Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Unlawful Killing

with 57 comments

Killer Scumbag Cop

The verdict in the Ian Tomlinson case is in – unlawful killing.  Anything else would have been a travesty of justice.

The jury said Pc Simon Harwood used “excessive and unreasonable” force in striking him and “he posed no threat”.

Lily-livered Keir Starmer, the DPP, must now reverse his earlier, disgraceful decision and charge PC Harwood with manslaughter.

Written by Peter Reynolds

May 3, 2011 at 3:06 pm

57 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I bet he wont though, nobody in positions of authority in this country ever seems to do the right thing.

    Chris Bovey

    May 3, 2011 at 3:09 pm

  2. Peter

    Much as I agree with your sentiments here and I do realise this is your pesonal blog but do you really think using language like “murdering scumbag cop” is a good idea for the leader of the UK cannabis campaign?


    May 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    • Yes, I’m perfectly happy with it Derek, thank you. Any other description would be inaccurate.

      The scandalous and corrupt way in which the Met, the DPP and the political establishment dealt with this appalling incident is unforgiveable. My son, the lawyer, advises me that it isn’t murder and manslaughter will have to do. So Harwood can still get life – although in fact all that’s necessary is a week’s “B” wing justice. That should sort him out.

      Listen, the whole world is celebrating at the execution of a man who hasn’t been through any judicial process. On the basis that taking any life is unforgiveable, Harwood should be getting a double tap to the head as well.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      • Peter, The “murdering” comment is innacurate if it’s mansluaghter, but that’s not what irks me. “Scumbag” is hardly a dignified comment for someone in your position to use. Remember, you have a high social profile now and want to speak for the cannabis law reorm movement.


        May 3, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      • I understand and respect your point Derek but this is a moral issue. Every politician or anyone with a public profile should be condemning this individual without reservation. He deliberately and with malice aforethought, assaulted and abused Ian Tomlinson without provocation or cause, entirely recklessly as to the consequences. As a policeman whose duty is to protect it also amounts to a breach of trust. Furthermore he has lied and set out to deceive and cover up his conduct, even when giving evidence to the Court.

        If my son’s legal advice is correct and Harwood can only be charged with manslaughter then I am ready to change my caption to “Killer Scumbag Cop” if that would be more accurate.

        In context though Derek, when I look at the blatant lies, dishonesty and deception that we get from politicians and the media, I am entirely happy that taking this stand is appropriate. I have already resolved not to express my opinion on some controversial issues while I am leader of CLEAR but there should be nothing controversial about this at all (nor about the bankers TD!), it’s a clear moral judgement.

        An interesting further point, which my son also mentioned, is that whatever happens to Harwood, the Met could also be charged with corporate manslaughter. Given the nature of this case and the issues it raises about the Met’s tactics and training, that would seem appropriate as well.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 6:53 pm

      • I also disagree, this matter has be over simplified, There is no way on God’s Earth that officer used enough force to kill this man. Yes he may have been arrogant in is approach and bullish but his contact, clearly defined on video, does not in any way constitute enough force to kill a man, Lets be honest, this man was a waster, a drunk with many problems. He was a man all to ready to meet his maker based on his own weakness, it was a sad and unfortunate set of circumstances that made this happen.

        This man needed to take some responsibility for his own situation…you think he was selling socialist newspapers on the street because he wasn’t a loser?

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      • How dare you judge someone like that? Who are you to say he was a waster? And does having “many problems” make it justifiable to kill him?

        Ian Tomlinson was a vulnerable man who was obviously not part of the demonstration, and was certainly not causing trouble. He deserved the protection of the police, but instead was made a victim by them.

        “…you think he was selling socialist newspapers on the street because he wasn’t a loser?”

        And do you think that supporting the BNP doesnt make you a loser? PC Monty.


        May 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm

      • What evidence do you have I support the BNP, you stupid, ridiculous idiot. I can assure you I do not.

        How dare I judge? It is clearly documented he is an addict, an alcoholic and generally a life loser.So where am I wrong?

        Stop being a pathetic weak apologist. Yes it is a shame he died, No the policeman did not MURDER him, anyone who says so is clearly a prat and does not know the law.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm

      • Next a muppet like you will say Osama bin laden was a poor unfortunate victim and innocent too…

        I hope they shit in his mouth and buried him in pork wraps personally.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:13 pm

      • Nothing more eloquently expresses the sort of person you are than your own words.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 10:31 pm

      • I ma glad you are censoring comments and deleting, they are all being screen grabbed, logged and kept..for the right time.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 11:49 pm

      • You are such a prat Ian/David/Charlie/Monty.

        What, on the day of judgement you are going to bring forward screen shots of your comments that I deleted are you?

        You’re good for an occasional chuckle – light-hearted, if a little repetitive entertainment.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 11:55 pm

      • How dare I judge? It is clearly documented he is an addict, an alcoholic and generally a life loser.So where am I wrong?

