If it hadn’t been for Christopher La Jaunie capturing the original footage of Ian Tomlinson being batoned and pushed to the ground by a TSG officer then his death would have been described as unfortunate and that he died from natural causes. The backdrop, the original narrative the cops tried to spin in the immediate aftermath of Tomlinson’s death, being that the cops bravely tried to get to Ian Tomlinson after he had collapsed but were under fire from protesters pelting them with missiles etc. It would have been the continued vilification of protesters contrasted to the bravery of the coppers. But that narrative collapsed when the footage emerged.
I attended the second week of the inquest into Ian Tomlinson’s death where PC Harwood was being questioned. Fortunately, Paul Lewis has been doing a live blog regarding the proceedings while I was furiously scribbling notes in my pad.
Firstly, the main impression I got regarding Harwood while he was being questioned was that he was taking evasiveness into a whole new league, along with being obtuse and taking obfuscation to a new level. Certainly, listening to the man give evidence increased my own levels of frustration (and indeed others members in the public gallery). Harwood’s job was to look after the police carrier (he admitted that he had been a “bit bored”). He saw a man writing graffiti on another police carrier, Harwood left his carrier to make an arrest. Video evidence shows Harwood dragging the suspect (not sure where to) where you see him bang his head on the door of a police carrier as it is being opened, there is an audible gasp from the protesters as this happens (Harwood wrote in his accident and evidence book that “suspect ran into the door…”!!). The suspect was able to get away and run off. Harwood then said he was in “fear of his life”.
Further video evidence shows no rioting protesters nor any missiles being thrown. Harwood is accused of “exaggerating numbers”, “half-truths” and “lying”. Harwood replies, “Why would I need to exaggerate”….He said he had taken refuge at the junction of the Royal Exchange building as he was “coming up against hostility”. He couldn’t get back to his carrier as it was surrounded by protesters and no police around. And again, video evidence was shown where you could see his carrier which was surrounded….by police.
It was suggested to Harwood by Matthew Ryder, QC, barrister for the Tomlinson family, that he could easily have gone back to his carrier. Harwood said he was “unaware of his surroundings’, the atmosphere was hostile and that he had to “withdraw to a safer location”. That he was “frightened and confused” and “shaken and unnerved”. At this time Harwood was still saying that he had been hit over his head with a missile and had lost his baton. Harwood also maintained that he “collided” with a BBC cameraman. Collided? Watching the video footage suggests he pulled the man with the camera to the ground. Yet Harwood continue to maintain that he “collided”… He still argued that he was “surrounded” by rioting protesters but video evidence shows more of people standing around, hardly in rioting mode!
Before I forget, the 2nd day of his evidence (Tuesday) was quite dramatic as Harwood admitted this when questioned by the coroner:
Questioned by the assistant deputy coroner, Judge Peter Thornton QC, Harwood has accepted that the account of events he put in his notebook two weeks after the protests was incorrect.
These relate to Harwood’s explanation of the aftermath of his attempt to arrest a protester for daubing graffiti, when he said he came under attack from hundreds of protesters and was in fear for his life. Video cast doubt over that, and Thornton specifically went through the list.
Harwood: At the time I wrote this, I thought I fell to the floor.
Thornton: Do you now accept that this is not correct?
Harwood: Yes
Thornton: That you lost your baton – that is not correct?
Harwood: Yes
Thornton: That you received a blow to the head – that is not correct?
Harwood: Yes
Thornton: And that there were violent and dangerous confrontations – that is not correct?
Harwood: Yes.
Thornton: And you were struck by a missile – that is not correct?Harwood: Yes.
When it came to Harwood encountering Ian Tomlinson, he maintained that he used “reasonable force”, the push was a “poor push” and that he was “amazed” that Tomlinson fell to the ground. He said he used a baton strike to “encourage” Ian Tomlinson to move away and then he used an open hand palm strike”. His thought processes included assessment of the situation as Ian Tomlinson was not moving away so decided to push him. Harwood admitted that Ian Tomlinson was not a threat to him or anyone else. So why use this level of force? Harwood maintained he assessed the situation within a matter of seconds between baton strike and push…yet when you watch the video evidence there’s barely seconds between baton and push. It literally goes from baton across the shoulder to push. No hesitation. Harwood is seen using all of body weight in that push yet he denies that.
Also, why didn’t Harwood write-up this incident in his accident and evidence book? He couldn’t remember. Another issue brought up was that Harwood is standing with dogs and dog handler. Training says that cops have to keep behind dog handlers. Harwood went contrary to this training as he moved forward from the dog handlers to hit Ian Tomlinson. But when challenged over this he didn’t admit to disobeying protocol instead he said, “it depends on the situation”…. No one is pushing at the line of cops, no confrontation with anyone. Video footage was shown of Harwood pushing protesters nearly to the ground yet he maintained these were “light pushes”. You can really establish a pattern with Harwood violent rough pushes throughout that time he was around the vicinity of the G20 protests. Yet he considers them “glancing” or “light”… he downplays excessive and unreasonable force.
Harwood argued that Ian Tomlinson was “encroaching” into the police line (when it was put to him to define “encroaching” he couldn’t give a straightforward definition…. Personally it is an odd choice of word) and that he had to be “encouraged” to move away. Yet when you see the footage Tomlinson is moving away. Why did Harwood feel the need to attack? Because he was “encroaching” on the police line. He refused to reconsider. Even more bizarrely when it was suggested to him that “Ian Tomlinson had his back to you”… Harwood disagreed! Video footage quite clearly shows Ian Tomlinson’s back towards Harwood. Again when challenged that indeed Ian Tomlinson at no point ever walked to the police line Harwood disagreed.
