Tomlinson PC Verdict

tiler65

Ive made my thoughts on that subject very clear.

common assault should have been the most that happened. Had they not been so incompetent, then he would have been found guilty, and we'd not be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

Also

Quote: You keep saying that the charge should have been common assault but that couldn't happen because it was time expired.

Correct, he should have been charged with that well within the 6 months, which he could have done, and if required he could then have been charged with a more serious offence later.
Click to expand...



Now, thats cleared that up. While that is what I think should have happened, the same defence he used for manslaughter also holds true for common assault, so the outcome may well have been the same.

At that time, all charging decisions were being made by the CPS. Police can, with a few exceptions now, not charge on their own any more.

On the other point, the matter needed investigating, and the body responsible for that investigation was the IPCC, NOT Police.

I'm not sure where you get the idea about Police being told not to do something by a senior officer. I think you'll find however thats another load of cobblers.

The sequence of events was a man died. A PM was held, and that found the cause to be natural causes. At that point there was nothing connecting Tomlinson with anything to do with Police, except first aid being carried out on him.
The video then appeared and the IPCC took the matter over. It was only at that point that Harwood put his hands up to being the Police Officer in the video. Because the IPCC had taken it over it was no longer a Police matter, and a senior officer would not have it in his powers to make any decision.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
You've confused yourself Richard, I replied to your reference to (non existent) automatic weapons in the UK, .
Click to expand...

not entirely non existent - although they can't be legally held by civilians, there are a number is circulation illegally -either imported or reactivated. Plus it is relatively easy to convert a semi automatic rifle to full auto if you are so minded.

and its not unknown for army weapons to be misused by rogue squadies etc
 
big soft moose said:
not entirely non existent - although they can't be legally held by civilians, there are a number is circulation illegally -either imported or reactivated. Plus it is relatively easy to convert a semi automatic rifle to full auto if you are so minded.

and its not unknown for army weapons to be misused by rogue squadies etc
Click to expand...
OK, but I was referring to legally held weapons, not criminally-held weapons. Criminals get hold of all sorts of things - because they are criminals. The army, like the police, are exempt from firearms legislation. If a rogue uses one in a criminal way then he is a criminal who happens also to be a member of the armed forces, controlling that is within the jurisdiction of the armed forces and of course there is no way that the armed forces can be deprived of automatic weapons.

Richard, who may not know what an automatic weapon actually is, was saying that automatic weapons should not exist - and they don't, as far as normal, law abiding people are concerned.
 
Bernie174 said:
tiler65


At that time, all charging decisions were being made by the CPS. Police can, with a few exceptions now, not charge on their own any more.

On the other point, the matter needed investigating, and the body responsible for that investigation was the IPCC, NOT Police.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Richard, who may not know what an automatic weapon actually is, was saying that automatic weapons should not exist - and they don't, as far as normal, law abiding people are concerned.
Click to expand...

looking at the context i think richard might have been reffering to 'automatic' hand guns (which are of course only actually semi automatic ) as opposed to revolvers or single shot weapons.

however as someone mentioend earlier the great majoprity of gun crime is down to illegally held weaponry anyway , so you could completely ban every type of firearm from legal ownership and not dramatically effect the incidece of guns used to commit crime
 
big soft moose said:
looking at the context i think richard might have been reffering to 'automatic' hand guns (which are of course only actually semi automatic ) as opposed to revolvers or single shot weapons.

however as someone mentioend earlier the great majoprity of gun crime is down to illegally held weaponry anyway , so you could completely ban every type of firearm from legal ownership and not dramatically effect the incidece of guns used to commit crime
Click to expand...

Agreed, but may I correct you on one point? Automatic pistols - in the sense of handguns with fully automatic fire capability do exist. They're not very common though, and are generally impractical because of their very high cyclic rate. Pistols with a controlled burst fire capability, such as the H & K VP70, have also been produced.
 
Well yes I knew that - theres a very fine line between a fully automatic hand gun and a machine pistol - if you think of things like the Ingram mac 10 and the mini uzi - plus the smith and wesson 10mm (which the FBI carry) has a automatic burst under sustained trigger pressure ( as i believe does the FN FiveseveN - widely known in the states as the cop killer , as it will punch through most police issue body armour)

However my general point was that due to TV people who don't know any different usually refer to semi automatic magazine loading handguns as 'automatics' -- which the mostly arent
 
So the pathologist Patel who claimed Tomlinson died of natural causes has been struck off today.
 
boyfalldown said:
but the only one who indicated he died of natural causes :)
Click to expand...

No, not quite, other pathologists claimed that he would not have died that quickly from the internal bleeding, therefore another cause was more likely ;)
The other reports just say that the link to the bleeding was to the fall, not the bleeding caused the death.
 
So he's been sacked but retains his pension ... the family are considering a private prosecution.
 
So he's been sacked but retains his pension ... the family are considering a private prosecution.
Click to expand...

Same as any other police officer sacked for gross misconduct then. He wasn't convicted of a criminal offence, the only reason a police pension can be withdrawn apparently, so hardly a shock there.

