Liar .............

[joinerjohn]

Why are people obsessed with the 'guarding the van' aspect of this case.


It's a red herring, it's nonsense. Nothing to do with it.

Is it a red herring though? Senior officers have stated that Harwood's orders were to guard the police van.
Or is this another conspiracy theory? He wasn't told to guard anything, but his superiors are now hanging him out to dry? Using the van as an excuse?
The Met are well rid of this thug in uniform.

 

[LastMagicBean]

No, the only reason this individual is in court is due to pressure from left wing namby pamby complainers.

Had this been a little old lady nudging a 'timebomb' queue jumper in Tesco, death being the result, you wouldn't jail her. No outcry whatsoever infact.

Had this been a security guard restraining a 'timebomb' shoplifter, death being the result, again you wouldn't jail him.

Neither knew he was a medical 'timebomb', body about to pop.

Now swap the characters for a policeman and 'timebomb' Tomlinson in a riot situation.

All of a sudden it changes things.

 

[joe-90]

Because he's a known thug - not a little old lady. He went out to show off to his mates so he took his number off and attacked an innocent man.

He'll learn right from wrong in the nick.

 

[libby lou lou]

But it wasn't a little old lady was it???? It was a copper with attitude who should know better.

 

[boomerang]

No, the only reason this individual is in court is due to pressure from left wing namby pamby complainers.

Had this been a little old lady nudging a 'timebomb' queue jumper in Tesco, death being the result, you wouldn't jail her. No outcry whatsoever infact.

Had this been a security guard restraining a 'timebomb' shoplifter, death being the result, again you wouldn't jail him.

Neither knew he was a medical 'timebomb', body about to pop.

Now swap the characters for a policeman and 'timebomb' Tomlinson.

All of a sudden it changes things.

He wasn't actually jumping in queues nor was he shoplifting - he was actually complying with what the officers demanded and not breaking any laws.

Why try to colour things with slurs?

 

[JohnD]

No, the only reason this individual is in court is due to...

... the facts that (1) his victim died, and (2) there is a vast amount of photographic and video evidence making it undeniable (though attempts were made).

If he had roughed-up a few homeless people, drunks, or rowdy youngsters down some back alley, and there had been little evidence, he would have got away with it. If he'd assaulted a few shambing pensioners for "walking along the pavement in an annoying way" and they hadn't died, he'd have got away with it.

None of us know if he's made a habit of being violent in the past, none of us know if he's mostly got away with it in the past, or if this is an (almost) one off, where by chance he happened to desert his post, happened to absent-mindedly remove his identifying numbers, just happened to cover his face on the same day when he had an uncontrollable urge to whack some shambling old git, and assault him from behind. In which case it's bad luck all round. Especially for the old duffer he killed, obviously.

 

[LastMagicBean]

He'll learn right from wrong in the nick.

He'll be kicking '90' round Ikea carpark

 

[LastMagicBean]

Why try to colour things with slurs?

No slurs against Tomlinson were made or intended.

 

[vibrobullit407]

Ok LMB, let's change the scenario a little. Say Thomlinson was a little old lady walking in front of the police. Not a rioter but not getting out of the way due to wanting to go in the other direction. Do you think Harwood would have done what he did? And if he did and the little old lady died would you also say that was reasonable given the force used? And would you want Harwood tried for the crime of manslaughter then?

 

[LastMagicBean]

No, the only reason this individual is in court is due to...

... the facts that (1) his victim died, and (2) there is a vast amount of photographic and video evidence making it undeniable (though attempts were made).

If he had roughed-up a few homeless people, drunks, or rowdy youngsters down some back alley, and there had been little evidence, he would have got away with it. If he'd assaulted a few shambing pensioners for "walking along the pavement in an annoying way" and they hadn't died, he'd have got away with it.

None of us know if he's made a habit of being violent in the past, none of us know if he's mostly got away with it in the past, or if this is an (almost) one off, where by chance he happened to desert his post, happened to absent-mindedly remove his identifying numbers, just happened to cover his face on the same day when he had an uncontrollable urge to whack some shambling old git, and assault him from behind. In which case it's bad luck all round. Especially for the old duffer he killed, obviously.

I love the sarcasm JD But your (1) and (2) Ive already covered in the hypothetical scenario a few posts back.

 

[LastMagicBean]

But it wasn't a little old lady was it???? It was a copper

Exactly my point Libby.

 

[JohnD]

We have to accept that it is possible we are talking about a violent thug who attacked a bumbling old buffer and killed him. That's why there's a trial.

I can't see you going to get very far by pretending it's OK for a violent thug to attack people because they are walking along the pavement in an annoying way. Wearing a uniform does not give anyone the right to do it.

Do you think it's unfair that this time, the thug got caught?

 

[boomerang]

Why try to colour things with slurs?

No slurs against Tomlinson were made or intended.

But you used a similie of someone who jumped in the queue in front of a little old lady or as a shoplifter caught by a security guard.
Both scenarious where someone had done something wrong..

and you used the sample of a 'little old lady' instead of an egotistical pratt..
of a gung ho copper lol...

Nice try but we all saw through it..

 

[LastMagicBean]

Ok LMB, let's change the scenario a little. Say Thomlinson was a little old lady walking in front of the police. Not a rioter but not getting out of the way due to wanting to go in the other direction. Do you think Harwood would have done what he did? And if he did and the little old lady died would you also say that was reasonable given the force used? And would you want Harwood tried for the crime of manslaughter then?

That's a cheapshot Vibro.

In your scenario does the little old woman purposely get tanked up and tell her boss she's gonna go and get involved in the fun? (or words to that effect).
Is this woman a walking timebomb health wise?

 

[vibrobullit407]

That's a cheapshot Vibro.

In your scenario does the little old woman purposely get tanked up and tell her boss she's gonna go and get involved in the fun? (or words to that effect).
Is this woman a walking timebomb health wise?

What's so cheap about it? The little old lady is a "timebomb" due to not having many more years left. And no she is just wandering around in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe a bit confused at what the police are telling her.

Justifiable or not?

Put's things in a bit more perspective though doesn't it?