ChatterBank1 min ago
Ian Tomlinson: PC Admits 'Gross Negligence'
http://
PC Simon Harwood has now admitted to gross negligence relating to the incident involving Ian Tomlinson in 2009 during the G20 riots.
What would the fair minded ABers think should be appropriate punishment for him?
PC Simon Harwood has now admitted to gross negligence relating to the incident involving Ian Tomlinson in 2009 during the G20 riots.
What would the fair minded ABers think should be appropriate punishment for him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kerosene. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LazyGun and sir.prize,
PC Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter by a jury in July, therefore he has been found not guilty. It's totally irrelevant what I think, nor would I profess to have sufficient medical knowledge, sir.prize, to be able to answer your direct question. Any opinion given by me would be pure guesswork based on no specific medical knowledge - like yours, I assume?
Also, when people simply ignore a jury's decision, I'd love to know the basis on which they do it? Quite frankly, it's no more than an insult to that jury and nothing but a cry for revenge instead of the rule of law.
How would I know if he would have still been alive had he not been knocked to the ground? You're asking me to be a coroner. I am not.
PC Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter by a jury in July, therefore he has been found not guilty. It's totally irrelevant what I think, nor would I profess to have sufficient medical knowledge, sir.prize, to be able to answer your direct question. Any opinion given by me would be pure guesswork based on no specific medical knowledge - like yours, I assume?
Also, when people simply ignore a jury's decision, I'd love to know the basis on which they do it? Quite frankly, it's no more than an insult to that jury and nothing but a cry for revenge instead of the rule of law.
How would I know if he would have still been alive had he not been knocked to the ground? You're asking me to be a coroner. I am not.
Some posters on here ought to read the link I provided in which it states quite clearly that this is not a trial, that has already happened and Harwood was found 'NOT GUILTY'.
This is a disciplinary hearing by the Met who do NOT have the power to send anyone to jail. Sorry to disappoint those 'fair minded ABers' I referred to above?
This is a disciplinary hearing by the Met who do NOT have the power to send anyone to jail. Sorry to disappoint those 'fair minded ABers' I referred to above?
Are we ignoring the jury's decision ? If he'd made an open, unqualified admission, as it first seemed, he would have admitted manslaughter in admitting gross negligence. But we can ignore the jury's decision anyway, on the basis that we think he's guilty on the balance of probabilities, which the jury themselves might have thought. That was where O J Simpson came unstuck; a jury acquitted him but he was still found liable, 'guilty'', on the balance of probabilities, in civil proceedings
@Kerosene - You are right that he was found not guilty, and also correct that we have to abide by that decision. That does not mean we have to agree with the decision though. In my opinion, one shared, I am sure, by many others, the decision to find him not guilty of manslaughter was due in large part to the conflicting post-mortem results - and the one that suggested that the fall/baton strike played no part in Tomlinsons subsequent death is the one that was performed by a pathologist now struck off, his report and methods found to contain 68 errors, and who threw away 3L of abdominal fluid - fluid that could have offered some useful corroborative evidence.
Kerosene - I am interested in the tone of your defence of the police, both on this thread in the case of Harwood, and also recently on the thread regarding the Hillsborough findings. You may have been asked, and indeed answered the question before - but out of curiosity - are you now or have you ever been a serving police officer, PCSO or support staff, or have any of your family or friends worked for the police?
Kerosene - I am interested in the tone of your defence of the police, both on this thread in the case of Harwood, and also recently on the thread regarding the Hillsborough findings. You may have been asked, and indeed answered the question before - but out of curiosity - are you now or have you ever been a serving police officer, PCSO or support staff, or have any of your family or friends worked for the police?
LazyGun,
I never ask after another poster's employment, current or previous. I'm not now about to feel compelled to reveal mine. The fact that I have spoken in support of the Police is neither here nor there. My reasons for doing so both on this as well as the Hillsborough thread are coincidental. But you are fully at liberty to think what you wish - I cannot stop you.
I happen to believe in the rule of law, I have at no time tried to paint the Police as perfect - just human beings in uniform trying to do an almost impossible job, as confirmed by many of the negative comments made about them by various posters on both threads. That is their right, but I happen to feel differently, and I always explain my reasoning.
I also genuinely believe that Harwood ought to have been found guilty of manslaughter and I was very surprised when he was acquitted. It was almost inevitable that he would be sacked today, I think the Met was between a rock and a hard place and have done the right thing.
There again, these are only my opinions, aren't they?
I never ask after another poster's employment, current or previous. I'm not now about to feel compelled to reveal mine. The fact that I have spoken in support of the Police is neither here nor there. My reasons for doing so both on this as well as the Hillsborough thread are coincidental. But you are fully at liberty to think what you wish - I cannot stop you.
