G20 Protests in London Page 34

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 21:09:42 891 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @mowgli Does there need to be anything more than the Video Evidence?
    " the court heard he felt "shock" when he saw video footage of his encounter with Mr Tomlinson being shown on television.
    He said he felt: "Shock at the fact that it was on television and the horror of actually thinking it could be me there and what it could lead to."

    In other words he was shocked he'd been caught! not sorry for his actions. And the Police wonder why people don't have faith in them or trust them anymore!

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • the_dudefather 19 Jul 2012 21:09:47 9,323 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    If only he sprayed some graffiti on a wall 20 years ago, then they would have a case against him

    (ง ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)

  • AaronTurner 19 Jul 2012 21:49:17 7,785 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can't quite understand how the guy can admit he was wrong to hit Tomlinson yet not be found guilty?
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 21:51:19
    Because there is more required for the charge?
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 21:52:31 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    Rusty_M wrote:
    richardiox wrote:
    Its a fucking disgrace, That cunt is guilty. Why does the misconduct need reviewing? There's a fuck ton of video evidence. And his sordid past which sheds light on to the kind of bullying cunt character he is. Hope he gets done over one night off duty.
    Surely those at the trial are in a better position to decide that.
    Have you seen the multiple videos of what he did? And did you read the details of all his previous misdemenours? Sound like a nice guy to you?

    Spare a thought for Tomlinson's family who watch a video of Ian getting brutally pushed over by Harwood, know Harwood has a sordid history for bullying / violence / abuse of power and then see the guy walk off scot free back into his paid job at the Met.

    Don't forget the cops who fucked over Rodney King got off without charge...I wasn't at the trial but again - I didn't need to be to know it was a miscarriage of justice - the thing was captured live on video.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

    26 seconds in...totally unprovoked, needlessly violent and led to the death of man who wasn't even in the protest. Perpetrated by a man with a history of abusing power.
    I don't know that much about the case and I absolutely think that what he did was terrible, but....

    a) The jury weren't informed of his previous misdemeanors, as is required under UK law.

    b) He was an alcoholic and more likely to fall than may be expected.

    c) experts were unable to come to a definitive conclusion about whether the internal bleeding that caused his death was caused by Harwood.

    If he was accused of assault, ABH or GBH It'd be an open and shut case, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that he caused of the death of Thomlinson apparently was a bridge too far.

    Ironically those such as yourself baying for his blood probably played a part in his not receiving a custodial sentence on a lesser charge.

    But like I said, it doesn't stop him being a total twat.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 21:55:32
    Yup, guys a grade A cunt but I don't think manslaughter was the correct charge, and the result only shows that.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 22:05:06
    Causation, the fact that he died after such a 'minor' incident shows there is more to it all than the video.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:08:41 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:


    b) He was an alcoholic and more likely to fall than may be expected.

    So what? As relevant as if he had epilepsy and was more prone to falling over.

    c) experts were unable to come to a definitive conclusion about whether the internal bleeding that caused his death was caused by Harwood.

    So it was a coincidence he died shortly after being assaulted? Jesus...
    Hey, I don't make the law.

    If you can't prove he definitely caused Harwood's death you can't convict him. Coincidences happen all the time.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 22:10:24
    EyeLand wrote:
    Throwing somebody to the ground who was not expecting it is minor?
    Yes. Despite all the hysterics over the cunt - and he is a complete cut and deserved to lose his job and be convicted of assault - it was minor.
  • richardiox 19 Jul 2012 22:13:01 5,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    richardiox wrote:
    Rusty_M wrote:
    richardiox wrote:
    Its a fucking disgrace, That cunt is guilty. Why does the misconduct need reviewing? There's a fuck ton of video evidence. And his sordid past which sheds light on to the kind of bullying cunt character he is. Hope he gets done over one night off duty.
    Surely those at the trial are in a better position to decide that.
    Have you seen the multiple videos of what he did? And did you read the details of all his previous misdemenours? Sound like a nice guy to you?

    Spare a thought for Tomlinson's family who watch a video of Ian getting brutally pushed over by Harwood, know Harwood has a sordid history for bullying / violence / abuse of power and then see the guy walk off scot free back into his paid job at the Met.

