egafd.com

"Simon Harwood needs to do hard time for this."

Agreed. Fingers crossed he goes down for a lengthy stretch for manslaughter.

Cheers
D

jimslip wrote:
"as far as I am aware no policeman during the whole 13 years of New Labour was ever prosecuted for anything whatsoever! Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong."

I'll start off with the dogs...!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6647881.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12713723

The police are starting to learn that CCTV cuts both ways. It's harder for them to get away with their little stunts now that everything's filmed (unless the CCTV "wasn't working", such as at Stockwell station when Jean Charles de Menezes was assassinated). The SPG murderers who beat Blair Peach to death should be grateful that camera phones weren't around in the 70s.

"The police are starting to learn that CCTV cuts both ways."

This is a good point. In the inquiry that took place resulting in a verdict of unlawful killing against Harwood, a painstaking analysis of CCTV footage was done of the hours leading up to the killing of Tomlinson.

The CCTV footage was used to track Harwood through the hours beforehand. In the inquiry it was the basis of Tomlinson's legal team questions and was used to totally undermine and trash Harwood's evidence. Harwood argued that he had been attacked and was totally disorientated having dropped his baton etc etc. The CCTV footage showed that all of this was crap and highlighted that Harwood was extremely aggressive throughout the period. This together with the video footage of the actual push, was the prime reason, I suspect why Harwood was put on a manslaughter charge.

Those like Jimbo who see CCTV as being a very bad development brought in by the Labour Party "Police State" should realise that without CCTV we would not be looking at such a compelling case against Harwood.

Cheers
D

David said:

"Those like Jimbo who see CCTV as being a very bad development brought in by the Labour Party "Police State" should realise that without CCTV we would not be looking at such a compelling case against Harwood."

I think you will find David that this evidence has always been there, but the regime to which Jim refers, chose to ignore it.

I believe it was the lovely Baroness Scotland who who gave Mr Starmer his job and who you will read in the link below said, "no realistic prospects of a conviction" over the death at the G20 protests."

Here is the idiot and known incompetent pathologist, brought in to determine Tomlinsons death. The deliberate choice of Dr Patel to come to the, "Correct" conclusion that would ALWAYS exonerate the authorities, is worthy of how they used to play things in Eastern Europe.

Here's his latest blunder:


There have been questions about this clown's incompetence for the last 12 years, no wonder he was kept at the ready by the authorities to "sort things out" for them.

PS David: Please don't tell me you're a fan of the festooning of the UK with millions of CCTV cameras? Is there NO ACT of authoritarianism initiated by New !adolf! Labour that you were uneasy about?

"I think you will find David that this evidence has always been there, but the regime to which Jim refers, chose to ignore it."

First of all, the decision was made on July 22 2010 which blows Jimbo and yours, if you have one, conspiracy theory out of the water. Jimbo argued that this was a Labour conspiracy not to prosecute. Given that the decision not to prosecute was made over 2 months into the new government, this seems a tad unlikely. And even unlikelier given that it was Starmer, the person who you attempt to smear, who announced that there would be a criminal trial following on from the inquest result.

Secondly what you forget to mention is that the DPP gave the reason for there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute as the conflicting medical evidence. He did not cite the presence or absence of CCTV as having a bearing on that decision. So your comment that the CCTV evidence was ignored is inaccurate in terms of the decision making process as to whether to prosecute or not.

He did however, at the time, state that if new evidence emerged, he would as part of this role review the decision as to whether to bring a criminal charge or not. This is what, in fact, happened at the inquiry.

The inquest which took place in April this year took evidence from three forensic pathologists who disagreed with the original pathologist's decision and agreed that he had died from internal bleeding. Furthermore under the examining of Patel that took place at the inquest it became obviousl that Patel was not the most reliable of witnesses.

It is this new medical evidence and not the CCTV story that led to Starmer making the decision to prosecute. However I am sure that the CCTV evidence that was forthcoming at the inquiry will be used to build an overall picture of Harwood in terms of the kind of violent copper he was. And a pathological liar to boot.

And as an aside there have been innumerable cases in which CCTV has played an important part in achieving convictions.

Cheers
D

Stick to the point Jimbo.

In this thread you stated "I think this case shows the first cracks in the Police State, that New Labour were building, including the regulation of CCTV etc etc."

Unfortunately what you didnt realise was that it was the CCTV evidence provided by this "New Labour Police State" that was used to totally undermine the policeman's evidence and prove that he was 1. a liar 2. violent 3. totally unreliable.

Makes you look very silly eh?

I do enjoy your posts, Jimbo. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

!wink!

D