As for the family? I doubt they will get anywhere with that, he's been tried and acquitted. Trying to re try on the same evidence is doomed to fail. Still if they want to waste their money trying.....
Having said that, it seems the family confuse civil action with criminal ones on a regular basis.
Whats more they clearly expected this show trial to be something it was never going to be, yet another public flogging, personally, I think they have been appallingly advised, and badly behaved throughout.
 
Criminal = 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Civil = 'in all probability'

He admits 'misconduct' so will be interesting to see the outcome if it does go to a civil court.

I cannot believe you have the audacity to say that they have been "badly behaved throughout" :shake:
 
The burden of proof in civil cases in the UK is actually "on the balance of probabilities"!
 
g7swz said:
The burden of proof in civil cases in the UK is actually "on the balance of probabilities"!
Click to expand...

Correct. It's not quite the same as 'in all probability', which has a slightly stronger connotation.
 
Gramps
lets just be sure we are talking about a family that had nothing to do with their 'beloved' father, who they allowed to sleep rough for the past 10+ years?
A family that are only interested in in now because it will line their pockets.
A family that have their answers, know full well they are going to get nothing more in that respect.
A family who really want money, nothing else.
Yes, that would be the family I have the audacity, or more likely honesty to say behaved badly.

You've claimed to be an ex DI Gramps, then you'd know that this will never get beyond papers being served, at which point, the MPS will payout. The family wont sue the officer, as they will get very little, probably nothing as I'd expect him to 'own' nothing now.

He pleaded to it, simply because the outcome had already been decided, this way he prevented the show trial.
 
Bernie174 said:
Gramps
lets just be sure we are talking about a family that had nothing to do with their 'beloved' father, who they allowed to sleep rough for the past 10+ years?
A family that are only interested in in now because it will line their pockets.
A family that have their answers, know full well they are going to get nothing more in that respect.
A family who really want money, nothing else.
Yes, that would be the family I have the audacity, or more likely honesty to say behaved badly.

You've claimed to be an ex DI Gramps, then you'd know that this will never get beyond papers being served, at which point, the MPS will payout. The family wont sue the officer, as they will get very little, probably nothing as I'd expect him to 'own' nothing now.

He pleaded to it, simply because the outcome had already been decided, this way he prevented the show trial.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I have never claimed to be an ex-DI.
Secondly, whatever the family may have done (in your estimation) there is no comparison with what was done to Mr Tomlinson.
 
Gramps

We have been though this. Tomlinson died, nothings going to bring him back, nor is it going to give the family what they claim they want.

Tomlinson died. Before he died he was hit by Harwood. That much is not in dispute, it's in a video. What isn't in a video is why, what was in Harwoods mind. He has given his reasoning, and that was accepted by a Jury. He cannot be convicted of a crime over it now, he's been acquitted. That's not going to change.

An inquest examined the circumstances, irrespective of the verdict, that was the facts. There is and was dispute with the pathologists. It happens in many inquests/trials.

What can't be measured is the impact of the video, which can only be half of the story, and what effect that had on the Inquest jury.

So the whole thing has been explored twice in a legal forum, with essentially the same thing being said both times. The results were different. It may be that the Inquest Jury was correct, it may also be correct that the Trail jury were, I happen to think they both were. But what is certain is that there is nothing more to be rung from this. It has all been said.

Yet the family, stormed out of a discipline hearing who's function was not to do what they wanted, creaming "Whitewash", because they didn't get something that wasn't on offer, and wasn't the function of the hearing.What they were expecting wasn't going to happen, and they behaved like petulant children. Compare them against say the Lawrence family, who maintained dignity throughout.

Now it could be because they see the blame of a conviction against Harwood as the route to more cash. It maybe that they have been badly advised.

Neither of those things though excuse the behavior they exhibit.
 
Sorry but I don't share your view.
 
gramps said:
So he's been sacked but retains his pension ... the family are considering a private prosecution.
Click to expand...


gramps said:
Criminal = 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Civil = 'in all probability'

He admits 'misconduct' so will be interesting to see the outcome if it does go to a civil court.

I cannot believe you have the audacity to say that they have been "badly behaved throughout" :shake:
Click to expand...

Depends on what they go for. If they sue for damages, then yes you are right, but if they bring a private prosecution for GBH, ABH or assault (a la Lawrence family), then the burden of proof remains beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Bernie174 said:
Gramps

We have been though this. Tomlinson died, nothings going to bring him back, nor is it going to give the family what they claim they want.

Tomlinson died. Before he died he was hit by Harwood. That much is not in dispute, it's in a video. What isn't in a video is why, what was in Harwoods mind. He has given his reasoning, and that was accepted by a Jury. He cannot be convicted of a crime over it now, he's been acquitted. That's not going to change.

An inquest examined the circumstances, irrespective of the verdict, that was the facts. There is and was dispute with the pathologists. It happens in many inquests/trials.

What can't be measured is the impact of the video, which can only be half of the story, and what effect that had on the Inquest jury.

So the whole thing has been explored twice in a legal forum, with essentially the same thing being said both times. The results were different. It may be that the Inquest Jury was correct, it may also be correct that the Trail jury were, I happen to think they both were. But what is certain is that there is nothing more to be rung from this. It has all been said.

