Ian Tomlinson

That's right, I forget his name but there are pictures of him going around with Sally, all grins and handshakes

 

And has PC Harwood been found guilty of manslaughter yet or are we now going down the road that police officers, unlike civilians, accused of crimes are automatically guilty of any charges laid against them?

I have seen the video evidence which will be used against him, he gave Mr Tomlinson a dunt/shove/push/whatever and the guy fell over. 5 Minutes later he had a heart attack which as yet has not been shown (To my knowledge) to be directly caused by the shove. I don't think there is a doctor in the world (except perhaps the USA) who could reasonably argue that the shove was the direct cause of death and I suspect PC Harwood's Barrister will argue that Mr Tomlinson had a pre existing medical condition directly related to his alcoholism, which was the real cause of death.

I think the case will go in favour of PC Harwood, I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong but neds who kill old grannies by snatching bags very often get off with manslaughter charges because it is nigh on impossible to prove that the act of stealing a bag and the ensuing (if any) struggle was the cause of death.

PC Harwood deserves to be punished for striking Mr Tomlinson, but a manslaughter charge (in my opinion) is a step too far.

However, I stand by my assertion that Tomlinson was clearly acting the **** with the police (as several witnesses have testified), if he had not perhaps he would still be alive today.

 

Police officers are not pub doormen Dev, they should show restraint in situations like that. Although I am loathe to say it, manslaughter is a step too far in this case. I very much doubt the charge will lead to a prosecution although they had no choice but to charge him with it, the outcry from the usual suspects would have woke the dead.

 

Pc hardwood should have recorded the heart attack

 

I agree totally.

 

I think the police would be better employed filming the goal line so they could prove in a court of law that the ball crossed the line.................or not.

 

Ex copper Dev Advocate will defend the police for all his might and I appreciate his loyalty.
Policing of Celtic fans is not done in the same way as other fans.
Eg SFA semi final an idiot from Celtic fans let off a flare. Police waded in tramped through women and children with no concern for health and Safety to try to apprehend the idiot. Note women and children had done nothing but police must have thought wading through them an easier option than through adult men.
At the same match a dons fan let off a flare, police did not react.
For years police have listened to all sort of filty sectarian singing at Ibrox and have never did anything about it. When pushed they would explain that they could not be expected to react to 40,000 singing. Yet recently they have dealt with 50,000 singing at Celtic Park. Or one or two among 50,000 Improved hearing.

Last year as I waited for my plane at the airport I listened to good banter and a bit of messing from what turned out to be a group of teachers from a well known school in Belfast. Everyone was enjoying it and there was nothing loud. A group of policemen appeared and said one more word and none of them would get on board.
Everyone was allowed on board but pilot came down and explained to them that the PSNI was waiting for them at the airport and unless behaviour was perfect he would have all arrested. As we landed at Belfast pilot came down and apologised, and said it was all wrong.
I was speaking to a Rangers supporter and he said about flying over. I said to him it was quiet at the airport and he said yes until they got to the wee departure area where they could sing or whatever.

 

Wading through women and children? Are you sure that there weren't any new born babies or terminally ill grannies there as well?

A lively group get told to quieten down before getting on a plane? Hold the front page!!

I know that there are chapels at airports, but the Rangers singing area? What will they think of next?

<youtalkshitesmiley>

 

I remember reading about the time Strathclyde Police bombed the Catholic Baby Milk factory during the Blitz, cunningly blaming it on the Luftwaffe.

please log in to view this image

 

Ok Dev - call it as you see it... but for whatever reason, you appear to be very defensive in this matter. However, I ask you to consider this. Did I say, or infer, anywhere in my post that PC Harwood was guilty of anything? He has, I understand, been charged with manslaughter as a result, I believe, of new evidence adduced at the inquest in which the inquest jury concluded that Mr Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed". I also understand that there have been allegations that police officers withheld evidence and that there is conflicting medical evidence from "experts" in the matter - all of which, presumably, will come out during the trial. Whether the police officer is found guilty or not remains to be seen.

In any case, your 'assertion' carries no weight...and indeed neither does anything I have to say on the matter. We are not privy to all of the evidence. However, I have made no judgements on the case - unlike your sweeping generalizations which are mind-boggling to say the least. I will not be a member of the jury and I sincerely hope, in the interests of justice, that you will not be one either, given your narrow and blinkered views on the case, together with the fact that it would appear that you have already decided on the matter before all the evidence is heard.

 

If you are not inferring that PC Harwood was guilty why did you bother posting this? Do you think I don't know he was charged? You seem to be assuming that I am happily discussing a case in which I don't know any of the facts.

I have made no sweeping generalisations whatsoever, perhaps you could point them out, likewise any "assertions" I have made. I have given my "Opinion" based upon what I know of the law in England, no more no less.
Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic (as his family have already admitted) and the facts of the case (the video evidence against PC Harwood) is that he pushed Tomlinson and struck him on the back of the legs with a baton. Mr Tomlinson collapsed and died 5 minutes later. That is established "fact" so if you know something I don't why not just come out and say it instead of simply attempting to counter any points I make?

Anyway I'm sure you will continue preaching to me about what kind of individual I am - despite you knowing practically hee haw about me - but do me a favour and do not talk to me as if I am some sort of facist, that is very far from the truth, I just don't happen to believe Mr Tomlinson was an innocent bystander,or some poor wee guy simply trying to make his way home after a long day at work.

You are free to believe what you will, so please allow me the same priviledge.

 

You really are beyond help but I suggest you seek it anyway.