        Those words are shameful Monty and if you do not know why then I pity you.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 10:28 pm

      • No I think that is a shameful slur on Mr Tomlinson. Who are you to judge him so? We all have problems and difficulties in our lives. I wonder whether you eat too much fat or not enough green vegetables? But it is none of my business as Mr Tomlinson’s lifestyle is none of yours.

        What is truly appalling though is that you should attempt, feebly, to use this as some sort of excuse for the killer thug Harwood. Mr Tomlinson was entitled to expect Harwood’s protection just as much as if he were the prime minister or the Queen. Harwood is the lowest of the low. There is nothing that can excuse nor mitigate his actions.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 7:16 pm

      • Bullshit, your a scumbag riding on someone’s death in order to sound magnanimous to a bunch of j*****s.

        Who is the real slime here?

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:06 pm

      • Ah, so you show your true colours.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 10:29 pm

      • “Who is the real slime here?”

        Do we really need to answer that???


        May 4, 2011 at 5:17 pm

      • here here

        Mr. Tomlinson quite probably had personal reasons for his addictions – The cop was just a thug – no better than some pumped up body builder whacking kids on a nightclub door.

        That’s not the sort of policeman i want protecting me and my family – i want a cooper whom can reason

        That cop was out to attack people on a London street and then probably big it up back at the station to all his mates whom fear him.

        I hope he gets a long prison sentence

        Paul smith

        May 4, 2011 at 5:04 pm

      • Self absolution and congratulation does not make your words right. It is ridiculous that even this charge was found, the facts do not fit the charge. Yes the Officers actions where bullish and somewhat above the level required for reaction, but given the circumstances and taunts they was receiving at the time I can understand if he was wound up, however it is upon him to be professional and not allow his emotions to interfere with his duties.

        All being said, this charge is politically motivated and not made in the spirit of true justice and law and your comments are hyperbole and provocative.

        Other are right, if you pretend to represent anyone, your language is unacceptable no matter your personal feelings. It’s tough at the top.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 9:59 pm

      • No Monty, you’re fundamentally wrong. The facts only fit manslaughter, though morally it was murder.

        The charge is not politically motivated at all. It is on the facts.

        I seek to represent people based on my skills and the integrity of my argument. Any reticence or cowardice in failing to condemn Harwood will tell you all you need to know about any politician- and I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder even with a prohibitionist on that!

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 10:27 pm

      • Such sensitivity from Derek there, yet he would feel the same comment would be weak in describing Bin Laden (RIP). It is important to remember in the wake of US “Christian” citizens chanting “USA USA…” at the spilling of Osama’s life blood, that there is now definitive proof he had nothing to do with the WTC 9/11 event, and that that incident was done by an energy weapon manufactured by the US military, and which was further deployed on a smaller scale in the 2nd Iraq war

        So, the hoodwinking of the general public is complete. And the OBL story is being used to mask this small breakthrough. Typical!

        Pemberton Carmichael

        May 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm

      • Pathetic fool. What a bacofoil right for this blog.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:27 pm

      • Time to up the medication I think.

        Cockney Copper

        May 5, 2011 at 9:40 pm

  3. I will agree with Derek that in order to be taken more seriously as a politician, your very strong language concerning bankers, and things like this does you no justice in seeming like a legitimate organised candidate and not an opinionated crank.


    May 3, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    • He is as much a politician as I am the Pope, voted by a handful of people, literally a handful..he is a joke of a politician. I am sure however his ego would make himself believe he is.

      monty the third

      May 3, 2011 at 10:29 pm

  4. the fact is and found in this hearing that that cop lied under oath. he knew he was lying and so did the police above him. so to say hes a,”murdering scumbag cop” seem acurate to me and would be the conclusion by any tabliod newspaper if a protester did this to a cop.
    there is a huge problem with the criminal justice system (cjs) when it comes to police giving evidence. have you ever noticed that all prostitutes are blind? well they are in court because when ever a prostitute gives evidence a cop comes along and tells the court what the woman does and its no longer valid. why? because the police are always given benifit of the doubt over the public.
    look at the Tomlinson case. there wes loads of witnesses, video evidence and medical evidence. and it had to come to a full public hearing to come to this conclusion. usually if so much evidence was found then it would be an open and shut case. its not that i dont agree with the police, they are needed and most are just providing for their families. but you do get those officers who are merly adrenaline junkies who get off on the rush of being able to openly bully. and its these officers who have the cjs perminently on their side. does this this make sense? surly a cop under the eyes of the law are equal to all and others. but this is not the case and the Tomlinson case addresses this. uniforms dont make people better witnesses and this case proves so. the only question i have is what difference will this make to the way things are run or will it just be brushed under the carpet until the same problem arises again? sadly i feel history will repeat.

    pete KD

    May 3, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    • Pete

      Your post clearly shows that you have little, if any, experience of the criminal justice system.

