Forgive my cynicism, but I would be very surprised if this isn't just for show and the charges get quietly dropped later on.

I have a different opinion to Harry Roberts - but perhaps even more cynical.

I don't see how the charges could be 'quietly dropped.' What is more likely in my opinion is that the prosecution will bungle the case.

But even if this doesn't happen, and Harwood is found guilty of manslaughter, I don't think the Met (and other police forces) will be too disappointed. They be able to cling on to the time old narrative of 'one bad apple' - they might even admit that their training needs to be a bit better. But they won't be held to account for creating a culture of 'othering' where the coppers see protesters as scum to be fought. And business will carry on as usual, until the next bad apple surfaces (which the media managers will at first deny).

>> Forgive my cynicism, but I would be very surprised if this isn't just for show and the charges get quietly dropped later on.

I'm not sure how a manslaughter charge is quietly dropped


>> I don't see how the charges could be 'quietly dropped.' What is more likely in my opinion is that the prosecution will bungle the case.

How much money would you be willing to bet on that at even odds?


>> But even if this doesn't happen, and Harwood is found guilty of manslaughter, I don't think the Met (and other police forces) will be too disappointed. They be able to cling on to the time old narrative of 'one bad apple' - they might even admit that their training needs to be a bit better. But they won't be held to account for creating a culture of 'othering' where the coppers see protesters as scum to be fought. And business will carry on as usual, until the next bad apple surfaces (which the media managers will at first deny).

So, are you suggesting that all the police are bad apples?
What about the ones that help old ladies who have been beaten up or track down murderers of the innocent? Are they bad apples?

You are always going to get "bad apples" in any group. Its a statistical fact, not some kind of spin. Witness that protestor who decided to throw a heavy fire extinguisher off a roof into a crowd of people. Theres a bad apple - some one who obviously didn't give a shit about who he hurt for shits and giggles.

Name me one group where there are no "bad apples"?

And there are plenty of people (more than the protestors), who disagree with the protestors and believe that they do not have the right to smash stuff up. Thats more than the actual number of protestors by a long stretch. So, it could be argued, on a population wide scale, the protestors are the bad apples of society couldn't it. A small number of ruffians who feel like can operate beyond democratic principcals because they think they are special and that their bottoms are betters than everyone elses and therefore should be kissed in a special way that no one else deserves. Protestors are a minority - period. They don't have the right to rule the world like they think they can.

@ complete

"democratic principals" my arse! What democracy? I suspect you would no more recognise democracy if you ever came across it than you can spell "principles".

No, they can't get away with "quietly dropping" the charge.

Their choice of tactics is, as pointed out, the "bad apple" or sacrificial copper crap.

Alternatively, there's incompetent prosecution but not, of course, secretly rigging the jury to make sure it is reliably pro-cop. Nothing like that ever happens, you understand. It wouldn't be British would it?

At elections, the parties have agents overseeing the count to make sure there is no jiggery-pokery. Who oversees the selection of jury panels? Errr.....

>> "democratic principals" my arse! What democracy? I suspect you would no more recognise democracy if you ever came across it than you can spell "principles".

"ooo! ooo! look at me - i'm so fucking educated. I can spell, therefore I'm smarter than thou because my brain is bigger". Pathetic. This is you:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRZNQ06kWyc

>> What democracy? I suspect you would no more recognise democracy
What are you? Scottish or something. I suppose you'd prefer to be living in Somalia or Iran, or even North Korea because clearly our democracy is just so rubbish for you. Well guess what? you are free to leave if you want to be the bah-humbug-im-so-miserable-and-can't-cheer-up-living-under-these-conditions. Just because you're miserable and downtrodden doesn't mean everyone else is.

>> Their choice of tactics is, as pointed out, the "bad apple" or sacrificial copper crap.
You almost sound disappointed!!! Lets file that under bullshit shall we.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought is was a case of just taking someone who has appears to have done a crime to the court for for fair trail and sentencing.
Why do you have to half-bake it into a conspiracy theory? Wheres the sacrifices come in?
Theres enough evidence to make a case, they've done that, hes going to court. Etc. etc.
Its not exactly rocket science. What are you looking for? Him to be let off?!

>> Alternatively, there's incompetent prosecution but not, of course, secretly rigging the jury to make sure it is reliably pro-cop. Nothing like that ever happens, you understand. It wouldn't be British would it?

Your sentence is pushing the boundaries of legibility and I seriously doubt you have used "there's" correctly. More conspiracy bullshit. Where is you evidence for this allegation? Its just all fanciful made-up, paranoid, I-smoke-cannabis-and-think-everyone-is-out-to-get-me bullshit. "oooo! I don't agree with the verdict, therefore the jury must of been paid off because everyone obviously thinks the exact same as me." Bullshit.

