# G20: Getting to the truth- the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP



## e19896 (Apr 3, 2009)

There is this Ian Tomlinson RIP - thread to collate eyewitness statements and accounts i post the info of a planed protest named getting to the truth here as i hope more people will see it here is the info from http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1027







Calling for an inquiry

Over the last week across London there has been a series of demonstrations and protests against the policies and programs implemented by the G20 leaders.

We are taking to the streets to express our compassion with the family of Ian Tomlinson who tragically died during the 1 April protests at the Bank of England. We are calling for an independent public inquiry into the instances of police violence that occurred though out the week and to establish to true circumstances of his death.

We wish to communicate our disgust and anger at the violent and brutal policing of the G20 demonstrations.

The press once again created an atmosphere of fear and violence in the lead up to the protests, preemptively justifying the police violence that occurred. They also misreported and lied about the circumstances of the tragedy.  We recognise that for many communities the reality of police violence is a daily occurrence. The demonisation of communities, like the demonisation of protesters makes police violence seem normal.

As the crisis deepens and continues there will be increased resistance - from factory occupations to demonstrations, strikes and people coming together on the streets. We need to speak out now the right to defend our freedom to protest, our communities and our dignity.

Attached Files:

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/system/file_upload/2009/04/03/50/g20_poster_yellow.pdf

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/system/file_upload/2009/04/03/51/g20_truth_a5dbl_yellow.pdf


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 3, 2009)

We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.

Shit stirring post = fail.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 3, 2009)

Why's this in General?

P&P >>>>>>>>>>


----------



## nick h. (Apr 3, 2009)

Is this the right target? If there was demo and a 'get to the truth' initiative about police violence at the climate camp I'd support it.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 3, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.



Is there a recording of this we can see? Many people are claiming that this 'pelting with bottles' amounted to two plastic bottles, and that it stopped as soon as the protesters nearest to the dying man explained to the protesters behind them what was going on.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 3, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Is there a recording of this we can see? Many people are claiming that this 'pelting with bottles' amounted to two plastic bottles, and that it stopped as soon as the protesters nearest to the dying man explained to the protesters behind them what was going on.



I don't think that even the Old Bill are that cold hearted as to just let someone die.

But yes, there was footage being played on Sky News.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 3, 2009)

I thought it has already been concluded that he lived nearby and was walking home from his job and suffered a heart attack and that he had nothing to do with the demo?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 3, 2009)

He was part of the media though. The police will stop at nothing to suppress the truth.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 4, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I thought it has already been concluded that he lived nearby and was walking home from his job and suffered a heart attack and that he had nothing to do with the demo?



It was said that he lived in a hostel and worked in a Newsagent and has been homeless for many years and had a history of drink problems and was said to be divorced from his wife and had children and from a big family.

Suddenly a wife appears in the frame is it his ex or a second wife or was that information wrong in the first place?


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> It was said that he lived in a hostel and worked in a Newsagent and has been homeless for many years and had a history of drink problems and was said to be divorced from his wife and had children and from a big family.
> 
> Suddenly a wife appears in the frame is it his ex or a second wife or was that information wrong in the first place?



There does appear to be at least one wife involved, though whether its the same one as mentioned in this article remains to be seen.  

As for the rest of the info about Tomlinson you have given, aside from him living in the hostel this is all news to me - do you have any source for it?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.
> 
> Shit stirring post = fail.



You know for sure that's what you saw?


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 4, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Is there a recording of this we can see?



there has to be images about with all the cameras that were there but posting a video of someone as they die on the internet so people can squabble over the fragments would be pretty fucked up.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 4, 2009)

agricola said:


> There does appear to be at least one wife involved, though whether its the same one as mentioned in this article remains to be seen.
> 
> As for the rest of the info about Tomlinson you have given, aside from him living in the hostel this is all news to me - do you have any source for it?



I read it The Times iirc, about him having a history of a drink problem and working in a newsagents.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 4, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I thought it has already been concluded that he lived nearby and was walking home from his job and suffered a heart attack and that he had nothing to do with the demo?



It was said that he lived in a hostel and worked in a Newsagent and has been homeless for many years and had a history of drink problems and was said to be divorced from his wife and had children and from a big family.

Suddenly a wife appears in the frame is it his ex or a second wife or was that information wrong in the first place?


From what we know Ian was kettled willingly or unwillingly, he had every opportunity to leave the pen as I did but yet he chose to hang around the RSB troubled area and yet there were other areas he could had chosen to hang around if he didn't want trouble. It is said he had fallen forward towards the area where the police dogs were. There were three in total as I saw them, they were brought in to help clear the people inside the RSB building and were later used to help defend the police lines. It is also said that the police moved forward together with the dogs causing Ian to fall banging his head as the crowd turn to get away.

In regards to the comment of "He on his way home" was at a later stage after he was brought out of the kettled area and was seen to "get up" and some say that he (If it's him) tried to get back inside the kettled area but was turned away, it maybe here that the Police told him to go home, It could had been that he was on his way home or that he was looking to get back inside the Kettled area. He collapsed a second time and died of a heart attack 200 yards further away.


I don't like what the Police are doing here and specially when the police woman helped to take down the messages of "support".


----------



## well red (Apr 5, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.



You can't have seen this "live on Sky News" because it didn't happen!


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> From what we know Ian was kettled willingly or unwillingly, he had every opportunity to leave the pen as I did but yet he chose to hang around the RSB troubled area and yet there were other areas he could had chosen to hang around if he didn't want trouble.


There was certainly no opportunity to leave the kettle earlier.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 5, 2009)

Within hours of this man's death the BBC is stating as fact that it was natural causes.

Next OB wade in with 'it appears to be natural causes'.

Then OB state that the outcome of the post mortem is a heart attack.

Where's any word from the pathologist? Will we hear from a coroner? These are the two people who will tell the truth as to what happened. They will say if the heart attack was a result of a bop to the head from OB or not.

Until these people speak, the BBC & OB's words are just spin and smear, same as with JCdM. And I have the same uneasy feeling that I had when he was killed.

However if Jack Straw gets his way I'm sure that Ian Tomlinson's inquest will fall under the new legislation; we can't be told why he died to save us from finding out that the state was up to no good again. Closed inquests are for our own good, us fucking plebs.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I don't think that even the Old Bill are that cold hearted as to just let someone die.



No, quite right - i mean it's not as if people die _inside_ police stations, is it?


----------



## big eejit (Apr 5, 2009)

Police 'assaulted' bystander who died during G20 protests

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson


----------



## maomao (Apr 5, 2009)

If there was any film of 'pelting' with bottles do you not think it would have been shown round the clock on the news? I'm sure there was a plastic bottle or two flying about but the absolute dearth of information apart from an initial smear makes it look like Menezes all over again to me.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2009)

Not only that, but presumably there'd be loads of empty bottles on the ground in the photos. Plus shots of police 'ducking' etc.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 5, 2009)

big eejit said:


> Police 'assaulted' bystander who died during G20 protests
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson



So it looks like the truth will be in the CCTV footage then... if it hasn't been accidentally-on-purpose erased


----------



## lights.out.london (Apr 5, 2009)

e19896 said:


> There is this Ian Tomlinson RIP - thread to collate eyewitness statements and accounts i post the info of a planed protest named getting to the truth here as i hope more people will see it here is the info from http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1027
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm embarrassed that 'radicals' would sink so low as to use this man's death for a 'cause'.

Thread of fail.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 5, 2009)

You don't think that police aggression should be campaigned against?

How odd.


----------



## lights.out.london (Apr 5, 2009)

Of course. 

Kinda struggling to blame this fella's heart attack on police brutality, or have missed something? Sad but true - folk drop dead on the streets of London everyday.l


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 5, 2009)

Yes, you've missed something
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson


----------



## lights.out.london (Apr 5, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, you've missed something
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson



I've read that.

Let's see the CCTV footage, eh?


----------



## Matt S (Apr 5, 2009)

So, l.o.l., you reckon we should just leave it to the police to impartially and neutrally investigate what happened? De Menezes ring a bell?

Matt


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 5, 2009)

So you've seen that, yet still think there shouldn't be any outcry over the police's actions? 

[eta]
Oh yeah, I forgot, you're an "anarchist" that works in the city


----------



## lights.out.london (Apr 5, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> So you've seen that, yet still think there shouldn't be any outcry over the police's actions?
> 
> [eta]
> Oh yeah, I forgot, you're an "anarchist" that works in the city



I'd like to see CCTV footage of the alleged assault on him.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 5, 2009)

lights.out.london said:


> I'd like to see CCTV footage of the alleged assault on him.



I'd like to see the CCTV footage of demonstrators "pelting" the police with bottles while they try to revive him.


----------



## lights.out.london (Apr 5, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I'd like to see the CCTV footage of demonstrators "pelting" the police with bottles while they try to revive him.



Absolutely agree with you. Let's make sure 'our' side of the street is clean and beyond reproach, before taking on Plod


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 5, 2009)

Er, no. If an innocent man has been killed and police action may be to blame, why is anybody else required to prove not just themselves,but their "side", spotless before considering it worthy of investigation?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 5, 2009)

lights.out.london said:


> I'd like to see CCTV footage of the alleged assault on him.



This is a strange thing to say. Why would we assume that an incident of any kind has necessarily been captured on CCTV? Does CCTV cover all areas all of the time?


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 5, 2009)

CCTV is like Macavity's Cat


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> So you've seen that, yet still think there shouldn't be any outcry over the police's actions?
> 
> [eta]
> Oh yeah, I forgot, you're an "anarchist" that works in the city



Any outcry over this (ie: this incident, not the handling of the demo generally) should wait until more facts are known / the IPCC issues a preliminary report.


----------



## Corax (Apr 5, 2009)

Now the Hate M*il are running with it too 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-violently-attacked-riot-police.html?ITO=1490


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 5, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> This is a strange thing to say. Why would we assume that an incident of any kind has necessarily been captured on CCTV? Does CCTV cover all areas all of the time?




In the City Of London?  Yes.  Basically it does.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

agricola said:


> Any outcry over this (ie: this incident, not the handling of the demo generally) should wait until more facts are known / the IPCC issues a preliminary report.


I bet that's *exactly* the same thing you'd suggest if it was one of your colleagues?

Yesterday, a CP Inspector told me I was "making up stories", "just want to blame the police", and should "stop my lying", after I'd only asked him what he was basing his version of events on, which he was angrily expounding into some poor girl's ear.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 5, 2009)

agricola said:


> Any outcry over this (ie: this incident, not the handling of the demo generally) should wait until more facts are known / the IPCC issues a preliminary report.



Problem is, past experience suggests that the government/police PR machine will want to establish their preferred version of events firmly in the public mind without waiting for the verdict. 

How many people today still think that for example the unfortunate Mr Menezes was 'wearing a bulky jacket, trailing wires and acting suspiciously'? 

How many people are going to recall the more or less imaginary 'hail of thrown bottles' and think that was the cause of this unfortunate guy's death?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2009)

10 days to the Hillsborough 20 years anniversary.


----------



## girasol (Apr 5, 2009)

Corax said:


> Now the Hate M*il are running with it too
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-violently-attacked-riot-police.html?ITO=1490



 I'm shocked!  Now they'll really have to investigate it!


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2009)

winjer said:


> I bet that's *exactly* the same thing you'd suggest if it was one of your colleagues?
> 
> Yesterday, a CP Inspector told me I was "making up stories", "just want to blame the police", and should "stop my lying", after I'd only asked him what he was basing his version of events on, which he was angrily expounding into some poor girl's ear.



It *is* what I would suggest if it was one of my colleagues - though for that matter I would prefer an IPCC investigation and full inquest into it anyway, since even if it has happened as initially described by Police there will always be people who will claim a cover-up has occured. 

What that inspector said is his business, not mine.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> 10 days to the Hillsborough 20 years anniversary.


8 more and it's the 30th anniversary of Blair Peach's murder.


----------



## chico enrico (Apr 5, 2009)

cesare said:


> Not only that, but presumably there'd be loads of empty bottles on the ground in the photos. Plus shots of police 'ducking' etc.



indeed. last wednesday was possibly the only demo i have been at over the past 25+ years years where i can honestly say that the police were at no point 'pelted' with anything, bottles or otherwise. to say they were is simply bullshit.


----------



## chico enrico (Apr 5, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> In the City Of London?  Yes.  Basically it does.



not to mention the extra CCTV & rooftop surveillance cameras installed specially in the build up to G20. absolutely impossible for it not to have been.


----------



## albionism (Apr 5, 2009)

Yes i would imagine the whole of the City is covered by CCTV 24 hours a day every day.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 5, 2009)

except for the story doing the rounds last week that all central london cctv would need to be switched off cos of some legal chicanery. peculiar as always,


----------



## yield (Apr 6, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> except for the story doing the rounds last week that all central london cctv would need to be switched off cos of some legal chicanery. peculiar as always,



Just Westminster.

Image row prompts CCTV switch-off
BBC. 30 March 2009


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

ok. still seems slightly strange that it could all have taken place off camera.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 6, 2009)

That wouldn't affect Westminster much at all. Every fucking square inch of the borough is covered by private cameras, the footage from which can certainly be grabbed as evidence. I've tried to play "Metal Gear Solid" in Westminster, staying out of view of every camera for as long as possible, and you can go about five metres before game over.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

Still, the switch-off story is extremely convenient and if it turns out that this poor guy really was killed by the cops, will provide a more believable excuse than 'all the cameras just spontaneously stopped working' when they come to exonerate the cops of all misdeeds.


----------



## bezzer (Apr 6, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> How many people today still think that for example the unfortunate Mr Menezes was 'wearing a bulky jacket, trailing wires and acting suspiciously'?
> 
> How many people are going to recall the more or less imaginary 'hail of thrown bottles' and think that was the cause of this unfortunate guy's death?



Yes Bernie, unfortunately we live in very cynical times! the police moved very fast to get their story out first, and it stinks of something unpleasent! need an inquiry into this! and if anything should emerge, then the policemen/policewomen need to be held to account and prosecuted for murder. To much background information and not enough facts!


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2009)

The photos in the Observer today are pretty damning. They show Tomlinson on the floor in front of a row of cops. No flying bottles can be seen and the only person helping him up is another protester.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

but isn't that the point? within the city of london, it is questionable whether there actually is film footage, because of the westminster blackout.... of course,,,,


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

After all, we wouldn't want to let a little thing like video evidence of cop involvement in the death of an innocent citizen damage police morale now would we? 

So of course the cameras weren't working and the police will be exonerated of any possible involvement in the poor guys death. It would be extremely naive to expect any other outcome whatever actually happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2009)

editor said:


> The photos in the Observer today are pretty damning. They show Tomlinson on the floor in front of a row of cops. No flying bottles can be seen and the only person helping him up is another protester.




The bottles put him, there. Hillsborough 9 days day aways from the 20 year memorial. Have things changed?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 6, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> but isn't that the point? within the city of london, it is questionable whether there actually is film footage, because of the westminster blackout.... of course,,,,



city of london != westminster 

i'm not with you


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

city of london cops only police the square mile. westminster are a much bigger area.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 6, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> city of london cops only police the square mile. westminster are a much bigger area.



But city of london is not the same area as Westminster, they're 2 separate local authorities. CCTV within CoL will be the responsibility of CoL, not westminster.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> But city of london is not the same area as Westminster, they're 2 separate local authorities. CCTV within CoL will be the responsibility of CoL, not westminster.


yes, that's why my reply to fridgemagnet says as much dur!


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 6, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yes, that's why my reply to fridgemagnet says as much dur!



no need for the 'dur'. that's not how it read to me, that's all i'm saying.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 6, 2009)

Fine, fine, by Westminster CCTV I mean CCTV in Westminster that's relevant here, move on.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> no need for the 'dur'. that's not how it read to me, that's all i'm saying.


cool daddio cool  prolly need to lay my head down innit.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Still, the switch-off story is extremely convenient and if it turns out that this poor guy really was killed by the cops, will provide a more believable excuse than 'all the cameras just spontaneously stopped working' when they come to exonerate the cops of all misdeeds.



The switch off story was only Westminster. They'd find it hard to put forward a 'CCTV stopped working' angle in the City when there's a bloody great press photo from the inside of the CCTV monitoring centre.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

> Brazilian officials said they were told some of the CCTV footage did not exist.


 source


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

Just like Macavity's Cat, the CCTV's not there.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> source



relevant, but old.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

editor said:


> The photos in the Observer today are pretty damning. They show Tomlinson on the floor in front of a row of cops. No flying bottles can be seen and the only person helping him up is another protester.



Are they online anywhere?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

Photo of Mr Tomlinson.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 6, 2009)

Click for better image.





















Give Police plenty of time to rewrite their statement...


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

yield said:


> Just Westminster.


And only a third of the borough's own cameras, none of the private ones.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

editor said:


> No flying bottles can be seen and the only person helping him up is another protester.


That's not the spot where he ended up on the ground for the second time though - where the bottles are alleged


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 6, 2009)

As soon as I heard the news story i figured that it was the mets 'instant bullshit cover story dept' - natural causes, police not at fault, brave police tried to save man whilst being attacekd by violent mob.

And lo and behold within 48 hours it turns out that what was being reported as fact by all the media turns out to be bullshit. 
The bbc and co consistantly take police statements about deaths at face value event though they consistantly lie - from blair peach to steven waldorf to cherie groce to hilsborough to harry stanley to charles de menzies. 

And whoever said that people could leave the kettle at any time is talking utter cobblers.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Are they online anywhere?


Don't seem to be, they show the scene just before this video was taken:


Ian Tomlinson is briefly visible on the right at 0:05. This is the South end of Royal Exchange Buildings, which is on Cornhill to the West of Birchin Lane / St Michael's Alley, where he is said to have collapsed.

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=51...al%2520exchange%2520buildings%252C%2520london


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2009)

I just watched this video, in which the police appear to be refusing to move to allow an ambulance through.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Just like Macavity's Cat, the CCTV's not there.




The CCTV is never there.

When a poster on here was stitched up for attempted murder the CCTV footage "got lost".  When an acquaintance of mine was stitched up for attempted murder the two police video cameras recording the day got damaged (one was "dropped", the other "got wet in the rain").  If it wasn't for a protester videoing the event the cops would have been believed in the court instead of the case being dismissed and the judge calling the pigs liars and criminals.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 6, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I just watched this video, in which the police appear to be refusing to move to allow an ambulance through.



Classy stuff from the pigs there. A really top notch display of professionalism. CBE's all round I say.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

That lot are Transport Police.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

winjer said:


> That lot are Transport Police.



Well, they should know all about ambulances then.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I just watched this video, in which the police appear to be refusing to move to allow an ambulance through.



in fairness, i was there for that bit, and they did stop the ambulance for a while, but then someone very senior looking came and screamed at them to let it through

which was when i realised something must have gone very tits up


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 6, 2009)

smokedout said:


> in fairness, i was there for that bit, and they did stop the ambulance for a while, but then someone very senior looking came and screamed at them to let it through
> 
> which was when i realised something must have gone very tits up



You'd like to think that even the least senior police officer in the land would know to let an ambulance with flashing blue lights on top get past. You know, like everyone else in the country would. Makes all this talk of 'public safety' look a bit half arsed really doesn't it?


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

I was at the corner of Throgmorton Street and Old Broad Street at about 2pm, some street medics (not cops) and ordinary cops were helping someone with a leg injury, she was told to make her own way to Monument or Mansion House if she wanted an ambulance.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

To make a complaint against the police call IPCC 08453 002 002, London City police 02076012222, Met Authority 02072020202. For items lost during G20 'police riots' call 02076063110 - If you don't have a complaint call them anyway for a chat, they don't have anything better to do now they haven't got innocent people to beat up :

Have fun:


----------



## where to (Apr 6, 2009)

some news on CCTV 
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/crime/death-at-g20-police-silent-on-assault-reports-$1285968.htm



> Just after 19:00 BST Mr Tomlinson is seen on CCTV walking up King William Street and approaching a police cordon opposite the Bank of England. It is thought the 47-year-old wanted to get through and continue his walk home from work, however, police refused to let him do so.
> 
> A short time later, Mr Tomlinson is seen on CCTV walking into Royal Exchange Passage.
> 
> ...


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 6, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Click for better image.
> 
> <IMGs snipped>
> 
> Give Police plenty of time to rewrite their statement...



Cheers for putting them up, bunny. Interesting reading


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 6, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I just watched this video, in which the police appear to be refusing to move to allow an ambulance through.



fucking photographers seem to be getting the way too.........


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

*Police 'admit contact' with man killed at G20 protest​*
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has confirmed police had contact with a man who died at the G20 protests on Wednesday, shortly before his death.

Earlier in the day City of London police had refused to be drawn on reports of eyewitness statements declaring Ian Tomlinson, 47, had been assaulted by officers just before he collapsed on Wednesday.

A statement from the IPCC this afternoon confirmed it was now investigating reports of "contact" between officers and Mr Tomlinson minutes before his collapse in central London.

Just after 19:00 BST Mr Tomlinson is seen on CCTV walking up King William Street and approaching a police cordon opposite the Bank of England. It is thought the 47-year-old wanted to get through and continue his walk home from work, however, police refused to let him do so.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/crime/death-at-g20-police-silent-on-assault-reports-$1285968.htm

IN WORDS THEY KILLED HIM:


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

e19896 said:


> IN WORDS THEY KILLED HIM:



Of course thats what that article says.


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Of course thats what that article says.



No.  But probably true nonetheless.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 6, 2009)

Londonist said:
			
		

> And the final problem with kettles: people get hurt. We still have to see whether the police did play a role in Ian Tomlinson's death, but how can they expect to wade into crowds (of mainly peaceful protesters and bystanders, let's not forget) with batons, or dogs, and not cause injury? Another little discussed tactic of a kettle is to squeeze protesters into an increasingly small space, until there's no room to move or - sometimes - breathe. It's a miracle nobody's ever got seriously hurt at one of these things.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2009)

BBC article usual shite

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7986192.stm


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

e19896 said:


> *Just after 19:00 BST Mr Tomlinson is seen on CCTV walking up King William Street and approaching a police cordon opposite the Bank of England. It is thought the 47-year-old wanted to get through and continue his walk home from work, however, police refused to let him do so.
> 
> http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/crime/death-at-g20-police-silent-on-assault-reports-$1285968.htm
> 
> IN WORDS THEY KILLED HIM:​*


*

How is anybody to blame for a person having a heart attack?​*


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> No.  But probably true nonetheless.



Yes, after all its not as if overweight working-class men over 45 are at risk of having heart attacks.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> How is anybody to blame for a person having a heart attack?


erm, you don't think that maybe getting pushed to the ground and beaten up by the police in an unprovoked attack a matter of minutes before having a heart attack could have had anything to do with the heart attack itself?

also if it actually was a heart attack then the fact that the witness who's friend was originally giving him first aid has reported that the police 'medics' who arrived at the scene were not administering CPR also looks pretty sus. Either it was a heart attack and they should have been giving CPR, or it was the head injury from being attacked that caused the collapse, and the heart attack happened later, presumably as a direct result of the head injury... either way the police at the very least contributed to his death.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, after all its not as if overweight working-class men over 45 are at risk of having heart attacks.


minutes after being attacked by the police... coincidence my arse


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> erm, you don't think that maybe getting pushed to the ground and beaten up by the police in an unprovoked attack a matter of minutes before having a heart attack could have had anything to do with the heart attack itself?



I don't buy that for one second


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> erm, you don't think that maybe getting pushed to the ground and beaten up by the police in an unprovoked attack a matter of minutes before having a heart attack could have had anything to do with the heart attack itself?



If thats what happened, perhaps.  However it remains to be seen if that is what has actually happened.



> also if it actually was a heart attack then the fact that the witness who's friend was originally giving him first aid has reported that the police 'medics' who arrived at the scene were not administering CPR also looks pretty sus. Either it was a heart attack and they should have been giving CPR, or it was the head injury from being attacked that caused the collapse, and the heart attack happened later, presumably as a direct result of the head injury... either way the police at the very least contributed to his death.



It would, if only it were true.  There is some evidence that the Police medics actually did try and save the blokes life - admittedly the photo below doesnt show them doing CPR (though other photos might) but it does show him placed in the position for them to do CPR and with a tube in ready to go:


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, after all its not as if overweight working-class men over 45 are at risk of having heart attacks.



Especially when faced with been forced against his will to be amongst thousands of screaming(some violent) protestors because they can't be trusted not to cause havoc.

I think my heart would be playing fuck in that situation aswell.


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


>



Oh what a nice picture


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> the police 'medics' who arrived at the scene were not administering CPR also looks pretty sus



But to the credit of the protestors they threw bottles.......oh wait that's not good is it


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> But to the credit of the protestors they threw bottles.......oh wait that's not good is it



You are not being particularly helpful to the thread, by the way.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> I don't buy that for one second


which bit?

the bit about him being attacked by the police minutes before he collapsed, as wtinessed by 3 people so far....





> All three said they saw him at Royal Exchange Buildings, a pedestrian area 200ft from where he eventually fell. They variously described seeing him being pushed and thrown to the floor by an officer, struck with a police baton and hitting his head against the pavement.
> 
> The witnesses - Anna Branthwaite, 36, a freelance photographer from south London, Kezia Rolfe, 27, a researcher from Stoke Newington, north London, and Amiri Howe, 24, an actor from west London - all said the incident took place moments after violent clashes between police and protesters.


[guardian]
CCTV cameras also put him in the exact location and time that these 3 witnesses say they saw him being assaulted.

or do you mean about the assault contributing to the heart attack?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> You are not being particularly helpful to the thread, by the way.



The Sun printed it, so it must be true right?


----------



## Matt S (Apr 6, 2009)

I know one of the eyewitnesses, and trust her absolutely and implicitly. If she said he was pushed violently by the police and struck his head, that's what happened.

Matt


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> But to the credit of the protestors they threw bottles.......oh wait that's not good is it


one or 2 plastic bottles thrown at the police because they were mistaken for being a police snatch squad, with the bottle throwers immediately told to stop  by other protestors because they were medics.

as stated by multiple witnesses.

don't let the facts get in the way of you spouting bullshit though eh


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> which bit?
> 
> the bit about him being attacked by the police minutes before he collapsed, as wtinessed by 3 people so far....[guardian]
> CCTV cameras also put him in the exact location and time that these 3 witnesses say they saw him being assaulted.
> ...



But i'm a bit confused as witness reports also say he was not assualted.I think you are maybe a tad biased?

I prefer to believe the stress of the whole situation MAY have caused his heart attack!

LOL I notice you chose not to quote that post


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> I prefer to believe the stress of the whole situation MAY have caused his heart attack!


unbelievable.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> the bit about him being attacked by the police minutes before he collapsed, as wtinessed by 3 people so far....



It is worth noting that the three accounts given are, in the fragments that have been published in the press, not entirely supportive of each other.  Its also worth noting that, again based on press reports thus far, it is only 3 people have come forward to say that they saw him being assaulted (and that those identifications were based on recognition after the event).  There are also quite a few photos in the public domain of Tomlinson which do not support the allegations made, though of course no doubt every person who took photos of the entire day is no doubt going through their photos as I write this.

I do think there should be a full IPCC investigation and full inquest into this btw.


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> which bit?
> 
> the bit about him being attacked by the police minutes before he collapsed, as wtinessed by 3 people so far....[guardian]
> CCTV cameras also put him in the exact location and time that these 3 witnesses say they saw him being assaulted.
> ...



And the freelance photographer who witnessed this happening was too gob smacked to take pictures then?They managed to get pictures of him as he lay dying but not of him being assualted?

Sorry,I don't believe


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> How is anybody to blame for a person having a heart attack?



A blow to his back by a riot shield will soon take a wind of you that's for sure and it would certainly won't do much good to the heart.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

8:58pm UK, Monday April 06, 2009
A man who collapsed and died from a heart attack during the G20 London protests was pushed back by police minutes earlier, witnesses have told independent investigators.

Police and protesters at G20 demonstrations in London

G20 demonstrations in London last week

Ian Tomlinson, 47, was blocked from passing through a police cordon as he attempted to walk home from work at a newsagent, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said.

He was caught on several CCTV cameras walking up King William Street where he was confronted by uniformed officers shortly before 7.30pm last Wednesday.

A short time later, he walked into Royal Exchange Passage where witnesses said he was caught up in a crowd and pushed back by more police officers in the City of London.

Mr Tomlinson then walked on to Cornhill where he collapsed and was helped by bystanders and police medics before being carried away on a stretcher.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Ian-Tomlinson-Who-Died-From-Heart-Attack-In-G20-London-Protests-Was-Pushed-Back-By-Police-Earlier/Article/200904115256879


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> If thats what happened, perhaps.  However it remains to be seen if that is what has actually happened.
> 
> 
> 
> It would, if only it were true.  There is some evidence that the Police medics actually did try and save the blokes life - admittedly the photo below doesnt show them doing CPR (though other photos might) but it does show him placed in the position for them to do CPR and with a tube in ready to go:


ah, a higher res version of that picture.

I don't doubt the police medics would have performed cpr at some point, but how long did it take them to start it, and would it not maybe have helped if they had maybe spoken with the original first aider who'd been treating him to find out what his condition was / what treatment she'd been administering etc.

you know, like proper medics and first aiders would do.

also, one of the 6 of them talking to the ambulance dispatcher might have been a good idea as well... maybe they could have helped to prevent the ambluance getting stuck at police lines had they not been such ignorant pricks about it.



> Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. "Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to 'move along'.", said Peter Apps. "Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition."
> 
> The first aider, who did not wish to be named, said "The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who'd called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused."
> 
> Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added "we didn't see them [the police] perform CPR."



tbf though, none of my many many professional, protest and free party related dealings with the police would have led me to expect anything better from the police.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> Especially when faced with been forced against his will to be amongst thousands



Only flawed by him being outside the cordon.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> And the freelance photographer who witnessed this happening was too gob smacked to take pictures then?They managed to get pictures of him as he lay dying but not of him being assualted?
> 
> Sorry,I don't believe


maybe they were also legging it from the police at the time and therefore were in no position to take photographs. Or do you think photographers have some magic invisible forcefield that protects them from police batons so they can continue to take pictures undisturbed?

bear in mind also that there'd have been people getting pushed over and smacked round the head all over the street, so it's not that surprising that nobody got a picture of this particular assault.


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, after all its not as if overweight working-class men over 45 are at risk of having heart attacks.



I see you're still keeping an open mind about it, and not at all pushing the company line.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> ah, a higher res version of that picture.
> 
> I don't doubt the police medics would have performed cpr at some point, but how long did it take them to start it, and would it not maybe have helped if they had maybe spoken with the original first aider who'd been treating him to find out what his condition was / what treatment she'd been administering etc.
> 
> you know, like proper medics and first aiders would do.



They *may* have done that.  Look, the story as reported by yourself has gone from "they didnt do CPR" to "they may have done CPR but it was too late" when faced with actual evidence of them doing CPR-like activites.  One also notes that your reports do not mention the first aiders who were "pushed away" by police doing CPR either - which either suggests they didnt know how to do it (*if it was required, one imagines the LAS dispatcher would have told them how), or it wasnt needed at the time (either because he was still breathing / still had a pulse).




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> also, one of the 6 of them talking to the ambulance dispatcher might have been a good idea as well... maybe they could have helped to prevent the ambluance getting stuck at police lines had they not been such ignorant pricks about it.



Did the ambulance actually get stuck at police lines (not according to e1986s link - as the collapse took place outside the cordon)?  Also, why did they need to speak to the LAS dispatcher?  Police dont do this normally, as we have a direct computer (via the CAD system) and phone link to the LAS and would have made sure that an ambulance had been called with the info of what was wrong with Tomlinson - and the officers sent were trained and equipped medics.  Its entirely possible that the officers have more paramedic training and experience than the dispatcher did, and thats even if that part of the incident happened.




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> tbf though, none of my many many professional, protest and free party related dealings with the police would have led me to expect anything better from the police.



Which of course will not have affected how you view this in the slightest.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

winjer said:


> I see you're still keeping an open mind about it, and not at all pushing the company line.



Sorry, is that not true then?  Cops murdered him then, clearly.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> It is worth noting that the three accounts given are, in the fragments that have been published in the press, not entirely supportive of each other.  Its also worth noting that, again based on press reports thus far, it is only 3 people have come forward to say that they saw him being assaulted (and that those identifications were based on recognition after the event).


actually, the fact the statements don't match precisely makes it much more likely that they are true IMO.

it indicates clearly that these are 3 witnesses truthfully recounting what they witnessed, as opposed to 3 witnesses who've sat together to discuss it first and make sure they got their stories straight.

ie these are not coppers who decide collectively what the story is going to be, to make sure that their stories all match perfectly and corroborate each other despite being utter bullshit.

also - recognition after the event? you mean like every conviction that's ever been based on witnesses coming forward after seeing crime stoppers, or a police appeal for witnesses?



agricola said:


> There are also quite a few photos in the public domain of Tomlinson which do not support the allegations made, though of course no doubt every person who took photos of the entire day is no doubt going through their photos as I write this.


which photos would these be?



agricola said:


> I do think there should be a full IPCC investigation and full inquest into this btw.


good. fwiw, I get the feeling you're one of the better coppers around. I'm not ACAB at all, I've spent entire weekend sat in event control rooms with some fairly decent coppers (though in fairness they've also proven to be pretty fucking useless when it came to dealing with an emergency and almost cause someone to die by sending the ambulance to the wrong entrance... but I digress). I've also seen exactly how the met operate in these kind of situations, and in my personal and professional opinion, this has been on the cards for a long time.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, after all its not as if overweight working-class men over 45 are at risk of having heart attacks.



Equally though, it's not as if the cops weren't hitting and knocking over plenty of other people in that vicinity at that time.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> And the freelance photographer who witnessed this happening was too gob smacked to take pictures then?They managed to get pictures of him as he lay dying but not of him being assualted?
> 
> Sorry,I don't believe



One is a freelance photographer, and as said people being hit all over the place, ive been told one is very good at what i do protest and football match photography not easy in any given circumstance due to movement, in this circumstance though i was not there i can say in all probality you would not have got the image of Ian being smacked, but all cameras would have turned to a Ian on the ground, as this becomes what you do this is why there are images of him at this time.

From what i have been told by e mail and in person he was hit by the police and this has been given over to the right people, seems from a non news story this is fast becomeing a big one and due to presure, and i know those involved it aint a politcal point being settaled here, a man is dead and in my mind and thoughts killed by the actions of the police on that day, and for me this truth needs to out, for me Ian derserves at least this he was killed and those who did this need to be hold to account, as simple as.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> actually, the fact the statements don't match precisely makes it much more likely that they are true IMO.
> 
> it indicates clearly that these are 3 witnesses truthfully recounting what they witnessed, as opposed to 3 witnesses who've sat together to discuss it first and make sure they got their stories straight.
> 
> ...



The point I was trying to make is that we arent reading the statements, we are reading (presumably severely) edited highlights of the statements, with the edit made by a third party in a newspaper report who may well have their own take on events / pressures to consider.  

As for "recognition after the event", stuff like Crimestoppers and police appeals for witnesses actually has an official ID, usually based on witness albums or other ID procedures, that takes place after the initial ID is made by someone watching Crimewatch / reading the paper etc.  Police appeals also rarely contain everything about an incident - but these IDs seem not to have such safeguards.




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> which photos would these be?



All the photos that have currently been released, none of which show Tomlinson being assaulted by police.  Of these, probably this is the most relevant to the allegations made:







The photo appears to be of Tomlinson outside the Royal Exchange, where the assault is alleged to have happened.  Of course it doesnt show Tomlinson being assaulted either, but perhaps it is significant that the person who took it (assuming that the person who took it is the same person whose name is on it) is not one of the three people who have been identified as having provided details to the IPCC?  (that said, no doubt they will, if they havent already, be speaking to him shortly).




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> good. fwiw, I get the feeling you're one of the better coppers around. I'm not ACAB at all, I've spent entire weekend sat in event control rooms with some fairly decent coppers (though in fairness they've also proven to be pretty fucking useless when it came to dealing with an emergency and almost cause someone to die by sending the ambulance to the wrong entrance... but I digress). I've also seen exactly how the met operate in these kind of situations, and in my personal and professional opinion, this has been on the cards for a long time.



Thanks for that first bit, though its increasingly clear that the IPCC cannot do anything other than conduct a full inquiry given the circumstances and reporting.


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

e19896 said:


> for me Ian derserves at least this.



On first name terms eh

Quite disgusting though using this mans name in an attempt to gain support for your cause and let's be honest that's what your doing is it not?


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

Why are you not rallying the troops to bring to justice the murderers of everyone that is killed in the UK?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> On first name terms eh
> 
> Quite disgusting though using this mans name in an attempt to gain support for your cause and let's be honest that's what your doing is it not?



http://hamishcampbell.com/2009/04/interview-with-two-eyewitnesses-of-g20.html


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Did the ambulance actually get stuck at police lines (not according to e1986s link - as the collapse took place outside the cordon)?


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Yes, that one and a half minute youtube clip that features all of forty-five seconds of ambulance conclusively demonstrates that the delay caused resulted in Tomlinsons death.

edit:  indeed, e1986s link actually has two people saying that the ambulances went through police lines - not that they were delayed.


----------



## badco (Apr 6, 2009)

e19896 said:


> http://hamishcampbell.com/2009/04/interview-with-two-eyewitnesses-of-g20.html



Why have you edited your original post?

Anyway I was going to ask you why you're taking the moral highground in this particular instance when you seem to hold human life in such low regard as is highlighted in this post

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8804099&postcount=93


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> The point I was trying to make is that we arent reading the statements, we are reading (presumably severely) edited highlights of the statements, with the edit made by a third party in a newspaper report who may well have their own take on events / pressures to consider.


ok, but the edited highlights of all 3 witnesses state that he was attacked by a police officer.



> Photographer Anna Branthwaite said: "I can remember seeing Ian Tomlinson. He was rushed from behind by a riot officer with a helmet and shield two or three minutes before he collapsed." Branthwaite, an experienced press photographer, has made a statement to the IPCC.
> 
> Another independent statement supports allegations of police violence. Amiri Howe, 24, recalled seeing Mr Tomlinson being hit "near the head" with a police baton. Howe took one of a sequence of photographs that show a clearly dazed Mr Tomlinson being helped by a bystander.
> 
> ...





agricola said:


> As for "recognition after the event", stuff like Crimestoppers and police appeals for witnesses actually has an official ID, usually based on witness albums or other ID procedures, that takes place after the initial ID is made by someone watching Crimewatch / reading the paper etc.  Police appeals also rarely contain everything about an incident - but these IDs seem not to have such safeguards.


ok, but at least one of these witnesses also has photographs he took of Tomlinson immediately after the incident, so I can't see how anyone could even think about trying to claim it was mistaken identity.





agricola said:


> All the photos that have currently been released, none of which show Tomlinson being assaulted by police.  Of these, probably this is the most relevant to the allegations made:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm utterly bemused that you've taken a photo of the guy lying on the floor at the feet of a group of riot police, in the location that the witnesses are saying he had been attacked by riot police and pushed to the floor, as being evidence that he wasn't assaulted

3 independent witnesses, photo's of him on the floor at the feet of a group of riot police... looks pretty clear to me that this attack did happen as stated.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> Why are you not rallying the troops to bring to justice the murderers of everyone that is killed in the UK?



Whilst I'm not keen on using this bloke's death as ammunition for any campaign (although it's worth noting that the police were the first to do so in this case, using it to prop up their dubious claims about violence from protestors) it's important that there is pressure on the authorities to find out exactly what happened. Anyone familliar with police 'public order' tactics will see how they can potentially cause serious harm, either from direct assault with batons etc or by detaining people for long periods without food and water or access to medication/medical treatment. If Mr Tomlinson's death was contributed to by the actions of the police then it's vital that this is known, so that those responsible can be held accountable for their actions and more importantly so there can be a serious rethink of how the police behave in these situations.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

badco said:


> Why have you edited your original post?
> 
> Anyway I was going to ask you why you're taking the moral highground in this particular instance when you seem to hold human life in such low regard as is highlighted in this post
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8804099&postcount=93


one was a baby that died of natural causes, the other was a man who all the evidence is pointing to having died as a direct result of police actions.

I hope you're not suggesting we should be campaigning to illiminate death entirely? I think that'd be a tad unrealistic a demand even for me and enumbers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, that one and a half minute youtube clip that features all of forty-five seconds of ambulance conclusively demonstrates that the delay caused resulted in Tomlinsons death.



Nobody is saying that. What is clear from that video is that an ambulance was delayed by a police cordon. Death or no death, 45 seconds or 45 minutes, that should be cause for concern.


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yes, that one and a half minute youtube clip that features all of forty-five seconds of ambulance conclusively demonstrates that the delay caused resulted in Tomlinsons death.
> 
> edit:  indeed, e1986s link actually has two people saying that the ambulances went through police lines - not that they were delayed.



I'm not saying it was a particularly significant delay (although who knows; I don't), but it certainly refutes the original (police?) stories that it had been held up by protesters, that accompanied the original tales of heroic blue derring-do in rescuing the poor man from the crowd amid a hail of missiles.

Those other bits were lies, weren't they?


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

free spirit said:


> I'm utterly bemused that you've taken a photo of the guy lying on the floor at the feet of a group of riot police, in the location that the witnesses are saying he had been attacked by riot police and pushed to the floor, as being evidence that he wasn't assaulted
> 
> 3 independent witnesses, photo's of him on the floor at the feet of a group of riot police... looks pretty clear to me that this attack did happen as stated.



The point I was making is that that is the *only* picture in the public domain of him at the location he was alleged to have been assaulted at, and yet the person who took it is, seemingly, not one of the people known to have reported an assault by police to the IPCC, nor has he made any allegations in the media (though he has given them the picture).    

Moreover, it doesnt necessarily support the allegations as made as you appear to believe - all it shows is a man on the floor at the location with police officers approaching him (and they arent all riot police - notice the (possibly dog) cop on the right who appears to have his hands in his pockets and a flat cap on).


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> The point I was making is that that is the *only*  - notice the (possibly dog) cop on the right who appears to have his hands in his pockets and a flat cap on).




note the one to the left of him with his truncheon at the ready.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm not saying it was a particularly significant delay (although who knows; I don't), but it certainly refutes the original (police?) stories that it had been held up by protesters, that accompanied the original tales of heroic blue derring-do in rescuing the poor man from the crowd amid a hail of missiles.
> 
> Those other bits were lies, weren't they?



But who said the ambulance was delayed by protestors?  As for the missiles, even the link provided by e19896 says that bottles were thrown towards police, however brief.  Its not as if they made up the bottles being thrown.


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

perry1 said:


> note the one to the left of him with his truncheon at the ready.



And the two in the middle with their's held braced against their legs.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm not saying it was a particularly significant delay (although who knows; I don't), but it certainly refutes the original (police?) stories that it had been held up by protesters, that accompanied the original tales of heroic blue derring-do in rescuing the poor man from the crowd amid a hail of missiles.
> 
> Those other bits were lies, weren't they?



I think the police/government practice of using pre-emptive PR of this type is part of the problem. In the minds of much of the general public to this day, I'm fairly sure, the unfortunate Mr Menezes was 'wearing a bulky jacket, trailing wires and acting suspiciously' just like the Hillsborough fans were 'picking the pockets of the dead and pissing on them' and whenever they remember this incident, they'll think first of the increasingly dodgy looking 'hail of bottles' story, and possibly as the BBC briefly asserted based on 'police sources' that the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson was actually killed by this more or less imaginary hail of bottles.


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> But who said the ambulance was delayed by protestors?  As for the missiles, even the link provided by e19896 says that bottles were thrown towards police, however brief.  Its not as if they made up the bottles being thrown.



"Pelted with" was the chosen description I believe.  I fail to see how a group of armoured men can be "pelted with" *two plastic* bottles, which missed; as according to numerous eyewitnesses.

So it was a lie, yes?

And the Indiana Jones moment, the heroic rescue?


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

perry1 said:


> note the one to the left of him with his truncheon at the ready.



yes, but its hardly a line of riot police surging against a crowd, is it?


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 6, 2009)

Just to add my own..

 It is impossible that the police don't have footage of I T's time caught up in the protest, every spot appeared to have been filmed, there were police videoing events from every conceivable vantage point, not to mention the massive amount of CCTV footage.  If the man that died was in a flashpoint of any kind it will be on camera (presumably that was one of the points of Kettling us all in). Hopefully some of my European cousins will have some footage but don't realise the significance yet (there were film crews/photographers from all over the place).

  I am personally concerned by this story as my diabetic brother was supposed to come with me to the protest.  Like myself he was naive to the police tactic of mass detention and i dread to think what could have happened to him if he was in the situation i found myself in, he carries a chocolate bar with him at all times but several hours would have really endangered him.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> "Pelted with" was the chosen description I believe.  I fail to see how a group of armoured men can be "pelted with" *two plastic* bottles, which missed; as according to numerous eyewitnesses.
> 
> So it was a lie, yes?
> 
> And the Indiana Jones moment, the heroic rescue?



i) who said anything about "heroic rescues"?  
ii) were bottles thrown towards police or not?


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> yes, but its hardly a line of riot police surging against a crowd, is it?



not in this shot, but that was the general order of the day as the evidence shows.

Plenty of evidence and witnesses around.

The police have over stepped the mark, this time its not just "treehuggers", "unwashed" and "anticapitalists" that have noticed it.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody is saying that. What is clear from that video is that an ambulance was delayed by a police cordon. Death or no death, 45 seconds or 45 minutes, that should be cause for concern.


I'd not say caused, but I would say potentially contributed.

Decreasing ambulance response time from 15 minutes to 5 minutes doubles a heart attack victims chances of survival, therefore any delay decreases survival chances.

Had one of the coppers taken the phone and spoken to the ambulance dispatcher then they could have allerted the police at the police lines to expect an ambulance to come through, and prepare to let it through immediately, or even given them a route to the victim that avoided going through police lines if (as the IPCC statement indicates) it wasn't a full kettle, and there were clear routes through to the location. 

The police involved obviously had far more important things to do than speak to the ambulance dispatcher when asked... arrogant, ignorant, incompetent pricks


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

As I recall the original reports had either the police unable to reach him due to the 'hail of bottles' or having to move him more or less immediately for the same reason, depending on news source. 

By next day the BBC was reporting police sources claiming that the bottles had actually felled him, but fairly quickly stopped saying that and if I look at the page in question here the claim that 'Police said the man, thought to be in his 40s, died on Wednesday evening after bottles were thrown at him and he collapsed. ' seems to have vanished, although a quick check for that string should confirm that other people on urban saw it and complained to the Beeb about it. 

By the time the BBC were claiming that, the Guardian (mostly) had talked to eye-witnesses who told a very different story, 1 maybe 2 bottles, plastic bottles rather than glass and no suggestion that the police were either impeded or forced to flee by a 'hail' of them. The day after that witnesses started coming forward saying that they'd seen the police assaulting him prior to his collapse. 

Now, if it were not the police under suspicion, wouldn't you think it at least interesting that someone who was subsequently identified by witnesses as potentially responsible for a suspicious death, prior to those witnesses coming forward had already started telling a whole bunch of local gossips and sympathetic friends a load of self-serving lies painting themselves in a favourable light in connection with that suspicious death and suggesting that others present were behaving violently and irresponsibly to that persons detriment?


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> i) who said anything about "heroic rescues"?



That was the tone of the Press.  The Press are managed.  That's not a conspiracy theory, it's just sensible.




agricola said:


> ii) were bottles thrown towards police or not?



Don't be fucking ridiculous.  What kind of question is that?  I've already stated precisely what was thrown, and with what result.  You want _less_ detail?


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> Don't be fucking ridiculous.  What kind of question is that?  I've already stated precisely what was thrown, and with what result.  You want _less_ detail?



Sorry, your "The police LIED when they said bottles were thrown.  Only some bottles were thrown" stance is confusing.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> The point I was making is that that is the *only* picture in the public domain of him at the location he was alleged to have been assaulted at, and yet the person who took it is, seemingly, not one of the people known to have reported an assault by police to the IPCC, nor has he made any allegations in the media (though he has given them the picture).
> 
> Moreover, it doesnt necessarily support the allegations as made as you appear to believe - all it shows is a man on the floor at the location with police officers approaching him (and they arent all riot police - notice the (possibly dog) cop on the right who appears to have his hands in his pockets and a flat cap on).


1 - one of the witnesses isn't named in the guardian piece, so the photographer could potentially be that witness.

2 - There are already 3 witnesses to this incident, so whether this photographer witnessed it or had their back to the actual incident and only saw the man on the floor is pretty irrelevant really.

3 - lots of the witness statements mention police with dogs being used in the vicinity, and that looks very like a lead in his left hand attached to a dog that's just visible at the edge of the picture.

I really think you ought to stop clutching at straws tbh


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Sorry, your "The police LIED when they said bottles were thrown.  Only some bottles were thrown" stance is confusing.



Do you not see the difference between what actually happened and being "pelted with bottles", with the implicit suggestion that it impeded efforts?  Must it just be 'yes' or 'no' to you, is it that simple?  Is your world so black and white?

Oh, wait... Evenin' Officer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Sorry, your "The police LIED when they said bottles were thrown.  Only some bottles were thrown" stance is confusing.



The issue is not that the police lied in the strictest possible sense of that word (well unless they really did tell the BBC untruthfully that a thrown bottle felled Mr Tomlinson) 

The issue is that they have a history of putting what one might call, if one were giving them maximum benefit of the doubt, seriously misleading and obviously self-serving pre-emptive PR into the press whenever they're involved in some poor sod getting killed. For example Mr Menezes' 'bulky jacket' and 'suspicious behaviour'.

In this case, the 1-2 bottles witnesses report, became a 'hail' and they sort of forgot to mention that they were plastic rather than glass as one might assume from the context of stories claiming that they were 'driven back' by this 'hail'


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

And in this evening's news...

Nice to know that the investigation is to be carried out by the utterly impartial City of London police.  English justice is secure; I shall sleep safe in my bed tonight.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> And in this evening's news...
> 
> Nice to know that the investigation is to be carried out by the utterly impartial City of London police.  English justice is secure; I shall sleep safe in my bed tonight.



I'd laugh if it weren't so sad. Still, we can at least be sure that the Scientologists won't be found guilty of anything if the City police are running it.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> Do you not see the difference between what actually happened and being "pelted with bottles", with the implicit suggestion that it impeded efforts?  Must it just be 'yes' or 'no' to you, is it that simple?  Is your world so black and white?
> 
> Oh, wait... Evenin' Officer.



Lets look at what the original police statement actually said (or this), shall we?



> The Independent Police Complaints Commission was being notified last night. Scotland Yard said the alarm had been raised by a member of the public who spoke to a police officer on a cordon at the junction of Birchin Lane and Cornhill in the City.
> 
> He sent two medics through the cordon line and into nearby St Michael's Alley where they found a man who had stopped breathing. They called for ambulance support at about 7.30pm and moved him back behind the cordon where they gave him cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.
> 
> ...



So no "hail", no "pelted with bottles" - just a statement that is not the heap of lies you think it is, but then of course you think it is something else entirely....


----------



## Corax (Apr 6, 2009)

> "The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles – believed to be bottles – were being thrown at them"



*Seriously!?!*

"A number of" *two plastic bottles*.  That *missed*.  And the idiots were stopped by protesters.  These fit, armoured men, they moved a critically ill man for that?


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Sorry, your "The police LIED when they said bottles were thrown.  Only some bottles were thrown" stance is confusing.




 Maybe i am being thick here, it's fairly clear to me having been near the incident and after reading others observations.  1, maybe 2 plastic bottles were thrown, not capable of causing any harm to a human.  All across the country tonight millions of plastic bottles will be thrown at music gigs.  Personally i find it annoying especially when one is full of 'something' and it lands on me!

Typical concert in England


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> The point I was making is that that is the *only* picture in the public domain of him at the location


No it isn't, the picture of him walking is taken moments later.



> (and they arent all riot police - notice the (possibly dog) cop on the right who appears to have his hands in his pockets and a flat cap on).


None of them are strictly speaking riot police, some are Level Two 'scuffle' police, some are FIT and some are dog handlers.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

Corax said:


> *Seriously!?!*
> 
> "A number of" *two plastic bottles*.  That *missed*.  And the idiots were stopped by protesters.  These fit, armoured men, they moved a critically ill man for that?



Hurrah for the bold text!  At least we now get you using the actual statement for criticism, rather than the one you got all het up about.  

As for whether or not, or why, he was moved - there could be a number of reasons for it.  Were you there?


----------



## winjer (Apr 6, 2009)

agricola said:


> Did the ambulance actually get stuck at police lines - as the collapse took place outside the cordon)?


The ambulances were held up by the BTP line which was by then at the junction of Cornhill and Bishopsgate, next to David Clulow opticians, as shown on 'davehighbury's 
This wasn't the main cordon, which was still in place at Royal Exchange, this was the police chasing people away from the cordon, this particular group was eventually chased all the way across London Bridge around 8pm.



> Its entirely possible that the officers have more paramedic training and experience than the dispatcher did


Isn't the public order medic course a whole two days, hardly 'paramedics'.


----------



## agricola (Apr 6, 2009)

winjer said:


> Isn't the public order medic course a whole two days, hardly 'paramedics'.



Plus several days ELS training that everyone does, and possibly more than that (given that the photo of Tomlinson being treated shows a Sgt treating him, who one imagines will have had the bit extra of ELS training that custody sgts get).  Anyway, my point was not that they were paramedics, but rather that they might well have known more about CPR than the LAS operator did.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2009)

as an aside (and with no pictorial evidence), the police medics looked scarier than the riot cops almost, they're tooled and armoured up to the max.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Hurrah for the bold text!  At least we now get you using the actual statement for criticism, rather than the one you got all het up about.
> 
> As for whether or not, or why, he was moved - there could be a number of reasons for it.  Were you there?



I think the main issue is media manipulation here. The initial 'police source' PR statements seem calculated to mislead the public about what was happening and to portray the demonstrators in an extremely unfavourable light, while portraying the cops in a favourable one. 

We've seen previous cases where a similar thing has happened, for example the initial perception created via media briefings that JC Menezes was 'wearing a bulky jacket with wires sticking out and behaving suspiciously' ...

We've also seen that the initial media impression has a tendency to stick in the minds of the general public, unless they make the effort to look, in which case the impression initially conveyed turns out to be misleading.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

well, putting aside the media, the "official" investigation into his death was conducted with a great amount of haste imo, and came up with a very "easy" verdict in many ways.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

I would venture to predict that the same will be the case here.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Plus several days ELS training that everyone does, and possibly more than that (given that the photo of Tomlinson being treated shows a Sgt treating him, who one imagines will have had the bit extra of ELS training that custody sgts get).  Anyway, my point was not that they were paramedics, but rather that they might well have known more about CPR than the LAS operator did.


apologies, I'd missed that earlier post about this.

my point wasn't that the LAS operator might have known more about CPR than the police medics, it was that the LAS operator was more than likely wanting to get advice from the police on the ground about the best route for the ambulance to take, as well as comfirming that they had made any police lines aware that the ambulance was coming through, and where to direct it.

Thinking about it now though, I suppose it's quite likely that the police control room had also requested an ambulance be sent seperately and was liasing with a different dispatcher, which may explain why the police didn't think it necessary to take the phone... I still think it'd have been good practice for them to have spoken with the dispatcher who was sending the ambulance in response to the call from the public, as it's quite possible that ambulance was dispatched before the other one, and could therefore have been at the scene faster.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

free spirit said:


> apologies, I'd missed that earlier post about this.
> 
> my point wasn't that the LAS operator might have known more about CPR than the police medics, it was that the LAS operator was more than likely wanting to get advice from the police on the ground about the best route for the ambulance to take, as well as comfirming that they had made any police lines aware that the ambulance was coming through, and where to direct it.
> 
> Thinking about it now though, I suppose it's quite likely that the police control room had also requested an ambulance be sent seperately and was liasing with a different dispatcher, which may explain why the police didn't think it necessary to take the phone... I still think it'd have been good practice for them to have spoken with the dispatcher who was sending the ambulance in response to the call from the public, as it's quite possible that ambulance was dispatched before the other one, and could therefore have been at the scene faster.



Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that its very questionable whether any of the officers who went to Tomlinson's aid would have known about the best way into that area for the LAS.  Usually the only people who would would be in the control room, in this case GT (or as Sky insisted upon calling it, Gold Control) who should have told LAS the best route and advised those units on cordons that an ambulance was on the way.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that its very questionable whether any of the officers who went to Tomlinson's aid would have known about the best way into that area for the LAS.  Usually the only people who would would be in the control room, in this case GT (or as Sky insisted upon calling it, Gold Control) who should have told LAS the best route and advised those units on cordons that an ambulance was on the way.



Or the cops they could have used their own initiative and got the fuck out of the way of an emergency ambulance just like everybody else does ....


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 7, 2009)

somebody needs to do a study on the effects of kettle, more minor injuries and health and safety issues.


----------



## rollinder (Apr 7, 2009)

fucking Telegraph (with the help of an unamed "friend") tries to pin it on "the mob"


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

free spirit said:


> one was a baby that died of natural causes, the other was a man who all the evidence is pointing to having died as a direct result of police actions.
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting we should be campaigning to illiminate death entirely? I think that'd be a tad unrealistic a demand even for me and enumbers



In his unedited post enumbers was speaking of having respect for the dead yet he clearly has none.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think the main issue is media manipulation here. The initial 'police source' PR statements seem calculated to mislead the public about what was happening and to portray the demonstrators in an extremely unfavourable light, while portraying the cops in a favourable one.


In a time honoured tactic, and one that they seem to get away with time after time (see: Hillsborough, Mayday 'attempted murder'  etc etc).


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

e19896 said:


> http://hamishcampbell.com/2009/04/interview-with-two-eyewitnesses-of-g20.html




This is our unbiased version of eventsIt only took 4 minutes of interview for that to go out the window


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Why have you edited your original post?
> 
> Anyway I was going to ask you why you're taking the moral highground in this particular instance when you seem to hold human life in such low regard as is highlighted in this post
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8804099&postcount=93



can not be arsed with this any more, a man is dead and you are saying bollocoks, i hold human life in such low regard read back your post on this topic fucking wanker:


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 7, 2009)

editor said:


> In a time honoured tactic, and one that they seem to get away with time after time (see: Hillsborough, Mayday 'attempted murder'  etc etc).



Ditto...


----------



## free spirit (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> In his unedited post enumbers was speaking of having respect for the dead yet he clearly has none.


I've had my fair share of disagreements with mr enumbers, so I'll not be defending every post he's written on here if that's ok with you.

fact is though that you're now acting as an apologist for the police in a situation where their brutality at a demonstration has led to the death of someone who by all accounts was just an innocent bystander who was just trying to get home. I think you need to seriously consider whether that's a position you're comfortable with holding.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

free spirit said:


> fact is though that you're now acting as an apologist for the police in a situation where their brutality at a demonstration has led to the death of someone who by all accounts was just an innocent bystander who was just trying to get home. I think you need to seriously consider whether that's a position you're comfortable with holding.



I'm no big fan of the police,not by any means.But they are a necessary evil

I just can't help but think if it hadn't been for the likes of enumbers and a small following of knuckle scrapers who think it's there god given right to be violent in public that this bloke may well not be dead.

I think you,enumbers,should have a look at the bigger picture and what the consequences of your fellow knuckle scrapers actions have caused....You want anarchy


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I just can't help but think if it hadn't been for the likes of enumbers and a small following of knuckle scrapers who think it's there god given right to be violent in public that this bloke may well not be dead.
> 
> :




More like the fault of the knuckle scraping cops who think its their god given right to order people around and who then en-act that with intimidaiton and violence.  

I cant imagine anyone was in fear of the protestors last week, thousands were in (justified) fear of the cops.


----------



## albionism (Apr 7, 2009)

"Anarchy" is not a dictionary definition meaning "chaos", bollockhead


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

albionism said:


> "Anarchy" is not a dictionary definition meaning "chaos", bollockhead



No shit


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 7, 2009)

I find it hard to understand why agricola and badco would want to try so hard to create hypothetical scenarios in which the police story _could_ be true.

Why do some folks just keep coming back to the hand that beats them, in some disgustingly pathetic deference of superior physical force?

After all, that's all the police actually have going for them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 7, 2009)

Das Uberdog said:


> I find it hard to understand why agricola and badco would want to try so hard to create hypothetical scenarios in which the police story _could_ be true.



Cos the 1st one's an Old Bill and the 2nd one is an apologist for the Old Bill.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Das Uberdog said:


> I find it hard to understand why agricola and badco would want to try so hard to create hypothetical scenarios in which the police story _could_ be true.
> 
> Why do some folks just keep coming back to the hand that beats them, in some disgustingly pathetic deference of superior physical force?
> 
> After all, that's all the police actually have going for them.



Sorry, what hypothetical scenario have I presented?


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

The one where the ambulance wasn't held up by the police line shown on video holding it up?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> The one where the ambulance wasn't held up by the police line shown on video holding it up?



Ah yes, the minute delay in an ambulance attending, that was so remarkable that the two guys in e19869's interview declined to mention it being delayed, even though they mention the rest of the ambulances' progress.


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

The two guy's in the interview may not have seen it getting delayed. In any case that doesn't affect you trying to deny it happened at all.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> The two guy's in the interview may not have seen it getting delayed. In any case that doesn't affect you trying to deny it happened at all.



They said they saw it be let through police lines.  Please watch the video.


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Its also worth noting that, again based on press reports thus far, it is only 3 people have come forward to say that they saw him being assaulted


I'm aware of eight more who have made such statements. How many statements are there that say he wasn't assaulted?



> There are also quite a few photos in the public domain of Tomlinson which do not support the allegations made


How so? Where are the photos which support him ending up on the ground at Royal Exchange Buildings through anything other than police action?


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> They said they saw it be let through police lines.  Please watch the video.


I have, I was there when it was made. I've also seen the video of the ambulance being told to go in another direction, so stop lying.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> I'm aware of eight more who have made such statements. How many statements are there that say he wasn't assaulted?



I am only aware of three, the three that are in the press domain - hence my comment.  Are you aware of any publicly accessable versions of the eight you mention?




			
				winjer said:
			
		

> How so? Where are the photos which support him ending up on the ground at Royal Exchange Buildings through anything other than police action?



Are there any pictures of him being assaulted by Police?  

The picture shows him on the ground at Royal Exchange, it doesnt show how he got down there.  Those elements that are present in the picture do not tend to support the claims that he was caught up in a crowd being pushed back by police.  




			
				winjer said:
			
		

> I have, I was there when it was made. I've also seen the video of the ambulance being told to go in another direction, so stop lying.



Lying?  Does that video that e19869 posted say something other than what I said it says?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Are there any pictures of him being assaulted by Police?



*if* what i have just been told by a mate in the media is correct, there is a video of him being hit by the police about to break this afternoon/evening


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I am only aware of three, the three that are in the press domain - hence my comment.  Are you aware of any publicly accessable versions of the eight you mention?


Not that I know of.



> Those elements that are present in the picture do not tend to support the claims that he was caught up in a crowd being pushed back by police.


Which elements?



> Lying?  Does that video that e19869 posted say something other than what I said it says?


"They said they saw it be let through police lines."

A lie. They say it went through the police line, they don't say "the police immediately let the ambulance through, and those people who say the police held it up are wrong".


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> *if* what i have just been told by a mate in the media is correct, there is a video of him being hit by the police about to break this afternoon/evening



Well then, lets wait for that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I'm no big fan of the police,not by any means.But they are a necessary evil


Why are they?


> I just can't help but think if it hadn't been for the likes of enumbers and a small following of knuckle scrapers who think it's there god given right to be violent in public that this bloke may well not be dead.


That's because you're using a faulty logic which says that the police wouldn't cause any trouble unless trouble was caused to them first.
My 30-odd years of attending demos has shown me otherwise.


> I think you,enumbers,should have a look at the bigger picture and what the consequences of your fellow knuckle scrapers actions have caused....You want anarchy


Actually, he wants *anarchism*, which is a different thing to what you're implying.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> Not that I know of.



Then you'll forgive me if I dont take your word for it.




			
				winjer said:
			
		

> Which elements?



The lack of a crowd in that picture?  The cop stood there with his hands in his pockets?  The lack of a police line?




			
				winjer said:
			
		

> "They said they saw it be let through police lines."
> 
> A lie. They say it went through the police line, they don't say "the police immediately let the ambulance through, and those people who say the police held it up are wrong".



Ah, so I *lied* when I said they saw it be let through police lines - because they said they saw it be let through police lines....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

Das Uberdog said:


> I find it hard to understand why agricola and badco would want to try so hard to create hypothetical scenarios in which the police story _could_ be true.


It's not *that* hard to understand why people as diverse as agricola (a liberal) and badco (a BNP fellow-traveller) would want to do so. He who controls the discourse controls "mainstream" history.


> Why do some folks just keep coming back to the hand that beats them, in some disgustingly pathetic deference of superior physical force?
> 
> After all, that's all the police actually have going for them.


Not quite, they also have reference to the law, which they can (attempt to) manipulate in their favour.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 7, 2009)

rollinder said:


> fucking Telegraph (with the help of an unamed "friend") tries to pin it on "the mob"



This is from April 3 though


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not *that* hard to understand why people as diverse as agricola (a liberal) and badco (a BNP fellow-traveller) would want to do so. He who controls the discourse controls "mainstream" history.



Surely that works for the "cops murdered Ian" crowd as well, though?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Ah yes, the minute delay in an ambulance attending, that was so remarkable that the two guys in e19869's interview declined to mention it being delayed, even though they mention the rest of the ambulances' progress.



We'll just have to wait and see where the delay issue stands *after* all the evidence and witness statements are in, won't we?
I mean, you *do* see that your own rush to draw conclusions is as pointless as those of the people you're having a go at, don't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Surely that works for the "cops murdered Ian" crowd as well, though?


Of course it does.
All we can do and *should do* at the moment is *try* to review what facts we have as neutrally as possible, anything else is both pointless and partisan, as is trying to shout down people because they disagree with you/your "side".


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> We'll just have to wait and see where the delay issue stands *after* all the evidence and witness statements are in, won't we?
> I mean, you *do* see that your own rush to draw conclusions is as pointless as those of the people you're having a go at, don't you?



That would be ideal, yes - though one should point out that I havent rushed to draw any conclusions from this (the LAS point has been answered with evidence from g20witnesses and provided by e19896), and have called for a full IPCC investigation and full inquest into this death.  

People had been claiming that the delay in the LAS attending, and the lack of action by police medics, contributed this blokes death.  That there may not have been a delay for the LAS, and that police medics did take action to try and save this blokes life, is perhaps relevant no?


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The lack of a crowd in that picture?  The cop stood there with his hands in his pockets?  The lack of a police line?


Who has hands in his pockets? The dog handler on the right?

Moments later:




> Ah, so I *lied* when I said they saw it be let through police lines - because they said they saw it be let through police lines....


You claimed they contradicted that it was delayed, they didn't, and the delay is on video, so why try to deny it?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

G20 heart attack victim was pushed by police



> The man who died from a heart attack in London's G20 protest was pushed by police, investigators said.
> 
> Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed minutes after CCTV showed him trying to cross a police line in the City on his way home after work.
> 
> Deborah Glass, of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said: "We're seeing if it had anything to do with his death."



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/04/07/g20-victim-was-pushed-115875-21259744/


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> Who has hands in his pockets? The dog handler on the right?



Yep, or at least thats the way it appears. 




			
				winjer said:
			
		

> Moments later:




Thats a better view, but it does raise other questions.





			
				winjer said:
			
		

> You claimed they contradicted that it was delayed, they didn't, and the delay is on video, so why try to deny it?



No, I claimed that they didnt mention the delay and that this might mean that it wasnt that noticeable.


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> No, I claimed that they didnt mention the delay and that this might mean that it wasnt that noticeable.



that, or they're covering their dirty lying killing arses.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

smokedout said:


> G20 heart attack victim was pushed by police
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/04/07/g20-victim-was-pushed-115875-21259744/



It is worthwhile to see what the IPCC press release that a lot of these reports are based on actually says:

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr060409_tomlinsoninv.htm


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

smokedout said:


> G20 heart attack victim was pushed by police


That's just a bad rewording of the IPCC statement, which is itself bad enough, where is "Royal Exchange Passage"? (rhet.)


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Yep, or at least thats the way it appears.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so theres at least three independant witnesses who claim the this guy was assaulted and theres a picture of him lying on the floor, in the area where witnesses claim he was assaulted with the people alleged to have assaulted him standing over him

guy appears to have injuries consistant with being assaulted

the suspects appeared to be less than truthful when first describing their version of events and have since changed there story about what happened

if this was a bunch of teenagers rather than coppers wouldnt you be pushing the CPS to bring charges piggy


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

smokedout said:


> so theres at least three independant witnesses who claim the this guy was assaulted and theres a picture of him lying on the floor, in the area where witnesses claim he was assaulted with the people alleged to have assaulted him standing over him
> 
> guy appears to have injuries consistant with being assaulted
> 
> ...



i) They arent standing over him, and please watch winjer's video.  How many people would have witnessed the assault?
ii) do you have access to the post mortem details?  How can you say "guy appears to have injuries consistant with being assaulted"?
iii) how have the Police changed their story?  
iv) if this was a bunch of teenagers I doubt anyone here would be doing anything apart from waiting for an investigation to take place that determined the facts of the matter, as opposed to going off on one.  Why dont we, you know, actually go and do that?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I'm no big fan of the police,not by any means.But they are a necessary evil
> 
> I just can't help but think if it hadn't been for the likes of enumbers and a small following of knuckle scrapers who think it's there god given right to be violent in public that this bloke may well not be dead.
> 
> I think you,enumbers,should have a look at the bigger picture and what the consequences of your fellow knuckle scrapers actions have caused....You want anarchy



I was not there i spoke out at the pointless protest, see underclassrising.net goto the blog it is there, one is an anarchist, i do look at the bigger image, there nither friends of mine, i do not hold with being violent in public either.

When there is no need and here there was none, but then it was the police and there actions that created the circumstance, not the protesters, i disagree with there aims objectives, but i will stand up and say respect for acting how they did ie non violance, and from what ive been told and seen they was kicked and beaten for just siting down.

Let me make it clear i nither suport being violent in public for the sake of it, there is no doubt we are going to have to use force, but i also hope we can negate from there as much as winning over the police, i hold the thought there workers in uniform, but it dose not mean there not scum and can act as such, as we have seen this is why a man is dead not the actions of the protesters.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

Das Uberdog said:


> I find it hard to understand why agricola and badco would want to try so hard to create hypothetical scenarios in which the police story _could_ be true



If you read back through this thread you would see the only people to offer up hypothetical scenarios are those who believe the police to be at fault.

Me,I just think it's a bit shit that a man died full stop.From what i'm seeing im leaning more towards thinking the police did have contact with him but saying that if it wasn't for the actions of a minority of knuckle scrapers perhaps it wouldn't have been the case.

And I stand by saying i'm disgusted at e19whatever using this mans death in an attempt to gain support.....What's next eh?A justice for Ian group on bookface


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> badco (a BNP fellow-traveller)



Eh?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> If you read back through this thread you would see the only people to offer up hypothetical scenarios are those who believe the police to be at fault.
> 
> Me,I just think it's a bit shit that a man died full stop.From what i'm seeing im leaning more towards thinking the police did have contact with him but saying that if it wasn't for the actions of a minority of knuckle scrapers perhaps it wouldn't have been the case.
> 
> And I stand by saying i'm disgusted at e19whatever using this mans death in an attempt to gain support.....What's next eh?A justice for Ian group on bookface



One is not you fucking wanker, get it clear will you a man is dead and i feel killed by the police, all i desire in this is for the truth to be out as to why he died.

It was not the actions a minority of knuckle scrapers but the over policeing and there actions, stop makeing out all anarchist agree becuase we do not, if you botherd to have a conversation with me, idd say i dislike them, but this is not the fucking point, it is just you moveing the subject from the facts, you say you do not like the police then stop acting as though you suport there actions, becuase as said it was these actions and these alone that lead to Ians Death and not the protesters.


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> i) They arent standing over him, and please watch winjer's video.  How many people would have witnessed the assault?


One difference is I've spoken to some of those witnesses. You haven't, have you?


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> the actions of a minority of knuckle scrapers perhaps it wouldn't have been the case.


We only disagree on who that minority are then.



> A justice for Ian group on bookface


Oh yes, isn't it absolutely terrible for anyone to give a shit, you wanker.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> One difference is I've spoken to some of those witnesses. You haven't, have you?



Ive also spoken to them, have copys of people staements, had friends who was there and was at his side when he was been given first aid, there long term respected and trusted friends some go back 20 odd years, i know who is telling me the truth and who is not, that will be the police not telling the truth, due to fact they killed him and it has been this fact from the moment it hit the news, now due to public presure the truth is comeing out.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> i) They arent standing over him, and please watch winjer's video.  How many people would have witnessed the assault?
> ii) do you have access to the post mortem details?  How can you say "guy appears to have injuries consistant with being assaulted"?
> iii) how have the Police changed their story?
> iv) if this was a bunch of teenagers I doubt anyone here would be doing anything apart from waiting for an investigation to take place that determined the facts of the matter, as opposed to going off on one.  Why dont we, you know, actually go and do that?



i reckon itd be police bail in the hope you could bring murder or manslaughter rather than just plain old abh or assault

so do you think the officers concerned should be suspended whilst this investigation takes place?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Eh?



Would you prefer "sympathiser" to "fellow-traveller", or perhaps "glib cunt who hasn't got the bottle to admit his despicable political allegiance" would be best?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> One difference is I've spoken to some of those witnesses. You haven't, have you?



No, but I have based my information on sources that are publicly available to check - and been called a liar by you for repeating the same.  That picture, for example.  Or e19869's video.  

But then of course such a stance is beaten in any debate by those who have access to uncheckable stuff that invariably proves that Tomlinson was murdered by the pigs.  Its just a shame one cant see it yet, and that we have to take your word for it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> If you read back through this thread you would see the only people to offer up hypothetical scenarios are those who believe the police to be at fault.


Well, you obviously *haven't* read back through the thread then, have you?


> Me,I just think it's a bit shit that a man died full stop.From what i'm seeing im leaning more towards thinking the police did have contact with him but saying that if it wasn't for the actions of a minority of knuckle scrapers perhaps it wouldn't have been the case.


flip-fucking-flop.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

smokedout said:


> i reckon itd be police bail in the hope you could bring murder or manslaughter rather than just plain old abh or assault
> 
> so do you think the officers concerned should be suspended whilst this investigation takes place?



So no answers to my points, then.  

As for this, its impossible to say what would or should happen based on the currently available information.  There may not have been an assault.  There may have been contact that was justifiable.  There may have been an assault that was not justifiable.  There may have been no police first aid / CPR or there may have been (indeed on this last point it strongly appears there was), and this alleged lack of treatment may or may not have led to his death.  

*We do not know.*


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> flip-fucking-flop.



meh


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

Here's another theory for ya

Mr Tomlinson was living in a bail hostel....Two birds one stone(baton)???


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Sky News have just trailed a clip suggesting Tomlinson was caught on camera at the G20, havent shown it yet (beyond some stock footage) but if anyone has access and is interested they might want to tune in now.

edit:  no sign of it yet, a bit wierd... whether it was something that has been subject to legal action or whether it was just a filler piece that has been displaced isnt clear.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Here's another theory for ya
> 
> Mr Tomlinson was living in a bail hostel....Two birds one stone(baton)???



So it makes it right then? he was hit over the head ha no matter he was liveing in a bail hostel, sounds like your a tad right wing as i here and read this shit come from there mouths and erm ive read the whole of this post, and when you said i do not have any humanity, did you not mean yourself becuase reading your post this is how it seems.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

e19896 said:


> So it makes it right then? he was hit over the head ha no matter he was liveing in a bail hostel, sounds like your a tad right wing as i here and read this shit come from there mouths and erm ive read the whole of this post, and when you said i do not have any humanity, did you not mean yourself becuase reading your post this is how it seems.



What?That makes no sense.Your grammar is disgracefull


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Sky News have just trailed a clip suggesting Tomlinson was caught on camera at the G20,



....doing what?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 7, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault



> Dramatic footage obtained by the Guardian shows that the man who died at last week's G20 protests in London was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton–wielding police officer in riot gear.
> 
> Moments after the assault on Ian Tomlinson was captured on video, he suffered a heart attack and died.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 7, 2009)

the slowed down footage is pretty damning


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> the slowed down footage is pretty damning



Indeed.  One might say all of it is.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

Well my fucking jaw is on the floor


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2009)

Oh my word


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

I notice the officer who assaulted him had his face covered. 

Wonder if they'll even be able to identify him?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I notice the officer who assaulted him had his face covered.
> 
> Wonder if they'll even be able to identify him?



Blair Peach failure to identify scenario i shouldn't wonder.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

Scum fucking cunts


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I notice the officer who assaulted him had his face covered.
> 
> Wonder if they'll even be able to identify him?



You also cant see his numbers.  

One imagines that they will be able to identify the serial at least (as he appears to be with the other five officers whose epaulettes are visible), if not via CCTV then via the record of who was posted there.  As I said on the other thread its a bit odd though, several of those officers look as if they are missing bits of kit (the officer who pushes him has no shield, no gloves and no epaulettes, and there are a couple of other officers without shield).

That said, if that officer hasnt already come forward and admitted his involvement then he deserves everything that is about to happen.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

It gets worse when you read the text. 



> The Guardian's dossier also includes a sequence of photographs, taken by three different people, showing the aftermath of the attack, as well as witness statements from people in the area at the time. A number of witnesses provided time and date-stamped photographs that substantiate their accounts. Some said they saw police officers attack Tomlinson. _Witnesses say prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home._
> 
> One witness, the photographer Anna Branthwaite, described how in the minutes before the video captures him, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street. "A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him. It wasn't just pushing him – he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable. It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking-down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.
> 
> ...


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

"Working together for a safer London"


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

what.fucking.cunts. 

and to the cunts who have been defending the pig nazi scums action on here, what the fuck do you have to say about that? Try and justify the fucking unjustifiable.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> You also cant see his numbers.
> 
> One imagines that they will be able to identify the serial at least (as he appears to be with the other five officers whose epaulettes are visible), if not via CCTV then via the record of who was posted there.  As I said on the other thread its a bit odd though, several of those officers look as if they are missing bits of kit (the officer who pushes him has no shield, no gloves and no epaulettes, and there are a couple of other officers without shield).
> 
> That said, if that officer hasnt already come forward and admitted his involvement then he deserves everything that is about to happen.



Inductive reasoning suggests that he's going to be exonerated eventually even if he is identified.


----------



## gabi (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Inductive reasoning suggests that he's going to be exonerated eventually even if he is identified.



I'd expect him to get promoted actually if this case turns out anything like Stockwell did.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Inductive reasoning suggests that he's going to be exonerated eventually even if he is identified.



I quite honestly fail to see how you could exonerate that.  Of all of the stuff they teach you about having to justify uses of force, all the indicators that you might have to defend yourself, none of them are present in that footage, even in the tiniest amount.  

I would also be absolutely sickened and deeply ashamed if noone in that serial - never mind the officer who did this - has not already admitted their involvement in this.  Though all of the above, and all my points thus far, are of course my own opinion.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

Well, it's going to be interesting to see what happens. My bet is that the police will start vigorously abusing the new powers they have to restrict photography to make sure nothing like this happens again. Perhaps I'm cynical though ...


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Here's another theory for ya
> 
> Mr Tomlinson was living in a bail hostel....Two birds one stone(baton)???



Quoting this before you edit it, cunt. And it's a hotel, not a bail hostel.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

How do these fuckers sleep at night?


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> How do these fuckers sleep at night?



They dehumanise their victims, with the media's gleeful assistance.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 7, 2009)

I feel so angry watching that.

There is some more youtube footage that claims to show him on the floor surrounded by officers here.



I don't know whether this was before or after he was moved.

So angry...


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> Quoting this before you edit it, cunt. And it's a hotel, not a bail hostel.



lol you obviouslly haven't encoutered me before....edit my arse

I've never heard of a bail hotel though


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 7, 2009)

Whilst it sadly good that we got some footage I still don't think he was "just walking home from work" I think he there like the rest of us "rubbernecking" to see what was going on, I mean he was hardly from keeping from "harms" way but rather a "late" comer to the protest, I swear I've seen him earlier in the protest at some point during the day. I think the investigation should now start to focus his movement for the whole day rather than "just" the evening. It will not bring him back but rather highlight the "lies" being spun by the police.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

winjer said:


> Quoting this before you edit it, cunt. And it's a hotel, not a bail hostel.



and double lol that you have edited your post


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Whilst it sadly good that we got some footage I still don't think he was "just walking home from work"



Look at the t shirt he had on!!!

Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police

Regardless,the police actions were not right.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> and double lol that you have edited your post



Are you still claiming the possible police brutality couldn't have had any effect on his heart attack? Do you honestly believe that he would have had the heart attack anyway whether atacked by police or not?


----------



## Phenotypic Dai (Apr 7, 2009)

This is an utter disgrace. The dude had his hands in his fucking pockets.


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2009)

The video that Shaman posted, did the copper slam that young guys head against the Police Van door?, how can that be justified?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Look at the t shirt he had on!!!
> 
> Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police
> 
> Regardless,the police actions were not right.



Jesus christ. Why is this peice of shit still on here?


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Look at the t shirt he had on!!!
> 
> Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police
> 
> Regardless,the police actions were not right.



You'd stop at nothing to smear him somehow, eh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

Will those responsible for releasing the 'hail of bottles' statement be done for perjury then? Defamation of character? Attempting to pervert the course of justice? Thought not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

Phenotypic Dai said:


> This is an utter disgrace. The dude had his hands in his fucking pockets.



Rushed from behind with his hands in his pockets.

What bravery from societies gaurdians


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Look at the t shirt he had on!!!
> 
> Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police
> 
> Regardless,the police actions were not right.



You are talking rubbish.  

There are quite clear guidelines on the use of force by police officers, and I am struggling to think of a situation whereby a police officer would be in any way justified in hitting someone, then charging someone in the back and onto the floor when they are walking away from them with their hands in their pockets.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Will those responsible for releasing the 'hail of bottles' statement be done for perjury then? Defamation of character? Attempting to pervert the course of justice? Thought not.



FWIW that statement did not say "hail of bottles", as has been shown.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I am struggling to think of a situation whereby a police officer would be in any way justified in hitting someone, then charging someone in the back and onto the floor when they are walking away from them with their hands in their pockets.



Which is what I said silly


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2009)

Agri, have you seen the Video Shaman posted, the slamming incident, what do you think about that?


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

The police have been pulling exactly the same kind of shit at demos since I was a kid (I grew up in an activist house).  The difference is that we can have the videos up on youtube in a few days now. Exactly how clear does the footage have to be before a single policeman is prosecuted over any of this.

ACAB - no exceptions.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

absolutely horrendous 
pleasepleaseplease let the guilty cunt pay

RIP Ian
another innocent man killed on the streets of london


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Which is what I said silly



The bit before that tended to negate the latter statement, as is obvious.




			
				treelover said:
			
		

> Agri, have you seen the Video Shaman posted, the slamming incident, what do you think about that?



I havent, sorry.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 7, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus christ. Why is this peice of shit still on here?



oh put him on ignore he's just an idiot


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The bit before that tended to negate the latter statement,



Just an observation


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> FWIW that statement did not say "hail of bottles", as has been shown.



Nor, IIRC, did it say 'we attacked him for no reason minutes before he died'


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 7, 2009)

Feeling very emotional and angry here.  Have been watching and digesting it all since Wednesday.

Something has to change in our society.  We are treating people like scum.

For the first time in years I want to do something to make a difference.

(Waste of time letter to my mp will be written anyway)


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Look at the t shirt he had on!!!
> 
> Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police
> 
> Regardless,the police actions were not right.



it's a millwall fc shirt you absolute cretin
the man is dead and you're still squirming, there's video evidence and you continue to slur him
do you really get a rise out of that?
if you do then you are a sick unfeeling individual


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nor, IIRC, did it say 'we attacked him for no reason minutes before he died'



Well no, but then did they even know any of that had happened?


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

badco, will you please fuck off and die. Seriously, there is NO defending this fucking action. So you're just trolling. Fucking do one ya cunt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

Obviously the officers responsible should have the book thrown at them, after it's been dipped in glue and then broken glass, but allowing police to walk around with no numbers on hitting people at random was guaranteed to cause something like this sooner or later.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Well no, but then did they even know any of that had happened?



Well they did it. What, were those coppers sleep-bludgeoning or something?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

Makes you wonder just how many other bystanders received similar treatment but didn't die


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

ddraig said:


> it's a millwall fc shirt you absolute cretin




I must be blind then!!111Do a double take you thick cunt.

After seeing the footage ye I agree the police were cunts and any posts after that were following on from another poster suggesting mr tomlinson wasn't such an innocent bystander

Anyway,the copper involved will go un full pay suspension for 6 months and nowt will come of it


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I must be blind then!!111Do a double take you thick cunt.
> 
> After seeing the footage ye I agree the police were cunts and any posts after that were following on from another poster suggesting mr tomlinson wasn't such an innocent bystander
> 
> Anyway,the copper involved will go un full pay suspension for 6 months and nowt will come of it



fuck off back off and fuck the fuck off


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I must be blind then!!111Do a double take you thick cunt.
> 
> After seeing the footage ye I agree the police were cunts and any posts after that were following on from another poster s*uggesting mr tomlinson wasn't such an innocent bystander
> *
> Anyway,the copper involved will go un full pay suspension for 6 months and nowt will come of it



because of course, protesters deserve that violence


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well they did it. What, were those coppers sleep-bludgeoning or something?



Please dont be purile.  What I meant was that the officers who released that statement probably did not know what had gone on earlier, indeed the statement makes no mention of anything apart from Tomlinson being found collapsed in Cornhill and incidents that happened there.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I quite honestly fail to see how you could exonerate that.  Of all of the stuff they teach you about having to justify uses of force, all the indicators that you might have to defend yourself, none of them are present in that footage, even in the tiniest amount.
> 
> I would also be absolutely sickened and deeply ashamed if noone in that serial - never mind the officer who did this - has not already admitted their involvement in this.  Though all of the above, and all my points thus far, are of course my own opinion.




The IPCC were about to release a statement before this extra evidence arrived.  I can assume that they never questioned any witnesses or reviewed CCTV.  The fact that they pulled the statement when it became clearer what had happened leads me to assume that they found in favour of the story the force put across initially, which leads me to assume that no copper said anything to make them change their mind.

They lie, people die.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> because of course, protesters deserve that violence



I'm not gonna explain myself....Think what you like!Badders sez up the coppers up the BNP etc etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

Thank you for the permission to think as I like.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Thank you for the permission to think as I like.



One of the many benefits(including JSA) of being a UK resident


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> I'm not gonna explain myself....Think what you like!Badders sez up the coppers up the BNP etc etc



You're a BNP supporter too? 

I see.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault



the video not working for me now
either overloaded or my usb dongle thingy


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

ddraig said:


> the video not working for me now
> either overloaded or my usb dongle thingy



it's you, cos it's still working for me.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

Disgusting and utterly expected.  I'd hope there will be serious consequences for both the copper that killed Tomlinson, and all his mates who presumably didn't come forward as witnesses.  But somehow I doubt it.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

Having just watched the Guardian video I'm even less inclined to blame the individual police officer and instead blame the police as a whole. When you have a unit of policeman trained to act as abusive thugs sent down to an event being told that it's going to kick off and they are confronted by mostly peaceful prostestors this is exactly the sort of thing that happens. Poor brainless thug probably thinks he was doing his job. The best result we're going to get is that individual is prosecuted when in fact it's the fucking system that stinks.

Confirms for me that it was a murder though.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You're a BNP supporter too?QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> No just an ally


----------



## where to (Apr 7, 2009)

.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

Can we all put badco on ignore before this turns into a thread about him please? He's getting a lot of attention now and that's exactly what he wants.


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Please dont be purile.  What I meant was that the officers who released that statement probably did not know what had gone on earlier, indeed the statement makes no mention of anything apart from Tomlinson being found collapsed in Cornhill and incidents that happened there.



They weren't in any great rush to amend the original statement though, were they? 

The Internet has been full of photos of this guy. And not one of the cops in the original line-up recognised it? 

Nah.


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2009)

badco;8973564][QUOTE=Bernie Gunther said:


> You're a BNP supporter too?





No just an ally[/QUOTE]

'Just' ... 'Ally' 

lol


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> He's getting a lot of attention now and that's exactly what he wants.



Actually,i'm trying to wind my neck out of this thread before I dig myself an even bigger hole.I'll take my attention seeking elsewhere for tonight thank you


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 7, 2009)

Aye, you'd think any one of those cops, assuming they are the kind decent caring types that agricola implies they are, any one of them might have made a report, or possibly a complaint into an unprovoked assault on a member of the public by one of their team.  I mean, that's what decent people would do, and there's 20 or more decent upstanding coppers there.  I look forward to finding out that at least one of them, just one, made some sort of complaint about that.  After all, that's what a decent person would do.  I mean, I'm not a decent upstanding copper, just a public sector worker, and i'd have made a complaint if my colleague did that.


----------



## rollinder (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault


 
fucking lying cunts



shaman75 said:


> Feeling very emotional and angry here. Have been watching and digesting it all since Wednesday.


 
same here - feel sick at each new piece of information of how the police treateted not only him but everybody.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Actually,i'm trying to wind my neck out of this thread before I dig myself an even bigger hole.I'll take my attention seeking elsewhere for tonight thank you


I'd say that's a pretty smart move, all things considered.


----------



## cesare (Apr 7, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Aye, you'd think any one of those cops, assuming they are the kind decent caring types that agricola implies they are, any one of them might have made a report, or possibly a complaint into an unprovoked assault on a member of the public by one of their team.  I mean, that's what decent people would do, and there's 20 or more decent upstanding coppers there.  I look forward to finding out that at least one of them, just one, made some sort of complaint about that.  After all, that's what a decent person would do.  I mean, I'm not a decent upstanding copper, just a public sector worker, and i'd have made a complaint if my colleague did that.



You might even have stepped forward and helped him up instead of leaving it to another bystander.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Aye, you'd think any one of those cops, assuming they are the kind decent caring types that agricola implies they are, any one of them might have made a report, or possibly a complaint into an unprovoked assault on a member of the public by one of their team.  I mean, that's what decent people would do, and there's 20 or more decent upstanding coppers there.  I look forward to finding out that at least one of them, just one, made some sort of complaint about that.  After all, that's what a decent person would do.  I mean, I'm not a decent upstanding copper, just a public sector worker, and i'd have made a complaint if my colleague did that.



I think you'll find that actually they were all looking the other way at that exact moment, and thought Mr. Tomlinson must have just tripped over his shoelaces, tbf.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> The IPCC were about to release a statement before this extra evidence arrived.  I can assume that they never questioned any witnesses or reviewed CCTV.  The fact that they pulled the statement when it became clearer what had happened leads me to assume that they found in favour of the story the force put across initially, which leads me to assume that no copper said anything to make them change their mind.
> 
> They lie, people die.



The IPCC statement appears to suggest that they focused on Cornhill initially, where there was no police contact (aside frm the medics) and independent witnesses to confirm that.  Once it became clear that there was an incident prior to this - which followed on from the release of photos of him and the campaign for an investigation - involving Tomlinson then they extended their investigation.  It might also be worth pointing out that the police involved may not have known that the person they were involved with was Tomlinson either, though surely they must by now.




			
				maomao said:
			
		

> Having just watched the Guardian video I'm even less inclined to blame the individual police officer and instead blame the police as a whole. When you have a unit of policeman trained to act as abusive thugs sent down to an event being told that it's going to kick off and they are confronted by mostly peaceful prostestors this is exactly the sort of thing that happens. Poor brainless thug probably thinks he was doing his job. The best result we're going to get is that individual is prosecuted when in fat it's the fucking system that stinks.



I disagree - the rest of those officers do not do what this one officer did - (indeed one of the dog officers appears to just poke him in the back with his finger) and I can emphatically assure you that you are not trained to push someone in the back who is walking away from you with their hands in their pockets, so hard that they fall face-first to the floor, and then walk off behind your mates.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> Look at the t shirt he had on!!!
> 
> Why was he so close to the police?Was he provoking them?I'm guessing living in a bail ho(s)tel he had some bad feelings for the police
> 
> Regardless,the police actions were not right.



It bad to stereotype you know, but I can't help but agree I also know that he been homeless for a number of years and anyone who seen homeless people they generally treated as second class citizens, as I know as I buy a Big Issue Mag from a guy who been at the same spot for well over five/six years now. The sad thing is that I witness once  a couple of Senior looking police chiefs giving him a once over and had a word about his dog not being on leash. It made my blood boil as I've been walking past this guy and his dog for many a year and the dog never given any trouble to anyone. At that point I wanted to say to them how many years has this man been here for and I bet they couldn't be able to answer that question if it were put to them. As you and I know homeless people are always being asked to move on by Police and their mickey mouse counterpart. It's not surprising that some resentment to build up about the Police force in return.


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

ddraig said:


> the video not working for me now
> either overloaded or my usb dongle thingy



I can get it via IE, but firefox ain't keen it seems.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree - the rest of those officers do not do what this one officer did - (indeed one of the dog officers appears to just poke him in the back with his finger) and I can emphatically assure you that you are not trained to push someone in the back who is walking away from you with their hands in their pockets, so hard that they fall face-first to the floor, and then walk off behind your mates.



No but you are left sitting in a van for hours being promised a ruck and then confronted by a bunch of hippies who don't actually want a ruck. The whole nature of this kind of policing is over adverserial*. There was probably so much testosterone pumping round that sorry little caveman's brain that he remembers Tomlinson taking a swing at him. This may be the first time you've seen this kind of thing happen but for those of us who've taken part in protests it's merely the first time we've seen it on film.

I don't believe for one moment that the situation with the Sri Lankans this morning couldn't have been better and more quickly resolved through negotiation.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault


well, what a surprise, the cops and the establishment are shown to have lied about the conduct of the police officers and their brutal behaviour on wednesday 1 april. and a man lies dead because of their complicity and their blatant disregard for the health and the safety of those people they purport to protect. 

protect from who? protect from what? protect from baton wielding thugs with shields and body armour and who have no control and no come-back it appears. absolutely sickened by this but am also glad that their actions have been tracked so effectively and that there seems to be a head of steam building - however, i also have extreme concerns that we'll see something akin to the genoa farce second time around.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

BBC site still not reporting it ... 

I've had the strong impression over the last couple of weeks that the Beeb have been doing a lot of news management around the G20. Wonder how they'll play this?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Aye, you'd think any one of those cops, assuming they are the kind decent caring types that agricola implies they are, any one of them might have made a report, or possibly a complaint into an unprovoked assault on a member of the public by one of their team.  I mean, that's what decent people would do, and there's 20 or more decent upstanding coppers there.  I look forward to finding out that at least one of them, just one, made some sort of complaint about that.  After all, that's what a decent person would do.  I mean, I'm not a decent upstanding copper, just a public sector worker, and i'd have made a complaint if my colleague did that.



As I have said, I would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if they have not done that - the point is we dont know whether they have or not, because only the IPCC (and the City of London Police) do at this stage, and indeed the Guardian - beyond releasing it publically - appear not to have provided the IPCC with the dossier yet.  

That said, the statement from NSY (on Sky a couple of minutes ago) that they have no comment to make about this footage except that they do not know whether it is a Met or City officer does not fill me with any kind of confidence right now, though again this is an IPCC managed investigation run  by the City at the present (though if it is a City officer involved, whether its appropriate for them to do it now is probably doubtful) so perhaps the Met do not know the exact state of play. 

Hopefully the IPCC will come out with some kind of statement soon to clarify matters.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> clarify matters.


----------



## where to (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> BBC site still not reporting it ...
> 
> I've had the strong impression over the last couple of weeks that the Beeb have been doing a lot of news management around the G20. Wonder how they'll play this?



will indeed be interesting.

the Daily Mail have been reporting it for almost an hour now.


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


>



exactly, how clear can it be? 

fuck me, imagine the protests that will kick off if the wanker pig ain't brought to justice? And imagine the police response to that, and the protester response to that!!


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

xes said:


> And imagine the police response to that!!



ye every poster on urban will be having heart attack


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> ye every poster on urban will be having heart attack



reported
cunt


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

I wish people would stop quoting badco


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

where to said:


> will indeed be interesting.
> 
> the Daily Mail have been reporting it for almost an hour now.



Torygraph has it now. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...son-struck-by-police-officer-video-shows.html

Neither the Beeb or ITN sites though. Don't have TV so I don't know if it'll they're reporting it there.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

For the record the IPCC are a bunch of nose-in-the-trough-quango cunts who had an account with an executive car company that I used to work for. The fact that a high ranking official from their organisation was responsible for the single most expensive and unnecessary job that I ever allocated as a car controller doesn't give me a lot of faith in their ability to appreciate reality. Their working London office is on the 6th floor of 90 High Holborn as far as I know. I would have thought it was an appropriate place to demonstrate about this.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Don't have TV so I don't know if it'll they're reporting it there.




Have had News24 on all day while I was 'working' and haven't heard a peep. Certainly not on the rotation.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 7, 2009)

It's been on channel4 news.

I would not be at all surprised if they 'can't identify the officer'.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

paulie tandoori said:


> well, what a surprise, the cops and the establishment are shown to have lied about the conduct of the police officers and their brutal behaviour on wednesday 1 april. And a man lies dead because of their complicity and their blatant disregard for the health and the safety of those people they purport to protect.
> 
> Protect from who? Protect from what? Protect from baton wielding thugs with shields and body armour and who have no control and no come-back it appears. Absolutely sickened by this but am also glad that their actions have been tracked so effectively and that there seems to be a head of steam building - however, i also have extreme concerns that we'll see something akin to the genoa farce second time around.



*murdering fucking scum *


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

xes said:


> exactly, how clear can it be?
> 
> fuck me, imagine the protests that will kick off if the wanker pig ain't brought to justice? And imagine the police response to that, and the protester response to that!!



What I meant was whether or not they know who that officer is.  I would hope that by now they do.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

Just shown on SKY news, police pushing him, and he falls over. Helped to his feet by others. He was walking very slowly in front of about dozen police, they were obviously telling him to move, which he appears not to keen to do so, just walking in front of them with his hands in his pocket. That's when the policeman gives him a shove and he goes over.
He did not look to steady on his feet before he went over.

Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong, he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

It looks to me like the officer strikes him in the 'dead leg' point on the thigh before the push ...


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Just shown on SKY news, police pushing him, and he falls over. Helped to his feet by others. He was walking very slowly in front of about dozen police, they were obviously telling him to move, which he appears not to keen to do so, just walking in front of them with his hands in his pocket. That's when the policeman gives him a shove and he goes over.
> He did not look to steady on his feet before he went over.
> 
> Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong, he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.



He does baton him.  Watch the footage at the Guardian.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

Anyone familliar with the area shown in the video know if there is CCTV coverage there? Given that it's central London there can't be much chance this didn't get caught on camera. And if it did, why didn't the IPCC have the footage? Why weren't they the ones stating that Tomlinson had been attacked by police? What's the point of all these fucking cameras if nobody looks at the footage when someone dies in suspicious circumstances?


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Just shown on SKY news, police pushing him, and he falls over. Helped to his feet by others. He was walking very slowly in front of about dozen police, they were obviously telling him to move, which he appears not to keen to do so, just walking in front of them with his hands in his pocket. That's when the policeman gives him a shove and he goes over.
> He did not look to steady on his feet before he went over.
> 
> Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong, he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.



watch the slomo version, he was struck in the leg with a batton.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault


----------



## girasol (Apr 7, 2009)

Ironically, the video was taken by a banker...


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.



He was.

Once on the back of the leg and you see an officer to his left swing at him around the mid section before the camera moves away


----------



## Goatherd (Apr 7, 2009)

BBC now reporting it as 'breaking news', no link yet though.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Just shown on SKY news, police pushing him, and he falls over. Helped to his feet by others. He was walking very slowly in front of about dozen police, they were obviously telling him to move, which he appears not to keen to do so, just walking in front of them with his hands in his pocket. That's when the policeman gives him a shove and he goes over.
> He did not look to steady on his feet before he went over.
> 
> Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong, he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.



Er, not done anything wrong?  The policeman shoved a man walking away from him with his hands in his pockets, hard enough that he fell face first into the pavement   Is that all right then?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

As for him looking a bit unsteady, if I understand the witness interviews I quoted from the Guardian piece correctly, the video shows the _second _time the police knocked him to the ground.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> He was.
> 
> Once on the back of the leg and you see an officer to his left swing at him around the mid section before the camera moves away



No it does not.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> The police have been pulling exactly the same kind of shit at demos since I was a kid (I grew up in an activist house).  The difference is that we can have the videos up on youtube in a few days now. Exactly how clear does the footage have to be before a single policeman is prosecuted over any of this.
> 
> ACAB - no exceptions.



this is very true, whilst the video looks shocking, particularly because of the end result and  especially if you havent seen that kind of thing before (or been on the end of it), to me it looks like stanadrd riot cop behaviour, ive seen far, far worse


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40000757/



> In about 3%, cardiac arrest occurs at the onset but of those successfully resuscitated, about half can leave hospital to an independent existence.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No it does not.



Yes it does, he was hit in the back of the leg with a baton. It's clear as day.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
He was following his training.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone familliar with the area shown in the video know if there is CCTV coverage there? Given that it's central London there can't be much chance this didn't get caught on camera. And if it did, why didn't the IPCC have the footage? Why weren't they the ones stating that Tomlinson had been attacked by police? What's the point of all these fucking cameras if nobody looks at the footage when someone dies in suspicious circumstances?



They may already have that footage (if it exists), indeed they may already be investigating that officer (its worth pointing out that the initial statement suggests that they have his route down on CCTV) - but they would not release it piecemeal to the press, especially given the circumstances (that criminal charges would be likely).  

Nor would they necessarily give full details of what the CCTV actually showed, since it might affect the quality of witnesses at any future trial.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

The controls on the Guardian video don't allow for slowing down or zooming in. Does anyone have the clip as a downloadable file?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



Absolute nonsense.

edit:  and he is clearly batoned by the officer who pushes him right before he pushes him.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

The lying fucking bastards!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> The controls on the Guardian video don't allow for slowing down or zooming in. Does anyone have the clip as a downloadable file?



I can record it for you - I will record it anyway, in case it disappears for some reason.


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



Are you a policeman?


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Absolute nonsense.



No it is not.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push *people who won't move(rather than arrest them)*. They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



He _was_ moving ffs. Furthermore, not moving is not a crime so it's hard to see how they could arrest him for it.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

If a policeman/woman, had died of an heart attack because of being pushed by protesters, should the protesters have been charged with murder or manslaughter?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

just watched that vid and am fucking furious. the fucking lying bastards


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No it is not.



Police are trained to baton someone, then push them over from behind, when they are all the while walking away in the direction the police want them to go with their hands in their pockets?  And then the officer is trained to stand behind other colleagues, with no shield, no gloves, no numbers visible and holding the baton over their shoulder like someone out of _The Warriors_?  

You are talking rubbish.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a policeman/woman, had died of an heart attack because of being pushed by protesters, should the protesters have been charged with murder or manslaughter?



You can bet your shirt that they would have been.  There would be speeches in The House about it and doubtless a new crackdown on being in public in the presence of a  police officer.


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a policeman/woman, had died of an heart attack



This actually happened somewhere in recent years did it not?


----------



## Thora (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a policeman/woman, had died of an heart attack because of being pushed by protesters, should the protesters have been charged with murder or manslaughter?



If a protester struck a copper with a baton, then pushed them so they smacked their head on the pavement and minutes later died, I should think they would definitely be charged with murder


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push *people who won't move*(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



The guy's fucking walking away from them!


----------



## isitme (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a policeman/woman, had died of an heart attack because of being pushed by protesters, should the protesters have been charged with murder or manslaughter?



so you agree he did?


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Police are trained to baton someone, then push them over from behind, when they are all the while walking away in the direction the police want them to go with their hands in their pockets?  And then the officer is trained to stand behind other colleagues, with no shield, no gloves, no numbers visible and holding the baton over their shoulder like someone out of _The Warriors_?
> 
> You are talking rubbish.



The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 7, 2009)

*2 more stories, Audio:*

 She Spent An Hour Gettin Out The Cordon
http://is.gd/q5IT

Photographers Story His Colleague Got Beaten 
http://is.gd/q8kY


Since the murder of Carlos Gialiani there has been a marked determination by some protesters to make sure the bastards responsible for 'justice' are held responsible.

We should salute all those peeps who in any small way get the truth out there, circulating the info and acting on it....

wankers like badco and there ilk can go fuck off.. I have never ignored anyone in my life but sometimes you just have to. I agree with mm ignore the diversions theres plenty more important things to be doing..

Like keep getting the info circulating, in any small way we can..

RIP Ian T
Looks like you are going to be remembered mate..


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?


right here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

posted about 4 times on this thread. And the 2nd time i've posted it for you.

They slow it down for you, so you can see it clearly. And you can see it clearly.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



Chancer.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?



You're on a massive fucking loser here - I'd bow out gracefully if I were you. He's hit with a baton from behind and then pushed onto the concrete, as everyone can see, and lots of people will.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I can record it for you - I will record it anyway, in case it disappears for some reason.



Could you put it somewhere for download? (or forward it to my ID with an r on the end at gmail.com).


----------



## badco (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?



Regardless of what my opinion is he was acting in a non threatening manner and thus no need for any force whatsoever


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> They may already have that footage (if it exists), indeed they may already be investigating that officer (its worth pointing out that the initial statement suggests that they have his route down on CCTV) - but they would not release it piecemeal to the press, especially given the circumstances (that criminal charges would be likely).
> 
> Nor would they necessarily give full details of what the CCTV actually showed, since it might affect the quality of witnesses at any future trial.



Could the fact that false accounts of the incident were being spread to the press by the police not affect the quality of witnesses as well? More, in fact, considering CCTV footage doesn't lie, whereas metropolitan police spokesman seem capable of little else? I'm sure there are reasons why the IPCC wouldn't wish to say anything until they were sure of all the facts, but could they not perhaps have slipped the police a memo to tell them to stop prejudicing a possible criminal case by spreading bullshit?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?



Do you know anything about police training?  As for the footage of him being hit with a baton, that would be the same footage that shows him getting pushed over - but as this is so blatantly obvious that everyone apart from you has seen it, I will be making no further replies to you, troll.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

badco said:


> ye every poster on urban will be having heart attack


You've been warned. 24hr ban, which will leap to 72 hours if you continue on your return.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?



you're a twat if you can't see that 

AND HE WAS FUCKING MOVING


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> you're a twat if you can't see that



or just a trolling attention seeking muppet.


----------



## Goatherd (Apr 7, 2009)

For some reason I can't see any video on the Guardian on Firefox _or_ IE. If anyone finds a different site with the clip then please post it.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 7, 2009)

There was no need for what that officer did.

But it was going on all day.  And I can only presume it goes on all the time.  And it's condoned, accepted, ignored or whatever by senior officers.

It's just this time, someone died and the police and media hype had ensured practically everyone had a camera.


----------



## Callie (Apr 7, 2009)

And this is why it's illegal to photograph and film the police?


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.




No fucking defense in this case, just saw the shocking video on the ch4 news extra there. He was showing no threat, indeed looked as tho he would rather get away from the situation only to be pushed, then wacked with a fucking baton.... clearly before falling to the ground.

wont move??????? he was fucking moving.
edit to add - and no threat around, he was isolated and alone,


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

If that officer get's no sanction there will be fire on the streets over this...


----------



## Dan U (Apr 7, 2009)

well someone who posts on another forum i use has seen the footage and saw the incident and it's aftermath first hand.

she is contacting the IPCC now


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

Callie said:


> And this is why it's illegal to photograph and film the police?



Expect a crackdown on anyone carrying a camera at a protest soon... not that it will make a difference, these days most people gave a high resolution, video-capable camera, in their phone.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

xes said:


> right here
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
> 
> posted about 4 times on this thread. And the 2nd time i've posted it for you.
> ...




Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.
If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Could the fact that false accounts of the incident were being spread to the press by the police not affect the quality of witnesses as well? More, in fact, considering CCTV footage doesn't lie, whereas metropolitan police spokesman seem capable of little else? I'm sure there are reasons why the IPCC wouldn't wish to say anything until they were sure of all the facts, but could they not perhaps have slipped the police a memo to tell them to stop prejudicing a possible criminal case by spreading bullshit?



Were they though?  Look, I have read quite a few articles on this and I cannot recall one where Police denied having hit Tomlinson - indeed, there appear to be only two or three official statements (from the police and IPCC) about him and his death, none of which are fundamentally contradicted by the footage (the closest that does come is the City of London statement that he died of natural causes, but that may well be what the PM found).  

Quite a lot of the allegations of police lying here, for instance with regards to the bottles, seem to stem more from how the media has reported the official statement, rather than the official statement itself.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> It's just this time, someone died and the police and media hype had ensured *practically everyone had a camera.*



That's about the good thing of the time we're in, it's a different world now. Lies aren't easily maintained when ordinary people can document and distribute with very little or no cost.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

perry1 said:


> He was showing no threat, indeed looked as tho he would rather get away from the situation



you couldn't get less threatening! he wasn't masked up, he had his back to the police, hands in his pockets..........


----------



## creak (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
> He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.
> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).



For fucks sake


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Could you put it somewhere for download? (or forward it to my ID with an r on the end at gmail.com).



Uploading now - it's quite a large file, but I don't want to recompress it and lose any detail.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Callie said:


> And this is why it's illegal to photograph and film the police?


It's not actually illegal to photograph and film the police, although there are _certain conditions_ where they can claim that. This certainly wasn't one of those occasions.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
> He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.
> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).




you fucking idiot


----------



## Dan U (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
> He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.
> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).



if you and i have a ruck in a pub and i push and hit you and you fall and bang your head and then die very soon after, i'd be looking at a manslaughter charge in court i imagine.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The lying fucking bastards!



thing is, if evidence like this didnt come out they would continue to squirm.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Expect a crackdown on anyone carrying a camera at a protest soon... not that it will make a difference, these days most people gave a high resolution, video-capable camera, in their phone.



I think they'll struggle to prevent photography at a demo of that sort of size, but at smaller ones, or when caught in 'Rodney King' type circumstances, I think it's pretty clear what's going to happen if you try to film their crimes. 

All the more reason to make sure _everybody _has a camera at major protests.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).


I think you meant to say that if the police hadn't been aggressively imprisoning peaceful protesters  none of this would have happened.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
> He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.



Do you honestly believe he would have had the heart attack at the same time and place if he hadn't been beaten down? You do realise that heart attacks are often triggered by stress don't you?



> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).



So the police went and got tooled up after the violence started? They came tooled for a ruck that had been plugged by the media in advance.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Uploading now - it's quite a large file, but I don't want to recompress it and lose any detail.



You uploading it somewhere that's embeddable? Fucking Guardian and their shit video player is useless...


----------



## Callie (Apr 7, 2009)

yeah sorry, mild over reaction/statement on my part!

their certain condition though are probably a bit like section 5 - applicable when it suits

i wonder what the Freedom of Information Act will allow people access to with regards to this? CCTV footage of the area? I bet there was shitloads

(am rambling, don't know nothing about nothing - feel free to ignore!)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think they'll struggle to prevent photography at a demo of that sort of size, but at smaller ones, or when caught in 'Rodney King' type circumstances, I think it's pretty clear what's going to happen if you try to film their crimes.
> 
> *All the more reason to make sure everybody has a camera at major protests*.



Agreed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think they'll struggle to prevent photography at a demo of that sort of size, but at smaller ones, or when caught in 'Rodney King' type circumstances, I think it's pretty clear what's going to happen if you try to film their crimes.
> 
> All the more reason to make sure _everybody _has a camera at major protests.



Yeah, and all the more reason to resist restrictions on public photography.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You uploading it somewhere that's embeddable? Fucking Guardian and their shit video player is useless...


Can do - give me a bit though.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> if you and i have a ruck in a pub and i push and hit you and you fall and bang your head and then die very soon after, i'd be looking at a manslaughter charge in court i imagine.


Or even murder,  as this example proves: 





> SHOUKAT ALI, a north London businessman, died from a heart attack after chasing and confronting a thief he saw stealing a radio from his son's car, police said yesterday.
> 
> Initial reports suggested Mr Ali died after being severely beaten by the thief but a post- mortem examination yesterday showed bruises on his body were inconsistent with that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Can do - give me a bit though.



No probs. Will keep checking thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).



Nobody attacked the police. The police were in riot gear because that was the plan and because they'd decided beforehand that the protestors were going to kick off. If recent developments as documented on this thread show one thing clearly, it's that you can't trust either the police or the press to tell the truth about this sort of stuff.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Were they though?  Look, I have read quite a few articles on this and I cannot recall one where Police denied having hit Tomlinson - indeed, there appear to be only two or three official statements (from the police and IPCC) about him and his death, none of which are fundamentally contradicted by the footage (the closest that does come is the City of London statement that he died of natural causes, but that may well be what the PM found).
> 
> Quite a lot of the allegations of police lying here, for instance with regards to the bottles, seem to stem more from how the media has reported the official statement, rather than the official statement itself.


Surely one of the key objectives of a post-mortem is to establish the primary and contributory causes of a person's demise? The fact that it was simply reported as a heart attack, rather than raising or mentioning what one would imagine to be fairly clear bruises and markings as perhaps also having contributed to this heart attack, does tend to arouse suspicions, as do smokescreen stories about protestors being somehow complicit in Mr Tomlinson's death. Even his family are asking for further investigations and evidence which has only occuring due to people challenging the official verdicts that tried to brush all this under the carpet.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think they'll struggle to prevent photography at a demo of that sort of size, but at smaller ones, or when caught in 'Rodney King' type circumstances, I think it's pretty clear what's going to happen if you try to film their crimes.


They'd still find it very hard to stop accredited media filming at a demo as there's no credible way they could make the terrorism laws fit the scene.





> The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik):
> I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8958024&postcount=329


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Uploading now - it's quite a large file, but I don't want to recompress it and lose any detail.



Direct link here: http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/uploads/tomlinson_full_guardian.mov (40 meg or so mind you)

I'm converting it to FLV as well, and I'll post the embed link to that when that's done.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Maybe. I think he misses,if not, it's only a smack to the back of the legs, got a lot worse at school.
> He died of an heart attack, not beaten to death by the police.
> If a minority of protesters had not attacked the police, none of this would have happened, that's why they were in riot gear, they must take a part of the blame for his death(the violent protesters).



also further from the guardian website...

"Witnesses said that, prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home."

Your pityful attempts to put any blame on protesters are pathetic. The police went ready for a riot, one they never got. They tried to create one and through redmist, they have killed an innocent man.

Although the family arent saying much now, im sure that it isnt the protesters they will have grudges or questions for.. as will a lot of the country.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

Dan U said:


> if you and i have a ruck in a pub and i push and hit you and you fall and bang your head and then die very soon after, i'd be looking at a manslaughter charge in court i imagine.



I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
It's not in a pub is it? It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Direct link here: http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/uploads/tomlinson_full_guardian.mov (40 meg or so mind you)
> 
> I'm converting it to FLV as well, and I'll post the embed link to that when that's done.



Thanks..
lets get it moving it about as far we can now..
this need to be seen


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
> It's not in a pub is it? *It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters*, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.



even if that were true, does that allow them to carry out some sort of collective punishment?


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
> It's not in a pub is it? It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.



you really are a completly clueless twat, or a shit troll.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.


Apart from hit him from behind and push him to the concrete.


sonny61 said:


> It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters


balls


sonny61 said:


> the police were in a crown/riot control situation


balls


sonny61 said:


> They were following their training


not their official training


sonny61 said:


> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.


Oh, I imagine that will show him _diving to the floor by himself and bashing his head on the paving stones for a laugh_. We've all just misinterpreted this, bad camera angle or something.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Direct link here: http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/uploads/tomlinson_full_guardian.mov (40 meg or so mind you)
> 
> I'm converting it to FLV as well, and I'll post the embed link to that when that's done.



That's not loading for me, any chance of a youtube upload?


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

perry1 said:


> The police went ready for a riot, one they never got. They tried to create one and through redmist, they have killed an innocent man.



Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen. 
It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Quite a lot of the allegations of police lying here, for instance with regards to the bottles, seem to stem more from how the media has reported the official statement, rather than the official statement itself.



Ever heard of lying by omission? Omission, for example, of the very pertinent fact that Tomlinson was assaulted by a copper moments before he died? Surely even the most feeble of investigations would have involved questioning police officers who were nearby at the time, none of whom apparently saw fit to mention that one of their number had decided that Tomlinson's presence was grounds for corporal punishment. As far as it's possible to tell, the police were happy to keep this under wraps and it was only independant investigation by journalists and someone's personal video footage that brought the matter to light. Never mind bottles, that's a big enough lie for me thankyou.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



But Ian Tomlinson clearly was no part of that minority, so why attack him?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
> It's not in a pub is it? It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.



If you're being serious, then you;re a sad example of humanity. I hope for your own sake you're a silly little troll.


----------



## Darios (Apr 7, 2009)

Unfucking believable that some can still condone this.

Like some posters have said it IS typical police behaviour, especially at a protest, football match etc.

I can recall numerous times when I've sent someone flying at work and they've cracked their head. And despite the fact this person may have been trying to punch me in the head at the time, or stamp on someone's face, if *anyone* makes a complaint, no matter how spurious, the police are always very keen to chase it as far as possible. And they've done this before even when the CCTV footage clearly shows the fight from beginning to end, with the "victims" starting it.

It appears I've been doing it all wrong - I should have been pushing random people over in the street who were minding their own business. That's obviously above reproach.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Surely one of the key objectives of a post-mortem is to establish the primary and contributory causes of a person's demise? The fact that it was simply reported as a heart attack, rather than raising or mentioning what one would imagine to be fairly clear bruises and markings as perhaps also having contributed to this heart attack, does tend to arouse suspicions, as do smokescreen stories about protestors being somehow complicit in Mr Tomlinson's death. Even his family are asking for further investigations and evidence which has only occuring due to people challenging the official verdicts that tried to brush all this under the carpet.



Firstly, if thats what the PM said, and assuming that the PM was done and reported correctly, then its difficult to see what the COLP did wrong by reporting it as such, especially if they or the IPCC did not know about what we now know.  

Secondly, and this is not a criticism though it will appear to be, I note that the familys request for people to speak to the IPCC rather than the media/blogs in that appeal was not followed in this case.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.


i think you'll find that there's quite a significant and growing number of people who are talking about police brutality following this incident. far larger than your rather hysterical "minority of protestors".


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> even if that were true, does that allow them to carry out some sort of collective punishment?



No it it does not.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No it it does not.



so why the fuck are you trying to justify the police's treatment of Ian Tomlinson?


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



there's nothing dramatic about it, it's how it played out. You've got reports from the news papers saying things like "I've felt more threatened in a primary school playground" because it was...*ahem* A PEACEFUL FUCKING PROTEST YOU THICK LITTLE CUNT *ahem*

It only kicked off when the police moved in, everyone was happy before the police moved in. Most of them remained happy till LONG after they were penned in. The police started it, all, yes some people did react, but they fuckign would. Being treated like that by them thuggish wankers.

you're on a troll and I'm paying you no more attention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



If what's shown in that video doesn't strike you as 'police brutality' then you're a fucking idiot. They weren't 'reacting' to anything, they were just being cunts.

And there's still no evidence any protestors, minority or otherwise, went 'looking for a ruck' as you put it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Apart from hit him from behind and push him to the concrete.
> 
> balls
> 
> ...



I'm faintly surprised that neither of our far-right trolls has suggested yet that the fact that the assailant had his face covered means he was an anarchist provocateur trying to bring the police into disrepute by dressing up as a copper and going around killing random people in front of video cameras.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 7, 2009)

What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.



If someone commits an act of manslaughter should it be ignored?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.



why do you think that might be, hmm?

oh, so he's a non-protestor now is he? so what's the justification for the police attack on him?


----------



## netbob (Apr 7, 2009)

The police with dogs appear to be form the City of London - the same force that's been asked to investigate the death by the IPCC as far as I can see. umm not conflict of interest there. carry on.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

I will upload to you tube as soon as I've finished downloading. Will provide link as soon as that's done. Any suggestions for non-hysterical title?


----------



## Callie (Apr 7, 2009)

Yes, how dare people be so disrespectful 

A unnecessary death possibly caused by the wrongful action of the police.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Firstly, if thats what the PM said, and assuming that the PM was done and reported correctly, then its difficult to see what the COLP did wrong by reporting it as such, especially if they or the IPCC did not know about what we now know.
> 
> Secondly, and this is not a criticism though it will appear to be, I note that the familys request for people to speak to the IPCC rather than the media/blogs in that appeal was not followed in this case.


On your second point, then of course the family would be asking that - trial by blog might be annoying but it doesn't really have any real legal clout does it? I know we like to pretend that u75 _really_ puts the world to rights but i ain't convinced yet....

On your first, why didn't a competent coroner observe what would be visible bruising and markings, especially in light of the circumstances of his death? Why weren't questions being asked publically immediately following the PM about his being beaten by cops?? Because, imo, 'they' tried to cover up the backstory I'm afraid. And because people subsequently kept coming forward and because real hard evidence has been found that directly proves much of what has been claimed as being the true story, we now see the IPCC saying that they'll look more deeply at the events surrounding his death.

For all the good that I suspect that this will ultimately do.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ever heard of lying by omission? Omission, for example, of the very pertinent fact that Tomlinson was assaulted by a copper moments before he died? Surely even the most feeble of investigations would have involved questioning police officers who were nearby at the time, none of whom apparently saw fit to mention that one of their number had decided that Tomlinson's presence was grounds for corporal punishment. As far as it's possible to tell, the police were happy to keep this under wraps and it was only independant investigation by journalists and someone's personal video footage that brought the matter to light. Never mind bottles, that's a big enough lie for me thankyou.



Again, did they know that at the time?  Tomlinson collapsed 200 yards away from where this incident occured, and from the statement in its initial form they clearly spoke to independent witnesses at Cornhill to get their account of events there.  

The journos, witnesses and everyone else did not know the dead man was  Tomlinson, and that he was the same guy as was the person at the Royal Exchange until pictures of him being treated came to light.  They then came forward and informed the press and IPCC, and the IPCC appears to have reacted appropriately to those reports.


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> I will upload to you tube as soon as I've finished downloading. Will provide link as soon as that's done. Any suggestions for non-hysterical title?



OMG NWO POL1CE ST8 MURDERING NAZI SCUM!! ?

hows that


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.



you really are clutching at the lowest of the low. In numerous threads and posts, im not going through them all for you, it has been mentioned that sadly an innocent man has died.

Your not worth replying to ..


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.



No need, the police have demonised themselves.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> I will upload to you tube as soon as I've finished downloading. Will provide link as soon as that's done. Any suggestions for non-hysterical title?



How about something like the Guardian's one? Also, make sure it's tagged well...


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



Come round to mine and say that you CUNT, fucking read the whole post, no and this means no one was looking for a ruck, not even fucking Ian he was on his way home, and was killed by the police, we are all been drama Queens are we my love, and your just a FUCKING CUNT what is it with urban and wankers like you and others, fuck me it is simple idd ban you if i was mod with such comments, for fucking hells sake a man has been killed, and all i hear is this form of bullshit..

THE POLICE KILLED IAN, NO ONE WAS LOOKING FOR A RUCK IS THIS CLEAR YOU WANKERS?

Gone of to calm down, others please forgive shure you understand:


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
> It's not in a pub is it? It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.



it was actually quite early in the day, and the pigs had the area pretty locked down by that time


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



were you there?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> I will upload to you tube as soon as I've finished downloading. Will provide link as soon as that's done. Any suggestions for non-hysterical title?



I've got it going now, though feel free - the more places it is, the better.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

just ignore him. there's no point arguing with an idiot.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> On your second point, then of course the family would be asking that - trial by blog might be annoying but it doesn't really have any real legal clout does it? I know we like to pretend that u75 _really_ puts the world to rights but i ain't convinced yet....
> 
> On your first, why didn't a competent coroner observe what would be visible bruising and markings, especially in light of the circumstances of his death? Why weren't questions being asked publically immediately following the PM about his being beaten by cops?? Because, imo, 'they' tried to cover up the backstory I'm afraid. And because people subsequently kept coming forward and because real hard evidence has been found that directly proves much of what has been claimed as being the true story, we now see the IPCC saying that they'll look more deeply at the events surrounding his death.
> 
> For all the good that I suspect that this will ultimately do.



Questions about the PM are really hard to answer without knowing what it actually says - I mean it could say there were no bruises, or it could say that there were bruises but the pathologist determined that they were related to him falling over when he collapsed (which would be relevant here of course), or it could have said his heart problems were really, really pronounced and had been going on for some time.  We dont know at this stage.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Bollocks, stop being a drama Queen.
> It was a minority of protesters who went looking for a ruck, and as per usual scream police brutality if the police react.



But you still justify and try to explain away the actions of the copper seen clearly on the film batonning the man and then for no reason pushing him to the floor.

That the police claimed they were nowhere near the inciodent not even causing you to question a thing.  Nothing to see here move along, just a dead bloke.....


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> What seems important to most posting their comments on the video, is a chance to demonise the police. Not the sad death of a non protester.



Do you think that the offending office should faces charges of assualt?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think you'll find that there's quite a significant and growing number of people who are talking about police brutality following this incident. far larger than your rather hysterical "minority of protestors".



Oh yes. This is the sort of thing that makes your gran say "fuck the police".


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> How about something like the Guardian's one? Also, make sure it's tagged well...



Suggested tags? First time I put a vid on youtube.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Suggested tags? First time I put a vid on youtube.



g20 police Ian Tomlinson?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> But you still justify and try to explain away the actions of the copper seen clearly on the film batonning the man and then for no reason pushing him to the floor.
> 
> That the police claimed they were nowhere near the inciodent not even causing you to question a thing.  Nothing to see here move along, just a dead bloke.....



The police never made such a claim.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> g20 police Ian Tomlinson?



aye keep it simple
people can keep reposting it anyway how



> OMG NWO POL1CE ST8 MURDERING NAZI SCUM!! ?


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The police never made such a claim.



The copper on the news did.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

From The Guardian. The video is perhaps not the worst part of this...



> One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.
> 
> "A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

> The City of London Police said: "A post-mortem examination found he died of natural causes.
> "[He] suffered a sudden heart attack while on his way home from work."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7982855.stm

Natural causes?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

> The witness accounts contradict the official version of events given by police.



well who'da thunk it?


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> g20 police Ian Tomlinson?



Is there a limit?

If it was doing it on flickr, I'd do as above, plus:

protest london demonstration iantomlinson guardian theguardian metropolitanpolice cityoflondon cityoflondonpolice

(Not sure if the 'merged words' thing is needed for YouTube though)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

Watching that again, it looks like the masked assailant strikes him in the back/side of the thigh some place around the tibial/sciatic nerve area. 

The effect, as the officer could be reasonably expected to be aware from training and/or experience, is likely to be a 'dead leg' and if the strike is hard/accurate enough, the collapse of that leg, which in either case would increase the chances of the victim falling over. Especially given the hard shove that immediately follows the strike. 

Given that the poor guy has his hands in his pockets and is looking a bit shaky anyway (possibly as a result of the previous assault witnesses report) then it's pretty obvious he's going to fall hard and hurt himself on the pavement and so it looks like the attack was _calculated_ to cause the guy to fall over painfully.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


>




already unavailable?!

correction - it's ok!


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> already unavailable?!



looks like they're right on it tonight!


----------



## Callie (Apr 7, 2009)

:/


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> already unavailable?!



works for me


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

ddraig said:


> looks like they're right on it tonight!



it's working for me


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> already unavailable?!



I can still get to it....


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


>




Thanks thats all over the place..


----------



## ddraig (Apr 7, 2009)

working again but did say 'unavailable' few mins ago
cheers


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

yeah it's all good now.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

Guardian CiF makes for interesting 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson?commentpage=1


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

In that case I'll cancel my uplload. It's dropped the connection twice.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

Linked on the CiF website is this footage of a NYPD officer taking out a critical mass bicylist: Jesus fooking Christ.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/officer-who-attacked-cyclist-charged.php


----------



## Goatherd (Apr 7, 2009)

Now on the BBC news website too :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

> One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.
> 
> "A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.
> 
> ...



*Total speculation warning*

I'm now wondering whether this *might* have been the same officer shown in the video. Maybe some earlier 'issue' (as described by the report above), officer and his mate denumber, mask up, ready to prove a point that they think they'd failed to make a few minutes earlier?

Total speculation on my part.

Even if the two events were unconnected, the video is clear about the incident. There's no mob, no visible threat at all. The man hasn't "only just" turned his back on the officer. There's nothing I can see in the video that's mitigating at all.

I think one would need alot more info, and medical qualifications I certainly don't have, to positively link it all the way to his death, but it's difficult to see anything less than assault with the very limited info we have. (And I'm not suggesting then, that it should be left at that, BTW).


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Goatherd said:


> Now on the BBC news website too :
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm


Yep. It's part of a feature which is seriously questioning the police version of events. There is clearly nothing in the man's behaviour that warrants the violent police response.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Linked on the CiF website is this footage of a NYPD officer taking out a critical mass bicylist: Jesus fooking Christ.
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/officer-who-attacked-cyclist-charged.php



Fucking hell. That's just fucking vicious.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Linked on the CiF website is this footage of a NYPD officer taking out a critical mass bicylist: Jesus fooking Christ.
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/officer-who-attacked-cyclist-charged.php



Wasnt that on here a while back?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Wasnt that on here a while back?


yes and its all a bit pointless and distracting on a thread about Ian Tomlinson's death and the police's role, whatever that appears to be. so i don't think we should allow the discussion to be dragged into completely unrelated areas.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 7, 2009)

Not only is he not doing anything to warrant that level of violence, he isn't fazed by the dogs right around him and hasn't moved with the crowd, which has pushed back to a safer distance.

He looks unwell.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yes and its all a bit pointless and distracting on a thread about Ian Tomlinson's death and the police's role, whatever that appears to be. so i don't think we should allow the discussion to be dragged into completely unrelated areas.



Fair enough, wasnt me who posted it.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Yep. It's part of a feature which is seriously questioning the police version of events. There is clearly nothing in the man's behaviour that warrants the violent police response.



ive just watched the slowmotion again, probably for the last time for a while. its actually really really fcking disturbing. He was showing no threat at all, there was clearly a baton to his leg, then a push that resulted in a fall that appears as tho his head strikes the concrete.

You see him sitting up trying to probably ask officers what they were doing as he is just trying to get home.. (okay ive no way of proving that, but open hand jestures etc)..

watching someone innocent trying to get home, showing no threat at all.. their last fcking seconds. to be let down by the police like that ... it makes you mad.

lets see what "justice" comes of this. 

disgraceful.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Fair enough, wasnt me who posted it.


no i know, i was just making the point is all.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Fair enough, wasnt me who posted it.



apologies........


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

How many cops saw what happened, and said nothing, did nothing, condemned this man to death? One of them seems to be a FIT copper - can anyone identify them? http://bristle.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blogg20witnessoraccessory.jpg


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

e19896 said:


> How many cops saw what happened, and said nothing, did nothing, condemned this man to death? One of them seems to be a FIT copper - can anyone identify them? http://bristle.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blogg20witnessoraccessory.jpg



need a higher res image than that


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

Stephen Moss, staff writer at the Guardian just posted this.....




> When the Guardian offered this astonishing footage to the BBC News at 6, apparently the response was "No thanks, we're not covering this, we see it as just a London story." Great news sense down there at TV Centre.
> 
> Brilliant work by Paul Lewis to pull apart the Met's web of lies. Now let's hope the new commissioner will set about changing this masonic, closed-ranks culture ... or is that wild optimism on my part? A police force that lies through is teeth is, in effect, no police force at all.



What the fuck?

I think a BBC bombardment is due....


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 7, 2009)

Right, posted this about in a few place. I read sky covered it as a lead story tonight. Leaving this now as it's far too depressing...that poor guys family.


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stephen Moss, staff writer at the Guardian just posted this.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



!! *explodes with anti BBC rage* 

Controlled media at its worse.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 7, 2009)

They almost got away with brushing this under the carpet... they were about to declare the investigation done and dusted just 48 hours after it happened...


----------



## pesh (Apr 7, 2009)

i count 3 or 4 FIT officers in that video...


----------



## xes (Apr 7, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> They almost got away with brushing this under the carpet... they were about to declare the investigation done and dusted just 48 hours after it happened...



they would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't have been for those pesky kids.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

e19896 said:


> How many cops saw what happened, and said nothing, did nothing, condemned this man to death? One of them seems to be a FIT copper - can anyone identify them? http://bristle.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blogg20witnessoraccessory.jpg



Lets wait until we find out what the IPCC have found out before condemning people, shall we?  As for him being a FIT cop, I doubt it - his colleagues seem really poorly equipped, as if they have only kitted up from spare gear.




			
				Barking Mad said:
			
		

> What the fuck?
> 
> I think a BBC bombardment is due....



Its shabby if they did do that, but as I posted at the time Sky News did trail a report along these lines about two hours before they actually showed it, you dont know what terms the Guardian actually put on its use or whether there were legal issues involved.  

Also, I have said this before but it is deeply misleading for them to claim the Met span a web of lies around this - unless they have access to other info that has not been reported.  Certainly Paul Lewis' article only mentions that the Met didnt mention it at the time, which as has been mentioned could easily be because they didnt know.


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

Fucking apologist shite from the BBC.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

That fucking police patsy Daniel Sandford has just been on the BBC saying that the footage "raises arkward questions"

What a cunt.


----------



## netbob (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Lets wait until we find out what the IPCC have found out before condemning people, shall we?



The IPCC have the City Police investigating it (they are the guys with the red bands on their caps in the video)


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 7, 2009)

it's just been played on the BBC.

edit... ooops too late


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

memespring said:


> The IPCC have the City Police investigating it (they are the guys with the red bands on their caps in the video)



At the moment, yes.  As I said above I would question whether thats appropriate, unless they know it was a Met officer involved.


----------



## XR75 (Apr 7, 2009)

Corax said:


> Fucking apologist shite from the BBC.



Nice to see where the TV license is going.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 7, 2009)

The establishment are all over this one. A friend of mine posted a link to the gaurdian story and vid on facebook. It has now curiously disappeared!


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> At the moment, yes.  As I said above I would question whether thats appropriate, unless they know it was a Met officer involved.



Guardian commentary said the officer has "MP" on his helmet meaning Met.

(I couldn't see clearly enough myself, and no idea what the letters mean).

But either way, if it was a mix of Met & City, then it would it more appropriate that it was neither investigating.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stephen Moss, staff writer at the Guardian just posted this.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wheres the best place to send our initial thoughts, any email ad in particular?


----------



## cantsin (Apr 7, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I have watched it a dozen times now, the policeman has done nothing wrong.
> It's not in a pub is it? It's the end of a day when the police had become under non stop attack from a minority of protesters, the police were in a crown/riot control situation. They were following their training
> The whole incident will be on CCTV anyway.



can people plse start ignoring this  piece of worthless shit, we're just mugging ourselves off getting involved , and there really are more imptnt things to be thinking about at the moment than this fuck with his crusty tissues and empty life . It will go away eventually if ignored , surely


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

perry1 said:


> wheres the best place to send our initial thoughts, any email ad in particular?



one of these

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/feedback/default.stm


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

From CiF





> I witnessed Tomlinson being given CPR and when i saw the police's faces at the time you could tell they were responsible. They told us then that he'd been killed by a protestor throwing a bottle at him, and so the cover up began.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

cantsin said:


> can people plse start ignoring this  piece of worthless shit, we're just mugging ourselves off getting involved , and there really are more imptnt things to be thinking about at the moment than this fuck with his crusty tissues and empty life . It will go away eventually if ignored , surely


Then lead by example and don't divert the thread any further by reposting his inane comments_ all over again_, hours after he's said them.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stephen Moss, staff writer at the Guardian just posted this.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'll recall that the BBC at one point was actually saying 'police sources say Tomlinson was killed by hail of bottles' or words to that effect. Looks like there's something really fucking fishy going on with the way the Beeb are reporting the G20 protets. I guess they learned their lesson about going 'off message' after the beating they took over the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly story and are now just obedient little whipped dogs.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 7, 2009)

BBC "Footage seems to show a man being pushed by a policeman"

Curious that they had cropped the video to remove the copper pushing him..........


----------



## cantsin (Apr 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Then lead by example and don't divert the thread any further by reposting his inane comments_ all over again_, hours after he's said them.



apols , late to the thread, and the guy drives me nuts with no discernible upside to his presence , but that's your call


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You'll recall that the BBC at one point was actually saying 'police sources say Tomlinson was killed by hail of bottles' or words to that effect. Looks like there's something really fucking fishy going on with the way the Beeb are reporting the G20 protets. I guess they learned their lesson about going 'off message' after the beating they took over the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly story and are now just obedient little whipped dogs.



This, I think.  Thank fuck some other sections of the media aren't so supine.

That video is absolutely shocking.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 7, 2009)

More4 News is getting stuck in. Their lead story: "did the Police cause the death of an innocent man...footage has emerged clearly showing him being attacked by police despite presenting no threat at all."  

The bbc.co.uk story just says he was "pushed".


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> BBC "Footage seems to show a man being pushed by a policeman"
> 
> Curious that they had cropped the video to remove the copper pushing him..........



Just looked, they sort of have the copper pushing him, but they've cut some of the stuff with the cops just standing over him looking at him on the floor they've cut out the bit where his attacker sort of stands at the back looking guilty with a mask over his face for a bit then slopes off out of shot, and they've edited in a lot of stuff putting the police PR case, the subsequent attempt to help him, although the 'hail' of bottles is now 'a bottle' and then cut again to those bozos smashing up RBS. 

To me, the indications are that they're spinning it still.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 7, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> BBC "Footage seems to show a man being pushed by a policeman"
> 
> Curious that they had cropped the video to remove the copper pushing him..........



Didn't show he getting whacked across the back of the legs with the banton either???


----------



## dweller (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm getting more and more angry and upset about this. Today I was speaking to a very mild mannered middle aged man who went to have a look at the demo last week. According to him, he was knocked to the ground when the crowd surged away from police who were rushing them. He ended up with police officers kicking him in the side of his body and standing heavily on his chest. He is still in pain from the assault. What happened to poor Ian Tomlinson could have happened to him.
And now this video....


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Looks like there's something really fucking fishy going on with the way the Beeb are reporting the G20 protets.



To me it's been inconsistent rather than coordinated. The live coverage seemed very balanced. Then when it later went to the 'highlights' stuff, it got packaged into more 'newsworthy' chunks (i.e. lots of smashy mob).

I'm not seeing a conspiracy, more that they're getting quite behind now on the breaking info. Guardian is trailing the blaze, and oddly with the Mail and Telegraph trying to keep pace (as at about 7pm-ish).


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

Newsnight breaking a massive unrelated story tonight, all VT.


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

Newsnight covering now


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 7, 2009)

The BBC at the moment have  completly non-sensical title:  "Footage shows G20 death man push"


----------



## kenny g (Apr 7, 2009)

The BBC bulletin news has been a fucking insult. I am pleased that I stopped paying my licence two months ago. I don't watch live TV any more and save 12 squid a month.


----------



## Corax (Apr 7, 2009)

Mealy mouthed bullshit on Newsnight too.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> To me it's been inconsistent rather than coordinated. The live coverage seemed very balanced. Then when it later went to the 'highlights' stuff, it got packaged into more 'newsworthy' chunks (i.e. lots of smashy mob).
> 
> I'm not seeing a conspiracy, more that they're getting quite behind now on the breaking info. Guardian is trailing the blaze, and oddly with the Mail and Telegraph trying to keep pace (as at about 7pm-ish).



The contrast between their live coverage and the studio comment along with the editorial behaviour culminating in 



> stephenmoss
> 
> 07 Apr 09, 9:57pm (1 minute ago)
> Staff Staff writer
> ...


 source above

... suggests to me that the issue is editorial policy. Basically it looks like the people who define the news agenda and the editorial slant are behaving in a supine manner and that the journalists are still capable of doing their jobs.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

At the risk of defending the BBC, please bear in mind that they have both of the major political parties in this country gunning for them to an extent (thanks largely to Murdoch's influence), are subject to far more political interference than any of the other media outlets are - witness the strange Parliamentary criticism earlier in the day where the BBC was criticized for doing what successive Governments have demanded it do, for example - and are, post-Kelly, apparently terminally afraid of any story which, however justified (as Gilligans report was), will cause the powers that be to jump on them, with no redress.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

3 minutes on Newsnight about 'kettling' not a peep of the video. I think people should start considering withholding license fee over this. Every other news agency seems to be leading with it.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 7, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You'll recall that the BBC at one point was actually saying 'police sources say Tomlinson was killed by hail of bottles' or words to that effect. gs.



Reminds me of 7/7 when immediately after the shooting of charles de mendes the Met chief declared that they had killed one of the terrorists.


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

Newsnight slot, just done, seemed fairly conducted. Several repeats of the key bit of the footage. Line of questioning to the MPA member was generally empathic.

Not seeing any BBC conspiracy here at the mo.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> At the risk of defending the BBC, please bear in mind that they have both of the major political parties in this country gunning for them to an extent (thanks largely to Murdoch's influence), are subject to far more political interference than any of the other media outlets are - witness the strange Parliamentary criticism earlier in the day where the BBC was criticized for doing what successive Governments have demanded it do, for example - and are, post-Kelly, apparently terminally afraid of any story which, however justified (as Gilligans report was), will cause the powers that be to jump on them, with no redress.



True. They're still rubbish though.

R4 are being much more direct with this by the way - they're clearly saying "an officer is seen hitting him with a baton on the left leg then pushing him over", whereas on the telly, they're saying "now it does _look_ like a police officer is involved here...".


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> At the risk of defending the BBC, please bear in mind that they have both of the major political parties in this country gunning for them to an extent (thanks largely to Murdoch's influence), are subject to far more political interference than any of the other media outlets are - witness the strange Parliamentary criticism earlier in the day where the BBC was criticized for doing what successive Governments have demanded it do, for example - and are, post-Kelly, apparently terminally afraid of any story which, however justified (as Gilligans report was), will cause the powers that be to jump on them, with no redress.



Well quite. Which is entirely consistent with the behaviour which we're seeing. Chomsky and Hermann describe the process at work quite well as 'flak' 

The thing is, the public can also generate 'flak' and I believe that the disgraceful way the BBC are trying to spin this, presumably to avoid offending the government, deserves a really intense barrage of 'flak' ...


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> 3 minutes on Newsnight about 'kettling' not a peep of the video. I think people should start considering withholding license fee over this. Every other news agency seems to be leading with it.



TBF, Newsnight normally runs around stories where they can get heavyweights on and give it a going over.

It's possible that this one - the Guardian Vid - caught them on the hop.

That aside, it does deserve something more in depth.


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> R4 are being much more direct with this by the way - they're clearly saying "an officer is seen hitting him with a baton on the left leg then pushing him over", whereas on the telly, they're saying "now it does _look_ like a police officer is involved here...".



Will be interesting to see if the 'TV' Beeb change their approach to the story tomorrow.


----------



## Lakina (Apr 7, 2009)

I've just seen the video - very sad.  Looks to me like he pissed one of the cops off, and they decided to take a chop at him.  That hapened quite a bit on the day from what I can see.  Cop probably didn't mean to seriously hurt him.  On the other hand that bloke who thumped that guy at Sainsbury's could make the same excuse, but still got sent down.  However, I suspect it will be hard to prove that the blow caused the heart attack.  It might have been responsible, but I doubt it can be proven.

Personally I'd cross the road to avoid aggrevating cops in a situation like that -there are some real thugs in the force and if you give them a slight excuse they'll take a pop.


----------



## where to (Apr 7, 2009)

as soon as that went up on the Guardian website this story was out and there was no way it could be disappeared.

i think the bbc attitude is that they'd rather have the other news outlets (press and sky for example) do the early running with it and then they can be seen just to follow this story rather be behind it.  this tells us quite a bit about them (they're shit scared) but its nothing particularly surprising.

what matters is now that this story is out, which it well and truly is, how are things taken forward from here?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> True. They're still rubbish though.
> 
> R4 are being much more direct with this by the way - they're clearly saying "an officer is seen hitting him with a baton on the left leg then pushing him over", whereas on the telly, they're saying "now it does _look_ like a police officer is involved here...".



BBC News, especially News 24, is rubbish anyway though, as Paolo999 says the coverage thus far on the BBC smacks more of inconsistency (and timidity) than anything else.  

One also questions (and I appreciate you may not have said this) notions of a conspiracy anyway - you could perhaps imagine it with de Menezes, where very senior officers / government policy was involved to various extents, but this incident appears to be clearly down to one, probably very junior, officer acting in an apparent criminal manner, who can one imagines be safely condemned without it affecting anyone else (or rather, anyone senior) - if such things did occur, of course.

As for coverage of this video, they (the BBC) probably recognize that at this stage there is little else that can be done apart from show it - the rest of the story will have to wait until the IPCC has got its investigation underway.  What else can you do?  Replay it endlessly, have numerous talking heads agreeing solemnly about how out of order it is?


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Lakina said:


> Personally I'd cross the road to avoid aggregating cops in a situation like that -there real thugs in the force and if you give them a slight excuse they'll take a pop.


And what happens when you are unable to 'cross the road' on account of you being hemmed in by baton wielding cops?


----------



## kenny g (Apr 7, 2009)

expect some political "scandal" or leak of new government initiative to swamp the headlines if this gets any bigger. Maybe even  a royal engagement. These scum  have enough pools of shite they can call upon  if need be to cloud the newz aagen-da


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 7, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

The Graun are running this as an exclusive. this now looks like a clear case of manslaughter. The only issue left is convicting the scumthug responsible and hopefully hauling the Met over the coals for being liars, and the press for believing their endless bullshit.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 7, 2009)

I expect you already picked this up .. 

But this was featured on ITV News at Ten tonight. A short video of him being knocked down by a policeman and then IIRC another short piece at which it was announced he died of a heart attack.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 7, 2009)

kenny g said:


> expect some political "scandal" or leak of new government initiative to swamp the headlines if this gets any bigger. Maybe even  a royal engagement. These scum  have enough pools of shite they can call upon  if need be to cloud the newz aagen-da




Yep. The state reserves the right to kill serfs with impunity.


----------



## bezzer (Apr 7, 2009)

hit to the back of the leg with a baton? could be deep vein thrombosis? sounds like murder - the Actus reus being the unlawfull killing in the queens peace and the mensrea maliice aforethoght or GBH... thin skull rule applies... really need an inquiry now...


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

kenny g said:


> expect some political "scandal" or leak of new government initiative to swamp the headlines if this gets any bigger. Maybe even  a royal engagement. These scum  have enough pools of shite they can call upon  if need be to cloud the newz aagen-da



Sadly, that can and maybe will happen, without it being conspired. In the next week, this story could be drowned by anything.

And that would be a sad thing.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
> 
> The Graun are running this as an exclusive. this now looks like a clear case of manslaughter. The only issue left is convicting the scumthug responsible and hopefully hauling the Met over the coals for being liars, and the press for believing their endless bullshit.


Kudos to the 'City type' who filmed the attack too: 





> The man who shot the footage, a fund manager from New York who was in London on business, said: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 7, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
> 
> The Graun are running this as an exclusive. this now looks like a clear case of manslaughter. The only issue left is convicting the scumthug responsible and hopefully hauling the Met over the coals for being liars, and the press for believing their endless bullshit.



And de menezes was running down the stairs, vaulting the barrier with wires sticking out of him. The Met are a criminal organisation.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> BBC News, especially News 24, is rubbish anyway though, as Paolo999 says the coverage thus far on the BBC smacks more of inconsistency (and timidity) than anything else.
> 
> One also questions (and I appreciate you may not have said this) notions of a conspiracy anyway - you could perhaps imagine it with de Menezes, where very senior officers / government policy was involved to various extents, but this incident appears to be clearly down to one, probably very junior, officer acting in an apparent criminal manner, who can one imagines be safely condemned without it affecting anyone else (or rather, anyone senior) - if such things did occur, of course.
> 
> As for coverage of this video, they (the BBC) probably recognize that at this stage there is little else that can be done apart from show it - the rest of the story will have to wait until the IPCC has got its investigation underway.  What else can you do?  Replay it endlessly, have numerous talking heads agreeing solemnly about how out of order it is?



Oh, no, I don't call it a conspiracy, that implies something hidden - it's nothing out of the ordinary as you say. News24 is basically the Whitehall Channel; the TV news bulletins are slightly up from that; the other outlets are better but do come under a bit of scrutiny. Generally the actual journalists chafe at it but don't have a lot of opportunity to get past on-message editors. R4 has a few programmes which are strongly personality-led, so those personalities have an opportunity to affect the agenda should they choose to; they won't do anything too radical, but kicking the police here, I can see.

They don't just play the video, though. On the website - taken from Whitehall24 I think - I saw the Home Affairs correspondent seriously wondering whether these were really police officers at all. You know, this chap _appears_ to be a policeman, given that he's wearing a police uniform, and he _appears_ to be surrounded by other policemen in an area where there appeared to be police. We wouldn't want to be _biased_ or anything and say "Tomlinson was pushed over by a copper". Balance!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Kudos to the 'City type' who filmed the attack too:



Absolutely. There is still hope.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> BBC News, especially News 24, is rubbish anyway though, as Paolo999 says the coverage thus far on the BBC smacks more of inconsistency (and timidity) than anything else.
> 
> One also questions (and I appreciate you may not have said this) notions of a conspiracy anyway - you could perhaps imagine it with de Menezes, where very senior officers / government policy was involved to various extents, but this incident appears to be clearly down to one, probably very junior, officer acting in an apparent criminal manner, who can one imagines be safely condemned without it affecting anyone else (or rather, anyone senior) - if such things did occur, of course.
> 
> As for coverage of this video, they (the BBC) probably recognize that at this stage there is little else that can be done apart from show it - the rest of the story will have to wait until the IPCC has got its investigation underway.  What else can you do?  Replay it endlessly, have numerous talking heads agreeing solemnly about how out of order it is?



I don't know about 'one junior officer behaving in a criminal manner' my strong impression was that this sort of stuff was going on all over the place and this is simply the only case where the victim died a few minutes later.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

This has now happened with the death of Ian Tomlinson in the City of London on 1 April.

He was not a G20 protestor, but was just making his way home after work.

The attack on Mr Tomlinson -- captured on video and published by The Guardian -- and other acts of brutality by the police at the G20 protests, show that  life and limb are potentially in danger from policing tactics for anyone carrying out their lawful and democratic right to protest

A full public inquiry must be held into the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson’s death. A review of the confrontational and often brutal policing methods on lawful public demonstrations is now a matter of urgency to ensure that we have no more tragedies like the death of Ian Tomlinson.

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1171/27/

I need to goto sleep, not shure if ill manage this haveing seen what ive seen, read what ive read full of tears and rage.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yep. The state reserves the right to kill serfs with impunity.



I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer doing something that is both on his own back, and for which clear evidence appears to exist that he actually did it and who can, and of course should, be dealt with appropriately without it affecting anyone else.  

Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer doing something that is both on his own back, and for which clear evidence appears to exist that he actually did it and who can, and of course should, be dealt with appropriately without it affecting anyone else.
> 
> Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?



What sort of "conspiracy" are you proposing here? It doesn't take a lot.

Closing ranks? Of course they do, of course they fucking do....


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> .... but this incident appears to be clearly down to one, probably very junior, officer acting in an apparent criminal manner, who can one imagines be safely condemned without it affecting anyone else (or rather, anyone senior) - if such things did occur, of course.




I think you need to take a trip over to Youtube and have a look at some of the footage there, to realise that this isn't just a case of one, or even a few bad apples. Indeed it would appear that the overall method of policing involved the meting out of indiscriminate violence to many innocent protestors. 

It would also be interesting to find out just how many people suffered injuries as a consequence of the Police actions last week.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer doing something that is both on his own back, and for which clear evidence appears to exist that he actually did it and who can, and of course should, be dealt with appropriately without it affecting anyone else.
> 
> Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?


Did you see any of his fellow officers giving a fuck after he'd criminally assaulted Tomlinson? 

No? So what does that tell you?


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I saw the Home Affairs correspondent seriously wondering whether these were really police officers at all. You know, this chap _appears_ to be a policeman, given that he's wearing a police uniform, and he _appears_ to be surrounded by other policemen in an area where there appeared to be police.



That's just ridiculous. I like to think I'm a healthy sceptic, but FFS fake dog handlers? With the rather specific City of London hats?

Any name on that journo welcomed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> That's just ridiculous. I like to think I'm a healthy sceptic, but FFS fake dog handlers? With the rather specific City of London hats?
> 
> Any name on that journo welcomed.



I can't find the video now 

I am absolutely 100% positive that I heard that being said. The BBC are famous for replacing their web content without warning mind. I'll keep looking.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer doing something that is both on his own back, and for which clear evidence appears to exist that he actually did it and who can, and of course should, be dealt with appropriately without it affecting anyone else.
> 
> Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?



No, but his actions appear to be entirely consistent with the behaviour a great number of officers on duty that day, which can be presumed to be intentional and intended to have a 'chilling effect' on displays of public dissent. I therefore imagine they'll resist very strongly any attempt to change the way such events are policed as a result of this incident. People were getting pushed around and whacked with batons all over London, it's just that this time they happened to kill some poor guy. Therefore what should happen is that the general behaviour of the police should be changed, if necessary by making an example of this fucking animal. We know that won't happen though don't we? The officer in question, assuming that he's ever identified, will be at the most, disciplined internally. After all, the government wouldn't want to harm police morale now would they? Especially if they anticipate a 'summer of rage' due to the economic disaster they and their mates have wished on the rest of us.


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer doing something that is both on his own back, and for which clear evidence appears to exist that he actually did it and who can, and of course should, be dealt with appropriately without it affecting anyone else.
> 
> Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?



A possible reaction to what we've seen, if you were neither perpetrator or supporter, would be to have as little recollection as possible. It doesn't mean collusion, just that you didn't see the specifics. That way you aren't the grass. Noone wants to be the grass.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 7, 2009)

Christ you wouldn't believe the shite I'm getting from police forums.

Maybe the officer was pushing the man away from the dogs


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Did you see any of his fellow officers giving a fuck after he'd criminally assaulted Tomlinson?
> 
> No? So what does that tell you?



That depends on what they have done subsequently.


----------



## Retro (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> That's just ridiculous. I like to think I'm a healthy sceptic, but FFS fake dog handlers? With the rather specific City of London hats?
> 
> Any name on that journo welcomed.



On 'the world tonight' on R4 a report by John Minel [spelling?] starts 


> It shows Ian Tomlinson being pushed over by a man who certainly looks like he is a policeman, in a police uniform and a riot helmet with a visor. This man is standing alongside other police officers


and later


> We don't know if this incident in any way contributed to his death. All we know is the home office pathologist found he died of a heart attack


iPlayer from about 34 mins


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> A possible reaction to what we've seen, if you were neither perpetrator or supporter, would be to have as little recollection as possible. It doesn't mean collusion, just that you didn't see the specifics. That way you aren't the grass. Noone wants to be the grass.



The thing is though, and being entirely cynical and self-serving (rather than public-spirited) here, you wouldnt want to *not* be the grass if you were one of those officers who were near Tomlinson when he was pushed.  

If they dont come forward - and they all may well have (as may have the officer involved), for all we know - they are all going to be justifiably dealt with when the investigation does find them, either through detective work or because someone else comes forward.  




			
				Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> No, but his actions appear to be entirely consistent with the behaviour a great number of officers on duty that day, which can be presumed to be intentional and intended to have a 'chilling effect' on displays of public dissent. I therefore imagine they'll resist very strongly any attempt to change the way such events are policed as a result of this incident. People were getting pushed around and whacked with batons all over London, it's just that this time they happened to kill some poor guy. Therefore what should happen is that the general behaviour of the police should be changed, if necessary by making an example of this fucking animal. We know that won't happen though don't we? The officer in question, assuming that he's ever identified, will be at the most, disciplined internally. After all, the government wouldn't want to harm police morale now would they? Especially if they anticipate a 'summer of rage' due to the economic disaster they and their mates have wished on the rest of us.



Perhaps, but again being cynical the state / Police might turn around and excoriate this officer but claim that it wasnt representative of events on the day.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 7, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> I think you need to take a trip over to Youtube and have a look at some of the footage there, to realise that this isn't just a case of one, or even a few bad apples. Indeed it would appear that the overall method of policing involved the meting out of indiscriminate violence to many innocent protestors.
> 
> It would also be interesting to find out just how many people suffered injuries as a consequence of the Police actions last week.



I've started a separate thread about that. Doesn't seem to be any interest tbh.  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=285371


----------



## e19896 (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I can't find the video now
> 
> I am absolutely 100% positive that I heard that being said. The BBC are famous for replacing their web content without warning mind. I'll keep looking.



My mate works there going to ask him to do me a DVD of all G20 realted news from last week, he is in charge of I player and it,s uploads will have to 8 4 09 i need to rest:


----------



## Tankus (Apr 7, 2009)

Seen on another forum (guido fawks) that a few think its a police woman that assaulted him
(badge an uniform has some differences from the other officers )
Maybe she just hates men ?

Where's the street cam footage ...? all of it  ...... its wall to wall security cameras down there .....


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

Tankus said:


> Maybe she just hates men ?


Best to just stick to the facts in this case, I reckon.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> <snip> Perhaps, but again being cynical the state / Police might turn around and excoriate this officer but claim that it wasnt representative of events on the day.



They might, but if they did throw him to the wolves, who knows what he might say with say Michael Mansfield or Gareth Pierce coaching him? 

"The boss told us to go out there and make those soap dodgers think twice about coming on another demo. 

I wasn't doing anything other officers weren't doing or anything we don't all do dozens of times on every demo we police."


----------



## laptop (Apr 7, 2009)

BBC 'the world tonight' on R4 report by John Minel (spelling?) said:
			
		

> It shows Ian Tomlinson being pushed over by a man who certainly looks like he is a policeman, in a police uniform and a riot helmet with a visor. This man is standing alongside other police officers



Had I written that, it would have been a deeply sarcastic nod to the Police Federation's very able libel lawyers.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

nick h. said:


> I've started a separate thread about that. Doesn't seem to be any interest tbh.  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=285371


I think we've got enough threads on the topic already, to be honest. Not bothering to tag new threads also makes them harder to find, btw.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The police never made such a claim.


odd that there's been no admission up til this point from the police that any officer had actually done anything to him prior to this video footage coming out though.

I reckon it's highly doubtful that not one of the coppers in that video remembered what had happened once his face was picture was published, yet either none of them had voluntarily come forward to set the record straight, or the Met as an organisation had decided that this information didn't need to be made public. Either way, it's a poorly executed attempt at a cover up, and to me says a hell of a lot about why nobody with any sense trusts a word the police say.

Had this footage not come to light, I sincerely doubt any of those copper would ever have said a thing about it.

I hope you're deeply ashamed of the organisation you work for right now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Christ you wouldn't believe the shite I'm getting from police forums.
> 
> Maybe the officer was pushing the man away from the dogs



This is from a plod forum:



> With reference to the guardian news clip I tried, but unfortunately could not hear any of the dialogue between the officers and Mr Tomlinson and purely because of that I'll choose to reserve judgement, I think..... unless someone has a transcript!!!!



As if something Tomlinson might have said justifies assault


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The thing is though, and being entirely cynical and self-serving (rather than public-spirited) here, you wouldnt want to *not* be the grass if you were one of those officers who were near Tomlinson when he was pushed.
> 
> If they dont come forward - and they all may well have (as may have the officer involved), for all we know - they are all going to be justifiably dealt with when the investigation does find them, either through detective work or because someone else comes forward.



Well hold on, on past evidence they aren't, are they? At the very worst they might be have to retire on full pay. Whistleblow, though, and you're facing the opprobrium of the whole force.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2009)

It's made UK Yahoo's lead story: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090407/tuk-g20-victim-assaulted-by-policeman-dba1618.html



> G20 victim 'assaulted by policeman'
> 
> A man who died during the G20 protests was roughly shoved to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer, new video footage shows.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fullyplumped (Apr 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is from a plod forum:



Can you supply a link to this?


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> The thing is though, and being entirely cynical and self-serving (rather than public-spirited) here, you wouldnt want to *not* be the grass if you were one of those officers who were near Tomlinson when he was pushed.



A complication here is that what those other officers saw was not of the same scale then as it is now.

They perhaps saw a colleague act "out of hand", but it appears "no harm done". They'll have seen many situations in reverse. A colleague gets bowled over on pub-chuck-out scenario, but doesn't go for assault, because he was okay afterwards.

So it's a bit embarrassing, but you don't go running to the professional standards people, because it's not as if anyone really got hurt.

But then, quite possibly out of sight of those officers, something much more tragic happened.

And it's only becoming "joined up" now things like this video are emerging.

It's now at this point you have to switch, and report some behaviour that you didn't previously. And of course you should. But I can see some human psyche thinking - "err, well nothing to report before, so I'll stay with that."

I'm being very speculative here, I'll admit.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 7, 2009)

If there is a will... the officer can easily be traced , just track back on the street security cameras to see where they came from and where they went , the vans are all numbered , there will be top grade digital cameras to hard drives  there , not the grainy stuff you see on TV


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I disagree... as I said above, this appears to be a relatively junior officer



Could you explain the reasoning behind that statement?


----------



## paolo (Apr 7, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Whistleblow, though, and you're facing the opprobrium of the whole force.



Quite. I can't imagine life is much fun in the job if you get labelled as a grass.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> Does anyone genuinely think they would create a vast (and necessarily implausible) conspiracy to save one Pc from the consequences of his own actions?



No, if the identity of the officer who did it becomes clear he will be crucified. But his identity will not be revealed by any of his colleagues.


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

free spirit said:


> odd that there's been no admission up til this point from the police that any officer had actually done anything to him prior to this video footage coming out though.
> 
> I reckon it's highly doubtful that not one of the coppers in that video remembered what had happened once his face was picture was published, yet either none of them had voluntarily come forward to set the record straight, or the Met as an organisation had decided that this information didn't need to be made public. Either way, it's a poorly executed attempt at a cover up, and to me says a hell of a lot about why nobody with any sense trusts a word the police say.
> 
> ...



You have no idea of whether or not the IPCC already know who that officer is, who the officers with him (or her, it seems) are, or even whether they knew that this push had taken place (indeed, given some of the earlier media reports which did say that the bloke had been pushed, they may have).


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> You have no idea of whether or not the IPCC already know who that officer is, who the officers with him (or her, it seems) are, or even whether they knew that this push had taken place (indeed, given some of the earlier media reports which did say that the bloke had been pushed, they may have).



We all know your a copper/ex-copper but is there any chance of giving us a quick summary of your role in the police force and your current position so we know who we're speaking to? Nothing too revealing obviously, just give us a quick summary.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, if the identity of the officer who did it becomes clear he will be crucified. But his identity will not be revealed by any of his colleagues.



As above, I think that might be tricky, especially if he has a good lawyer. He wasn't doing anything that a vast number of his colleagues weren't also doing, it's just he was unfortunate enough to have killed someone and they weren't. 

So IMO the potential for arguing that he was 'just following orders' or at least professional norms by acting in that manner gives him considerable leverage.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Quite. I can't imagine life is much fun in the job if you get labelled as a grass.


yep.

problem is that these are supposed to be the people who are paid to uphold the law, not some playground gang who'll bully anyone who tells on them


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> A complication here is that what those other officers saw was not of the same scale then as it is now.
> 
> They perhaps saw a colleague act "out of hand", but it appears "no harm done". They'll have seen many situations in reverse. A colleague gets bowled over on pub-chuck-out scenario, but doesn't go for assault, because he was okay afterwards.
> 
> ...



Well exactly.  Being cynical again, this now becomes about your job, pension, and not going to prison following Tomlinson's death, when it was previously about Pc X's unjustifiable use of force.  




			
				maomao said:
			
		

> Could you explain the reasoning behind that statement?



I cant believe anyone above an Inspector would be in that situation (which is why I said junior), and TBH I have a hard time believing that officer is either an Inspector or Sergeant, because of the manner of kit (Insps and Sgts should have coloured flashes on their shoulders for public order gear).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> Can you supply a link to this?



Certainly:

http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=8


----------



## Stoat Boy (Apr 7, 2009)

Utterly disgusted at this footage. 

Its disgusting to see them hitting this man from behind when he was presenting zero threat.

I suppose I have not got anything to add to this thread beyond that but unlike many of you I DID have faith in the Police prior to this but its now gone.

They have been allowed to become a power unto themselves. Its fucking shocking, simple as. 

And there has to be a comparison to the softly softly approach taken to the illegal protest by the Tamils at Westminster.


----------



## maomao (Apr 7, 2009)

agricola said:


> I cant believe anyone above an Inspector would be in that situation (which is why I said junior), and TBH I have a hard time believing that officer is either an Inspector or Sergeant, because of the manner of kit (Insps and Sgts should have coloured flashes on their shoulders for public order gear).



Above an inspector? To be honest, I'm not popo so I have no idea what that means. The only inspector I ever met was the one who game me a caution and he looked 50+ so you're stretching the definition of junior surely?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> We all know your a copper/ex-copper but is there any chance of giving us a quick summary of your role in the police force and your current position so we know who we're speaking to? Nothing too revealing obviously, just give us a quick summary.



low management, not on the streets currently, not public order trained (and never have been).


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> low management, not on the streets currently, not public order trained (and never have been).



Cool, so you have no direct experience of how such units are organised and you've never had experience in crowd control at an event of this type?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> You have no idea of whether or not the IPCC already know who that officer is, who the officers with him (or her, it seems) are, or even whether they knew that this push had taken place (indeed, given some of the earlier media reports which did say that the bloke had been pushed, they may have).


you don't think the IPCC might have added that some of the witnesses to the push who'd come forward were coppers then? or that the met maybe should have issued a statement to that affect if the coppers had come forward as you suggest, so as to help correct the misleading impression given by their earlier statements?


this is the exact same arse covering bullshit media strategy the met employed with de menezes, and it stinks of a deeply rotten organisation.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Certainly:
> 
> http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=8


Thank you - very interesting.


----------



## jayeola (Apr 8, 2009)

Just seen the video. Shame. Condolenses to his family. The Police have really fucked up this time. Some one must be held accountable.


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Cool, so you have no direct experience of how such units are organised and you've never had experience in crowd control at an event of this type?



I don't think Agricola has made any claim to that though?


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Cool, so you have no direct experience of how such units are organised and you've never had experience in crowd control at an event of this type?



The way public order units are organized isnt that different from non-public order trained units - they both usually comprise the same number of officers to a serial and have the same proportion of supervisory officers.  

Basically there are three levels of public order training in the Met - level 1 (which is the TSG), level 2 (which is local officers who have been on at least one two-day course where tactics are practiced and who have access to riot gear) and level 3, which is everyone else who has just basic training and normal gear.  I have always been level 3 - which means you usually do some low-risk demos (though these can kick off), some football (same), and other public events, in addition of course to usual duties and incidents that one comes across during the course of a shift.  

So no, I have never been part of a shield line or anything like that, nor have I ever kettled anyone - but then I am also aware of what is and what is not permitted for an officer to do, or not do, in those circumstances - because those arent any different for the lowliest Pc on a relief than they are for someone on the TSG.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I don't think Agricola has made any claim to that though?



No, but he's been the voice of police on this thread and just wanted to make crystal clear his actual experience.

ACAB - no exeptions.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

free spirit said:


> you don't think the IPCC might have added that some of the witnesses to the push who'd come forward were coppers then? or that the met maybe should have issued a statement to that affect if the coppers had come forward as you suggest, so as to help correct the misleading impression given by their earlier statements?
> 
> this is the exact same arse covering bullshit media strategy the met employed with de menezes, and it stinks of a deeply rotten organisation.



No, because (a) the IPCC have only made the briefest statement to acknowlege the existance of this video and (b) the earlier official statements from both the IPCC and Met/COLP did not give a misleading impression.  I do however think the IPCC should, as soon as possible, state whether or not that officer has been identified, though.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> So no, I have never been part of a shield line or anything like that, nor have I ever kettled anyone - but then I am also aware of what is and what is not permitted for an officer to do, or not do, in those circumstances - because those arent any different for the lowliest Pc on a relief than they are for someone on the TSG.



So you probably have less experience of how the police behave in such situations than most posters on this thread. In other words most of us have been closer to a police line on a demo than you have and all you know is the party line.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, but he's been the voice of police on this thread and just wanted to make crystal clear his actual experience.
> 
> ACAB - no exeptions.



I havent tried to offer anything but my own opinions, sorry.


----------



## moon23 (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> Did you see any of his fellow officers giving a fuck after he'd criminally assaulted Tomlinson?
> 
> No? So what does that tell you?



That they look after there own. 

This indivdual's act of violence is systematic of a wider  methods used to police protests. He is part of a police force that trains it's PC's to violently surpress protests, he is part of a society in which the Government has restricted our rights to protest, he is part of a court system that justifies kettling. 

The whole system is rotten to it's core and it's down to people like us to do something about it.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> So you probably have less experience of how the police behave in such situations than most posters on this thread. In other words most of us have been closer to a police line on a demo than you have and all you know is the party line.



I would have thought my posts on this thread disproved that, but there you go.

edit:  and to be honest, I cant ever remember a post on this thread where I have suggested anything about the tactics used at G20.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> I havent tried to offer anything but my own opinions, sorry.



Fair enough. Just trying to make it clear the experience that formed those opinions. I've been posting here many years and know that you're filth but would like it to be clear on this thread exactly what level of filth you are as you seem to be arguing in support of the police (as an organisation, I'm not accusing you of supporting the arsehole who actually killed this guy).


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> So you probably have less experience of how the police behave in such situations than most posters on this thread. In other words most of us have been closer to a police line on a demo than you have and all you know is the party line.



Earlier in the thread, quite a few times, Agricola unequivocally condemned what he/she saw in the video.

(It's possible that you haven't seen those posts).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

For what it's worth, agricola seems to me to be a reasonable bloke. So much so that I only realised he was a copper when he told me he was. I've never seen him try to bully anyone or use a tirade of foul mouthed aggression instead of a coherent argument, which I guess is why I never understood that he was on the force until he told me he was.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2009)

> Dude, you dont know the full facts. You did not see the run up to the incident. Trust me, no matter how it looks the officers actions may well be justified. The fact of the matter is, you dony know, I dont know and if you dont know for a fact then best not to pass judgement too soon. You may well end up with egg on your face!



more gold from OB forums...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> So you probably have less experience of how the police behave in such situations than most posters on this thread. In other words most of us have been closer to a police line on a demo than you have and all you know is the party line.



A fair point. I will stick up for Agricola so far as to say that he hasn't claimed to be posting anything other than his own opinion, and that his perspective is an interesting one which, unlike most of the other pro-police posters on this and the other g20 threads, has yet to descend into outright trolling and bullshit. 

I will also say that the organisation he works for is rotten to the core and will remain so until the unaccountability, violence, authoritarianism, political kowtowing, prejudice, outright lying and 'sticking up for our own' gang mentality they've shown time and again are no longer tolerated.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Earlier in the thread, quite a few times, Agricola unequivocally condemned what he/she saw in the video.
> 
> (It's possible that you haven't seen those posts).



I saw those posts. He also asked us to wait for IPCC judgement before passing judgement and suggested that it was an unusual occurence and entirely the fault of the individual officer. I have very little faith in the IPCC and wanted to clear up Agricola's personal level of experience lest he be seen as some sort of police spokesperson.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> more gold from OB forums...



When the news of Tomlinson's death first broke the plod forums were overflowing with posters declaring it a cast-iron fact that violent protestors had prevented him from getting treatment and, by implication, caused his death. Now the boot is on the other foot it's all "we don't know what happened so lets not jump to conclusions"


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> A fair point. I will stick up for Agricola so far as to say that he hasn't claimed to be posting anything other than his own opinion, and that his perspective is an interesting one which, unlike most of the other pro-police posters on this and the other g20 threads, has yet to descend into outright trolling and bullshit.
> 
> I will also say that the organisation he works for is rotten to the core and will remain so until the unaccountability, violence, authoritarianism, political kowtowing, prejudice, outright lying and 'sticking up for our own' gang mentality they've shown time and again are no longer tolerated.



In which case I apologise for my deliberately provocative use of the term 'filth'.


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> more gold from OB forums...



I had a look... barring maybe one post, looks like badly informed/reactionary rubbish. The discussion here is largely alot more informed and intelligent. Police-Bollocks-Oracle is a sideshow...


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> No, because (a) the IPCC have only made the briefest statement to acknowlege the existance of this video and (b) the earlier official statements from both the IPCC and Met/COLP did not give a misleading impression.  I do however think the IPCC should, as soon as possible, state whether or not that officer has been identified, though.


(a) the point I was making was in reference to the fact that as far as I can tell, none of the coppers on the video had come forward voluntarily before the video was released, so any statement the IPCC has made after it's released is irrelevant to that point.

(b)...


> The City of London Police said: "A post-mortem examination found he died of natural causes.
> "[He] suffered a sudden heart attack while on his way home from work.
> "The family thanked all the people who rushed to Ian's aid when he collapsed and said how grateful they are for all the efforts that were made to help him."


[bbc-sat5th]
I don't see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the death was in anyway connected to the actions of any police officers from this widely reported statement. Therefore it is misleading, and should have been corrected had any of those officers come forward to tell the police or IPCC the fuller version of the events that led to his death. Note that I didn't say it was deliberately misleading.

to expand on what I said earlier, either none of those copper had come forward voluntarily prior to the video being released, or the police hierachy had decided to cover it up for as long as possible / at the very least do nothing to correct the false impression their original statements had given.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> this now looks like a clear case of manslaughter. The only issue left is convicting the scumthug responsible and hopefully hauling the Met over the coals for being liars, and the press for believing their endless bullshit.


*no police ever get done for anything in this country - possibly in any country.

remember that with Rodney King the police all got let off by jury!

be prepared for at best some kind of moral victory in this battle - certainly no one will be charged with anything.

all you can hope to do is share with your friends and colleauges what bastards the police and media can be.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> When the news of Tomlinson's death first broke the plod forums were overflowing with posters declaring it a cast-iron fact that violent protestors had prevented him from getting treatment and, by implication, caused his death. Now the boot is on the other foot it's all "we don't know what happened so lets not jump to conclusions"



Lying prick filth. And muppet fuckwit stooge journos : Another faction of the enemy within.


----------



## exleper (Apr 8, 2009)

Just to play devil's advocate here, and I'm not for one second in any way justifying the actions of the copper in the video, but there are a few things I did want to offer for the sake of balance in what seems a mostly one sided discussion...

1. This video, shocking though it is, is not necessarily indicative of a systemic problem of violence or brutality within the plod.  Nor, I think, should all coppers be tarred with the same brush.  A lot of them are decent people doing a tricky job.
2. For all this talk of violence, we shouldn't forget the pointless aggression also seen on that day from the protesters(and I know it was a TINY, microscopic minority of an otherwise peaceful crowd, but still, smashing windows and burning car achieves absolutely fuck all.)  With all the press hysteria leading up to it the atmosphere was pretty tense anyway, NOTHING justifies the coppers actions, but it can explain it.
3. I do get that impression that many people on the internet, this forum especially, come to the table expecting a police fuck up and then take a particular amount of glee when they do.  I can't see this as a healthy attitude.  Like it or not we need the police and the only way we are going to improve things in this area is through mature and rational reconciliation and dialogue, rather than an immature 'us vs them' mentality which drives the coppers into these tragic fuck ups in the first place.

just to clarify: that video is tragic, and the copper who shoved Ian Tomlinson should be tried and convicted for manslaughter, and the people who lied about the nature of his death should be sacked, at the very least.  I can see what's wrong here, but it's way too easy to self-righteous in that classic lefty 'fuck the police' way, in my extremely humble opinion.

edit: while I was writing this post, agricola made some very interesting and balanced posts, so my post seems a bit unecessary, but you get my drift.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2009)

If you're going to do devil's advocate you have to do a bit more than that, sorry, come on.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> *no police ever get done for anything in this country - possibly in any country.
> 
> remember that with Rodney King the police all got let off by jury!
> 
> ...



TBH, there are plenty more demos comming and people are unlikely to be as naive about the disgusting menace of the state in future. Demonstrators have a RESPONSIBILITY to health and safety of our comrades. We are peaceful but we must no longer be slack on self defence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> In which case I apologise for my deliberately provocative use of the term 'filth'.



I for one will never apologise for using such terminology. No matter how many 'good eggs' there are in the police force they all wear the same uniform as the nasty ones and will stick up for them when the shit hits the fan, so I personally wouldn't trust any of them


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/kettling/


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2009)

Thhe BBc clearly does have bias, agendas, etc one saw it in the way the welfare reform agenda has been portrayed, for example, they very rarely have any grassroots claimants on amd accept much of the 'language of the Govt spinmasters, eg, using terms like 'handouts', and of course, the BBC has famously declared 'it is not neutral on multi-culturalism.

btw, if this goes further and the perpetrators are brouight to justice, surely the role of the 'citizen journalist/photographer and the multifarious media which has in many ways, 'democratized news'


soory, back on topic to this awful event


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

The issue in my view is that the police are being used to suppress dissent. The tactics used are pretty clearly designed to intimidate people into not showing up to protest. Kettling, refusing to let people out of the kettle until they've been id'd and photographed, random violence as an aid to intimidation of the sort that killed the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson, viciously cynical PR briefings to a mostly cowed media, the introduction and almost immediate abuse of draconian anti-terror laws, most recently including one which could very easily be abused to prevent exactly this kind of evidence from emerging. There's something badly wrong with the way police are being used to exert a 'chilling influence' on public dissent in this country. It's got progressively worse over the last 30 or so years and it's about time that the mass of the public realised it and put a stop to it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> TBH, there are plenty more demos comming and people are unlikely to be as naive about the disgusting menace of the state in future. Demonstrators have a RESPONSIBILITY to health and safety of our comrades. We are peaceful but we must no longer be slack on self defence.



An issue for another thread I suspect. But I do think nonviolence = passivity is an idea that needs to be challenged. When coppers charge at you for no reason is it violent to stand your ground, or to protect those around you? If you run away or follow orders when threatened with violence are you perpetuating the use of violence?


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> J
> 3. I do get that impression that many people on the internet, this forum especially, come to the table expecting a police fuck up and then take a particular amount of glee when they do.  I can't see this as a healthy attitude.


I was there, and I'm taking great glee in seeing the truth about what happened that day come to light.

It wasn't just one cop acting out of character. It was a persistent and unified campaign of intimidation, disproportionate aggression and bullying against predominately peaceful protesters, all of whom were treated as criminals. 

We were held against our will with no water or food and only got away by narrowly avoiding a baton smashed in the face, just for peacefully walking away.

They may have got away with justifying their tactics in the past by trying to pass off every protest as a carnival of violence, but they've become seriously unstuck here as the facts slowly trickle out. It's about time the Met faced the music for their tactics and this time they can't blame the protesters.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The issue in my view is that the police are being used to suppress dissent. The tactics used are pretty clearly designed to intimidate people into not showing up to protest. Kettling, refusing to let people out of the kettle until they've been id'd and photographed, random violence as an aid to intimidation of the sort that killed the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson, viciously cynical PR briefings to a mostly cowed media, the introduction and almost immediate abuse of draconian anti-terror laws, most recently including one which could very easily be abused to prevent exactly this kind of evidence from emerging. There's something badly wrong with the way police are being used to exert a 'chilling influence' on public dissent in this country. It's got progressively worse over the last 30 or so years and it's about time that the mass of the public realised it and put a stop to it.


Frame this post over the front door to u75 please.



treelover said:


> perpetrators are brouight to justice,


forget about it - there will be no prosecutions -there never are


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/kettling/



Apart from handing the government your name and address to put on their database of people who support violent extremism, signing that won't do any good at all.


----------



## exleper (Apr 8, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you're going to do devil's advocate you have to do a bit more than that, sorry, come on.


Alright, devil's advocate was the wrong phrase.  Devil's advocate would have been "What if it wasn't the fault of the police?" whereas I was going "Here's a slightly alternative point of view".


----------



## cesare (Apr 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Just shown on SKY news, police pushing him, and he falls over. Helped to his feet by others. He was walking very slowly in front of about dozen police, they were obviously telling him to move, which he appears not to keen to do so, just walking in front of them with his hands in his pocket. That's when the policeman gives him a shove and he goes over.
> He did not look to steady on his feet before he went over.
> 
> Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong, he was not struck with a baton, put pushed by the policeman, and he went over very easily.



He wasn't protesting or angry. He didn't  do anything. Just crossing the street when he got taken out.

'he went over very easily' - what? He was attacked from behind by a lone police officer at sufficient force to throw him to the other side of street.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> An issue for another thread I suspect. But I do think nonviolence = passivity is an idea that needs to be challenged. When coppers charge at you for no reason is it violent to stand your ground, or to protect those around you? If you run away or follow orders when threatened with violence are you perpetuating the use of violence?



Yes, these are things for another thread, but I wont start one just yet. We all need time to think and discuss the many ideas we will have for safeguarding our health and safety against the criminal elements of the state.

This must include methodology and equpiment for possible breakout from kettling which is a deliberate and highly dangerous tactic.

I'm fucked if Im going to stop being involved in street protest, but double fucked if Im going to end up in some Hillsborough situation because of those lying violent criminal filth.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

For anyone who hasn't been invovled in protests or who wasn't there on the day and is shocked by this video - its how the police were behaving all day - and I saw several  worse unprovoked attacks than whats on that video. Its pretty much how riot police behave all the time. 

This is not a 'junior officer whose been poorly trained' or an individual bad apple - this is utterly normal cop behaviour. You see similar shit from the goon squad at football matches every week as well

And the cops ALWAYS lie about any incident where this behaviour leads to serious injury of death. From Harry stanley to de menzies -  its the  standard
operating procedure - and the media dutifully and  consistantly repeat it as fact. 

Agricola - whilst he is rightfully condemming the actions of the cop in question - must have spent his time in the force in the cadet band or in the traffic cone division if he really thinks that such behaviour is a shocking aberrration.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

cesare said:


> He wasn't protesting or angry. He didn't  do anything. Just crossing the street when he got taken out.
> 
> 'he went over very easily' - what? He was attacked from behind by a lone police officer at sufficient force to throw him to the other side of street.



Bear in mind also that according to the witness statements quoted in the Guardian that was the _second_ time he'd been knocked down, not the first. So it's not entirely surprising that he was looking a little bit wobbly ...

Also, if I'm correctly understanding what I'm seeing in the video he was whacked with a baton in one of the major nerves in his leg a split second before he was deliberately knocked to the ground.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from handing the government your name and address to put on their database of people who support violent extremism, signing that won't do any good at all.



Fair point.

I see them as fairly useless myself too, but just found the link on indymedia.

This was also there:

G20 Meltdown Saturday 11th April 2009

Assemble this Easter Saturday 11.30am
BETHNAL GREEN POLICE STATION

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1079


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

free spirit said:


> (a) the point I was making was in reference to the fact that as far as I can tell, none of the coppers on the video had come forward voluntarily before the video was released, so any statement the IPCC has made after it's released is irrelevant to that point.



You dont know though - they may (indeed, one would hope that they would) have come forward at the same time the witnesses did - when pictures of Tomlinson being treated were released to the media.  The IPCC would not necessarily release that info by itself, though perhaps they should confirm it one way or the other now.




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> (b)...
> [bbc-sat5th]
> I don't see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the death was in anyway connected to the actions of any police officers from this widely reported statement. Therefore it is misleading, and should have been corrected had any of those officers come forward to tell the police or IPCC the fuller version of the events that led to his death. Note that I didn't say it was deliberately misleading.



As I said earlier, while that statement may be in some ways misleading it may not be false - we dont know what the PM says beyond what has been released, and once again I point out that the IPCC and COLP may have had no idea that there was any involvement with police prior to his collapse in Cornhill.  If they did and they put it out then obviously serious questions need to be asked, but it would be wrong to assume that at this stage.




			
				free spirit said:
			
		

> to expand on what I said earlier, either none of those copper had come forward voluntarily prior to the video being released, or the police hierachy had decided to cover it up for as long as possible / at the very least do nothing to correct the false impression their original statements had given.



Again, we dont know what the progress of the IPCC investigation is.


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Apart from handing the government your name and address to put on their database of people who support violent extremism, signing that won't do any good at all.


How does being against kettling lead to supporting violent extremism? 

I won't even ask you to back up the database claim because I know you haven't got a scrap of proof on that score and I don't want to disrupt the thread with endless paranoid-speak. Feel free to start a new thread on this topic, if you like.


----------



## well red (Apr 8, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> We saw the police live on the news being pelted with bottles as they tried to save him.



Now that _actual _footage of this has been released, showing what we knew to be the case all along (i.e. that the police were not pelted with bottles), and proving that this could not have been shown on live TV, I would like to take this opportunity to call PacificOcean a LIAR and suggest that THEIR PANTS are actually ON FIRE.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> For anyone who hasn't been invovled in protests or who wasn't there on the day and is shocked by this video - its how the police were behaving all day - and I saw several  worse unprovoked attacks than whats on that video. Its pretty much how riot police behave all the time.
> 
> This is not a 'junior officer whose been poorly trained' or an individual bad apple - this is utterly normal cop behaviour. You see similar shit from the goon squad at football matches every week as well
> 
> ...




Agreed. This isnt a bad apple. This is systemic. That amount of wanton violence can only be sanctioned at a high level. The crime gos to the top. We nail them or they will continue to shit on us and kill us.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Be sure to complain to the BBC that they carry unchecked Met lies as truth despite their track record.

03700 100222


----------



## treelover (Apr 8, 2009)

RE, bashing Agricola, 

Surely the fact he posts on here and takes the time to explain his point of view(and often serious legal issues) is a good thing, though lets hope he doesn't go like another policeman who used to post on here who ended up in a Australian jungle in the ridiculous 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here!


----------



## exleper (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> I was there, and I'm taking great glee in seeing the truth about what happened that day come to light.
> 
> It wasn't just one cop acting out of character. It was a persistent and unified campaign of intimidation, disproportionate aggression and bullying against predominately peaceful protesters, all of whom were treated as criminals.
> 
> ...


I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence.  There were no arrests.  The police behaved extremely well, I thought.  Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day.  This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday.  What was the difference? Why was there a difference?

Perhaps part of the reason was the media.  The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc.  So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations?  If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble?  It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution.  I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

Which reminds me, we haven't heard from pdxm on this yet. 

Perhaps he's helping the IPCC with their inquiries ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence.  There were no arrests.  The police behaved extremely well, I thought.  Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day.  This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday.  What was the difference? Why was there a difference?
> 
> Perhaps part of the reason was the media.  The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc.  So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations?  If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble?  It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution.  I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.



There's also the question of numbers, far more people were present at the Saturday event, whereas on Wednesday, the police may well have outnumbered the protesters and hence felt more comfortable about getting nasty with them.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> Just to play devil's advocate here, and I'm not for one second in any way justifying the actions of the copper in the video, but there are a few things I did want to offer for the sake of balance in what seems a mostly one sided discussion...
> 
> 1. This video, shocking though it is, is not necessarily indicative of a systemic problem of violence or brutality within the plod.  Nor, I think, should all coppers be tarred with the same brush.  A lot of them are decent people doing a tricky job.


yet none of them appear to have volunteered the information about this attack before video evidence appeared from the public side, and none of them intervened at the time either... says a lot IMO.



exleper said:


> 2. For all this talk of violence, we shouldn't forget the pointless aggression also seen on that day from the protesters(and I know it was a TINY, microscopic minority of an otherwise peaceful crowd, but still, smashing windows and burning car achieves absolutely fuck all.)  With all the press hysteria leading up to it the atmosphere was pretty tense anyway, NOTHING justifies the coppers actions, but it can explain it.


violence against property should never justify police violence against people... particularly not people who several streets away from where that relatively minor bit of property damage took place, had nothing to do with it, and are presenting no immediate threat of doing anything more criminal than walking on a street trying to get home.


exleper said:


> 3. I do get that impression that many people on the internet, this forum especially, come to the table expecting a police fuck up and then take a particular amount of glee when they do.  I can't see this as a healthy attitude.  Like it or not we need the police and the only way we are going to improve things in this area is through mature and rational reconciliation and dialogue, rather than an immature 'us vs them' mentality which drives the coppers into these tragic fuck ups in the first place.


sorry, but you;re wrong. The only thing(s) that will ever change this situation are the public getting so wound up about it that the equivalent of the 90's 'institutional racism' enquiry takes place into it, and/or possibly the individual copper involved get's taken to court, found guilty and is sent down for it, which could well lead to a change in attitude, tactics and training as a result of coppers realising that they aren't actually above the law.

when you say we come to the table expecting a police fuck up, you should realise that this expectation is based in most cases on years if not decades of experience of the police's actions in these kind of situations, which leads us to being able to fairly accurately predict the most likely chain of events (see my posts from the night it happened).

