Friday, 20 July 2012

A Tale Of Two Civilisations..

What to say about yesterday, other than it was a very, very bad day for the reputation of the British justice system?

But leaving aside the inevitable post-mortems, the wry reflections and the obscene triumphalism, this one sole thing stood out for me above all else.

Tomlinson aftermath:
A small group of demonstrators gathered outside Scotland Yard following the verdict, with some voicing their displeasure.
Birmingham aftermath:
Following the verdict, judge Mr Justice Flaux appealed for calm on the streets as police said extra officers would be deployed at the first sign of any trouble.
His sentiments were echoed by Tariq Jahan, the father of one of the victims, who was credited with preventing a race war on the streets of Winson Green last August.
Speaking outside court yesterday, Mr Jahan, 47, urged people to ‘accept the outcome’ of the trial and appealed for ‘peace and calm in our community’.
I know which civilisation I prefer.


Anonymous said...

"I don't think people are going to be too chuffed about either of these verdicts. But the unchuffedness of the Guardianista is not like unto the unchuffedness of the ummah."


Anonymous said...

I should add - the commenters at Gadget's are right about one thing - it was a jury decision in both cases - and I can't think of a better way of doing it.


Anonymous said...

Newsflash: Michael Caine's teetering bus just slithered over the edge.

Anonymous said...

Trouble with Gadget's site these days is that one has to trawl through the ramblings of some clearly insane idiots - police officers/staff or otherwise but some good points are made. I'm sure Gadget really would not like to serve alongside this odious man the real world. I'm intrigued by Harwoods career, I mean how can you be retired on ill health grounds etc? So many questions that the questionable DAC Maxine De Brunner will no doubt answer, in some fashion, later on. Meanwhile Harwood will be sacked - and a lot quicker than Dr Ali D. Still, the message to all you homeless alcoholics with terminal cirrhosis and a liver as ripe as a very, very ripe watermelon - try not to wander around all day, being a frigging nuisance (fact) in the middle of a large scale riot. The psychotically violent thug in uniform could get you, or you could get barged by a masked rioter or have tripped over a kerb in a small melee or fracas- result....death. In this case, luckily for the caring f-a-a-amily, it was the uniformed thug and a civil case ensues with a nice little payout at the end. Anyway that's the thing about juries and why we should treasure their independence.

Noggin the Nog said...


Don't know why you are sure that Gadget would not serve with that criminal when he specifically says that he would in the comments.

Tomlinson has been given stick (forgive the pun) for wandering around. It seems obvious to me that he was doing so because he could not leave the area as ALL exits were blocked by Police who refused to let him through.

Your comments about his liver seem to imply that sick people ought not be allowed out. Police should know that some people have illnesses which make them weaker than others, before they choose to hit them sticks and push them to the ground. Just because you cannot see some illnesses does not mean that everyone is in good enough condition to withstand an assault from a para-military thug.

The Coroner found that this man had been 'unlawfully killed'. That being the case, who is the unlawful killer, if it is not Harwood?

If roles had been reversed, we would now be hearing of the brave and ceaseless sacrifice made by this sterling officer who was tragically cut down in the course of protecting kittens from a savage mob. Instead we get such rubbish as expressed by yourself that Tomlinson got what was coming because he was an alcoholic, and therefore he brought his own death upon himself.

Is it any wonder people either actively loathe the Police or are generally indifferent to them, when they see such differences in outcomes in such cases?

Bobo said...

".....preventing a race war...."

There you have it: lurking in the background of all the reportage. The clear and present danger, in this case only prevented by the selfless actions of one individual, of an explosion of interracial violence in the UK.

No analysis of why this impending possibility should ever have been allowed to come into being, or what could or should be done about it.

Our lords and masters actually WANT something like to happen, I become more convinced of this every day.

Anonymous said...

The media want to know wht Harwood's previous disciplinary record hadn't been made available. Under current British law, and previous convictions or evidence of character are only given AFTER the verdict in case it influences the jury or judiciary. It happens in the trials of rapists, paedophiles, hardened criminals, terrorists, newspaper reporters and editors so why should it be made any different for a Police officer? It is sad that a man died, yet the anguished Tomlinson family should look inwards and ask themselves why they allowed their father to live on the streets for 5 years? Some caring family. I have no doubt that they are all traumatised but, perhaps cynically, suggest that trauma will remain - right up to the point where the compensation cheque clears. Now the IPCC and Tomlinson's family want Harwood to undergo 2 more trials - we'll keep going till we get the right one! The media and that silly female Met senior officer however, have ensured that there cannot be a fair trial, whether it be disciplinary or civil as everyone else has made their minds up. No one involved in the Harwood trial has come out of this with any glory. Compare this with the gentle understanding of that saddened father in Birmingham. The court result was not what he wanted to hear, but he has accepted it and appeals to everyone else to do so.

Noggin the Nog said...


Astonishing you think people have been manipulated by the media but you then cannot see that you have fallen prey to same trick.

'Gentle understanding'? From the violent criminal recently given a by for breaking someone's jaw in a road rage attack?

With regard to the disclosure at trial, you are - again - wrong. Convictions are, under most but not all circumstances, withheld from the Jury. Testimony as to their conduct and character whilst at work is not withheld, and no-one was asking anything about any criminal conviction this Harwood fella had, they wanted to know if he was a trustworthy and conscientious officer, which he clearly is not.

We constantly hear how the Police have to be afforded special treatment because of their difficult job working with some horrible people. It is precisely because of the fact that their jobs are different, and they hold such power, that they Must be above reproach and held to a higher level of conduct than the people they claim to be protecting (when they are not too busy killing them).

Anonymous said...

Noggin, I regret I am not as talented as some in putting pen to paper (or finger to the keyboard) and suggest you have a look at the Anna Raccoon site which is extremely well written, covering the Harwood case and the Birmingham trial. I have no real knowledge of the Harwood case apart from the few seconds shown on Youtube (was this the only film or was there more which was not shown by the media?) and what I have read in the papers. The jury, however, heard ALL the available evidence and came to a conclusion. Harwood may not be the best example of a Police officer but should he be found guilty of manslaughter because he's not a nice man? The prisons would be even more crowded than they are if this were to happen - plus the Houses of Parliament would be deserted, but that's another story). We must agree to differ on certain aspects of this. When are you back on the BBC by the way? I really do miss your shows! Give my regards to your Dad, King Knut, and your Mum, Grunhilda.

Anonymous said...

I'm keeping my powder dry on this one Julia before the nutters surface.

A few points from above-unproven complaints ARE NOT convictions and should not be quoted in court.I have had numerous complaints from various criminal and idiots.The last one was a person phoned my Inspector and told him that I had taken a sip of water from a bottle whilst parked at traffic lights.

Secondly I agree that letting Harwood back in was madness after he had left the Met once before.The force will be liable for damages after doing that.

Thirdly-the jury heard every bit of evidence.None of us on here heard it all.Just snippets from the trial by media.

Noggin the Nog said...


Another jury sitting on this case came to the entirely opposite conclusion in a Coroner's Court. A verdict of unlawful killing.

So who is the unlawful killer?

BTW Nogbad says 'Hi'.


It is the nature, not the number of complaints against an officer which counts. As he managed to avoid prosecution for a road rage incident, even though the force admitted liability and paid damages to his victim, he does not have a record and it is therefore a red herring to say his behavior at work should not be mentioned in court. If the jury had heard a litany of complaints about drinking water at the lights and other such nonsense, they would not doubt have rightly dismissed them as irrelevant. Had they heard that he admitted to having a 'red mist' problem, so much so that even his fellow officers had made official complaints about his repeated thuggery, it would have better put into context subsequent events.

One of the 'snippets' you speak of is considerable video evidence which clearly shows a small, unarmed man, walking away from the Police, with his hands in his pockets, being struck from behind with a baton and pushed to the ground by a man considerably bigger and heavier than him. The fall caused internal injuries which killed him. One court calls it an unlawful killing, another acquitted the officer.

The court of common sense would say that he would not have died if he had not been pushed and that the one who did the pushing should be punished, lest people think the law condones violence against civilians when the perpetrator has a number on his shoulder (or not, as Harwood had removed his number, illegally, to avoid identification, which, btw, raises questions as to prior intent).

Anonymous said...

I wasn't supporting him!Just making some points.
I have used force on lots of people but fortunately for me they weren't at deaths door when I did it.If people had labels on saying "don't push me i'm a bit poorly" then my colleagues and I would find that very helpful!

Noggin the Nog said...


The police should use force only when strictly necessary. It was not necessary in this case. One might say that Harwood was 'unlucky, that the bloke died from a fall that most likely would not have killed many others, but that is irrelevant. If a person routinely uses force when it is not necessary, sooner or later someone is going to get seriously injured or worse.

The thing in this case is that people have been able to make informed decisions about whether or not force was justified due to being able to watch the related videos, and most would say it was not. They have not had to rely on police statements as to what happened, which is fortunate as a lot of the initial statements from the Met were simply untrue.

Harwood was not attempting to arrest a struggling criminal, he was not protecting himself, the public or his fellow officers, he cannot even claim to have been moving him along, as he was walking away at the time of the assault. It appears to me, and many others, that Harwood relished any opportunity to assert his dominance on anyone he disliked, abusing his uniform and using violence as a first resort.

You talk of people having labels. My experience of the Police is that they tend to label everybody who is not in their gang as a criminal who has not been caught yet. The best thing the Met can do is loudly condemn this thug, his actions and attitude, remove his pension and dismiss him in disgrace. Failure to do so, and lame attempts at justifying such behavior will only lead to law-abiding citizens removing their consent to be policed by para-military morons and their defenders.

Anonymous said...

Dear Noggin

amazing how you choose to interpret my comments.

in no way did I imply that 'sick people ought not to be allowed out' . That sick people really ought to exercise some personal responsibility - YES!

I like 'Jaded's label idea as clearly police officers or indeed anyone 'engaging' in a public facing occupation ought to know EVERYTHING about an individual after a couple of seconds.

The late Mr T was captured wandering around the police lines all day being and being moved on, he wasn't looking for a way out, he was being a nuisance - fact.

it is a shame perhaps that he wasn't arrested for being drunk (&disorderly) early on and taken into custody where he would have been either taken straight to hospital or having seen an FME no doubt have been taken there later because of his health.

Thanks to Penseivat for making some excellent points at 12:29 around THE LAW which you clearly view as an annoying irrelevance.

Your helmet is clearly made of tin foil!

Noggin the Nog said...


He was at work all day, not wandering around. The law does not allow for a police officer to hit and push people for being a nuisance.

If it's a shame he wasn't arrested earlier, for being drunk (was he? Link please) and not disorderly, it is a greater shame that Harwood hadn't been similarly arrested for his road rage assault or his illegal accessing of the PNC.

No one has suggested that Harwood should have had his criminal record exposed during the trial. Just the same as any other defendant his work record and history of uncontrolled and self confessed anger problems, at work is allowable, however.

Better a tin foil hat than a riot helmet, unless you are being beaten by criminal in uniform at the time, obviously.

Anonymous said...

Time to try out that wet-sponge Taser headset, Ranter. Ensure both ear canals are covered before releasing your grip on the red button. The one marked 'Anti-bigotry'.

Anonymous said...

Noggin,can I just mention again that PC Harwood does not have a criminal record.I wonder if Ian Tomlinson did? Why hasn't that come out?

I repeat again,i'm not supporting the cop (for a change.)

And we don't look on people as criminals,we really don't.Most of the public I deal with are perfectly decent i'm glad to say.

The top brass have already convicted him.Let's hope they don't condemn him outside the court making it almost impossible for him to get a fair hearing-whoops too late.They are falling over themselves to do this,just like the ones who took this course of action with Sgt Andrews (Wiltshire) before he was found not guilty on appeal.

Noggin the Nog said...


I have repeatedly acknowledged that he doesn't have a criminal record. We'll leave aside the fact that this is despite him committing criminal offenses and avoiding consequences, due, I assume, to the fact that he is a policeman and therefore not subject to the same rules as civilians.