Yet the family, stormed out of a discipline hearing who's function was not to do what they wanted, creaming "Whitewash", because they didn't get something that wasn't on offer, and wasn't the function of the hearing.What they were expecting wasn't going to happen, and they behaved like petulant children. Compare them against say the Lawrence family, who maintained dignity throughout.

Now it could be because they see the blame of a conviction against Harwood as the route to more cash. It maybe that they have been badly advised.

Neither of those things though excuse the behavior they exhibit.
Click to expand...

Your OPINION of the family is absolutely immaterial. Harwood gives an appalling image of the police as do his apologists.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
He was tried for manslaughter, not murder!
Click to expand...

Hi Mark, not being sarky or confrontational, but could you explain that please. Just don't understand the process that seemingly allows this guy to get away with it.
 
malo50 said:
Hi Mark, not being sarky or confrontational, but could you explain that please. Just don't understand the process that seemingly allows this guy to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy is explained here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

Excerpt from Wikipedia
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction
Click to expand...
 
malo50 said:
Hi Mark, not being sarky or confrontational, but could you explain that please. Just don't understand the process that seemingly allows this guy to get away with it.
Click to expand...

The removal of double jeopardy only applies to murder cases.
 
The point was in relation to toms assertion that the double jeopardary law was abolished - this isnt so , but in 2003 following the stephen lawrence case the macphearson report reccomended that it be abrogated in murder cases where "fresh and viable" new evidence could be brought

as harwood was charged with manslaughter that isnt germane here and DJ still applies - thus he can't be retried for the same offence
 
big soft moose said:
The point was in relation to toms assertion that the double jeopardary law was abolished - this isnt so , but in 2003 following the stephen lawrence case the macphearson report reccomended that it be abrogated in murder cases where "fresh and viable" new evidence could be brought

as harwood was charged with manslaughter that isnt germane here and DJ still applies - thus he can't be retried for the same offence
Click to expand...

Thanks but isn't that a little absurd?

If I get off with a burglary charge but later my dna or video evidence (or whatever) comes to light that it was me that committed said offence - you are saying that I cannot be charged again with the offence? No wonder this country is a laughing stock in the court room.
 
Not sure if this is a 100% true. If it is then it makes me wonder why he was still employed even.

RO-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
u8myufo said:
Not sure if this is a 100% true. If it is then it makes me wonder why he was still employed even.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, perfect material for the SPG/ TSG. :)
 
u8myufo said:
If it is then it makes me wonder why he was still employed even.
Click to expand...

Agree ... at the very least why 'the system' ever thought it appropriate for him to be used in a 'frontline' capacity let alone controlling people in potentially explosive situations :wacky:
 
tiler65 said:
Thanks but isn't that a little absurd?

If I get off with a burglary charge but later my dna or video evidence (or whatever) comes to light that it was me that committed said offence - you are saying that I cannot be charged again with the offence? No wonder this country is a laughing stock in the court room.
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy is a principle common in legal systems throughout the world, and this country is certainly not a laughing stock in the court room when it comes to criminal cases. I would be fascinated to learn where you get that information from.
 
u8myufo said:
Not sure if this is a 100% true. If it is then it makes me wonder why he was still employed even.

RO-1.jpg
Click to expand...
Maybe he knew how to 'work the system' and avoid disciplinary action by resigning/transferring etc., we should blame the system for allowing that, not the individual for taking advantage of it - and anyway, if it's good enough for senior officers...

As for that list of dodgy dealings, even if it's true the only ones that really concern me are the complaints of fellow officers. Criminals do tend to make a lot of complaints and the only police officers who can go through their career without a lot of complaints tend to be the ones that avoid work.
f I get off with a burglary charge but later my dna or video evidence (or whatever) comes to light that it was me that committed said offence - you are saying that I cannot be charged again with the offence? No wonder this country is a laughing stock in the court room.
Click to expand...
Our legal system is far from perfect, and is all about law rather than true justice, but it is also the best in the world, most other countries just have poor copies of our own system.
 
Garry Edwards said:
As for that list of dodgy dealings, even if it's true the only ones that really concern me are the complaints of fellow officers. Criminals do tend to make a lot of complaints and the only police officers who can go through their career without a lot of complaints tend to be the ones that avoid work.
Click to expand...

Are you having a frigging laugh? You would class a 14yr old girl as a criminal :wacky: Let us hope you have no minor in your family that comes up against such abuse from either a copper or anyone else, or perhaps you would brush it under the carpet. As for the system you are probably right, over 1400 people have died at the hands of the Police since 1990 for whatever reason and not one has been convicted.
 
u8myufo said:
Are you having a frigging laugh? You would class a 14yr old girl as a criminal :wacky: Let us hope you have no minor in your family that comes up against such abuse from either a copper or anyone else, or perhaps you would brush it under the carpet. As for the system you are probably right, over 1400 people have died at the hands of the Police since 1990 for whatever reason and not one has been convicted.
Click to expand...

And 14 year old girls never make up stories? Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but I still feel that the only complaints that would really concern me are the complaints from fellow police officers - which doesn't mean that I would ignore all others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top