If they desire a thing they declare that it is true. If they desire it not, though that were Death itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been.’ Thus their talk is the talk of children, and like children they snatch at what they covet.
Rudyard Kipling
If the Social Media ‘mob’ had its way, the head of PC Simon Harwood would this morning be gracing a spike at the gateway to the Blogosphere. We haven’t yet descended into mob violence, though the forces that wish we were, were massing outside Scotland Yard last night.
There is no uglier sight than the vigilante force denied their victim, no more illogical thought process than that dictated by 140 character snippets of prose taken out of context.
Welcome to the world of trial by twitter.
The world of the Guardian reader, where Ian Tomlinson was a ‘kindly man who loved Dandelion and Burdock‘, a devoted family man, who through no fault of his own, driven by circumstances, and the forces of a cruel, cruel, world, was reduced to sleeping rough on the streets, sipping alcohol from a paper cup, and making his shambling, shy, smiling, way home is driven into the path of a man who embodies true evil, no extenuating circumstances, does not bear too close examination. Perhaps that is why its adherents prefer to be limited to 140 characters.
140 characters just leaves room to declare that all police are ‘mindless thugs’, without the space to afford PC Simon Harwood any excuses for his behaviour. Perhaps there are no excuses; there are certainly extenuating circumstances though – and you do not have to go to the lengths of describing a life time alcoholic as a ‘lover of Dandelion and Burdock’.
The ‘mindless thugs’ of popular lore are expected to have a resilience over and above that of the man in the street. One minute they are just another man on the street, the next minute, after hours of diversity training, how ‘to spot a racist on Twitter’ training, the correct way to address a half dressed slattern who has been playing strip poker with four strangers all night and now complains that although she agreed to share a bed with two of them, she didn’t agree to sex; is expected to turn into a paragon of even temper that you can spit at, throw your hypodermic needle at, lob petrol bombs at, scream at, and in Ian Tomlinson’s case, grin and gurn at as you slowly amble in front of a line of police dogs in the middle of a riot. Strangely enough, all that diversity training does little to prepare a man for finding that when a brick lands on his head, half the crowd will yell with delight – ‘Pig down’! Nor did the ‘Twitter training’ prevent Simon Harwood from losing his temper that day.
He was wrong to do so, undoubtedly; it was against regulations, obviously. But ‘mindless thug’, a ‘murderer’ who has escaped justice through the combined forces of the illuminati, a judge with lizard like tendencies, an example of the conspiracy effected by ‘the elite’ against decent working class men…I don’t think so.
The fact that so many people do think so is evidence of the powerful forces within our society who wish to ensure that the State, and only the State, takes all and provides what it chooses after helping itself to whatever the ‘new elite’ consider is their due recompense.
Consider first of all, that a Police Officer is not a ‘servant of the people’, a phrase I see constantly repeated, nor is he a State employee. He is a servant of the Crown, a subtle difference. One that gets right up the noses of the Guardianistas. His duty is to uphold the law of the land, of the Crown, not the whims of the mob. Nor of the Guardian republicans.It explains why the likes of Vera Baird are so keen to ease themselves into position whereby they decide the priorities of their local police force. Expect to see the Police in Northumberland spending most of their time listening, with a kindly expression on their face, to the ‘Facebook’ tale of woe of the woman called slag by the Father of two of her six children , etc. etc. and a bare minimum of time ensuring that the local bank manager (evil bastard) (Boo!) manages to get to work past the combined marching force of the GMB out on strike yet again.
Consider also, that Simon Harwood was not found ‘not guilty’ of Manslaughter, not by the other ‘mindless thugs’, most of whom would join me in condemning his loss of self control, nor by the Masonic influences of the establishment/illuminati/judiciary – but by twelve men and women plucked from the street, people just like Ian Tomlinson! Guardian readers even, who had heard ALL the evidence, not just a 15 minute YouTube clip, considered ALL the factors, and, Family Fortunes style, the top answer was “NO”, not guilty of Manslaughter.
Who knows what the verdict might have been had they been asked to consider whether he should have lost his temper, been employed in the first place, or should have been out catching Facebook defamers? That isn’t what they were asked. That does appear to be what Simon Harwood is being tried for in the media now.
The ‘I’ for Independent, IPCC, was straight out of the trap last night, with a cleverly worded statement which suggested that they will support the family in its attempts to have a third bite at the Harwood cherry.
“Our investigation painstakingly assembled a huge amount of evidence, and concluded that PC Harwood had a case to answer for unlawful use of force. We first concluded this in July 2009 and I understand – and indeed share – the frustrations of Mr Tomlinson’s family and others at how long the case has taken to come before a court.”
‘Quite right too’, says Social Media. ‘Didn’t the Inquest find him guilty’? Actually, NO they didn’t. The inquest was specifically prohibited by law from any such finding.
‘Yeah’, says Social Media, ‘but he was a bastard, have you heard about all his previous convictions’? Well, no I haven’t actually. I have heard, thanks to the BBC, of all the previous unproven allegations that were made against him. Police Officers attract ‘allegations’ like flies to a corpse. In Harwood’s case, only one was proven, that he had misused a police computer to track the driver of a car that was involved in an incident with his ex-wife.
Do you really want a world where every allegation ever made against you is dragged up in court when you stand trial for something? I think not, currently you have a system where not even previous convictions can be mentioned unless you bring them up.
‘But he shouldn’t have been re-hired in the first place’. Quite possibly not, I’ll grant you – but you think the man should have gone to prison for manslaughter because his employers didn’t check his credentials closely enough? That is the logical outcome of that argument.