That is my point entirely. He has no criminal record, therefore his conduct whilst at work can be mentioned as it is nothing to do with criminal convictions. The fact that even fellow officers had made official complaints about his brutality, the fact that he resigned from one force on a Friday, for medical reasons (medical pension?) and then joined another the following Monday, fully fit, and by doing so avoided the disciplinary proceedings that were to commence against him for an incident in which he attacked a motorist, the fact that he had used the PNC to pursue his personal vendettas are ALL relevant to his character and therefore his motivation when hitting members of the public. Btw the said motorist accepted a cash settlement from the police. Hush money?

It appears to me that you are defending him, and that twat Andrews who beat up a 60 year old woman. Don't make me link to vid of him splitting her head open on cell floor, please.

Please answer this one question; the Coroner passed a verdict of unlawful killing in this case: who then is the unlawful killer?

Ranter said...

" the fact that he is a policeman and therefore not subject to the same rules as civilians......'

Really? That tin foil hat really isn't working for you. My old mate Melv (anon @ 17:59) seems to have the right idea - a lot of experience with high voltage passing through his brain I fear.

Poor old Melv - you must have been so disappointed at the verdict (however perverse) - your disappointment makes it all worthwhile for me!

You loons will be advocating the end of trial by jury next - until things go another way and then you'll be wailing about how good it was.

I'm only surprised the Zionist Conspiracy hasn't been mentioned or The Masons!

Meds Melv! Meds!

Noggin the Nog said...


Answer the pertinent question please.

A jury found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed, and as a proud cheerleader for trial by jury, you'll have no argument with that verdict.

Who then is the unlawful killer?

Anonymous said...

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just thick?

Anonymous said...

I'm not defending him,I am making general points about the case.
The inquest trial is a completely different kettle of fish to a jury crown court trial.You can get opposing verdicts as different evidence is heard.
Let's have trials where the people that blog the most or shout the loudest decide the verdict.
PS-regarding Sgt Andrews-that poor little innocent woman got nicked again for exactly the same offence.

Anonymous said...

I know I'm going to get some stick over this but, despite not knowing anything about the case apart from the media reports and the 10 second Youtube video, I will make an (un)informed guess as to what killed Ian Tomlinson. Five years of being ignored and shunned by his family; five years of living on the street being ignored by everyone who had the moral duty of looking after him; five years of alcohol abuse leaving him with a liver several times the normal size; five years of wandering around in a constant state of despair which would wear anyone down, mentally, emotionally and physically and finally, a push which, due to his inebriated state, caused him to lose his balance and his full to bursting kidney did actually that. What really sickens me about this is not Simon Harwood's actions, which were purely a catalyst (who would blame a fulcrum for a balance going down at one end?), but the actions of the Tomlinson family who couldn't give a stuff about their father for 5 years - FIVE YEARS! - but suddenly, when there's the possibility of a compensation cheque on the horizon, suddenly find all the ways that they really loved him and now miss him badly.
You can start uyour slagging.....wait for it......NOW!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I should have said 'liver' and not 'kidney'. I'm not very good at biology, as I'm studying hard to gain my 3 'A' levels (macrami, domestic science and history of Morris Dancing) so I can join Tom Winsor's new, improved, Police Service. On the other hand, it could be 'kidney'. What the hell do I know?

MTG said...

Good evening, Ranter.

Rumours abound of some controversial verdict having brought your lightweight opinion into conflict with another. I would give anything to assist, old chap. A little flunitrazepam, perhaps?

Noggin the Nog said...


You are defending such things when you seem to think that a person being arrested for repeat offending is justification for thrashing them in the cells the first time. I never said she was innocent, although she was not charged the first time, and it matters not one jot if she is guilty, the Police inevitably come into contact with criminals and are not allowed to dispense summary justice by form of a cracked head simply because they have arrested someone for an alleged crime.

I am not suggesting trial by twitter. You know as well as I do that the Jury system sometimes produces perverse results. I am of the opinion that this is one of them.