The glee comes from the fact that there actually is now pretty much irrefutable video evidence of the police assault, which makes it significantly more likely that at least one copper will finally get his comeuppance, and potentially that the entire issue of police violence at demonstrations may get seriously looked at... and there's no chance that the cctv film will mysteriously disappear this time. This shit has been going on for far too long, and too many of us have been on the receiving end of it to varying extents over the years, or have mates who have etc. for there not to be some level of glee at this turn of events (the film footage obviously, not the death).



exleper said:


> just to clarify: that video is tragic, and the copper who shoved Ian Tomlinson should be tried and convicted for manslaughter, and the people who lied about the nature of his death should be sacked, at the very least.  I can see what's wrong here, but it's way too easy to self-righteous in that classic lefty 'fuck the police' way, in my extremely humble opinion.


agree with the first bit, as for the second bit, you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> What was the difference? Why was there a difference?



Good question. Divide and Rule, good cop - bad cop - good protester bad protester. Simple memes for fucktard agents of the state and the stooge press to do their "thinking" by.

People who march nicely can and will be ignored.

People who are assertive will be assaulted by the states criminal goons and lied about.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence.  There were no arrests.  The police behaved extremely well, I thought.  Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day.  This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday.  What was the difference? Why was there a difference?
> 
> Perhaps part of the reason was the media.  The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc.  So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations?  If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble?  It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution.  I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.




Becasue the police (and/or their masters) want to criminlise all political activism and protest that seeks to go beyond   voting once every five years, writing  a strongly worded letter to your mp or a polite, a to b march on a police approved route.


----------



## qwerty777 (Apr 8, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/


Jesus .


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence.  There were no arrests.  The police behaved extremely well, I thought.  Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day.  This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday.  What was the difference? Why was there a difference?
> 
> Perhaps part of the reason was the media.  The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc.  So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations?  If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble?  It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution.  I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.



It would be reasonable to be 'prepared' for a possible situation.

It would not be reasonable to then respond to such a situation that wasn't happening.

If I phoned the fire brigade and told them a block of flats was about to go up, I'd expect them to turn up with a bunch of trucks.

I wouldn't expect them to then hose down and evacuate the building when there was a merely a smouldering fag butt on the street.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

Oh my ... 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Recent protests have demonstrated that random violent assault is policy.
At what level is the policy set? are there criminal implications?


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Be sure to complain to the BBC that they carry unchecked Met lies as truth despite their track record.
> 
> 03700 100222



Again, the claim that the Met lied in this is not really supported by the evidence available.  

The Guardian has a new article which contains the actual statements that have been put out, together with allegations of what they were told by Police at a briefing, and the IPCC statement that followed.  The statements, the briefing and the IPCC initial statement all suggest that the initial focus of this was at Cornhill (where Tomlinson collapsed), and that it wasnt until people later recognized Tomlinson as having been involved elsewhere that it became clear there was more to this.  If they did put out information knowing that it was false then of course they lied and should bear the consequences, but its very questionable as to whether they actually did, as the statements are not wrong as presented on that article.

The other lies claim - about only one bottle being thrown - is oddly enough contradicted by another article elsewhere in the Guardian.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

> At this point there were probably about 20 officers - some dog handlers, some riot officers. And members of the public - city workers, people watching - were being stopped around the traffic lights although some were being allowed to walk through the pedestrian street that was now relatively clear, with a few protesters still standing around but certainly not a crowd.
> 
> The dog handlers began to sweep through the pedestrian street to start forming a police line. A dog barked and I saw one protester was on the floor who managed to get up. That's what drew my attention to that spot. It was then that I noticed Ian Tomlinson, who was walking from Threadneadle Street direction, walking towards Cornhill Street. A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him.
> 
> ...


 source


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

> He did not appear drunk - he was walking normally. I saw him suddenly fall back as though flung down with force. It was as though he had been spun. He fell and hit the top of his head hard. I was shocked. He lay on the ground for around 30 seconds without moving before a protester helped him up. The police did not help him at all.


 source


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

FFS: I just watched the BBC TV News and they started off with a reasonable summation of the attack on Tomlinson, but then immediately cut to the one bit of 'sexy' violence from the whole protest (the RBS damage) and added that officers had been put under a lot of stress that day.  It was almost like they were excusing the officer's conduct by blaming the protesters for putting the poor delicate lambs under pressure.

I mean, it's not like:
(a) they were the ones dishing out the stress by the bucketful to peaceful  punters all day and
(b) it's the job they're trained for


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> FFS: I just watched the BBC TV News and they started off with a reasonable summation of the attack on Tomlinson, but then immediately cut to the one bit of 'sexy' violence from the whole protest (the RBS damage) and added that officers had been put under a lot of stress that day.  It was almost like they were excusing the officer's conduct by blaming the protesters for putting the poor delicate lambs under pressure.
> 
> I mean, it's not like:
> (a) they were the ones dishing out the stress by the bucketful to peaceful  punters all day and
> (b) it's the job they're trained for



It appears though, by inductive reasoning based on the behaviour of the police that what that masked officer did to the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson was precisely 'the job they're trained for'


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> As I said earlier, while that statement may be in some ways misleading it may not be false - we dont know what the PM says beyond what has been released, and once again I point out that the IPCC and COLP may have had no idea that there was any involvement with police prior to his collapse in Cornhill.  If they did and they put it out then obviously serious questions need to be asked, but it would be wrong to assume that at this stage.


let me try this one more time.

I am not saying the police attempted to deliberately mislead the public with their original statements. However the fact remains that it has since turned out these early statements were misleading / wrong. 

If the police had later discovered new information via those coppers who witnessed / were involved in the assault coming forward, then the onus would be on the police to issue a statement to clarify the situation based on the new evidence that had come to light.

The public generally will give much greater credence to a statement that made clear that 'police officers had come forward as witnesses to Mr Tomlinson having come into contact with the police moments before his death' rather than 'other witnesses...'.

therefore omitting that information from the statement would at that point have been evidence of an effort to continue to mislead the public.


thing is though, I don't really believe any of that is the case, because I seriously doubt that any of those coppers had said anything particularly incriminating prior to the video being released. 

Bet there was a fair amount of huddled discussions to get their stories straight though once the photos came out. Can't wait to find out what they've managed to come up with to attempt to justify the actions of that copper. I'm guessing that the only witnesses to whatever they alledge to have happened as justification will have been coppers, with no corroborating evidence, and stories that match just that little bit too well for them to be true.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 8, 2009)

The beeb have been bloody awful throughout the whole G20, and it's one of the reasons I'll be longdogging next time my licence fee comes up for renewal.


----------



## exleper (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Good question. Divide and Rule, good cop - bad cop - good protester bad protester. Simple memes for fucktard agents of the state and the stooge press to do their "thinking" by.
> 
> People who march nicely can and will be ignored.
> 
> People who are assertive will be assaulted by the states criminal goons and lied about.



This is something that worries me.  People who are 'assertive'.  That's a bit of an ambiguous word, isn't it?  Call me a naive old pacifist but I don't think it's ever helpful to decide, and indeed loudly announce to the world, that you plan to be violent and destructive.  Otherwise the plod get wind and arrive with what they interpret to be a proportionate response.  Then we end up with the tragedy we have now.

Again I'm not trying to justify anything, but ed earlier expressed frustration at the police response to peaceful protests.  If the protests are expected to be, as you put it, more 'assertive', then logically, the police are likely to be 'assertive' in their response.  Read: riot police who are probably scared for themselves deep down due to all the media hype and so view everyone as a threat.  Do you see what I mean when I say it's not helpful to have a protest which is, if you will, non-nonviolent?


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

Excerpt from the Guardian's comment section:


> De Menezes taught the Met nothing
> 
> The last thing either the government or the Metropolitan police wanted, on the day that Britain played host to the G20 leaders last week, was a death during the demonstrations being staged simultaneously in the City of London. So perhaps it should be no surprise that initially the fate of Ian Tomlinson, the man who died in the midst of the main protest close to the Bank of England, was barely noted.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> Again, the claim that the Met lied in this is not really supported by the evidence available.



Wrong. Straight out the gates the police said it was "natural causes". That wasnt true and they couldnt have known it to be true.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

Thing is, when the police deliberately set out, with full backing from the government to violently intimidate people away from taking part in peaceful protests, there are a several possible results. One is that their tactic works, another is that their tactic kills some unfortunate bystander and gets prohibited, a third possibility is that people refuse to be intimidated and start assuming that every demo is going to involve a savage battle with the cops ... 

The jury is out on which way we're going in the UK ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper

"This is something that worries me.  People who are 'assertive'.  That's a bit of an ambiguous word, isn't it?"

Fair enough. I am not in any way condoning violence, but Direct Action is clearly less likely to be ignored and more likely to be demonised than another pointless fucking march from A to B.

As for the police, they clearly dont need to be "afraid" of violence. They have the gear, the monopolt of violence and will wantonly assault and kill people who arent even a protester of any description.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

exleper said:


> I couldn't make it these protests but I went to what was publicised as the 'peaceful protests' on the Saturday beforehand from Temple to Hyde Park and saw no police intimidation, no aggression, no violence.  There were no arrests.  The police behaved extremely well, I thought.  Nobody got in anybody's way and I had a great day.  This was the same police force as the one on Wednesday.  What was the difference? Why was there a difference?
> 
> Perhaps part of the reason was the media.  The press got wind that the protests on April 1 would be attended by the more fringe anti-capitalist groups and whipped up hysteria, which surely would have contributed to the choice of rather foolish 'kettle' tactics, etc.  So is the behaviour of the police dictated by their expectations?  If they expect trouble, they act looking for trouble?  It seems to me to end up in this ugly 'violence begets violence' catch22 pattern of which there is no easy solution.  I don't know, it's hard to make sense and it's getting late.



the saturday protests were largely based around unions and other organisations with sufficient financial and organisational clout for the police to be sure that there would be serous repercussions if they went in hard on them, so they used the kid gloves.

the wednesday protests were organised by groups that the met would not have believed to have enough clout to cause any serious repercussions after the event, so they went in as hard as they could.

there's probably also an element of the rank and file believing the hype that had been coming from their high command for months before hand about the level of violence to expect, and that this had got them all pumped up and ready to give some anarchists a proper kicking at the first hint of an opportunity.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

free spirit

"this had got them all pumped up and ready to give some anarchists a proper kicking at the first hint of an opportunity."

And random passers by of course.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

REgarding the 'police had been under stress all day' excuse.

The police had several shift changes during the day - it may be that the cop who assulted mr tomlinson had just come on shift. 
Certainly the cops who were on duty around 9pm were the most agressive - and they were fresh ( i saw them come on shift). 
They get all phsyced up before stuff like this - they probalby have a haka in the van or something before charging out ready to batter members of the public.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> free spirit
> 
> "this had got them all pumped up and ready to give some anarchists a proper kicking at the first hint of an opportunity."
> 
> And random passers by of course.


tbf, it could be hard to tell who was an anarchist and who wasn't what with all that dress up / dress down malarky... best just treat everyone as potential anarchists to be on the safe side.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 8, 2009)

the guy looks out of it before the police attack him on the new video as he has in all the photos


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

free spirit said:


> tbf, it could be hard to tell who was an anarchist and who wasn't what with all that dress up / dress down malarky... best just treat everyone as potential anarchists to be on the safe side.



He was the only person that i seen all day in a Millwall football top!  not linked in all likelihood with Climate change protests.  I base my post entirely upon public perception not facts or otherwise.  IT r.i.p was the least likely looking protester in zone 1 imo.  The more i see and hear of his circumstances on the day the worse i feel.  He appears to have done nothing wrong, nothing at all.  If anything comes from this i just hope that the police that were hitting people throughout the day reflect upon their actions and hypothesize upon the time their own father/mother is trying to get home one day.


----------



## laptop (Apr 8, 2009)

I bet the surveillance... nah, that doesn't work.


Dear City of London Police and IPCC:

Find every last scrap of surveillance video, or I give £10 to the server fund. 

Rgds,

Laptop


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

I've just been through the video one frame at a time.

There seems to be the main group, a mix of dog handlers with City hats, and some others kitted, some masked up. Then seperately, there's the guy that does the assault. He's quite identifiable (he's got his hi-vis tucked 'up', unlike any of the others) and seems to come in from an angle, directly behind, independently (i.e. not part of the main group). Then he saunters off to the right, still with no others alongside. Not gone to speak to anyone else. He seems to pause for a moment, then wanders further right alone and off camera. During this a couple of the main group stare right in his direction - although it's not clear if they are looking at him or something else. Much of the latter stuff is only visible for a few frames at a time whilst the camera pans, but the stuff of the guy is fairly clear. The tucked viz, that he's left handed, no numbers, masked.

It's odd.

And worrying. If he's just rolled up randomly, with no numbers, it's possible the others there (who didn't exactly show a great deal of compassion it has to be said), wouldn't have a clue who he was.

I have bad feeling about this, but who knows. Maybe someone who does know will be brave/right enough to do the right thing.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> I was there, and I'm taking great glee in seeing the truth about what happened that day come to light.
> 
> It wasn't just one cop acting out of character. It was a persistent and unified campaign of intimidation, disproportionate aggression and bullying against predominately peaceful protesters, all of whom were treated as criminals.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have put it more eloquently myself.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

Its going to be intersting (and sickening) to see how the police play this, now the video has come out.  They will certainly have been ready for this and have the PR options in place.  There's going to be an official 'we can't comment as this is subject to an inquiry' line - perhaps with added 'but officers were facing a very difficult situation/officers were assaulted' shite.

Beyond that I'd guess we might be hearing:

1. About the guy's criminal record (if he had one) and/or any other dirt they can find - won't be brave enough to say it publicly, but there'll be leaks to selective media

2. Something (untrue) about officers coming under specific attack in this area.  On top of that, some high profile arrests/charges for anyone who smashed any windows - or even the people who 'masterminded' the protests.  Anything to get the media spotlight on to something else and ramp up the idea that the police were facing actual danger.

3. Some kind of rationalisation of 'pushing' by the police - how it is really just a standard 'public order technique'.

Suspect they will ultimately have plans to throw the officer(s) to the wolves as a back up, rather than let it get back to the senior officers who planned the strategy.  There'll also be a lot of work going on to spin a line that the guy died of heart failure 'unconnected' to the police attack on him.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Wrong. Straight out the gates the police said it was "natural causes". That wasnt true and they couldnt have known it to be true.



No, they did not say that "straight out of the gates", they may have said it in a briefing to journalists the day after the death and then the COLP said that the PM said it had been down to natural causes after the PM had taken place.  The PM may indeed have come to that conclusion, we dont know because its not publicly available beyond that statement.

Before people go off on one I do urge them, if they have not already done so, to read the comments of the family of Tomlinson in the Guardian today.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 8, 2009)

Disgusting video.

If I were to approach a policeman who was walking away from me with his hands in his pockets and push him in exactly the same manner, causing him to fall to the ground like that, then a few minutes later he dies, I'd be charged with murder and probably be convicted of manslaughter.

Cos a copper did it, millions of our pounds will be spent trying to cover up a killing.

Agricola, you seem OK for an Old Bill, really, can you hold you head up high today and be proud to be part of this so called justice system?


----------



## Geri (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> For anyone who hasn't been invovled in protests or who wasn't there on the day and is shocked by this video - its how the police were behaving all day - and I saw several  worse unprovoked attacks than whats on that video. Its pretty much how riot police behave all the time.
> 
> This is not a 'junior officer whose been poorly trained' or an individual bad apple - this is utterly normal cop behaviour. You see similar shit from the goon squad at football matches every week as well



That's very true. I was shoved in the back by a copper when I was walking to Craven Cottage one time, his justification was that I was in the road and a coach was coming - I was actually walking alongside the pavement and the coach was nowhere near.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The beeb have been bloody awful throughout the whole G20, and it's one of the reasons I'll be longdogging next time my licence fee comes up for renewal.



heh, i like the term "Longdogging". Me too, enough of this Zanu Labour mouthpiece.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> the guy looks out of it before the police attack him on the new video as he has in all the photos



Well according to one photographer sher saw him bundled over and hit twice with a baton several moments earlier, which might explain his groggy appearance.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 8, 2009)

the bbc report this morning is sick
cropped video, bumbling narrative and 1 bottle 1 fucking bottle 
then they cut to the rbs window, jesus wept


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

I've been saying it for ages, the BBC is a fucking crock of shit. It's all manipulated and twisted to give 1 side the green light. 

meanwhile on the uk police forums........ http://w ww.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33373 (link bust)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If I were to approach a policeman who was walking away from me with his hands in his pockets and push him in exactly the same manner, causing him to fall to the ground like that, then a few minutes later he dies, I'd be charged with murder and probably be convicted of manslaughter.
> 
> Cos a copper did it, millions of our pounds will be spent trying to cover up a killing.


Nail, head.

Can't see how it can be viewed any other way.  As the Editor's Guardian quote says, De Menezes taught the Met nothing.  They'll squirm, lie, obfuscate, smear, mislead, and brass neck, and hope everyone loses sight of the real issue, then finally - years down the line - apologize for "failings".


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

Top story on both radio 4 & 5, the former conducting a rather ludicrous interview with a Met rep who said that he couldn't speculate on police actions towards mr Tomlinson, before then going on to speculate about what it was that Mr Tomlinson could have been doing to contribute to any police response towards him. So essentially the now predictable approach of hoping that they can pin the blame on him/and or others, rather than accept culpability in any way shape or form for their overall brutal approach being to blame.

_The family want investigators to interview the officer who pushed Tomlinson to the ground, and the two dog handlers seen close behind him in the footage. "We want answers: why? Ian clearly had his arms in his pockets and back towards the police. There is no need for them to step in towards him. It clearly shows that Ian did have an altercation. Now we can say, yes he did. Up until now it has been 'if'. But now we've seen it, we want answers."_ from grauniad


----------



## Pot-Bellied Pig (Apr 8, 2009)

Watched the CCTV on the news this morning. First reaction is that it looks very bad from any point of view, certainly such a violent push in the back cannot be seen to be proportionate in that situation when he is walking away with hands in pockets. There is no direct threat there and to move someone on you don't need to employ that kind of force. If he has been hit whilst down then that too is hard to justify in those kind of situations. 

I hope that the evidence is fully investigated and that if any criminal charges are brought then it is done so with proper fairness to all and and in good time. 

Like any investigation you have to apply the same rules of evidence and law and then apply them again as this is an investigation into the police and must be seen to be impartial and thorough open and accountable.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Doesn't look like that's going to happen, does it PBP ?



Paulie Tandoori said:


> Top story on both radio 4 & 5, the former conducting a rather ludicrous interview with a Met rep who said that he couldn't speculate on police actions towards mr Tomlinson, before then going on to speculate about what it was that Mr Tomlinson could have been doing to contribute to any police response towards him. So essentially the now predictable approach of hoping that they can pin the blame on him/and or others, rather than accept culpability in any way shape or form for their overall brutal approach being to blame.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 8, 2009)

This is how it will work.

There will be a police investigation into his death. For a manslaughter charge, a postmortem will have to show a direct link to his heart attack and him being pushed over, or being hit on the back of the legs.

If there is a link to him having a heart attack, and being pushed over, and the police officers action were deemed illegal by the CPS, then he could possibly face manslaughter charges.

If there is no link to him being pushed over, or hit on the back of the legs, to his heart attack, they may still go ahead with assault charges, or even assault charges if there is a link.

Here is the bit which many won't like, but the truth. They might not charged him no matter. Because his actions were not illegal and part of his training. They will interview the other police officers present, and has asked them what had happen before he was pushed over. If, and I do state IF, he would not move when asked to do so, will weigh against any charges being brought .

If there are charges brought against the police officer, expect a vigorous defence in court. At a guess, his defence team will show masked up demonstrators, the RBS being attacked, the widely shown clip of a police officer being struck on the head with a flag pole by a masked attacker, general missile throwing from the crowd, again, widely seen on TV. The pushing around of police officers,a clip shown on CH4 or SKY, of a group of police officers(not in riot gear) walking past a crowd of people jumping up and down to the beat of drums, who make an unprovoked attack on the last officer in line. Not to mention the miles of footage they have of violent demonstrators, not just from the standard CCTV, but their own filming taken from various vantage points. They will show leaflets handed out before the demos threatening violence, threats made on the Internet, they may even show the threats from Knight he gave in a CH4 interview.

They will use all this, and more, to try and explain the actions of the police officer who pushed him. His defence team I know doubt, will say he did push him to move him on, and did not mean to  knock him down. The part they will struggle with, is him being hit on the back of the legs, not the worst kind of assault, but if deemed over the top, still illegal. 

The really unpleasant part will be the dead man's health, and his actions that day, which his defence team will pick over. They will ask a jury to look at his past health, and I am really sorry to say this, if his own actions that day contributed to what happen. And I am afraid they will look at how much he had to drink that day, and if he has a past of heavy drinking. It's horrible I know, but this is what the defence team will do.

After looking again this morning at the clip, I accept  the officer pushed him far to hard, instead of a less forceful push, the blow to the back of the legs was not needed. It's not as if a bunch of police officers had surrounded him beating him, But know one on here knows what had happen before, myself included.
I think the chances of a jury convicting him of anything are small, and the CPS will be aware of this.

I don't condone assaults by Bobbies, I think at the fox hunting demo(not that I support fox hunting) some police officers carried out assaults  which they should have been convicted for.
The problem is getting a jury to convict.
The problem some on here forget, the police are just like anyone else, they get fed up being abused , pushed around, things thrown at them, sometimes assaulted, or people cheering when a police officer is hurt, and they react.

The man's death is so sad, but time will tell if he was killed, or died of natural courses.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

Pot-Bellied Pig said:


> Watched the CCTV on the news this morning. First reaction is that it looks very bad from any point of view, certainly such a violent push in the back cannot be seen to be proportionate in that situation when he is walking away with hands in pockets. There is no direct threat there and to move someone on you don't need to employ that kind of force. If he has been hit whilst down then that too is hard to justify in those kind of situations.
> 
> I hope that the evidence is fully investigated and that if any criminal charges are brought then it is done so with proper fairness to all and and in good time.
> 
> Like any investigation you have to apply the same rules of evidence and law and then apply them again as this is an investigation into the police and must be seen to be impartial and thorough open and accountable.



I wonder if there is any CCTV footage of the attack on him that is said to have taken place a few moments before this.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> I've been saying it for ages, the BBC is a fucking crock of shit. It's all manipulated and twisted to give 1 side the green light.
> 
> meanwhile on the uk police forums........ http://w ww.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33373 (link bust)



thread closed, before they open their mouths too much again.......


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Disclaimer

As this is an on going and current legal issue, we feel that it would be inappropriate for us to offer further advice in this matter.

We would urge you to seek advice from a qualified solicitor who will provide you with proper legal counseling on the subject matter.

Please see our guidelines for posting topics in this area

Forum Guidelines

Thank you to all the members who participated within the thread, however it is now closed.

Should you wish to respond to any of the issues raised within the topic and would like the thread re-opening, then please contact one of the Moderating Team who will consider your request on an individual basis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


edit to add try this thread?

http://www. ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=33373

"Student Officer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 20-February 08
From: Wirral
Member No.: 19,727




One thing that so far hasn’t been mentioned about the video is the police dogs and just how close they were. I don’t know the “facts” but is it possible that what you see is not an unprovoked attack or police brutality but an attempt at keeping a member of the public a safe distance from the police dogs? "

yup, here we go.. every excuse to try and say he was unfit, smoked, due to drop, keeping him safe all the rest of it. 

cant they just say we caused him fookin stress!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Here is the bit which many won't like, but the truth. They might not charged him no matter. Because his actions were not illegal and part of his training. They will interview the other police officers present, and has asked them what had happen before he was pushed over. If, and I do state IF, he would not move when asked to do so, will weigh against any charges being brought .



If this were to be the case, then clearly their training is fundamentally flawed – as to hit a man with a baton and then violently push him over (and to have possibly done this twice in the space of a few minutes) are not the actions of a well disciplined police force that exists to do as they claim it does. To do this to a man who is clearly no threat and to do it whilst wearing a helmet, and balaclava is, well, barbaric. 

What compounds the issue for me is the complete lack of care shown by the other half dozen officers. They hardly register his fall and indeed none of them has the humanity to go help him up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> What compounds the issue for me is the complete lack of care shown by the other half dozen officers. They hardly register his fall and indeed none of them has the humanity to go help him up.


They're being prevented from doing so by baying protesters.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

From that Police Forum....




			
				The Filth said:
			
		

> ''appearing to be somewhat obstructive'', I find that hard to justify M&MBM, he is just walking along with his hands in his pockets, he doesn't appear in any shape or form to be obstructive.  Even if he said something to the officer there was no need for him to be pushed as he was.  I hope that officer has to account for his actions.  The last thing we need in the police force are thugs.  Don't get me wrong, *I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police.*



Don't they realise sweeping generalizations like this are precisely the reason that the brave boys in blue feel they're justified to hit people with sticks on their way home from work?


----------



## Azrael (Apr 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> I think the chances of a jury convicting him of anything are small, and the CPS will be aware of this.


This is why anyone concerned with a fair legal system should campaign for the CPS to be abolished. Our charging standard, based on subjective and onerous CPS "tests", is both excessive and capricious. A replacement prosecution service tasked with trying every _prima facie_ case brought before it might be justified, but I would prefer returning power to the accuser, who is currently disenfranchised. If a _prima facie_ cases exists, and the accuser wants to prosecute, a jury should decide. 

None of this is pre-judging the evidence in the Tomlinson case.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

perry1 said:


> edit to add try this thread?


That's the same thread


----------



## Pot-Bellied Pig (Apr 8, 2009)

I wouldn't disagree with anything that Sonny61 wrote about what might happen in the future.

However like in any criminal case it is the right of the defence to present the case within the rules. It applies to any case and is the core of British law.

If the evidence is there then the truth will out. Courts of law and jury's are very good at this.

But Sonny is right...one push does not make a case. There is a whole books of law devoted to cause and effect and therefore you have to let the process run its' course.

Still its' hard to justify the CCTV footage and whether its' a criminal offence or not it still does the police no good at all in that light.


----------



## Pot-Bellied Pig (Apr 8, 2009)

Azrael said:


> This is why anyone concerned with a fair legal system should campaign for the CPS to be abolished. Our charging standard, based on subjective and onerous CPS "tests", is both excessive and capricious. A replacement prosecution service tasked with trying every _prima facie_ case brought before it might be justified, but I would prefer returning power to the accuser, who is currently disenfranchised. If a _prima facie_ cases exists, and the accuser wants to prosecute, a jury should decide.
> 
> None of this is pre-judging the evidence in the Tomlinson case.



Wouldn't work. Would like to see the system of an examining magistrate as in some countries where the police are able to work under an independent and constant review and let the CPS prosecute those cases which have been reviewed first and meet the standard. We need to get the CPS away from the figures game where they look at the way public money is spent before they look at the victims needs.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

Pot-Bellied Pig said:


> I wouldn't disagree with anything that Sonny61 wrote about what might happen in the future.
> 
> However like in any criminal case it is the right of the defence to present the case within the rules. It applies to any case and is the core of British law.
> 
> ...


Apart from the fact that he doesn't countenance the possibility of a GBH or ABH charge being lodged instead of manslaughter, and on the video evidence available i would say that these charges have much more chance of succeeding, and I would say that much of what sonny writes was, and is, utter nonsense tbf.





sonny61;8973797]Not sure if the policeman has done anything wrong said:


> The policeman who pushed him, was following his training. It's bleeding obvious they were telling him to move. Where is the footage of him being hit with a baton?


----------



## DM Andy (Apr 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The problem some on here forget, the police are just like anyone else, they get fed up being abused , pushed around, things thrown at them, sometimes assaulted, or people cheering when a police officer is hurt, and they react.



So if I had a bad day at work I'm allowed to take it out on any passer-by I might encounter on my way home?  I don't think it works like that.

It's part of a police officer's job to maintain his or her professionalism even when people don't like them.  Anyone who cannot do that should not be trusted with the authority a police officer has.  This thug's actions have made things more difficult for every officer in the country.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

G20 death: Ian Tomlinson's last movements
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business, he has live and worked in London for over ten years and worked all over London as I've seen him working at the Embankment Tube Station what's more he would had known where the protest was as he was selling newspapers, if he wanted to go home then he of all would had know a better way around the police cordon. It's his wife that insist that "he was walking home". I would rather get to the truth of the matter than a half bake story.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 8, 2009)

Pot-Bellied Pig said:


> Wouldn't work.


It did work for several centuries, albeit with its own flaws. I don't see why we need a prosecution service at all; it creates yet another tier of bureaucracy, and undermines the ancient idea that "police are citizens, and citizens are the police". A Director of Public Prosecutions for serious cases is sensible, but in others, why couldn't the police or other accusers prosecute as they once did?  

If accusers could prosecute without interference from the state, it would dispel much of the frustration felt by victims of crime, and prevent cries of "cover-up" in cases like this. (Not saying they're justified, but the perception often exists.)

As for investigative magistrates, the common law had them once, but got rid of them in the mid-19th century because it's a near-impossible job.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 8, 2009)

At the very least this should mean that police should visibly wear their numbers.


----------



## asbestos (Apr 8, 2009)

That cop looks female to me.

(not read the whole thread so maybe this is already a discussion point.)


----------



## e19896 (Apr 8, 2009)

So, are these FIT officers? There are several more milling about in the Ian Tomlinson assault video, but it’s a bit too choppy to see much on the YouTube version.

Commenter Ed on Ian Bone’s blog has suggested that Stephen Discombe CO2558 might be present.

Any thoughts?


----------



## brew (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business...



So? Even if that's true (seriously, who knows?), taking an interest in a protest is hardly provocation. Protests don't take place in a vacuum.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> G20 death: Ian Tomlinson's last movements
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
> 
> I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business, he has live and worked in London for over ten years and worked all over London as I've seen him working at the Embankment Tube Station what's more he would had known where the protest was as he was selling newspapers, if he wanted to go home then he of all would had know a better way around the police cordon. It's his wife that insist that "he was walking home". I would rather get to the truth of the matter than a half bake story.



Doesn't matter why he was there, it does matter how he was treated.

Diversion. 0/10


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

no, asbestos, you'r the fisrt to bring that one up i reckon. Still doesn't make a difference. Manslaughter is manslaughter.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> G20 death: Ian Tomlinson's last movements
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
> 
> I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business, he has live and worked in London for over ten years and worked all over London as I've seen him working at the Embankment Tube Station what's more he would had known where the protest was as he was selling newspapers, if he wanted to go home then he of all would had know a better way around the police cordon. It's his wife that insist that "he was walking home". I would rather get to the truth of the matter than a half bake story.



What fucking difference does that make?

As far as I'm aware it's not a crime (yet) to be interested in a protest or to choose a different route on the way home.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I don't buy this "walking home" business


It doesn't matter where he was walking; he didn't deserve to be hit on the back of his legs with a baton, and shoved onto the ground from behind.

He was "going about his lawful business".


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

I too was walking home too. Sigh!* of course it make no differences. 

Diversion. 0/10


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

And in answer to all those claiming that it wasn't the cops trying to cover up anything after Mr Tomlinson's death, these words from the Guardian make for some powerful rebuttal:

_The Guardian has gathered statements from 15 witnesses who saw Tomlinson to piece together a forensic reconstruction his movements. *This directly contradicts the official version of events put out by police in the aftermath of Tomlinson's death. *The witnesses accuse police of lashing at protesters and bystanders alike, attacking them with batons, shields and dogs. Officers are alleged to have attacked Tomlinson twice; both times from behind and as he was walking away. Eight witnesses produced photographic evidence, time- and date-stamped, that corroborates their version of events. Three said they saw Tomlinson being assaulted by riot police. _ grauniad


----------



## e19896 (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> G20 death: Ian Tomlinson's last movements
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
> 
> I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business, he has live and worked in London for over ten years and worked all over London as I've seen him working at the Embankment Tube Station what's more he would had known where the protest was as he was selling newspapers, if he wanted to go home then he of all would had know a better way around the police cordon. It's his wife that insist that "he was walking home". I would rather get to the truth of the matter than a half bake story.



So from what you say, he was rubbernecking, was well known could this mean by the murdering scum the police? you see this dose not add up at all..

Lets say he was looking for a beter way home he found himself in the protest, at that time the murdering scum of the police was makeing shure those at The Bank was not getting to climate camp, he was in the wrong place wrong time, and the police attacked him, that in my mind lead to his death, this is murder and as said if it was the other way round people would be charged, now we go through this bullshit, and no doubt the murdering scum walk away from there actions.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

next time the police give someone a few slaps infront of alot of people, this should happen.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I too was walking home too. Sigh!* of course it make no differences.
> 
> Diversion. 0/10



What on earth are you babbling on about?


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> next time the police give someone a few slaps infront of alot of people, this should happen.


----------



## asbestos (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> no, asbestos, you'r the fisrt to bring that one up i reckon. Still doesn't make a difference. Manslaughter is manslaughter.



Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever.

As you say manslaughter is manslaughter.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> next time the police give someone a few slaps infront of alot of people, this should happen.


please stop posting unrelated and unnecessary things like this. it really isn't helpful.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> please stop posting unrelated and unnecessary things like this. it really isn't helpful.



makes me feel better though.


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> G
> I still think he was rubbernecking like the rest of us  I don't buy this "walking home" business, he has live and worked in London for over ten years and worked all over London as I've seen him working at the Embankment Tube Station what's more he would had known where the protest was as he was selling newspapers, if he wanted to go home then he of all would had know a better way around the police cordon. It's his wife that insist that "he was walking home".


Utter bullshit. The cordon was widespread, flexible and dynamic and when we waked to the Climate Camp seemingly random roads would be blocked off, meaning we had to walk a considerably longer route to get there.

I see no reason why this couldn't have applied to Mr Tomlinson too.

Were you at the protest by the way?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> makes me feel better though.


you might have noticed that over the past few days, a great deal of material has surfaced through blogs and bulletin boards that has helped raise publicity on this case to a level that simply wouldn't have happened if a bunch of goons were posting videos of coppers getting a kicking or giving a kicking. think about it eh?


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you might have noticed that over the past wouldn't have happened if a bunch of goons were posting videos of coppers getting a kicking or giving a kicking. think about it eh?



you can understand the raised feelings tho? i also think its unhelpful to start calling other people "goons" for this time of response. 

Think about it, yes your right. think about name calling to it has no place in this thread.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

CCTV footage of this?



> Witnesses said that, prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home.
> 
> One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a *photographer, described how in the *minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.
> 
> ...


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you might have noticed that over the past few days, a great deal of material has surfaced through blogs and bulletin boards that has helped raise publicity on this case to a level that simply wouldn't have happened if a bunch of goons were posting videos of coppers getting a kicking or giving a kicking. think about it eh?


 I get your point, but if it does happen in the future, the police will have nobody to blame but themselves. And I will let out a hearty laugh.


----------



## sus (Apr 8, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Aye, you'd think any one of those cops, assuming they are the kind decent caring types that agricola implies they are, any one of them might have made a report, or possibly a complaint into an unprovoked assault on a member of the public by one of their team.  I mean, that's what decent people would do, and there's 20 or more decent upstanding coppers there.  *I look forward to finding out that at least one of them, just one, made some sort of complaint about that*.  After all, that's what a decent person would do.  I mean, I'm not a decent upstanding copper, just a public sector worker, and i'd have made a complaint if my colleague did that.



This would indeed be very interesting and indicative of the systemic failure of the police force(I'm guessing that none of them have filed this action in any report). That is of course assuming that the police actually wants to uphold _justice_ rather than power.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

From The Guradian eye witness reports



> J: Daniel MacPhee, 24, social support worker, Kingston
> 
> If the truth be that he died of a heart attack it's not surprising really because it felt like people were running for their lives. I looked over to my left and there was a man lying in the street. Someone shouted out, 'he fell down, over there' - as if to say that he fell down before somehow.
> 
> ...



it's worth reading these accounts in full btw.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

And another, i think from the first attack on him.



> Amiri Howe, 24, actor/musician, west London
> 
> We stood on a ledge near Cornhill. Before he got hit, at the beginning of the whole thing - we were watching the protesters at the Bank of England. Police got into a couple of scuffles with people. They were pushing the line forward, pushing the line forward.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

...



> Elias Stoakes, 25, student, Mile End
> There were two missiles that I remember, thrown from the back. The police claim that protesters impeded them from treating him because of a barrage of missiles was completely untrue. Protesters from the crowd wanted to help him. The crowd were extremely angry at people who had thrown missiles. They were mostly concerned about police charging. Earlier on the same street they hit me with batons over my thigh and calf. They were saying things like, 'That got you up. Now fuck off'. I still have the bruises. That was because I was stopping to help someone who hurt their head and they came at me. They pressed the pressure point under my ear to make me move.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

I predicted that video of an attack on Ian would come to light - it was inevitable with the amount of cameras and CCTV - in fact there may be more to come as Barking Mad asks above - so far no CCTV footage has been 'released'. Wouldnt hold your breath. If US secret services can withhold all CCTV footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, MI5/Police can do the same with this.

I think it is very likely that Ian had already been beaten BEFORE the Guardian footage - he looks very weakened, and it would tally with the quote in BMs post(s).

My next prediction is that rumours in the form of a smear campaign about Ian will trickle out, to try and colour the issue. they'll try and paint him as having asked for it in some way.

My final prediction will definitely come true, and that is that there will be no prosecutions as a result of any forthcoming case. When was the last time a member of the police force received any meaningful punsihment for violent misconduct or death?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 8, 2009)

Whether or not the police officer's actions lead to this man's death, I hope there will be an investigation into what is seen on that clip, and some answers given, and action taken, not only to consider disciplining that individual, but to look into how police officers believe they should behave while policing a demo. 

It's frightening that the police think that is the appropriate way to behave, and that they are confident that they will get away with assaulting someone, presumably by making up some story or other, and being backed up by colleagues. None of the other police officers reacted in any way to it, in that clip, which makes it look like they condone such behaviour from amongst their ranks, and that there was nothing unusual in it! I do wonder whether this is now more common than it used to be?


----------



## joevsimp (Apr 8, 2009)

I will not be satisfied on this until an officer is in the dock on manslaughter charges

i fear i will never be satified


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> My next prediction is that rumours in the form of a smear campaign about Ian will trickle out, to try and colour the issue. they'll try and paint him as having asked for it in some way.



Just saw Paulie's post - showing the intent to smear is already there (i must stop reading threads backwards!)



Paulie Tandoori said:


> Top story on both radio 4 & 5, the former conducting a rather ludicrous interview with a Met rep who said that he couldn't speculate on police actions towards mr Tomlinson, before then going on to speculate about what it was that Mr Tomlinson could have been doing to contribute to any police response towards him. So essentially the now predictable approach of hoping that they can pin the blame on him/and or others, rather than accept culpability in any way shape or form for their overall brutal approach being to blame.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> My final prediction will definitely come true, and that is that there will be no prosecutions as a result of any forthcoming case. When was the last time a member of the police force received any meaningful punsihment for violent misconduct or death?



Well if that's true and we don't respond assertively then we we may as well give up to the police state goons now. It will confirm that we live in a tyranny. We have a duty to overthrow tryranny. Period. But there are still people today scrabbling around trying to make excuses for the filth. This country disgusts me, if they opened up concentration camps here there are a lot of people who would just queue up to go in and deride those that didn't. British people like being lied to, ripped off and randomly killed at some level, we think it's our place.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

joevsimp said:


> I will not be satisfied on this until an officer is in the dock on manslaughter charges
> 
> i fear i will never be satified



The same officer will be satisfied, satisfied on the regular occasions he probably beats his wife up.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> So, are these FIT officers? There are several more milling about in the Ian Tomlinson assault video, but it’s a bit too choppy to see much on the YouTube version.


There are at least five FIT officers present, I can name two of them (but I won't here, now) I'm sure many other people can too.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

_Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said today that some physical confrontation was “inevitable” during a large protest. 

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation. 

“On that day, it was mercifully... a lot smaller than expected.” 

*Asked whether he thought the assault on Mr Tomlinson was unprovoked, he said: “Sometimes it isn’t clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not. *

“I know it’s a generalisation but anybody in that part of the town at that time, the assumption would be that they are part of the protest. I accept that’s perhaps not a clever assumption but it’s a natural one.”_
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6057415.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> There are at least five FIT officers present, I can name two of them (but I won't here, now) I'm sure many other people can too.



Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is a "FIT officer"?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 8, 2009)

Forward Intelligence Team - the ones that video everyone doing stuff the politicians don't like


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> _Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said today that some physical confrontation was “inevitable” during a large protest.
> 
> He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “On a day like that, where there are some protesters who are quite clearly hell-bent on causing as much trouble as they can, there is inevitably going to be some physical confrontation.
> 
> ...


So, it's OK to violently assault peaceful protesters then? That's what he seems to be saying by that quote.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is a "FIT officer"?



You can read about them here : 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374536.html

and here : 

http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> So, it's OK to violently assault peaceful protesters then? That's what he seems to be saying by that quote.



He doesnt seem to be saying it. He is saying it. The state can assault with impunity. Period. They expect to get away with it and a lot of people think they will. Again, if we let them do so we need to ask whether we are collectively consenting to tyranny by default.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> So, it's OK to violently assault peaceful protesters then? That's what he seems to be saying by that quote.



In the eyes of the police, and of the daily mail/sun reading population, there is no such thing as a peaceful protester. (if/presuming) You are protesting against something the goverments want/approve of, it makes you the enemy automaticly. It makes protesters the same as terrorists in their eyes, which is why they used anti terror laws on you all.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is a "FIT officer"?


The ones with blue tops on their hi-viz are part of a 'Forward Intelligence Team'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Intelligence_Team
http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Well if that's true and we don't respond assertively then we we may as well give up to the police state goons now. It will confirm that we live in a tyranny. We have a duty to overthrow tryranny. Period. But there are still people today scrabbling around trying to make excuses for the filth. This country disgusts me, if they opened up concentration camps here there are a lot of people who would just queue up to go in and deride those that didn't. British people like being lied to, ripped off and randomly killed at some level, we think it's our place.



Have you ever considered applying to the Police Service?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

Guineveretoo said:


> It's frightening that the police think that is the appropriate way to behave, and that they are confident that they will get away with assaulting someone, presumably by making up some story or other, and being backed up by colleagues.


Police can get away with murder - it is the unwritten law in the police handbook. Its a simple case of not impeding the polices ability to act. If they felt they might get in trouble everytime they accidentally shot/truncheoned someone they might not be willing to pull the trigger/hit out.

EDIT: much the same is true for the army - definitely the US army.

As I say, I cant find the last time someone from the police was convicted of a violent crime. Only thing I can see is 10 plod kicked out for racism


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> In the eyes of the police, and of the daily mail/sun reading population, there is no such thing as a peaceful protester. (if/presuming) You are protesting against something the goverments want/approve of, it makes you the enemy automaticly. It makes protesters the same as terrorists in their eyes, which is why they used anti terror laws on you all.



Sadly this is true - I noted the report about the video on BBC News this morning was tempered by a "protesters then threw bottles at the police who  were trying to help Mr. Tomlinson" comment afterwards. Just to make all those people who think there is no smoke without fire happy. Makes you sick


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Have you ever considered applying to the Police Service?




I don't really get what you're at, and no I haven't. I happen to have come across some fine officers but my issue isnt just the thugscum killers but the crawling UK public and press who think being lied to and randomly killed is something to make an excuse for.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 8, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> Sorry to sound ignorant, but what is a "FIT officer"?



Bit of a looker, impresses the lasses, rippling muscles and arousing padding


----------



## Gavin Bl (Apr 8, 2009)

This might have been said already, but I don't have time right now to read all posts,

I've seen this guy many times on Fish Street Hill, by the Monument - he basically used to hang around the newstand there, not sure if he was paid to help out informally or something.

He always struck me as a harmless wino type, never saw him bother a soul - must have walked past him hundreds of times, going to work.

From the footage I've seen of the bottle throwing incident, it was a bottle at a cordon of police - it wasn't obvious at all what they were doing (not to excuse chucking a bottle at someone, but its not as wilfully evil as its being painted)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Bit of a looker, impresses the lasses, rippling muscles and arousing padding


does this get you hot under the collar then?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> does this get you hot under the collar then?



thats the type


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 8, 2009)

Mmm, look at all those donuts under their chin. They need the kettle, 'cos it's not like they're gonna catch anyone!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2009)

Home Secretary has called for a swift inquiry now.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 8, 2009)

into her expenses?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2009)

I bet she's pleased this is taking the heat off of Mastergate tbf.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Home Secretary has called for a swift inquiry now.


well, at least she's been watching more appropriate home movies by the sound of it......


----------



## pesh (Apr 8, 2009)

Sky news covering this pretty fairly... just had the video in full, as well as video of Ian after he collapsed before the police got to him, then of the police treating him and of the ambulance taking him away, with interviews of the protesters who came to his aid stating the police claim to have been hit by a barrage of bottles 'was simply not the case'


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

The BBC is suddenly getting all balanced too, with lots of people being quoted with eye witness accounts of general goonthuggery.

Let's see how long this lasts. We need to know ASAP that the officer(s) concerned have been suspended.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 8, 2009)

Didn't the police make deleting camera pictures a condition of being allowed to leave the cordon? 
Effectively, removing evidence of any  crimes of assault that might have been captured on camera.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

No, there were sporadic incidents with police doing that, but nothing blanket.


----------



## harpo (Apr 8, 2009)

Aren't they trying to push through a law whereby any photography or videoing of the police will be classed as 'terrorism'?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

btw - this isn't new behavouir by the cops.

Their way they acted during the 80s was consideralby worse (miners strike, wapping and the beanfield bring the most notorious examples). Then I think the drubbing they got at the poll tax riot casued them to refrain from baton charging demonstrators so often. 

Over the last 10 -15 years they've made far more use of kettles and cameras - whilst donning a lot more body armour. 

However over the past year or so they definitely have got more 'aggro' - they're behavour at last summers climate camp was a lot more aggressive than the previous year.

I think last weeks policing was designed to 'send a message'  - as they fear an upsurge in public anger due to recession, unemployment and grand larceny by the banks. Of ourse they have now added to the likely hood of more violent protests by their actions last week. The reason the poll tax riot was so fierce was that lots of people saw it as a opportunity for revenge on thatchers brutal goon squad. 

It may be that the reaction to the death of mr tomlinson will deter the cops from getting more violent - but we shall see. This years climate camp and mayday will be interesting ...


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Mmm, look at all those donuts under their chin. They need the kettle, 'cos it's not like they're gonna catch anyone!


In fairness, he did alright at the olympics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hughes_leglise/2393439917/
(cop on the right is same as cop on left in the FIT pic)


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> No, there were sporadic incidents with police doing that, but nothing blanket.



I don't think sporadic incidents should have been allowed. Gits. 

I wonder if sporadic could also mean targetted eg that person has footage of us behaving in a certain way, lets get rid of it?

I do hope more people come forward with similar footage - I think anyone that has ever been to a protest will know that it happens but this seems like the ideal time to bring it to the general publics attention.

I do hope something happens about this. I eagerly await CCTV footage too - there simply MUST be some, mustn't there?

I would love to hear what justification there is for treating Mr Tomlinson in this manner. I think they DO have to justify their actions.

I'm a little saddened by the lack of media interest in this too - someone died possibly as a result of police actions and there was virtually nothing on the BBC news this morning.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

harpo said:


> Aren't they trying to push through a law whereby any photography or videoing of the police will be classed as 'terrorism'?


*NO*. There is new law already in force which some police are using to try class it as that, but it doesn't.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4707.htm#a24


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2009)

Victoria Derbyshire currently doing her best to smear protestors on radio 5 and turn her show into the the poor OB, no wonder they snapped under such severe pressure hour...


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> I don't think sporadic incidents should have been allowed. Gits.


Agree totally.



> I wonder if sporadic could also mean targetted eg that person has footage of us behaving in a certain way, lets get rid of it?


Seemed to be more personalised - sort of We already hate you, we'll fuck up your job - from the people I've spoken to.


----------



## DM Andy (Apr 8, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Didn't the police make deleting camera pictures a condition of being allowed to leave the cordon?
> Effectively, removing evidence of any  crimes of assault that might have been captured on camera.


It's interesting that the video footage was taken by a fund manager rather than by a protester.  It's possible that the person (and thanks to him or her for taking the time to record what the police were doing) was able to go back to their workplace and escape the kettle that way.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

> Sir Paul Stephenson, the Scotland Yard chief, has admitted to having "concerns" over damning video footage which shows Ian Tomlinson being shoved to the ground by a police officer minutes before he died at the London G20 protests



Telegraph


*Mr Tomlinson's son, Paul King:*



> "We want answers: why? Ian clearly had his arms in his pockets and back towards the police. There is no need for them to step in towards him. It clearly shows that Ian did have an altercation. Now we can say, yes he did. Up until now it has been 'if'. But now we've seen it, we want answers."


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think last weeks policing was designed to 'send a message'  - as they fear an upsurge in public anger due to recession, unemployment and grand larceny by the banks. Of ourse they have now added to the likely hood of more violent protests by their actions last week.



Exactly.  They announced to the media about their fears of a Summer Of Rage.  Then they warned about the G20 protests, highlighting it as something that could kickstart the Summer Of Rage.

All they seem to have done is bring the idea of protest to many, something that the detailed guides in newspapers helped coordinate and now given them even more reason to protest.

Something has to change here.  But will it be brought about by investigation and campaigns, or violence and disorder on the streets?


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Victoria Derbyshire currently doing her best to smear protestors on radio 5 and turn her show into the the poor OB, no wonder they snapped under such severe pressure hour...



yeah i mean those half a dozen stood around with no protesters within - what 10-15 meters? look really pressured, they were practically under constant attack.

It is their job to deal with such situations professionally and not to lash out.


----------



## Thora (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> I do hope something happens about this. I eagerly await CCTV footage too - there simply MUST be some, mustn't there?



Yeah, there must be - there are hundreds of cameras in the city!  I bet if it was a copper who _died of natural causes _they'd have found plenty of CCTV footage by now


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> btw - this isn't new behavouir by the cops.
> 
> Their way they acted during the 80s was consideralby worse (miners strike, wapping and the beanfield bring the most notorious examples). Then I think the drubbing they got at the poll tax riot casued them to refrain from baton charging demonstrators so often.
> 
> Over the last 10 -15 years they've made far more use of kettles and cameras - whilst donning a lot more body armour.


They've been doing it at football for years on end...


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

Thora said:


> Yeah, there must be - there are hundreds of cameras in the city!  I bet if it was a copper who _died of natural causes _they'd have found plenty of CCTV footage by now



i don't know if because of the possible severity of this situation it would mean any CCTV footage would be held as evidence?

I wonder how many CCTV cameras the Mont Blanc shop it happened outside has? I wonder how you would find out?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> It may be that the reaction to the death of mr tomlinson will deter the cops from getting more violent


  no chance


editor said:


> They've been doing it at football for years on end...


best interview on the day was with a suit, asked 'aren't you scared (of the protestors, even though you're weaing a suit)?, to which he answered: 'Of this lot? *Laughs* I'm a Chelsea fan!'


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

DM Andy said:


> It's possible that the person (and thanks to him or her for taking the time to record what the police were doing) was able to go back to their workplace and escape the kettle that way.


This isn't within the kettle, this is the police trying to clear people from outside it, see this sequence of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=davehighbury&view=videos


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> They've been doing it at football for years on end...


Again as an aside, it did strike me that if he was a Millwall fan, he would have been fairly used to seeing and experiencing some quite aggressive policing if he went to matches, which could explain his fairly nonchalant reactions to the dogs and the cops that others have commented upon? Lots of ifs and maybes there I know.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> i don't know if because of the possible severity of this situation it would mean any CCTV footage would be held as evidence?
> 
> I wonder how many CCTV cameras the Mont Blanc shop it happened outside has? I wonder how you would find out?



Subject Access Request?


----------



## harpo (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> *NO*. There is new law already in force which some police are using to try class it as that, but it doesn't.
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4707.htm#a24




Ah.  Thanks.


----------



## DM Andy (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> This isn't within the kettle, this is the police trying to clear people from outside it, see this sequence of videos:
> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=davehighbury&view=videos


Thanks for that winjer, helps explain how the video got past the cops.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

I haven't mentioned this until now, but I was assaulted, not badly but it was an assault, by a police officer on that day.

I was following a charge down Cannon Street when I stopped outside the HSBC that had a window put through.  Videoed the damage, turned the camera off, turned round and a Senior Police Officer was running towards me, baton outstretched in front of him.  He continued running, jumped and pushed me back with the baton.  It wasn't enough to knock me down, but I was pretty shocked.  I'd been trying to keep out of trouble all day and maintain a low profile as I tried to document stuff.

A short while after, I spoke to him calmly, pointing out that I had not damaged the window.  He told me I was egging people on and they love being videoed.

I have submitted a complaint to the IPCC, but I think it demonstrates the mentality.  This was not even in a kettle, which I managed to avoid all day.  It was on a busy public street.


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> Subject Access Request?



I think some bloke did make a passing mention to the freedom of information act with regards to cctv footage on the brief coverage on the bbc news at some point but he didn't sound too hopeful.

Wonder what else is round there? *google streetviews*


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

Stephen Moss, Guardian staff writer:


> stephenmoss
> 08 Apr 09, 12:38pm (7 minutes ago)
> Staff writer The Met police federation guy interviewed on the Today programme this morning didn't seem very exercised by Ian Tomlinson's death, He called it a "little incident" - twice! Is this institutionalised stupidity, or something more sinister? Don't the police realise they're there to serve the public, not herd them like cattle and hasten their deaths (allegedly).
> 
> And why is the BBC so keen to rubbish the quality of the video (banging on about its shakiness etc) when it is remarkably clear? Perhaps to divert attention from the fact that they did – and are continuing to do – such a rubbish job of covering the protest and a man's death in suspicious circumstances. They're so anxious to sit on the fence, even when the evidence is overwhelming, they must have to employ people to pick splinters out of reporters' and commentators' backsides.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

_Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said the force fully supported an inquiry into the death. Sir Paul said: "*The images that have now been released raise obvious concerns *and it is absolutely right and proper that there is a full investigation into this matter, which the Met will fully support."_

being reported on the beeb site now. this is quite a break with the other mealy mouthed rubbish that i've heard so far from the met.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 8, 2009)

Ian Tomlinson's family:



> It was, they said, the missing piece of the jigsaw. Ian Tomlinson's family have remained publicly silent in the week since he died.
> 
> His widow and children have found recent days extremely traumatic and have been keen not to prejudice the police investigation into his death. But after viewing footage that clearly shows him being assaulted from behind and pushed to the ground by a police officer, the family said they wanted justice.
> 
> ...


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

DM Andy said:


> Thanks for that winjer, helps explain how the video got past the cops.



Do you honestly think that the police would try to sieze or delete a city fund managers camera?


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stephen Moss, Guardian staff writer:


Where's that from? Cif/blog/twitter?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> Where's that from? Cif/blog/twitter?



CiF blog, page 13


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Do you honestly think that the police would try to sieze or delete a city fund managers camera?


Yes. They've done it to MPs. And they've had to apologise for clearing the press from the vigil on April 2nd at Royal Exchange
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=850930


----------



## creak (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> next time the police give someone a few slaps infront of alot of people, this should happen.




That's fucking brilliant


----------



## moon23 (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> btw - this isn't new behavouir by the cops.
> 
> Their way they acted during the 80s was consideralby worse (miners strike, wapping and the beanfield bring the most notorious examples). Then I think the drubbing they got at the poll tax riot casued them to refrain from baton charging demonstrators so often.
> 
> ...




Your right. Government is scared of the political unrest seen accross the rest of Europe and some very senior people are breifing the police to prepare for this violence and unrest.

This is why they think it's acceptable to put out press releases talking about a summer of violence etc. It allows them to justify the surpression of people unhappy with the current political system.

The effect of this trickles down to PC's on the street who think it's acceptable to use violence against protestors. After all these are dangerous criminals in a culture where protest is criminalised.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> CiF blog, page 13


Which is where? Link please.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> The police have been pulling exactly the same kind of shit at demos since I was a kid (I grew up in an activist house).


Yep, I can remember shit like this (and worse) happening back from the 1970s.


> The difference is that we can have the videos up on youtube in a few days now. Exactly how clear does the footage have to be before a single policeman is prosecuted over any of this.


If we're trying to gauge "how clear" by past standards then we know it can *hardly ever* be clear enough.


> ACAB - no exceptions.


I don't agree. I think that the institution and the *culture* of the institution promotes "bastardism" in some police officers, and the more weak-willed go along with it for an easy life, but some of them do occasionally stand up to be counted.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

perry1 said:


>



5*


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

Against Police brutality- Saturday 11th April-


WHEN: This Sat the 11th of April...11am

WHERE: From Bethnal Green Police station to Bank


Over the last week across London there has been a series of demonstrations
and protests against the policies and programs implemented by the G20
leaders.


We are taking to the streets to express our compassion with the family of
Ian Tomlinson who tragically died during the 1 April protests at the Bank
of England. We are calling for an independent public inquiry into the
instances of police violence that occurred thoughout the week and to
establish the true circumstances of his death.

We wish to communicate our disgust and anger at the violent and brutal
policing of the G20 demonstrations.

The press once again created an atmosphere of fear and violence in the
lead up to the protests, preemptively justifying the police violence that
occurred. They also misreported and lied about the circumstances of the
tragedy. We recognise that for many communities the reality of police
violence is a daily occurrence. The demonisation of communities, like the
demonisation of protesters makes police violence seem normal.

As the crisis deepens and continues there will be increased resistance -
from factory occupations to demonstrations, strikes and people coming
together on the streets. We need to speak out now to defend our freedom to
protest, our communities and our dignity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 8, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Police are taught in situations like this to push people who won't move(rather than arrest them). They do this with both hands, or if in riot gear, with their shield.
> He was following his training.



Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about (again).
You're trained to "ward off" people who are confronting/facing you, not to shove people in the back.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

nice one Durruti, I'll see if I can get down there for this


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> Which is where? Link please.



Apologies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...0-police-assault-ian-tomlinson?commentpage=13


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

As well as the actual assaults on Ian Tomlinson, its important to pursue the higher levels in all this [sorry if this has been said, haven't read the whole thread].  What was the overall plan on policing the G20 - were batons explicitly to be used to 'clear areas' or as a form of routine 'crowd management'?  What role did the Home Office have?  Did they set the tone in terms of more 'aggessive' policing?  Alternatively, were the decisions just made in the Met?  Anybody got any links?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> The guy's fucking walking away from them!



Yep. Something that you do get taught re: "crowd control" is to *not* push someone who's facing away from you, because they're far more likely to lose their balance and get hurt and trampled.
How do I know? Police assistance/crowd control training in NI.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

Check out the comments and ratings of thos comments on the Daily Mail site here. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-man-minutes-died-face-criminal-charges.html

Probably organised by someone but very encouraging nonetheless.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

Found this elsewhere

The Eggshell Principle


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

again not read whole thread but one thing i have heard over and over was that riot police were trying to hit peoples legs and knees .. possibly so media could not see .. this is something i have not heard / seen before


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stephen Moss, Guardian staff writer:



Stephen Moss is "barking mad" himself, wittering about how the police are there to serve people. How can such base ignorance result in a jounralistic carrer? (oops I think Ive answered my own question).

The police are there to serve the state. Period. Any piffle about "serving the people" is an optional extra.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Check out the comments and ratings of thos comments on the Daily Mail site here.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-man-minutes-died-face-criminal-charges.html
> 
> Probably organised by someone but very encouraging nonetheless.



Curious how they chose to show his hands in a position that look like he is giving a V-sign to the coppers and caption it as they do. Yet watching the video through his hands are moving vigourously and only stay in this position for a fraction of a second. 







(42 seconds on original Guardian video)


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 8, 2009)

Police are f*cked on this one....pushed in the back with hands in your pockets...post mortem will be interesting though wager it will suggest that this push was the cause of his death....must be able to identify the policeman from the video I saw...

Without wishing to disrail and I'll step away anyhow... not all coppers are w*nkers, some are, some are not....

If you prepared to label all coppers as bast*ards then by the same token such sweeping generalisation would label all protesters as violent idiots


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

DRINK? said:


> Police are f*cked on this one....pushed in the back with hands in your pockets...post mortem will be interesting though wager it will suggest that this push was the cause of his death....must be able to identify the policeman from the video I saw...
> 
> Without wishing to disrail and I'll step away anyhow... not all coppers are w*nkers, some are, some are not....
> 
> If you prepared to label all coppers as bast*ards then by the same token such sweeping generalisation would label all protesters as violent idiots



Whilst i agree with you, that on an individual level, not ACAB. But you get them all together, and group mentality kicks in and they turn into violent thugs who just love to bash people round the head.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

Id like to see the original of this photo too. His head *looks like* it could be bruised/grazed on the side facing the camera.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Id like to see the original of this photo too. His head *looks like* it could be bruised/grazed on the side facing the camera.



in the thread that got locked (as it was adding no more than this one) I think it wasfreespirit, posted a cropped closeup of ian when he was on the stretcher, and yes, it looks like the side of his head is bruised.

edit, I didn't realise you were talking about that picture. (didn't let he  page load before pressing reply)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Check out the comments and ratings of thos comments on the Daily Mail site here.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-man-minutes-died-face-criminal-charges.html
> 
> Probably organised by someone but very encouraging nonetheless.


I made the point earlier on that i think many many people are very concerned and upset about seeing the police force carrying out such brutal behaviour as well as trying to deny involvement and smear the protestors. People aren't as stupid as sometimes is suspected and I hope that the groundswell of anger continues to grow and build, until a properly independent and impartial investigation is undertaken.