    Don't forget the cops who fucked over Rodney King got off without charge...I wasn't at the trial but again - I didn't need to be to know it was a miscarriage of justice - the thing was captured live on video.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

    26 seconds in...totally unprovoked, needlessly violent and led to the death of man who wasn't even in the protest. Perpetrated by a man with a history of abusing power.
    I don't know that much about the case and I absolutely think that what he did was terrible, but....

    a) The jury weren't informed of his previous misdemeanors, as is required under UK law.

    b) He was an alcoholic and more likely to fall than may be expected.

    c) experts were unable to come to a definitive conclusion about whether the internal bleeding that caused his death was caused by Harwood.

    If he was accused of assault, ABH or GBH It'd be an open and shut case, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that he caused of the death of Thomlinson apparently was a bridge too far.

    Ironically those such as yourself baying for his blood probably played a part in his not receiving a custodial sentence on a lesser charge.

    But like I said, it doesn't stop him being a total twat.
    The fact the Tomlinson died surely meant that either GBH or ABH charges couldn't be made, effectively meaning they had to try him for manslaughter?

    As for b) him being an alcoholic - did you see how hard he got pushed? After being twatted on the back of the legs by a baton? Dont think you have to be a pisshead to go down hard after that. Plus hands in pockets means you cant protect yourself against a fall.

    It's just galling that he wont get any criminal charge brought against him and will most probably keep his police pension.

    And you are actually right - you cant prove beyond reasonable doubt that his push ultimately killed Ian...just like you (they) couldn't prove beyond any reasonable doubt that those LA cops who beatdown on Rodney King caused his death. But that's the nature of our legal system for better and for worse.

    In my eyes though - in both cases, I've seen videos of OTT police brutality ultimately leading to a loss of life and both without any justice for the families of those whose lives were taken. Which is pretty sad to be fair.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:14:25 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @EyeLand

    I think as a general rule you wouldn't expect pushing a middle aged like that would result in a life threatening injury.

    It was a public jury, do you think the were nobbled? Do you think the police, especially ones who attack members of the public unprovoked are held in such high esteem that the jury ignored the facts of the case? Or do you think you have a chip on your shoulder and can't accept that the case couldn't be proved?
  • richardiox 19 Jul 2012 22:18:22 5,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    EyeLand wrote:
    Throwing somebody to the ground who was not expecting it is minor?
    Yes. Despite all the hysterics over the cunt - and he is a complete cut and deserved to lose his job and be convicted of assault - it was minor.
    Cool. Can't wait until someone pushes over your wife/mum/granny/son with no provocation and causes them serious injury or death just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then I can come on a forum and say you are being hysterical about it as it was just a "minor" incident.

    Also if you ever see any relatives of Ian please remind them to stop being hysterical over such a minor incident. Or the relatives of anyone who has been killed after taking a punch/push on a night out and landing badly. Again, it was only "minor" so fucking get over it you hysterical grieving dicks.

    Seriously Mowgli, I know you like attention but sometimes you are just a total arsehole just for the sake of it.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:23:14 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    richardiox wrote:
    Rusty_M wrote:
    richardiox wrote:
    Its a fucking disgrace, That cunt is guilty. Why does the misconduct need reviewing? There's a fuck ton of video evidence. And his sordid past which sheds light on to the kind of bullying cunt character he is. Hope he gets done over one night off duty.
    Surely those at the trial are in a better position to decide that.
    Have you seen the multiple videos of what he did? And did you read the details of all his previous misdemenours? Sound like a nice guy to you?

    Spare a thought for Tomlinson's family who watch a video of Ian getting brutally pushed over by Harwood, know Harwood has a sordid history for bullying / violence / abuse of power and then see the guy walk off scot free back into his paid job at the Met.

    Don't forget the cops who fucked over Rodney King got off without charge...I wasn't at the trial but again - I didn't need to be to know it was a miscarriage of justice - the thing was captured live on video.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

    26 seconds in...totally unprovoked, needlessly violent and led to the death of man who wasn't even in the protest. Perpetrated by a man with a history of abusing power.
    I don't know that much about the case and I absolutely think that what he did was terrible, but....

    a) The jury weren't informed of his previous misdemeanors, as is required under UK law.

    b) He was an alcoholic and more likely to fall than may be expected.

    c) experts were unable to come to a definitive conclusion about whether the internal bleeding that caused his death was caused by Harwood.

    If he was accused of assault, ABH or GBH It'd be an open and shut case, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that he caused of the death of Thomlinson apparently was a bridge too far.