      Most trials that involve critical evidence from a Police officer centre on whether the defence can somehow trip them up under cross-examination. The word of a Police officer is rarely, if ever, taken at face value.

      I speak from bitter experience.

      Cockney Copper

      May 5, 2011 at 9:39 pm

      • Nonsense. Police officers are given far too much benefit of the doubt and presumption of good intent when many of them (not all) are at least as corrupt and self-serving as any criminal.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 5, 2011 at 9:52 pm

      • I’d be quite happy if that were true, but as someone who spends an inordinate amount of my life in court, I can promise you it really isn’t.

        Cockney Copper

        May 5, 2011 at 10:12 pm

      • Cockney Copper, I can only tell you that from what I have learnt in my life you are wrong, and that the police ARE assumed to always tell the truth by many judges and magistrates.

        My Father, now sadly deceased, was a lay magistrate for many years. When he was new in the job, and very influenced by the other magistrates and court personnel, he once told me that he could always trust the police to tell the truth, and that if they brought someone to court then that was virtually good enough to say that that person was guilty. I got the feeling, however, later on that he was beginning to see the light, and on some occasions he criticised his colleagues for being too trusting of the police. In fact he resigned from the bench eventually, it was because he did not believe in one (or maybe more) of the laws he was expected to enforce, I think it was the “suss” laws he was objecting to, but it was a long time ago now.


        May 6, 2011 at 5:44 am

  5. Its good news to hear that he will be charged. Police have to stand accountable for their personal actions. He broke the law plan and simple. Im a bit unhapppy with the amount it would of cost to get to this point as imo, the evidence looks fairly straight forward.

    Lets hope they make an exaple with him and give a really hard sentence! Id love to hear of him getting life, but i wouldnt hold my breath. The court always favour police officers.

    Stuart P

    May 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    • Calm down Stuart, he hasn’t been charged. Yet.

      Cockney Copper

      May 5, 2011 at 9:36 pm

  6. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though. Not many cops are brought to proper justice. Even the one who was caught on the station video system dragging the respectable 57 y.o. woman through the custody suite and throwing her into a cell, causing a head injury, got off on appeal!


    May 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm

  7. The Nation has already reached a majority verdict and indeed it is time for a jury to decide in a criminal trial.

    At the time of this unlawful killing, upright citizens who suffered deletion of honest comments on Gadget, or more disgracefully, altered by that same police officer on her blog, know the Nation’s patience is at an end with the worst of our police.


    May 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    • Her ladyship is an irrelevance Melvyn. Merely a sop to the canteen culture.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 3, 2011 at 10:01 pm

      • What you mean like honest citizens suffer deletion of comments her also? A c**t is a C**t this blog or that
        I trust neither more than dog shit.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:09 pm

      • Grow up. Moderate your language.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 3, 2011 at 10:30 pm

      • It is what it is, no matter the language Sir.

        monty the third

        May 3, 2011 at 10:33 pm

      • So if someone pushed a loved one of yours and they fell, hit their head and died you would be fine the the person responsible would be free to carry on their life as normal with only a small charge? I think not.

        I could kind of understand your point if he was masked and trying to cause trouble, but he was just looking for a way home. The police are there to stop law breakers and protect everyone else. He failed to do his job and his actions resulted in a loss of life. Plain and simple. If he doesn’t have to stand for his actions then why should a professional driver be charged for killing someone on the road? Its the same principle.

        Stuart P

        May 4, 2011 at 1:16 pm

      • Stuart

        It’s not the same. He didn’t get pushed over and hit his head.

        He was pushed over, sat up, thought about it for a bit, walked off and then had a heart attack and tragically died.

        Semantics? Maybe. But when it comes to the law, it’s these details that will decide what happens.

        For my tuppence worth, I’ve no doubt that PC Harwood will be charged. There is overwhelming public pressure, and it is in the public interest, to do so. It won’t be with murder, it will probably be involuntary manslaughter. It will go to trial and I suspect that he will be found not guilty.

        Why? The trial will come down to whether the act of the baton strike to the leg and the push in the back were both unlawful and ‘sufficiently dangerous’.

        Tomlinson’s death must have been caused by injuries that were a foreseeable result of the unlawful acts (if indeed they were).

        I personally don’t think the baton strike and push were dangerous in the relevant legal sense. It was not foreseeable that an apparently healthy, albeit drunk, 47 year old man would suffer a heart attack as a result of the baton strike and push. QED not guilty.

        I’ve no doubt, however, that he will be sacked.

        p.s. Peter – I think Gadgets great – and whilst I don’t think it is canteen culture IMHO there’s nothing wrong with a bit of that every now and then.

