"Pc Harwood is accused of hitting the newspaper seller with his baton and pushing him to the ground in actions that "inadvertently caused or contributed" to his death"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11864361

Funny how the CPS seems to have ignored this and not taken any action against this man despite there being 2 Pathology reports and CCTV in favour of a charge of Manslaughter or even Murder.

We could see the weird position of a man judged to have killed someone by an Industrial Tribunal and sacked - yet not having to face a Trial for the same issue.

I believe the Police realise that their position is untenable and that "justice" has now to be seen to be done. If that is the case then I welcome it - but wish the "Legal System" had been robust enough to deal with the Political interference which no doubt stopped any prosecution.

It does prove that there is one rule for the Police and another for the general public. If that had been you or I and we had done this to a Policeman we would be sitting in a cell right now looking at Life Imprisonment and a 20 year min sentence.

Thanks BR, from the article:

"He will face a charge of gross misconduct at a disciplinary hearing, which could be held in the next 30 days and could be conducted in public."

Who will face a misconduct charge for publicly denying that any contact took place between Tomlinson and the police, until by chance a video came to light proving that there had been?

Who will face a misconduct charge for even then trying to get The Guardian not to publish it, thus facilitating the continued suppression, denial or burial of the true story about this crime?

Who will face a misconduct charge for ordering the police to attack protesters sitting peacefully on the ground, which attack imperilled the life of every one of those protesters, just as Simon Harwood imperilled the life of Ian Tomlinson?

Who will face a misconduct charge for suborning the coroner's office to share the pathologist's report with the police, against all standard procedure for a case in which the police are not involved, as they were claiming at the time?

Who will face a misconduct charge for redacting the first pathologist's report before showing it to the family, which family had a right to see it in full, while the police had none?

Who will face a misconduct charge for omitting to inform the family of their right to attend the first autopsy?

Who will face a misconduct charge for using his public office to persuade the coroner to appoint a dodgy pathologist, who under normal rules would not have been eligible for selection because he was not part of a practice, and who had been known in the past to favour the police in his findings?

And when was it ever justice for a private body suspected of breaking our laws to face no trial other than any it wishes to place itself under?

You call it justice. I call it a very sorry excuse for justice indeed.

Best Wishes,
Jim

I agree with all posted above. Good questions, Jim. Don't hold your breath for the answers.

A couple of things from the news report puzzled me.

[PC Harwood] is also accused of using force that "was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable in the circumstances".

Isn't that assault, that the CPS could have prosecuted?

But particularly this passage (slightly edited by me)

The CPS decided not to press charges as there was "sharp disagreement between the medical experts" about the cause of death, which led to three post-mortem examinations.

The first by Dr Freddy Patel found he died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.

The second pathologist found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver.

The third examination agreed with the findings of the second test.

Dr Patel was earlier this month suspended for three months by the General Medical Council after concerns over his post-mortem examination.

So, the CPS's excuse for not prosecuting was disagreement between medical examiners. Am I being dim and missing something here? Two doctors exactly agree, the dissenter having been suspended for doing crap work, so are the CPS pinning their decision on the latter?