On a related point, very interesting (and quite damning) article from a former commissioner on the IPCC in today's Society:

_the Independent Police Complaints Commission is out of touch, ineffective and takes the side of the police rather than the public, claims former member John Crawley_


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

This was the lead story for the BBC lunchtime news. Momentum is building.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> On a related point, very interesting (and quite damning) article from a former commissioner on the IPCC in today's Society:
> 
> _the Independent Police Complaints Commission is out of touch, ineffective and takes the side of the police rather than the public, claims former member John Crawley_



Of course they are, they're all ex-filth and if they upheld complaints they'd actually have to do some fucking work.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> This was the lead story for the BBC lunchtime news. Momentum is building.


you missed out the link Ed


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> This was the lead story for the BBC lunchtime news. Momentum is building.



So far, the story is being told in terms of 'the push'.  If any footage comes to light of the earlier attack on him - being clubbed on the floor, reportedly - then it will really take off.  _That _would be very hard for the Met/Home Office to newsmanage


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> I made the point earlier on that i think many many people are very concerned and upset about seeing the police force carrying out such brutal behaviour as well as trying to deny involvement and smear the protestors. People aren't as stupid as sometimes is suspected and I hope that the groundswell of anger continues to grow and build, until a properly independent and impartial investigation is undertaken.
> 
> On a related point, very interesting (and quite damning) article from a former commissioner on the IPCC in today's Society:
> 
> _the Independent Police Complaints Commission is out of touch, ineffective and takes the side of the police rather than the public, claims former member John Crawley_


 the IPCCs reaction suprised me .. they had shut down the case without even waiting for evidence to come in .. except from the police .. clearly i am nieve as i thought they were more independent .. did they used to be? they come out of this very badly


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> in the thread that got locked (as it was adding no more than this one) I think it wasfreespirit, posted a cropped closeup of ian when he was on the stretcher, and yes, it looks like the side of his head is bruised.
> 
> edit, I didn't realise you were talking about that picture. (didn't let he  page load before pressing reply)



Im mailing Getty asking if this image has been handed over to the investigation. If that doesn't work i have contacts who will be able to help me out.......


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the IPCCs reaction suprised me .. they had shut down the case without even waiting for evidence to come in .. except from the police .. clearly i am nieve as i thought they were more independent .. did they used to be? they come out of this very badly


read the article...

_the question, "Do you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your case?", is too near the truth. _

_Under the system the IPCC replaced, few complaints were substantiated, a tiny number of officers faced discipline, and police investigations were strung out over years. Figures from 2007/08 show that nothing much has changed under the IPCC._

_I have no wish to impugn the large majority of upright officers, but these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it serves the decent majority ill._


----------



## gabi (Apr 8, 2009)

Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?


What the fuck has any of that got to do with Tomlinson's death? And exactly who was asking for bankers to be burned alive?


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?



No, the first is banter and the second is melodramatic but both valid rhetorical devices to be used in protest.


----------



## asbestos (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?



100% Shit post, well done.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?



no.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?



Rubbish. 0%


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> read the article...
> 
> _the question, "Do you have to be dead before the IPCC takes an interest in your case?", is too near the truth. _
> 
> ...


 oh yes


----------



## Crispy (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?


Oh shit, I didn't realise this was a thread about urban75 posters and not about the death of an innocent man at all! How silly of me!


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

gabi said:


> Out of interest, does the fact that the guy who filmed this and then leaked it to the Guardian was a City banker alter the views at all of the people who were shouting 'jump' at office workers and calling for the lot of them be burned alive on a funeral pyre?



 just out of interest .. 

how many city workers were assaulted that day? ( we were constantly told they were under threat) 

i suspect zero .. maybe i am wrong and it is one or two lol BUT minimal .. 

99.999% of demonstrators were are politically savvy enough to know what is right and what is wrong


----------



## Jayen4 (Apr 8, 2009)

Right,well I'm going to chuck my twopennorth in here....

  From what I've seen on the TV,the cop who pushed this poor guy with such force that he ultimately died of the consequences,should be fucking well strung up !!   That cop was just plain downright acting like a THUG!  There was absolutely no reason for him to do what he did.  Mr Tomlinson wasn't doing anything wrong,he wasn't threatening anyone.....he wasn't even looking at the police,when that thug decided to push him over voilently !  Mr Tomlinson even had his hands in his pockets.  Would you push someone in that position ?

  I say that cop should be rooted out and dealt with as severly as possible ! He is far worse than any protestor or 'criminal' for behaving in that way. All the other cops should be dealt with too,for 'not seeing' what he did !
 And you wonder why people don't like the police ??   There will be MAJOR repercussions if this isn't dealt with properly and there are any further occurances of this nature.
 I would happily deal with that scumbag cop personally !! It's what he deserves !


----------



## gabi (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> What the fuck has any of that got to do with Tomlinson's death? And exactly who was asking for bankers to be burned alive?



You didn't notice the funeral pyre being erected outside the BoE complete with chants of 'burn the bankers'? Kind of hard to miss I would've thought.

Anyways, I seem to have got everyone backs up and I really can't be arsed with it, so apologies - I'm out.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 8, 2009)

> There will be MAJOR repercussions if this isn't dealt with properly and there are any further occurances of this nature.



And what will those be, and in what way will they be different from previous occassoins where the OB have 'accidentally' killed someone?

The only peopole who'll remember this in 12 months will be the victim's family, their lawyers (and the OBs legal team) and those in the protesting groups who aim to keep this stuff in the public eye.


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 8, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the IPCCs reaction suprised me .. they had shut down the case without even waiting for evidence to come in .. except from the police .. clearly i am nieve as i thought they were more independent .. did they used to be? they come out of this very badly



It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases the IPCC only monitor investigations carried out by Constabularies, and only rarely take on full ownership of a case. Where this case is concerned it is the City of London Police who are doing the investigation, and what is rightly being called for, is for the IPCC to take on full management of the case.

...as to whether justice will be served, is another matter entirely.


----------



## Jayen4 (Apr 8, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> And what will those be, and in what way will they be different from previous occassoins where the OB have 'accidentally' killed someone?
> 
> The only peopole who'll remember this in 12 months will be the victim's family, their lawyers (and the OBs legal team) and those in the protesting groups who aim to keep this stuff in the public eye.






 What will those be ??.....

 This sort of thing is happening more and more frequently and what with all the other shit that's going on (credit crunch,re-possessions etc etc),so eventually there will be 1 event which will blow the lid off the whole situation.....then there will be MAJOR civil unrest...civil war even ?  You think I'm being extreme ??  People will only take so much before they hit back...big time !  Believe me it IS coming.....


----------



## DM Andy (Apr 8, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases the IPCC only monitor investigations carried out by Constabularies, and only rarely take on full ownership of a case. Where this case is concerned it is the City of London Police who are doing the investigation, and what is rightly being called for, is for the IPCC to take on full management of the case.


To my mind, if the case is being run by Plod or ex-Plod isn't going to make a difference.  What we need is an independent investigating IPCC who actually take the time to investigate every single complaint throughly and gives the public information on what our Police have done.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

Hints that the IPCC may have to use independent investigators:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-video-inquiry-ipcc


----------



## nopassaran (Apr 8, 2009)

DM Andy said:


> To my mind, if the case is being run by Plod or ex-Plod isn't going to make a difference.  What we need is an independent investigating IPCC who actually take the time to investigate every single complaint throughly and gives the public information on what our Police have done.



I quite agree (as the unquoted part of my post implies) but surely within the current system, and where this case is concerned, it's preferable for the case to be managed exclusively by the IPCC?


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 8, 2009)

> This sort of thing is happening more and more frequently



So when was the last time someone died in police custody in the UK, or as the result of the actions of OB as in Mr Tomlinson's case?


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

Kyser you might want to add 'in the UK' to that, otherwise the answer is probably daily.


----------



## DM Andy (Apr 8, 2009)

nopassaran said:


> I quite agree (as the unquoted part of my post implies) but surely within the current system, and where this case is concerned, it's preferable for the case to be managed exclusively by the IPCC?


I'm not entirely sure that I do agree.  If the case is being run by City of London Police, and they try to whitewash then it will be more obvious than if it's run by ex-Plod under the disguise of an independent investigation.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So when was the last time someone died in police custody, or as the result of the actions of OB as in Mr Tomlinson's case?


Apart from DeMenezes, the latest stats i can find are:

_However, on 19 April 2004, 15-year-old Gareth Myatt died after losing consciousness while being restrained by staff at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre. In 2003, there were 76 deaths of prisoners through “natural causes”. While the overwhelming majority of these were undoubtedly completely unrelated to the person’s imprisonment, the standard of prison healthcare has attracted major criticism from, amongst others, NGOs, Independent Monitoring Boards (formerly Boards of Visitors) and the Prisons Inspectorate.

Home Office figures show that, between April 2003 and March 2004, there were 38 deaths in police custody in England and Wales, of which 7 were in police stations, 22 were in hospital, and the remainder were at the scene of arrest or following arrest. None of the deaths at police stations involved the use of restraint, although six of those who died in hospital had been restrained by the police shortly prior to death. All of those who died at police stations were white; one of those who died in hospital having earlier been restrained was black. In 2002–03, there were 8 deaths in police custody in Scotland. In 2001, there were 5 deaths in police custody in Northern Ireland._

Conclusion? _The result is a failure properly to protect the lives of vulnerable people in the state’s care through the positive measures necessary to meet the duty of care required by the state in compliance with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). *And when people die in consequence of that failure, the system does not always offer an effective investigation*—an essential requirement of the right to life under Article 2_. Deaths in custody


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 8, 2009)

Watching that footage this lunchtime made me fucking sick and disgusted. There was no need for him to have been pushed over like that, he even had his hands in his pockets and it was unlikely that he could have put his hands out to protect himself as he had his back to the copper who did it.

I really hope someone is charged for this.


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

Jayen4 said:


> What will those be ??.....
> 
> This sort of thing is happening more and more frequently and what with all the other shit that's going on (credit crunch,re-possessions etc etc),so eventually there will be 1 event which will blow the lid off the whole situation.....then there will be MAJOR civil unrest...civil war even ?  You think I'm being extreme ??  People will only take so much before they hit back...big time !  Believe me it IS coming.....



yes.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Watching that footage this lunchtime made me fucking sick and disgusted.


Have you watched the Guardian version of the video?  They've slowed it down at the end; you can see that he appears to have been hit on the back of the legs with a baton, and then pushed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Here's the link again:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-video

Note how no cops go to his aid.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 8, 2009)

Yes, I have watched that as well.
There was something I was reading a while back about blows to the upper body and disturbance of heart rhythms, can't remember where I saw it but it someone is hit on the upper body IIRC it can disrupt the flow of blood to the heart and if a person has underlying heart problems I think it can cause a heart attack.

The force of that blow to Tomlinson looked to me to be really hard, it must have been to take big bloke like him off his feet.


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 8, 2009)

i think unless there is some very quick action by the police over this death, people should take to the streets and protest because of 1) the misinformation put out by the police, 2) the total lack of investigation by police and 3) very probable destroying/ignoring of evidence that this happened by police.

who is organising one?


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

I think maybe the riot gear prevents them from bending down to help people. Either that or their callous hearts. I have never seen a cop try to help someone down on the floor in those kinds of situations, I'm sure some do though.

I noticed on google streetview that there is a CCTV camera on the Cornhill Insurance building directly opposite, I wonder if it was functioning and able to offer anymore footage? (assuming that the images on streetview arent terribly out of date)


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 8, 2009)

maximilian ping said:


> i think unless there is some very quick action by the police over this death, people should take to the streets and protest because of 1) the misinformation put out by the police, 2) the total lack of investigation by police and 3) very probable destroying/ignoring of evidence that this happened by police.
> 
> who is organising one?


see the previous page on this thread, from Bethnal Green police station this Saturday at 11am. to Bank.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> I think maybe the riot gear prevents them from bending down to help people.


If that's so, the story they put out that protesters prevented them from helping him was doubly false.

(But it's not true; they can bend down).


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> see the previous page on this thread, from Bethnal Green police station this Saturday at 11am. to Bank.



ta


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 8, 2009)

Just posting to say well done to everyone who was at these protests and who took photos and videos of what they saw. Without the photos and videos provided by members of the public, and taken in spite of the odious new legislation which calls into question the right to record the actions of the police, it seems likely that the assault(s?) on Tomlinson would have been swept under the carpet by the plod and the IPCC. There's clearly no point expecting the police to use CCTV footage to examine the legality of their own behaviour, as CCTV is a tool of the state and not a means to public safety as we're so often told.

Fair play to all the photographers, keep up the good work!


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> If that's so, the story they put out that protesters prevented them from helping him was doubly false.
> 
> (But it's not true; they can bend down).



i wasn't being entirely serious

but yes quite obviously the swathes of protesters surrounding them, 12 deep in some places, launching missiles etc etc must have been the reason they didn't try to help (callous hearts, callous hearts)

I had a look at the guardian pics (in the actual paper) and there practically no-one there. Unless theyre all just out of camera shot it looks like the area had just a handful of waifs and strays.

Unjustifiable.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> I noticed on google streetview that there is a CCTV camera on the Cornhill Insurance building directly opposite, I wonder if it was functioning and able to offer anymore footage? (assuming that the images on streetview arent terribly out of date)



I went up there this morning to check out what cameras there might be.  Yes there is one on that building, not sure who operates it as it looks different to the other ones around the city.  There is another more official looking one on Threadneedle Street at the other end of Royal Exchange Buildings on a high pole.  It was pointing the other way this morning but looked like it could be pointed in the right direction southwards down Royal Exchange Bldgs, if the operator at the time so wanted.  

It might be worth looking through pictures of the area to see which way it was pointing at about 19:30 on 2 April, if anyone has any.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> i wasn't being entirely serious


Ah, good.  I didn't think you were, but I used to be a lecturer, and this thing just takes over where I have to reply as if I assume the worst.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> Unless theyre all just out of camera shot it looks like the area had just a handful of waifs and strays.


See this sequence of videos, some of the witnesses were :
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=davehighbury&view=videos


----------



## nick h. (Apr 8, 2009)

Link no worky


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You uploading it somewhere that's embeddable? Fucking Guardian and their shit video player is useless...


Even they realised: "The Guardian's Ian Tomlinson video is on YouTube if you wish to embed it on your website or blog."


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

any links to PDF or something about Saturdays protest @Bethnal Green?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 8, 2009)

Just wondering what would happen on the march on Saturday if every single person has their face covered, just like the cop who who pushed Tomlinson over.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just wondering what would happen on the march on Saturday if every single person has their face covered, just like the cop who who pushed Tomlinson over.



For the wife of a plod you have a rather anti-police streak in you?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Yes, I have watched that as well.
> There was something I was reading a while back about blows to the upper body and disturbance of heart rhythms, can't remember where I saw it but it someone is hit on the upper body IIRC it can disrupt the flow of blood to the heart and if a person has underlying heart problems I think it can cause a heart attack.
> 
> The force of that blow to Tomlinson looked to me to be really hard, it must have been to take big bloke like him off his feet.



This is true.

Strikes to the chest are often used in various martial arts for that very reason, while a strike directly over the heart can be used as a killing technique. It works on the same principle as striking the chest to perform heart resuscitation, but in reverse.


----------



## zygote (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> any links to PDF or something about Saturdays protest @Bethnal Green?


Something here.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/policing-and-crime/g20-protestors-plan-new-march-$1286124.htm


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 8, 2009)

Late to this thread, been reading all of it, and clicking the variious links, all this afternoon.

I had not seen that Guardian video until now. 



Stobart Stopper said:


> *Watching that footage this lunchtime made me fucking sick and disgusted.* There was no need for him to have been pushed over like that, he even had his hands in his pockets and it was unlikely that he could have put his hands out to protect himself as he had his back to the copper who did it.
> 
> I really hope someone is charged for this.



Totally agree, especially with the bolded bit 




			
				Spooky Frank said:
			
		

> Just posting to say well done to everyone who was at these protests and who took photos and videos of what they saw. Without the photos and videos provided by members of the public, and taken in spite of the odious new legislation which calls into question the right to record the actions of the police, it seems likely that the assault(s?) on Tomlinson would have been swept under the carpet by the plod and the IPCC. There's clearly no point expecting the police to use CCTV footage to examine the legality of their own behaviour, as CCTV is a tool of the state and not a means to public safety as we're so often told.
> 
> Fair play to all the photographers, keep up the good work!



Absolutely. If the Police had their way, videos and pix of this kind would either not be allowed to be taken in the first place, or seized. we have digital and micro technology in phones and so forth to thank for this disgrace coming to light.

IMO there's been some excellent discussions throughout nearly all of this thread btw, I've learned a fuck of a lot about what happened, most of it both depressing and infuriating. Despite being many many miles away.

R.I.P. Ian Tomlinson ...


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> any links to PDF or something about Saturdays protest @Bethnal Green?




Haven't seen a pdf.

More details at: http://www.g-20meltdown.org/

I listed it here too: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8977610


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

Marcus Bensasson's photo (Image 'A' http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/04/08/TOMLINSON.pdf) appears to show an Inspector at Royal Exchange Buildings, and the next in sequence appears to show Chief Superintendent Robertson on Cornhill at around the relevant time.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 8, 2009)

According to politics.co.uk an independent enquiry is now to be launched - apols can't get link to work


----------



## brew (Apr 8, 2009)

Yep, the IPCC have remove City of London police from the investigation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-video-inquiry-ipcc


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

according to 5live ten minutes ago, theres going to be a second post-mortem.  

hmmmmmm....


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> according to 5live ten minutes ago, theres going to be a second post-mortem.
> 
> hmmmmmm....


Yes.  Mmm.


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> More details at: http://www.g-20meltdown.org/



i wish they would not refer to the deceased as 'Ian' as if they knew him or represent him.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> i wish they would not refer to the deceased as 'Ian' as if they knew him or represent him.



Yep, thoroughly wrong to do that, IMHO.

I sense the dark (and distinctly weird) hand of a certain Chris Knight at work there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> according to 5live ten minutes ago, theres going to be a second post-mortem.
> 
> hmmmmmm....



Really?

I wonder what they'll find...


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I sense the dark (and distinctly weird) hand of a certain Chris Knight at work there.



indeed.


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Really?
> 
> I wonder what they'll find...



yup, confirmed here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> yup, confirmed here:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm



and the bbc keep going with the "pushed"...  missing a lot of detail, they are keeping it as fluffed up as they can.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

*theres more evidence...*
from krishna @ channel 4 news on twitter...

@krishgmnews flash : We have new ITN exclusive video of Ian Tomlinson - shows police clearly striking out at him with a baton


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Can I score some advice please. Guy on another forum was arrested on the thursday, at the temperary memorial, where he's accused of writing on the floor. He's a little nervous and doesn't really know what to do/say.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

This from the witness statements at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses



> E: Amiri Howe, 24, actor/musician, west London
> 
> We stood on a ledge near Cornhill. Before he got hit, at the beginning of the whole thing - we were watching the protesters at the Bank of England. Police got into a couple of scuffles with people. They were pushing the line forward, pushing the line forward.
> 
> ...



This suggests to me that Ian Tomlinson was smacked on the head minutes before he was pushed over - is that correct? That might explain why he was acting 'provocatively' (in the words of some trying to justify the police actions) by walking nonchalantly in front of the cops before he was pushed over, still dazed by the first attack.

Blimey, even the Hate Mail's going with the story he was attacked twice:



> Riot police targeted the man who died at the G20 protest on two separate occasions, it was claimed this afternoon.
> 
> The newspaper seller was manhandled by an officer 15 minutes before a colleague was videoed striking the  47-year-old with his baton before shoving him to the ground, it was alleged.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> Can I score some advice please. Guy on another forum was arrested on the thursday, at the temperary memorial, where he's accused of writing on the floor. He's a little nervous and doesn't really know what to do/say.



My advice is this:

Tell him not to say anything without a solicitor present.

Get him his own lawyer. Don't use the duty solicitor as they tend to be far too friendly with the plod.

Go 'no comment' to everything.

Don't sign anything, especialially not statements and/or a police officer's notebook.

Another piece of advice would be to visit the website of the legal defence and monitoring group (LDMG) and see what they have to say.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *theres more evidence...*
> from krishna @ channel 4 news on twitter...
> 
> @krishgmnews flash : We have new ITN exclusive video of Ian Tomlinson - shows police clearly striking out at him with a baton




@channel4news New Ian Tomlinson footage (on http://channel4.com/news at 6.30pm) was on C4 camera broken that night, so not previously viewed.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Check out the comments and ratings of thos comments on the Daily Mail site here.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-man-minutes-died-face-criminal-charges.html
> 
> Probably organised by someone but very encouraging nonetheless.



quite surprising to see comments like that on the Hate Mail!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> @channel4news New Ian Tomlinson footage (on http://channel4.com/news at 6.30pm) was on C4 camera broken that night, so not previously viewed.


I switched off when Jacqui Smith came on, because she gives me nausea.  Is there new stuff after that?


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> Can I score some advice please. Guy on another forum was arrested on the thursday, at the temperary memorial, where he's accused of writing on the floor. He's a little nervous and doesn't really know what to do/say.


Tell him to contact LDMG.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> again not read whole thread but one thing i have heard over and over was that riot police were trying to hit peoples legs and knees .. possibly so media could not see .. this is something i have not heard / seen before



quite common ime. they'll go for heads if the action is too close for them to get a blow at the legs, iyswim


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

more re: new C4 footage-



> Footage also reveals officer wielding the baton went straight to talk to a more senior officer


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *theres more evidence...*
> from krishna @ channel 4 news on twitter...
> 
> @krishgmnews flash : We have new ITN exclusive video of Ian Tomlinson - shows police clearly striking out at him with a baton



Hmmmm.   This is getting interesting.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

Just catching-up on the news, it’s a fucking disgrace – that little piggy needs to be done for manslaughter at the very least.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

smokedout said:


> in fairness, i was there for that bit, and they did stop the ambulance for a while, but then someone very senior looking came and screamed at them to let it through


You can see the senior officer in this video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=18919752001 around 2:10.

It's Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson.

You can also see one of the people who helped Ian Tomlinson up (in g vid), at the same time in the crowd on the left side.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> quite common ime. they'll go for heads if the action is too close for them to get a blow at the legs, iyswim


I was surprised to see raised clubs .. surely anyone striking someone on the *head *would automatically be guilty of using unreasonable force ?


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> quite surprising to see comments like that on the Hate Mail!!



Fucking hell when Daily Mail readers are saying: -







You know something is up!


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

gentlegreen said:


> I was surprised to see raised clubs .. surely anyone striking someone on the *head *would automatically be guilty of using unreasonable force ?



yeah but they're the police! d'uh!


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 8, 2009)

gentlegreen said:


> I was surprised to see raised clubs .. surely anyone striking someone on the *head *would automatically be guilty of using unreasonable force ?



I was at the Climate Camp convergence centre (I left about two hours before it was violently raided) and people coming back were reporting that the police were routinely hitting people on the head, using over-arm baton strikes.


----------



## paolo (Apr 8, 2009)

I saw a ticker on Sky earlier saying no officers at the scene (I presume the 2nd incident, Guardian vid) have come forward.

Has there been any update on that front?


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> Fucking hell when Daily Mail readers are saying: -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not necessarily mail readers. I have a comment on that page too and I wouldn't pay for that shitrag. Just felt it was a more appropriate place to put my feelings because I would rather people who didn't agree saw it IFYSWIM.

It's only the second time they've put one of my comments on there. But it's probably only the second time my comment didn't end in 'ought to be dragged out of Northcliffe House and shot.'


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I saw a ticker on Sky earlier saying no officers at the scene (I presume the 2nd incident, Guardian vid) have come forward.
> 
> Has there been any update on that front?



ITN saying the same just now

and on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm

no surprise there then


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Hmmmm.   This is getting interesting.



@krishgm Footage also reveals officer wielding the baton went straight to talk to a more senior officer

in 30 mins we will see just how interesting hey?


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> Again, the claim that the Met lied in this is not really supported by the evidence available.


Bullshit. "[officers] came under sustained fire from missiles"
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=18912698001


----------



## e19896 (Apr 8, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Just catching-up on the news, it’s a fucking disgrace – that little piggy needs to be done for manslaughter at the very least.



talked about this today and none of those ive spoken to feel anything will happen to the scum who killed him, it has just been on the bbc 6 news, will be the 630 itn news, and the c4 saying they have a new vid of Ian being hit, we can all desire the scum to be charged but will not happen as it will lead to an open door of those who was also beeaten on the day and night, and the next day comeing forword, no there will be some farce of an investigation, it will say the police actions was wrong on the day, but there was a need blah fucking blah police murdering scum as they allways do walk free..


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> Tell him to contact LDMG.



Ditto!!! must do so...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *theres more evidence...*
> from krishna @ channel 4 news on twitter...
> 
> @krishgmnews flash : We have new ITN exclusive video of Ian Tomlinson - shows police clearly striking out at him with a baton



Have we got a video link of this I keep hearing/reading about?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Have we got a video link of this I keep hearing/reading about?



The ITN footage isn't worth bothering with tbh. It's taken from further away than the footage the Grauniad has, but it does corroborate it i spose. Shows Mr Tomlinson falling to the floor, but there's too many people in the way to see what really happened.

I do wonder though, why ITN are only showing this now  Spineless media? surely not?

e2a: just seen it on ITN news on telly, no link.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Have we got a video link of this I keep hearing/reading about?


http://www.channel4.com/news/
up @6.30pm supposedly
not up yet..


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

The ITN footage confirms that he WAS struck by the baton, 1st witness to speak out about the earlier attack on him as well.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

ITN also saying that 4 riot police separated from other police had to 'beat off a ferocious attack by protestors' just before the incident in the grauniad footage. Yet their own video footage doesn't show this. wtf.

ITN's coverage is utter bollocks - they still seem to be going with the line that protestors attacked police continuously and ferociously. twats


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Have we got a video link of this I keep hearing/reading about?




http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/tomlinson+death+the+missing+moment/3076487


----------



## where to (Apr 8, 2009)

unbelievable.  breaking news on ITN.  following a meeting between the Home Office and the MET this afternoon, a major anti-terrorism swoop has been brought forward this evening with 10 arrests in Liverpool, Manchester and Clitheroe.


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/tomlinson+death+the+missing+moment/3076487



new angle, a lot of people in the way, but it does show the force used with the baton more clearly.


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> T
> I do wonder though, why ITN are only showing this now  Spineless media? surely not?
> 
> e2a: just seen it on ITN news on telly, no link.


Oh, come on - be fair. It wasn't exactly easy to spot. 

Besides, they must have had loads of footage of police randomly hitting people to trawl through.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> ITN also saying that 4 riot police separated from other police had to 'beat off a ferocious attack by protestors' just before the incident in the grauniad footage. Yet their own video footage doesn't show this. wtf.
> 
> ITN's coverage is utter bollocks - they still seem to be going with the line that protestors attacked police continuously and ferociously. twats



Was just going to write this, ill add there also saying they whent to his aid, so what i need to ask if they are telling the truth (which i doubt) why do they run with this following the news of the last few days, no there coverage is utter bollocks, now for the C4 News..


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> unbelievable.  breaking news on ITN.  following a meeting between the Home Office and the MET this afternoon, a major anti-terrorism swoop has been brought forward this evening with 10 arrests in Liverpool, Manchester and Clitheroe.



couldnt help but think this was to try and steal the main headlines.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, come on - be fair. It wasn't exactly easy to spot.
> 
> Besides, they must have had loads of footage of police randomly hitting people to trawl through.



 true!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 8, 2009)

where to said:


> unbelievable.  breaking news on ITN.  following a meeting between the Home Office and the MET this afternoon, a major anti-terrorism swoop has been brought forward this evening with 10 arrests in Liverpool, Manchester and Clitheroe.



bbc reporting this now..

prob not totally relevant to this thread tho..
interesting how they will cover this...

*e2a: G20 police 'yet to come forward' *


> A police watchdog is searching for officers caught on video when a man was shoved to the ground prior to his death at a G20 protest in London.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I saw a ticker on Sky earlier saying no officers at the scene (I presume the 2nd incident, Guardian vid) have come forward.
> 
> Has there been any update on that front?





_pH_ said:


> ITN saying the same just now
> 
> and on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm
> 
> no surprise there then



Actually on that BBC link it says SOME officers have not come forward.

Didn’t I read a report further up the thread that confirmed there were Met & City police in that video and it was a Met officer that assaulted him? 

In which case I bet it’s the City officers that have come forward and the Met officers that haven’t. [or the other way around] 


ETA:



> "At the moment the investigation is focused on identifying the officers in the footage. *Several have already come forward *and all efforts are being made to trace those who haven't."


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Actually on that BBC link it says SOME officers have not come forward.



yes true. police with a conscience???


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> bbc reporting this now..
> 
> prob not totally relevant to this thread tho..
> interesting how they will cover this...





  I hate even thinking this way, the 1st thing that came to my mind is that this will have been a long drawn out intelligience operation that suddenly, amongst all of the ongoing news, was deemed time to make arrests.  Hope i am wrong about this.  


  ITN claimed some of the police have now come forward?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> yes true. police with a conscience???



I would guess one force covering their arses against the actions of the other tbh.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I would guess one force covering their arses against the actions of the other tbh.



more likely


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> yes true. police with a conscience???



Possibly, or more likely trying desperately to cover their arses.

And yes, the terrorism raids being brought forward today wasn't so much suspicious as a blatant attempt to bury it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

You can definitely see him strike out with the baton there, picture is too small for me to be sure whether he makes contact or not and if so just where ... 

The baton is chambered on his left shoulder and looking at both the new and old footage it's clear that he's trying to strike somewhere between mid thigh and knee (i.e. he's trying to give him a 'dead leg' plus the probability of painful muscle cramps for weeks afterwards). The angle of the swing suggest potential for contact on both the outside of the left leg and the back of either leg, which have vulnerable nerve bundles and inner right thigh which in addition to the vulnerable femoral nerve also has the femoral artery and femoral vein (striking this area is often identified in martial arts as 'off-limits' for safe practice). 

If he is making contact, it's probably with just the tip of the baton, which means a lot of force on a very small spot. It's clear from the way the officers body is moving that he's got considerable force behind the blow. My guess would be that he either missed or just clipped him with the tip of the baton, then turns the follow through and recovery into a lunge forwards to shoulder Mr Tomlinson down.  

I'm not sure whether he does make contact or not. Mr Tomlinson appears to flinch but doesn't jerk as the blow lands or immediately show any effects. It's absolutely clear to me though that the officer's _*intention*_ is to give him a hard fall, either by whacking him in a 'dead leg' spot, or by charging him down or both. Particularly given that he has his hands in his pockets and is already looking quite shaky for whatever prior reason ...


----------



## Tankus (Apr 8, 2009)

nah ..the muppet (Quick) in charge went to number 10 carrying documents (a la flint) clearly visible to press photography......guess theres a briefcase on his birthday present list


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

#sigh#

terrorism raids brought forward because commisioner walked around Downing Street with details on display to cameramen.  Channel 4 news cut the time allowed in the Tomlinson case to discuss this 'breaking' news.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 8, 2009)

And on Channel 4 news tonight yet more video evidence that the police's claim that protestors blocked and obstructed the ambulance was, surprise surprise, yet more lies.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 8, 2009)

ps ..how did the original postmortem miss/not mention  the impact ?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 8, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You can definitely see him strike out with the baton there, picture is too small for me to be sure whether he makes contact or not and if so just where ...
> 
> The baton is chambered on his left shoulder and looking at both the new and old footage it's clear that he's trying to strike somewhere between mid thigh and knee (i.e. he's trying to give him a 'dead leg' plus the probability of painful muscle cramps for weeks afterwards), with potential for contact on both the outside of the left leg and the back of either leg, which have vulnerable nerve bundles and inner right thigh which also has the largest artery in the body, the femoral. If he is making contact, it's probably with just the tip of the baton. It's clear from the way the officers body is moving that he's got considerable force behind the blow.
> 
> I'm not sure whether he does make contact at all. Mr Tomlinson appears to flinch but doesn't jerk as the blow lands or immediately show any effects. It's absolutely clear to me though that the officer's _*intention*_ is to give him a hard fall, either by whacking him in a 'dead leg' spot, or by charging him down or both. Particularly given that he has his hands in his pockets and is already looking quite shaky for whatever prior reason ...


I wonder if such a strike on the legs might dislodge a blood clot in the viens of a seasoned alcholic sufficent to stop their heart.  how long would it take for a blood clot to reach the heart assuming it was in an artery and so going say down and then back round the system?  about what 3 minutes or so...

So really i guess the question has to be asked medically how preciesley did he die because ie what actually caused the heart attack and was it increase blood pressure due to injury, was it a blood clot, was it head trama etc...


----------



## ddraig (Apr 8, 2009)

live terrrrrrrrrrrrror raiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiddddddddsss on goggle box right now!!!!111!!! pay attention minions 

at liverpool uni!!!11!!1 
bollox


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> And on Channel 4 news tonight yet more video evidence that the police's claim that protestors blocked and obstructed the ambulance was, surprise surprise, yet more lies.


Of course.  

Sickening, lying, scumbags.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2009)

He's come forward.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

who, the plod who pushed Tomlinson over?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> He's come forward.


Who?  The cop who assaulted Tomlinson?


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You can definitely see him strike out with the baton there, picture is too small for me to be sure whether he makes contact or not and if so just where ...
> 
> The baton is chambered on his left shoulder and looking at both the new and old footage it's clear that he's trying to strike somewhere between mid thigh and knee (i.e. he's trying to give him a 'dead leg' plus the probability of painful muscle cramps for weeks afterwards), with potential for contact on both the outside of the left leg and the back of either leg, which have vulnerable nerve bundles and inner right thigh which also has the largest artery in the body, the femoral. If he is making contact, it's probably with just the tip of the baton. It's clear from the way the officers body is moving that he's got considerable force behind the blow. My guess would be that he either missed or just clipped him with the tip of the baton, then turns the follow through into a lunge forwards to shoulder Mr Tomlinson down.
> 
> I'm not sure whether he does make contact at all. Mr Tomlinson appears to flinch but doesn't jerk as the blow lands or immediately show any effects. It's absolutely clear to me though that the officer's _*intention*_ is to give him a hard fall, either by whacking him in a 'dead leg' spot, or by charging him down or both. Particularly given that he has his hands in his pockets and is already looking quite shaky for whatever prior reason ...



He definately appears to hit him with it, but if he was aiming to give him a dead leg then it doesnt look as if it worked - as you say Tomlinson doesnt seem to react that much to it, though of course he wasnt really given any time to react to it either.   

As for the relevance of this new footage, it is of course helpful but the original footage was pretty clear in showing him getting hit with the baton as well.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> He's come forward.



The cop who did this?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 8, 2009)

yes


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

source?


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

Indeed, just watching News24 now where they are confirming it.

edit:  as above, pH


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

on BBC news website ticker too


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

No doubt he has a good explanation why he didn't step forward as soon as it was known Tomlinson had died.  Perhaps he was washing his hair.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

Yea, according to Channel 4 news.  I make that less than a week since he hit him, bravo to the copper


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> No doubt he has a good explanation why he didn't step forward as soon as it was known Tomlinson had died.  Perhaps he was washing his hair.



I would say as soon as the picture of Tomlinson was released that caused all the witnesses to come forward, but in any case the IPCC will be putting that very question to him shortly.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> No doubt he has a good explanation why he didn't step forward as soon as it was known Tomlinson had died.  Perhaps he was washing his hair.



or because there was no video footage of him doing it

[/cynic]


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> I would say as soon as the picture of Tomlinson was released that caused all the witnesses to come forward,



When you say witnesses do you mean the policepersons involved? Cos I'm not sure they saw his face.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

Lucky for the police that they have some terrorists to catch today so they can remind us how much we depend on them.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 8, 2009)

I'd like to be the first to congratulate Officer Psycho Twat for having the decency to come forward as soon as it became apparent his colleagues would identify him if he didn't.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

Callie said:


> When you say witnesses do you mean the policepersons involved? Cos I'm not sure they saw his face.



I actually meant the three people mentioned in the initial Guardian report of (iirc) Friday.  I dont know whether the IPCC will treat those officers who Tomlinson was speaking to (ie the gaggle with the shields stood there after he was pushed over) as witnesses, tbh.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> He definately appears to hit him with it, but if he was aiming to give him a dead leg then it doesnt look as if it worked - as you say Tomlinson doesnt seem to react that much to it, though of course he wasnt really given any time to react to it either.
> 
> As for the relevance of this new footage, it is of course helpful but the original footage was pretty clear in showing him getting hit with the baton as well. <snip>



It's potentially helpful if they're doing a new post-mortem in the light of it, especially if a full sized view and slo-mo shows where the strike went in. 

If it went to the inside of the thigh - well, a whole bunch of martial arts identify the femoral nerve/vein/artery area as a potentially lethal 'cavity' which when struck can lead to heart failure for medically comprehensible reasons (if I recall right something to do with a high-amplitude transient spike in blood pressure) as well as mystic acupuncture gobbledegook ones. 

I've only ever seen it knock people out, e.g. after a hard kick lands there, but the classical sources are pretty unanimous that it's potentially lethal.


----------



## well red (Apr 8, 2009)

It's very clear in the C4 footage that the cops that everyone was suggesting were FIT on here earlier are in fact senior officers who stand right next to the assault, watch it happen and ...do nothing. Exactly as you would expect them to behave. Wonder if they are shitting themselves yet?


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

Came forward of his own free will?

Or got pushed forward*, due to the hopless situation the cops are in?

I guess option 2.

ETA: * no pun was intended


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

The fact that a second post mortem has been ordered shows that this is being taken seriously.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 8, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's potentially helpful if they're doing a new post-mortem in the light of it, especially if a full sized view and slo-mo shows where the strike went in.
> 
> If it went to the inside of the thigh - well, a whole bunch of martial arts identify the femoral nerve/vein/artery area as a potentially lethal 'cavity' which when struck can lead to heart failure for medically comprehensible reasons (if I recall right something to do with a high-amplitude transient spike in blood pressure) as well as mystic acupuncture gobbledegook ones.
> 
> I've only ever seen it knock people out, e.g. after a hard kick lands there, but the classical sources are pretty unanimous that it's potentially lethal.



It is if you do it in the right way, yes.

Certain martial arts strikes (such as striking the celiac plexus using your fingertips, for instance, the Chinese martial arts refer to fingertips strikes as Bil Jee or 'art of thrusting fingers') can cause a massive rush of blood through to the heart which, if powerful enough, is sufficient to burst the aortic valve and bring a quick death.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2009)

well red said:


> It's very clear in the C4 footage that the cops that everyone was suggesting were FIT on here earlier are in fact senior officers who stand right next to the assault, watch it happen and ...do nothing. Exactly as you would expect them to behave. Wonder if they are shitting themselves yet?



Bingo - senior officers who it seems might not have come forward even at this late date, who were talked to by the 'hitter' at the time - presumably asking about what had just taken place.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

The thought that some of them will have been working together for a week concocting stories, covering their own backs e.t.c. disturbs me.  If the man has come forward in the last hour then what has happened for him to do so now?  His colleagues refusing to protect him, assurances from his superiors that he will be looked after e.t.c.?  All speculation but not nice thoughts.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

To be fair on the man there were enough truncheons beating enough innocent people that day that he probably wasn't sure the one he hit was the one that pegged it till he saw the video.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 8, 2009)

Jesus.  This whole thing is just sickening.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

well red said:


> the cops that everyone was suggesting were FIT on here earlier are in fact senior officers



They are FIT, what makes you think they are senior?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> To be fair on the man there were enough truncheons beating enough innocent people that day that he probably wasn't sure the one he hit was the one that pegged it till he saw the video.



Yep. This is a key point to bear in mind when they start spinning this. The only difference between this animal and thousands of his fellow officers is that he was unlucky enough to kill one of the people he assaulted and to have it caught on video that couldn't be covered up.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 8, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> Jesus.  This whole thing is just sickening.



It is, I've just been reading the thread rather than posting but I actually cried when I first saw the footage and then again on the Channel 4 news. 

I don't understand how this policeman wil ever get away with it. Brian Paddick was just suggesting there _might_ be reasoning for that kind of behaviour, I don't see how that can ever be.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

Intersting testimony from the medical student who tended to Ian Tomlinson on channel 4 news. 

She said he was concious, and said several times that he was ok and not in pain, he then lost conciousness (and subsequntly died). Im not a doctor - but that does not sound like a heart attack - it sounds more like internal bleeding - brain hemorage? spleen? - be interesting to see what the second post mortem turns up - and pretty worrying (in terms scope of police interference) if the first one turns out to be bullshit. 

_If_ he did die from something like a brain hemorage casued by a blow to the head (i.e his head striking the pavement) as a direcet result of teh assult from the copper - then wouldn't that be murder?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

Just seen ch 4 news. Though they do show the film of the hitter, they don't mention the earlier incident when Ian Tomlinson was hit on the head and/or knocked to the ground (according to more than one witness)*.  IIRC they did have this in the earlier bulletin.  Wonder if that's just their lawyers urging more caution on that part of the story?  

Unless its at the end, I turned off 10 minutes ago


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's potentially helpful if they're doing a new post-mortem in the light of it, especially if a full sized view and slo-mo shows where the strike went in.
> 
> If it went to the inside of the thigh - well, a whole bunch of martial arts identify the femoral nerve/vein/artery area as a potentially lethal 'cavity' which when struck can lead to heart failure for medically comprehensible reasons (if I recall right something to do with a high-amplitude transient spike in blood pressure) as well as mystic acupuncture gobbledegook ones.
> 
> I've only ever seen it knock people out, e.g. after a hard kick lands there, but the classical sources are pretty unanimous that it's potentially lethal.



It could be - If I remember my OST, the blow you are trained to deliver to that area is to aim for the middle of the thigh facing you (ie:  the "target" is always stood ahead of you, or slightly to one side, or walking towards you) and to leave the baton on the leg for a moment (ie: not flick it off as soon as it hits).

Though as, according to the statement just on News24, the officer has come forward (along with 3/4 of his colleagues), perhaps for me to continue offering personal opinions on this thread about the incident is no longer appropriate.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> Intersting testimony from the medical student who tended to Ian Tomlinson on channel 4 news.
> 
> She said he was concious, and said several times that he was ok and not in pain, he then lost conciousness (and subsequntly died). Im not a doctor - but that does not sound like a heart attack - it sounds more like internal bleeding - brain hemorage? spleen? - be interesting to see what the second post mortem turns up - and pretty worrying (in terms scope of police interference) if the first one turns out to be bullshit.
> 
> _If_ he did die from something like a brain hemorage casued by a blow to the head (i.e his head striking the pavement) as a direcet result of teh assult from the copper - then wouldn't that be murder?


Yeah I thought that sounded odd, said he smiling aswell, you're in pain if you having a heart attack aren't you?


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> Though as, according to the statement just on News24, the officer has come forward (along with 3/4 of his colleagues), perhaps for me to continue offering personal opinions on this thread about the incident is no longer appropriate.



Why? _Are_ you a police spokesperson or are you closing ranks now?


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah I thought that sounded odd, said he smiling aswell, you're in pain if you having a heart attack aren't you?



Did any of the official statements say 'cardiac arrest' or just 'natural causes'?


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Did any of the official statements say 'cardiac arrest' or just 'natural causes'?



All I've ever head is that he 'died of a heart attack minutes later'


----------



## Azrael (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> _If_ he did die from something like a brain hemorage casued by a blow to the head (i.e his head striking the pavement) as a direcet result of teh assult from the copper - then wouldn't that be murder?


*Not a lawyer disclaimer* 

Only if there was intent to kill, or intent to commit GBH. Otherwise it's manslaughter.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Did any of the official statements say 'cardiac arrest' or just 'natural causes'?



Either way, the Met will be very keen to get hold of Ian Tomlinson's medical records.  Expect leaks and smears that he had a drink/drug problem, or some condition that put him 'at risk' of heart failure.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Why? _Are_ you a police spokesperson or are you closing ranks now?



Neither.  The IPCC have (admittedly managing COLP's investigation in the first place) been investigating this, and will now investigate this officers conduct, and probably the conduct of those with him.  That is what should happen, followed by a criminal trial for whatever offence is appropriate for whichever officers, and an inquest.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> Neither.  The IPCC have (admittedly managing COLP's investigation in the first place) been investigating this, and will now investigate this officers conduct, and probably the conduct of those with him.  That is what should happen, followed by a criminal trial for whatever offence is appropriate for whichever officers, and an inquest.



And you see the matter as concluded or you feel that giving opinions on a bulletin board read by a couple of hundred people might prejudice the trial?


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> The fact that a second post mortem has been ordered shows that this is being *taken seriously.*


Seriously? What does that mean? An investigation? An enquiry? What's Hutton up to these days? 
The process will proceed, boxes will be ticked, many fine words may or may not be said and no-one will be charged. All in a very serious and concerned manner I guess...but hardly taken seriously in that anyone might get in trouble or that police procedure will change.


agricola said:


> Neither.  The IPCC have (admittedly managing COLP's investigation in the first place) been investigating this, and will now investigate this officers conduct, and probably the conduct of those with him.  That is what should happen, followed by a criminal trial for whatever offence is appropriate for whichever officers, and an inquest.


*yawn. waste of time.


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> And you see the matter as concluded or you feel that giving opinions on a bulletin board read by a couple of hundred people might prejudice the trial?



That is what should happen though.  I dont see the matter as concluded - it wont be until the inquest - but personally I would let the IPCC investigation run its course.  Thats my view - what you do is up to you, and after all many more of you have been more right than I was on this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 8, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah I thought that sounded odd, said he smiling aswell, you're in pain if you having a heart attack aren't you?



any medical types on here?


----------



## magneze (Apr 8, 2009)

The ITN footage definitely confirms the batton and they also say that their own crew were hit in a separate incident.

All the news media have picked this up - even the Daily Mail is running with the story that Tomlinson was attacked _twice_.

The police are a national disgrace, no amount of spin will get them out of this one.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 8, 2009)

Magneze said:


> All the news media have picked this up - even the Daily Mail is running with the story that Tomlinson was attacked _twice_.


Does this twice refer to an attack before the one shown, of which footage has yet to appear, or twice as in the batton attack and the push?


----------



## well red (Apr 8, 2009)

winjer said:


> They are FIT, what makes you think they are senior?



Are FIT the only ones who wear the blue bibs? I thought senior officers wore them too. There are a _lot _of blue bibs around when the assault happens, none of them has any camera or recording equipment but they all have NATO helmets on and several of them are carrying batons.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

@ ska

I think it's twice as in he was hit with a baton before the baton/push incident on the grauniad vid

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-faces-claims-attacked-TWICE-riot-police.html


----------



## 8ball (Apr 8, 2009)

Fucking pigs - I keep trying not to look at this thread cos it makes me so fucking angry


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> That is what should happen though.  I dont see the matter as concluded - it wont be until the inquest - but personally I would let the IPCC investigation run its course.  Thats my view - what you do is up to you, and after all many more of you have been more right than I was on this.



How does that make you feel about your employers?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> Does this twice refer to an attack before the one shown, of which footage has yet to appear, or twice as in the batton attack and the push?



A separate, earlier, attack on him - its number 3 ('7.15') in this interactive thing off the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> Does this twice refer to an attack before the one shown, of which footage has yet to appear, or twice as in the batton attack and the push?



http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/tomlinson+death+missing+moment/3076487


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Ch4 confirm with evidence that demonstrators let the ambulance through without delay. The police did not. More criminal activity. More menaces to pursue.


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> any medical types on here?



I think even if there was it would all be purely speculation.

Sadly I'm not sure that this will get the entire police force labelled as thugs in the eyes of the general public. The policeman that commited the act will be offered up for slaughter, the rest will get off scot free.

Now is the time for those with footage or accounts of specific incidents where the police used unreasonable force to come forward. As many people as possible should be aware of what goes on at protests and demos so they think twice before labelling protesters as the violent ones.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

8ball said:


> Fucking pigs - I keep trying not to look at this thread cos it makes me so fucking angry



We're all extremely angry. But we must be rational too. We can not go on future demos without being better prepared to defend our collective health and safety.


----------



## brix (Apr 8, 2009)

Channel 4 news just reported that the officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson has now come forward.


----------



## isitme (Apr 8, 2009)

front page of bbc news is this and that 16 yr old lass who was run over by a cop in newcastle


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/tomlinson+death+missing+moment/3076487



that's the same footage as the grauniad, but from a different angle/location, i think


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/tomlinson+death+missing+moment/3076487



this looks like the 2nd attack - the 2nd clip they refer to is another angle on the original guardian clip.  AFAIK, no film of the first attack has come out (yet) - though there are witness statements.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> that's the same footage as the grauniad, but from a different angle/location, i think



I believe so.


----------



## brix (Apr 8, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7990423.stm


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

agricola said:


> I would say as soon as the picture of Tomlinson was released that caused all the witnesses to come forward


The footage that caused the media storm?  Rather than the fact that he knew the assault had happened, as did his colleagues nearby, but said nothing for nearly a week?

Yes, I know.  I was being sarcastic.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> We're all extremely angry. But we must be rational too. We can not go on future demos without being better prepared to defend our collective health and safety.



An idea for another thread maybe.

Still, about time we had some snipers.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> that's the same footage as the grauniad, but from a different angle/location, i think



Ah ok. Confusing to say the least!


----------



## e19896 (Apr 8, 2009)

Have a look at this sequence of stills from the Ian Tomlinson assault video. Does it look to you like the officer in the hi-viz jacket with blue flashing - possibly a FIT cop - kicks or prods Ian Tomlinson with his foot as he lies prone on the ground?

Many officers who were present at the assault that may have led to Ian Tomlinson’s death have not come forward to speak with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The suspicion lingers that none would have come forward had video footage of Ian Tomlinson being battered to the ground by a policeman been released by a newspaper six full days after he died.

That the IPCC initially called in the City of London Police to investigate the death of Ian Tomlinson - despite CoL cops being a large part of the G20 policing operation - did nothing to inspire public confidence in the objectivity and thoroughness of the enquiry.

The subsequent emergence of the video - in which City of London police officers are clearly visible, witnessing the assault on Ian Tomlinson - only helped to fan the flames of anger and distrust.

The IPCC has now pulled the CoL cops off the investigation. But is that enough to convince people that this will not be a sham, a whitewash, a cover-up?

http://bristle.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/policing-by-consent-2009-style-a-kick-to-a-dying-man/


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

There isn't afaik any footage of the FIRST attack come to light.........yet

The ITN/Channel4 story about more footage coming to light is a bit of a red herring, as it shows the same incident as the grauniad footage


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

To clarify. The police are accused of two attacks on Mr Tomlinson. There are two videos of the second attack in which Mr Tomlinson already looks dazed. There are witness statements regarding the first but as yet no video.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Does it look to you like the officer in the hi-viz jacket with blue flashing - possibly a FIT cop - kicks or prods Ian Tomlinson with his foot as he lies prone on the ground?


From that angle, it does, but we'd need to see it from another angle too, to know the distance.  He could be some way behind Tomlinson.


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> Seriously? What does that mean? An investigation? An enquiry? What's Hutton up to these days?
> The process will proceed, boxes will be ticked, many fine words may or may not be said and no-one will be charged. All in a very serious and concerned manner I guess...but hardly taken seriously in that anyone might get in trouble or that police procedure will change.


The more people and independent agencies that get involved, the harder it is to cover up the truth. 

There's obviously still plenty of scope for arse-covering, rank closing and sleight of hand, but sometimes the legal system does work (perhaps I have a _little _more faith than you after personally going through an Old Bailey trial and finding the judge to be extremely fair when faced with dodgy police evidence).


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> That the IPCC initially called in the City of London Police to investigate the death of Ian Tomlinson - despite CoL cops being a large part of the G20 policing operation - did nothing to inspire public confidence in the objectivity and thoroughness of the enquiry.
> 
> The subsequent emergence of the video - in which City of London police officers are clearly visible, witnessing the assault on Ian Tomlinson - only helped to fan the flames of anger and distrust.
> 
> The IPCC has now pulled the CoL cops off the investigation. But is that enough to convince people that this will not be a sham, a whitewash, a cover-up?



Were they CoL cops in that incident though? From what i saw on the day, CoL were hugely outnumbered by the Met and the riot police in the vid all seem to have MP on their helmets (i.e. Met Police). There seem to be a few CoL standing around there (red and white checked pattern on their caps) but the ones in riot gear seem to be Met.

Not that that makes any difference as to the investigation: CoL, by their presence on the day, would not be impartial (nor would Hampshire/Sussex for the same reason)


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 8, 2009)

One positive light from this mess is the speed with which the facts have unravelled with what i see as zero help from those 'in charge' of policing the events.  I sincerely hope the 1st attack as witnessed by people there is still on the relevant cctc and police recordings.  The Guardian deserve a pat on the back imo. 

  I won't post it here as i don't want to divert the thread, but Jenney Jones, a member of the met police authority has been making comments about Kettling that i fund interesting. See thread below.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=285371


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Have a look at this sequence of stills from the Ian Tomlinson assault video. Does it look to you like the officer in the hi-viz jacket with blue flashing - possibly a FIT cop - kicks or prods Ian Tomlinson with his foot as he lies prone on the ground?



From that sequence of stills - yes. But after watching the vid again - no.

There's no point adding pure speculation to this.


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2009)

The thug responsible is unlikely to have known that the dead man was (one of) the guy(s and gals) s/he assaulted until pictures of Tomlinson were released. After that, there's no way s/he didn't know that s/he had attacked Tomlinson that day - he was very distinctive looking and not obscured by a mass of people at the time.

The groups present on that day need to submit their own complaints to the IPCC - and individuals too, of course, but it would have a lot of power if the larger organisations organising protests that day requested that the scope be extended to all incidents of unprovoked police thuggery that day. No doubt they're on the case. It is pure chance that Tomlinson died and noone else did. At least half the officers policing that area must have been shitting themselves when they heard that the guy had been assaulted before his death. Except that they wouldn't be because they'd know that nothing would happen anyway...


> the police said it would take a very brave coroner to proclaim that the cause of death was because he was beaten up, or because of the protests that day. They said it would take a brave coroner to suggest the cause of death was because of any wrongdoing by the police.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses



And that's the point. It's about time they were forcefully reminded that they are not above the law and that an awful lot of middle England won't be quite so naive and trusting the next time they try to lie their way out.

RIP Ian.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

radio 5 just been saying that the cop responsible for the attack in the video has come forward.


----------



## magneze (Apr 8, 2009)

ska invita said:


> Does this twice refer to an attack before the one shown, of which footage has yet to appear, or twice as in the batton attack and the push?


An attack before the one shown. It must only be a matter of time before someone finds footage of that if it happened.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 8, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> radio 5 just been saying that the cop responsible for the attack in the video has come forward.



He is likely to be immediately suspended. If not, then the game is up once for all. I know a great and well liked teacher suspended for pulling a pupils arm away as he tried to set fire to the curtains. That's quite a distance from killing someone in anyones books. Lets see if the goonsquad still have some basic disciplinary standards.


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

Magneze said:


> An attack before the one shown. It must only be a matter of time before someone finds footage of that if it happened.



Why? You can't assume someone filmed it and I doubt CCTV footage will be made available.


----------



## isitme (Apr 8, 2009)

editor said:


> The more people and independent agencies that get involved, the harder it is to cover up the truth. .



don't agree with that

they'll make it drag on for months till no one cares anymore

they just use these inquests etc to cover shit up, they'll make it last for ages and the public won't care by the time it all comes out


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

If someone thinks they may have some information on this (and have tried to contact the IPCC with no avail, they won't call back) What would their best course of action be. This is his message to me


> mate, do you have any contacts I can speak to? I was probably the last person to speak to Ian before his death and I witnessed him being forced to the floor by two riot officers (dressed in black) before the mainstream incident. I have tried to contact the IPCC yesterday and again today but they haven't called back. I think it will help his case if I can get this news out. I'm sure I can't have been the only one to witness the first attack.



Has anyone got any useful links or numbers I can forward to him  (this is a different guy that I got the earlier link for people who've been arrested)


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> If someone thinks they may have some information on this (and have tried to contact the IPCC with no avail, they won't call back) What would their best course of action be. This is his message to me
> 
> 
> Has anyone got any useful links or numbers I can forward to him  (this is a different guy that I got the earlier link for people who've been arrested)



The Guardian would no doubt love to hear from them.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 8, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah I thought that sounded odd, said he smiling aswell, you're in pain if you having a heart attack aren't you?



Yes, I thought it was odd too.  Sounded like concussion or a brain haemorrhage.  A mate of mine who banged his head and subsequently died of a brain haemorrhage was smiling and disorientated as I watched him die.


----------



## Callie (Apr 8, 2009)

I hate to say it xes but go to the media? the guardian?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 8, 2009)

Xes: After the coverage they've given this, the Guardian.  Definitely.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 8, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> For the wife of a plod you have a rather anti-police streak in you?



This has pissed me off big time. The violence used against Tomlinson was unjustified, anyone can see that. He wasn't doing anything, didn't even have his arms raised.
When you have a situation where an innocent bloke is trying to get home from work and is beaten to the floor by one out of control nutter in a rage in a uniform who is supposed be maintaining order but also protecting the public something needs to be done about it.  
I don't give a fuck who reads this either, I am entitled to my opinion, as a taxpayer I expect the best from the police and I don't want to see this shit on the streets of my city.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> This has pissed me off big time. The violence used against Tomlinson was unjustified, anyone can see that. He wasn't doing anything, didn't even have his arms raised.
> When you have a situation where an innocent bloke is trying to get home from work and is beaten to the floor by one out of control nutter in a rage in a uniform who is supposed be maintaining order but also protecting the public something needs to be done about it.
> I don't give a fuck who reads this either, I am entitled to my opinion, as a taxpayer I expect the best from the police and I don't want to see this shit on the streets of my city.



I work with a woman who's married to a copper. She's never vocalised anything criticial as regards the police. And that's a Glasgow coppers wife and the plod up her3e are a whole different fish kettle to the Met in many ways.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> This has pissed me off big time. The violence used against Tomlinson was unjustified, anyone can see that. He wasn't doing anything, didn't even have his arms raised.
> When you have a situation where an innocent bloke is trying to get home from work and is beaten to the floor by one out of control nutter in a rage in a uniform who is supposed be maintaining order but also protecting the public something needs to be done about it.
> I don't give a fuck who reads this either, I am entitled to my opinion, as a taxpayer I expect the best from the police and I don't want to see this shit on the streets of my city.



Well said. 

What is PBP's take on this?


----------



## maomao (Apr 8, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> beaten to the floor by one out of control nutter in a rage



It's becoming clearer and clearer that this isn't the case and it was par for the course behaviour. Don't believe me? Do any of the other pigs in the film look remotely bothered or concerned?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> If someone thinks they may have some information on this (and have tried to contact the IPCC with no avail, they won't call back) What would their best course of action be. This is his message to me
> 
> 
> Has anyone got any useful links or numbers I can forward to him  (this is a different guy that I got the earlier link for people who've been arrested)



Check your private message details inside,  I swear also I seen him being drag too and I had contacted them about it next to the RSB Bank, if that the one you talking about...


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> The Guardian would no doubt love to hear from them.





Callie said:


> I hate to say it xes but go to the media? the guardian?





danny la rouge said:


> Xes: After the coverage they've given this, the Guardian.  Definitely.



agreed.



> Please address any correspondence to:
> Kings Place
> 90 York Way
> London
> ...



News desk national@guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gu_contacts/0,,180767,00.html


----------



## magneze (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> Why? You can't assume someone filmed it and I doubt CCTV footage will be made available.


There seems to be so much footage - more comes out all the time. I bet CCTV has the details too, but I share your scepticism on whether we'll ever see it ..


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 8, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Check your private message details inside,  I swear also I seen him being drag too and I had contacted them about it next to the RSB Bank, if that the one you talking about...



See your PMs - you seem to have PM'ed me instead of xes.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 8, 2009)

Corrected  an e-mail sent.


----------



## xes (Apr 8, 2009)

Thanks everyone, I've passed on the info, and given him some numbers and stuff.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 8, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Lucky for the police that they have some terrorists to catch today so they can remind us how much we depend on them.


i was just thinking pretty much the same thing myself funnily enough...


----------



## Garcia Lorca (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> Thanks everyone, I've passed on the info, and given him some numbers and stuff.



brilliant stuff to everyone who is putting info foward for the truth. 
what a great thread this has been. 
(sad it has had to be here)


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He is likely to be immediately suspended. If not, then the game is up once for all. I know a great and well liked teacher suspended for pulling a pupils arm away as he tried to set fire to the curtains. That's quite a distance from killing someone in anyones books. Lets see if the goonsquad still have some basic disciplinary standards.



A teacher doesn't even need to do anything physically to be suspended.

It is enough for a complaint.  Then they are suspended while the investigation is taking place.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> There isn't afaik any footage of the FIRST attack come to light.........yet
> 
> The ITN/Channel4 story about more footage coming to light is a bit of a red herring, as it shows the same incident as the grauniad footage



 yes it is the same but important though as the angle shows much more clearly teh attack

while the first footage shows a copper pushing a man albeit very forcefully,  the second video shows it clearly to be an all out premeditated violent attack on a defenceless man 


p.s. i still want to see the footage from the Climate Camp on C4 etc ..


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

xes said:


> Thanks everyone, I've passed on the info, and given him some numbers and stuff.





keep us posted, yeah?


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's becoming clearer and clearer that this isn't the case and it was par for the course behaviour. Don't believe me? Do any of the other pigs in the film look remotely bothered or concerned?


 yes the reaction of the other cops sums it up


----------



## Wilf (Apr 8, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> p.s. i still want to see the footage from the Climate Camp on C4 etc ..



Dunno which footage you mean (on the Climate Camp attack), but there's this:


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

xes, this is from the 'Justice For Ian Tomlinson' facebook group:



> Tuckers Solicitors are representing the family of the deceased.
> 
> If anyone has any information whatsoever in relation to this incident please contact Tuckers on 020 7388 8333, asking for Lawrence Barker.
> 
> Alternatively, please email on BarkerL@TuckersSolicitors.com.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 8, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Dunno which footage you mean (on the Climate Camp attack), but there's this:


thats the one


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 8, 2009)

there's an online petition here.

Probably do fuck all good, but maybe in combination with other stuff......


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2009)

Just seen this video



Very short, but this shows a bit more police action in the royal exchange passage around the time of the tomlinson events.


----------



## winjer (Apr 8, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Were they CoL cops in that incident though?


The dog handlers and other soft hats are CoL , the ones in helmets are Met, not far out of shot is a line of BTP. The most senior officer seen nearby is a CoL Chief Super, later seen with ambulances at the junction of Cornhill and Bishopsgate:


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 9, 2009)

e19896 said:


>



look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 9, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Well according to one photographer sher saw him bundled over and hit twice with a baton several moments earlier, which might explain his groggy appearance.



yes but he had a few drinks on his friend has said, his behaviour hands in pocket was drunk man, can't we just agree it was likely he was drunk, not that that gave a reason to attack him.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> yes but he had a few drinks on his friend has said, his behaviour hands in pocket was drunk man, can't we just agree it was likely he was drunk, not that that gave a reason to attack him.



