G20 demonstrations

I'm really not sure how I feel about this.

Yes the officer was over the top and yes an innocent man died as a consequence. This is terrible.

I am concerned for the officer as none of us can imagine what it means to be controlling a potentially dangerous situation such as this, not the feelings entailed, the 'pumping-up' of officers beforehand, what it is to know the danger of previous riots and the physical damage that has occured to officers in the past. Surely an aggressive stance is the only one to be had when you are in a vastly outnumbered minority trying to keep ahold of a situation.

I am concerned about police ability to control crowds in the future. What this ruling will mean for individual officers who will, in the future, hesitiate before defending themselves (for example - I know this isnt the case here) in potentially serious situations. How extreme protestors could use this presedent (legal knowledge is not great so I'm not sure this is a presedent, but it is at the very least a show that there is a limit to the police's infallibility under riot situations) to further their cause and use officers rage/hesitation/etc to their own means.

I'm really not sure how I feel about this.

Yes the officer was over the top and yes an innocent man died as a consequence. This is terrible.

I am concerned for the officer as none of us can imagine what it means to be controlling a potentially dangerous situation such as this, not the feelings entailed, the 'pumping-up' of officers beforehand, what it is to know the danger of previous riots and the physical damage that has occured to officers in the past. Surely an aggressive stance is the only one to be had when you are in a vastly outnumbered minority trying to keep ahold of a situation.

I am concerned about police ability to control crowds in the future. What this ruling will mean for individual officers who will, in the future, hesitiate before defending themselves (for example - I know this isnt the case here) in potentially serious situations. How extreme protestors could use this presedent (legal knowledge is not great so I'm not sure this is a presedent, but it is at the very least a show that there is a limit to the police's infallibility under riot situations) to further their cause and use officers rage/hesitation/etc to their own means.

Don't be concerned - you don't know what you are talking about but I'm sure the daily mail will put you on the straight and narrow.

Don't be concerned - you don't know what you are talking about but I'm sure the daily mail will put you on the straight and narrow.

Indeed.

Perhaps when the Mail comes out tomorrow they will tell me what I should be thinking and then I can rest easy that I'll have the same opinion as all my friends at our next dinner party. God forbid I should make any social faux pas.

In the mean time I'll just agree with whatever it may be that you say and hope that'll see my through till print tomorrow.

I'm really not sure how I feel about this.

Yes the officer was over the top and yes an innocent man died as a consequence. This is terrible.

I am concerned for the officer as none of us can imagine what it means to be controlling a potentially dangerous situation such as this, not the feelings entailed, the 'pumping-up' of officers beforehand, what it is to know the danger of previous riots and the physical damage that has occured to officers in the past. Surely an aggressive stance is the only one to be had when you are in a vastly outnumbered minority trying to keep ahold of a situation.

I am concerned about police ability to control crowds in the future. What this ruling will mean for individual officers who will, in the future, hesitiate before defending themselves (for example - I know this isnt the case here) in potentially serious situations. How extreme protestors could use this presedent (legal knowledge is not great so I'm not sure this is a presedent, but it is at the very least a show that there is a limit to the police's infallibility under riot situations) to further their cause and use officers rage/hesitation/etc to their own means.

Take all that, the worry about what effect this will have on policing protests in the future - and temper it with the worry about police behaviour if it's shown that they can get away with unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on members of the public.

Take all that, the worry about what effect this will have on policing protests in the future - and temper it with the worry about police behaviour if it's shown that they can get away with unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on members of the public.

That's better.

Please don't think that I'm condoning the behaviour of the officer at all. I'm very much of the school that over policing is positively detrimental. Gone are the days my parents and their friends reminisce over when a police officer would help rather than hinder an individual. There is no question that policing is run through fear today. I don't think this is correct and I do, to some degree, believe that this has pushed society into a state in which it feels less accountable for it's decisions and their impact on those others around them. 1984 and rule though fear (although obviously I'm not talking Communism here).

However with respect to this incident there is no clean easyway out. What we have is an individual being charged with manslaughter and the Met being removed of all responsibility for the affects of it's officers actions. Obviously the best all round (apart from the accused officer - and let's bare in mind that he has not been found guilty yet). But I find it difficult to accept that the police force are in no way responsible for it's officers actions. They are. The officers ARE the police force and therefore the police officers actions are the actions of the police force. I find it almost impossible to understand how people could differentiate from that.

People should not be killed by police, especially when they pose no threat at all. It is very, very wrong. However, I can't get my head around any possible good that can occur from this. Harwwood is/was a police officer. One would assume from that very title that he is a responsible individual with no criminal record.

The idea that he intended to cause death is not even suggested (hence his being charged with 'manslaughter'). We need to stand back a little as individuals, take our heads out of the dizzying clouds of media hype and group opinion and realise that an upstanding member of society (at least as we can assume) was put in a situation in which he caused the death of another human being. There has been no speculation or suggestion that he would have acted like this in anotehr situation by the media or the prosecution.

Please don't jump on the bandwagon of vilification when we are not talking about an Osama or Sadam.

