It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A bad day for justice in the UK

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by Firefly_
reply to post by XeroOne
 


The juries were obviously rigged. There is no other explanation. This is not justice, its a joke.


Another explanation is the jury members were randomly selected, they spent hours a day sitting in a court room looking at evidence and hearing testimonies (as opposed to reading a BBC article), and arrived at a verdict by consensus based on that.


lol - So in your extensive research around this case you are aware that a) this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty and b) "PC Simon Harwood repeatedly accused of excessive force against public" - but this info was kept away from the jury www.guardian.co.uk...

And c) The initial post-mortem carried out by pathologist DR Freddy pattel - who was suspended from the GMC and taken off the Home office's register was still admissible as evidence? www.guardian.co.uk...


lol



CX

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
When i saw that second case on the news earlier, first thing that came to mind was that they've probably just inadvertently jut triggered an excuse for another riot.

CX.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by slinkey10

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by Firefly_
reply to post by XeroOne
 


The juries were obviously rigged. There is no other explanation. This is not justice, its a joke.


Another explanation is the jury members were randomly selected, they spent hours a day sitting in a court room looking at evidence and hearing testimonies (as opposed to reading a BBC article), and arrived at a verdict by consensus based on that.


lol - So in your extensive research around this case you are aware that a) this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty and b) "PC Simon Harwood repeatedly accused of excessive force against public" - but this info was kept away from the jury www.guardian.co.uk...

And c) The initial post-mortem carried out by pathologist DR Freddy pattel - who was suspended from the GMC and taken off the Home office's register was still admissible as evidence? www.guardian.co.uk...

lol


First case? What about the shooting of Charles de Menezes (Dennis' brother)?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
More nazi filth getting away with murder.

Lets hope Harwood falls on a bullet or 50.

he is scum, as are the rest of them. No respect for them, they are ALL nazi scum. Protected by a nazi system. I hope he dies.

edit to add, there's a protest at 6pm outside scotland yard. Shame I'm too far away to make it.

edit on 19/7/2012 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne
Plus there was no way the policeman could have expected Tomlinson would have died as a result of his actions.

What would you replace the jury system with?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


Oh that's ok then is it?

Please let me stand behind you whilst you've got your hands in your pockets and let me baton you and shove you face-first to the floor. Since you're pretty confident you'd survive.




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by XeroOne
Plus there was no way the policeman could have expected Tomlinson would have died as a result of his actions.

What would you replace the jury system with?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


Oh that's ok then is it?

Please let me stand behind you whilst you've got your hands in your pockets and let me baton you and shove you face-first to the floor. Since you're pretty confident you'd survive.



Never said it was okay. It's certainly assault, but the dude couldn't have known Tomlinson would die as a result.

Or are you arguing that he shouldn't have had a fair trial by jury?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by slinkey10

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by Firefly_
reply to post by XeroOne
 


The juries were obviously rigged. There is no other explanation. This is not justice, its a joke.


Another explanation is the jury members were randomly selected, they spent hours a day sitting in a court room looking at evidence and hearing testimonies (as opposed to reading a BBC article), and arrived at a verdict by consensus based on that.


lol - So in your extensive research around this case you are aware that a) this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty and b) "PC Simon Harwood repeatedly accused of excessive force against public" - but this info was kept away from the jury www.guardian.co.uk...

And c) The initial post-mortem carried out by pathologist DR Freddy pattel - who was suspended from the GMC and taken off the Home office's register was still admissible as evidence? www.guardian.co.uk...

lol


First case? What about the shooting of Charles de Menezes (Dennis' brother)?


Sorry I'm confused? what your talking abt!!

In the de Menezes case
"the Crown Prosecution Service said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute any of the officers, although a corporate criminal prosecution of the Metropolitan Police was brought under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974" en.wikipedia.org...

I will reiterate what i posted in case it confused you, in relation to the Harwood/Tomlinson case "this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty" - that line should have read "since 1986"...

The point being IMO the police being charged with anything, let alone murder doesn't happen often. With public opinion at an all time low regarding police, politics, banks G4S etc I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.


edit on 19-7-2012 by slinkey10 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2012 by slinkey10 because: edit



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

I will reiterate what i posted in case it confused you, in relation to the Harwood/Tomlinson case "this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty" - that line should have read "since 1986"...


No it wouldn't. It was a manslaughter charge.


The point being IMO the police being charged with anything, let alone murder doesn't happen often. With public opinion at an all time low regarding police, politics, banks G4S etc I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.

True. But public opinion should never influence the verdicts of individual cases. A jury couldn't decide someone's guilty simply because of whatever G4S or the banks are up to.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
And people thought I was wrong to tell my kids to stay well away from coppers.
I can't believe the jury found this scumbag not guilty...I wonder if his disciplinary record was available for the court, would we have a different verdict.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne

I will reiterate what i posted in case it confused you, in relation to the Harwood/Tomlinson case "this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty" - that line should have read "since 1986"...


No it wouldn't. It was a manslaughter charge.


The point being IMO the police being charged with anything, let alone murder doesn't happen often. With public opinion at an all time low regarding police, politics, banks G4S etc I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.

True. But public opinion should never influence the verdicts of individual cases. A jury couldn't decide someone's guilty simply because of whatever G4S or the banks are up to.


I think you are missing the points and deciding to concentrate on terminology - manslaughter vs muder, public opinion not influencing cases etc etc etc...

harwood had numerous 'anger' related disciplinary's throughout his career yet that was kept from the jury however, DR Patel - the disgraced/inept pathologist's evidence was allowed. Seriously, do you not see the disparity? Or are you going to continue to take the argument out of context?