        Cockney Copper

        May 5, 2011 at 9:58 pm

  8. I love the fact Tomlinson’s family let him sleep rough for 20 years and now they are all sniffing around crying because there is money in the offing for compensation

    What nice people.

    monty the third

    May 4, 2011 at 9:13 am

  9. Lol it’s incredible how everywhere all over the Internet there is an influx of trolls on a tuesday… Then when world of Warcraft comes back online after maintenance. The 12 year olds disappear for another week.


    May 4, 2011 at 3:05 pm

  10. monty you turd ,,,,im disgusted by anyone who jumps to the police /governments defense,but is quick to demonise the average joe on the street,,you slave brain.


    May 5, 2011 at 11:55 am

  11. Interesting comments on here.Anyone heard of innocent until proven guilty? I think he will be charged with something-not sure what-and in the trial everything will come out. I generally leap to the defence of fellow officers but i’m keeping my powder dry on this one.
    Let’s not forget several points. Firstly PC Harwood came forward and identified himself as being involved,it is unlikely he would have been revealed with the grainy footage avaliable.
    Secondly Tomlinson was a walking time bomb.The next major injury/trauma/trip over would have killed him.
    Let’s hope the grieving family donate all the compensation to the hostels where he was living for many many years.I wonder if they could have picked him out of a photo array?


    May 6, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    • I can understand your instinctive defence of a colleague but Harwood is clearly a bad apple and in the interests of all good cops he should be dealt with severely. Your words about Mr Tomlinson and his family are offensive and they demean you.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm

  12. I take your point Peter but we deal on a daily basis with people that are just a drain on society.Every time I deal with one I think to myself “is this the one that will cost me my job?”.These Jeremy Kyle contestants have nothing to lose by taking me or a colleague down and they take great delight in doing it.
    As for my comments about the family-if I am wrong then I will apologise.But I bet I wont have too.


    May 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    • Spare a sincere blog your hint of any apology.

      Elsewhere you have calculated to offend the bereaved of Smiley Culture; stooping to equally obnoxious remarks which define the individual you are.


      May 8, 2011 at 9:46 am

    • That’s what makes your job so damn tough, which is probably why you’re jaded! It’s also why good, decent, honest police officers deserve the very highest admiration.

      Peter Reynolds

      May 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm

  13. Ah Melvin there you are….have you been away for a while?
    I suppose you support Smiley Cultures drug dealing activities as well? Or just police bashing as usual?
    See you later,which blog next time? Name one you haven’t been banned by.


    May 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    • I count not banning Melvyn as a personal challenge. I’ve come very, very close but bitten my lip hard and succeeded so far. He is an obnoxious bugger, whatever your point of view but I’d miss him if he was gone!

      Peter Reynolds

      May 8, 2011 at 6:10 pm

  14. I am a good decent honest police officer,I just don’t agree with Melvin’s views. Every time an anti-police story is published up he pops. I made it clear above that I have not made my mind up about PC Harwood.
    I am realistic enough to know that in an organisation employing thousands of people that there aren’t going to be any bad ones.It just the sweeping statements that every one of us is bad gets up my nose.


    May 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    • Jaded, it seems self-evident to me that most police officers are going to be good people just as most dope smokers are!

      Peter Reynolds

      May 8, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    • Whilst you remain anonymous, I am already know sufficient to refute your claim “I am a good decent honest police officer”. My file depicts a crude, dishonest woman, ready to perjure herself for the likes of Harwood. Such corruption is readily contagious, ensuring the same is done for the corrupt in return. This long established police ‘custom’ has been its own poison. It was the quaffing from that very bowl which jaded you.


      May 9, 2011 at 7:11 am

  15. “Jaded, it seems self-evident to me that most police officers are going to be good people just as most dope smokers are!” Not up to your usual standard, Peter. A sentence embracing condescension and void of commonsense.

    I am averse to think that this opinion…or indeed any of my posts….have been untrue, distorted or unfair. To hold the view that they are obnoxious is an entitlement which I sometimes expect and which I always defend. The plain truth is a deep barb and it often hurts.

    I have no use for the blunt tools of obscenity, profanity, coarseness or crudity. Nothing cuts like the unadorned truth and I owe no apology to anyone injured by it.


    May 8, 2011 at 8:45 pm

  16. Dear oh dear, he’s back. The mental hospital must have left the front door open and he slipped out without them looking.
    He must also be a mindreader as he can tell from a few blog postings exactly what i’m like.Let’s try this one Melvin-what card am I thinking of?


    May 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    • A P45 my dear and anytime soon.


      May 9, 2011 at 7:17 pm

  17. Good answer-i’ll give you that one….unfortunately your mind-reading skills have got my gender wrong.I have mentioned it in previous posts so please update your file on me with female crossed out.


    May 9, 2011 at 8:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: