A licence for violence?

So PC Simon Harwood has been found not guilty by jury of the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests on the grounds, it seems, that they believed he'd used 'reasonable force'.

Having been through due process, I have to accept their verdict. But I don't have to bloody well like it. In fact, particularly given the verdict of the inquest last year into the same event which found his use of force anything but reasonable, it's difficult to see how they could come to such a conclusion. It is, frankly, a scandalous decision, particularly in the light of the now-emerging facts* that Harwood has previous incidents of aggression and disciplinary issues on his record as a police officer - more on that in a moment.

The video obtained by the Guardian clearly shows him being pushed while he's walking away from the police. He was also, it seems, struck with a baton, which ultimately caused his death just a few minutes later, due to internal bleeding. Quite how this constitutes reasonable force is beyond me, given that he had his back to the police. The use of a baton seems to be commonplace in the policing of protests which are turning violent, and it does not seem particularly discriminatory at that. Hitting somebody with a baton should be an action of absolute last resort for a police officer, not a standard way of dealing with large crowds when things get a bit nasty. Their tactics, though, seem to be getting increasingly aggressive, with kettling commonplace even if things are peaceful, for example.

This latest development seems to add weight to a fear that a police uniform affords one carte blanche to be violent, without fear of repercussion. It's particularly worrying that a jury could not see this because it seems to offer tacit approval to such tactics, as if the current age of security paranoia justifies such aggressive policing even in the minds of the people who could find themselves on the end of it.

Mr Tomlinson's family have said they'll pursue the matter through the civil courts. Though that may afford them some theoretical justice with a different verdict, it's not going to see Simon Harwood punished for what he's done. He was allowed to retire from the force on medical grounds in 2001 while still under investigation for another incident, before being re-employed by the police, initially as a civilian, and then as a copper, avoiding any further investigation. Bad enough then, that justice was not allowed to run its full course on that occasion. The system for checking applicants for the police service has since been changed.

But this time, the criminal legal process has run its course, and look at the result. Like I said, an apparent licence for violence as soon as you put a police uniform on your back, and an absolute scandal.

*The jury, of course, would not have known this during the trial, and rightly so. But it does say something about the character of a man charged with protecting the public and preserving the peace.