We have eyewitness reports of a prior attack on him, it's entirely possible that he might have been dazed as a result. I'm quite certain that he'll be smeared by the police/government PR people as an alkie who might have died at any moment due to his own moral turpitude, but that'll just be a bunch of evil twats covering their arses with the media. The fact, thanks to the video, remains that he was violently attacked by a policeman, like hundreds of other people that day, only he had the misfortune to die of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?



Keep himself in work?


----------



## well red (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?



Well, dur. To hit people.

I've read several accounts that said that the medics were amongst the most violent of the cops that day.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?



They're not full time medics - just officers who've had a little first aid training and an awful lot of public order training.  For every injury they treat they have to inflict seven to maintain the appropriate level of shock and awe. 

It's a cracking photo - it's even got a Nazgûl in it. 

With luck Agricola will be along with a more accurate story.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> the guy looks out of it before the police attack him on the new video as he has in all the photos





lostexpectation said:


> look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?


not sure, but it defo removes them from the non-combatant type role that medics usually take for granted IMO - eg army medics etc. (sass would have more info on this).

bet they'd be the first to bleat on about medics being attacked if one of them got injured by someone fighting back (or more likely hurt their poor little wristy by hitting a protestor too hard, then logged it as an injury caused by a protestor)

no wonder the police assumed the action medics in scotland were just cover for the people organising the protests, and went round nicking them all if this is what the police medics get upto though


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> look at the police medic with his baton raised, why?



The police medic are "Police Medics" and don't attend protesters injuries if they can help it. Their main job is to put out fire from petal bombs etc. They are nothing like the army medics who play no active role in fighting a war to speak. They still have an active role to play in "Accommodating Protesters".


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> The police medic are "Police Medics" and nothing are not like the army medics who play no active role in fighting a war to speak. They still have an active role to play in "Accommodating Protesters".


that is just plain wrong IMO





(not saying you're wrong btw, just the whole situation is fucking wrong)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> not sure, but it defo removes them from the non-combatant type role that medics usually take for granted IMO - eg army medics etc. (sass would have more info on this).



When acting as a first aider on actions/protests in the past I've always been careful to steer clear of any trouble myself. If only becuase it's hard to treat others when you're bleeding on the floor of a jail cell...


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> When acting as a medic on actions/protests in the past I've always been careful to steer clear of any trouble myself. If only becuase it's hard to treat others when you're bleeding on the floor of a jail cell...


exactly.

that's what the role of the medic should be, and is the rationale behind medics being non-combatants... well that and the hope that the other side will leave them alone if they're seen as being non-combatants, so that they can get on with treating the wounded in the middle of a battle without too much fear of being attacked.

I know this isn't an army style battle, but the principles should be the same IMO, medics do not attack and medics do not get attacked.

puts all that (unfounded as it turns out) press outrage about medics getting bottled into perspective IMO, if they can be in the police line battoning people like that, then they'd obviously think nothing of being part of a police snatch squad either.

fuckers


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 9, 2009)

*Blue ribbons?*

Just read latest family statement here. At the end of the article there is mention of blue ribbons...

Sounds to me like a simple n effective way to register our solidarity with the family and highlight our concerns...

Anyone hear anymore about this?





Would be interesting to see how this develops..
feckin blue tho!
I would wear one for sure.. and would ask peeps to consider promoting such a 'campaign'...


----------



## exleper (Apr 9, 2009)

steve bell in guardian tomorrow:


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2009)

Guardian are saying that the Police/IPCC told them to take the video down ... 



> It began with an anodyne press release from the Metropolitan police more than three hours after Ian Tomlinson died. It ended with a police officer and an investigator from the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking the Guardian to remove a video from its website showing an unprovoked police assault on Mr Tomlinson minutes before his heart attack.
> 
> In the space of five days through a combination of official guidance, strong suggestion and press releases, those responsible for examining the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death within the City of London police and the IPCC, appeared to be steering the story to what they thought would be its conclusion: that the newspaper vendor suffered an unprovoked heart attack as he made his way home on the night of the G20 protests.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g20


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

lostexpectation said:


> yes but he had a few drinks on his friend has said, his behaviour hands in pocket was drunk man, can't we just agree it was likely he was drunk, not that that gave a reason to attack him.


_Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.

Speaking through tears, Mr Smith told the newspaper: "Ian was always there with me, from the minute I started work until the end of the day. He had a drink problem but that day he was completely sober and was looking forward to starting work again the next day._ 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g20


It gets worse:

_...the family's police liaison officer told the Guardian he was extremely unhappy the paper had spoken to them. He told the Guardian's reporter not to contact the family "for 48 hours". 

Meanwhile official guidance from the IPCC to another Guardian journalist accused the paper of doorstepping the family at a time of grief. The IPCC guided that the family had been deeply distressed by the newspaper's approach. On the same day *the IPCC told journalists from rival publications there was "nothing in the story" that Mr Tomlinson had been assaulted by an officer.*_

Scum.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> It gets worse:
> 
> _...the family's police liaison officer told the Guardian he was extremely unhappy the paper had spoken to them. He told the Guardian's reporter not to contact the family "for 48 hours".
> 
> ...




Jesus fucking wept.  The family might as well ignore the IPCC and start planning for the private prosecution.  That - along with a campaign that won't let it drop - is the only way they will have even the slightest chance of any kind of justice (and even then, its a minimal chance, with plenty of hurdles to get  over before ever hitting the court).


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

Fair play to the Guardian on this one for not accepting the official line, and actually doing some proper journalism on it.

IMO this shows why people don't have faith in the IPCC to investigate this properly.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Jesus fucking wept.  The family might as well ignore the IPCC and start planning for the private prosecution.  That - along with a campaign that won't let it drop - is the only way they will have even the slightest chance of any kind of justice (and even then, its a minimal chance, with plenty of hurdles to get  over before ever hitting the court).


yep


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 9, 2009)

exleper said:


> steve bell in guardian tomorrow:



Brilliant.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 9, 2009)

maximilian ping said:


> i think unless there is some very quick action by the police over this death, people should take to the streets and protest because of 1) the misinformation put out by the police, 2) the total lack of investigation by police and 3) very probable destroying/ignoring of evidence that this happened by police.
> 
> who is organising one?




Against Police brutality- Saturday 11th April-


WHEN: This Sat the 11th of April...11am

WHERE: From Bethnal Green Police station to Bank


Over the last week across London there has been a series of demonstrations
and protests against the policies and programs implemented by the G20
leaders.


We are taking to the streets to express our compassion with the family of
Ian Tomlinson who tragically died during the 1 April protests at the Bank
of England. We are calling for an independent public inquiry into the
instances of police violence that occurred thoughout the week and to
establish the true circumstances of his death.

We wish to communicate our disgust and anger at the violent and brutal
policing of the G20 demonstrations.

The press once again created an atmosphere of fear and violence in the
lead up to the protests, preemptively justifying the police violence that
occurred. They also misreported and lied about the circumstances of the
tragedy. We recognise that for many communities the reality of police
violence is a daily occurrence. The demonisation of communities, like the
demonisation of protesters makes police violence seem normal.

As the crisis deepens and continues there will be increased resistance -
from factory occupations to demonstrations, strikes and people coming
together on the streets. We need to speak out now to defend our freedom to
protest, our communities and our dignity.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> It's becoming clearer and clearer that this isn't the case and it was par for the course behaviour. Don't believe me? Do any of the other pigs in the film look remotely bothered or concerned?


And did they come forward in the week since the incident, to give the family answers?

Added to the clearing of the climate camp, and various other skull-bashing activities.

Nope, not good enough to say it was one bad apple.


----------



## Ted Striker (Apr 9, 2009)

Some extra footage of the Tomlinson attack has aired. He get's quite a whack with that baton.

(apologies if this is already posted, I did a brief check)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090408/tuk-g20-footage-officer-comes-forward-dba1618.html


----------



## Chairman Meow (Apr 9, 2009)

Ive been following this thread in disgust at the cops action. Heads should roll for this.


----------



## Cressi (Apr 9, 2009)

One week and one day later the Independent wakes up........http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...t-tell-the-met-is-out-of-control-1666141.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 9, 2009)

Oh fuck the Indy, and fuck Deborah Orr

Both of them are an irrelevance


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2009)

Ted Striker said:


> Some extra footage of the Tomlinson attack has aired. He get's quite a whack with that baton.
> 
> (apologies if this is already posted, I did a brief check)
> 
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090408/tuk-g20-footage-officer-comes-forward-dba1618.html


Yup, that angle really shows the force of the blow to the legs.  And yet the BBC (way down the running order) are still calling it a "push".  It's an assault.


----------



## xes (Apr 9, 2009)

So, officer cuntface has stepped forward (only took you a week you fucking cowardly wanker) Let's see what today brings.


----------



## paolo (Apr 9, 2009)

I'll be going along to the march on Saturday.


----------



## cesare (Apr 9, 2009)

> The man who lifted Ian Tomlinson to his feet after a riot officer hit him with a baton and threw him to the ground told the Guardian last night how the attack unfolded.
> 
> Alan Edwards, 34, from Derbyshire said he rushed to Mr Tomlinson's aid because he was worried the officers would continue the violent attack. "I didn't know what they were going to do to him," he said. "I couldn't just leave him there."
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g201


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 9, 2009)

This image clearly shows he had some injury to the left side of his head.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 9, 2009)

...



> Police response to Ian Tomlinson's death
> 
> **1 April – Statement from the Metropolitan Police *
> 
> ...


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 9, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> ...




The police lie, people die.


----------



## sus (Apr 9, 2009)

editor said:


> The more people and independent agencies that get involved, the harder it is to cover up the truth.
> 
> There's obviously still plenty of scope for arse-covering, rank closing and sleight of hand, but sometimes the legal system does work (perhaps I have a _little _more faith than you after personally going through an Old Bailey trial and finding the judge to be extremely fair when faced with *dodgy police evidence*).



What happened to the the police that provided this dodgy evidence?

10 to 1 the answer's nothing. Just like the countless other times when the OB get away with fabricating evidence.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 9, 2009)

........



> A picture began to emerge today of the life of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who died after was attacked by a police officer during the G20 protests last week.
> 
> On the night he died, the 47-year-old, known as Tommo to his friends, was on his way to watch a football match at the Lindsey Hotel, a hostel near Smithfield meat market on the edge of the City, where he had lodged since October after periods of homelessness.
> 
> ...


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 9, 2009)

This has been big news all over the world - it's even made the papers here in Hong Kong.

I had the impression that the Met was doing its best to avoid being embarrassed by protesters during the G20 when the world's media was watching. but now they've done a lot worse than embarrass themselves, they've revealed themselves - again - to be psychotic, incompetent liars and ruined whatever was left of their reputation.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Just seen this video
> 
> 
> 
> Very short, but this shows a bit more police action in the royal exchange passage around the time of the tomlinson events.




This seems to be what the Times describes as: _Minutes earlier the pedestrianised street had been the scene of a pitched battle between four officers surrounded by a mob of between 20 and 25 violent protesters._

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062637.ece


----------



## ska invita (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> IMO this shows why people don't have faith in the IPCC to investigate this properly.


...more so the fact that if there was a trial everyone would be let of for having acted 'in good faith' or some other such bollocks.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> This seems to be what the Times describes as: _Minutes earlier the pedestrianised street had been the scene of a pitched battle between four officers surrounded by a mob of between 20 and 25 violent protesters._
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062637.ece



Looks pretty nasty if that is someone getting grabbed by the scruff or hair and slammed to the floor at the very end.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I'll be going along to the march on Saturday.



Do my anger for me brother, i would come but Sheffield to London is far, there are other actions and one is working a way to them, rage is all i feel at the moment:


----------



## Callie (Apr 9, 2009)

Title: G20 Bank of England Protest 1/04/09 Line of Police with dogs (for clarity!)


No violence in this clip but this looks like the right spot at Cornhill but there is no time given for when it was filmed. Perhaps useful for ID'ing which officers were around in that area? Mostly CoL dog handlers though.


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> This seems to be what the Times describes as: _Minutes earlier the pedestrianised street had been the scene of a pitched battle between four officers surrounded by a mob of between 20 and 25 violent protesters._


The only violence I can see in that YouTube clip is from the police.

And here's an example of a big fat police lie:



			
				Times article said:
			
		

> Police later claimed that they had to move Mr Tomlinson because they came under attack from missiles. However, analysis of television footage and photographs shows just one bottle, probably plastic, being thrown in the area.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

here's something that's been niggling at me ever since the night it first happened.

At 7.24pm when the initial public call to the London Ambulance Service is made Ian Tomlinson is still breathing and still has a pulse, albeit a weak one.

It is only at 7.30pm that the police inform London Ambulance service that he has stopped breathing.



> "We received a 999 (emergency) call at 7:24 pm (1824 GMT) from a member of the public reporting that a man had fallen over and was unconscious, but was breathing," said the London Ambulance Service.
> "At 7:30 pm we were informed by the police that a man at the location had stopped breathing."


[source]

So what happened in these 6 minutes to cause his heart to stop, and his breathing to fail completely?

Well, in this time the police decided to move him, which being as there is no stretcher present at that point, leads me to think that he would have been carried bodily by the coppers and 'medics' (sorry, shit first aiders). This almost certainly means at least some of his weight would have been taken by the arms, which put's pressure across the heart and lungs... pressure that could well have been enough to stop a weak heart, and arrest someones breathing if they were already in difficulties.

This is one of the reasons why first aid guidelines clearly state that you should never move a patient unless there is a serious threat of further injury or death if the patient is left in that position.

This will be why the police felt the need to try to justify there movement of Ian from the first reports by talking about protestors throwing bottles, but all the evidence that has come out since clearly shows that this is utter bollocks, and there was absolutely no danger serious enough to risk moving him.

If I'm right about this sequence of events, then IMO the police 'medics' are also at fault for Ian's death, and could well have actually literally killed him through their actions.

I'm fairly seriously thinking that had the police left the original first aiders to deal with the incident until the arrival of the paramedics then Ian would quite possibly have still been alive now, because the protestors would have followed the guidance of the Ambulance Service operator, and would not have moved him.



sersiously calls into question the wisdom of putting the word 'medic' on the back of a badly trained, inexperienced first aider, because other first aid trained people will assume that someone who has the word medic on heir uniform will actually have greater medical knowledge than they do and bow to their judgement as in this case... medics should be medically trained, not just have done a fuckign first aid course - that makes you a first aider, nothing more.

any medically trained people care to comment on this?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> No violence in this clip but this looks like the right spot at Cornhill but there is no time given for when it was filmed. Perhaps useful for ID'ing which officers were around in that area? Mostly CoL dog handlers though.


Unless I'm mistaken it looks like Ian Tomlinson is just caught in the first few seconds of that clip (on the right). Can I just see his right arm and t-shirts ?


----------



## Geri (Apr 9, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Unless I'm mistaken it looks like Ian Tomlinson is just caught in the first few seconds of that clip (on the right). Can I just see his right arm and t-shirts ?



I think you might be right.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Unless I'm mistaken it looks like Ian Tomlinson is just caught in the first few seconds of that clip (on the right). Can I just see his right arm and t-shirts ?



yes it is.

as far as i am aware, this is directly after the second (?) attack, much publicised in the media.  In that, he is helped up and makes his way off to the right, which is where this video seems to pick him up.

interestingly, the guardian video states that it is the final image of him alive, but i think the youtube link shows him just afterwards.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

re what I wrote above, is anyone aware of any pictures or video footage of the police moving Ian prior to the ambulance arriving with the stretcher?


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

Well given the actions of this Bastard Police Medic, you can see that Ian Tomlinson is hardly likely to have got life saving assistance after that Territorial Support Officer attacked him from behind.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 9, 2009)

Geri said:


> I think you might be right.



I think so too.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

just to put this into perspective, if I as the stewards manager at a festival authorised or instructed my stewards to move an unconcious collapsed person who had obvious breathing difficulties, and a weak pulse, that person then pretty much immediately stopped breathing and their heart stopped, and died... well, I'd fully expect to face either criminal prosecution, or a successful civil claim for compensation for wrongful death based on contributory negligence.

The only defence to this would be that you'd moved the person because they had collapsed in a place where there was a severe danger to that persons life, and/or the lives of the people treating them, and there was no other safe course of action other than to move them. The standard response being to remove the source of danger rather than moving the patient if at all possible, so if someone's collapsed in the entrance way to a marquee, then you'd first of all use stewards / security to close that entrance, and send people round to other entrances as much as possible, and only if this was obviously not working / there weren't the personnel available to make this work, and the band was about to finish etc. would I be justified in moving the patient as carefully as possible to the nearest position of safety.

I've been there and done it, and there is absolutely no excuse for the police to have moved Ian in this situation from the information given by any of the witness statements or photos of the situation. The medics had 4 batton wielding coppers for protection, and the protestors themselves were policing the situation to keep things calm... no excuse at all in my personal and professional opinion.


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 9, 2009)

this is incredible

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g20

It basically details how the police and the IPCC tried to cover up IT's death by lying their faces off - fucking shameful.

i think the IPCC need to be run out of town

either complain here http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/index/contact-us/complaints_ipcc.htm or maybe cover their offices in paint or something


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Well given the actions of this Bastard Police Medic, you can see that Ian Tomlinson is hardly likely to have got life saving assistance after that Territorial Support Officer attacked him from behind.



Hippocratic Oath being taken very seriously there I see.


----------



## Callie (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest that anyone that tried to help Mr Tomlinson after his collapse may have contributed to his death, unless they were specifically trained in that type of first aid. Yes perhaps people should have left well alone if they didn't know what they were doing but in that kind of situation you do anything to help.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> just to put this into perspective, if I as the stewards manager at a festival authorised or instructed my stewards to move an unconcious collapsed person who had obvious breathing difficulties, and a weak pulse, that person then pretty much immediately stopped breathing and their heart stopped, and died... well, I'd fully expect to face either criminal prosecution, or a successful civil claim for compensation for wrongful death based on contributory negligence.
> 
> The only defence to this would be that you'd moved the person because they had collapsed in a place where there was a severe danger to that persons life, and/or the lives of the people treating them, and there was no other safe course of action other than to move them. The standard response being to remove the source of danger rather than moving the patient if at all possible, so if someone's collapsed in the entrance way to a marquee, then you'd first of all use stewards / security to close that entrance, and send people round to other entrances as much as possible, and only if this was obviously not working / there weren't the personnel available to make this work, and the band was about to finish etc. would I be justified in moving the patient as carefully as possible to the nearest position of safety.
> 
> I've been there and done it, and there is absolutely no excuse for the police to have moved Ian in this situation from the information given by any of the witness statements or photos of the situation. The medics had 4 batton wielding coppers for protection, and the protestors themselves were policing the situation to keep things calm... no excuse at all in my personal and professional opinion.



You should contact the guardian - it makes sense of the girl saying he was calm and comfortable as he lost conciousness. It might also explain the police bullshit about 'having to move him because of a hail of missiles'. 
More than one cop in the frame for this. 

Suprised the we haven;t had a poilce sponsored backlash and smear operation in the media yet - by Im sure they're working on it.

BTW - attack cop who has now come forward has not been suspended. Why is this violent thug allowed to continue walking our streets?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 9, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Unless I'm mistaken it looks like Ian Tomlinson is just caught in the first few seconds of that clip (on the right). Can I just see his right arm and t-shirts ?



Yeah that's definitely him at the start of the video.  I think that video should be sent into the media, all footage of him, no matter how small, is important.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> re what I wrote above, is anyone aware of any pictures or video footage of the police moving Ian prior to the ambulance arriving with the stretcher?



I've done some digging of reports.  Looks like he was dragged, but also put on a stretcher and a tarpaulin.



> April 2nd
> 
> The Met said the man, thought to be in his 40s, died on Wednesday night after bottles were thrown at him and he collapsed.
> 
> ...





> April 9th
> 
> Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet and he staggered 40 yards along Cornhill before collapsing outside the Co-operative Bank. His skin was a deathly grey and his eyes were rolling. Lucy Apps, a third-year medical student, said: “I saw him moving along but he was unsteady. He bumped into the edge of a doorway. He didn’t hit it very hard but he stopped and fell over.”
> 
> ...





> one of the protesters, a man in his 20s or 30s, collapsed on the pavement. The guy was totally out of it when I went to take a look at him. Protesters informed the police, and then *allowed the police to carry the man back to their lines using what looked like a tarpaulin to carry him away*.
> 
> http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Death-in-the-City


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest that anyone that tried to help Mr Tomlinson after his collapse may have contributed to his death, unless they were specifically trained in that type of first aid. Yes perhaps people should have left well alone if they didn't know what they were doing but in that kind of situation you do anything to help.



but moving an uncouncious person is a big no-no - as free spirit has pointed out - unless their their is clear danger to that person by not being moved - i.e. they are in a burning vehicle. They could get their arses seriously sued over this - and people have been in the past.


----------



## Corax (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest that anyone that tried to help Mr Tomlinson after his collapse may have contributed to his death, unless they were specifically trained in that type of first aid. Yes perhaps people should have left well alone if they didn't know what they were doing but in that kind of situation you do anything to help.



I disagree.  Such arrogant, bullish, and unsafe actions are symptomatic of their entire culture.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> Suprised the we haven;t had a poilce sponsored backlash and smear operation in the media yet - by Im sure they're working on it.



They have started already...

A DRIP DRIP of smears and lies and bullshit. 

He is now a "homeless alcoholic". 

We should play fuckwit bingo, see how many smears the papers will publish today, anyone checked the Standard yet?


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

Mail running headline that he was assaulted three times.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shows-riot-officers-beat-man-times-died.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> They have started already...
> 
> A DRIP DRIP of smears and lies and bullshit.
> 
> ...



well they won't be able to trot out the 'on benefits' shit- it's known he worked on a newstand.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> I'm not sure that it is fair to suggest that anyone that tried to help Mr Tomlinson after his collapse may have contributed to his death, unless they were specifically trained in that type of first aid. Yes perhaps people should have left well alone if they didn't know what they were doing but in that kind of situation you do anything to help.


I am not saying that any of the protestors did anything wrong, in fact from everything I've read (which is pretty much everything possible) they did everything as well as they could have, and there could be no question of any blame being attached to them.


The people I'm saying should have blame attached to them are the 2 policemen with 'medic' written on their backs who took over his treatment from the original first aiders on the scene, refused to listen to their opinions, or the patients history, refused to talk to the ambulance dispatcher, and decided to either order, or authorise the movement of the patient without the appropriate equipment (as far as I can tell) which IMO almost certainly directly contributed to the patient's heart stopping, and him stopping breathing and dying before the ambulance could arrive. If these orders either came from above, or were authorised from above, then the officer that gave or authorised that order could well also be culpable IMO, definately so if they over-ruled the medics.

if the medics weren't adequately trained or experienced, then that is an organisational issue, and the Met would become liable as an organisation for putting inexperienced / badly trained first aiders into this kid of situation in a uniform that labels them not as first aiders, but as medics... something that could feed into / be key to any corporate manslaughter prosecution.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> well they won't be able to trot out the 'on benefits' shit- it's known he worked on a newstand.





He will be a benefit cheat before the week is out....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> He will be a benefit cheat before the week is out....



And/or a football hooligan.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> He is now a "homeless alcoholic".
> 
> We should play fuckwit bingo, see how many smears the papers will publish today, anyone checked the Standard yet?



He was 'drunkenly blocking a police van,' according to the Scum...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Mail running headline that he was assaulted three times.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shows-riot-officers-beat-man-times-died.html


Interesting though that they've mentioned the "potentially illegal to photograph a Police Officer" though in that story - methinks another agenda being introduced there as well


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Mail running headline that he was assaulted three times.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-shows-riot-officers-beat-man-times-died.html


On that one page alone, the Mail manage to get "homeless alcoholic" in three times.

The cunts.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> No violence in this clip but this looks like the right spot at Cornhill but there is no time given for when it was filmed. Perhaps useful for ID'ing which officers were around in that area? Mostly CoL dog handlers though.


It's already been on this thread twice, it shows some CoL dogs, CoL and Met Level 1s (TSG), Met Level 2s (probably GD from other photos), and five of the FIT - some of whose names I've given to the IPCC.


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> He was 'drunkenly blocking a police van,' according to the Scum...
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece


That van looks distinctly parked to me and he is most definitely not "standing in the middle of the road."

You think the Sun would have learnt from Hillsborough about posting up such obvious bullshit.


----------



## Piers Gibbon (Apr 9, 2009)

I had a chat with a policeman yesterday, nice guy really but the blinkered attitude was deeply saddening

his response was that his colleague was just unlucky, he had pushed him "at the hips, the way we are trained" - to be fair this was before the damning secondary footage came out

he also stated very firmly that the victim was obviously deliberately winding the police up by not moving faster when told to...and that anyone doing that is of course fair game for a push. That made me feel very depressed, because he said this as if any reasonable person would agree - we should trot at the double whenever we are told, no questions

Oh and kettling is a fair and reasonable response to the "extreme violence" from the protesters. He just smiled indulgently when I said kettling was likely to turn law abiding citizens into angry people who are very suspicious of the police

Basically there was no gaps anywhere in his world view of police correctness

After talking to him I really felt hopeless ...I believe any police-led investigation of alleged police malpractice is likely to be deeply flawed from the start - because they feel they are just right, and therefore any unfortunate errors are perhaps regrettable but insignificant in the grand scale of things

so it feels appropriate to ignore/bury/spin/lie/obfuscate/smear/withhold/adjust/erase rather than really try to ensure justice is done.

I bet there are police who would agree that if they lose our consent their job is made more difficult. I really hope they speak out.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Just catching up since page 34 ... this from later pages ...




			
				lostexpectation said:
			
		

> yes but he had a few drinks on his friend has said, his behaviour hands in pocket was drunk man, can't we just agree it was likely he was drunk, not that that gave a reason to attack him.





winjer said:


> _Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.
> 
> Speaking through tears, Mr Smith told the newspaper: "Ian was always there with me, from the minute I started work until the end of the day. He had a drink problem but that day he was completely sober and was looking forward to starting work again the next day._
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece



Thanks for that winjer, that post from lostexpectation jumped out at me as well, I was also going to challenge him to source that well dubious 'drunkenness' claim too but you had the link!

ETA a bit later : and lo and behold,. only a little later the claim that he was drunk on the day (which Barry Smith specifically stated he wasn't) is recycled from a Police 'briefing' into the Sun as 'fact'  (no real surprise at the Police spin there but  )


----------



## Callie (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> if the medics weren't adequately trained or experienced, then that is an organisational issue, and the Met would become liable as an organisation for putting inexperienced / badly trained first aiders into this kid of situation in a uniform that labels them not as first aiders, but as medics... something that could feed into / be key to any corporate manslaughter prosecution.



I do think it is very misleading - if what people have said about the 'police medics' is correct - and that they should not be advertised as such. 

From what agricola said earlier I got the impression that a lot of the officers involved probably hadn't received specific training to deal with the given situation (public order, riots, protests, whatever you want to call it!) and that that in itself is quite a big issue. 

If the officer seen to push and strike Mr Tomlinson hasn't received adequet training what on earth did he think he was doing - because although I know it quite often happens that people don't have the right training but are put into a situation where they would need it, the person concerned is aware of that and knows when to take a step back.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> He was 'drunkenly blocking a police van,' according to the Scum...
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2368505.ece





editor said:


> That van looks distinctly parked to me and he is most definitely not "standing in the middle of the road."
> 
> You think the Sun would have learnt from Hillsborough about posting up such obvious bullshit.



The Sun have by far the worst track record of any paper of recycling unattibuted/anonymous Police 'briefings' as 'fact'


----------



## Iguana (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> here's something that's been niggling at me ever since the night it first happened.
> 
> At 7.24pm when the initial public call to the London Ambulance Service is made Ian Tomlinson is still breathing and still has a pulse, albeit a weak one.
> 
> ...



I've only got basic first aid training but I'm very surprised that 6 minutes would be enough to declare someone dead.  I've always been taught that if you are tending someone who's not breathing or heart has stopped you don't stop giving CPR until help arrives.  Even a doctor in that situation should keep giving CPR until someone with better equipment can take over.

Once the ambulance arrived I assume Tomlinson was defibrillated before being declared dead?  6 minutes between the ambulance being called while he's still conscious, him stopping breathing and CPR being administered until the ambulance arrived, the paramedics arriving and attempting treatment before stating he is dead seems very fast to me.  I could be completely wrong, and I only have very, very basic training, so perhaps that is normal.

Either way I doubt there was anyone immediately available within the police who were there who was more qualified than a 3rd year medical student.  I hope stopping her from continuing to attend him until the paramedics or a doctor arrived will be seen as criminal.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

Just been doing a bit of catch up it was already been mention about Ian Tomlinson "picture" of him being surrounded by cops when he was "hit" the first time... anyone got this "Picture"???


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece



Only the fucking S(p)un.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

maximilian ping said:


> this is incredible
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g20
> 
> ...



Independent my arse.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 9, 2009)

editor said:


> On that one page alone, the Mail manage to get "homeless alcoholic" in three times.
> 
> The cunts.



I believe this tactic of 'smearing' Ian T as homeless/drunkard was to be fully expected and will backfire hopefully.

There has been a police operation, backed by a number of poverty pimp charities known as 'Operation Poncho' running for a while now in London that is targetted at harrassing homeless peeps. Although Ian lived at a 'hostel' he would have been only too aware of how the Police treat vulnerable people..

In order not to derail this important thread I will start another on this operation as it is important to recognise that Police actions at the 'protest' are not unique to homeless peeps and need to be considered and understood as we try to come to some understanding and more importantly some action on behalf of Ian

btw: any word of the 'blue ribbon' campaign I mentioned earlier in the thread?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> BTW - *attack cop who has now come forward has not been suspended*. Why is this violent thug allowed to continue walking our streets?



Source on this one please KT?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Source on this one please KT?



I found it quickly on the beeb news site.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> The Sun have by far the worst track record of any paper of recycling unattibuted/anonymous Police 'briefings' as 'fact'



It's not unattributed or anonymous, though



> IT worker Ross Hardy, who took the new pictures, said: “I’d been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road.
> 
> “Cops were there already but a police riot van was trying to make its way up the road towards the Bank of England.
> 
> ...


----------



## xes (Apr 9, 2009)

I'll have some vinegar on it please  And a little bit of salt. And a heafty dose of BBC missdirection and deflection.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Iguana said:
			
		

> I've only got basic first aid training but I'm very surprised that 6 minutes would be enough to declare someone dead.  I've always been taught that if you are tending someone who's not breathing or heart has stopped you don't stop giving CPR until help arrives.  Even a doctor in that situation should keep giving CPR until someone with better equipment can take over.
> 
> Once the ambulance arrived I assume Tomlinson was defibrillated before being declared dead?  6 minutes between the ambulance being called while he's still conscious, him stopping breathing and CPR being administered until the ambulance arrived, the paramedics arriving and attempting treatment before stating he is dead seems very fast to me.  I could be completely wrong, and I only have very, very basic training, so perhaps that is normal.
> 
> *Either way I doubt there was anyone immediately available within the police who were there who was more qualified than a 3rd year medical student.  I hope stopping her from continuing to attend him until the paramedics or a doctor arrived will be seen as criminal*.



I sincerely hope this particular aspect is investigated further. Good on free spirit and Iguanma for focussing on it ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> It's not unattributed or anonymous, though
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That para you posted is from the Sun?

Surely dubious? 

And directly contradicted by Barry Smith's statement to the Times.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> From what agricola said earlier I got the impression that a lot of the officers involved probably hadn't received specific training to deal with the given situation (public order, riots, protests, whatever you want to call it!) and that that in itself is quite a big issue.


The officer involved is reported to be from the TSG, they train regularly to the worst standard: Level 1, there are 720 of them in the Met and ~20-40 in the CoL. The other officers all appear Level 2 trained, they train less regularly and work in boroughs, there are ~2,400 of them in the Met.

Level 3 trained officers don't go out with riot shields.


----------



## sus (Apr 9, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Hippocratic Oath being taken very seriously there I see.



You think that horrible bastard has got a PhD?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> The dog handlers and other soft hats are CoL , the ones in helmets are Met, not far out of shot is a line of BTP. The most senior officer seen nearby is a CoL Chief Super, later seen with ambulances at the junction of Cornhill and Bishopsgate:



Is that not a City of London Inspector rather than Chief Superintendent? I can only see two pips on his epaulettes.

He also looks somewhat like this CoL Inspector out and about kettling his merry way around outside the Bank of England the next day, threatening journalists with arrest under s14 of the Public Order Act (as captured by photographer Marc Vallée):






http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2009/04/g20-police-use-public-order-act-on-the-media/

Would this be the memorial event on the Thursday held for Ian Tomlinson?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That para you posted is from the Sun?
> 
> Surely dubious?
> 
> And directly contradicted by Barry Smith's statement to the Times.



Yes.

Quite possibly.

Yes.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 9, 2009)

sus said:


> You think that horrible bastard has got a PhD?



I dread to think. What does 'medic' actually mean in that context?


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

editor said:


> The only violence I can see in that YouTube clip is from the police.


Watching it again, it looks like a snatch squad out of their depth, c.f. the two guys not having shields, one appears to be Tomlinson's assailant - tucked in jacket, no shield, the other is a CoL all in black, probably the same one seen in the well-known videos.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> BTW - *attack cop who has now come forward has not been suspended. * Why is this violent thug allowed to continue walking our streets?






			
				William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Source on this one please KT?





DotCommunist said:


> I found it quickly on the beeb news site.



Do you mean this DC? 

Doesn't seem to say specifically that he wasn't suspended, only implied by omission.

But fair dos if there's more detail elsewhere ...


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That para you posted is from the Sun?
> 
> Surely dubious?
> 
> And directly contradicted by Barry Smith's statement to the Times.


I realise that the main thing that they would have been looking for in a Post Mortem examination would be immediate causes of death but I certainly hope tests for alcohol levels would have been performed as part of it. 

e2a:  Well, I hope anyway .........


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> I realise that the main thing that they would have been looking for in a Post Mortem examination would be immediate causes of death but I certainly hope tests for alcohol levels would have been performed as part of it




Fair enough, but the Sun (and its sources?) are trying to spin it whatever.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Do you mean this DC?
> 
> Doesn't seem to say specifically that he wasn't suspended, only implied by omission.
> 
> But fair dos if there's more detail elsewhere ...





> A Metropolitan Police spokesman said no officers had been suspended.




from that beeb story


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I dread to think. What does 'medic' actually mean in that context?


A cop who's done a five day training course, or 1-day conversion from First Aid at Work.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

More smears here, guess where printed?



> Mr Tomlinson was staying at a hostel in Smithfield and had recently come out of rehab for a drinking habit. He was estranged from his wife Julia because of his drink problem.
> 
> The photographs show him in a Millwall shirt smoking a cigarette in Lombard Street at 6.07pm, one hour and 25 minutes before he collapsed.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

Iguana said:


> I've only got basic first aid training but *I'm very surprised that 6 minutes would be enough to declare someone dead*.  I've always been taught that if you are tending someone who's not breathing or heart has stopped you don't stop giving CPR until help arrives.  Even a doctor in that situation should keep giving CPR until someone with better equipment can take over.
> 
> Once the ambulance arrived I assume Tomlinson was defibrillated before being declared dead?  6 minutes between the ambulance being called while he's still conscious, him stopping breathing and CPR being administered until the ambulance arrived, the paramedics arriving and attempting treatment before stating he is dead seems very fast to me.  I could be completely wrong, and I only have very, very basic training, so perhaps that is normal.


I think you may have misunderstood the info I posted, or maybe I wrote it badly... 

6 minutes elapse between the time of the initial call to the ambulance service from a member of the public (7.24pm), in which the ambulance service state that they were told he was breathing still, and other witnesses have stated that he had a weak pulse.... to the ambulance service reporting that they were contacted by the police to say that he had stopped breathing (7.30pm).

I can't find a confirmed arrival time for the ambulance, but have seen various witness statements that put it at between 15-20 minutes from the initial collapse... can anyone find the arrival time for the ambulance, or time they declared him dead?



Iguana said:


> Either way I doubt there was anyone immediately available within the police who were there who was more qualified than a 3rd year medical student.  I hope stopping her from continuing to attend him until the paramedics or a doctor arrived will be seen as criminal.


just part of the blanket police attitude that they always know best, and nobody not in uniform could ever possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute to the safe resolution of any issue ever IME.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> Is that not a City of London Inspector rather than Chief Superintendent? I can only see two pips on his epaulettes.


No. It's a crown and a pip, notice also he has gold braid on his hat, and that Inspector doesn't.

Compare:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbensasson/3406775376/in/datetaken
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28835541@N05/3412110561/



> Would this be the memorial event on the Thursday held for Ian Tomlinson?


Yes. Robertson was in charge there, I spoke to him.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair enough, but the Sun (and its sources?) are trying to spin it whatever.


Totally agreed with you there! I just hope some sort of balance will come from any PM results


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> They have started already...
> 
> A DRIP DRIP of smears and lies and bullshit.
> 
> ...



Has this been posted yet?




			
				Daily Mail said:
			
		

> WE don't yet know how drifter and alcoholic Ian Tomlinson provoked a policeman to attack him minutes before he collapsed and died of heart failure.
> 
> We may guess he was uncooperative or said something offensive, at a time when police nerves we frayed by the G20 riots.  (Daily Mail leader column, Thurs, April 9, 2009, p14).



Can you imagine any other assault getting that treatment? "We don't know how binge drinker Moira Jones provoked Karek Harcar to rape and murder her.  She should have gone home to the love of a good man".  No, I don't think so.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> No. It's a crown and a pip, notice also he has gold braid on his hat, and that Inspector doesn't.
> 
> Compare:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbensasson/3406775376/in/datetaken
> ...



http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/OurPeople/ManagementBoard/alexrobertson.htm


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> No. It's a crown and a pip, notice also he has gold braid on his hat, and that Inspector doesn't.
> 
> Compare:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbensasson/3406775376/in/datetaken
> ...



Yes - so did I. I asked why the protest (the one the next day - outside the bank)  was surrouneded by police - he told me 'look Ive been dealing with this lot for the past two days. They're about to start throwing bottles' (the crowd of a few hundred were sitting down and quiet at this point).


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

Fucking Daily Mail cunts. They will lie about the booze levels in his blood. I bet they are upset that he lives in a hostel and they can't therefore "find" kiddie porn on his PC.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

It's not a hostel. "Popular with travellers and backpackers, Lindsey Hotel is a bed and breakfast situated in the City and within easy reach of the West End. There are 48 rooms including non smoking rooms and they serve a full Continental breakfast. There is also a TV lounge."

http://www.tipped.co.uk/listings/11992/lindsey-hotel

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...cbp=12,58.13350561769789,,0,-20.2364864864865


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> Seriously calls into question the wisdom of putting the word 'medic' on the back of a badly trained, inexperienced first aider, because other first aid trained people will assume that someone who has the word medic on heir uniform will actually have greater medical knowledge than they do and bow to their judgement as in this case... medics should be medically trained, not just have done a fuckign first aid course - that makes you a first aider, nothing more.
> 
> any medically trained people care to comment on this?



You'd like to think that all coppers would be required to do first aid training wouldn't you? If it's true that the police 'medics' only have basic first aid training then they shouldn't call themselves medics, for precisely the reason you say. Protestors and activists often bring proper medics with them, IIRC a medical student was attending to Mr Tomlinson after he collapsed and claims she was removed from the area by the police medics, who didn't even let her tell them what condition Tomlinson was in. Here, once again, it seems intimidation was more important to the police than the life of a member of the public 

I've done extensive first aid training, but I still wouldn't call myself a medic. I'm a first aider. A first aider with enough of a background in physiology to know that baton blows to the skull do not constitute effective medical treatment. It's come to something when you can't even trust the police _medics_ ffs


----------



## Iguana (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> I think you may have misunderstood the info I posted, or maybe I wrote it badly...
> 
> 6 minutes elapse between the time of the initial call to the ambulance service from a member of the public (7.24pm), in which the ambulance service state that they were told he was breathing still, and other witnesses have stated that he had a weak pulse.... to the ambulance service reporting that they were contacted by the police to say that he had stopped breathing (7.30pm).



Ah, ok.  So I assume they continued giving CPR until the paramedics arrived?  They still shouldn't have removed the woman who was probably the most medically qualified, I can't see that as being anything other than criminally negligent.  Nor should they have moved him under the circumstances described by the witnesses.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *Blue ribbons?*
> 
> Just read latest family statement here. At the end of the article there is mention of blue ribbons...
> 
> ...



thumbs up


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> No. It's a crown and a pip, notice also he has gold braid on his hat, and that Inspector doesn't.
> 
> Compare:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusbensasson/3406775376/in/datetaken
> ...



Aha - cheers


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Ah, ok.  So I assume they continued giving CPR until the paramedics arrived?  They still shouldn't have removed the woman who was probably the most medically qualified, I can't see that as being anything other than criminally negligent.  Nor should they have moved him under the circumstances described by the witnesses.



^This. There's no reason to move him in that situation, except for the fact that the plod wouldn't have wanted to break their cordon to let an ambulance through. Tomlinson and the police medics were under no danger except from more baton charges leading to another crush of protestors, and you'd like to think that one of the coppers could have used his radio to say to his mates; "someone is on the ground receiving treatment, kindly leave off the random violence for the next five minutes".


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Do you mean this one DC?
> 
> Doesn't seem to say specifically that he wasn't suspended, only implied by omission.
> 
> But fair dos if there's more detail elsewhere ...





_pH_ said:


> > A Metropolitan Police spokesman said no officers had been suspended.
> 
> 
> 
> from that beeb story




Ahhh OK, thanks for that _pH_ ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Daily Mail said:
			
		

> WE don't yet know how drifter and alcoholic Ian Tomlinson provoked a policeman to attack him minutes before he collapsed and died of heart failure.
> 
> We may guess he was uncooperative or said something offensive, at a time when police nerves we frayed by the G20 riots. (Daily Mail leader column, Thurs, April 9, 2009, p14).





TopCat said:


> Fucking Daily Mail cunts. They will lie about the booze levels in his blood. I bet they are upset that he lives in a hostel and they can't therefore "find" kiddie porn on his PC.



This lying and spin is fucking shit


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2009)

That should read "_were_ frayed" not "_we_ frayed".  My typo.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Just been doing a bit of catch up it was already been mention about Ian Tomlinson "picture" of him being surrounded by cops when he was "hit" the first time... anyone got this "Picture"???




Any joy on this as I need to see it? Then I can add to what I already told "them". Thanks in advance.


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> The thug responsible is unlikely to have known that the dead man was (one of) the guy(s and gals) s/he assaulted until pictures of Tomlinson were released.


I apologise for the appalling naivety shown in this post. 



> Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet and he staggered 40 yards along Cornhill before collapsing outside the Co-operative Bank.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062637.ece



He was initially reported to have stumbled 200 yards before collapsing. Then 50. Now 40. Very hard to believe that none of the police on the scene of the attack were aware that he collapsed shortly afterwards.

Scum.


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2009)

It's not even the violence that's so upsetting, we've all seen cops get a bit truncheony on demos. It's the incompetence, lies and smears. I think The Daily Mail are now making a conscious effort to smear and present it as a 'bad apple' case given that even their own readers seems shocked at it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 9, 2009)

> We may guess he was uncooperative or said something offensive, at a time when police nerves we frayed by the G20 riots. (Daily Mail leader column, Thurs, April 9, 2009, p14).



but they're weren't 'riots' - RSB got attacked and there was some argy bargy outside the bank earlier when people tried to break the lines - all of which took place several hourse earlier.  The rest of the day was the police pushing, shoving, shouting, batononing and kettling - people were reacting by shouting and swearing back and  pushing back and throwing the occaisonal missile.  The police tactic was to intimidate and terrorise protestors. In all the footage you only see one incident of police being attacked - and that was very eary in the day when people were trying to break the police line by RBS.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Any joy on this as I need to see it? Then I can add to what I already told "them". Thanks in advance.


not sure, but this was the reason I'd started a seperate thread specifically for people to post up relevant pictures, witness statements, videos etc. 

ie, so that people wouldn't have to trawl through 28 pages of a discussion thread to try and find links to the info they wanted to find.

does anyone else think that would be useful still, and if so would the editor consider either starting a new thread, or reopening the closed one (or would I, or someone else be ok to start a new one?)


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> This lying and spin is fucking shit



To be expected, those who have been involved and active had no doubt from the first lies of the police and media the truth of how they killed him would come out, no they need to defend there actions and print Ian story so it seems he was the agresser, his actions brought on the assult, haveing been a former drinker, with drug problems your history reputation will allways be used against you, so fucking what he had problems, dose this give the right for the scum to act how they did of course not..



> IPCC TRIED TO GET VIDEO REMOVED FROM GUARDIAN WEBSITE
> 
> Firstly respects to the Guardian - and to Paul Lewis in particular - for their dogged coverage and investigation into Ian Tomlinson’s death. Incredibly it has now emerged that on Tuesday night a member of the IPCC - accompanied by a City of London police officer - visited the Guardian’s offices asking them to remove the police assault  video from their website.  ”it might jeapordise our enquiry’ http://ianbone.wordpress.com/



People are not daft and will not beleave the lies now coming forword, and here we have to thank Paul Lewis for his work in getting it this far, he was there on twitter much of the day, and in words has told the truth.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> not sure, but this was the reason I'd started a seperate thread specifically for people to post up relevant pictures, witness statements, videos etc.
> 
> ie, so that people wouldn't have to trawl through 28 pages of a discussion thread to try and find links to the info they wanted to find.
> 
> does anyone else think that would be useful still, and if so would the editor consider either starting a new thread, or reopening the closed one (or would I, or someone else be ok to start a new one?)



A blog at word press with open comments, could be a means for this easy to admin and use..


----------



## Callie (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> not sure, but this was the reason I'd started a seperate thread specifically for people to post up relevant pictures, witness statements, videos etc.
> 
> ie, so that people wouldn't have to trawl through 28 pages of a discussion thread to try and find links to the info they wanted to find.
> 
> does anyone else think that would be useful still, and if so would the editor consider either starting a new thread, or reopening the closed one (or would I, or someone else be ok to start a new one?)



I think it would be useful for the sake of reference 

- and for people to clearly label links to youtube  not like I did earlier- eg give the title and a description of what is shown.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> I think it would be useful for the sake of reference
> 
> - and for people to clearly label links to youtube  not like I did earlier- eg give the title and a description of what is shown.



there is about a bajillion clips of G20 on youtube though, tbf. the relevant ones are bound to get posted more than once


----------



## two sheds (Apr 9, 2009)

The IPCC have got a point though with the above "”it might jeapordise our enquiry’ http://ianbone.wordpress.com/". You wouldn't want evidence jeopardising an enquiry.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

Does anyone have a better than youtube quality version of the Channel 4/ITN clip?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

After working with families bereaved after deaths following police contact for 30 years, it comes as no surprise that the initial reports of the death of Ian Tomlinson were at best partial and at worst an attempt to deflect attention from the involvement and potential wrongdoing of police officers.

It was also unsurprising that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) failed to grasp the significance of the context of his death and immediately initiate a robust and independent investigation. This failure of judgement is extraordinary given the widespread concerns both about the death, and criticisms of their investigation following the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g20


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

Lest we forget who the police were there to protect



> Stuart Fraser, Chairman of Policy of the City of London Corporation, said police had successfully managed the difficult balancing act of ensuring demonstrators were able to protest peacefully and safely while protecting property and keeping the Square Mile open for business.
> 
> A Head of Corporate Security at a leading bank added:
> "I am no expert but having seen some minor agro in Northern Ireland and conducted public order in Iraq I have an insight into the challenges officers must have faced"
> ...



rofl.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

In terms of the basics of the case, the stuff from the Sun doesn't change anything.  He was attacked by police - twice - and that caused his death.  However we probably do have to alter the narrative - it looks like he was around at 6.00ish and not simply on his way home from 7.00 onwards - and he did have some kind of 'contact' with police over the van.

Really doesn't change anything - and you can't draw from this that he was active in the demo - and more importantly, even that wouldn't be anywhere near an excuse for what happened (obviously).  

What is most despicable in the Sun story is this quote:



> IT worker Ross Hardy, who took the new pictures, said: “I’d been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road.
> 
> “Cops were there already but a police riot van was trying to make its way up the road towards the Bank of England.
> 
> ...



The words from Hardy have all the hallmarks of being responses to prompts - 'we know he was an alcoholic - did he seem drunk to you?", "did it look to you like he was on his way home?".  Yep, were in the process of seeing history being remade.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

> PC Mark Cockram, who was operating at Bank Junction on April 1st said:
> "I found most of the protestors absolutely fine and did not see any serious altercations.



 not toeing the company line there, PC Cockram


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> well they won't be able to trot out the 'on benefits' shit- it's known he worked on a newstand.



If he was working an official pitch, chances are high he was a taxpayer too.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ^This. There's no reason to move him in that situation, except for the fact that the plod wouldn't have wanted to break their cordon to let an ambulance through.



Yes.  But they moved him inside their lines.

And later their lines were obstructing the ambulance reaching him.


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That para you posted is from the Sun?
> 
> Surely dubious?
> 
> And directly contradicted by Barry Smith's statement to the Times.


It's very contradictory. We know he was sober when he left work at 18:00, but he doesn't look at all compos mentis at 19:25. Even if he went to the pub, an alcoholic wouldn't even get tipsy in that time. The pub scenario is unlikely as he was in contact with the police from 18:07 onwards.

It's looking increasingly like he died due to head injuries - concussion or brain haemorrhage are consistent with his staggering about and the dopey giggly behaviour as he was dying. If he was having a heart attack he'd most likely appear panicked rather than stoned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm just glad that there's a plethora of video and photographic evidence for this incident, or we'd have been looking at another Blair Peach situation, with the Met _omerta_ going to work, and nobody ever paying for the death.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> It's very contradictory. We know he was sober when he left work at 18:00, but he doesn't look at all compos mentis at 19:25. An alcoholic wouldn't even get tipsy in that time.
> 
> *It's looking increasingly like he died due to head injuries - concussion or brain haemorrhage are consistent with his staggering about* and the dopey giggly behaviour as he was dying. If he was having a heart attack he'd most likely appear panicked rather than stoned.



i thought that too http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8977820&postcount=841

do we know he was sober when he left work? I know his mate says so, but the Sun story casts doubt on that


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> i thought that too http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8977820&postcount=841
> 
> do we know he was sober when he left work? I know his mate says so, but the Sun story casts doubt on that



You would imagine the first post morten would have checked for alcohol - and if they had found anything, we would have had it leaked by now.  To be honest though, its irrelevant - except that him being drunk and/or already unsteady will be woven into the police account [*if *of course he was drunk]


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> i thought that too http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8977820&postcount=841
> 
> do we know he was sober when he left work? I know his mate says so, but the Sun story casts doubt on that


Actually, it's the two apparently contradictory accounts that draw me to that conclusion. He was working all day and got sent home early because they'd sold out by 6pm. Yet he does appear wobbly on his feet in the video footage and according to eye witnesses. Just because they concluded that he was drunk doesn't mean that he was. Hypoglycaemia causes similar problems for people with diabetes - they appear to be drunk so noone helps them.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> You would imagine the first post morten would have checked for alcohol - and if they had found anything, we would have had it leaked by now.  To be honest though, its irrelevant - except that him being drunk and/or already unsteady will be woven into the police account [*if *of course he was drunk]



yep fair point on both


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> Actually, it's the two apparently contradictory accounts that draw me to that conclusion. He was working all day and got sent home early because they'd sold out by 6pm. Yet he does appear wobbly on his feet in the video footage and according to eye witnesses. Just because they concluded that he was drunk doesn't mean that he was. Hypoglycaemia causes similar problems for people with diabetes - they appear to be drunk so noone helps them.



He could have already been smacked in the head.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> i thought that too http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8977820&postcount=841
> 
> do we know he was sober when he left work? I know his mate says so, but the Sun story casts doubt on that


1 - it's the Sun, so it is incapable of casting doubt on anything ever.

2 - Someone who's concussed could well appear to be drunk, as could someone who's suffering a stroke...

stroke symptoms


*numbness, weakness or paralysis* on one side of the body (signs of this may be a drooping arm, leg or lower eyelid, or a dribbling mouth)
*slurred speech* or difficulty finding *words* or *understanding* speech
sudden blurred vision or *loss of sight*
*confusion* or unsteadiness
a severe *headache*.
concussion symptoms 


Headaches, which may be severe and persistent
Dizziness
Nausea
Vision disturbance
Poor balance
Confusion


eta - + hypoglycemea as ymu says.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> Actually, it's the two apparently contradictory accounts that draw me to that conclusion. He was working all day and got sent home early because they'd sold out by 6pm. Yet he does appear wobbly on his feet in the video footage and according to eye witnesses. Just because they concluded that he was drunk doesn't mean that he was. Hypoglycaemia causes similar problems for people with diabetes - they appear to be drunk so noone helps them.



He is wobbly in the footage, that's what made me think of head injury. BUT since then the Sun has published that other witness statement that seems to suggest he was pissed at just gone 6pm, which was well before he got smacked on the head with the baton.

Blood alcohol level at post mortem is the only way we'll know for sure - if a 2nd post mortem were to be carried out now, would his blood alcohol level still be measurable, anyone?


----------



## TopCat (Apr 9, 2009)

Well it may come as no surprise to you all to know that many Millwall supporters are livid at the death on one of our own. There is much chatter about revenge.


----------



## Iguana (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Blood alcohol level at post mortem is the only way we'll know for sure - if a 2nd post mortem were to be carried out now, would his blood alcohol level still be measurable, anyone?



Surely that would have been discovered in the first post mortem and would have been publicised by now?


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> You would imagine the first post morten would have checked for alcohol - and if they had found anything, we would have had it leaked by now.  To be honest though, its irrelevant - except that him being drunk and/or already unsteady will be woven into the police account [*if *of course he was drunk]


The problem for the police is that there is absolutely no justification for the attack. No conceivable way to defend it. Being homeless, being drunk, being a protester, not being a protester - none of these things are cause for being beaten up by police. 

In some senses, it doesn't really matter what the cause of death was. It is the reason the video made the news, that's all. There are countless similar clips around, countless similar incidents that day and from many other protests. Middle England is shocked by the images, those who go on protests are not.

And here's the thing. There are many many Daily Mail types who are genuinely horrified by these images and who are now being exposed to similar video of attacks on people who didn't happen to die. Attempts to smear the man on grounds that could never ever justify the attack will only drive a bigger wedge between these people and the nastier elements of the right. They'll dig their own grave. Which is nice.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

Talking about the first post mortem, didn't it say something like 'there were no bruises or scratches' [when discussing what might have contributed to the heat attack]?  What the fuck does that say about the competence/impartiality of that post mortem?  His face and head were clearly bruised in the recent images seen on this thread.


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> He could have already been smacked in the head.


That's what I'm saying - the wobbliness appears to be due to head injuries rather than alcohol, hence it may not have been a heart attack that killed him.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

I wonder how they know he was there at 6pm.  Camera time stamp perhaps?

I'm not saying he wasn't there then, but it occurs to me that the clocks went forward on the sunday and not everyone would have adjusted their camera time settings.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Surely that would have been discovered in the first post mortem and would have been publicised by now?



dunno, but then the 1st post mortem found no bruises, and apparently the coroner was refusing to answer questions, so who knows??


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> He is wobbly in the footage, that's what made me think of head injury. BUT since then the Sun has published that other witness statement that seems to suggest he was pissed at just gone 6pm, which was well before he got smacked on the head with the baton.
> 
> Blood alcohol level at post mortem is the only way we'll know for sure - if a 2nd post mortem were to be carried out now, would his blood alcohol level still be measurable, anyone?


I'd presume so because his bodies not going to be processing the alcohol to remove it from the bloodstream since he died. They will have taken blood alcohol readings at the first autopsy though, so we can presume he wasn't drunk or they'd have released them straight away.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> The words from Hardy have all the hallmarks of being responses to prompts.






			
				two sheds said:
			
		

> The IPCC have got a point though with the above "”it might jeapordise our enquiry’ http://ianbone.wordpress.com/". You wouldn't want evidence jeopardising an enquiry.



This is a tricky one for any (impartial) investigating organisation: You don't want to put ideas in a witness's memory by letting the witness see any film or by asking them leading questions.  Yet, without the photos of Ian Tomlinson, the video footage and witnesses would not have come forward.  An impartial investigator would have appealed for witnesses, video and photos and released selected pictures to jog people's memories.  Some photos were released, but the initial enquiry was already being wound up as witnesses were coming forward.  So, the investigation was effectively delegated to the media (including this site).  The result is that the evidence will be spun in different directions and witness evidence will be contaminated.  Fortunately, what was "reported" in the Sun is irrelevant to the crime being investigated.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I wonder how they know he was there at 6pm.  Camera time stamp perhaps?
> 
> I'm not saying he wasn't there then, but it occurs to me that the clocks went forward on the sunday and not everyone would have adjusted their camera time settings.


yep, the suns timeline is wrong anyway as it gives the time of collapse as 7.32, whereas the first call to the ambulance service was 7.24, which is likely to be more accurate than time stamps from cameras IMO.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I wonder how they know he was there at 6pm.  Camera time stamp perhaps?
> 
> I'm not saying he wasn't there then, but it occurs to me that the clocks went forward on the sunday and not everyone would have adjusted their camera time settings.



His boss clearly states he sent him home at 7pm.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece



> Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.
> 
> Speaking through tears, Mr Smith told the newspaper: "Ian was always there with me, from the minute I started work until the end of the day. He had a drink problem but that day he was completely sober and was looking forward to starting work again the next day.
> 
> "At 7pm, I had run out of papers so I told him to go home. His last words to me were 'See you tomorrow Barry, if I'm still living and breathing'. It tears me apart thinking about that now."


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> *The problem for the police is that there is absolutely no justification for the attack. No conceivable way to defend it. Being homeless, being drunk, being a protester, not being a protester - none of these things are cause for being beaten up by police. *



yep.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

The guardian would like you to write to your mp: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/apr/08/g20-g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> He is wobbly in the footage, that's what made me think of head injury. BUT since then the Sun has published that other witness statement that seems to suggest he was pissed at just gone 6pm, which was well before he got smacked on the head with the baton.


We don't know when he first got hit with a baton. Lots of people were getting hit all day and he was first in contact with the police at 18:07, when they first blocked his route home.

The post mortem should come up with an estimate of the number of blows struck, and where. Not when though.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> We don't know when he first got hit with a baton. Lots of people were getting hit all day and he was first in contact with the police at 18:07, when they first blocked his route home.
> 
> The post mortem should come up with an estimate of the number of blows struck, and where. Not when though.



yeah this is true. it's believed that he was first hit at around 7.10pm (see this), but it's possible he was hit earlier - maybe at the incident reported in the Sun?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> His boss clearly states he sent him home at 7pm.



I'm  by that too.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> I'm  by that too.



There isn't much humour in any of this (to say the least), but it would be kind of funny if the Sun (and the police who obviously fed them the story) had simply forgotten about British Summer Time.


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> I'm  by that too.


It's not clear. Other reports, with identical quotes, say that they ran out earlier than usual - by 6pm - because the papers were reporting on the protests. It's not clear which set of journalists are confused - and we don't know if the time-stamp on the ambulance is GMT or BST.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

His boss must've know what time it was.

I have emailed the sun.

Dunno if they'll be able to read it, as I have used a few words with more than one syllable


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> The guardian would like you to write to your mp: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/apr/08/g20-g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


I may as well, I'm at my computer anyway.  She'll just bleat platitudes, but it might just make the useless wazzock uncomfortable.


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

And here is, I think, the counter-spin:





			
				BBC said:
			
		

> *Police chief quits over blunder*
> 
> Britain's top counter-terrorism officer has quit after admitting he could have jeopardised an operation which aimed to thwart a possible al-Qaeda terror plot.
> 
> ...



What a difficult and dangerous job they do, how swift they are to take action... against police who foul up... sometimes.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> And here is, I think, the counter-spin:
> What a difficult and dangerous job they do, how swift they are to take action... against police who foul up... sometimes.



Nah, I reckon that's just coincidence. Been a shit week for the police generally:

- murdered innocent man at demonstration
- murdered innocent schoolgirl by driving too fast
- compromised multi-million quid counter-terrorist operation

Incompetence throughout the entire organisation


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Talking about the first post mortem, didn't it say something like 'there were no bruises or scratches' [when discussing what might have contributed to the heat attack]?  What the fuck does that say about the competence/impartiality of that post mortem?  His face and head were clearly bruised in the recent images seen on this thread.



Thought so... this from esnews:



> The IPCC has ordered a second post-mortem test as part of its inquiry. The first, carried out on Friday, recorded that Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack and that *there were no signs of cuts or bruises to his head or shoulders*


http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=3575


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

ymu said:


> We don't know when he first got hit with a baton. Lots of people were getting hit all day and he was first in contact with the police at 18:07, when they first blocked his route home.
> 
> The post mortem should come up with an estimate of the number of blows struck, and where. Not when though.


is that timing just coming from the Sun?

it looks to me like they're taking the time stamp from the photos as being the source for their timings, but that particular time stamp could well be an hour out being as we've only just changed the clocks, and it doesn't seem to fit with any of the other evidence.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

If the second post mortem contradicts the first that'll be a whole new river of shit for the filth/the IPCC/the Home Office/whoever else has got their fingerprints on this train wreck of an 'investigation' to deal with. Maybe the arse-covering culture of the police and their various chums will finally be blown wide open by all of this...

...but I doubt it. Their incompetence is matched only by their knack for getting away with it


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2009)

My letter to my MP if anyone wants some sort of guide (please don't copy it and send it if you live in Hackney):

Dear Meg Hillier,

I was shocked and saddened by the death of Ian Tomlinson as I'm sure many other Hackney residents were. As a participant in previous demonstration I was not at all surprised by the willingness of police to strike a member of the public but have been truly sickened by what would appear to be attempts by police to cover this up.

As a member of your constituency I would hope that you raise the issue of the enquiry in parliament and help ensure that it is carried out in as impartial a manner as possible. It is vital that the public see a transparent and exhaustive investigation in this case or confidence in not just the police but in the government as a whole will be seriously undermined if there is any trace of dishonesty.


Yours sincerely,
Maomao


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2009)

Shit, just re-read that and the last sentence is shit. I sent it as well.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

Good on you.  I'm in the middle of one to my mp, but it is spiralling out of control.  Been at it for two days now.  Think I need to thin it out a bit and stick to the point, which is the assault and attempts to cover up, but also the tactic of kettling, the media hype before the event and the use of unnecessary force against the public.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> Shit, just re-read that and the last sentence is shit. I sent it as well.