That's better.
Harwwood is/was a police officer. One would assume from that very title that he is a responsible individual with no criminal record.

.

Harwood had faced two misconduct hearings in the late 1990s and in 2004. The first arose out of a road-rage incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury, during which he reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that Harwood had used unnecessary force. Before the case was heard, Harwood retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Three days later, he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker. Several years later, he applied to join the Surrey Police as an officer; Surrey Police say he was vetted and was frank about his history. During his time in Surrey, there was a complaint about his behaviour while on duty; it was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. After working there for 18 months, he applied for a transfer back to the Met as a police officer, and was accepted in November 2004. It is not clear how thoroughly the Met vetted him at that point.[30]

Assumptions are dangerous things.

Christ. Interesting stuff. At first sight it brings even more to the fore the Met's responsibility I think.

In respect that the Telegraph article it says of the incident in Surrey that: 'There was a thorough internal investigation and the claim was subsequently found to be unsubstantiated and no further action was taken'. I like the phraseology here. But it does suggest that this incident can be ignored/vetted down to some degree (although that's not to say I'm so naive to believe there is no corruption and 'self-protecting' occuring in the police force).

Even so we can at worst assume he has a bit of an anger management history. Again, if this was significant enough to detract from his capabilities as a TSG officer it was the Met's responsibility.

If however it was not deemed a problem then again we are in the situation in which a man with no history of serious violance is being accused of manslaughter after doing his job and perhaps getting swept up in the stress/anxiety/excitement of the day.

Remember kids. Road rage is something EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAS SOME SELF INSTIGATED KNOWLEDGE OF (more assupmtions), so please don't think that qualifies a human being to kill another.

PigFarmer

While I can understand your concerns there is a very real need for the police to handle themselves properly. The G20 demonstrations were a legitimate way for citizens in a democracy to air their views. The police should act in a way to allow that legitimate airing of views. This is an essential part of policiing. Once the state, through its instrument, the police, becomes repressive, democracy and the state's own legitimacy becomes questionable. The police must be policed and cannot behave in the way that this officer did with the sanction of his superiors.

accused of manslaughter after doing his job

He really did not do his job, that is the point. He failed to do his job and as a result Ian Tomlinson died. Why should he not be held personally accountable for that regardless of the background of institutional failures from the Met?

However with respect to this incident there is no clean easyway out.

An easy way out would be to prosecute Harwood for manslaughter and let the case be heard in court.

However, I can't get my head around any possible good that can occur from this.

A dangerously aggressive person in a position of power would be removed from that position and a message would be sent out to other officers that they are not above the law.

Harwwood is/was a police officer. One would assume from that very title that he is a responsible individual with no criminal record.

All first time killers, rapists, murderers, thieves, vandal (etc etc) have no previous criminal record - we don't judge cases on whether the accused have a previous criminal record (in fact we go out of or way to keep this out of proceedings) we prosecute a case of what the person is accused of not their history.

The idea that he intended to cause death is not even suggested (hence his being charged with 'manslaughter'). We need to stand back a little as individuals, take our heads out of the dizzying clouds of media hype and group opinion and realise that an upstanding member of society (at least as we can assume) was put in a situation in which he caused the death of another human being

I'd say he was not 'upstanding', this is evidenced by his unprovoked (and ultimately deadly) attack on an innocent civilian.

Your stuff about 'heads in clouds' and 'group opinion' is just silly and fallacious poisoning of the well.

. . . again we are in the situation in which a man with no history of serious violance is being accused of manslaughter after doing his job and perhaps getting swept up in the stress/anxiety/excitement of the day.

Let's imagine the roles were reversed, it was Tomlinson who battoned and shoved the officer to the floor, the officer got up, a little dazed, dragged himself off and died a hundred yards up the road a few moments later.

Would you make the same excuses for Tomlinson ? That he was just swept up in the stress/anxiety/excitement of the day ?

As for the officer "doing his job" - he was not doing his job when he attacked and killed Tomlinson.

That is gospel

Sorry to digress but my boss calls me 'G20' cos I'm always 20 minutes late!

Yeah, kick him in his fucking climate camp.

Homophobe!

Homophobe!

Thread killer.

Pc Simon Harwood cleared over Ian Tomlinson manslaughter . What a fucking surprise.

According to The Guardian:

"No police officer has been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed while on duty since 1986."

Make what you will from that

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson

Dodgy fucker all 'round it seems.

he did lose his job though ? didn't he ?

No.

Mr Harwood – who was been suspended on full pay for the last three years

Fuck me. What a lark.

I'm torn now though - should I have been a banker or a copper?

So presumably none of us are safe now. Any police officer can murder us, sorry, kill us, sorry, use reasonable force on us, which results in our death, and he will get away with it.

I wonder if all these people visiting London for the Olympics realise the streets are being stalked by thugs and killers ? I guess as long as they avoid the police, they will be safe.

thats nothing new, works like that in most countries.

But we used to pretend Britain was safe !

We used to pretend the British police weren't murdering thugs. Even after Blair Peach, we pretended the Met weren't just hired killers.

We can't pretend anymore.