G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP

[DaveCinzano]

Informed by the coroner that he was not obliged to give evidence that would incriminate himself, Harwood replied:

I was very aware of that. I'm here as a witness to help the inquest and also to give some sort of answers to help the family.

When he said that it was a very tense moment. Several members of the Tomlinson family walked out.

 

[shaman75]

the door vs head incident featured in the channel 4 news piece.

http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-new-g20-video-evidence

 

[skitr]

It gets harder and harder to believe the shit they come out with each day. Channel 4 news piece is very good.

 

[DaveCinzano]

The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking.

What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky.

Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.

 

[shaman75]

The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking.

What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky.

Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.

Yep. There were loads of em at it.

 

[Garek]

The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking.

What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky.

Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.

Spot on.

 

[winjer]

Apparently this: Pc Harwood left the Metropolitan Police a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident, then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force. can't be mentioned at the inquest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html

 

[ymu]

Let's hope the jury already read about it then. It's every bit as relevant as the way he was behaving earlier in the day, surely?

 

[DotCommunist]

The bad apple narrative emerges as it looks like harwood might fall on his sword.

 

[ferrelhadley]

the door vs head incident featured in the channel 4 news piece.

http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-new-g20-video-evidence

He looks like he had red mist big style. Just looking for action and attaching himself to whatever was available.

Please correct me if I am wrong but were the carriers originally inside the kettle?

 

[winjer]

Please correct me if I am wrong but were the carriers originally inside the kettle?

I think the answer is no, at one point around midday they were forming a part of it on Lothbury, but I don't think they were ever inside the lines on Cornhill.

 

[ferrelhadley]

I think the answer is no, at one point around midday they were forming a part of it on Lothbury, but I don't think they were ever inside the lines on Cornhill.

Ah OK, I know they were inside the lines at Bishopsgate just watching the video and was wondering about placement.

 

[tar1984]

That harwood cunt was on a rampage, but yeah, they could track the movements of a lot of officers that day and see the same thing.

Hugely convoluted explaination for knocking someones head off a door as well

 

[Nice one]

The bad apple narrative emerges as it looks like harwood might fall on his sword.

The bad apple scenario is suitng everyone's purpose - certainly tomlinson's barrister who i think the family has instructed to concerntrate exclusively on harwood hence no bronze commanders giving evidence about policy, strategy and agenda (discombe's statement being read out, the most senior officer's statement being partially read out), and it suits met/city police barristers who have kept remarkably silent during the inquest (which would assume they find it unecessary to intervene to defend their position). The increase in violence/hostility is in no way being connected to people being kettled for hours on end at bank as part of the pre-arranged policing process.

Perversly it would be harwood's barrister who would bring in 'he was just doing his job, this is what he's trained to do, just doing what was expected from the day' But even this is looking more tenuous as harwood himself has admitted he wasn't at any of the briefings and the one briefing he did attend on the day he couldn't hear what was being said.


'Robust' and 'facilitating lawful protest' seem to be the most used phrases of the day.

 

[DaveCinzano]

...harwood himself has admitted he wasn't at any of the briefings and the one briefing he did attend on the day he couldn't hear what was being said.

Harwood missed the main TSG 4-1 briefing by Insp Williams on Friday 29th March (along with two colleagues), but was present at the parade briefing by Williams at Catford at 0500hrs on 1st April.

Sergeant Emma Shaw then gave a further briefing to her team (including Harwood, who was the driver) in their carrier (4-1-3) "after breakfast" at a girls' school somewhere in the City of London. Harwood claimed he couldn't hear the briefing, and that he told Shaw as much. Shaw insisted in her earlier evidence (I believe) that he could hear her.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Harwood missed the main TSG 4-1 briefing by Insp Williams on Friday 29th March (along with two colleagues), but was present at the parade briefing by Williams at Catford at 0500hrs on 1st April.

Sergeant Emma Shaw then gave a further briefing to her team (including Harwood, who was the driver) in their carrier (4-1-3) "after breakfast" at a girls' school somewhere in the City of London. Harwood claimed he couldn't hear the briefing, and that he told Shaw as much. Shaw insisted in her earlier evidence (I believe) that he could hear her.

From Guardian

When Hewitt pointed that the van was stationary and that his sergeant was standing in the middle of the vehicle when the briefing was given, Harwood said it is often hard to hear from the front of the van and there was a lot of noise.

 

[DaveCinzano]

What the inquest jury makes of his claims that whilst in a parked van, without any headgear on, he had trouble hearing someone stood a few feet away, is anyone's guess.

On being asked what PS Shaw said in her briefing, he first said "I couldn't hear much", then "I can't remember", then "I said [to Shaw] 'I can't hear'", before elaborating on the acoustic qualities or otherwise of a TSG carrier. At least the dog didn't eat his homework too - that would have been a pisser.

 

[ymu]

What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?

 

[DaveCinzano]

His evidence towards the beginning of the afternoon was a little shaky, though later on it got more polished.

The stuff about the briefings was early on, so there was a noticeable contrast between his evidence and Insp Williams.

Williams had been at pains to explain how in his briefings - based on a briefing by senior officers he himself had attended on Friday 27th March - he had emphasised that their "general approach was to facilitate lawful protest, and members of the public going about their lawful business", but that they would "deal robustly with any violence or disorder".

Under later questioning from the Tomlinson family barrister Mr Ryder, Williams recounted that (then) City of London Commissioner Bowron had in the 27/3/9 briefing said that the police should "treat lawful protesters with kid gloves, and those using violence with an iron fist". Williams asserted that it "isn't a phrase I would use [myself, but] it stuck in my mind." He said it was "not helpful" language, but that he "understood it to mean facilitating lawful protest, and deal robustly with others". Ryder pushed him on this, but Williams insisted he did not repeat Bowron's colourful language or sentiment on to his unit in his own briefings, sticking instead to the "facilitate lawful protest" message.