I happen to believe in the rule of law, I have at no time tried to paint the Police as perfect - just human beings in uniform trying to do an almost impossible job, as confirmed by many of the negative comments made about them by various posters on both threads. That is their right, but I happen to feel differently, and I always explain my reasoning.
I also genuinely believe that Harwood ought to have been found guilty of manslaughter and I was very surprised when he was acquitted. It was almost inevitable that he would be sacked today, I think the Met was between a rock and a hard place and have done the right thing.
There again, these are only my opinions, aren't they?
@sandyroe
" He will have to live with a heavy burden of guilt for the rest of his days."
from what we know of him I very much doubt it, he will get another job where he will use his power and position whatever it may be, to abuse people and to his advantage.
I'm guessing hes just a thug by nature all the evidence seems to point to it
" He will have to live with a heavy burden of guilt for the rest of his days."
from what we know of him I very much doubt it, he will get another job where he will use his power and position whatever it may be, to abuse people and to his advantage.
I'm guessing hes just a thug by nature all the evidence seems to point to it
@Kerosene -thanks for the clarification.
Given that there was a verdict of unlawful killing regarding Ian Tomlinson, the fact that Harwood was found not guilty of manslaughter seemed strange and inconsistent to me, and it seems that the differing post- mortem reports played a very large part in arriving at that not guilty decision. As it is, Dismissal for Gross Negligence is the most severe action that the Met can now take - but I still think he is lucky to have avoided any jail time.
I gather the family plan to take some sort of civil action - but I am not sure quite who they will aim at.
I believe in the rule of law also.Policing is obviously a challenging job, with many competing interests and there are examples of heroism and bravery and hard work and community input by individual officers that should be applauded. But that does not mean that they should always be defended.
For all the good work they do, some police officers bring the service into disrepute by their actions. There is no question that they will close ranks in some instances, and some will alter testimony or otherwise abuse their position, and when this is found to have happened, it should be punished, publically acknowledged and lessons learned.
Harwood should never have been re-employed by the Met ,given his history.And I am still shocked at the scale of errors, spin, propaganda and alteration of police testimony by the Police that we now know happened at Hillsborough. That is indefensible, in my opinion.
Given that there was a verdict of unlawful killing regarding Ian Tomlinson, the fact that Harwood was found not guilty of manslaughter seemed strange and inconsistent to me, and it seems that the differing post- mortem reports played a very large part in arriving at that not guilty decision. As it is, Dismissal for Gross Negligence is the most severe action that the Met can now take - but I still think he is lucky to have avoided any jail time.
I gather the family plan to take some sort of civil action - but I am not sure quite who they will aim at.
I believe in the rule of law also.Policing is obviously a challenging job, with many competing interests and there are examples of heroism and bravery and hard work and community input by individual officers that should be applauded. But that does not mean that they should always be defended.
For all the good work they do, some police officers bring the service into disrepute by their actions. There is no question that they will close ranks in some instances, and some will alter testimony or otherwise abuse their position, and when this is found to have happened, it should be punished, publically acknowledged and lessons learned.
Harwood should never have been re-employed by the Met ,given his history.And I am still shocked at the scale of errors, spin, propaganda and alteration of police testimony by the Police that we now know happened at Hillsborough. That is indefensible, in my opinion.
LazyGun,
I can't disagree with your last post. I do find it very odd that Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter which requires a deal less in order to prove the offence than the more serious charge of murder?
I well remember the first time I saw the incident on the news and straight away said to my wife that I thought Harwood was 'banged to rights' and that a reasonable person might say he was at least responsible for Mr Tomlinson's death a short time later. It was then a case of determining cause of death and then formulating which charge(s) would be preferred? Or so I thought.
Yes, it seems as if the post mortems may have indeed made the difference between what Harwood was charged with, and both PMs, particularly the first, sort of defeated one another with the different findings.
As for Hillsborough, in a nutshell, any subsequent Police cover up was on the orders of very senior Officers as far as I'm concerned, but the initial tragedy could not simply be attributed to the Police alone. I'll stop there because I said more than plenty on the subject last week and anything else would just be repetition.
I can't disagree with your last post. I do find it very odd that Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter which requires a deal less in order to prove the offence than the more serious charge of murder?
I well remember the first time I saw the incident on the news and straight away said to my wife that I thought Harwood was 'banged to rights' and that a reasonable person might say he was at least responsible for Mr Tomlinson's death a short time later. It was then a case of determining cause of death and then formulating which charge(s) would be preferred? Or so I thought.
Yes, it seems as if the post mortems may have indeed made the difference between what Harwood was charged with, and both PMs, particularly the first, sort of defeated one another with the different findings.
As for Hillsborough, in a nutshell, any subsequent Police cover up was on the orders of very senior Officers as far as I'm concerned, but the initial tragedy could not simply be attributed to the Police alone. I'll stop there because I said more than plenty on the subject last week and anything else would just be repetition.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.