More thugs IN police... (From South Wales Argus)

Public servants apparently.

I am so glad that Mr Symons has hung, drawn and then quartered PC Tomlison without any examination of the evidence or some sort of trial. Of course, as far as Mr Symons is concerned, as long as the Daily Mail prints the drivel it does about police officers then that is good enough to dismiss the officer.

Wonderful piece of supportive statementing by Mr Symons which will in no doubt be supported when he is in trouble and he calls the local police to sort it out.

Come on then Mr Symonds - tell the public of Gwent how you would feel if after a trial where in the eyes of the law you were found not guilty - you were then subjected to an arbitrary inquisition by a biased and unaccountable organisation?

Chris 4 Gwent P&CC wrote:
I am so glad that Mr Symons has hung, drawn and then quartered PC Tomlison without any examination of the evidence or some sort of trial. Of course, as far as Mr Symons is concerned, as long as the Daily Mail prints the drivel it does about police officers then that is good enough to dismiss the officer.

Wonderful piece of supportive statementing by Mr Symons which will in no doubt be supported when he is in trouble and he calls the local police to sort it out.

Come on then Mr Symonds - tell the public of Gwent how you would feel if after a trial where in the eyes of the law you were found not guilty - you were then subjected to an arbitrary inquisition by a biased and unaccountable organisation?

Chris 4 Gwent P7CC... Please notice that it's PC Harwood or didn't you notice? Mr Tomlinson was the victim.

Are you suggesting that local serving officers would deny help to Mr. Symons if in need because of his opinion?
If so, you are painting an even bleaker picture of the police than he did.

I've heard the arguments and seen the evidence. Whether Harwood intended to kill Tomlinson or not, is a moot point, he certainly intended to inflict pain and suffering for not according him 'respect'. That is thuggish behaviour befitting a common street gang that most people would want to call the police to deal with!

I don't regard the Met as biased but more looking after their own interests when publicly confronted with unwelcome images proving they have thugs in their ranks. I remember them trying to impound those pictures!

There will always be police like that and the best interests of the service are served in weeding them out, so that genuinely motivated police officers might get a bit of respect.

Radio Wales on the mark again.
Well done.
The blind obeisance to the police in this country is staggering.
Most police officers are decent people, but boy, are there some bad apples.
Once one gives the police permission to run riot through protesters or any dissenters, we are indeed on a slippery slope.
It's incredible that Chris4Gwent can even begin to excuse away this shocking behaviour. I'd lay a bet that he wouldn't be so understanding of the average man in the street if he walloped an officer with a stick or a table leg even!
Many members of the Met are out of control. I have it on good authority from officer friends, that they are almost a law unto themselves.
Let's see if Chris4Gwent is so understanding next time a relative of his or hers is bashed over the head, or locked up on spurious evidence. You really need to remove the scales from your eyes.

To Radio Wales and Mr Jackson.

I do apologise for the typing error in mistaking the names in my original submission

I have never excused away the actions of PC Simon Harwood towards Mr Ian Tomlison now would I ever do IF HE WAS GUILTY.

As I have said the officer was found not guilty and in the eyes of law he therefore innocent of any charges.

As with all officers they are citizens who are innocent until proven guilty ... unfortunately my experience shows that frequently even the innocent ones are then re-tried in a police court and suddenly found guilty because of the much lower level of proof required and sacrificed on the altar of public opinion. What other excuse is there for the 'release' of an officers disciplinary record ... again without a single finding of guilt.

You are so right ... the VAST majority of police officers are hard working, diligent and professional people trying their damnedest to give the communities they serve the best in policing. Regardless of who calls them they will always respond and do the best possible job they can.

But because one officer is charged with a criminal offence that does not make the other 140,000 odd out of control.

If there is a single officer who steps outside the law or beyond the line of conduct expected then he or she should be highlighted and treated with the full force of the statute or disciplinary regulations but before this, or any other officer is vilified in the press without trial, a thought needs to be considered.

The British law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty because it is firmly believed that it is better that 99 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person goes wrongly to jail.

This lawful belief is enshrined for all ... not just those that the Daily Mail and its readers believes are worthy!

As Charles Dickens once wrote. "The law is an ****" How right he was.