If you'd trimmed off 'if there is any trace of dishonesty' you'd have been fine 

And there's no chance of a 'trace of dishonesty' anyway, lies are already surrounding this incident like flies on dog shit


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 9, 2009)

A fuckin' sad state of affairs yet again 

How many more innocent people are to die at the hands of these fuckin' filthy bastards?


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you'd trimmed off 'if there is any trace of dishonesty' you'd have been fine



My boss was trying to make me look for photos of some client he likes on Google Images so I thought I'd get it sent.


----------



## dweller (Apr 9, 2009)

there's a new video on the guardian website
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-video-ian-tomlinson-death

it is of when the police were taking over from the public in looking after ian, 
 when the "hail of missiles" were thrown.

The strange thing is that the article says 
"Although this video does not show the entire incident, when the camera is rolling, no missiles are thrown."

However just before the member of the public shouts "back the fuck up" 
 you do see something flying in...
only one thing mind. Just seems odd that whoever from the Guardian posted the video and wrote the article doesn't see it.


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Good on you.  I'm in the middle of one to my mp, but it is spiralling out of control.  Been at it for two days now.  Think I need to thin it out a bit and stick to the point, which is the assault and attempts to cover up, but also the tactic of kettling, the media hype before the event and the use of unnecessary force against the public.



Yes.

The ideal letter to an MP is about 300 words.


I write as a constituent of yours.
This ... has happened.
This ... is the polemical/political/analytic bit.
This ... is the connection to our consitutency.
This ... is what I want you to do (and it's something you *can* do as a backbench MP).

Expand spacing and margins to make it 1 side of airy A4.

In this case the "what I want you to do" could be to promote an Early Day Motion calling for a thoroughgoing national inquiry into police training (with particular reference to excluding psychopaths from police forces?) 

I don't see an EDM on this yet... http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMList.aspx


E2A: the thing about all the stuff you leave out is that someone else will surely write it in their letter. You could even divvy the things that need to be said up, with others in your consituency.


----------



## Iguana (Apr 9, 2009)

I believe the woman with the brown hair in a ponytail wearing the leather jacket is the medical student who attended him.  You can see the police moving her away and blocking her off from him in that video.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 9, 2009)

It's obvious why the crowd are disgusted.  You can hear people saying 'you lot did this to him' as they move people away.

They have just watched him be assaulted and collapse, and when people are trying to help, the police are moving them on as if they are on private property.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 9, 2009)

is there still no pics/video of the witnesses suggestion of a previous attack?


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 9, 2009)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2221701349


----------



## xes (Apr 9, 2009)

dweller said:


> there's a new video on the guardian website
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-video-ian-tomlinson-death
> 
> it is of when the police were taking over from the public in looking after ian,
> ...


Slowly but surely the police lies reveal themselves


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

dweller said:


> there's a new video on the guardian website
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-video-ian-tomlinson-death



10/10 to the protestors for their restraint and sensible attitude

minus several thousand to the police and their fucking lies


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

Iguana said:


> I believe the woman with the brown hair in a ponytail wearing the leather jacket is the medical student who attended him.  You can see the police moving her away and blocking her off from him in that video.



Yep, that's her. She was interviewed on C4 news last night but didn't wish to be identified.


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 9, 2009)

i think the IPCC are equally to blame as the cops in trying to cover up this story - any letter to an MP etc should also demand the IPCC's disbanding and a new body put in it's place which doesnt try and pour cold water on anything that could make the police look bad.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> The police medic are "Police Medics" and don't attend protesters injuries if they can help it. Their main job is to put out fire from petal bombs etc. They are nothing like the army medics who play no active role in fighting a war to speak. They still have an active role to play in "Accommodating Protesters".



I know someone who used to be a police medic and he was one of the first on the scene at the Soho pub bomb and he administered vital first aid to the seriously injured. He was also carrying lots of first aid kit in his car, so they do serve a purpose.


----------



## winjer (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> And here is, I think, the counter-spin:


But it was all a great success, apart from those pesky journos:

"Policing of the G20 protests was successful, Commander Bob Broadhurst
told Police Professional, despite inflammatory media attention."

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=8514


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> But it was all a great success, apart from those pesky journos:
> 
> "Policing of the G20 protests was successful, Commander Bob Broadhurst
> told Police Professional, despite inflammatory media attention."
> ...



It should read we killed one of them, we brtalised and kicked in others, there for at excel there was no protest as we kept them up all night, then when they wanted to show respect to the dead non protester, we did it all again, and we also lied to the media and stoped them takeing images of us brtaliseing people, well done to all..

Fucking if this is was successful one would not like to thinkabout future protest, i wish i was around saturday time to take back the streets be safe people the met kill people and celebrate the fact.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=8514





> Water and portaloos were made available to contained protesters and groups of people were allowed to leave through controlled dispersal.



wtf???


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> wtf???


he's obviously been reading my posts about what they should have done, and confused it with what they did do


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

ah, fairy nuff then


----------



## Cressi (Apr 9, 2009)

I wrote to my MP as soon as we returned.......and Im quite surprised only one man got killed. From what we saw and patched up , some could have serious head injuries and  still suffering. Blows to the head can cause long term damage.

Kept the letter very short....basically said the Police were disgraceful and requested that questions are asked.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 9, 2009)

> The IPCC misled the media about the case too. And what kind of independent body is it whose first reaction to the Guardian's evidence on Tuesday night was to call at our offices (accompanied by a City of London policeman) and ask for it to be taken off the website?



Holy shit. How independent is the IPCC?

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/09/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Holy shit. How independent is the IPCC?
> 
> From http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/09/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault



Not very it seems...


----------



## Corax (Apr 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> Shit, just re-read that and the last sentence is shit. I sent it as well.



Don't worry, mine was much shitter.  

Felt the important thing was the sending of it though, not the rhetoric.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

Just from the BBC news web page no further details as yet but "A Met' Police Officer has been Suspended"...


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> he's obviously been reading my posts about what they should have done, and confused it with what they did do





lopsidedbunny said:


> Just from the BBC news web page no further details as yet but "A Met' Police Officer has been Suspended"...


ah, they've gone into scapegoat mode then have they?

throw one sacrificial copper to the wolves and hope they forget about the rest of them


----------



## trashpony (Apr 9, 2009)

I just heard this on PM (I'm paraphrasing) - an officer has come forward and identified himself as the person who shoved Ian Tomlinson and has been suspended pending an investigation. Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack shortly after being pushed over by an officer

They can really only suspend him at this stage I suppose. Frankly I don't relish them suspending half the Met on full pay while they 'investigate'


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Just from the BBC news web page no further details as yet but "A Met' Police Officer has been Suspended"...



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7992783.stm


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 9, 2009)

Correcting The Media Narrative of the G20


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Just from the BBC news web page no further details as yet but "A Met' Police Officer has been Suspended"...



what from a lamppost?, here comes the scapegoat mode, next we have the media full of how it was not the police, but the fact that anarchist was on the streets blah fucking bullshit, Christ if we had done or acted as they had we would be charged by now, ive now began to rethink the whole notion of police in uniform, not one of them asked if there actions was right, the queston i pose is this..

if you was a police person on that day and was been told or asked to kick the shit out of people would you? or would you take of the uniform and say fuck this i aint kicking people in because they are protesting?

no i feel all those involved on that day enjoyed the power, enjoyed the fact they could act as they did, and is suspect that Ian was killed not due to any over reaction or any other reason, but the fact they knew they could get away with it.

And no doubt they will, no the right reply to all of this is not to back down, keep up the pressure and never let this murdering scum forget they killed another human, and in my mind took pleasure from doing so


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Correcting The Media Narrative of the G20



there's a link from there to an al Jazeera report that shows a far more balanced view than any of the 'mainstream' media reporting on the day.

worth watching imo.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/04/20094205112197368.html


----------



## Corax (Apr 9, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The right reply to all of this is not to back down, keep up the pressure and never let this murdering scum forget they killed another human, and in my mind took pleasure from doing so



Damn straight.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 9, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Correcting The Media Narrative of the G20



Good article.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

''fresh pictures, which were taken by IT worker Ross Hardy, seem to complicate events surrounding the 47-year-old's death.

'I'd been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road,' he said.

'Cops were there already but a police riot van was trying to make its way up the road towards the Bank of England.

'Tomlinson stood out because of his football shirt and seemed in his own little world.

'It was weird. The van approached and a cop leaned out to shout at him to get out of the way.

'But he didn't go anywhere. He just mumbled something and raised his arm a bit unsteadily.

'It was then it became obvious he was drunk because he wasn't really coherent and couldn't move well.

'The officer yelled at him again and when he didn't move the riot van moved slowly up against him.

'It just nudged him gently but Tomlinson still didn't get out of the way. They tried nudging him again.

'When that didn't work four riot police moved in and dragged him on to the pavement.

'The van moved past but Tomlinson stuck around for at least another half an hour.''


----------



## where to (Apr 9, 2009)

i wonder if he's been suspended in response to the findings from this afternoons second autopsy?


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 9, 2009)

e19896 said:


> if you was a police person on that day and was been told or asked to kick the shit out of people would you? or would you take of the uniform and say fuck this i aint kicking people in because they are protesting?



I'd like to think a decent person would take off the uniform.  

Sadly, from the footage I've seen, these officers were not decent people.  

Isn't the police motto "protect and serve"?  It looked like they were doing the complete opposite.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> ''fresh pictures, which were taken by IT worker Ross Hardy, seem to complicate events surrounding the 47-year-old's death.
> 
> 'I'd been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road,' he said.
> 
> ...



and?


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> and?



Didn't you know? Obstructing the police now carries the death penalty


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> and?



If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.

Just pointing this fact out.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



He did nothing to deserve being struck with a baton.  He was not violent or abusive towards the police.  Surely they could've moved him on in a better way than attacking him with a blunt instrument?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> ''fresh pictures, which were taken by IT worker Ross Hardy, seem to complicate events surrounding the 47-year-old's death.
> 
> 'I'd been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road,' he said.
> 
> ...




Well if we see the pictures it will be useful. the rest is not terribly substantiated. To be honest the met are such liars they could easily be planting witnesses anyway.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 9, 2009)

*IPCC are being interviewed on C4 news @ 7*

@krishgm Officer in Tomlinson case suspended. And we have live interview with the IPCC at 7


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



afaik there isn't any video of this, just stills.

and it makes no fucking difference anyway, he didn't fall 'easily' as you put it, he was knocked to the ground. nothing in his behaviour justifies the way he was attacked, drunk or not.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



If he was that obstructive I dont see why they didnt arrest him. There is no way on earth the situation was handled correctly. If the defence want to blame IT for his own killing that is the sort of thing lawyers do for vast amounts of money. But if the scumthug gets off people are rightly going to be very angry, not really in the realms of Rodney King but not totally dis-similar.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Well if we see the pictures it will be useful. the rest is not terribly substantiated. To be honest the met are such liars they could easily be planting witnesses anyway.



the report sonny61 quotes is from the sun - already been linked to here numerous times. There are pics in the article.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



Except that there is no evidence he was drunk.  As already pointed out, someone suffering from concussion, a stroke or hypoglycaemia can display the same symptoms.  Even if he was drunk, this still doesn't justify batoning him.

You're grasping at straws.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> He did nothing to deserve being struck with a baton.  He was not violent or abusive towards the police.  Surely they could've moved him on in a better way than attacking him with a blunt instrument?



A push, maybe, the strike on the back of the legs, may be something the policeman will have to defend in court.( other European police must be baffled by such a big issue of a blow to the back of the legs by a policeman, when many other European police forces would have clubbed him the first time he did not move)
What happened, is not as black and white as some on here think.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> the report sonny61 quotes is from the sun - already been linked to here numerous times. There are pics in the article.



The Mail.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A push, maybe, the strike on the back of the legs, may be something the policeman will have to defend in court.( other European police must be baffled by such a big issue of a blow to the back of the legs by a policeman, when many other European police forces would have clubbed him the first time he did not move)
> What happened, is not as black and white as some on here think.



grasping mate


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The Mail.



yeah, whatever, it's the same testimony


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> the report sonny61 quotes is from the sun - already been linked to here numerous times. There are pics in the article.



Explains a lot, it's not neccessarily Sonny grasping at straws but The Scum.
Frankly I reserve the right to assume all establishment rags are deliberately putting out disinfo.


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> grasping mate



No. If he was guilty of anything, but him before a court, but I have doubts, which does not mean he is not guilty of something, or is innocent.
The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> other European police must be baffled by such a big issue of a blow to the back of the legs by a policeman, when many other European police forces would have clubbed him the first time he did not move)



Other European policemen have reputations for being just as (if not more) violent and thuggish as our own.  This is not a good thing.  Just look at the riot police in places like Spain and Italy.  

Other European _citizens_ mights empathise slightly more.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No. If he was guilty of anything, but him before a court, but I have doubts, which does not mean he is not guilty of something, or is innocent.
> The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.



wtf?  have you not seen the video(s)?


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No. If he was guilty of anything, but him before a court, but I have doubts, which does not mean he is not guilty of something, or is innocent.
> The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.



The police actions at the G20 would make a lynch mob blush.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> No. If he was guilty of anything, but him before a court, but I have doubts, which does not mean he is not guilty of something, or is innocent.
> The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.



your posts on here should make _you_ blush


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> wtf?  have you not seen the video(s)?



he's a police and new labour apologist


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 9, 2009)

A personal concern for me is that if the police try and justify their actions as he appeared to be a bit drunk that doesn't hold any grounds imo. 


  Numerous ill-healths can give that appearance as has been mentioned above.  Personally, my brother has diabetes and occasionally struggles to balance his medication.  If, for example, he can't get access to food at the required times he quickly developes slurred speach, walks and acts as if he is drunk.  Kettling people, many of whom would have been Diabetic is frighteningly dangerous. 


  I still think more useful footage will come to light.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> your posts on here should make _you_ blush



Except these apologists tend to be pretty shameless.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 9, 2009)

I can't believe what i have just heard, amongst other outrages.. there is NO CCTV footage of the areas involved.


I would laugh if this wasn't so serious.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 9, 2009)

IPCC have asked to be scrutinised closely..

and so we shall..


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> ''fresh pictures, which were taken by IT worker Ross Hardy, seem to complicate events surrounding the 47-year-old's death.
> 
> 'I'd been watching some of the protests and saw this older guy standing in the road,' he said.
> 
> ...



That's the version from the Sun isn't it?

Your failure to source that quote amounts to a lie ...


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The Mail.



So the _Hate Mail_ and the _Scum_ are running exactly the same quotes, edited in exactly the same way?

Now that *is* interesting. 

How did they receive the copy? Doesn't seem to be a Press Association job - and it'd be unusual for the PA to get such an interview - unless the witness was sent to them...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



What's your agenda here exactly sonny? In whose interests are you posting?

What do YOU think? 

Honestly?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:
			
		

> The Mail





laptop said:


> So the _Hate Mail_ and the _Scum_ are running exactly the same quotes, edited in exactly the same way?
> 
> Now that *is* interesting.
> 
> How did they receive the copy? Doesn't seem to be a Press Association job - and it'd be unusual for the PA to get such an interview - unless the witness was sent to them...



AHH OK, answered my question just above.

Leaves the question about why sonny61 is parroting the Mail/Scum agenda so uncritically, even more pertinent ...


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That's the version from the Sun isn't it?
> 
> Your failure to source that quote amounts to a lie ...



he did say it's from the Mail tbf. (after being prompted)


----------



## spitfire (Apr 9, 2009)

I find that very hard to believe, considering the type of shops in the royal exchange. (tiffany, hermes and various other massively expensive establishments) that there is no CCTV keeping an eye on the passage at the rear of the building. 

Every office building in the city has CCTV outside and inside. I've worked in a lot of them. i also find it difficult to believe there is no City of London CCTV in the area. It's just not right.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 9, 2009)

re the IPCC interview

  "We would have preferred the Guardian not to have printed the pictures and footage".  Well, yea, of course you would, then the original internal inquiry could have been forgotten and swept under the carpet.  It was only the swell of public concern and the US banker sharing his footage with the Guardian that got this case so far(interesting that even an American din't trust London police).

 Serioussly though, is he really telling me that with all of the many police spotters, and CCTV in the heart of the European Financial Zone, at a time of 'High Terrorist Risk" and in the middle of a "Summer of Rage Riot" the authorities were unable to obtain any footage of relevant incidents??  Bullshit.  Don't the police cars and wagons have camera's on them now?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> he's a police and new labour apologist



In which case he should be more honest about his deparately loaded agenda and SAY SO. Not doing so amounts to lying on his part ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> he did say it's from the Mail tbf. (after being prompted)



Yeah, saw that after, but his failure to say so originally makes him a LIAR, by omission anyway.


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

Compare and spot the difference, if there is one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drunken-clash-officers-shortly-collapsed.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.





So what exactly do you think of the Sun and Mail's campaign to smear Mr Tomlinson and exonerate the Police?

Be honest now ... it would make a change ...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> Compare and spot the difference, if there is one:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drunken-clash-officers-shortly-collapsed.html
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece



I think they are both the same Media Corp who chummy up to Blair during the war years. I guess they are doing the same with Brown,


----------



## Callie (Apr 9, 2009)

spitfire said:


> I find that very hard to believe, considering the type of shops in the royal exchange. (tiffany, hermes and various other massively expensive establishments) that there is no CCTV keeping an eye on the passage at the rear of the building.
> 
> Every office building in the city has CCTV outside and inside. I've worked in a lot of them. i also find it difficult to believe there is no City of London CCTV in the area. It's just not right.



Mont Blanc to the left, Louis Vuitton to the left. Google streetview shows a camera on the building directly opposite (Cornhill Insurance). The question is were any cameras functioning and if they were could they capture the area where the incident occured - they don't always have a very large viewing area?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> Compare and spot the difference, if there is one:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drunken-clash-officers-shortly-collapsed.html
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece



Innit. Where did this 'IT Worker Mr Hardy' emerge from? 

Met or Col IT Department </speculation> 

Or somewhere more subtle?

Alll the fingerprints of some Police Briefing, Mail and especially the Sun have long been NOTORIOUS for recycling Police tipoffs and spin uncritically ...

Why are you doing the same sonny61?

Your agenda being?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I think they are both the same Media Corp who chummy up to Blair during the war years. I guess they are doing the same with Brown,



Sure but more interesting is the fairly obvious question of who's feeding them ....


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 9, 2009)

Callie said:


> Mont Blanc to the left, Louis Vuitton to the left. Google streetview shows a camera on the building directly opposite (Cornhill Insurance). The question is were any cameras functioning and if they were could they capture the area where the incident occured - they don't always have a very large viewing area?




  Maybe i am being naive, i appreciate the shops cameras might only point to areas protecting the relevant premises.  It's just that so close to the bank of England i'd assume all local streets are covered by an extensive camera network even on a normal day.  You can't scratch your arse anywhere in my local town centre without being filmed.   Maybe i should give the police more credit?  clearly anyone with an interest in 'losing damning footage' had ample time to do so.  As he stated, although it's now an independant enquiry City of London Police are still doing much of the investigating.


----------



## xes (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Sure but more interesting is the fairly obvious question of who's feeding them ....



same lot who "feed" the BBC,CNN,FOX and pretty much all the MSM outlets. [/conspiraloon] (is it still a conspiracy?)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 9, 2009)

There are so many cameras in the City that there are actually little cameras inside the bigger cameras, just in case anyone really tiny decides to do some terrorism behind the lens.


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> In which case he should be more honest about his deparately loaded agenda and SAY SO. Not doing so amounts to lying on his part ...



While Sonny is an arse and should be challenged (and even insulted) I think it's desperately unfair and not constructive to accuse every right wing poster of having 'an agenda'. It's a bit hysterical. It's a discussion board not a policy setting think tank.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

xes said:


> same lot who "feed" the BBC,CNN,FOX and pretty much all the MSM outlets. [/conspiraloon] (is it still a conspiracy?)



I was thinking more about 'Police sources', not always acknowleged in the meeja either.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere! 

If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere!
> 
> If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.



Mr Tomlinson's death is a diversion?


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I think they are both the same Media Corp



It wouldn't have been worth spending the time writing a post if they were the same corporation, silly. Competing outlets running the same story is precisely what's interesting. 

(I'm ignoring xes' well-known facility for understanding the internal structure of capitalist organisations and phenomena, for performing factual research and for seeing the difference between a stoned "what if, maan?" and an interesting discussion. Probably, I'm a lizard.)


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Mr Tomlinson's death is a diversion?



The protests were not originally supposed to be about policing were they. So yes it is a diversion.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere!
> 
> If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.



The press would have forgotten about the whole thing by now, if it weren't for this.  This isn't really diversionary - it is a seperate story, connected but aside from the G20.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> The protests were not originally supposed to be about policing were they. So yes it is a diversion.




  I suppose I agree, the main effect had on parts of middle England is the apparent suprise at how police act and the powers they have in such incidents. 

  I'm not sure that the protests conveyed a clear enough message anyway to be honest.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

Jon-of-arc said:


> The press would have forgotten about the whole thing by now, if it weren't for this.  This isn't really diversionary - it is a seperate story, connected but aside from the G20.





Smurker said:


> I suppose I agree, the main effect had on parts of middle England is the apparent suprise at how police act and the powers they have in such incidents.
> 
> I'm not sure that the protests conveyed a clear enough message anyway to be honest.



I agree, I agree. I'll go away now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere!
> 
> If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.


the protests might have been, this thread isn't. its fairly simple stuff tbh.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere!
> 
> If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.



You don't think how the police operate is connected?


----------



## agricola (Apr 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Innit. Where did this 'IT Worker Mr Hardy' emerge from?
> 
> Met or Col IT Department </speculation>
> 
> ...



Apologies for returning to the thread, but I think you credit sonny61 with too much influence - his earlier posts on this thread were just trolling.  This is probably more of the same.




			
				laptop said:
			
		

> Compare and spot the difference, if there is one:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...collapsed.html
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2368505.ece



They are both bad, but the _Mail_ article is by some distance worse, especially the closing paragraph which must be one of the most vile statements ever committed by that paper to print. (edit:  apologies, I must have read another mail article instead of the one you linked to - the one I was on about is this one)


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 9, 2009)

The boss of the IPCC said on C4 news this evening that there are no CCTV cameras that can help their inquiry i.e. cctv doesn't cover the relevant area. I'm sure people will be checking that.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> If the policeman is charged with anything, his defence team will use the fact that he was drunk and obstructing the police. They  will allege he had a long history of alcoholism, and that he was drunk, was one of the reasons he fell so easily. If the prosecution use the video of him being pushed over, then the defence team will use the video of him drunk in the middle of the road blocking a police van, despite being asked to move. They will also jump on the fact , that it was not the first time he had obstructed the police, and may have possession of more videos of him.
> The bummer about videos being used against the policeman, is that his defence can do the same to defend him.
> 
> Just pointing this fact out.



Something ive been giving a thought to likewise, look ive had a drink/drug addiction ive come into conflict with the police and others, now lets be clear on this because these are facts it dose not make the actions of The Police right in any circumstance, to judge a person or act to a person because of whom they are thought to be is wrong, therefore it is also wrong that the actions of The Police killed him no matter the fact or circumstance.

I posed the queston and ill ask you direct sonny61 if you was one of The Police in uniform would you have beaten the protesters? or would you have removed the uniform and refused to?

Ill give my honest reply here, i would have removed my uniform.

It remains a fact the actions of The Police and this means the whole, contributed or indeed killed Ian, and for me this proves direct the injustice of capitalism and why people was there protesting, i have an issue with there class, also an issue with some of what they was protesting about, but i will never have an issue in dealing with THE MURDERING SCUM who killed Ian on that day no matter the facts or circumstance.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I thought the protests were supposed to be about the big issues of the G20 and capitalism. Its got well and truly sidetracked now. This is going nowhere!
> 
> If you wanted to be conpiraloon about it. This whole thing could be seen as a diversion.



The way the G20 policing was carried out is a huge part of the issue - the point of the police operation was to maintain the status quo and can't really be seen as impartial.

I've linked this one before on this thread, but to me the evidence is here:

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/G20latest.htm

Who does it sound like the CoL Police were most concerned about? Protestors or captalism?

(sorry to quote this one at you again toblerone )


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

agricola said:


> the _Mail_ article is by some distance worse, especially the closing paragraph which must be one of the most vile statements ever committed by that paper to print.




They mentioned the blackshirts? 

the last two pars of the story as I now have it are:



> Brian Paddick, former deputy assistant commissioner at the Met, said the officer could potentially face a charge of manslaughter.
> 
> Labour MP David Winnick called for Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to make a full statement to the House of Commons after Easter. He said questions would be asked about 'misleading' police statements after Mr Tomlinson's death.
> 
> ...



It was the Ross Hardy quote that I find interesting. I should point out that quoting someone in print involves translating what they say from spoken to written English. So two publications of a quote are almost always different, until the canonical version is established. Here, they appear (though I haven't yet


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

Then there's the sidebar to the above-linked Mail story:



> *Against the law: Photographing a policeman*
> 
> Anyone taking a picture of a police officer could, in theory, be arrested after a law was introduced earlier this year.
> 
> ...



Sweepstake on how long before someone's arrested for photographing an officer committing a crime? I give it a month - if it hasn't happened already.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 9, 2009)

So much speculation. Afaik, the key is the finding of the second post mortem. Especially if the photo journalist is correct in that Tomlinson was beaten by batons and knocked to the floor further up the passageway and before the filming began.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> The way the G20 policing was carried out is a huge part of the issue - the point of the police operation was to maintain the status quo)



Maybe the police should be more radical!?


----------



## agricola (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> They mentioned the blackshirts?
> 
> the last two pars of the story as I now have it are



Sorry, I edited my post to add the story I was on about, got the two stories mixed up.  




			
				laptop said:
			
		

> It was the Ross Hardy quote that I find interesting. I should point out that quoting someone in print involves translating what they say from spoken to written English. So two publications of a quote are almost always different, until the canonical version is established. Here, they appear (though I haven't yet



It could be that its just some reporter who has hawked the same story, with photos and quotes, to both papers - and the differences are just the filler that whichever work experience bod added to it to bulk it out.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> They mentioned the blackshirts?
> 
> the last two pars of the story as I now have it are:
> 
> ...


agricola had quoted the wrong article... see his edit

had me a bit baffled too


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Maybe the police should be more radical!?



No, I'm not saying that, but a bit more impartiality would do!


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> The way the G20 policing was carried out is a huge part of the issue -
> 
> Who does it sound like the CoL Police were most concerned about? Protestors or captalism? )



I don't understand how a police force could possibly be concerned with capitalism. 

Protestors were a physical presence in the City of London on the day. Capitalism is not really a policing issue.

What would you expect them to be doing?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I don't understand how a police force could possibly be concerned with capitalism.
> 
> Protestors were a physical presence in the City of London on the day. Capitalism is not really a policing issue.
> 
> What would you expect them to be doing?



did you read the CoL police article i linked to?


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> did you read the CoL police article i linked to?



I did read it didn't see anything remarkable about it. At the time one broken window in a bank seemed like a bit of a result in comparison to the beginning of a revolution.

The establishment voices quoted weren't supporting the handling of the death in particular. That hadn't really come to the fore at that point yet.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

The police attack on the man who died in the G20 demonstration has parallels with the death of Anti-Nazi protestor Blair Peach. This is his story 

Thirty years ago this month, Blair Peach, a 33-year-old who'd come over from New Zealand to teach at a special needs school in East London, was killed while protesting with the Anti-Nazi League against the decision to allow the National Front to hold a meeting in Ealing town hall.

Throughout the 1970s, Southall, an Asian enclave of west London, had been a hotbed of tensions between immigrant residents, their supporters on the political left and anti-immigration groups such as the neo-fascist National Front.

At a meeting held on St George's Day, April 23, 1979, the National Front were preparing for their General Election campaign. Their candidate, the Socialist Worker newspaper reported, pledged to "bulldoze Southall to the ground and replace it with an English hamlet". 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46954,features,blair-peach-30-years-on-death-of-a-political-protestor

It also 25 years on from The Battle of Orgreave is the name given to a confrontation between police and picketing miners at a British Steel coking plant in Orgreave, South Yorkshire, in 1984, during the UK miners' strike. In 1991, South Yorkshire police were forced to pay out half a million pounds to 39 miners who were arrested in the events at the Battle of Orgreave.

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) organised a mass picket of Orgreave for June 18, 1984, with the intention of blockading the plant, and ideally forcing its temporary closure. Aware of the plans by means of MI5 infiltration, the police organised counter-measures.

The NUM was represented by 5,000 to 6,000 pickets from across the UK. The police deployed between 4,000 and 8,000 officers, and were deployed from 10 counties. Of these, a small number had been trained in new riot tactics following the Toxteth and Brixton riots, while most had little or no experience in dealing with such events. There were between 40 and 50 mounted police and 58 police dogs. There were no women officers and only a handful of female picketers.

Unlike most of the strikes of the time, where picketers were kept well away from their intended positions, the strikers were escorted to a field to the north of the Orgreave plant. The field was flanked by police on all sides except the south, where the Sheffield to Worksop railway line runs. Opinion is divided as to whether this was a deliberate arrangement.

20 Years on from The Hillsborough Disaster was a deadly human crush that occurred on 15 April 1989, at Hillsborough, a football stadium home to Sheffield Wednesday in Sheffield, England, resulting in the deaths of 96 people (all fans of Liverpool Football Club). It remains the deadliest stadium-related disaster in British history.[1] It was the second of two stadium-related disasters to feature Liverpool supporters, the other being the Heysel Stadium Disaster in 1985.

The match was an FA Cup semi-finals clash between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. It was abandoned six minutes into the first half.

The inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor Report, named the cause as failure of police control, and resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater and the removal of barriers at the front of stands.

Need we remind ourselfs how the police act:

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."

--from Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell (1903-1950)


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I did read it didn't see anything remarkable about it.



You don't think having quotes from the Stock Exchange and a 'head of corporate security at a leading bank' shows a lack of impartiality?


----------



## sonny61 (Apr 9, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Something ive been giving a thought to likewise, look ive had a drink/drug addiction ive come into conflict with the police and others, now lets be clear on this because these are facts it dose not make the actions of The Police right in any circumstance, to judge a person or act to a person because of whom they are thought to be is wrong, therefore it is also wrong that the actions of The Police killed him no matter the fact or circumstance.
> 
> I posed the queston and ill ask you direct sonny61 if you was one of The Police in uniform would you have beaten the protesters? or would you have removed the uniform and refused to?
> 
> ...



Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.

Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> You don't think having quotes from the Stock Exchange and a 'head of corporate security at a leading bank' shows a lack of impartiality?



But in the City of London the Stock Exchange and Banks are are the closest thing you could get to residents. I suppose you could get comments from demonstrators saying how well the police did their job, but in practice people on protests would never say that so the police PR have to go elsewher to get their comments


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> Sweepstake on how long before someone's arrested for photographing an officer committing a crime? I give it a month - if it hasn't happened already.



Any test case for this new legislation will be a nightmare for the police. If the footage/images in question involves police misconduct then there'll be a truly epic shitstorm.

Hopefully 

D'you know what, I bet Google Streetview is great for terrorists. They can now scout their target location thoroughly without the need to physically go there and look dead suspicious taking photos of everything and staring at CCTV cameras. Wonder if this new legislation will get Google in trouble?


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

bluestreak said:


> Against Police brutality- Saturday 11th April-
> 
> 
> WHEN: This Sat the 11th of April...11am
> ...



Any idea why it's from Bethnal Green nick? Any ideas that can be mentioned without committing contempt of court, that is


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> But in the City of London the Stock Exchange and Banks are are the closest thing you could get to residents.



that's not really the case. have a look at CoLP's annual report.

yet on the issue of the G20, they seem to go out of their way to please the banks etc.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> Any idea why it's from Bethnal Green nick? Any ideas that can be mentioned without committing contempt of court, that is



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8979910&postcount=3


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2009)

laptop said:


> Any idea why it's from Bethnal Green nick? Any ideas that can be mentioned without committing contempt of court, that is


IIRC, it's because that's where those arrested on Saturday were taken.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.
> 
> Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.



So i take from that a drunken (if he was) man seems to be a threat, and the police have the right to kill him then say well self defenece, no the police was not under any attack or threat, it was them beating and keeping people in one location, in this circumstance it will lead to anger, but lets me honest here shall we?

Ive said it befor to you and read my others post on this, there is no right to kill a man, this one being Ian, in any given circumstnace, that circumstance was created by the action of The Police on the day, now a man is dead, of course they will walk from it they allways do.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, *they charged the police lines,* and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.



what's your evidence for this??

were you there?

I was, I didn't see protesters charging police lines


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8979910&postcount=3





ymu said:


> IIRC, it's because that's where those arrested on Saturday were taken.



Ta


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.


been there, done it, the baying mob were tooled up with metal bars, shields, pepper spray, helmets, shields and protective padding, and fully masked up so they couldn't be identified... ay, it was your mob of thugs.



sonny61 said:


> Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.


just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true... there is no evidence that he was drunk. As has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, his actions as described in the sun could just as easily have been the result of a medical condition such as a stroke, concussion, or hypoglycemea. There is no way that either the police in the van, or the witness could have known if he was drunk or ill unless they could smell his breath from the police van. 

Given the fact that he died shortly later, and there has been no mention of blood alcohol levels in all these smear, don't you think it's perhaps possible that he wasn't actually drunk, and was in fact ill, quite likely as a result of being assaulted by the police.

note that the timing's of these images have 99.9% certainly been taken from the time stamp on the camera, which probably hadn't been moved on an hour, which would put those images as taking place right around the time that he'd been attacked. Something that becomes more likely when you consider that his work mate on the newspaper stall has stated that Ian hadn't left the stall until 7pm - ie 50 minutes after those images are alleged to have been taken.

so yes, let's have the truth, but let's make that particular truth be actually what happened, rather than the twisted version of the truth that the establishment would like us to have... more commonly known as a lie.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.
> .




I take it from that that you are OB? Yes?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> I take it from that that you are OB? Yes?


that was my assumption


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 9, 2009)

free spirit said:


> Fair play to the Guardian on this one for not accepting the official line, and actually doing some proper journalism on it.
> 
> IMO this shows why people don't have faith in the IPCC to investigate this properly.


indeed. nuff respect.

ipcc has very little credibility on the back of the past few days reportage.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 9, 2009)

Unconfirmed story doing the roads of a TV news outfit is that the officer who pushed Tomlinson was also in the ruck at the climate camp.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 9, 2009)

TopCat said:


> He will be a benefit cheat before the week is out....


but aren't we all love


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

On Krishnan G-M's interview with Hardwicke (on ch 4 news - and watchable from their site): 

He was suitably probing and sceptical, but didn't do the follow up - 

He got an admission they had known about the polic contact and had complaints to that effect well before the Guardian's film - but didn't really press him on why the investigation wasn't taken off the CoL police as soon as they knew

He got an admission that several officers (literally) in the frame of the filmed attack hadn't come forward - and admitted he didn't even know whether the senior officer filmed had come forward.  However, he didn't ask _*what he had done *_to get the rest of them identified.

Most of all he didn't press him on the cctv and whether it was remotely plausible that there was none.  Before that, Hardwicke had been going on about the time it had taken to go through all the footage.  Is he saying there was footage (but no cctv) of the incident or not?

To be honest, Hardwicke looked totally incompetent and that the whole thing had overwhelmed him - though beyond this he was also mightily cosy with the police and unwilling to question anything they had told him.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> I take it from that that you are OB? Yes?



Might just be? 

What i do not understand is how last week they could be beating kicking people, this week helping old ladys across the road? would this not play with your mind if you was normal human being? it would me, just the same gose to those who beat Ian, i mean how the fuck can you just simply not come forowrd and be honest, say erm i lost it etc, of course fucking not, for me those who beat kicked people took some form of plesure from there actions, and these are the people in the police? fuck me i know it concerns myself and so it should evryeone else that they can act like this and ill reapeat this, no doubt walk away from there actions, something is very wrong, oh i know that one it is the very reson people was there, injustice..


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 9, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.
> 
> Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, *will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police*. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.



This is mere conjecture that he was drunk.


----------



## TheDave (Apr 9, 2009)

It's sickening to see the smear machine out in full force over this man, the way he's described by some of the papers. A homeless alcoholic, whereas a tax paying father of nine would be more appropriate. I don't know how anyone can try and justify the police officers actions because of the speculation that he may have been drunk even though their is first hand evidence from his boss before he left work that he wasn't.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2009)

TheDave said:


> It's sickening to see the smear machine out in full force over this man, the way he's described by some of the papers. A homeless alcoholic, whereas a tax paying father of nine would be more appropriate. I don't know how anyone can try and justify the police officers actions because of the speculation that he may have been drunk even though their is first hand evidence from his boss before he left work that he wasn't.



It reminds me to much of myself, i see a man who i was and no doubt killed due to that fact (just my feelings) of course the smear machine will come out in force, due to fact of fear and that we could all end up being Ian, ive been there had much the same done to me, haveing it still done to me, it angers me likewise and has been playing on my head, due to fact ive been there so close and for good fortune come out the other end, Ian was sadley killed and i can not begin to tell you the rage anger and tears one is going through, it hurts very much..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 9, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> and?


the earth moved i would imagine.


----------



## brix (Apr 9, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> To be honest, Hardwicke looked totally *incompetent *and that the whole thing had overwhelmed him - though beyond this he was also mightily cosy with the police and unwilling to question anything they had told him.



This was my impression too.

I'm also furious at the way Ian Tomlinson is being smeared.  Even *if* he was drunk, so fucking what?  Since when was there a law against having a few drinks after work?  He was walking *away* from the police, hands in pockets, when he was assaulted.  There can be no justification *whatsoever* for what the police did.  None.


----------



## TheDave (Apr 9, 2009)

e19896 said:


> It reminds me to much of myself, i see a man who i was and no doubt killed due to that fact (just my feelings) of course the smear machine will come out in force, due to fact of fear and that we could all end up being Ian, ive been there had much the same done to me, haveing it still done to me, it angers me likewise and has been playing on my head, due to fact ive been there so close and for good fortune come out the other end, Ian was sadley killed and i can not begin to tell you the rage anger and tears one is going through, it hurts very much..



I'm surprised only one person died to be honest, from seeing the videos and images of the police tactics used. I think serious questions need to asked about the whole operation at the protests, not just around Ian's death.

What angers/saddens me most is that the next day could have been a fresh start for the bloke, he was a flawed person but who the hell is perfect. He hasn't got a chance to put right some of things that were wrong in his life all because some pumped up baton wielding prick took exception to him. The entire atmosphere that was built up by the police was one of violence and confrontation and when it failed to materialise on the day they went looking for it themselves.

 just fucking


----------



## smokedout (Apr 9, 2009)

Smurker said:


> I can't believe what i have just heard, amongst other outrages.. there is NO CCTV footage of the areas involved.
> 
> 
> I would laugh if this wasn't so serious.



'innit - ive met hardwick a few times, back in my sketchy teenage days when i lived in a centrepoint hostel for a year (he was running centrepoint)

he always seemed a good bloke, took a genuine interest in the punters (me), always remembered my name and seemed better than most of the bigwigs in the homeless industry - he was well liked by centrepoint staff as well

had high(ish) hopes when i heard he'd gone to the ipcc, but they seem worse than ever and he just came across as a nice but dim stooge in that interview


----------



## Wilf (Apr 9, 2009)

Given the disappearing CCTV its really important that everybody checks through anything they may have shot on the day - at the right time and place or not.  I know most people will already have done that, but others might not have.  Who knows, there might be people who were travelling on from London and haven't yet got near a PC to download the stuff.  Might be worth getting a request out on to any networks we are part of.

With all the smears about him being drunk its important to get the timeline in place - from work through to the 2nd assault on him.  Alongside this there's a need for as much eye witness and photographic evidence along that journey - to see if he was walking normally - to see when he began to 'look drunk' [if he did do] - and whether that was after the first assault on him.  I agree that its irrelevant whether he was drunk or not - they shouldn't have attacked him anyway.  However, its going to feature heavily in the propaganda battle and potential court case.

Its also important that people who have footage feel confident to bring it forward.  They might not want to send it to the IPCC (I fucking wouldn't), but the family solicitors might be a better bet.  There was something on the Guardian site giving their contact details IIRC.

Given the incompetence (and bias) of the IPCC I'd guess there's also a need for an alternative investigation - which might just be done within the 'movement', but would be better if it was run by some kind of 'respected' legal figure.

E2a: realise the above is all pretty obvious and will have occurred to people who have participated in this thread.  What I meant was we should be pushing these points _beyond Urban_.


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 9, 2009)

brix said:


> I'm also furious at the way Ian Tomlinson is being smeared.  Even *if* he was drunk, so fucking what?  Since when was there a law against having a few drinks after work?  He was walking *away* from the police, hands in pockets, when he was assaulted.  There can be no justification *whatsoever* for what the police did.  None.


Damn straight.


----------



## cesare (Apr 9, 2009)

brix said:


> This was my impression too.
> 
> I'm also furious at the way Ian Tomlinson is being smeared.  Even *if* he was drunk, so fucking what?  Since when was there a law against having a few drinks after work?  He was walking *away* from the police, hands in pockets, when he was assaulted.  There can be no justification *whatsoever* for what the police did.  None.



Absolutely. I fucking hate this 'asking for it' implication.


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Unconfirmed story doing the roads of a TV news outfit is that the officer who pushed Tomlinson was also in the ruck at the climate camp.



Definitely a bad apple, then 

Neither of these actions (if unconfirmed story true) anything to do with the orders and briefings and windup they were given, then.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 10, 2009)

*NEW FOOTAGE*

Where the raining of bottles????

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


----------



## free spirit (Apr 10, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> *NEW FOOTAGE*
> 
> Where the raining of bottles????
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson


not really new footage if you check the thread, but yes, distinct absence of a rain of bottles.


----------



## pesh (Apr 10, 2009)

free spirit said:


> note that the timing's of these images have 99.9% certainly been taken from the time stamp on the camera, which probably hadn't been moved on an hour, which would put those images as taking place right around the time that he'd been attacked. Something that becomes more likely when you consider that his work mate on the newspaper stall has stated that Ian hadn't left the stall until 7pm - ie 50 minutes after those images are alleged to have been taken.



this x 100

has to be the case, hopefully it gets cleared up...
although i'd be amazed if the Mail and Sun hadn't had the same thought, it's hardly Colombo level detective work


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

My camera knows what time-zone it's in, and does Summer Time all by itself. And it's only little and cheap.


----------



## starfish (Apr 10, 2009)

Once again it doesnt look very good for the powers that be.

Do you ever feel like a mushroom?


----------



## pesh (Apr 10, 2009)

laptop said:


> My camera knows what time-zone it's in, and does Summer Time all by itself. And it's only little and cheap.


mine doesn't, i just checked, it's a Nikon D70 dSLR and it thinks it's 1.23am


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Blimey.

Most viewed on guardian.co.uk
_24 hours_
*1. G20 death: Met police officer breaks cover*
2. Stuart Jeffries: My week of living (very, very) cheaply
*3. Video: Ian Tomlinson death: New video footage from G20 protests gives fresh angle on attack*
4. Guus Hiddink: We knew exactly where we could hurt Benítez
*5. Video of police assault on Ian Tomlinson, who died at G20 protest 
*
Most talked about
_24 hours_
*1. Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died (75 technorati links)
2. Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died (55)*
3. Berlusconi upsets with 'camping' quip (32)
4. U2 manager Paul McGuinness on France's solution to online piracy (14)
*5. Police officer breaks cover over death of Ian Tomlinson (12)*


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

> Critics say recent decisions not to prosecute officers, including the De Menezes case where the CPS decided not to charge individual officers despite the fact that the inquest jury disbelieved key parts of the officers' accounts, suggest a prosecution in the latest instance is unlikely.
> 
> Figures obtained by the charity Inquest show that in cases where an inquest has delivered a verdict of unlawful killing, there have been only seven prosecutions of officers since 1990. "If you look at the record of cases where somebody's death has been caused by actions of the police, there have been hardly any prosecutions brought," Wistrich said. "The record is really, really poor.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/ian-tomlinson-g20-police-assault-footage



I think it is actually quite likely that there will be a prosecution in this instance. The problem is, there should be more than one, and it should involve officers far more senior than those on the scene. Chances are, he'll be made an example of and they'll hope most of us are stupid and complacent enough to go with the "bad apple" theory.


The Inquest figures are here.

15 deaths
10 inquest verdicts of unlawful killing
7 trials following such a verdict (2) or without an inquest (5)
22 officers prosecuted
16 acquitted (12) or had charges dropped (4)
6 collapsed trials 
0 acquittals


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)




----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


>



When political cartoons are this good, who needs pages of articles?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

> Hardwick said of the assault:
> 
> "We don't have CCTV footage of the incident... there is no CCTV footage, there were no cameras in the location where he was assaulted."
> 
> Speaking to More 4 News, the IPCC confirmed Hardwick's comment, saying that the CCTV cameras overlooking the incident were not working.



These fuckers have some nerve eh?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/ipcc+cctv+wasnt+working/3078297


----------



## xes (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> These fuckers have some nerve eh?
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/ipcc+cctv+wasnt+working/3078297


Yeah but it was announced just days before the protest that some of the cameras were something like 8 pixels out, so they were just going to have to turn them off. That was no coincidence.


----------



## Callie (Apr 10, 2009)

The cops like filming too don't they? I wonder if any of them were filming in the area? One assumes not.


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2009)

xes said:


> Yeah but it was announced just days before the protest that some of the cameras were something like 8 pixels out, so they were just going to have to turn them off. That was no coincidence.



Wasn't that just Westminster though?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2009)

This will be very important  given the statements by photo-journalists that events began much further along the passageway and before the footage.



> A second postmortem on Tomlinson's body was conducted by Dr Nathaniel Carey, one the UK's most respected forensic pathologists, yesterday. He is understood to have been instructed to consider injuries Tomlinson may have suffered before his heart attack - identified as the cause of death by the first postmortem.
> 
> Carey was advised to inspect whether Tomlinson had been bitten by a police dog, or had bruising to his legs or upper body consistent with being hit with a baton. He also assessed whether there were neurological injuries that may have stemmed from an injury to Tomlinson's head. The second postmortem was jointly ordered by Tomlinson's family and the IPCC.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 10, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> The posts on here would make a lynch mob blush.



Nothing to do with "lynch mobs", this is about someone standing around with his hands in his pockets being thrown across the pavement with such force it took him off his feet.
It's there on film for all to see. How can anyone dispute that?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


>



Where this picture coming from?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 10, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.



My husband has done it in the past, quite a few times and he said he would never have pushed someone over in that way. You can DEFEND yourself and use baton charging to do so but he's never knocked anyone off their feet like that.


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> This will be very important  given the statements by photo-journalists that events began much further along the passageway and before the footage.


From the same article: 





> Harriet Wistrich, who represents the family of Jean Charles De Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead by police who misidentified him as a suicide bomber, said last night that the Guardian's video appeared to show strong evidence that a crime had been committed. "In these circumstances, I can't reason why the officer involved could not be arrested and questioned under caution at this time."
> 
> Her comments were backed by Brian Paddick, the former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner, who said: "If that had been a member of the public caught on video doing that, they would have immediately been arrested.
> "The police are in danger of being accused of double standards by not suspending and arresting the officer. There is a danger of undermining public confidence in the police by not taking decisive action."


----------



## ska invita (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Hardwick said of the assault:
> 
> "We don't have CCTV footage of the incident... there is no CCTV footage, there were no cameras in the location where he was assaulted."
> 
> ...



This is an interesting if not predictable development. As I said earlier, the US police & secret services to this date have managed to supress all CCTV footage of the Petagon explosion of 9/11, so this is small fry in comparison.

There is NO WAY there isnt CCTV footage available. The square mile is the most CCTV'd up place in the world, plus there would have been endless extra cameras in place by the forces themselves. The problem is once MI5 and the Met want to clsoe the door on this, who is to stop them?

The one hope is that a private CCTV camera owned by a shop keeper can be brought to light. In the 9/11 Pentagon case this was stopped by CIA moving in immediately (same day according to civilians) and confiscating this material. I doubt this has been done immediately by the MI5, so some small chance remains... though by now they would have been sure to act.

...this stinks...



ymu said:


> I think it is actually quite likely that there will be a prosecution in this instance. The problem is, there should be more than one, and it should involve officers far more senior than those on the scene. Chances are, he'll be made an example of and they'll hope most of us are stupid and complacent enough to go with the "bad apple" theory.
> 
> 
> The Inquest figures are here.
> ...


Thanks for posting these, been looking for something like this for a long time but the figures you give are misleading - from what i see from the link no prosecution ever goes through and all cases are let off with acquitalls, so no one was every sucessfully prosecuted. not one.

As to your comment that "I think it is actually quite likely that there will be a prosecution in this instance", I think you couldnt be more wrong - I think there is no chance of prosecution (to make they guy a scapegoat or otherwise) - to prosecute one policeman for a push and hit from behind would open the door for thousands of other cases and the high court judge just isnt going to allow that to happen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> A push, maybe, the strike on the back of the legs, may be something the policeman will have to defend in court.( other European police must be baffled by such a big issue of a blow to the back of the legs by a policeman, when many other European police forces would have clubbed him the first time he did not move)


Perhaps you've not been paying attention, but police forces in mainland Europe have pretty much the same training as British police, in that their training is to do with tackling people who're facing you (it's called "imminent threat"). You get *no* training on batoning someone from behind in a crowd control situation.
Oh, and your vomment about European coppers twatting people the first time they refused to move is also bullshit. They have to show "reasonable cause", even the hooligans of the CRS.


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps you've not been paying attention, but police forces in mainland Europe have pretty much the same training as British police, in that their training is to do with tackling people who're facing you (it's called "imminent threat"). You get *no* training on batoning someone from behind in a crowd control situation.
> Oh, and your vomment about European coppers twatting people the first time they refused to move is also bullshit. They have to show "reasonable cause", even the hooligans of the CRS.



I'd like to think that "vomment" was a deliberate shortening of 'vomit inducing comment' but sadly it's more likely a result of the c and v being next to each other on the keyboard. Nonetheless, I think we should adopt it for the future


----------



## Callie (Apr 10, 2009)

Does anyone actually know if the Freedom of Information Act covers shop CCTV footage?

I think this aspect would be highly time dependant (probably too late already) if it is an option!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> Other European policemen have reputations for being just as (if not more) violent and thuggish as our own.  This is not a good thing.  Just look at the riot police in places like Spain and Italy.
> 
> Other European _citizens_ mights empathise slightly more.



The big difference between the police in the UK and forces in mainland Europe is that many of those states do hold their police more to account (generally because of strict civilian oversight).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2009)

laptop said:


> Then there's the sidebar to the above-linked Mail story:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweepstake on how long before someone's arrested for photographing an officer committing a crime? I give it a month - if it hasn't happened already.



What interests me is the logical divide between "eliciting, publishing or communicating information about a police officer" and the actual act of taking a picture of a police officer, which neither elicits, publishes or communicates any information unless and until you put the image out in the world.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 10, 2009)

pesh said:


> mine doesn't, i just checked, it's a Nikon D70 dSLR and it thinks it's 1.23am



My Nikon D90 didn't change either. I think most cameras would have to be changed manually and quite a few people would take a few days/weeks to realise their clock needed changing. In fact there was a thread about it in the photography forum and someone said that they were going to change it in case they needed pics as evidence...


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Callie said:


> Does anyone actually know if the Freedom of Information Act covers shop CCTV footage?
> 
> I think this aspect would be highly time dependant (probably too late already) if it is an option!


Don't know, but you're right - this is an important angle. Faulty CCTV is part of the Met's cover-up MO. I'm sure the solicitors are onto it - JCdM's family lawyer is involved and she won't miss that trick. She's got the ear of the press at the moment too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2009)

pesh said:


> mine doesn't, i just checked, it's a Nikon D70 dSLR and it thinks it's 1.23am



My Canon EOS slr keeps flashing up "ffs set the date and time you lazy cunt".


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Where this picture coming from?


Sorry. It's Steve Bell's latest, in the Guardian.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2009)

cesare said:


> I'd like to think that "vomment" was a deliberate shortening of 'vomit inducing comment' but sadly it's more likely a result of the c and v being next to each other on the keyboard. Nonetheless, I think we should adopt it for the future


Doh! 

But you're right. "Vomment" is a very good neologism/contraction for "vomit inducing comment"!


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doh!
> 
> But you're right. "Vomment" is a very good neologism/contraction for "vomit inducing comment"!



_Twas Good Friday 2009 when vomment and vommentary first passed into popular parlance ..._


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

On the timing thing, the Sun are still running the '6.09' story (along with all the shit about him being drunk).  Interestingly though - *IF* they are 1 hour out - they might themeselves have captured the first attack.

Go to the Slideshow and see images 2 and 3.  These are supposed to be taken after Ian Tomlinson was in the way of the van.  Speculative on my part, but image 3 looks like it _could _have been the start of the attack referred to by other witnesses.

Interesting also that there don't seem to be any credits on the photographs (unless they are buried somewhere on the page).  Would be handy to know who took these and whether other unprinted images showed what happened next.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 10, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> On the timing thing, the Sun are still running the '6.09' story (along with all the shit about him being drunk).  Interestingly though - *IF* they are 1 hour out - they might themeselves have captured the first attack.
> 
> Go to the Slideshow and see images 2 and 3.  These are supposed to be taken after Ian Tomlinson was in the way of the van.  Speculative on my part, but image 3 looks like it _could _have been the start of the attack referred to by other witnesses.
> 
> ...



The article says the pictures were taken by "IT worker Ross Hardy".


----------



## xes (Apr 10, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> The article says the pictures were taken by "IT worker Ross Hardy".



I think they may have left an F off the begining


----------



## Callie (Apr 10, 2009)

I love they they are saying things like 'drunken' - how do they know? what are they basing that statement on exactly? and how they say 'mr tomlinson sits up and asked what happened' same thing? its like fucking story time, they have no idea what he said or if he said anything.

not that it really matters either way


----------



## xes (Apr 10, 2009)

One of the eyewitnesses that I was speaking to on another froum said that he spoke to Ian just after the first assault, and he said that he could smell alchohol on his breath. Ian apparently also told him that he'd only had a couple. In reguards to being hit bu the police, Ian allegedly said "I'm a millwall fan, I'm used to it"  This is of course, word of mouth stuff, so who knows for sure. But it's not that far off from thinking that he had a quick drink on his way home.


----------



## winjer (Apr 10, 2009)

ska invita said:


> to prosecute one policeman for a push and hit from behind would open the door for thousands of other cases and the high court judge just isnt going to allow that to happen.


High Court judges don't often get to decide who gets prosecuted in the first instance, it's that turncoat Starmer's job.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> The article says the pictures were taken by "IT worker Ross Hardy".



Ooops!   My basic point still stands though.

I'd kind of assumed that Ross Hardy must have been watching events from an office window (its unlikely that he was a demonstrator).  However, if he took the pictures, that implies he was stood outside.  Also, given that he says:

"The van moved past but Tomlinson stuck around for at least another half an hour." 

.. that implies he himself stood there for 'at least half an hour'.  Not impossible, but slightly odd behaviour.  Okay, he might have come out of work and done a bit of rubbernecking, but did he really remain at the same place, for over half an hour?  Much more likely - if he (Hardy) did hang around for so long - that he'd have wandered around the area... putting in doubt his claim to have observed Ian Tomlinson for that length of time.

Be interesting to see if that Guardian get to find/interview him. The Sun will probably have him all sown up by now.


----------



## winjer (Apr 10, 2009)

Callie said:


> Does anyone actually know if the Freedom of Information Act covers shop CCTV footage?


No it doesn't, but Data Protection Act does, anyone on Cornhill/Royal Exchange Buildings at the time could make applications to the relevant CCTV controllers.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 10, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Well your question is little of the thread's subject. But no, I would not beat anyone, but I would defend myself, and have done. The protesters were annoyed because the OB would not let them at the Bank of England, they charged the police lines, and were pushed back. A policeman is allowed to use his baton when he feels himself, or his fellow officers are under threat. This was the case, when it appeared at one stage the police lines would be overran. A policeman is taught to strike on the shoulders(painful), but they can hit the head if they think it is justified.
> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.
> 
> Back to the subject, like I said before the policeman's defence team, if it comes to court, will use the footage/photo, and other clips, of him being drunk, and obstructing the police. People on here can't use a video to prove the policeman's guilt, then complain when another is used in his defence. No agenda, lets have the truth, not mob justice.



rubbish 

facts 

- the protesters were AT the BoE .. there was a party there .. the protesters could do nothing to the building .. oh sorry maybe a bit of graffiti .. the decision was simple from the police to attack and wind up demonstrators NOT to stop any disorder of which there was minimal (two buildings attacked, TWO, in the whole City!) 

- this incident was 7 hours after rthe BoE 'trouble' .. most people were pissed off as they could not go home! 

- this PC is clearly NOT defending himself 

- so the police lines were overun .. so what? were any PCs surrounded and beaten? no .. there was NO attack on the police this day .. 

- what injuries DID the police receive? absolutely minimal as afaik .. no bricks, no glass bottles, no metal bars, no petrol bombs were used .. what minimal violence there was from protesters involved throwing plastic bottles and fag packets and using their bare hands 

- and since when has obstruction been to legitimise assault? .. IF the copper thinks it is obstruction then he can arrest the man .. simple

it is clear as always that policing this day was not to contorl 'disorder' but to hype violence and so intimidate protest .. and this time they have it seems killed a man


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

ffs according to the Daily Fail:


> The officer who has been suspended is said to have collapsed at home after discovering he was at the centre of the row.
> He came forward on Wednesday and could face a manslaughter charge, but has not yet been interviewed by the IPCC.
> A Met source said: 'He genuinely didn't know it was him until he saw the video. His wife came home to find him unconscious on the floor, having had some sort of panic attack.
> 'He was admitted to hospital and has been released but is not yet in a fit state to be interviewed.


source

oldest trick in the book innit...


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ffs according to the Daily Fail:
> 
> source
> 
> oldest trick in the book innit...



To be pedantic, can you be unconscious AND having a panic attack?


----------



## maomao (Apr 10, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> To be pedantic, can you be unconscious AND having a panic attack?


It says 'having had'.
Fucking cowardly little shitrag. (not you obviously Paul  )


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> It says 'having had'.



Oh yeah. It would help if I could read.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ffs according to the Daily Fail:
> 
> source
> 
> oldest trick in the book innit...



Isn't the next step conversion to some sort of fundamentalist xtianity, or does that only work in the US?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Isn't the next step conversion to some sort of fundamentalist xtianity, or does that only work in the US?



...either that, or promotion.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

Independents Dave Brown...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ffs according to the Daily Fail:
> 
> source
> 
> oldest trick in the book innit...



To be fair though I think I would be absolutely bricking it if I could possibly be facing a manslaughter charge for doing something my superiors told me to do in the first place.

No i'm obviously not condoning what he did but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Of course he's bricking it. He killed someone, and the cover-up isn't going well.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 10, 2009)

Just been having a quick look through Dave Brown's cartoons, they're fucking quality


----------



## winjer (Apr 10, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Try standing in a line with a baying mob in front of you mate, it's scary.


The baying mob, 7:11pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcudbyphotography/3409874577/in/datetaken/

Rioting, 7:12pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcudbyphotography/3409873469/in/datetaken/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcudbyphotography/3409883905/in/datetaken/

Hate-filled, 7:18pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcudbyphotography/3410691864/in/datetaken/

Ian Tomlinson, 7:19pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcudbyphotography/3425898059/in/datetaken/

(NB: timestamp on these photos appears to be an hour out, see clock visible in first shot)


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 10, 2009)

This is a good article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...p-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 10, 2009)

> A second postmortem on Tomlinson's body was conducted by Dr Nathaniel Carey, one the UK's most respected forensic pathologists, yesterday. *He is understood to have been instructed to consider injuries Tomlinson may have suffered before his heart attack *- identified as the cause of death by the first postmortem.



why wouldn't have such injuries been considered in the first PM??? surely the coroner who carried out the first PM should have been looking for any injuries that might be present on the body, not just concentrating on the heart attack?? it almost sounds like the first PM was carried out to confirm the police's view of the cause of death, not to actually establish all the factors that may have led to his death?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 10, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> This is a good article:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...p-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html



yep, tis a good one. but hypocritical given some of their earlier reports!


----------



## maomao (Apr 10, 2009)

Stobart Stopper said:


> This is a good article:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...p-denigration-Ian-Tomlinson-ordinary-man.html



Ignores a lot of issues surrounding protests generally but doesn't fall into bad appleisms . Yes, really quite reasonable for the mail.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> why wouldn't have such injuries been considered in the first PM??? surely the coroner who carried out the first PM should have been looking for any injuries that might be present on the body, not just concentrating on the heart attack?? it almost sounds like the first PM was carried out to confirm the police's view of the cause of death, not to actually establish all the factors that may have led to his death?


Because the police had already announced it was natural causes and the Home Office pathologist was told to confirm their version of events. He wasn't looking for injuries, and would have ignored them if he found them.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


> Because the police had already announced it was natural causes and the Home Office pathologist was told to confirm their version of events. He wasn't looking for injuries, and would have ignored them if he found them.



That's fucking shit though isn't it?

Aren't pathologists supposed to be independent of the plod?


----------



## maomao (Apr 10, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> That's fucking shit though isn't it?
> 
> Aren't pathologists supposed to be independent of the plod?



Did you see the quote from one of the witnesses about a policeman's 'it would take a brave coroner' remark? It's believing that they're beyond reproach that leads to this sort of behaviour in the first place.

ETA: Shouldn't have said 'remark', that would have been an ideal place to use the new word 'vomment'.


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> why wouldn't have such injuries been considered in the first PM??? surely the coroner who carried out the first PM should have been looking for any injuries that might be present on the body, not just concentrating on the heart attack??



They might have been - we know nothing of the first PM except that small portion of it which was released, which consisted essentially of one sentence pointing to the claimed cause of death.  It will be interesting to see what the second PM reveals, and how it compares to the first.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> ETA: Shouldn't have said 'remark', that would have been an ideal place to use the new word 'vomment'.



i like that new word


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

agricola said:


> They might have been - we know nothing of the first PM except that small portion of it which was released, which consisted essentially of one sentence pointing to the claimed cause of death.  It will be interesting to see what the second PM reveals, and how it compares to the first.



... though, according to this source:

http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=3575

the first PM not only didn't find evidence of cuts and bruises, it actively denied their existence (when they can plainly be seen in various photos of the 2nd assault) -

"The IPCC has ordered a second post-mortem test as part of its inquiry. The first, carried out on Friday, recorded that Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack and that there were no signs of cuts or bruises to his head or shoulders."


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 10, 2009)

agricola said:


> They might have been - we know nothing of the first PM except that small portion of it which was released, which consisted essentially of one sentence pointing to the claimed cause of death.  It will be interesting to see what the second PM reveals, and how it compares to the first.