"A jury couldn't decide someone's guilty simply because of whatever G4S or the banks are up to." I was talking about the wider public perception"!!!



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by slinkey10

Originally posted by XeroOne

I will reiterate what i posted in case it confused you, in relation to the Harwood/Tomlinson case "this case would have been the first case of a police officer being committed of murder in the line of duty" - that line should have read "since 1986"...


No it wouldn't. It was a manslaughter charge.


The point being IMO the police being charged with anything, let alone murder doesn't happen often. With public opinion at an all time low regarding police, politics, banks G4S etc I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.

True. But public opinion should never influence the verdicts of individual cases. A jury couldn't decide someone's guilty simply because of whatever G4S or the banks are up to.


I think you are missing the points and deciding to concentrate on terminology - manslaughter vs muder, public opinion not influencing cases etc etc etc...

harwood had numerous 'anger' related disciplinary's throughout his career yet that was kept from the jury however, DR Patel - the disgraced/inept pathologist's evidence was allowed. Seriously, do you not see the disparity? Or are you going to continue to take the argument out of context?

"A jury couldn't decide someone's guilty simply because of whatever G4S or the banks are up to." I was talking about the wider public perception"!!!


What? Out of context? Harwood couldn't have been done for murder because he didn't intentionally kill Tomlinson, and couldn't have reasonably known his actions would lead to his death. It hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt they did anyway. The jury couldn't have found him guilty because of the piss poor 'forensic' evidence given by an incompetent 'pathologist'.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
But he did kill him, it was found to be death by force (after the pet pathologists results were questioned) it was on camera all over the internet/news since day 1. And the only reason he got let off before, was becuase they'd dragged it out for so long and had left it too late to prosecute.(deliberatly, becasue they are all scum)

Another whitewash from the filth. They really are the lowest of the lowest dregs of society. Utter filthy scum.

Never trust a pig. Never talk to a pig, and just keep out of their dirty filthy stinking way. Vile things, they make me sick.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
But he did kill him, it was found to be death by force (after the pet pathologists results were questioned) it was on camera all over the internet/news since day 1. And the only reason he got let off before, was becuase they'd dragged it out for so long and had left it too late to prosecute.(deliberatly, becasue they are all scum)

Another whitewash from the filth. They really are the lowest of the lowest dregs of society. Utter filthy scum.

Never trust a pig. Never talk to a pig, and just keep out of their dirty filthy stinking way. Vile things, they make me sick.


It's been proven beyond doubt that Harwood assaulted him, and that Tomlinson died a short while later. We could say that Harwood unknowingly contributed to Tomlinson's death, but even that's not proven.

I'm surprised the 'pathologist' was only suspended for 3 months, though.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by juniorchubbs
 


Why poor Gary McKinnon? I just do not understand that argument. You don't want extraditing to another country, then don't hack their Defence Files. The Asberger's argument doesn't wash. If your condition doesn't stop you breaking the law then it doesn't stop you serving your sentence.

Simple really.

And sorry for going off topic OP.


Why does the Asperger's syndrome argument not wash? the guy is obviously,to some degree anyway,mentally ill.
"if your condition doesn't stop you breaking the law etc" That just does not make sense,as it was precisely BECAUSE of his condition that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong,I suppose that Mr Tomlinson got what he deserved also?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by Acidtastic
But he did kill him, it was found to be death by force (after the pet pathologists results were questioned) it was on camera all over the internet/news since day 1. And the only reason he got let off before, was becuase they'd dragged it out for so long and had left it too late to prosecute.(deliberatly, becasue they are all scum)

Another whitewash from the filth. They really are the lowest of the lowest dregs of society. Utter filthy scum.

Never trust a pig. Never talk to a pig, and just keep out of their dirty filthy stinking way. Vile things, they make me sick.


It's been proven beyond doubt that Harwood assaulted him, and that Tomlinson died a short while later. We could say that Harwood unknowingly contributed to Tomlinson's death, but even that's not proven.

I'm surprised the 'pathologist' was only suspended for 3 months, though.
It was 2 unprovoked assaults leading directly to a mans death. Caught on camera from several different angles. Anyone else is in jail by now, and would have been a long time ago. the ONLY reason that scum bag is still walking the streets is because he's a copper. One law for them......



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Had it been a member of the public or a protester caught on film pushing a man to the ground who later died, they would not have a leg to stand on with the video evidence. It's as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by XeroOne

Originally posted by Acidtastic
But he did kill him, it was found to be death by force (after the pet pathologists results were questioned) it was on camera all over the internet/news since day 1. And the only reason he got let off before, was becuase they'd dragged it out for so long and had left it too late to prosecute.(deliberatly, becasue they are all scum)

Another whitewash from the filth. They really are the lowest of the lowest dregs of society. Utter filthy scum.

Never trust a pig. Never talk to a pig, and just keep out of their dirty filthy stinking way. Vile things, they make me sick.


It's been proven beyond doubt that Harwood assaulted him, and that Tomlinson died a short while later. We could say that Harwood unknowingly contributed to Tomlinson's death, but even that's not proven.

I'm surprised the 'pathologist' was only suspended for 3 months, though.
It was 2 unprovoked assaults leading directly to a mans death. Caught on camera from several different angles. Anyone else is in jail by now, and would have been a long time ago. the ONLY reason that scum bag is still walking the streets is because he's a copper. One law for them......


Yes, and he should have been done for assault/GBH. He should actually have been fired long ago.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
What I find disturbing about this event was the number of senior officers standing with the murderer just before he attacked an innocent man. After the attack the murderer moved back to stand with those same senior officers again.
Source



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join