General Chat

Found not gulity of manslaughter of mr tomlinson.
Just released details of his previous actions.
JBE.

So who killed the poor bloke then? or was it classed as an "Act of God"**M**.

Why was he allowed back into the police force, and even transferred to Met again, surely someone recognised his name and should have asked questions, or is it a matter of looking after old pals?

The man should be ashamed of himself yet seems to be smirking in any photos shown. He is a bully and should not be allowed to work with the public again, his family should be ashamed of him too. Nasty piece of work, no wonder the family of Mr Tomlinson are upset and angry.

May that poor man rest in peace despite the lack of justice

Lizx

I was shocked at the verdict. But I wasn't in the courtroom (at all) so I don't know what evidence was presented to the jury.

My thoughts go out to Mr Tomlinsons family. I hope that they eventually get justice.

shocking the laws an ass

Just one question.....would Mr Tomlinson have died if PC Harwood had not 'hit' him. If the answer is no then the verdict is wrong.

disgraceful - a corrupt decision - looking after their own - the police have a duty of care - we all saw what he did, totaly unnecessary action to hit Mr Tomlinson

All of his previous work and arrests made should now be re-investigated, how can a corrupt person like this (am trying to be polite here, its hard) be trusted to investigate ANYTHING fairly. So much corruption about, Im not exactly amazed he walked away. Look at all the complaints made against him, including assault.

The man is a thug

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-simon-harwood--10-complaints-in-12-years-for-the-red-mist-officer-7959576.html

He has used the system to avoid being brought to account several time in the past the police will never be any good at vetting their own and have always closed ranks when their is a problem


Roy

Must admit....l thought it was wrong right from the start. Infact l was very upset to see how the PC handled the situation, thats without knowing his past. For him to be found Not Guilty is quite shocking.
Mr Tomlinson l think had drink problems, but he may not have died anyways, being hit in the kidney with a baton would have been quiet damaging, then pushed to the ground.

l hope some how the PC goes back to court and gets sentenced!!

jude

If it was Fred Bloggs off a council estate he'd be looking at 10 yrs possibly. But they look after their own. However, people dont forget, so I wonder if Harwood is feeling quite so cocky now.....

Dear All

Hello

No justice again.......it is a repeated phrase.

At the inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death, a verdict of unlawful killing was recorded, usually a strong indicator that if criminal charges are made,
a guilty verdict would be reached.

Obviously not in this case.

Absolutely disgusted.

Take gentle care all
Sincere wishes
Elizabeth, EOS
xx

I think the family should consider a private prosecution

To be fair to the policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson
there was absolutely no evidence,


apart from that film of him doing it

I understand from this morning's local news, that the family are looking at taking out a private prosecution.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Julia in Derbyshire

Wrong, wrong , wrong.

I hope they can finance a civil action and get justice.

The film taken by a tourist does not show Mr. Tomlinson being killed, it shows him being hit by a police baton and then being pushed in the back whereupon he fell to the ground. He was helped up, walked away and collapsed very shortly after.

PC Harwood was tried in a court, the jury was made up of ordinary citizens, not police. They could only convict on the evidence provided, which is the way the law stands. And whilst in his summing up the judge will offer guidance as to whether someone is guilty or not - it all rests on the decision of the jury. And this jury upon hearing all the facts of this case from the prosection, the defence and the judges summing up, decided upon a not guilty decision.

In all trials here you are never told beforehand of any previous convictions etc., so the person on trial gets a fair hearing. PC Hardwood has never been convicted or prosecuted for anything in the past they were all accusations.

The letter of the law in this case will be in relation to did PC Harwood intend to kill Mr. Tomlinson, did he know prior to the incident that Mr. Tomlinson had health issues. The answer to both is NO.

Now I personally think that this police officer is not a very nice person and that there is no smoke without fire in regard to his history. He is now to be investigated by the Police Standards Commission. I feel certain that from this he will be dismissed from the force.

Whilst I am very sorry to Mr. Tomlinson's family, and I understand that they now feel the need to take out a private prosecution. They should now walk away with dignity and mourn their loss. No talking to the press or selling their story.

There are never any winners in a situation like this, the families on all sides will suffer. And as usual the Police in general will all be tarred with the same brush.

We all hope that something like this well never happen again.

Basically i agree with Piglet's pal (although i don't believe you need 'intent' to be convicted of manslaughter.)

The PC is obviously not a nice man, however the oft repeated on here is that 'the police protect their own' is obviously wrong in this instance. The man was put on trial and the jury returned the verdict.

Happy days

Thanks Harry - the bit about 'intent' was in my mind but just could not drag it from the depths.

PP, There is a distinct difference between murder and manslaughter

Without going into all the differing types/degrees of murder and manslaughter

Murder is when a person by his/her actions intended the outcome of their action to result in the death or their victim

Manslaughter is when the actions of a person resulted in the death of another but their was no “intention” to kill

The film did not show Mr. Tomlinson being killed/murdered

In cases where the cause of death is not known/obvious then its up to the coroner to decide, In this case The coroner returned the verdict that he had been “unlawfully killed”

So he was either murdered or died of injuries inflicted by another

The main problem with the criminal justice system in this county is that of “reasonable doubt”

How do you define reasonable doubt? What is reasonable to some is not reasonable to others,

In most cases the defence will often use this part of the trial to over state “reasonable doubt” to sway members of a jury to returning a “not guilty” verdict rather than convicting and "risking" sending an innocent man to prison,

This imo is one area where our criminal justice system appears to flawed

Roy