I am also of the opinion that you typify the attitude prevalent amongst many police today, which is that it is ok to assault drunks or women because they are criminals, even when they are not.

Answer the question please.


The craven nature of Tomlinson's relatives has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is ok to assault him. Being ill or frail is also irrelevant. The basic facts are that a man has died as a direct result of being pushed and the man that pushed him has not been punished in any way for his actions. That is disgusting to me and I am sure this verdict would not have been declared had the roles been reversed.

Apparently it doesn't matter though, because he was only a drunk.

Anonymous said...

Four posts on the trot about the police Julia? Where would you be without us?
Let's get back to chav-baiting tomorrow shall edition of the Hull/New Addington gazettes are due out very soon.

Anonymous said...

Nog, Old Fruit, Last year, a couple of miles away from where I live, a drunken yob hit a man who had come out of his house with a request that the noise be curtailed as he had young children in bed. The man fell back, hit his head on the kerb and he died from a brain injury. The verdict? Not guilty of manslaughter. Incidents like this happen every day throughout this wonderful country of ours and no-one says a thing about it. You make a point about Tomlinson's family having no bearing on the matter. So why is it that Harwood's profession has a bearing on the matter? Harwood pushed Tomlinson who fell down, probably because he was drunk and he subsequently died from causes which may, or may not, be directly related to the push - I don't know as I wasn't there and I'm not a medical person just as you don't know because you were'nt there and (presumably) you're not a medical person. Personally I think the real culprit is Groliffe, but then, as I've mentioned elsewhere, what the hell do I know?

Noggin the Nog said...


I cannot comment on the case you mention as I know nothing about it. Link?

I have read parts of the Coroner's report on this matter, including his verdict of unlawful killing, which enable me to make informed comment based in fact not opinion.
Just saying that a judgement cannot be formed unless a person was actually present would discount the jury verdict, along with almost all other court findings. I have read some of the evidence, and most importantly seen it with my own eyes.

Harwood's profession has a bearing for several reasons.

If he were not a police officer he would not be allowed to push someone or hit them with a stick, under any circumstances, except in self defence, and then only if he had a reasonable expectation he or someone else was about to be assaulted. Striking a man from behind as he is walking away does not constitute a reasonable expectation.

Harwood would not have had the benefit of illegally accessing the PNC if he were not a PC, nor escape prosecution for so doing if he were me or thee.

Harwood would not have been able to avoid criminal proceedings for a road rage assault, nor have his employer pay compensation to his victim if he were not a PC.

Harwood would not have escaped prosecution for assault when reported for his brutality by his fellow officers had he been a civvy.

He has got away with behavior that falls woefully short of that expected from a traffic.warden, let alone a police officer, apparently just because he is a police officer, and numerous other officers, superior to him, have been either indifferent or incompetent in dealing with him properly.

blueknight said...

The IPCC were probably wishing that they had a Common Assault charge to fall back on, but they let the 6 month time limit pass and it was a manslaughter charge or nothing.- And as I said at the time, whilst it may well have been common assault, it was never manslaughter .

James K said...

Anonymous, I have heard of another case where a man struck another man, who fell to the ground, hit his head, and died. The assailant was acquitted of manslaughter by the jury, quite wrongly in my view. It's as if neither the judge (in directing the jury) nor the jury itself can be bothered to punish someone for what is now accepted as normal behaviour. It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Fuck 'im. He wasn't exactly working on a cure for cancer, was he?

Anonymous said...