Almost unnoticed, whilst the arguments raged on Twitter, over in Birmingham, another jury of 12 good men and true was finding that driving your car deliberately at a group of men who were merely trying to protect their property wasn’t manslaughter either. That they were found not guilty earned one brief line of comment from the BBC, but the fact that a senior police officer had lied about immunity given to witnesses during the trial, an entirely peripheral matter that had NOT led to the judge deciding a fair trial could not take place, earned itself 39 of the 43 lines of comment, resulting in the impression being given that the men had escaped a manslaughter conviction because of the lies of that senior officer. Now why would they want to give that impression?
There is a mood afoot in Social Media, bolstered by the efforts of the BBC and the Guardian to see the police so denigrated that they disband – and be replaced by what? G4S? Most of them won’t bother to turn into work on the day that you need their services! Be careful what you wish for.
In the meantime, I say to those who seriously believe that the police are all mindless thugs – next time you get into a row in your local pub as to which of the seven children are really yours, and your mate threatens to settle it with a broken beer glass – do NOT call the police.
You are already in a fraught situation, and the last thing you need to do is invite half a dozen ‘mindless thugs’ into the fracas, who knows where it will end? Sort it out by yourself. In fact don’t bother to call them when you find yourself faced by a drug crazed schizophrenic wielding a Samurai sword in the middle of the High Street, nor when some scroat has smashed the window of your car for messing with his wife.
It’ll be good practice for the day when the Police finally go on strike.
Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renowned for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment's notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining - and it doesn't rain very often round here...
{ 101 comments }
No, not all police are bastards. Far from it. That’s why it’s so important to weed out the PC Harwoods from their ranks.
With his history, he was an accident waiting to happen. He should never ever have been accepted back into the TSG. The Met is going to have to face difficult questions on that one.
Quite. It’s the bad apples that are not thrown out of the barrel that lead the public (incorrectly) to believe they are all as bad as each other. A policeman’s lot is not a happy one when it is made harder by other police, and the public should not have to take a gamble on which type they are dealing with.
A
Sorry, the above was a mistake.
No worse than this,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18575973
Good spot sean, daft woman!
Jolly well said. I watched the video and Ian Tomlinson was behaving in a provocative manner, cocky, actually, inviting intervention. Whether or not this was cause to hit him I really wouldn’t like to say because I didn’t see what went on before, but Simon Harwood certainly didn’t have time to ask after his health or the state of his liver, which is almost certainly what killed him. And he was drunk at the time. But I can’t help wondering what sort of Compensation his “Family” would have been looking for if Simon Harwood had been convicted. It won’t have been Loss of Earnings or Emotional Support for his wife and children. Would it?
What video were you watching? Can’t have been the one of Tomlinson ‘with his hands in his pockets’
I am ‘inviting intervention’ if I walk away from the police..? We are in true Constable Savage territory here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
And…so what if he was drunk at the time? Are we giving the police licence to assault drunks?
Just my opinion. I presume I am entitled to one such. Just as The Jury were.
‘with his hands in his pockets’—- very agressive behaviour indeed rom a rolling drunk
I tried to join the Met but when they did background checks they found that my parents were married so my application was rejected
I do not take issue with any of the points you raise, but one:
“Do you really want a world where every allegation ever made against you is dragged up in court when you stand trial for something? I think not, currently you have a system where not even previous convictions can be mentioned unless you bring them up.”
We already have that system which covers over 50% of civil court cases and which do not even rate a ‘trial’. It is in the Family Court where allegations, nearly aways against a Father and even when proven false, are accepted as ‘likely’ on the ‘precautionary’ principle. False accusers are not even prosecuted for purjury. As for prior convictions, they head the list on the front page of the court documents.
I think we have to accept the reality of the Law being already discredited. It is barely any wonder that the ‘upholders’ of the Law, whether seen as serving the Queen or not, are distrusted and occasionally reviled, even by the best of us.
Further, one might wonder about just what proportion of “devoted family m(e)n, who through no fault of his own, driven by circumstances, and the forces of a cruel, cruel, world, was reduced to sleeping rough on the streets, sipping alcohol from a paper cup, and making his shambling, shy, smiling, way home is driven into the path of a man who embodies true evil”, have actually faced evil in the same Court before.
Fair comment Crikey – I was thinking of criminal courts when I wrote that – but you are quite right, and it would have made my point stronger in fact, had I remembered that everybody screams blue murder about the Family courts allowing allegations to be brought up.
I think that it is fairly self-evident, as is reported, that the CPS wanted to bring in PC Harwood’s disciplinary record, as evidence of ‘bad character’ – as they are entitled to do, but this was successfully argued against by his defence barrister and the application to admit bad character was refused by the trial judge.
I, in common with everybody else on this blog, and every member of the public, am not in a position to judge the veracity, or otherwise, of those ‘allegations’ against PC Harwood, because that is what they are, just allegations. Perhaps, in some instances, they may have been supported by actual evidence that, for some reason, was not acted upon, but, in others, perhaps not. Would we all, honestly, like to appear in the dock as a Defendant in a criminal trial, knowing that there was no bar to every silly thing that someone ever alleged or had made up about us being portrayed by the prosecution as fact?
I think not.
I take issue with PC Harwood being tried for the offence of manslaughter in the first instance – as there was no credible evidence that he, PC Harwood, was either criminally responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson, or had killed him or had caused/contributed towards his death.