    Ironically those such as yourself baying for his blood probably played a part in his not receiving a custodial sentence on a lesser charge.

    But like I said, it doesn't stop him being a total twat.
    The fact the Tomlinson died surely meant that either GBH or ABH charges couldn't be made, effectively meaning they had to try him for manslaughter?

    As for b) him being an alcoholic - did you see how hard he got pushed? After being twatted on the back of the legs by a baton? Dont think you have to be a pisshead to go down hard after that. Plus hands in pockets means you cant protect yourself against a fall.

    It's just galling that he wont get any criminal charge brought against him and will most probably keep his police pension.

    And you are actually right - you cant prove beyond reasonable doubt that his push ultimately killed Ian...just like you (they) couldn't prove beyond any reasonable doubt that those LA cops who beatdown on Rodney King caused his death. But that's the nature of our legal system for better and for worse.

    In my eyes though - in both cases, I've seen videos of OTT police brutality ultimately leading to a loss of life and both without any justice for the families of those whose lives were taken. Which is pretty sad to be fair.
    Well someone who wasn't intoxicated would probably have had good enough reactions to take their hands out of their pockets and brace themselves for the fall.

    As for Rodney King, I think there were plenty of other things that contributed to his death 21 years after the fact.

    But again, don't let anything I say leave you in any doubt that I abhor what Tomlinson did. That just shouldn't mean we can by-pass the judicial process and fuck him up.
  • richardiox 19 Jul 2012 22:24:39 5,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    @EyeLand

    I think as a general rule you wouldn't expect pushing a middle aged like that would result in a life threatening injury.

    It was a public jury, do you think the were nobbled? Do you think the police, especially ones who attack members of the public unprovoked are held in such high esteem that the jury ignored the facts of the case? Or do you think you have a chip on your shoulder and can't accept that the case couldn't be proved?
    That's just it - it couldn't be PROVED beyond any shadow of doubt.

    And in terms of "facts of the case" - do some reading up. In the weeks and months after the incident the Met really tried to cover it up, firstly denying it happened at all, then blaming other protestors, then saying the police were actually trying to help him get first aid.....until videos started emerging that made them look like they were just looking out for their own. Which they were. And which they do as proved by the "history of Harwood" article linked on the previous page.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:25:10 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    EyeLand wrote:
    Throwing somebody to the ground who was not expecting it is minor?
    Yes. Despite all the hysterics over the cunt - and he is a complete cut and deserved to lose his job and be convicted of assault - it was minor.
    Cool. Can't wait until someone pushes over your wife/mum/granny/son with no provocation and causes them serious injury or death just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then I can come on a forum and say you are being hysterical about it as it was just a "minor" incident.

    Also if you ever see any relatives of Ian please remind them to stop being hysterical over such a minor incident. Or the relatives of anyone who has been killed after taking a punch/push on a night out and landing badly. Again, it was only "minor" so fucking get over it you hysterical grieving dicks.

    Seriously Mowgli, I know you like attention but sometimes you are just a total arsehole just for the sake of it.
    You seem unable to separate the act from the result.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:26:39 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    @EyeLand

    I think as a general rule you wouldn't expect pushing a middle aged like that would result in a life threatening injury.

    It was a public jury, do you think the were nobbled? Do you think the police, especially ones who attack members of the public unprovoked are held in such high esteem that the jury ignored the facts of the case? Or do you think you have a chip on your shoulder and can't accept that the case couldn't be proved?
    That's just it - it couldn't be PROVED beyond any shadow of doubt.

    And in terms of "facts of the case" - do some reading up. In the weeks and months after the incident the Met really tried to cover it up, firstly denying it happened at all, then blaming other protestors, then saying the police were actually trying to help him get first aid.....until videos started emerging that made them look like they were just looking out for their own. Which they were. And which they do as proved by the "history of Harwood" article linked on the previous page.
    Well in that case people should be charged with perverting the course of justice.
  • richardiox 19 Jul 2012 22:32:51 5,637 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yup, I am unable to separate the act of clubbing and then throwing to the ground a weak man to the result of him soon after dying from internal bleeding and with a large bruise on his head from where he hit the ground.