Matthew Ryder, QC, representing the family of Ian Tomlinson accused Harwood of being “absurd”. There was no risk to his or anyone’s safety so why didn’t Harwood look at other options such as shouting a warning. Again, bizarrely Harwood said that Ian Tomlinson had “defiant posture”…and that “he was intent on staying where he was”… By this time of the questioning the coroner intervened and said (again!) that Harwood didn’t have to “answer questions that may incriminate him”… Ryder challenged Harwood again by saying that Ian Tomlinson might have been walking as fast as he could. He was also asked whether it occurred to Harwood that Ian Tomlinson might be disabled? No, he didn’t see any “physical disabilities”..
Harwood couldn’t give a proper answer about what powers he was using when striking Ian Tomlinson. He mentioned vaguely, “breach of the peace”. Ryder accused him of having no legal powers whatsoever as he was struggling to identify any. Harwood replied: “Don’t think I am struggling”….
Harwood was asked whether he was trained to baton people who pose no threat to anyone? Harwood: “Depends on the circumstances”..(he was asked the question before when he answered, “Yes”…I thought I misheard but checking my notes..no I hadn’t). He was then asked why didn’t he go over to see whether Ian Tomlinson was ok? Harwood: “Not classified as part of the training”…
Harwood, when interviewed by the IPCC, appeared with his Police Fed rep and solicitor along with a 32 page statement yet he refused to answer any questions from the IPCC. There are a lot of contradictions in his various statements, lack of recall and so on. Ryder, when first questioning Harwood said, “Will you admit that the force used was unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive”? Harwood: “No”. And that Harwood, “wasn’t here to help the family more to help himself by exaggerating and creating a false picture of events”…
Harwood was obstructive, got bogged down in semantics and deflected questions. Irritating and frustrating yet Ryder had a very good point when he said Harwood wanted to be “centre of attention” and that he wanted to make an “example” of the man graffiting on the police van. And from the footage shown Harwood is an individual law unto himself showing disregard for even his fellow officers. Interestingly, another PC who was also in charge of his carrier was able to get back to it easily and even phone Harwood to ask where he was. This police officer also said that he never drew his baton at all that day.
The other fascinating thing is that senior officers maintained that they had told officers to be “firm but friendly” in policing the G20 protests (really? Now that astounded me… as the media along with the police sensationally whipped up the “predicted” violence). And it was also said that there had been no intelligence that this was going to be violent…
Finally, what exposed for me just how weak and pathetic Harwood was when he asked the IPCC to investigate Ian Tomlinson, whether he may have been a protester and “any previous offending”… Digging the dirt and trying to discredit a dead man as a way to deflect responsiblity for his violent act, responsiblity which Harwood has never taken.
NB: I left at lunch time, and later on in the afternoon Harwood had started to back track (from Guardian live blog of the inquest):
As a result, he has now accepted, on reflection, that Tomlinson was walking away from police and was not “encroaching” upon police lines. Harwood agreed the newspaper seller did have his back to him when he decided to push him. He also accepted that Tomlinson was not being defiant.
All of this appeared to contradict evidence Harwood gave earlier today. The officer did, however, stand by one earlier point, as you can see here:
Judge: “Do you agree that the push looked like a heavy push?”
Harwood: “It looks like a heavy push, yes.”
Judge: “Was it a heavy push?”
Harwood: “No.”
I am by no means a cop hater, but I’ve seen the CCTV footage of this incident, and I find this extremely disturbing. That an elderly newspaper seller walking home with his hands in his pockets, minding his own business, and nowhere near the rioters or the police can be done to death in this way! If this is swept under the carpet, then there is no hope for the Britain our fathers fought the Second World War for. Makes me sick!
The BBC R4 news coverage of Harwood’s testimony managed to be approach the man’s own level of by merely repeating that “he didn’t mean to hurt him” or some equally misleading statement..
Did you notice that there was no mention of the RBS incident, despite that being used as a pretext subsequently to explain the ‘robust’ (ahem) policing? No mention at all in Williams’ testimony, nor in Harwood’s (that I heard or have read, anyway).
Williams described how his serial arrived at Lothbury as scheduled around 10am. He then went on a walking tour of the area for up to 2 hours, before returning to the vans and deploying his personnel in front of the Bank of England on Threadneedle Street. They were then almost immediately redeployed to Cornhill, where they formed a cordon in anticipation of the ‘Four Horsmen’.
Pressed on the matter, he explained that the cordon – initially a ‘filter cordon’ – was formed “to encourage demonstrators into that area instead of letting them wander about the City,” said Williams. Anyone deemed a protester would be let through one way but not permitted out; those considered non-protesters could pass through either way. Later it was turned into an ‘absolute cordon’.
Note that this cordon/bubble/kettle was in operation and being tightened well before the RBS windows went in at nearly 2pm.
Of course the obvious result of police forcing protesters into a finite space was that “the crowd became more compact” and the tension rose, though Williams chose not to suggest a link between the two.
Harwood didn’t mention RBS.
Funny how cops like saying “encourage”… nice friendly jolly word but couldn’t be more further than the truth re what happens in reality. Interesting that the kettle (“bubble”… I love it) was in operation before RBS.
Oh and Williams saying he expected officers to be, “firm but friendly”….
Also, when you see Ian Tomlinson lying on the ground no other cop is seen asking whether he is ok nor is Harwood ever challenged about his behaviour.
What Howard said.