To: Chris 4 Gwent P&CC
I accept that we are arguing different corners of the same issue and your point regarding the presumption of innocence is taken. However, as is usual, it’s not as simple as that.
The issue was poisoned by press intervention and the release of crucial evidence before a decision to prosecute was taken and the paradox developed where the video evidence showed everything that happened with the significant exception of the state of mind of P.C. Harwood.
Everyone saw a violent assault from behind Mr Tomlinson’s back and as a result the guilt was pre-judged. The jury decided that his actions did not amount to manslaughter, but the fact remains that he did assault Mr Tomlinson.
You refer to Criminal Law procedure in the ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ principle where the maxim of ‘Better ten guilty men go free than one be unjustly condemned’ (Blackstone) and it is a fact that the jury failed to be reasonably convinced of manslaughter under those rules.
However, a disciplinary hearing based on the terms of employment does not fall under the criminal law blanket, but rather the different rules of Civil Justice, where the ‘Balance of proof’ standard prevails.
As an arguably serving police officer, P.C. Harwood is subject to both the law of the land and the terms and conditions of his employment, and is answerable to both. He has answered the criminal charge but the civil prosecution is still unresolved. They are two separate matters and should not be confused with the notion of ‘Double Jeopardy’; of course, his police record will form part of the inquiry in contrast to the criminal law process where the record was withheld from the jury to minimise bias.
The Criminal charge related to the accusation of manslaughter, but the civil inquiry would question his behaviour particularly in how it affects the perception of policing in the eyes of the general public. As everyone has seen his actions and noticed the negative impact on policing that this incident has generated, plus the lower burden of proof, I suspect it will cause him difficulty in justifying his conduct. Under the concept of precedent, an acquittal would be seen as a licence to assault without restraint any person finding themselves in the path of a police officer. Is that really an outcome for the police authority to sensibly arrive at?

Dear Radio Wales,

I am now wondering why you, as a separate broadcaster have not contacted me directly (you could Google me) so that we could have a full discussion about the points we each raise.

I would be more than willing to have the Argus reporters with us so that they can also report the outcome of our discussions.

I have read your extensive comment above and as stated would like to have the opportunity to speak directly with you as you obviously support me in parts then dispute my submissions in others.

Innocence, is one thing in law, accepted to be black or white – Either you are innocent or you are guilty ... it is as simple as that ... and PC Harwood was pronounced innocent by the jury at that Crown Court.

You are then going to justify your position of ignoring the jury's declaration and finding this officer guilty of the death of Mr Tomlinson by declaring your ability to read the mind of the officer and then declare that the images you saw were, in your opinion, a violent assault .... again two factors discarded by the jury members.

I am fully aware of 'double jeopardy' and in this case and because of the seriousness of the charge PC Harwood will forever have to remember that should significant further evidence come to light then he can again be charged and tried over Mr Tomlinson's death.

Yes, as a police officer he is now subject to a further investigation and if appropriate trial under the Police Misconduct Regulations and yes this time the level of proof drops significantly from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'on the balance of probabilities' but until that trial is established and set on its path of investigation the officer remains innocent.

I accept that his actions have reduced the esteem of the police in the eyes of many members of the public but not all, and there are numerous reasons we could discuss over this, as we are unable to hold a referendum on the matter.

I also hold to account your statement that the officer will have great difficulty in justifying his conduct. That is a statement of history rather than intent. You are again trying to declare that he has no innocence before a trail has been held. I would rather have facts put into the public domain and when the misconduct trial is completed the investigating board have then the opportunity to hand down a punishment that is proportionate to the crime found proved. If there are too many statements of opinion how long will it be before the inability to a fair trial prevents the trial being held.

I dispute whole-heartedly that an aquittal in his misconduct trial is a precedent for all officers to arbitrarily assault any other person before them. That is not now, nor ever will be, an outcome that any officer or police staff member will ever endorse or support.

Dear Chris 4 Gwent etc.,

Thank you for the invitation to discuss but I use a non-de-plume for a reason.

In the first matter of contestable guilt and the second matter of a civil examination, I fear that you have misconstrued what I was intending to mean. In referring to ‘State of mind’ I made no such reference to my point of view there. I said the evidence was prima-face except for the state-of-mind which was an unknown factor. It was in my view a contributory factor to his presumption of innocence along with his proven poor health.

Further, I do not ‘ignore’ the jury verdict, but comparison with the possible outcome of an investigation held for different reasons, under different rules to a different standard of proof is, frankly, disingenuous. It is comparing apples with pears. A presumption of anything in the first cannot hold sway in the deliberation and resolution of the second.
Finally, I stand firm in my accusation of violent assault based on what I have seen. A assault of any magnitude on an uninvolved - and unsuspecting - civilian from behind his back is, again in my view, an unforgivable show of violence towards a party that clearly was offering no sign of threat whatsoever towards anybody at all, let alone directed at P.C. Harwood needing lawful defence.

Again, I do not disagree with the jury. They were considering a charge of manslaughter not assault, a mistake by the prosecution, knowing that it was a matter of opinion whether the victim’s death was directly attributable to P.C. Harwood’s actions given his delicate state of health.

I think that, misunderstandings apart, you and I have reached the point where we have both stated our views at length without yielding ground so I fear little can be gained by continuing. There comes a time where a vigorous debate risks mutating into a quarrel and I’m sure neither of us desire that.

I respect the verdict returned by the jury. But tomorrow a different question will be posed which may well yield a different decision. We must wait and see.