    And let's not forget the Met getting the reliable Dr Freddy Patel (who had been suspended from GMC before and was suspended again straight after his botched post-mortem if Ian) to do the first post mortem which was factually inaccurate, gave a wrong cause of death and hindered gathering of evidence that Harwood's act did kill Tomlinson

    "Dr Patel also failed to record the fact that Tomlinson had a large bruise on his forehead from where it had hit the ground.
    Dr Nat Cary, perhaps the most respected pathologist in the country, conducted a second post-mortem and said there was “only one real possibility” for the cause of death – that Tomlinson had died of internal bleeding after his elbow was pushed into his abdomen after being shoved to the ground by Pc Simon Harwood.
    A third post-mortem, by Dr Kenneth Shorrock, agreed with the finding.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9412476/Ian-Tomlinson-pathologist-botched-first-post-mortem.html

    Edited by richardiox at 22:34:54 19-07-2012
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:33:18 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    No, I don't think the jury were nobled but I can see things like him being an alcoholic and at times homeless swaying the jury as they appear to be you, with the insulting comment about someone being able to protect themselves if they weren't an alcoholic? I do know if I'd assaulted someone, even minorly, in the same circumstances, with video footish and a subsequent fatality not long after, I'd be serving a sentence now.
    You can't possibly know that. You have a world view and this just fits neatly into it.

    I can't see how any member of the public on a jury would be biased in favour of a thuggish policeman.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:36:11 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @richardiox

    I certainly agree that Patel seems to be a bit of a charlatan. Do you know how much bearing his evidence had on the verdict?
  • ronuds 19 Jul 2012 22:46:14 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Being the first I've heard of this - has anyone said why the guy just didn't get out of the way? It didn't look like the force they used against him was excessive to the extreme. 9,999 of 10,000 times the guy would have gotten up and walked away.

    Not sure how much "odds" matter in court, though.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 22:50:29 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ronuds wrote:
    Being the first I've heard of this - has anyone said why the guy just didn't get out of the way? It didn't look like the force they used against him was excessive to the extreme. 9,999 of 10,000 times the guy would have gotten up and walked away.

    Not sure how much "odds" matter in court, though.
    It was excessive in so much as he was a completely innocent guy not involved with the protests in any way just making his way home. As such any force used against him was excessive in the extreme.
  • Gradius 19 Jul 2012 22:57:55 2,305 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I don't think any police officer worth his/her salt will be pleased with this verdict. At the moment the police's public relations aren't exactly 'great', this will only run them further into the ground, and rightly so.

    Anyway, the next time I feel like assaulting an elderly person from behind with a weapon in a totally unprovoked attack, I'll just go right ahead and do it because according to this verdict, there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking such action, it's good to know...
  • ronuds 19 Jul 2012 22:58:16 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    If someone's impeding police business, the police are going to move that person. Doesn't matter if that person's involved with whatever they're doing or not.

    They obviously didn't have to shove him so hard, but he didn't seem to be in a big hurry to move on his own. Baton is obviously completely out of line, though.

    Edited by ronuds at 22:59:06 19-07-2012
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:03:52 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gradius wrote:
    I don't think any police officer worth his/her salt will be pleased with this verdict. At the moment the police's public relations aren't exactly 'great', this will only run them further into the ground, and rightly so.

    Anyway, the next time I feel like assaulting an elderly person from behind with a weapon in a totally unprovoked attack, I'll just go right ahead and do it because according to this verdict, there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking such action, it's good to know...
    Like Mowgli and I were saying on the previous page it was the wrong charge, or at least one that clearly in this case couldn't be proved.

    To say this will further run the police's reputation into the ground "and rightly so" is just wrong. It's not the police's fault. it may or may not be the fault of the CPS, juror's and barrister's.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:04:37 5,633 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ronuds wrote:
    If someone's impeding police business, the police are going to move that person. Doesn't matter if that person's involved with whatever they're doing or not.

    They obviously didn't have to shove him so hard, but he didn't seem to be in a big hurry to move on his own. Baton is obviously completely out of line, though.
    He probably didn't know that it was walk home from work quickly or we'll beat the shit out of you day.

    Edited by gang_of_bitches at 23:05:30 19-07-2012
  • LeoliansBro 19 Jul 2012 23:05:39 44,503 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Wasn't the push that killed him. That's all the judgement says.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:08:19 891 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Well seeing as the inquest jury took three hours to decide that Tomlinson had been "unlawfully killed by a police officer" I don't think it was the wrong charge.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

Log in or register to reply