However in his own evidence Harwood summarised the substance of the briefings as "the general feeling was it was going to be very robust policing."

 

[ymu]

Cheers.

So Harwood is basically arguing that he'd normally expect to be beating up peaceful protesters, and he couldn't hear the briefing which told him there was a new strategy in place.

Helpful ...

 

[DaveCinzano]

What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?

From the Met's point of view it would be that their officers were reminded of their duty to allow lawful protest, whilst suggesting that the signs were there that this was potentially a big and (from their perspective) violent demonstration.

Williams gave a clunking reference to J18 (or "G18th" as he called it) when "protesters had run riot" and the City of London had been "badly damaged". In referring to the police intelligence aspect of the 27/3/9 briefing he concentrated on mentioning how police had managed to communicate with "a number of groups [likely to attend the G20 protests]", but not with "two groups, including the anarchists", a situation similar to that in the lead up to J18. The suggestion hanging in the air was clear.

As for drivers staying with their vehicles, this was something gone over in both Williams' and Harwood's evidence.

In Williams' words, "the role is to drive, to come when I tell you, to be prepared to pass out equipment, like shields, and to be available for food and drink. It is one of, majorly, security and safety of the vehicle."

He acknowledged there are times when a driver might need to leave the vehicle, or the area around the vehicle - toilet missions for one, or coming "to the aid of another officer, or a member of the public being attacked" - but he reiterated that "there are very few circumstances I can think of where the vehicle isn't the priority" for a driver.

Harwood is his evidence acknowledged these points. His given reasons for leaving his van were lengthy and convoluted...

 

[ymu]

Thanks again.

 

[Barking_Mad]

What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?

From the Guardian, quoting Met Inspector, Timothy Williams.

Williams said it would be "difficult to imagine" why an officer would leave his carrier although, if forced to do so, he would only be expected to return when it was safe to do so.

 

[sim667]

However in his own evidence Harwood summarised the substance of the briefings as "the general feeling was it was going to be very robust policing."

Basically meaning they wanted to bust some heads.

 

[shaman75]

Ah... whatever they say...

the entire lot of them got slapped down in the Inquiry and told to sort out the way the approach demonstrations.

As far as I'm concerned, they think the public have forgotten all about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-could-lose-public-consent

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

From the Met's point of view it would be that their officers were reminded of their duty to allow lawful protest, whilst suggesting that the signs were there that this was potentially a big and (from their perspective) violent demonstration.

Williams gave a clunking reference to J18 (or "G18th" as he called it) when "protesters had run riot" and the City of London had been "badly damaged". In referring to the police intelligence aspect of the 27/3/9 briefing he concentrated on mentioning how police had managed to communicate with "a number of groups [likely to attend the G20 protests]", but not with "two groups, including the anarchists", a situation similar to that in the lead up to J18. The suggestion hanging in the air was clear.

As for drivers staying with their vehicles, this was something gone over in both Williams' and Harwood's evidence.

In Williams' words, "the role is to drive, to come when I tell you, to be prepared to pass out equipment, like shields, and to be available for food and drink. It is one of, majorly, security and safety of the vehicle."

He acknowledged there are times when a driver might need to leave the vehicle, or the area around the vehicle - toilet missions for one, or coming "to the aid of another officer, or a member of the public being attacked" - but he reiterated that "there are very few circumstances I can think of where the vehicle isn't the priority" for a driver.

Harwood is his evidence acknowledged these points. His given reasons for leaving his van were lengthy and convoluted...

thanks for these.

"toilet missions"

 

[Garek]

Harwood said he was confused, isolated and fearful of his life, and was dealing with a "very hostile" crowd.

The poor ickle puppy

EDIT: Cheers DC for the good summaries.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Guardian summary

This morning, PC Simon Harwood has been explaining several encounters with protesters and bystanders in the minutes leading up to his alleged attack on Tomlinson.

We have heard how the officer – who had been expected to remain stationed by his van – strayed from his post after grappling with a protester he tried to arrest for spraying graffiti on a colleague's vehicle.

He then swung a coat at another protester, pulled a BBC cameraman to the ground, used a palm strike against a man trying to get through a cordon and finally pushed a man he said was threatening a dog handler.

Harwood said he was confused, isolated and fearful of his life, and was dealing with a "very hostile" crowd.

He's fucked, or should be.

 

[Garek]

12.18pm: When he then struck Tomlinson, he said his arm was already raised and he crouched in a lower position to strike him in a green (relatively less harmful) area of his body.

Crouching down, I just swang from my shoulder position, and it [the baton] was going down into his thigh.

He said that, "a couple of seconds later", he pushed Tomlinson.

12.15pm: Harwood is now being asked to go over all that again. He said that, in the seconds before he struck Tomlinson, he saw another officer push him in the back. "He seemed to remain defiant," he said. "He didn't seem to be moving away."

He then saw at least one dog near Tomlinson. He believed he saw the dog bite Tomlinson in the area of his ankle, he said. "He [Tomlinson] didn't seem to make any adjustment to his direction or speed," he added. "He seemed to remain where he was."

I think the key thing to remember reading all this is the fact that Tomlinson had his back to them. How can someone seem defiant if they are shuffling along, head down, hands in pockets, back facing? I mean that's just ridiculous.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The poor ickle puppy

EDIT: Cheers DC for the good summaries.

BBC website is going with how frightened he was....*rolls eyes* at state apparatus.