 

Dev - Sweeping generalizations -"the coppers did not kill him"; "I don't think there is a doctor in the world (except perhaps the USA) who could reasonably argue that the shove was the direct cause of death"

Assertion: "However, I stand by my assertion that Tomlinson was clearly acting the **** with the police (as several witnesses have testified), if he had not perhaps he would still be alive today."

You are, obviously, entitled to your opinions but when you post them on here, I and anyone else is entitled to challenge them if we do not agree with them. The only preaching being done is by you. You have prejudged this case without having access to all of the evidence and it would appear that this evidence may involve more than that contained on the video. Neither you, nor I, know all the facts in the case yet you have passed judgement before it has gone to trial! If the facts of the case are simply as you have stated then how could the inquest jury possibly have reached their conclusion and why would the CPS have brought the charge against the police officer?

I am making no judgement whatsoever on the case as I am not in a position to do so. I am merely challenging your "Opinion" as I do not agree with it. The CPS have stated that new evidence was presented at the inquest as a result of which the inquest jury determined that Mr Tomlinson had been "unlawfully killed" and a charge of manslaughter was subsequently brought against the police officer. As I have said previously, presumably all of this evidence will come out during the trial but if you know more about the case than anyone else perhaps you could let the CPS know and they will withdraw the charge based on your seemingly expert knowledge.

As for the kind of individual you are - you may well be a very nice person for all I know and I sincerely hope you are! I have made no judgement on that matter. Your "Opinion" in this instance, however, comes across, to me, as a rather arrogant declaration on a case in which all of the evidence has yet to come out.

 

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

srew cricket!

you said it venom it's ****E!

 

Did he die as a direct result of the push or the hit with the baton? No he did not because none of postmortems (of which there were 4) have said so, that's why I said the Coppers did not kill him, that's an opinion not a fact but I suppose it could be argued that it was a fact.

I have given my opinion and my opinion only, when I say something which is a "Fact" I will be sure to underline it in future so people don't get confused. I'm not in a position to "Pass judgement" however I do suspect that this whole sham of a case is politically motivated and that the CPS were basically forced into charging the copper.

Here read this and you tell me if Tomlinson was killed by the Police:
(this incidentally is "Fact")

First postmortem
Freddy Patel concluded on 3 April 2009 that Tomlinson had died of coronary artery disease.
According to The Times in April 2009, the IPCC said the postmortem showed there were no bruises or scratches on Tomlinson's head and shoulders, but did not say whether there were injuries elsewhere on his body.

Second postmortem
Was carried out by Dr Nathaniel Cary, known for his work on high-profile cases. He found that Tomlinson had died because of internal bleeding from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver. He concluded that Tomlinson had fallen on his elbow, which he said "impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which led to his death a few minutes later.

Third and fourth postmortems
Because of the conflicting conclusions of the first two postmortem examinations, two more were conducted jointly by Dr Kenneth Shorrock on behalf of the Metropolitan police, and Dr Ben Swift on behalf of Simon Harwood. Shorrock and Swift agreed with the results of the second postmortem.

Freddy Patel's conclusion about natural causes conflicted with the conclusions of Nathaniel Cary and
Kenneth Shorrock, who found that the cause of death was internal bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver. The CPS said the conflict made prosecution difficult, because Patel was the only pathologist to have seen Tomlinson's body intact, placing him in the best position to make a judgment, which meant his evidence would undermine that of the other two pathologists. The CPS described the disagreement between the pathologists as an irreconcilable conflict, and concluded it would therefore not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault. Starmer said there was enough evidence to charge the officer with assault, but there was a six-month deadline for that, which had expired.



I made no call on whether or not the accused was guilty (I personally don't think he is) but my opinion is it will be nigh on impossible to convict him of manslaughter because of the conflicting evidence from the Doctors concerned. The CPS seem to know this but have pressed on regardless because of outside influences.

 

I always thought the Met Police were the best trained Police Force in the World well at least Britain.
It amazed me to find that a number of years ago a number of armed Met Policemen followed a young
Brazilian lad as he went about his law full morning tasks. Hhe was followed until he boarded a tube train
and blown to pieces by armed Met Police. Having blown the head and parts of the body a part the Met
Policemen continued to fire heavy weapons into him.
None of the policemen were charged or found guilty of any major offence. Their evidence was all contradictory
and no one could make any sense. Remember this police force is/was mean't to be the best police force in the world.

We all know that Strathclyde Police Force has a hearing problem in Govan but when they come up the London Road
they get a miraculous cure and can hear a Ra at a 100 yards.
Police in Scotland's Capital city can be a wee bit strange too.
When the Rangers/Hearts fan John Wilson attacked our manager last season the lone Policeman near Neil Lennon would
be expected to maybe go to Lennon's aid, or to watch the crowd closest in case another idiot would attempt to attack
Neil as well. The police man may have been expected to watch carefully in case Wilson or someone in the crowd pulled a gun
or a knife. Did the policeman do any of the above ? No.
What he did do was stare intently across the field watching the reaction of the Celtic fans. If a Celtic fan had given a one or two finger
salute no doubt he would have been punished more than Wilson.
It should be noticed that there were many other policemen, far closer than the one beside Lennon, who were also focussed on the Celtic
fans.
The outcome of course John Wilson was found guilt of a lesser offence, than he should have been, Hearts and their police came up with a brilliant idea to
make good the damage. Celtic's fan allocation was reduced by 300 and everyone was happy.
Have the English Capital police and the Scottish capital police behaved correctly in these incidents.

 

Menezes was done by SO19 though. Those ****s are a law unto themselves