork in the nick of time. Finally, there is an inference from him that this newspaper has bowed to improper pressure in its reporting of the Newbury case.

I would like to see evidence of what he says occurred in the police station or at the newspaper.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Anyone else think that if the person he'd pushed over had not been white then the public outrage would have meant that a custodial sentence would have been a foregone conclusion?
Just a thought.

[Newbelly]

Anyone else think that if the person he'd pushed over had not been white then the public outrage would have meant that a custodial sentence would have been a foregone conclusion?
Just a thought.

That's a fiery question!

I would say that in terms of support groups and bodies, perhaps the white working class man is poorly represented these days.

[Simon Kirby]

I think Strafin felt your post was ambiguous.

I see what you mean.

In my view PC Harwood was unnecessarily brutal and that's not right, but I think I can understand how that could happen. He was on riot control, there had been some violence that day, and the G20 protests have a history of violent disorder. It's my feeling that PC Harwood's conduct was unacceptable and is just the kind of brutality that can spark a violent disturbance and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he were to lose his job because of the discredit that he appears to have brought on the police service, but I can also see how his actions were legal and hence why he was not guilty of manslaughter. From PC Harwood's perspective Mr Tomlinson was an uncooperative protester who wasn't moving along fast enough and the constable did what he has been trained and equiped to do and used a bit of pain-compliance and a good hard shove. Ordinarily that would have caused nothing more than bruising and indignation, but Mr Tomlinson was in unusually poor health and drunk, and when he fell badly he ruptured his diseased liver with tragic and inevitable consequences.

[Andy Capp]

From PC Harwood's perspective Mr Tomlinson was an uncooperative protester who wasn't moving along fast enough and the constable did what he has been trained and equiped to do and used a bit of pain-compliance and a good hard shove. Ordinarily that would have caused nothing more than bruising and indignation, but Mr Tomlinson was in unusually poor health and drunk, and when he fell badly he ruptured his diseased liver with tragic and inevitable consequences.

From Mr Tomlinson's point of view, he wanted out of the area, but the police had 'kettled him'. A strike to the legs and a hard shove is designed to knock you over. I'd say that was not reasonable actions when the bloke had his back to the police and did not show any indication that he was intending to do anything provocative. Attacking someone from behind, or without warning, increases the likelihood that the outcome of the attack will be amplified. Remember, Mr Tomlinson was not a part of the disruption, but you could forgive him for being upset by the polices' methods that prevented him from leaving the area.

PC Harwood attacked a bystander to the demo and not a demonstrator, and for that reason I think the attack was NOT justified.

[Simon Kirby]

From Mr Tomlinson's point of view, he wanted out of the area, but the police had 'kettled him'. A strike to the legs and a hard shove is designed to knock you over. I'd say that was not reasonable actions when the bloke had his back to the police and did not show any indication that he was intending to do anything provocative. Attacking someone from behind, or without warning, increases the likelihood that the outcome of the attack will be amplified. Remember, Mr Tomlinson was not a part of the disruption, but you could forgive him for being upset by the polices' methods that prevented him from leaving the area.

Yes, all that is true, but I'm saying that to understand why what PC Harwood did was not unlawful you have to look at the situation from his point of view. From PC Harwood's point of view Mr Tomlinson was not moving along with the kind of urgency that the situation would demand from a rational actor. Mr Tomlinson wasn't being obstructive, he was drunk and was doing his best to get out of an unpleasant situation that he had nothing to do with, and that appears to have been obvious to the other officers on duty in the police line, but I think looking at it from PC Harwood's perspective his actions just creep within what needs to be a broad range of what is proportionate, given the violence of the day and the acceptable spectrum of aggression that will unavoidably evoke in people.

[Andy Capp]

Yes, all that is true, but I'm saying that to understand why what PC Harwood did was not unlawful you have to look at the situation from his point of view. From PC Harwood's point of view Mr Tomlinson was not moving along with the kind of urgency that the situation would demand from a rational actor. Mr Tomlinson wasn't being obstructive, he was drunk and was doing his best to get out of an unpleasant situation that he had nothing to do with, and that appears to have been obvious to the other officers on duty in the police line, but I think looking at it from PC Harwood's perspective his actions just creep within what needs to be a broad range of what is proportionate, given the violence of the day and the acceptable spectrum of aggression that will unavoidably evoke in people.

I'm sorry, I don't agree, and for the reasons that I have already explained several times (without contradiction). I can't see how you can agree with me and still think PC Harewood acted reasonably. They are mutually exclusive views. From what I have seen, PC Harewood's actions prior and at the time were belligerent and went beyond that shown by his colleagues.

If PC Harewood had issued a warning, or didn't use the baton, or had warned and pushed, or had Mr Tominson acted aggressively, then I would have a different point of view.