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

[pred]

I'm having difficulty in comprehending peoples views that dont see Harwood for a yellow bellied thug that has to attack an elderly sick person from behind, what are your motives, you've seen the video, why the sympathy for this yobo?

 

[alumni]

I accept that the jury found Harwood not guilty of manslaughter, but I do think they reached the wrong verdict. There have been occasions in the past where juries have reached the wrong verdict. One such case involved a paedophile,(charged with child rape) who was found not guilty by a jury. After the defendant had left the court, the judge then read out the defendants past history of offences to the jury. Leaving them in no doubt as to the guilt of the person they had just freed. Some jurors cried when his history was read out.
It is a crying shame that our laws don't allow previous convictions/ charges/past history, to be taken into account. Had Harwoods previous behaviour been known to the jury, they no doubt would have found him guilty.
I do wonder however, had it been a civilian who'd "pushed" Ian Tomlinson, whether they would have been found not guilty?

Basic principle of Law. Be tried for what you are alleged to have done - not what you were previously punished for.

Your comment highlights the very reason why jurors must not be aware of past history.

Look at it another way.
You have previous history and sentences for certain offences. However, you are now a reformed character a pillar of society.
You then get wrongly accused of a similar crime and go to Crown Court. Based on your sentiments, the Jury would already have you down as a wrong 'un and banged to rights guilty - even though the charges were totally without foundation.

You'd not be best pleased with the Legal system then would you?

 

[raebhoop]

Going off at a tangent...sorry.

But with this violence worldwide at every G20 conference at huge expense and disruption.Why the hell can't all the countries club together and build a conference center on an island somewhere where security could be guaranteed with the minimum of effort and expense.

They wouldn't have many demonstrations on Alcatraz Island or similar.

 

[LastMagicBean]

elderly sick person

How old is elderly???? He was 47 FFS.
How did Harwood know Tomlinson was a walking timebomb in terms of health????

You're as bad as peaps2 saying he 'wasn't dressed like a rioter'

 

[joe-90]

He was still a thug though.

 

[LastMagicBean]

He was still a thug though.

Apparently not in this case 90.

 

[joe-90]

Yes he was. It was a technical point. Did the push, the fall or the pre-existing condition kill him? If you can't say - then you can't get a conviction.

 

[joinerjohn]

How did Harwood know Tomlinson was a walking timebomb in terms of health????

But,, he was walking away from him. No way can Harwood claim he thought he was approaching him. If he were, how did Harwood manage to push him from behind?
The blokes a fookin liar.

 

[pred]

elderly sick person

How old is elderly???? He was 47 FFS.
How did Harwood know Tomlinson was a walking timebomb in terms of health????

You're as bad as peaps2 saying he 'wasn't dressed like a rioter'

Sorry i thought he was older than that, the fact remains he was a sick man suffering from alcoholism, at the time of the incident he was 5 times over the legal drink/drive limit, so he was obviously sloshed, i've run a pub in the past, i never had any trouble with drunks, i found them quite easy to manhandle without resorting to violence and beating them up, the fact remains Harwood is a cowardly thug to strike someone from behind.

 

[gasbanni]

A man died because of his actions.

There's no proof of that and never will be!

Well why did the inquest come to the conclusion unlawfully killed ?

They must have come to the conclusion he was killed and didn't just die !!!!

 

[LastMagicBean]

i never had any trouble with drunks, i found them quite easy to manhandle without resorting to violence and beating them up,

Ok. So say, whilst 'manhandling' a drunken punter out of the door he collapses and dies.
Do you believe YOU should be had up for manslaughter, not knowing his insides were ready to pop??????

 

[joinerjohn]

i never had any trouble with drunks, i found them quite easy to manhandle without resorting to violence and beating them up,

Ok. So say, whilst 'manhandling' a drunken punter out of the door he collapses and dies.
Do you believe YOU should be had up for manslaughter, not knowing his insides were ready to pop??????

Of course Pred's not saying that, and full well you know it.
Equally, you can't say for absolute certainty that Ian Tomlinson was ready to pop as you put it. Almost certainly his death was hastened by the cowardly attack.

 

[Norcon]

A man died because of his actions.

There's no proof of that and never will be!

Well why did the inquest come to the conclusion unlawfully killed ?

They must have come to the conclusion he was killed and didn't just die !!!!

Dunno. Sounds like they got it wrong.

 

[pred]

i never had any trouble with drunks, i found them quite easy to manhandle without resorting to violence and beating them up,

Ok. So say, whilst 'manhandling' a drunken punter out of the door he collapses and dies.
Do you believe YOU should be had up for manslaughter, not knowing his insides were ready to pop??????

Picking them up by the scruff of the kneck and frog marching them out of the premises is hardly the same as beating them FROM BEHIND WITH A TRUNCHEON AND THEN GIVING THEM AN ALMIGHTY SHOVE.

I fail to understand why a policeman would carry out such a cowardly attack and why people on this forum would defend him.

They are our servants, we pay their wages, they are there to protect honest citizens, not push us around when we have our backs turned.

 

[imamartian]

i never had any trouble with drunks, i found them quite easy to manhandle

Manhandling drunks? that's not legal is it? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!