Noggy mate, You've read 'parts' of the Coroners report including the conclusion. The verdict of unlawful killing did not directly implicate Simon Harwood - it could well have implicated the corner shop which sold him the cheap vodka for the past 5 years, or the crap A&E staff who failed to diagnose his internal organ problems, or his money-grabbing family who ignored him until they saw him as a posthumous cash-cow. Being present doesn't only reflect what you may or may not see, it would also reflect the tension in the air, the fear, the desperation and the exhaustion - don't knock that particular element until you've experienced it. Being a Police officer does not give carte blanche permission to hit and push anyone they want, It does give them permission to use force in certain circumstances and unless you were able to see the period, say for 10 minutes, prior to when Tomlinson was hit and pushed, you can't comment on whether that use of force was unlawful. All you saw was the period of the strike and push. Cameras do lie and even film can give an incorrect impression if only an edited version was shown. If Harwood illegally accessed the PNC, does this make him a killer? If he took part in a road rage incident (found not guilty) would this make him a killer? The fact the Police paid compensation is that they do what all Police forces do, they take the less costly way out - they could have fought the allegation through the courts and won their case but it would have cost 5 times as much, so they tend to offer a sum of money with the proviso the complainant goes away and stops bothering them - they usually do as that was what they were after all the time. The allegation against Harwood's brutality was uncorroborated so no further action was taken, but does such an allegation make him a killer? That his actions fell short of what can be expected from a Police officer may have some merit but does that make him a killer? As far as the alleged indifference to his actions by senior officers is concerned, shows that you have very little knowledge of the Police. Each Force has a department - it used to be called Complaints and Discipline, but is now called something like Professional Standards Department - whose sole function is to delve deeply into allegations of misconduct, or worse, by Police officers. They tend to use the Napoleonic Law rule in that the officer is guilty unless he/she can prove their innocence. The comments by the silly ACC Debbie woman earlier today prove that (why wasn't she wearing her hat, by the way?). The IPCC will hound Harwood through what remains of his Police service and probably through whatever he does after that. Depending on their decision, he will no doubt be dismissed the Police and lose any pension rights. All for being found not guilty of manslaughter. He may not be a nice man, he may not have been a good Police officer, but does this make him a killer? We can go round and round in circles, old fruit, but it seems that no matter what we say, we will disagree. You, perhaps, because you have some latent dislike of Police or a naive sense of what justice means. We will contine to differ. Nothing I say will make you change your mind and nothing you say will make me change mine. If I were you, I would spend my time learning some new scripts and get back on the telly - I've been telling my Grandchildren about you and showing them some of your exploits - Youtube again, I'm afraid.

Noggin the Nog said...


You are wrong, the Coroner DID directly implicate Harwood in the death of this man and suggested the CPS should reopen the case. The second pathologist not only openly dismissed the findings of the first post mortem, along with the the abilities of the first pathologist, he plainly states that the internal injuries were caused by the fall, a fall which would not have happened without the push.

That Harwood is a killer is indisputable, he killed someone. The question is whether he acted legally.

Harwood was not found not guilty of the road rage thing because he resigned days before the disciplinary hearing to avoid investigation and any punishment due. Not really the actions of an innocent man. The police usually only pay out when they know they will lose in court.

The other things I have highlighted about him do not make him a killer, and I never said they did. What they do suggest is that there is a difference in the way police and civilians can behave before they are prosecuted.

He will not be dismissed for being not guilty of manslaughter. He will be dismissed for using excessive and unnecessary force which led to a death. If he is innocent of all wrong doing, he will not be disciplined.

I am many things, some of them not good, but naive is not one of them. You are correct in the assertion that I am developing a dislike of the police though, mostly because of cases like this.

Woman on a Raft said...

I wonder if Ian Tomlinson did? Why hasn't that come out?

Because he's not on trial, what with being unlawfully killed and hence dead.

JuliaM said...

"I should add - the commenters at Gadget's are right about one thing - it was a jury decision in both cases - and I can't think of a better way of doing it."

Maybe not.

"I'm sure Gadget really would not like to serve alongside this odious man the real world."

Then why defend him?

"Harwood may not be the best example of a Police officer but should he be found guilty of manslaughter because he's not a nice man?"

No. He should be found guilty because a coroner's jury found Tomlinson was unlawfully killed. Who else did it? A one-armed man?

"It is the nature, not the number of complaints against an officer which counts."

Spot on! And Harwood's show a worrying tendency to get rough with those smaller and weaker than him.

That should be a hellishly large red flag right there.

JuliaM said...

"If Harwood illegally accessed the PNC, does this make him a killer?"

No. But it should have made him an ex-cop, as it has so many others. He seems to have led something of a charmed life.

I wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Pity a modest punnet of raspberries involves frequent vulgar noises and showers of spittle, JuliaM.

Woman on a Raft said...

I crossly add that if I (total criminal acivity to date = parking ticket), heading towards grannydom, offer to do voluntary play leading at the local creche, I will have to be screened, interviewed, have references taken and a full CRB enhanced check.

However, it appears that if you are a police constable instead of say, a school caretaker, then a list of allegations and a suspicious resignation to prevent further disciplinary action will see you on to your next job.

Since we are coming up to the 10th memorial of the Soham murders I make no apology for what I have said previously: this was a violent young man who was quite likely to kill somebody although the betting would have been on girlfriend rather than the children of neighbours.

The one thing which might have changed that was if he had been prosecuted and imprisoned when the evidence existed - as it did if the lazy CPS could have been bothered to pull it together instead of blaming the police.

Just so here. Never mind disciplinary action; his behaviour was not covered by his badge and should have been dealt with by the criminal law previously.

The general argument which Noggin makes is correct: Harwood was cut a special deal because he was a police officer. It's no different to the cardinals running about cutting special deals for their criminal priests and then whinging "oh, people are always priests".

No they are not. That's the whole point with police and priests and doctors and social workers; they occupy places which give them privileged access to people.

It is doubly important that when this privilege is abused it must be punished, not rewarded - as it has been here.

Anonymous said...

You've got me. Harwood is a killer and doesn't deserve to live. As a result of this, he will be taken from his house and, in front of his family, blindfolded, tied to a stake and shot by a firing squad. This squad to comprise Julia M, Noggy, Woman on a Raft (once she's got her land legs back - can't have her swaying all over the place), Melv and Anon. That should sort it all out and stop this kind of thing. And, if it's successful, we can go after every other Police officer who has issued a parking ticket, didn't call some obnoxious cretin, 'Sir' or made a pithy reply to "You know I pay your wages." Then the sun will come out, the clouds will vibrate to "Land of Hope and Glory" and everyone can skip across the verdant, green, meadows. Oh joy!

WOAR (that's using your initials, not a comment on your, no doubt delightful, appearance), How do you know that Harwood was cut a special deal because he was a Police officer? Don't tell me you're the one who planted the bugs in Scotland Yard? You little tinker you (can I call someone 'tinker'?). I had to smile at your "That's the whole point with Police and priests, and doctors and social workers:...." What do you suggest happens now? perhaps we all go round fire-bombing churches with priests in, though leave out those with vicars, Imams, Kohanim and Rabbis? In your list you forgot, central and local politicians, council workers, medical centre staff, hospital staff, people who work in HR, Border Agency and immigration Staff, bank officials and staff, librarians and, possibly, members of Mumsnet. The list is endless (until you get to the end of course).
Mistakes were made in Harwood's re-employment with the Met and this has been admitted. As mentioned elsewhere, the Police are not perfect and mistakes are made. However, to suggest that because of incidents like this, all Police are thuggish, corrupt cretins who shouldn't be allowed out during the hours when decent people are about, is an insult to all those who work tirelessly for the benefit of the community, attend fatal road accidents, enter buildings on fire and jump into rivers to save people - please don't bring up the story of the CSOs who watched while someone drowned because that was yet another media mis-story (perhaps a later time). My local paper recently had a (very brief) story about a female Police officer, who has a fear of heights, climbing a gantry, pending the arrival of Fire and Rescure, to talk down a young man who was depressed and threatening to kill himself. She succeeded and the man was taken off to safety. The officer carried on the rest of her shift before being interviewed by a senior officer. Instead of being thanked, she was given a bollocking because she had not done a risk assessment first and as she was a probationer, her continuance as a Police officer was in doubt. You don't read about stories like that as they don't show the Police in a bad light. Good news does not a good story make, especially when it involves the Police.

Noggin the Nog said...

To the above,

Nobody has suggested anything of the kind. Your hyperbole is unnecessary.

I think most people would be satisfied with Harwood being held accountable for killing a man in a court of law.