Arguably, his actions in striking Ian Harwood and pushing him over were excessive, given the circumstances, but they did not, in and of themselves amount to manslaughter. PC Harwood was on trial only because his actions were captured on camera and there was a public outcry, that forced the Metropolitan Police to arrange for an investigation. Ian Tomlinson was a dead man walking, his health ruined by years of self-administered abuse. I do not defend the actions of PC Harwood, however, I am just glad that 10 out of 12 ordinary people were able to see through the political pressure that was heaped all over this case, in the aftermath of the G8 protests and acquit PC Harwood of a completely wrongful prosecution.
I have absolutely no doubt, given the comments of Deborah Glass from the IPCC and Assistant Commissioner Maxine De Brunner and the stance the Met have taken towards the family, that PC Harwood will be dismissed from the Metropolitan Police. That much is evident. He cannot possibly survive a disciplinary hearing, given all the public outrage, and the considerably lower burden of proof placed upon Chief Officers in that forum. He will already be looking for another job…
There will, obviously, be a civil suit against the Metropolitan Police, by the ‘grieving’ family (who are, I believe, grieving that there much anticipated pay day has been delayed by this unlooked for just outcome) and, in all probability, the Met will have to stick its hand in its pocket (again).
Yes, it is fairly clear that Tomlinson was a death waiting to happen.
Here’s another Olympic Torch incident: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18920202
One can see that British (and global too) “society” has descended back into the ‘mind-set’ of the mid 1970s during the last half decade or so.
The hope is gone. The violence is back.
Now who could this benefit?
I’m sorry, are you suggesting that the police officers intervention here was thuggish?
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
Study the video carefully, what you will see are three male officers responding properly, the two female officers are apparently there to hold hands. Along with many I would suggest they are physically incapable of the correct response anyway.
If that is the kind of police force you want, you will quickly get it by criticizing officers that respond at a moment of crisis. Will the response always be correct? Of course not, but there is enough oversight to be confident that your police are not thuggish.
Sorry, Cascadian, but ‘moment of crisis’..?
“Officer in trouble! Shambling man not moving away fast enough! GO GO GO!!!!’”
There was no ‘crisis’ there. It wasn’t even, as others have pointed out, a ‘riot’. I’ve seen more threatening crowds at the New Year sales.
Problem being Julia we have no insight into the perpetrators mind, did the olympic torch snatcher mean to beat the runner with it?, the police certainly responded with enough force to remove that possibility. Did Harwood reasonably suspect that Tomlinson may have a hidden weapon beneath his baggy tee-shirt? Most violence avoidance courses teach that distance is your friend, were the police instructed to maintain a safe perimeter in front of them?
You and I were not there Julia, we do not know what threats the police line were told to expect or respond to. I suspect we both do not know much about crowd control, or proper police protocols for moving intransigent people along.
I am not siding with Harwood, his actions may have been over zealous, what I am saying is that I am content to allow existing protocols and hearings decide what is justifiable. We should also accept the fact that there is a place for aggressive men policing our streets, indeed as others have pointed out a more robust response to the recent Tottenham riots may have been beneficial. Frankly I fear the type of policing exemplified by the two female officers more than the occasional Harwood.
It doesn’t really matter what threats they were told to expect or respond to initially, does it? They should have enough nous to realise that if that dire threat doesn’t materialise, they don’t need to use the force they would have applied.
And if distance truly is your friend, why not let the man walking away continue to walk away?
I’m far, far more in favour of aggressive policing when needed than you might imagine. I’m one of the ones pointing out the failure of Tottenham!
How are we supposed to know when we are in an area where the police have suspended their duty of care and transitioned to anyone in the area may be beaten to the ground mode?
We could try to leave the area when whenever see policemen in riot gear just like Ian Tomlinson attempted to do .
At last, a common-sense, non-Police (therefore obviously biased), report on this sad affair, from which no-one comes out of with any credit. One of the really sad things about this is the continuing witch-hunt against Harwood (we’ll keep putting him on trial until we get the right result!) by the IPCC and the Tomlinson family. Debbie Glass has obviously made her mind up and the Tomlinson family’s threat to seek action through the civil court means this could run and run. Perhaps if the caring, obviously close-knit, Tomlinson family had taken some interest in their father, and prevented him from living on the streets for the past 5 years, he may be alive today. Some family! Their shock and trauma were well displayed in the media and I suspect, possibly cynically, this will remain right up to the point where the compensation cheque clears. Compare this with the sad, but very gentle man in Birmingham who didn’t have the result he wanted, yet accepted it and asked everyone else to do the same.
“Compare this with the sad, but very gentle man in Birmingham who didn’t have the result he wanted, yet accepted it and asked everyone else to do the same.”
Another very good point I wish I had made!
The ‘sad and very gentle man’ who’s a convicted road rager?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124654/Tariq-Jahan-escapes-jail-road-rage-attack-judge-praised-help-summer-riots.html
Oops! I missed that. Perhaps not so gentle, yet still willing to accept the trial results.
Perhaps we could compare it to the Stephen Lawrence case(s) too?
I thought bad character evidence was allowed under certain conditions by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Perhaps Bushell’s Case should be overturned after 340 years and juries should be forced to return verdicts acceptable to those that know best but didn’t hear and see all the evidence.
Finally, people are shocked by bad apples in the police because they contrast so starkly with the other 99.99% of coppers of good charater who do the job properly. If the police are given additional powers over their fellow citizens then the Spanish Practices of the system, eg medical retirements ahead of disciplinary proceedings, must be reformed and recruitment vetting procedures (checking of referees, confirming the previous five years’ history and investigating any allegations) rigorously applied.
There was a bad character evidence application made by the CPS, but it was refused by the trial judge.