>> At elections, the parties have agents overseeing the count to make sure there is no jiggery-pokery. Who oversees the selection of jury panels? Errr.....
You need to get out more. And you need to stop smoking cannabis.
If you can prove that jury panels are rigged then well done. But i doubt you can.
I imagine you can just bleat on about it in some form of paranoid ranting based on irrational conclusions that come from years of chip-on-shoulder resentment of everyone who has ever been more popular and successful than yourself.

Are there any good apples in the Police barrel? Complete - is your surname Twat by any chance?

> I'm not sure how a manslaughter charge is quietly dropped
That was what I said.

>> I don't see how the charges could be 'quietly dropped.' What is more likely in my opinion is that the prosecution will bungle the case.
> How much money would you be willing to bet on that at even odds?
A hundred grand - as long as you can prove to me that I was wrong and that is was less (or even) likely that this will happen.

> So, are you suggesting that all the police are bad apples?
Where did I say that? I was saying that the one bad apple view is false - I think there is more than one bad apple. This is not the same as saying they are all bad apples. Moreover, I was trying to suggest that the fault may not be with one (or a few) individuals PC's, but rather it might be further up the chain. To expand on that, it might be that the training of riot cops is not up to scratch, or that the people that give them orders might not be acting within their remit (e.g. the kettling of climate camp protesters at the G20 has been deemed unlawful by he courts - this is not the fault of individual coppers, but a failure of the command structure.)

I have (publicly available) evidence from the 'system' (not normally on my side) that a policeman unlawfully caused the death of Ian Tomlinson, and that the treatment of climate camp protesters at the G20 was unlawful. You make allegations that posters here are paranoid and/or cannabis users. How much do you want to bet (at less than even odds if that suits you) that you can prove your case over mine? Or are you just trolling?

'So, it could be argued, on a population wide scale, the police are the bad apples of society couldn't it. A small number of ruffians who feel like can operate beyond democratic principcals because they think they are special and that their bottoms are betters than everyone elses and therefore should be kissed in a special way that no one else deserves. Police are a minority - period. They don't have the right to rule the world like they think they can.'

"So, it could be argued, on a population wide scale, the protestors are the bad apples of society couldn't it. A small number of ruffians who feel like can operate beyond democratic principcals because they think they are special and that their bottoms..."

Originally this was a point about "a few bad apples" in the police service.

I was at the G20 protests all day and saw in that small area what I had seen for at least 3 years previously. Widespread assaults being undertaken by young and middle aged police officers against protesters. I've seen police officers spitting at people, I've seen police officers punching women in the face, dragging youngsters along by the neck, crushing people together in ordinary streets, kicking people in the backs about the kidneys, batoning people in their sides about the liver, swearing, being abusive and on and on.

Its certainly the case that its a few bad apples who carry out the actual assaults, but I've also seen the reaction of their fellow officers and I have also overheard their colleagues offering encouragement.

The police 'service' is routinely hostile to those who demonstrate on the streets. Its endemic to them and endemic to the canteen culture most officers are part of.

The killing of Ian Tomlinson was an occasion where the very ordinary went unusually wrong.

The police take the view that every member of the job is to be protected even if they are responsible for the death of a member of the public. In reality this is decided on what evidence exists but even that can be managed. If there is no evidence then there is no assault and it is this standard of proof that informs and qualifies the behaviour of male officers on the streets.

I think the police will continue to try to protect the wider 'service' but as Harwood is already deemed to be a liar, and as a public inquest jury have already determined they like the look of him, I think the police 'service' have already given up on him.

Harwood is burnt pork.

hello

why are the trolls being fed?

They just end up bringing their mates round and throwing up on the carpet.

Seriously there are loads of sites out there where you can argue with right wing trolls.

>> anonymous bets on the internets - not news!
According to the guidelines, "articles" should be news. There is no such requirement on "comments".

>> why are the trolls being fed?
>> They just end up bringing their mates round and throwing up on the carpet.
>> Seriously there are loads of sites out there where you can argue with right wing trolls.
>> troll control

All the comments are relating to the article that has been published. Clearly your comment is just to provoke a response and has no relevence to the article. So, technically, you are the only troll here. And you have broken editorial guidelines.

How can you be "troll control". I'm guessing you arnt a moderator or administrator, so it wouldn't be actual to describe yourself as in "control" of anything. Shouldn't it be "troll want to be in control"?

Finally, everyone is going about their lawful business here, so to tell people what they should be doing is an attempt to be authoritarian would you not agree?