Btw stop it with this 'working tirelessly for the community' nonsense. You do your job in exchange for money, same as everyone else. The difference arises in that were I to carry out my job in such a shoddy fashion that a person died as a result, feet would not touch and quite rightly so.

Anonymous said...

Harwood faced being held accountable in a court of law. He was tried for the offence of manslaughter. The court of law, via the jury, said he was not responsible for Ian Tomlinson's death. How many more trials of Harwood would you like before the correct, i.e. the one you particularly want, is reached?

Noggin the Nog said...

The Coroner's Court (and jury) found he was directly responsible for the unlawful killing of Tomlinson.

And yet he is to receive NO punishment whatsoever for killing a man.

As ridiculous a situation as defending him.

A salt and battered said...

@ Noggin

I commend your patience. You are a pleasant and bright chap but permit me to introduce you to the vacuous plod cranium and its simple workings. The exchange of logical thoughts (a process we take for granted) is mimicked in the main constable cavity. Here, a small looped tape of stock phrases is played until such time as the listener feels obliged to test the system for intelligent functionality.

The three-neuron plod medulla is one of those natural oddities which is initially encountered with amusement and thereafter with a modicum of scorn.

Anonymous said...

Google translate....tuning it in...oh yes....blah blah...anti-police as usual....complimenting a fellow idiot....patronising tone...repeating yourself........ ....nothing to add to the debate...using big words no normal person would ever use to make yourself feel superior....does that just about cover it Melvin?

I apologise for disagreeing with you,please don't flounce off this blog again.

Noggin the Nog said...


I'm an idiot because I disagree with you?

See how entrenched your superiority complex is?

Anonymous said...

Noggy old fruit. A Coroners court, although extremely important in the judicial process does not take precedence over a criminal trial. The criminal trial found Harwood not guilty. That's NOT GUILTY. I know you think he is, but a jury said you're wrong. Now, as mentioned earlier, how many times do you want this man tried before you get the result you want? You either accept the judicial system, whether you agree with the verdict or not, or you continue wittering on until any sane person loses patience and can't be bothered to reply.

Anonymous said...

ooooooooo....don't squish one. That could provoke a full scale Banzai charge, Nog.

Noggin the Nog said...


I accept the verdict, mostly because there is nothing I can do about it.

That wil not prevent me from voicing my opinion that Harwood is a criminal that got preferential treatment on more than one occasion because he is a PC.

It used to be that the police were disliked by only the criminal element of society, but more incidents like this will only serve to increase an already heightened sense of dissatisfaction amongst the public with the police in general and the process of law in particular. When a man is sent to his grave as a direct result of being pushed to the ground and no one is punished for it,
some people are likely to conclude that the reason for that is because the man who did the pushing was a policeman.

Anonymous said...

NGN-you have been on many blogs as well as this one regarding this subject.I'm not the only one getting a bit fed up as you have been getting stronger abuse than "idiot" on most of them.Anyway i'm sorry as the target of my grumpiness was Melvin.We have had many run-ins over the years regarding policing.
At the end of day I have my opinion,you have yours and never the twain shall meet.

Anonymous said...

Nog you clearly DON'T accept the verdict do you do why say so?

Noggin the Nog said...


I accept your apology but I will not shut up just because you or others are 'fed up' with me or because some of my opponents cannot keep a civil tongue in their heads.

Pense (I assume it is you),

I accept it in that the verdict has been given, Harwood gets a pass and there is nothing I can do about that. Not accepting it would lead to pitchforks and flaming torches in the streets.

If you mean that I don't accept it because I speak against it, because it is plainly wrong in my eyes, then you are correct, and I shall continue to speak against it.

Melvin T Mental said...

Well I'm not letting him have the last word!

Anonymous said...

Oh yes you are!
Not Noggin the Nog, Jaded, or Penseivat

James K said...

Anonymous said: "You don't read about stories like that as they don't show the Police in a bad light. Good news does not a good story make, especially when it involves the Police."

We do quite often read stories like this one, in part because Police Forces (sorry, Services) have press offices that make sure some of these stories get the publicity they deserve.