The Gooner Forum

I only found out today about Harwood's previous behaviour. What a total

Obviously the jury was also unaware. But this is the law. Previous criminal convictions and investigations cannot be mentioned during trials. This would influence juries to convict people on "previous", rather than the facts of an individual case. In other words, it prevents the police from fitting up a known criminal in order to meet crime solved/conviction targets.

I agree with this, to a degree. But serial rapists, paedophiles and various other scum are benefiting from this fairness.

Regards the witholding of information from the jury, I've been in a very similar position myself.

Having been no angel before & being up on 2 bad charges myself, my barrister argued successfuly to keep my previous away from the jury. It helped 100% as I got a not guilty on one & the other thrown out for a lack of evidence. You'd like to believe in the system, but it's flawed when the jury are 12 lay people with very limited understanding of the law. All some of them would hear is "He's done it before" - hence he must be guilty this time.

No doubt there would have been a similar legal argument prior to the Harwood case with the crown attempting to use his previous.

My own opinion is that it would have been pre-judicial in this case (& many similar) and having benefitted myself, I'm not going to argue against it.

On the whole however, the guy should not be in uniform, he is a smarmy, violent scumbag. Had the IPCC or the force taken action when given ample opportunities to address his behaviour, this wouldn't have happened & the fella would still be alive (unless liver failure had got him). But I know first hand what filth the old bill are & he was always going to get off. Fuck me, if they can shoot a fella going to work, what chance has a poor old drunk got?!

Mind you, I did find it a bit galling how the blokes family 'cared' for him so much that they let him live rough etc.

At the end of the day had he worked for a private security company like G4S it wouldn't have played out in the same way. Viewing it with the benefit of his past experiences also, it's fairly obvious that the bloke is a violent twat on a power trip that should never have been a copper in the first place, never mind been re-admitted to such a specialist unit after 'mental problems'. The fact that coppers have to put up with loads of shit from chavvy pricks all day doesn't justify smacking a harmless pissed bloke with a baton for no reason, just as this one particular cock doesn't mean that all coppers are aggressive maniacs.

That said, at the end of the day he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and not the IPCC or whoever. For me the real worries have to be about the competency of the police/CPS, not least after the piss-poor prosecution cases in the Redknapp and Terry trials. Although the Redknapp case should never have come to court, the other two should have been found guilty.

olgitgooner wrote:I only found out today about Harwood's previous behaviour. What a total

Obviously the jury was also unaware. But this is the law. Previous criminal convictions and investigations cannot be mentioned during trials. This would influence juries to convict people on "previous", rather than the facts of an individual case. In other words, it prevents the police from fitting up a known criminal in order to meet crime solved/conviction targets.

I agree with this, to a degree. But serial rapists, paedophiles and various other scum are benefiting from this fairness.

Isnt it in the law now that previous CAN be used in trials?

[quote="flash gunner"][quote="olgitgooner"]I only found out today about Harwood's previous behaviour. What a total

Obviously the jury was also unaware. But this is the law. Previous criminal convictions and investigations cannot be mentioned during trials. This would influence juries to convict people on "previous", rather than the facts of an individual case. In other words, it prevents the police from fitting up a known criminal in order to meet crime solved/conviction targets.

I agree with this, to a degree. But serial rapists, paedophiles and various other scum are benefiting from this fairness. [/quote]

Isnt it in the law now that previous [b]CAN[/b] be used in trials?[/quote]

It can be used, but usually if a defendants previous would go against him, his brief would argue successfuly that it would be pre-judicial for the jury to know about it. Correctly in my opinion.......

Would this be the wrong thread to state I was thinking of volunteering to become a special constable?

... Do yuo get one of those BIG Truncheons to swing around???

HashKads wrote:Would this be the wrong thread to state I was thinking of volunteering to become a special constable?

Emphasis being on "special".

OneBardGooner wrote: ... Do yuo get one of those BIG Truncheons to swing around???

I've already got one

DB10GOONER wrote:

HashKads wrote:Would this be the wrong thread to state I was thinking of volunteering to become a special constable?

Emphasis being on "special".

Ginger.


Has anybody on here volunteered for the Met?

Agree on what has been mainly said, the guy looked totally pissed and out of it... it didn't warrant the strong armed tactics shown.... typical that he got off.

HashKads wrote:

OneBardGooner wrote: ... Do yuo get one of those BIG Truncheons to swing around???

I've already got one

DB10GOONER wrote:

HashKads wrote:Would this be the wrong thread to state I was thinking of volunteering to become a special constable?

Emphasis being on "special".

Ginger.


Has anybody on here volunteered for the Met?

I did the inter-schools met police "panda" quiz when I was at primary school. Does that count?