Very valid points Anna. Although the history of the man suggests he was prone to over react. It was the allegations in resepct of road rage that partocularly concerned me. “Allegations!” some may cry, but I think one can take a reasonably pragmatic view on a pattern. On the other side of the coin, we had all those riots last year with the Police, perhaps unsurprisingly, unwilling to get “stuck in” because or either Health and Safety or being done for brutality. It is a difficult line they have to walk. I have experienced decent, sensible police men and women and stupid, officious one. I suppose they reflect us, as they should. But I also agree that the procedural “lynching” will now proceed. I am more cioncerned how he was allowed to “retire” on medical grounds then re-emerge, and so forth.
Well he was tried not guilty end of criminal case.
However in frames there does not be any one in charge supervising conduct of officers who were under considerable stress.
Facing a line of rioters is not funny.
Surely it shoukd have been recognised if any offiicer was getting erratic he should have been withdrawn from line – is this not what a junior NCO would do in forces?
Surely there should have been a sergeant to seven officers and an inspector above him supervising the activity.
In my view there needs to be review of command and control pretty damned quick!
The recruitment training process also looks a shambles
To many graduates educated to the point of stupidity in higher ranks?
Su
“Facing a line of rioters is not funny” Funny thing is, they weren’t rioters.
Wasn’t this during the G20 summit protests, where decent law abidng people were being ‘kettled’?
You obviously know how to separate a load of people who intend to just protest and cause no trouble that are stood next to another bunch of people who are intent on causing trouble. What is your secret? Do you go and ask each one individually? Maybe just pick on those with their faces covered? Or the clothes they are wearing? The banners they are carrying? Just like wherever there are large groups of people say at a football match. Not all are interested in fighting but they are next to those that are. It is impossible to separate one from the other. But…..you obviously have loads of experience in doing just that!
So treat all members of the public as worst case scenario ?
And yet we are asked to believe that not all coppers are like Harwood ?
Will Harwood pull another sicky and leave before the disciplinary hearing ?
The rules have changed and that particular ‘Exit’ has been firmly slammed shut.
I think we can safely say that someone shambling along with his back to you and his hands in his pockets, who is clearly elderly into the bargain, is quite easy to separate from those intent on causing trouble.
The policeman was charged with manslaughter.
One of the definitions of manslaughter is where the reckless actions of A lead to the death of B. In these circumstances the personality or previous lives or profession of either A or B are of absolutely no importance.
The trial was concluded and the policeman was acquitted. The end.
Surely the discussion should centre on the how’s and why’s of the policeman’s unorthodox career pattern and his continued employment in the Territorial support group.
I just don’t understand this. Simon Harwood was Acquitted by a Jury who saw all of The Evidence pertaining to this Case. Or are we to join The Court of Public Opinion, albeit after The Case is resolved? This often happens in America, but usually before The Trial, which I find very worrying. Although heaven help Christopher Jefferies if he had ever been charged. Fortunately he was innocent, but you might have wondered about this if you were reading The British Press at the time.
But I thought that this particular Blog was about The Public reaction to Simon Harwood’s Acquittal, and how The Public view The Police under difficult circumstances, and not about his possible guilt. He isn’t Guilty. A very proper Court of Law has said so.
Actually, I don’t have a lot of time for The Police in general. But I do know a Court of Law when I see one.
“A very proper Court of Law has said so.”
Phew, that’s alright then! Because a Court of Law must be correct. Oh wait, wasn’t there a young lad who was recently released after spending EIGHT years in prison after the police lied and a “Court of Law” and Jury “banged him up” for a brutal murder he didn’t commit?. Thank god we no longer execute people or that would’ve been another pardon after the fact.
The police lie – a lot, in the case of Harwood they said that they were under threat from “rioters” when they obviouslyly were not, in the case of the extra-judicial killing of Menezes they tried to claim he leaped over a barrier and was non-cooperative etc – all found to be lies. How about having that anything in a police statement should be considered as under oath, and then prosecuted as perjury when they are found to have lied there little cotton socks off?
It seems that quite a few of the respondents on here have rose coloured spectacles and very little experience of the police making up “the law” as they see fit.
“their” – Doh!
Most Police are decent public servants, but Harwood’s disciplinary record doesn’t appear to be a shining beacon. I am curious as to why it seems that details of Harwood’s past were excluded from the trial, when it seems to me that his record has at least some relevance to this case.
Never the less, despite Harwood’s acquittal in court, his innocence will not be understood in the “Court of Public Opinion”. Many people, and I am one of them, will have decided that Harwood was little more than a thug when they saw that video for the first time. Guilty of manslaughter or not, he should not be a Police Officer if he acts like that on an innocent and non-aggressive passer by. End of.
Blame the BBC and make them pay compensation— they showed ” Life on Mars” to impressionable police officers
Oh, for a police force consisting entirely of Gene Hunts!
And….for that not to be rhyming slang.
A good choice of opening quote; followed to its source it yields this sequel, remarkably apposite for our twitter-ridden society:
If one cries in the streets, ‘There has been an injustice,’ they take him not to make complaint to those appointed, but all who pass, drinking his words, fly clamorously to the house of the accused and write evil things of him, his wives and his daughters; for they take no thought to the weighing of evidence, but are as women. And with one hand they beat their constables who guard the streets, and with the other beat the constables for resenting that beating, and fine them.
Yes, the entire thing is worth reading in the light of present ‘disturbances’.
Indeed it is! My father occasionally used to read bits of it out to us when the news made him think of it (such a shame blogging came along too late for him – he’s have been a natural).
That was a long time ago and I had quite forgotten; I’m very grateful to you for reminding me of it!
I posted this on my site yesterday ;
Justice denied . AGAIN .
Once again the Police get away with manslaughter , aided by a cowardly jury afraid to convict a policeman for fear of Police reprisals . How a not guilty verdict could be delivered after seeing that video is beyond belief and all reason .
It would appear that the Police are out of control and are above the law of the land and are nothing but the Government’s bully boys and girls ; a likening of the Police to the Nazi S.A. is not unwarranted .
Afraid of police reprisals?
And how, pray tell, do the police obtain the details of jury members? Or do they wait by the back door of the court and smack them over the head when they emerge?
A likening of you to a steaming pile of goat shit is not unwarranted.
Sorry Doc, exactly what part of the evidence have you seen that wasn’t made available to the jury? I can only hope your ‘doctorate’ isn’t in medicine! If it is, please tell me where you work so I can stay away. If, as you appear to be doing so, you are comparing todays English Police Forces with the Nazi SA, then I’m afraid you are slightly out of kilter. A Nazi SA member would not have reached a court of law (same with KGB, Stasi, Zimbabwe Security Service or the Somali Police Community Service Officers). OK, I made the last one up, but in a totalitarian state, there would never be a prosecution of a Police officer in such a case as that of Harwood’s. However, all is not lost. Thanks to Devious Dave’s current ‘You’re My Favourite’, Tom Winsor, the new Inspectorate of Constabulary, all future Police offiers will have a minimum of 3 ‘A’ levels (macrami, domestic science and the history of Morris Dancing all count) so people like Simon Harwood won’t have a look in. To add to this, as the number of Police officers will be reduced by 45% over the next 5 years, this will leave plenty of scope for firms like G4S (which Tom Winsor’s company is acting for in consultation with Police Forces to increase the number of private company personnel). Lincolnshire Police is all but taken over by G4S as we speak so we will all have a grandstand view as to how this forward looking programme will progress. So, the next time you find yourself facing some knife wielding maniac who has broken into your house, and you phone 999, you will probably end up with 3 G4S security staff (7 not bothering to turn up for work) or Police officers who will then conduct a conversation with your intruder in the future of Cheryl Cole’s fashion sense. Have fun!
“(7 not bothering to turn up for work) ”
That’s right blame the recruits because they’re not clairvoyant and had no information from the company they were supposed to have been recruited by.
On another point, do G4S security staff have any legal standing? They are not police officers or servants of the Queen, just Joe Bloggs in a military type uniform.
But… Unpleasant and very probably excessive as PC Harwood’s actions were, they did not cause/contribute to the death of Ian Tomlinson , as that fact was not established to the criminal burden of proof, so he cannot be guilty of manslaughter.
the doctor:
You must be seriously warped or at least one-eyed. I am very glad I am not a patient of yours.
Good post, Anna.
(Can I claim an “IGFirst by Proxy” – for posting that quote (One view of the Question) on Gadget @01:23 20th July?)
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kipling/rudyard/many/chapter5.html
[Re-posted from my original on IG]-
\\
MOST unfortunately (from the media PoV) – UK law requires a ‘Criminal Court’ (not an Inquest) to decide on ‘Guilt’ before a sentence can be passed.
But the Press can ‘name and shame’ and ‘call for justice’ -by deploying the most powerful weapons in history. Printing contentious comments ‘within quotation marks’ – and making claims about ‘Popular Demand’.
Definitions -
“Justice” – Decision -including penalties/ compensation – by any court or tribunal, with which I agree. From which, therefore, no appeal is permissible.
“Injustice” (aka – ‘cover-up’, loop-hole, &c) Any legal procedure (Allegation/investigation/ trial) that results in a verdict that I – and my friends/popular media – don’t like. In every such instance ‘The Authorities’ should be forced to have another go – change the Law if necessary – FIND extra witnesses &/or incriminating evidence…
\\
Anna. A really good post covering all the relevant points. It’s a real shame that a lot of people appear so blinkered but so will it remain.
Excellent blog.
I am a PC who often posts on sites where we get hammered.I think we are going to take some flak on this case.At least the Lefties will now stop quoting Blair Peach as they have a new poster boy for police brutality.
De Menezes is good one. Shot in the face for being brown.
Not for being brown – for being a suspected terrorist (the fact that he had illegally overstayed his visa and should hav returned home to Brazil months earlier didn’t exactly help). That it was a tragic mistake is not in doubt but he was not deliberately targeted for the reason you mentioned. I would suspect that you have not had any Police, or military, experience where you were placed in a life or death situation, where you had to make a split-second decision based on the information you had in front of you at that time and yet you KNEW that there would be a bunch of Guardian reading, self-satisfying numpties who would take weeks going over your actions and, with the benefit of hindsight, discover that you had made a mistake. I was a soldier in the british Army and served in Malaya, Borneo, Aden and Northern Ireland (3 tours) where I was rquired to make those split-second decisions several times a day. I was extremely fortunate that none of them resulted in an unlawful death, though they sometimes did result in a number of deaths. In each case, I had to face a military enquiry and answer questions from desk-bound officers while at the same time screaming inside, “You weren’t there! You have no idea what really happened in such a short space of time!” The officers involved in the De Menezes case acted on the information given to them at the time and they acted on that. The reason he was shot several times in the head was to prvent the possibility of any brain activity setting off an explosive device through bodily reflex action. I have no doubt that every one of those officers go through their actions several times a day and ask themselves, “Could I have done it differently? Would it have made a difference if I had?” I know. I’ve been there and I’ve done that. The only reason that you can sleep safely in your bed at night is because there are men and women who put themselves in that position. I honestly don’t know what your prblem is, but it could be resolved by having a decent chat at a pub with good beer with someone who knows what they are talking about. I still think it’s grolliffe.
Excellent reply Pensivat from someone who quite simply appears to know what he is talking about.
You have absolutely no idea what experience I have, and I’m not going to have a flame war with you over how many men’s lives I’ve been responsible for, nor the outcome of the life and death decisions I’ve sometimes had to make.
I’m sure De Menezes would not have been shot if he were white.
I do not read The Guardian. It is a good thing that ‘numpties’ investigate every minor detail every time the police kill yet another person that they were not legally entitled to.
Are you sure that Cressida Dick (how apt) spends her days wondering how things could have turned out better, what with her gaining a big promotion just months after this travesty?
He was only a dago though, overstaying his visa, so he got what was coming, eh?
These things are all irrelevant to the Tomlinson killing, although they do serve to show that gross incompetence is not punished when the perpetrators are police, even when that incompetence leads to death. It is even rewarded, as with Dick.
Go away Noggin, you`re being very silly.
Penseivat: “..(the fact that he had illegally overstayed his visa and should hav returned home to Brazil months earlier didn’t exactly help).”
When someone uses this – and the fact that Tomlinson was an alcoholic/had relatives who didn’t care about him – I find it tends to devalue anything else they have to say.
Simply because it’s not actually relevant ant it sounds rather like a sulky five-year-old caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying desperately to find some way of deflecting blame.
And as for the ‘Few Good Men’ line about rough men standing by so I can sleep safely in my bed, I’d have thought the police’s woeful performance at the Tottenham riots, when decent citizens were burned out of their homes and businesses, would have caused anyone thinking of relying on that to feel such a flush of shame that they’d be unable to type the words.
Perhaps our “woeful” performance was because every time we use force someone like you criticises us? Or we end up in court when it goes wrong three years after the event?
Jaded, please show me where I’ve criticised the police for using unnecessary force on a criminal who was resisting arrest?
On those to whom force should not have been applied, then oh, yes! That will draw my ire. But the bang-to-rights bad ‘un? He can have ‘an accident’ with the cell doorframe, and I’ll buy you a pint.
For this, you have to look at Politically motivated Senior Police Officers, i.e. those who wish to progress further up the career ladder without stepping on too many toes, so they wait for their leaders to obtain instructions from their political masters and for those instructions to flow down the chain of command. The Police Force is a disciplined, rank structured, organisation and as much as many of those foot soldiers would have wanted to get stuck in, they had to wait for instructions on where to go, what kit (woefully provided and not really up to the job) they would have and what back-up they would have if things got pear-shaped – as they did on several occasions. As mentioned above, every person from ACPO down to the man or woman on the front line knew, just knew, that every action they took would be photographed and video’d by people on both sides and then, in the aftermath, a number of high ranking officials and politicians wouls spend weeks looking at their actions before deciding they were a disgrace to the Police and the community. It was strange that, when the 9/11 attack took place, the Mayor of New York and every member of his staff were on the streets within hours. The Highest ranking Police, Fire and Ambulance officers were also on the streets, sleeves rolled up, getting their hands dirty and organising rescues and actions from the scene. In the riots, where was the Mayor London?. Where were his staff? Where were the central politicians and where, oh where, was the Prime Minister? Every good foot soldier (and I use that term loosely, not only militarily) knows that they need good, decisive, leaders to get the job done. Political prevarication does not get the job done. In the aftermath, everyone in authority used the basic law of political responsibility – “It is like water, flows downwards until it finds the lowest possible level.” The lowest possible level were those Police officers who put their lives on the line and, despite misgiving and outright condemnation of their leaders instructions, were prevented from doing what was expected of them.
Anna, you are legally trained right? Can you (or anyone) explain how striking a man with a baton and pushing him to the ground causing injuries which according to the inquest caused his death ~ would constitute manslaughter? Could you also explain how this doesn’t (please state the difference).
~ I’m not being perverse, I genuinely wish to understand the nuances in this area of law.
This would be very useful information if I ever get assaulted or my house is burgled or if an unarmed person walks away from me whilst making faces with his hands in his pockets and my steroids are making me very, very angry.
Who was on steroids?
And did they get them from the doctor?
Not once in all the comments that I`ve read on this affair has anyone acknowledged that all the information on which they have based their arguments was obtained via the press. Think about it in the light of the case sometime ago when a barrister firing a shot gun at random from his window was shot dead by the police. The press reports regarding the officer`s evidence at the inquest was a complete fabrication lead by the Daily Mail and eagerly echoed by the rest of them and it was only when the New Statesman obtained and published the actual court transcript that the truth was revealed.
We have a tendency to believe what we want to believe and when faced with a fact that contradicts our argument we then change the target.
I think of this as the “yeah but what about”style of debate and it`s very annoying and not at all productive.
Exactly! Jerym is ‘on the ball’.
People have a tendency to believe what they see, and millions have seen a man, with hands in pockets, walking away from the police as he was assaulted with a stick and pushed to the floor, causing injuries that killed him.
It is good that people question what they read, as the initial Met statements were proven to be total falsehoods.
That`s just your interpretation. I see a man sauntering along with his hands in his pockets being a pain in the arse in a potentially dangerous situation between a mob bent on making trouble and a line of policemen attempting to control them
Best kill him then, just to be on the safe side. He was only a drunk and a tramp after all.
Are you saying that Harwood has done absolutely nothing wrong and should be allowed to continue to ‘serve’ Her Majesty?
You`re being silly again Noggin
Initial Met statements being found out later to be a tissue of lies seems to be such a common occurrence I do wonder why more press officers aren’t gripping the rail at the Old Bailey…
Almost true, but very subtly incomplete:- in fact, people have a tendency to believe what they want to see: backed up with a tendency to believe that what they wanted to see was actually what they saw.
Good observation Ted
Being older and having been around a bit:
First, experience of police in my own community, in mainland Europe, the US, and RSA, would suggest that we are pretty well served by our frontline police. Just don’t get me started however on the organisation and availability of the forces.
Second, in England, about one person in 500 is a policeman, very roughly. So we may know one; even if they don’t talk about the job. Do you personally know of a dodgy cop in your area? I can only ever recall one total waste of a pair of boots- just ineffective, not corrupt or vicious.
Sure there are bad policemen, hopefully not like the corrupt officers of decades ago, but most I’ve come into contact with have been courteous and competent.
So regardless of whatever the truth is about this one policeman, I still have confidence in policemen, if not in the organisation..
Being older and having been around a bit:, I have very little confidence in policemen, or in the organisation..
Going by quite a few of these comments, Iwould suggest the best thing to do would be to completely disband the Police Forces of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and let firms like G4S take over – it’s going to happen in the next five years anyway, so let’s do it now! Then we’ll see who squeals first. Many of those critical of the Police – and yes, of course the Police do get it wrong sometimes, just like people in every other profession – are those who have had no personal contact or input. Some of the older readers will remember Sir Robin Day, a noted broadcaster, journalist and interviewer. He had very strong views about capital and corporal punishment and Police brutality and regularly used his influence, and brilliant sarcasm and wit, to denigrate or humiliate those who had different points of view. One late evening, in 1963 or 64 – I remember ‘cos I had just started a new job in London – he was walking out of Television Centre when he was mugged and had his jaw broken. Of course, it made all the newspaper headlines and the (then) London Evening News led with the headline (in smaller print) “Sir Robin Day’s first words after having his jaw wired” then (in larger print) “I HOPE THEY HANG THE BASTARDS!” Of course, the newspapers weren’t as ethical in their reporting as they are now so it may be that an element of journalistic licence had crept in (wouldn’t happen today, of course!). His whole attitude changed because, suddenly, instead of standing away from the action and reporting, he was personally involved. I would suggest that he would not be alone.
By the way, this is a brilliant blog topic!
Poor old Robin Day. At least his attitude changed! It seems this bloke hasn’t learned much:
“She added: ‘He’s quite phlegmatic about it. He’s fine, although a bit nonplussed to be robbed outside the Mansion House, of all places. It’s quite shocking.
‘He was wearing his full regalia, tights and everything.
‘Some of the most senior bods in the City of London police are looking into it.’”
How nice.
You may be interested in this letter posted in the Guardian newspaper. A real voice of reason.
• The Guardian appears to regard the acquittal of PC Simon Harwood for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson as a failure (Tried – and failed, Editorial, 20 July). I do not have sufficient knowledge of the evidence to comment on this.
It is disquieting, however, in a newspaper with the Guardian’s history of exposing miscarriages of justice to read insinuations about defence counsel with “sparkling advocacy” dazzling jurors, or that the director of public prosecutions, faced with flawed forensic evidence, was somehow cowardly for not having brought a prosecution to satisfy those who “knew” the defendant was guilty.
There are clearly many questions arising from the flawed handling of this case. But caution should be exercised, as repeated examples have shown that undermining the presumption of innocence and changing the law to convict “the guilty”, however tempting in hard cases, invariably makes bad law.
Dr Hannah Quirk
School of law, University of Manchester
In all of these supportive and condemning comments about policepersons, one small matter has been completely overlooked. Most on the ‘front line’ are just ordinary coppers who, like ordinary troops in the Forces, are not terribly well educated, mostly around ‘average’ in intelligence and from backgrounds (school/home) which are not generally well regarded for producing high quality. To expect many to excercise discretion or make sound judgements is expecting a bit too much.
Being an old shyte I can recall the coppers of my youth. Most were mature men who could be relied upon. But today I have to wonder. Most look very like the ordinary thug in the street apart from the uniform. The You Tube wossit is chocka with videos of thick coppers who seek to ad-lib the ‘law’ out of their rears. They ‘demand’ names and addresses as if they were entitled to even ask for them. They invent ‘laws’ on self-demand, such as ‘You cannot record me’. They order folks to hand over cameras. They threaten arrest when no offence has been committed. They ‘claim’ that ‘someone complained’ but refuse to say whom, and it is doubtful is anyone has. They ‘move you on’ when you are simply going about your lawful occasions.
The general public used to hold the police in some regard. It is encouraging to see that some here still do. But I would think they are in the minority. Personally, I would trust a copper as I would trust anyone else trying to lord it over me and tell me what I can and can’t do. They are, to me, untrustworthy agents of a State which is untrustworthy.
The Olympic torch passed through my town yesterday and the police motorcyclists accompanying it were nothing like your description of, “..just ordinary coppers who, like ordinary troops…”. Perhaps, after the bad publicity (from the above case), they had been briefed to be friendly and approachable, for they certainly were: “high-fiving” the people lining the route, stopping so kids could admire their bikes, allowing photographs to be taken with them, etc.
Most of those youngsters will have formed very favourable impressions of policemen – surely a good, positive attitude with incalculable benefits for the kids’ future, perhaps teenage, encounters with the law.
So I do not see an insoluble problem of alienation between police and citizen, just the usual few “bad apples” to be dealt with and the majority good, dedicated men & women still maintaining a standard much higher than pertains in most other countries.
Included in my class of 16 recruits at Police Training College were 5 graduates from university, a store manager with an HND, 3 people from the military (including me, an ex Infantry Warrant Officer Class 1 with 5 ‘A’ levels), 2 ex Police officers who had left the Police, didn’t like life outside and had rejoined, a State Registered Nurse, and a plumber who had ran his own company for 7 years before being bought out by a plumbing chain. A varied group of people with mixed educational or vocational qualifications so I suppose that collectively they could be assessed as being ‘average’ in that department. As for the atrocious comment about ordinary troops in the Forces being not terriblky well educated I can only say that you are talking out of your *rse! The qualifications required for progression in the Armed Forces are certainly more complex and intense than almost anything equired in civvy street outside law and medicine. Take the REME, for instance where the successful completion of a 2 year course to become an artificer is required for progression above the rank of Sgt; The Royal Corps of Signals requires a knowledge of computers which would give Bill Gates a headache; and even the so called ‘lower’ Corps such as the Royal Logistics Corps requires expertise in, for instance, driving tank transporters or other specialised vehicles. None of the above are examples of not terribly well educated soldiers of avergae intelligence. And that’s only the Army. Who do you think keeps the few planes we have in the RAF in the sky? Airmen and women. Who do you think operates the highly technical equipment in the few ships and boats we have left in the Royal Navy? Naval Ratings. Many of these go on to become Police officers, as I did, when their military service comes to an end and they bring their qualifications and experience, not only iof life, but of working under extreme pressure and in dangerous situations with the ability of operating either as a team or as an individual, using the skills and initiative instilled in them through training and operations. Youtube wossit are selective – put there by people who enjoy taking the mnickey out of the Police and some are deliberately set up to ensure the officers fall on their faces. If you accept those as the whole face of the Police then you are an idiot. I really do believe you have the correct blogging name. Crikey!
I just may be an idiot, as you say, ex-warrant ociffer with 5 ‘A’ levels. I was an airman, though, too. And an NCO, and would you believe an Officer too. I have three degrees. BA, BA(hons) and an MSc. And 20 years in the Service. But what the heck. I didn’t try to be a copper as last resort as my parents were married when I was born too.
“I didn’t try to be a copper as my prents were married when I was born too.” The usual retort is, “Surely it would have been nicer if they had been married to each other?” Once you start the insults, old fruit, you realise you have lost the high ground. By the way, have stopped showing my grandchildren the videos of your adventures. I’ve had to. No matter what I said, having watched a few minutes of you on Youtube, I couldn’t convince them that you weren’t a killer! Sorry.
I do feel a fool. That last comment was meant for Noggin and not you. Crikey! What have I done? Unless you are both the one and same?
What are you on about?
Well said Crikey!
Crikey.
Try posting that on the Inspector Gadget blog and you may have to revise your opinion.Just ignore the “first” game ,it`s an annoying tradition that does`nt detract from the general quality of the contributions.
The Lord Harry, jerym. I didn’t get to where I am today by revising my opinion !!!
(That’s a jest)
Oh! OK– ha ha
Met police training scheme for Riot squad
Senior Training Officer meets recruit and gives him a baton and says ” I want you to go out and club five people including a disabled person, a mother, a member of the ethnic minority and a left wing protestor, mash em up real bad ! and then I want you to find a cat and club this as well”
Recruit ” Why do I have to club the cat?”
Senior Training Officer” Good lad, welcome to the MET Riot Squad you passed the course”
As an antidote to the police haters:
I was talking to a friend today and mentioned an ex-policeman bowler. Friend: ‘..do you know he’s got the George Cross?’, and explained why.
That bowler is ex policeman Tony Gledhill, G.C.
Check out what he did.
“Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis”
@Binao – Tony Gledhill GC – That was then (Aug 1966 – about the time I was accepted to join ‘Nearly-metroland Police’) – now it is more probable they would have faced an IPCC ‘investigation’ – and Disciplinary Proceedings – for ‘causing the offenders car to crash.’
@Pompey – So far as I recall , in ’60s, my ‘Riot Training’ chiefly consisted of being ordered NOT to wear footballers’ shin pads, a cricket ‘box’ or thick gloves – in case our victims (eg – people who had tried stabbing us with ‘placard poles’- 6ft lengths of 2 x2 timber with a sharpened end) – alleged we had come prepared for violence.
If you didn’t come prepared for violence, why would you come at all?!?
Thor2Hammer
I speak in jest
The video shows a confused (probably drunk) old man with his back to the police. One of whom strikes him violently from behind causing him to fall. Causing his death? No idea – and the jury (much better informed than I) says ‘no’. But it leaves a very nasty taste, and I’m afraid that Tomlinson has been forgotten. That some of your posters feel it necessary to insult the man is shameful.
It’s clear that Harwood was (is) unfit to be a policeman (and equally clear that the rest of the Met should not be tainted by his behaviour). And that’s the only salient fact we can take away from this sad business.
The flaming that seems to have engulfed this normally sensible site telling us that all police are bastards or all demonstators are morons is, well, boring.
An excellent post.
Whilst I accept that I cannot make any serious comment re PC Harwood’s culpability since I am not party to all the evidence, your overall point Anna, that trial-by-media is becoming far too common is very valid.
Frighteningly so.
Could I turn people’s minds back a little to the comparatively recent dreadful murder of Joanna Yates in Bristol?
Does anyone remember the field-day the press had with the landlord, Chris Jeffries, whose only offence appears to have had a certain degree of eccentricity.
Yet the MSM virtually had him hung, drawn & quartered. Luckily it subsequently cost them a packet, but do they care? Hell, no. Do they remember it now? Hell, no. Did they learn anything? Hell, no.
Our legal system is riddled with inconsistencies and downright flaws – some trivial, some monumental: but I still think that, warts and all, it is, on the whole, better than trial by Redtop.
Comments on this entry are closed.