And don't you find it quite insidious and pointed that the first PM results are being kept secret? After all, we always hear that if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't worry about being open with regards to id cards for example?


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> ... though, according to this source:
> 
> http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=3575
> 
> ...



Thats true, though one would question the likelyhood of esnews picking that bit about a lack of cuts and bruises up, and the Guardian (nor anyone else, it seems) not doing so.  




			
				Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> And don't you find it quite insidious and pointed that the first PM results are being kept secret? After all, we always hear that if you've done nothing wrong then you shouldn't worry about being open with regards to id cards for example?



Not really, no - its a criminal investigation, after all.  That said, one would hope that if the two PMs are consistent then that is mentioned, and if they arent then that then forms part of the IPCC enquiry.


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

agricola said:


> Thats true, though one would question the likelyhood of esnews picking that bit about a lack of cuts and bruises up, and the Guardian (nor anyone else, it seems) not doing so.



Hmm. Who or what are ESnews? Appears to be a couple of biannual freesheets and advertising-supported website.

So that makes it less likely that it was inside/canteen gossip, and more likely that their reporter was making stuff up on a stands-to-reason basis. I half expected to find
"*<!-- CHECK THIS -->*" ​in the copy.


E2A: But as agricola implies, it would be normal for full results of a PM to be revealed only at inquest, or in the course of a criminal trial proceeding while the inquest was adjourned.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

Realistically what kind of time scales are we looking at here..
I am more than aware of the tactics that maybe employed to drag the process out for as long as possible in order to diminish public outcry..
But there must be some kind of restrictions in place, particularly with the charging of the person responsible etc...

What will be important in the coming days/weeks/months is to keep the pressure on and to make the links that this isnt an isolated and accidental case..


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

laptop said:


> Hmm. Who or what are ESnews? Appears to be a couple of biannual freesheets and advertising-supported website.
> 
> So that makes it less likely that it was inside/canteen gossip, and more likely that their reporter was making stuff up on a stands-to-reason basis. I half expected to find
> "*<!-- CHECK THIS -->*" ​in the copy.
> ...



esnews is a red herring. I had it in my head that someone had said he had no cuts and bruises - I googled and that was the first one that came up with the phrase.  The same form of words was used in a number of media - inc. the Timesonline:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062489.ece


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> esnews is a red herring. I had it in my head that someone had said he had no cuts and bruises - I googled and that was the first one that came up with the phrase.  The same form of words was used in a number of media - inc. the Timesonline:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062489.ece



Ah, right. 

Suspect #1 is police briefing, then.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Thanks for that 4thwrite. I was trying to remember the form of words to get a successful google on it.

The Home Office pathologist is firmly in the frame then. The IPCC moved very quickly indeed to order a second post mortem - hopefully that means they've made the connection. If, of course, the lie is contained in the post mortem report itself, rather than a bit of inventiveness from the Met when the results were released.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 10, 2009)

Look at this latest bollocks from the Met - you don’t know whether to laugh or cry!!

‘The officer who has been suspended is said to have collapsed at home after discovering he was at the centre of the row.

He came forward on Wednesday and could face a manslaughter charge, but has not yet been interviewed by the IPCC.

A Met source said: ‘He genuinely didn’t know it was him until he saw the video. His wife came home to find him unconscious on the floor, having had some sort of panic attack.

‘He was admitted to hospital  and is unfit to be interviewed’


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

laptop said:


> Ah, right.
> 
> Suspect #1 is police briefing, then.



My guess too.  I imagine it was a leak made around the time that they were still claiming there had been no 'police contact', 'police came under a hail of missiles when trying to save his life' etc.  A further guess is that it was a leak made before the leaker was aware of the pictures and video showing actual damage to his head [all speculation, I admit].  Be interesting to see what the actual wording of the first PM was and whether there was any reference to such things.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 10, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Look at this latest bollocks from the Met - you don’t know whether to laugh or cry!!
> 
> ‘The officer who has been suspended is said to have collapsed at home after discovering he was at the centre of the row.
> 
> ...



rofl


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

'Ang on:




			
				Times said:
			
		

> *The IPCC told journalists* at the start of the week that Mr Tomlinson did not have any bruising or scratches on his head or shoulders, but did not mention whether he had any other signs of injury.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6068850.ece



On reflection... still likely that the IPCC was passing on a message from the Met. 

Fools.

Fools trying to prevent an outbreak of public anger, I would guess... but ending up stoking a slow-burn anger...


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Oh yes. They're still busy digging their own graves, bless them.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


> Thanks for that 4thwrite. I was trying to remember the form of words to get a successful google on it.
> 
> *The Home Office pathologist is firmly in the frame then*. The IPCC moved very quickly indeed to order a second post mortem - hopefully that means they've made the connection. If, of course, the lie is contained in the post mortem report itself, *rather than a bit of inventiveness from the Met when the results were released*.




Yes, back in post 1134 I was suggesting the former, but you are right, it could easily be the latter.  Either way, it looks like evidence of a cover up or at the very least extreme news management, showing absolute contempt for the victim's family.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Realistically what kind of time scales are we looking at here..
> I am more than aware of the tactics that maybe employed to drag the process out for as long as possible in order to diminish public outcry..
> But there must be some kind of restrictions in place, particularly with the charging of the person responsible etc...
> 
> What will be important in the coming days/weeks/months is to keep the pressure on and to make the links that this isnt an isolated and accidental case..



oops part of my question answered on t'other thread...


> *Originally Posted by Times (via Laptop) *
> 
> Metropolitan police chiefs ordered to justify tactics at G20 protests
> 
> ...



*btw:* Folks theres a fair bit of reposting of info in this thread, natch given its length its understandable... but it would be helpful if peeps could refamiliarise themselves from when they left the thread so we dont end up going in circles..
Just a suggestion!


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Look at this latest bollocks from the Met - you don’t know whether to laugh or cry!



That appears to have been from the _Hate Mail_ - quoted on a couple of blogs including Ian Bone's - but is no longer in the story that google found earlier today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...apsed-G20-protests-died-heart-attack-age.html


----------



## dylans (Apr 10, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Look at this latest bollocks from the Met - you don’t know whether to laugh or cry!!
> 
> ‘The officer who has been suspended is said to have collapsed at home after discovering he was at the centre of the row.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't it be ironic if he had a heart attack and died.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *btw:* Folks theres a fair bit of reposting of info in this thread, natch given its length its understandable... but it would be helpful if peeps could refamiliarise themselves from when they left the thread so we dont end up going in circles..
> Just a suggestion!


You mean, like you just posting the exact same quote as I did a few posts back? 

Some of the older reports are gaining new relevance - it's the nature of cover-ups. It doesn't matter if there's a bit of accidental repetition on the way.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

dylans said:


> Wouldn't it be ironic if he had a heart attack and died.



Only if you're Alanis Morrisette.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2009)

Anyone else have a flashback to the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest; "the coroner has ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing . . . "


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


> You mean, like you just posting the exact same quote as I did a few posts back?



This is an outrageous slur on an honest man for which I offer my heartfelt apologies. I got confused because I had just posted it on the other G20 thread in amongst a lot of laptop posts. This is, however, no excuse for not checking my facts before releasing them to the general public and I apologise again for any implied smear that might impugn the character of the pseudonymous one.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

With the huge amount of info here and elsewhere is there a definitive timeline with photos videos, witness quotes etc?

Would it be useful to do a blog or something? Thoughts anyone?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


> This is an outrageous slur on an honest man for which I offer my heartfelt apologies. I got confused because I had just posted it on the other G20 thread in amongst a lot of laptop posts. This is, however, no excuse for not checking my facts before releasing them to the general public and I apologise again for any implied smear that might impugn the character of the pseudonymous one.


lol

pity you didnt work wit the met..


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> With the huge amount of info here and elsewhere is there a definitive timeline with photos videos, witness quotes etc?
> 
> Would it be useful to do a blog or something? Thoughts anyone?



theres been a few suggesting something similar..
I dont mind giving a hand if someone wants to get the ball rolling n PM me.. I cant get to tomoros demo and it would be good to be doing something

Maybe the locked thread could be reopened so peeps could add updated info also somehow?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

This is an interactive step-by-step guide to his last movements from leaving work onwards. It has links to eye-witness reports, pictures and video appearing along the way - click the symbol on the map to view the media associated.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> With the huge amount of info here and elsewhere is there a definitive timeline with photos videos, witness quotes etc?
> 
> Would it be useful to do a blog or something? Thoughts anyone?



I was (sort of) getting at that back in 1289* (with apols to AKA ).  You'd imagine the family's solicitors will be doing something like that eventually, but in the meantime there is a need for a central information point/timeline - not just for the published details and accounts, but also to encourage people who might have other information, sightings, clips etc.

* _Post _1289 that is, not the 13th Century.  This _has _been a long thread though.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> theres been a few suggesting something similar..
> I dont mind giving a hand if someone wants to get the ball rolling n PM me.. I cant get to tomoros demo and it would be good to be doing something
> 
> Maybe the locked thread could be reopened so peeps could add updated info also somehow?



I'm looking at these terror attacks, reading stuff on here that is not widely known elsewhere and wondering whether the media is going to pull all this together and not leave information out of the equation....

I'll set one up if others thinking its a worthwhile idea want to help with info gathering etc..


----------



## laptop (Apr 10, 2009)

winjer said:


> It gets worse:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only just caught up with that article. 

My impression is that it was very thoroughly negotiated with the paper's lawyers. It's the way things are phrased.

I suspect the first draft read roughly: "Fuck's sake, the IPCC is actively managing the news on the police's behalf. Here's how..."


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> I'm looking at these terror attacks, reading stuff on here that is not widely known elsewhere and wondering whether the media is going to pull all this together and not leave information out of the equation....
> 
> I'll set one up if others thinking its a worthwhile idea want to help with info gathering etc..



sounds good to me.. dont give it a wanky name I hope.. something simple.. 'Justice for Ian' or something?

maybe peeps who want to get involved leave a quick message n we take it to PMs so as not to derail this great thread?
im wondering also if we should start a thread in the community forum to get the basic organising done, who's willing to give a hand etc? ( any mods about?)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

I have set up a blog using blogger. I have removed it from listings in order to make sure it is not visited before information is known to be as accurate as it can be before being made fully public.

Now, without being overly paranoid - anyone suggest how we go about letting people edit this in a group format without letting certain 'unwanted' types in?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> sounds good to me.. dont give it a wanky name I hope.. something simple.. 'Justice for Ian' or something?


I think it should avoid focusing on Ian, whilst acknowledging that his death was the catalyst. It's not about one "bad apple".


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2009)

Nice work.

You might want to put a link in to the family solicitors:
http://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 10, 2009)

cheers ^^

I have created another thread to avoid clogging this one up.

Im happy to give the blog details to other people, preferably ones that i and/or others know are trustworthy.

I'm not going to be about all night and ive no intention of doing the bulk of work on my own, if it fails, we fail as a group!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

ymu said:


> I think it should avoid focusing on Ian, whilst acknowledging that his death was the catalyst. It's not about one "bad apple".



agreed..
I'm presuming you is gonna be part of the 'blog' so hows about peeps interested PM Barking Mad (if thats ok?) n get a crew together..

It would be very useful if we can gather a referral point thru the 'blog' for info etc..


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2009)

Defo. 

I'm going to work on this first though.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 10, 2009)

another video.

possible shortly after the attack in the guardian video?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 10, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> I have set up a blog using blogger. I have removed it from listings in order to make sure it is not visited before information is known to be as accurate as it can be before being made fully public.
> 
> Now, without being overly paranoid - anyone suggest how we go about letting people edit this in a group format without letting certain 'unwanted' types in?



nice one, was about to offer to help, but just realised I'm away now til monday, then away again from wednesday... so may not actually be that much help.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 10, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> another video.
> 
> possible shortly after the attack in the guardian video?




Don't see that that video clip was pointing too...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 10, 2009)

*G20 death: Police gave Ian Tomlinson a 'good beating', says his father *
The father of Ian Tomlinson, the man who died during the G20 protests in London, has accused the police of giving his soon "a good beating" and demanded an explanation for their actions. 


> "I need to know why the police felt the need to set upon Ian like this," he said. "He was never a troublemaker. That's why I wonder why the police felt they needed to be so forceful. All I can do now is grieve and hope that I get some answers."



Telegraph

The dead man's stepson, Paul King, 26, a security guard, said: 


> "As the footage shows, it's clear Ian was not a threat, there was no need for such a violent attack on him, especially as he had his back to them.
> 
> "He was just walking home to watch the football. He was just minding his own business. We want this officer identified and punished the way any normal person would be. We just want justice for Ian.
> 
> ...



Telegraph


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 10, 2009)

I hope that his large family get truth and justice from this.  I also hope that they get the representation that they deserve, i read that the legal team from the JCDM case are on board, hopefully their skills and relevant experience will be of use.


----------



## winjer (Apr 11, 2009)

Oh my:

_Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct

The initial post mortem examination of the man who died at the G20 protests after being attacked by a police officer, which found he had died of a heart attack, was conducted by a forensic pathologist once reprimanded about his professional conduct by the General Medical Council.

... In a separate case in January 2002, Dr Patel found that Sally White, 38, died of a natural causes resulting from heart disease. Her body was found locked in a bedroom in the Camden flat of Anthony Hardy, a 52-year-old psychiatrically-disturbed alcoholic.

White's death was treated as suspicious until Dr Patel detailed the cause of her death as a heart attack. Hardy went on to kill two women, Elizabeth Valad, 29, and Brigette MacClennan, 34, and place their body parts in bin bags. 

... *An IPCC spokesperson said: "Again, we are not willing to give a running commentary of an ongoing criminal investigation as we wish to maintain the integrity of the investigation."*_

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 11, 2009)

winjer said:


> Oh my:
> 
> _Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct
> 
> ...





As i have been told throughout this last 9 days, i should wait.  However most of my deepest concerns appear to become reality.


----------



## FunkyPhil (Apr 11, 2009)

What about the official footage

I was not at this demo but have been at many before including the RTS ones of a few years ago; there has always been Police brutality; just that no-one has died until now. However, in recent years the OB have had teams of trained cameramen and photographers recording everything, especially to identify "troublemakers" and "gather evidence". I wonder whether the IPC will scrutinise this footage (which I'm sure would be very revealing) as well as any cctv footage there may be before it is erased or kept back; fat chance of that happening I bet.

I fear another whitewash coming on here.


----------



## winjer (Apr 11, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Don't see that that video clip was pointing too...


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 11, 2009)

Originally Posted by Times (via Laptop) said:
			
		

> Metropolitan police chiefs ordered to justify tactics at G20 protests
> 
> ...
> Senior Scotland Yard officers who led Operation Glencoe, designed to prevent disorder in the capital during the summit, have been summoned to explain their tactics to members of the force’s watchdog body, The Times has learnt.
> ...



Ok. I think we need to be clear here. The 'warnings of violence' were Mr. Broadhurst predicting the METs violent confrontational attitude, not that of the demonstrators. 

The actual bodily harm (violence) towards the demonstrators from the Police, using asps, round-shields and which drew blood in some instances, escalated the probability of retaliation from the demonstrators, but the overwhelming majority bore the violence that the Police meted out and the biggest mass-retaliative action from the demonstrators was verbal - chastising the Police for their violence and chanting 'Shame on You'. 

No wonder that violent copper collapsed. Shame on him. And the others too, who pushed, shoved and drew blood that day. Could it be possible that he had behaved violently/hit so many protestors that day that they all began to look the same to him?


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 11, 2009)

winjer said:


> _Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.
> 
> Speaking through tears, Mr Smith told the newspaper: "Ian was always there with me, from the minute I started work until the end of the day. He had a drink problem but that day he was completely sober and was looking forward to starting work again the next day._
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece



that day means during work, not after.

i watched an interview on sky where a friend of his said they'd had a few drinks 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...edOnBodyOfIanTomlinson&amp;lpos=searchresults

Along with a female friend they went to help. The woman, a third-year medical student, said: "It was almost as if he was clowning around.

"He smelt of alcohol and seemed happy, not distressed, but as we were talking he just stopped responding." She immediately started giving him first aid.


----------



## agricola (Apr 11, 2009)

winjer said:


> Oh my:
> 
> _Pathologist in Ian Tomlinson G20 death case was reprimanded over conduct
> 
> ...



Thats a somewhat odd article from the Guardian - Anthony Hardy was actually charged and pled guilty to the murder of Sally White (along with the other two girls), so one would have expected this comment:



> Last night, Dr Patel said: "As far as I know, my findings [in the Sally White case] stand as they were, and I wasn't criticised."



to have been questioned.  As for the IPCC, they are probably correct in the quote that has been emboldened.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 11, 2009)

winjer said:


>



Thanks


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 11, 2009)

This may not be relevant, but someone called Marina Pepper, who is a journalist and was one of the organisers of the G20 protests, has apparently been blocked from facebook. Her twitter site is here http://twitter.com/marinapepper/, and someone has also set up a facebook group for her, here http://www.facebook.com/reqs.php?nctrct=1239436523683#/group.php?gid=72241163483.

I have never heard of her, but others may have done, and it may have some relevance?


----------



## winjer (Apr 11, 2009)

agricola said:


> As for the IPCC, they are probably correct in the quote that has been emboldened.


I agree, but the reason I emphasised that was because of their obvious failure to maintain the integrity of the investigation from the beginning.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 11, 2009)

More whitewash news.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/britain/whitewash_at_the_g20


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 11, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> More whitewash news.
> 
> http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/britain/whitewash_at_the_g20



I wouldn't be too happy if I were his family...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 11, 2009)

interesting @ indymedia?

& http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Fuck's sake, the IPCC haven't even made it a fully independent investigation yet. And they let CoLP interview the thug who hit Tomlinson. They're not just a joke, they seem absolutely determined to make sure that we get the joke before they completely implode.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-ipcc



> The Independent Police Complaints Commission was until today proposing to look into Tomlinson's death at its second most serious level, a "managed" investigation, in which local police carry out the work, but "under the direction and control of the IPCC". The problem is that a 'managed' investigation does not have the same credibility of the most serious form of investigation, the 'independent' investigation, in which IPCC staff conduct the investigation themselves. The IPCC is now thinking about moving to the higher level. It should do so immediately.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 11, 2009)

Umm. Isn't that article dated the 8th April ?


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Doh! I hate the way the Guardian does that to me! I thought it was related to the news that they had allowed the CoLP to conduct the interview. I'm all confused now.


----------



## laptop (Apr 11, 2009)

ymu said:


> Fuck's sake, the IPCC haven't even made it a fully independent investigation yet.






			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> *Wednesday 8 April 2009 15.15 BST*






			
				Grauniad said:
			
		

> *Wednesday 8 April 2009 18.31 BST *
> 
> 
> Ian Tomlinson death: IPCC takes over inquiry from G20 protests police force
> ...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 11, 2009)

can anyone confirm:
24 Hour vigil for Ian Tomlinson starts 2pm today at Bank 

not starting a discussion, just thinking it should be posted as 'event' in announcements asap in case any peeps are near to drop down for a while?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 11, 2009)

I did read somewhere that they intend to to stay put until Sunday at Bank...


----------



## paolo (Apr 11, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I did read somewhere that they intend to to stay put until Sunday at Bank...



Roughly correct. The vigil is being held about 100m from Bank, where Ian died. 

The police seemed to be aware of the possible stay-over situation, as I overheard one of them reporting in "no sign of any pop up tents at the moment" at the start in Bethnal Green.

My guess - and it is just a guess - is that the police won't be doing any clearance/kettling type stuff tonight and will let it continue as long as things remain peaceful (which I think they will, given the nature of the day). There's no business tomorrow, no "business interest" type politics to prompt the type of bad decisions that led to all of this.

Worth popping along to sit for an hour or whatever, for anyone who's interested. I'll be going back in a bit.


----------



## paolo (Apr 11, 2009)

First few, a couple more to follow:







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3431988514_011be713f8_b.jpg







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3432066244_34f29f3c7a_b.jpg







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3629/3432088900_d65783a830_b.jpg


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2009)

Good pics paolo


----------



## paolo (Apr 11, 2009)

cesare said:


> Good pics paolo



Thanks. 

I did - a little - feel sorry for the two cops who had to do the lead. The one I shot looked a bit nervously overwhelmed. At a guess he's 20 years younger than me, and looked quite unequipped to deal with the sentiment of the day.

His partner for the duty, the big black guy, took a brief but very emotive bit of verbal at the flower laying spot. I didn't see how it started, but I felt it was harsh (the sentiment I totally understand, BTW). He looked exhasperated and walked off.

For me it's the senior guys, who decided 'strategy', are who need bawling out.  Today the senior officer was completely accessible. I did see one or two people go to have a reasonable chat. I wasn't close enough to hear the conversation. He was fairly expressionless.

Not blanking as such. He did appear to be listening, but not saying much in response.

Next time I'll go and speak up. It's harder - and so it should be - for the commanders etc to put everyone in the "trouble maker" box if we speak to them, explain why. [/Idealist  ]


----------



## paolo (Apr 11, 2009)

Last couple... (I should have been posting in the march thread, but now I've started  @self)


Michael Preston:






Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3431413273_264ac9c473_b.jpg


Surplus to requirements:






Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3432209110_d56163eaae_b.jpg







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3431323861_54982b73c6_b.jpg







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3325/3432287130_110e67fd6e_b.jpg


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Last couple... (I should have been posting in the march thread, but now I've started  @self)
> 
> 
> Michael Preston:
> ...



Just seen the rest at your flicker can you put them onto indymedia? and i note a large police presance, more intimidation?

Thanks for the images, thanks for people being there, but wtf are the SWP up to?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 11, 2009)

Great Pics P999




e19896 said:


> Just seen the rest at your flicker can you put them onto indymedia? and i note a large police presance, more intimidation?
> 
> Thanks for the images, thanks for people being there, but wtf are the SWP up to?



i was just thinkin the same.. I hope there wont be a shitstorm over it here..

but WTF thats the first swp presence/placards i have seen yet... and I have been doing some looking..

wankers

*sorry for disrail*


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Great Pics P999
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No it aint a disrail, while people was geting there heads kicked in they was marching from a to fucking nowhere as normall, with little or no police presance, once done of they all trot like good sheep to there homes, from what i understand not one of them was at the bank of england, or climate camp, now a man is murderd by the police and shit there presance is there, been be there i would have asked them to take there placrards and fuck off, how fucking disrespectful can they be turning up with placards, at a wake for Ian who was killed by the police fucking wankers..


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

*Pathologist in Police’s Pocket! r the Met guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice*

The pathologist who gave the initial ‘heart attack’ findings in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson has a history of professional misconduct. Dr Freddy Patel was once condemned by the General Medical Council for releasing information about a man who had died in police custody. Roger Sylvester, a 30-year-old black man died under suspicious circumstances whilst in police custody and Dr Patel released medical evidence that suggested Mr Sylvester was a crack addict - a suggestion that was later refuted in court.

Dr Patel was also involved in an incident where the police asked him to record a ‘death by natural causes’ verdict for a woman found dead in a flat even when the evidence was, at best, inconclusive. The man who lived at the flat where the woman’s body was found went on to kill two other people.

Dr Patel’s competence as a pathologist has also come into question in less sinister, but equally as tragic, cases. Which may be why the Met and the Home Office favour him - shit sticks and all that.

Ian Tomlinson’s case should have been referred to  the Forensic Pathology Services, not Dr Patel. The Met knows this and we now know why the Met were covering their tracks.

The original post mortem was released suspiciously early because it was completely bogus. The Met have used a pathologist that is in their pocket to cover up another death. This time their victim was not hidden away in a cell, he was walking down a public street surrounded by cameras.

Their guilt - in both the death of Ian Tomlinson and their attempts to cover up a murder - is plain for all to see.

Perverting the Course of Justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 11, 2009)

enumbers, when you post up something like that, can you give the source pls? it seems very much like C&P, as the spelling/grammar/punctuation is not consistent with the rest of your posts.

ty


----------



## maomao (Apr 11, 2009)

If you're going to cut and paste could we have a source please?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> enumbers, when you post up something like that, can you give the source pls? it seems very much like C&P, as the spelling/grammar/punctuation is not consistent with the rest of your posts.
> 
> ty



Because it has been checked as it was important! source my blog
http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/ writen by underclassrising and as people are well aware i have been linking where info has come from..


----------



## TheDave (Apr 11, 2009)

It's from this Guardian article, or rather the story is anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson


----------



## paolo (Apr 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Just seen the rest at your flicker can you put them onto indymedia? and i note a large police presance, more intimidation?
> 
> Thanks for the images, thanks for people being there, but wtf are the SWP up to?



I think a few groups were there in questionable taste, but it's nit picking and the majority were there in good faith.

No, the police attitude wasn't - for me at least - at all intimidating. There were plenty, but they were respectful.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I think a few groups were there in questionable taste, but it's nit picking and the majority were there in good faith.
> 
> No, the police attitude wasn't - for me at least - at all intimidating. There were plenty, but they were respectful.



Fucking respectful? would have been taking of there uniform and refusing to beat kick and imprison people due to fact they was protesting, from what your images say to me are a load of riot vans, police whereing riot gear under there high vis, this scum murdered Ian and they have the crass audacity to be on such an event, with such a fucking presence?


----------



## laptop (Apr 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Because it has been checked as it was important! source my blog
> http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/ writen by underclassrising and as people are well aware i have been linking where info has come from..



This is why sourcing is important.

It's just your blog. You write:



> the police *asked* him to record a ‘death by natural causes’



Can you source that?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 11, 2009)

laptop said:


> This is why sourcing is important.
> 
> It's just your blog. You write:
> 
> ...



Yes underclassrising and i trust them..


----------



## laptop (Apr 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Yes underclassrising and i trust them..



We don't yet know how important it is whether the cops asked him, or he made a stupid and/or incompetent mistake, or he just wanted to go home, or...

But you can see how it could be.

And all we have is someone called "underclassrising" and their writeup that definitely smells of them reading the Guardian report that he did make that report (easily checked) and thinking "stands to reason that the agents of the state would have asked..." (not easily checked).


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 11, 2009)

Interesting reading as well http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/11/police-surveillance-marina-hyde


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 11, 2009)

cesare said:


> Good pics paolo


i thought you were dismissing this earlier on. be nice to see some consistency tbh. rip ian tomlinson.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i thought you were dismissing this earlier on. be nice to see some consistency tbh. rip ian tomlinson.


Ah, c'mon. That's a bit harsh. The tone of the G20 Meltdown publicity was cringe-making, and that's where her comments came from. It's not like she doesn't give a shit.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 11, 2009)

ymu said:


> Ah, c'mon. That's a bit harsh. The tone of the G20 Meltdown publicity was cringe-making, and that's where her comments came from. It's not like she doesn't give a shit.


i wasn't asking you, i was asking her. tbf. my comments stand for now. you can't pick and choose this stuff imo. you need to know what side people stand.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Yes underclassrising and i trust them..



that's you though isn't it?


----------



## winjer (Apr 11, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> No, the police attitude wasn't - for me at least - at all intimidating. There were plenty, but they were respectful.


The attitude was overall pretty sound, better than the SWP's, the FIT team was entirely unnecessary though.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Avaaz petition



> Petition to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson:
> We are shocked by the policing of the G20 demonstrations in London. We call on you to hold those responsible to account and to change the policies which led to this failure: to end the use of batons on peaceful protesters and the pressure-cooker tactic of “kettling”, to make the policing of protests more responsive and accountable, and to reverse wider policies and laws which constrain and marginalise peaceful protest in the UK.



They have millions of members who all got the e-mail. 10,392 signed up so far, and I only got the e-mail a few minutes ago.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 11, 2009)

Yea, i read the e-mail earlier, didn't know who they were so didn't resond, it's legit yea?   If so i'll go back to it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeah, they're legit. Thread here.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 12, 2009)

The crude opportunism of the swp is both pathetic and predictable.  Whilst it pisses me of though, I can't get too annoyed about it - there's bigger fish to fry at the moment, the people who killed Ian Tomlinson.

However, if the trots start playing their games in any future support groups that will be another matter.

More importantly, we should all find ways of working with the family and at their pace, whilst also being able to express our rage over this and all the other victims of the police - on that day and beyond.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2009)

The sort of stuff ISM did - beyond vigils and demonstrations - was things like help setting up a website, making good press contacts, media work, that sort of stuff. If anyone wanted to donate time/skills, Tucker's would probably pass the offer on to the family.


----------



## paolo (Apr 12, 2009)

Last few pics:







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3432289547_b95625316b_b.jpg







Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3432309195_3ef9a01e4f_b.jpg


*Staying the night.* Although I caught him here looking quite 'serious', he seemed a thoroughly amiable and genuine guy. If I wake up at a sensible time, I'll go back again and see how it's going.






Large: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3416/3432331537_4109c21c3e_b.jpg


----------



## paolo (Apr 12, 2009)

winjer said:


> the FIT team was entirely unnecessary though.



Where were they? I was mainly at the front, shooting, but I didn't see them - (hmm, maybe once?)

Unnecessary though as you say. Not the occasion. People were fine, the police were fine.

No need for FIT - there were *very* few smashy mob type people.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 12, 2009)

The officer at the centre of investigation is now officially on 'sick leave'.. natch this will further delay the enquiries..



> Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said last night: ‘He has been certified sick. A senior officer travelled to where he is and suspended him in person. He was due to go away anyway. I suppose he’d booked a holiday for Easter.’





> The officer under investigation also appears to have removed his epaulettes with their identifying number.
> 
> Police sources said TSG officers have been known to exchange identifying badges with colleagues before an expected clash with demonstrators.
> 
> ...



source

one law for them and....


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2009)

Poor thing. If only he had a union.


----------



## winjer (Apr 12, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Where were they? I was mainly at the front, shooting, but I didn't see them - (hmm, maybe once?)


Two pairs of alongside the march, in ordinary uniforms, another pair in one of the vans following, with photographer (Neal Williams) who sensibly never got out of the van.



> there were *very* few smashy mob type people.


----------



## paolo (Apr 12, 2009)

winjer said:


> Two pairs of alongside the march, in ordinary uniforms, another pair in one of the vans following, with photographer (Neal Williams) who sensibly never got out of the van.



You'll need to explain the rolleyes. I'm not affiliated to anything/anyone and haven't ever been on a march until the Saturday G20.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 12, 2009)

I was looking at the videos, thinking 'why exactly did they attack this poor guy?'

Looking at the cop boards is revealing: 'You don't know the whole story, you can't judge us, he might have given cheek', 'He wasn't being cooperative, he was walking slowly in defiance of police orders' 

He basically died because he wasn't sufficiently submissive as far as I can tell. Which is a sad situation ...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 12, 2009)

The one time I was ever hit by a policeman (Mansfield, 1984, miners' strike) it was when I was walking away from the cops but insufficiently swiftly for their liking.


----------



## paolo (Apr 12, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I was looking at the videos, thinking 'why exactly did they attack this poor guy?'
> 
> Looking at the cop boards is revealing: 'You don't know the whole story, you can't judge us, he might have given cheek', 'He wasn't being cooperative, he was walking slowly in defiance of police orders'
> 
> He basically died because he wasn't sufficiently submissive as far as I can tell. Which is a sad situation ...



There are a couple of posters on that forum - sadly a minority - that are arguing sense, and unlike the rest, are doing with eloquence and maturity. Consensual policing. Without that, it's lose-lose, it really is.


----------



## paolo (Apr 12, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> The one time I was ever hit by a policeman (Mansfield, 1984, miners' strike) it was when I was walking away from the cops but insufficiently swiftly for their liking.



A time when "normal" people wouldn't have believed you.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> This is why sourcing is important.
> 
> It's just your blog. You write:
> 
> ...


It's cribbed from this Guardian article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson


----------



## sus (Apr 12, 2009)

"A source with detailed knowledge of the IPCC investigation expressed surprise that the initial post mortem was referred to Dr Patel rather than the Forensic Pathology Services, a body of nine independent forensic pathologists, including Dr Cary, which usually deals with suspicious deaths in London and the home counties."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson


It'd be interesting to know who has carried out pathology in other cases where deaths have occured during/after interaction with police. Whether it's been done by an individual pathologist such as Dr Patel, or if the body of nine mentioned above has been instucted. The police are clearly capable of lying, either by ommision or commision and having other dissembling authorities such as pathologists on the books would indicate systemic corruption.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> We don't yet know how important it is whether the cops asked him, or he made a stupid and/or incompetent mistake, or he just wanted to go home, or...
> 
> But you can see how it could be.
> 
> And all we have is someone called "underclassrising" and their writeup that definitely smells of them reading the Guardian report that he did make that report (easily checked) and thinking "stands to reason that the agents of the state would have asked..." (not easily checked).



A man is killed by The Police some find this rather fucking out of order (is me being polite) so we read the f-ing Guardian do a write up of that and then we are what? Fuck did you not see the photos from the 11th, now i would be asking what the fuck the SWP and just why so much Police..

Unfortunately these bastards have been getting away with it for so long that they’ve become almost blatant in their contempt for the law. Justice for Ian would also mean justice for the hundreds (if not thoousands) of others who have suffered at the hands of the police over the years (including our good friends, Den, who had to have half of his bowel removed after being beaten by Met officers during the mining strike and T, who has two perfectly circular scars on the back of his head where police pulled out his dreads during a riot in Chapeltown, Leeds - T had been sitting in his own front room, when police burst in and dragged him out).but never let the death of a Man stop people and there bullshit, wellcome to how The Police traet the working class.

On Wed ill be attending The 20th Year memorial service for the 96 KILLED at The Hillsborough Disaster and here The Trots made there moves and was told fuck off, it has to be the same again and any Police presance at events to remember Ian is is just showing there contempt nothing more:


----------



## sus (Apr 12, 2009)

"2001 documentary about deaths in police custody, of which at the time there had been 1,000 in the previous 30 years, without a single conviction."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/11/police-surveillance-marina-hyde

So who did the pathology in these cases. A lot to trawl through, but it'd definitely be good to see if there is any pattern there.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 12, 2009)

sus said:


> "2001 documentary about deaths in police custody, of which at the time there had been 1,000 in the previous 30 years, without a single conviction."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/11/police-surveillance-marina-hyde
> 
> So who did the pathology in these cases. A lot to trawl through, but it'd definitely be good to see if there is any pattern there.



I don't think a single pathologist could do all 30 years worth so I don't think there any pattern to add or subtracted...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 12, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> The officer at the centre of investigation is now officially on 'sick leave'.. natch this will further delay the enquiries..
> 
> 
> source
> ...




So he booked a holiday but on "sick leave" then the cops came and told him that he suspended Hmmm and now he's uncontactable...

This wouldn't happen at my work place that's for sure...


----------



## sus (Apr 12, 2009)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I don't think a single pathologist could do all 30 years worth so I don't think there any pattern to add or subtracted...



I'm not suggesting that one could. I'd like to know the veracity of the pathologists the police use in cases where they might be at fault. It'd be interesting to know whether the most contentious cases are dealt with by the same pathologists or if it is random depending on availability etc. It seems widely considered that the accountability of the police has lessened over the past 30 years. Lets have the data.


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

The "No CCTV" footage line has to be pursued hard surely.  Prima Facie bollocks.  Has anyone managed to go recce the site, check with local building security etc yet?


----------



## winjer (Apr 12, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> You'll need to explain the rolleyes. I'm not affiliated to anything/anyone and haven't ever been on a march until the Saturday G20.


In that case I'm _even more_ surprised you expect to be able to recognise "smashy mob type people", whatever they might be, let alone count them.


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

*3 year wait for verdict*

Almost makes me feel we can't just sit back and trust in 'the process'.


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

winjer said:


> In that case I'm rather surprised you expect to be able to recognise "smashy mob type people", whatever they might be, let alone count them.



tbf, unless people know why folks 'go ninja', the media's spin that anyone masked and hooded is a violent troublemaker looks plausible.  This is Through The Looking Glass time for a lot of people, so a little naivity is to be expected no?


----------



## maomao (Apr 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> *3 year wait for verdict*
> 
> Almost makes me feel we can't just sit back and trust in 'the process'.



I read that too, very depressing. But that's for an inquest verdict, how does that relate to the possible criminal proceedings for manslaughter and the other cases being threatened by injured protestors?


----------



## winjer (Apr 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> tbf, unless people know why folks 'go ninja', the media's spin that anyone masked and hooded is a violent troublemaker looks plausible.  This is Through The Looking Glass time for a lot of people, so a little naivity is to be expected no?


You're right, I'm too used to the p/d/a forum being inhabited by politicos.


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

maomao said:


> I read that too, very depressing. But that's for an inquest verdict, how does that relate to the possible criminal proceedings for manslaughter and the other cases being threatened by injured protestors?



For the manslaughter bit; I'd assume that proceedings could not brought until cause of death was established.  That would mean 3 years suspended on full pay for one very naughty little piggy.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 12, 2009)

Im presuming the family will have to examine a civil case against the Police to get any real satisfaction. Just by googling I notice quite a few law firms in London specialise in this field..

Kinda says it all that to get any justice you have to fight for it, not expect it..
I am sure and hope that the family are recieving the best legal advice. It is up to all of us, who care in any way to support them and highlight the Bullshit that is going on... 

Ive a real feeling they arent gonna get away with this travesty if we keep the pressure on...



> The team has a strong track record of advising those involved in and arrested in demonstrations such as anti-globalisation, anti-war or pro-green issues.


Fisher Meredith

Home Office Doc: COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE
FRAMEWORK FOR A NEW SYSTEM (pdf 11 pages)


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's cribbed from this Guardian article:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson



You missed the posts where I pointed out that there's at least one possibly-important thing that enumbers likely made up:




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> police dropped a criminal investigation after the pathologist gave it as his opinion that the victim, a woman, had died of natural causes. A man who lived in the flat where the body was found went on to murder two other women and mutilate their bodies.






			
				e19896 said:
			
		

> Dr Patel was also involved in an incident where *the police asked him to record* a ‘death by natural causes’ verdict



E2A: Which is, of course, the basis for enumbers's headline. Which is sourced how?

Just. Give. Sources. For stuff that appears to be reporting.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 12, 2009)

sorry not sure if posted before but police refusing to let ambulance thru


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> You missed the posts where I pointed out that there's at least one possibly-important thing that enumbers likely made up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





e19896 said:


> A man is killed by The Police some find this rather fucking out of order (is me being polite) so we read the f-ing Guardian do a write up of that and then we are what? Fuck did you not see the photos from the 11th, now i would be asking what the fuck the SWP and just why so much Police..
> 
> Unfortunately these bastards have been getting away with it for so long that they’ve become almost blatant in their contempt for the law. Justice for Ian would also mean justice for the hundreds (if not thoousands) of others who have suffered at the hands of the police over the years (including our good friends, Den, who had to have half of his bowel removed after being beaten by Met officers during the mining strike and T, who has two perfectly circular scars on the back of his head where police pulled out his dreads during a riot in Chapeltown, Leeds - T had been sitting in his own front room, when police burst in and dragged him out).but never let the death of a Man stop people and there bullshit, wellcome to how The Police traet the working class.
> 
> On Wed ill be attending The 20th Year memorial service for the 96 KILLED at The Hillsborough Disaster and here The Trots made there moves and was told fuck off, it has to be the same again and any Police presance at events to remember Ian is is just showing there contempt nothing more:



as said befor:


----------



## pogofish (Apr 12, 2009)

This letter appeared in my local paper:



> Death of London newspaper vendor
> 
> SIR, – The sudden death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who innocently got caught up in the illegal G20 protest, is regrettable and my sympathies go out to his family. However, to immediately blame the policeman who pushed and then hit him with a baton is not casting the net of blame far enough.
> 
> ...



http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1165273/


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 12, 2009)

That letter is classic. 

Surely the Romans are to blame for choosing the original site of London so  as to make it inevitable that anybody walking its narrow streets would at some point run into a police officer wielding a baton.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> as said befor:



Eh?

In what sense does a list of things you say the police have done to friends of yours serve to back up your claim that they did something else entirely?

Criticise the cops, hold them to account - for things they *have* done. That you can *show* they have done.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> That letter is classic.
> 
> Surely the Romans are to blame for choosing the original site of London so  as to make it inevitable that anybody walking its narrow streets would at some point run into a police officer wielding a baton.



And people ask: "what have the Romans ever done for us?"


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> Eh?
> 
> In what sense does a list of things you say the police have done to friends of yours serve to back up your claim that they did something else entirely?
> 
> Criticise the cops, hold them to account - for things they *have* done. That you can *show* they have done.



Christ you do not get this, Ian is one of many The Police have either killed brutalised and kicked in, that is the point, nither is it have done but fact, this is what one is doing ie to criticise the cops, hold them to account for the murder of Ian, just look at what is comeing forword here, 3 fucking years, this is another whitewash, but hay never mind just more workingclass cannon fodder so what the fuck dose it matter, i can slag e numbers of, more fucking bullshit instead of looking at the facts.. Do you not smell it? becuase i do and this murder, as with every other police murder, brutalisation, kicking in the working class get, the order just simply closes rank adds a little whitewash and we go home happy as justice is seemed to be done.. Well not me ill never rest..


----------



## maomao (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> more fucking bullshit instead of looking at the facts..



But you're presenting conjecture as facts. While the sentence Laptop quoted may well be what many of us suspect it's certainly not a fact. And none of us have any way of proving it so you should concentrate on what you can prove.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> looking at the facts.



That's precisely what I'm trying to do.

There's no need to make shit up - the facts, even just the facts we have so far, are damning enough of the cops.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

maomao said:


> But you're presenting conjecture as facts. While the sentence Laptop quoted may well be what many of us suspect it's certainly not a fact. And none of us have any way of proving it so you should concentrate on what you can prove.



it can be proven *THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK* IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by *THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS*, i know what how crass of me not to trust *THIS MURDERING SCUM*?


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> it can be proven *THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK* IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by *THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS*, i know what how crass of me not to trust *THIS MURDERING SCUM*?


If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like *MURDERING SCUM* in bold.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> That's precisely what I'm trying to do.
> 
> There's no need to make shit up - the facts, even just the facts we have so far, are damning enough of the cops.



96 KILLED at The Hillsborough Disaster is what made up? The Strike of 1984 and what happend there made up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/history/miners_strike/


----------



## maomao (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> it can be proven *THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK* IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by *THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS*, i know what how crass of me not to trust *THIS MURDERING SCUM*?



Mate, if you're going to act like a hysterical idiot could you not be on the same side as me please?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

editor said:


> If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like *MURDERING SCUM* in bold.



But come on you know this is what they are, you as much as me have seen them in action, yes i agree in context, it was more anger as some of the crass comments..


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

editor said:


> If you want to know a good way to alienate ordinary folks and put them off from listening to your arguments, you can't do much better than hitting the caps lock key with gusto and repeatedly posting up wild hyperbole like *MURDERING SCUM* in bold.


Yeah, but in mitigation - from the little I've seen of enumbers' posts it generally comes across as arising out of a genuine passion, imo.

.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> it can be proven *THE POLICE MURDER BRUTALISE KICK* IN the working class, how the fuck is this conjecture? so it be conjecture that we say Ian was killed by the police becuase as it stands we do not hold all the facts, only what we are told by *THE MURDERING SCUM OF THE POLICE THEMSELEVS*, i know what how crass of me not to trust *THIS MURDERING SCUM*?



Your line of non-argument is the same as the line of non-argument that right-wing (including right-wing working-class) people use to *excuse* the killing of Ian Tomlinson. 

The demonstrators were breaking the law and so they were criminals and we can *PROVE* that criminals do bad shit and he was around criminals so HE HAD IT COMING TO HIM.​
See?

Stick to *particular* evil things that we *know* they did. There's plenty of them.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 12, 2009)

enumbers - Making stuff up alienates those who are willing to listen and are undecided. Making stuff up when you don't need to alienates everyone.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> Your line of non-argument is the same as the line of non-argument that right-wing (including right-wing working-class) people use to *excuse* the killing of Ian Tomlinson.
> 
> The demonstrators were breaking the law and so they were criminals and we can *PROVE* that criminals do bad shit and he was around criminals so HE HAD IT COMING TO HIM.​
> See?
> ...



FUCK OFF stick to things we know, so now your saying that one is right wing? christ fuck me sideways, one is sticking to things we know The Police have done, you took it down this path, then i defend myself from your attack and then you move it along another path, christ next you will be telling me hug a coper because dear loves can be forgiven for killing, brutalisation and just kicking people in then allright bringing back to the subject here is what a friend has writen on The G20 Protest..



> Afterwards, my friends and I met up with an acquaintance who happened to be a banker. That’s right: a banker (hey, they’re human beings too, people, come on!) I won’t name him, as I’d hate to endanger him by raising the ire of certain people - namely, his colleagues, as opposed to us protesters, who, after all, were enjoying a pint in the pub with him! Bankers have feelings, too, and in these tough times, I’m waiting for Tory leader David Cameron to abandon his “hug a hoodie” strategy and go back to his original ways of embracing bankers.
> 
> Our banker himself told us that he’d passed by the “Climate Camp” on his way to meet us and that the vibe was a peaceful one full of songs and dances and cakes - so peaceful, in fact, that he wanted to go back! So, after finishing our drinks, we accompanied him, failing to fulfill our role as freedom-hating terrorists thirsting for the blood of bankers. One of my friends had a suitcase with her, with the intention of joining the camp herself.
> 
> ...



A film about the violent policing of peaceful protest at the G20 Climate Camp in London's financial District. Roughly four thousand people, intending to camp in Bishopsgate, outside the European Climate ... 

Sticking to things we know, next time ill hug a Police Man and must remeber to say hay no hassels, over the fact you killed a non protester, hay man you was only doing your job erm i think not..


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> enumbers - Making stuff up alienates those who are willing to listen and are undecided. Making stuff up when you don't need to alienates everyone.



This is made up?


----------



## maomao (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> This is made up?



No, you've missed the point by a country mile. Go back and read the posts criticising your article slowly.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> FUCK OFF stick to things we know, so now your saying that one is right wing?



No, I am not saying that what you said is right-wing.

I am saying that in defending your error you used *the same non-argument* as right-wingers use.

You assumed guilt by association. Which is what those who want to excuse the killing of Ian Tomlinson do.

Fuck's sake, I was trying to *help* you make a decent case.

All you have to do, to make a decent case, is comment on your own blog: "Er, this bit was my guess."

Instead:



e19896 said:


> Sticking to things we know, next time ill hug a Police Man and must remeber to say hay no hassels, over the fact you killed a non protester, hay man you was only doing your job erm i think not..



You've argued yourself into a corner in which concern for the truth is the same as hugging a policeman.

As maomao said, can you please not be on my side? (Until you learn a bit, anyway.)


----------



## maomao (Apr 12, 2009)

Quite frankly the stuff about Sunny Patel is stinky enough that just printing what _is definitely_ known about him is a lot more effective than printing potentially libelous and self-defeating conjecture. Can you understand that?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> No, I am not saying that what you said is right-wing.
> 
> I am saying that in defending your error you used *the same non-argument* as right-wingers use.
> 
> ...



 christ i go on and on, about The Police and there actions on the day of The G20 Protest, no you was not helping me make decent case, the evidance is there, guilt by association again not one Police person took of there uniform, not one Police Person come forword and spoke out, instead they all whent along with the bullshit and lies being fed over the death of Ian, not one of them has come forword about the brtalisation of those involved with The G20 protest, no for me this is guilt by association, they have chosen to put on the uniform, and as i have said, if you was there in a uniform what would you do?

*Take of The Uniform?

Keep on The Uniform?*

Me idd take it off, as i would not desire to be in guilt by association, each Police Person knew and acted how they with full knowledge of there actions, each coper that has not come forword is as guilty as the next one.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

Yes I do understand this, but I also understand guilt by association, and how copers act to defend each other, there is enough to prove this, from my own direct encounters with The Police, they have beaten me, I took it all the way to court it took 3 years in a private prosecution, and I did win, it was not about the winning, but proving the fact The Police are political, a force to the biding of there pay masters, and this was very much self evident with the G20, it was to stop and demonise legal protest, The Death of Ian has if anything proven the fact we are very much in a POLICE STATE and you watch there will be a whitewash, people will lose intrest and move on, this must not be.

People have now seen the full force of THE POLICE,it doesn't matter how violent the police get, if we are working for a better world we must not stoop to their depths. Violence just breeds more violence. Have another look at the film Gandhi- that is how we should behave in these circumstances- but it will be costly and requires training. Protesters need to be more disciplined than the police. The ...  Read Morepolice want protesters to be violent- that is what kettling is all about. It gives them the excuse to be violent too. We should be defiant,engage in nvda, but never violent, this is very much my feeling befor The G20 Protest, haveing been and seen how they act over 25 years, but what did it gain us?

I admire those sticking to this, fuck i would have not sat there and been beaten, but i do respect those who did, fuck i do respect them it has proven how The Police act and it very much guilt by association..


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

That puts guilt by association into context.  I know you've posted similar before, but it helps to see it again here I think.

But, Laptop quoted:



> the police asked him to record a ‘death by natural causes’



Isn't this speculation?  As such, could it not throw the credibility of other claims in doubt?  I think that's the major objection; that statements like these are counter-productive if not backed up by evidence.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> That puts guilt by association into context.  I know you've posted similar before, but it helps to see it again here I think.
> 
> But, Laptop quoted: Isn't this speculation?  As such, could it not throw the credibility of other claims in doubt?  I think that's the major objection; that statements like these are counter-productive if not backed up by evidence.



Is there any doubt that Steve Discombe witnessed Ian Tomlinsons attack?

It is obviously important that we are all pro-active in bringing those coppers who witnessed the brutal attack of Ian Tomlinson to justice whether they want to step forward or not.







After seeing the post from the Bristle Blog ( http://snipurl.com/fqqj1) which calls for any witnesses to come forward and ID coppers from Photos and video stills captured by activists and mainstream media and extensive coverage from Fitwatch we can confirm that Steve Discombe was definitely present during the attack.

If anyone has any photos which havent been released yet of officers that were present during the attacked please make sure you send them to:

defycops(at)yahoo.co.uk warn(at)riseup.net http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/

We will publish any evidence that can out these coppers and further help justice on its way to the truth!

Netcu Watch- e-mail: warn at riseup dot net- Homepage: http://netcu.wordpress.com



> It is regrettable that it falls to us to attempt to identify these officers. A truly accountable police force would have expected these officers both to publicly identify themselves, and to give an open and honest account of their actions.http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/



*Unfit for purpose*

Much ink's been spilt on the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson. Some of the most pressing questions haven't yet been posed by the mainstream media, let alone answered. The footage aired on C4 News on 8 April clearly shows the officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson subsequently approach a member of the FIT, several of whom are shown in the film. The FIT, a number of whom are public order tactical advisers, are among the most highly trained public order officers in the Met. Questions about Mr Tomlinson's fate must, therefore, involve questions about the FIT.

The FIT are ostensibly there to establish a rapport with demonstrators. Their remit frequently involves assisting senior officers in the handling of public order situations. They provide intelligence briefings which influence the policing of demonstrations. They are meant to identify potential troublemakers. By implication, this means they are also in a position to identify people who pose no risk, and - presumably - to leave them alone. These are the official reasons for the maintenance of the Met's Forward Intelligence Teams.

But none of the FIT shown on videos on the Guardian website or C4 News seem to think there's anything wrong with the vicious assault on Mr Tomlinson. None of them remonstrate with the TSG officer who struck and pushed Mr Tomlinson. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the FIT present colluded in a conspiracy of silence during the week it took the officer who attacked Mr Tomlinson to work up the guts to approach the IPCC.

None of the FIT present seem to have been able to work out that a middle-aged man with his hands in his pockets, a man walking away from the police, was no threat. If a specialist team tasked with identifying troublemakers - according to the police themselves - cannot determine that Mr Tomlinson is not a troublemaker, then they are in trouble. What is the point in a team supposed to tell the difference between 'good' and 'bad' protesters when they so clearly can't?

http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/much-inks-been-spilt-on-tragic-death-of.html

*A lot of cut and past but people must understand there all as guilty as the next one.*


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> *people must understand there all as guilty as the next one.*



*One* way of summing up the *point* of holding the police (force) to account is to  force the police (individuals) to behave like human beings - er, individuals. With responsibility for their own, particular actions.

Contrariwise, guilt by association leads to this argument:


enumbers is critical of the police
enumbers makes shit up
laptop is critical of the police
therefore laptop makes shit up too 
and we can ignore what he says too

No thanks, mate.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 12, 2009)

Alegedly 4 cops have come forward as 'witnesses', nevertheless there were a heap more cops who would have witnessed the events...


> If the police officers who witnessed the assault on Ian Tomlinson will not come forward voluntarily, then we ourselves must drag them into the public arena



There are some great picures and links here


----------



## Wilf (Apr 12, 2009)

Vaguely following on from the last few posts: there's a need to be quite forensic when it comes to getting evidence together on Ian Tomlinson's death - and there's also a need to to express more general outrage and to put it in context.  It would be best if these could be kept apart, for practical purposes, but its inevitable they are going to overlap.  Given that, I like the idea of Barkingmad's attempt to start putting together the facts, times and witness observations in a separate place(though, to be honest, a thread on Urban probably isn't the ideal place to do that - perhaps a blog or something similar [as was suggested] has the right layout and tools).  The family solicitors will also be doing that soon, you would guess, but there's no reason the 2 processes can't go on in parallel.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> *One* way of summing up the *point* of holding the police (force) to account is to  force the police (individuals) to behave like human beings - er, individuals. With responsibility for their own, particular actions.
> 
> Contrariwise, guilt by association leads to this argument:
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tate-turned-a-blind-eye-on-Ian-Tomlinson.html

Now please do tell where you feel I have made stuff up? you asked for to source my info and one time I did not you make all this fuss, now I have done as you did ask you still come out with much the same bullshit, glad to here you are critical of the police, but I never said you make stuff up, but you did of me for a simple mistake, you can ignore what I say if you desire, sometimes the truth is not an easy thing for any of us to take, but from the point of you asking to now I have backed it up, all right you disagree, but even you must feel it is all a little fucked up, how the police are not coming foreword, how they are simply gone mute, fuck me that must be made up?

don't go shooting video footage of G20 policemen if they apparently push over a non-violent non-protester. 

(or anything else that incriminates the filth) Couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Now please do tell where you feel I have made stuff up?



You have already been asked, nicely, to go back and read what I actually wrote. Please. Do.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> You have already been asked, nicely, to go back and read what I actually wrote. Please. Do.



I have done, come on put up or shut up it is as simple as this, 25 years of being active, been involved would inform me enough of how The Police have and do act, it comes from what ive have seen been told about the death of Ian, from what direct interaction ive had with the police, a note i have been in prison, been in and out of court, to know and understand how all of this works, therefor one is happy with what i have writen and said about The Police.

There actions regards The Death of Ian are nothing i have not seen befor, FIT are The NEW SPG The Special Patrol Group (SPG) was a unit of London's Metropolitan Police Service, it was formed in 1965, to provide a centrally-based mobile squad for combatting serious public disorder and crime, along with other incidents that could not be dealt with by local divisions. During the years active, the SPG received many complaints of alleged police brutality, mostly on the Clement Blair Peach SPG was replaced by The Territorial Support Group, in 1986. 

There is nothing new here, just the same old whitewash same old lies, same old guilt by association, ive seen it all befor and will no doubt see it again, what marks The G20 Protest as upfront is the utter complicity and level of Police Brutality, this is something new for myself, see them attack with such utter violence, it is therefore more than just The Death of Ian, and what ive said has been based on facts and direct experience of The Police and the violence of capitalism itself, sadly something I can speak about having been at it,s end and the one also giving it.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> I have done



If you can and have read, then you will understand precisely what you made up in your blog.

Keywords in case you need to read once more: asked him.


I didn't mean this to be an *n*-page row - just to ask all posters to cite the sources for their apparently-factual allegations. Since, as others have already reminded us, this thread is about " Getting to *the truth* the death of Ian Tomlinson RIP" (emphasis added).


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

laptop said:


> If you can and have read, then you will understand precisely what you made up in your blog.
> 
> Keywords in case you need to read once more: asked him.
> 
> ...



*There is nothing made up in the blog of underclassrising it comes from as said direct experance of the police, and you are the one derailing the subject and to be frank it stinks, ive made my point and ill do my own bit by underclassrising for justice, and for Ian as i can not to be frank put up with the stink of your bullshit, and people saying ive lost the plot etc.. Well done laptop, ill just stand at the side and read your bullshit:*


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

enumbers: Did the police ask the pathologist to record a death by natural causes?  Please either provide evidence or remove/retract this, for the sake of broader credibility.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> enumbers: Did the police ask the pathologist to record a death by natural causes?  Please either provide evidence or remove/retract this, for the sake of broader credibility.



"What we think or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end of little consequence. The only thing of consequence is what we do"

John Ruskin 1819 1900​
Yes they did without any doubt, he was asked and did as he was told, of course this is just the thoughts of underclassrising, there is nothing direct to prove this, now wtf could laptop just have asked more direct as you have done? who are they working for i have to wonder any back to post:


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2009)

I agree that's most probably the truth, imo.  People have a problem with posting evidentially unsubstantiated claims as fact though, for reasons including my previous; it casts inaccurate and unnecessary doubt upon stuff that _is_ substantiated.


----------



## winjer (Apr 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2009/04/427354.jpg



That's not him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 12, 2009)

this is going well then? recieved a pm today from someone laying out the defence for the cops already. which is slightly strange  maybe we could resume the more objective discussion, and desist from the slightly subjective hyperbole perchance?


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2009)

There's definitely a lot of police out trolling the newspaper comments. They're so far removed from reality it's frightening.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 12, 2009)

the hackney gazette's take on this was slightly surreal all told. am contemplating a letter to the editor. which is nice.


----------



## peacepete (Apr 13, 2009)

I'm just about to launch into the mammoth task of reading this thread, but just thought I'd add my own evidence (very limited)

basically on the 2nd I was walking from Bank to the convergence space having heard it was being evicted - old news by the time i got there! - and passed two guys walking in the other direction which looked like they were on our team - as in they were all in black and i vaguely recognised one of them.

they said they had come to the protest as medics and had been with Ian Tomlinson before he died. A lot of what they said to me is now pretty much well known, that there were a number of protestors/ordinary citizens who tended to him etc. they hadn't seen anything happen to him, but that he didn't appear to have any cuts to the head and that he was complaining of a painful ankle.

i found this interesting because it corroborated an account that had been circulating around the vigil at bank that he had been 'chased by police with dogs'. now of course the footage clarifies all this.

sorry this is a bit disjointed and would have been more useful as evidence before, but thought i should type it up belatedly.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i thought you were dismissing this earlier on. be nice to see some consistency tbh. rip ian tomlinson.



Dismissing what?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> I agree that's most probably the truth, imo.  People have a problem with posting evidentially unsubstantiated claims as fact though, for reasons including my previous; it casts inaccurate and unnecessary doubt upon stuff that _is_ substantiated.



what is substantiated is The Police and there actions killed Ian, i make a mistake at not sourceing info along comes a wanker, i respond (but with some good info if i might add) said wanker has moved on i need to say sorry to others for loseing it a little, but haveing seen been involved for some years regards The Police and there actions, said wanaker riled me a little, now comes the whitewash one of those involved direct ie seen hiting Ian is now of sick..


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2009)

e19896 said:


> wanker...wanker.....wanaker


Can you stop all these personal insults please and keep it on topic?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 13, 2009)

yeah,  can this thread please not turn into a bun fight?  It's not really needed is it?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> Dismissing what?


the relevance or necessity of people marching from bethnal green cop shop to threadneedle st on saturday.


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the relevance or necessity of people marching from bethnal green cop shop to threadneedle st on saturday.



No I didn't. Which post of mine are you referring to?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> No I didn't. Which post of mine are you referring to?


i can't remember and i haven't got the time, inclination or energy to go back and find out so lets all be happy that its easter monday and eat some eggs


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i can't remember and i haven't got the time, inclination or energy to go back and find out so lets all be happy that its easter monday and eat some eggs



There's only about 17 posts of mine on this thread, I've just gone back and checked each of them and I really can't see where you're coming from on this.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 13, 2009)

cesare said:


> There's only about 17 posts of mine on this thread, I've just gone back and checked each of them and I really can't see where you're coming from on this.


cos it was on another thread, that's why i can't be bothered to go back through them all. ymu clearly knows what i am referring to as he says you're making a different point. it was in the heat of the moment if you like. drop it ffs, i've had it with the spats


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 13, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the relevance or necessity of people marching from bethnal green cop shop to threadneedle st on saturday.



Let all sit at home and have a wank on internet porn there everyone better..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 13, 2009)

at bank today.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 13, 2009)

thumps up


----------



## paolo (Apr 13, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> at bank today.



It'll be interesting to see if it's still there tomorrow, when business opens.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 13, 2009)

I see Sean Rigg's name amongst the memorial:


> Commenting on this sudden loss, Samantha Rigg-David told BBC journalists, that her brother had mental health concerns but was otherwise healthy. Her family are keen to find answers to how a healthy man can lose his life so quickly after being taken into police custody.
> 
> ‘From the time of arrest to the time being brought into police custody he's collapsed and died. We've not been told why. All of us are shocked, numb, totally gutted. We are anxious, some of us are very angry. He has a mental illness but he was very fit,' Riggs sister said.



source


----------



## paolo (Apr 13, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I see Sean Rigg's name amongst the memorial:
> 
> 
> source



Two women were at the shrine on Saturday night - I think they were his sisters.

They seemed like very genuine people, and were distraught recalling their ongoing experience.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 14, 2009)

I did think the lie that there was no cctv footage was difficult to believe!



> The police watchdog has said its chairman was wrong to say there was no CCTV footage of an alleged police assault at the G20 protests.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 14, 2009)

has nayone called for the heads of the IPCC to resign yet? .. they have bullshitted over and over .. and been caught out!


----------



## Corax (Apr 14, 2009)

mr steev said:


> I did think the lie that there was no cctv footage was difficult to believe!
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm



Hallefeckinlullah.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 14, 2009)

It took long enough... long enough for anything incriminating to have disappeared no doubt!


----------



## magneze (Apr 14, 2009)

mr steev said:


> I did think the lie that there was no cctv footage was difficult to believe!
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm


This gets worse and worse. Lies all the way.


----------



## xes (Apr 14, 2009)

magneze said:


> This gets worse and worse. Lies all the way.



yep, but lets not get angry over it, this is the police we're talking about. All they ever fucking do is lie and cheat their way out of the shit. It's all they know. 

i think we should give them marks for trying at least.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 14, 2009)

mr steev said:


> It took long enough... long enough for anything incriminating to have disappeared no doubt!


i dont' know what this agwenda is really the IPCC seem to want to carryout an investigation but seemingly also are covering up the actions of the police but keep being set up for a fall is the idea to make this as ham fisted as possible to abolish the IPCC as not fit for purpose and then put in a succession of failed toothless non accountable organiseations to 'over see' polcie conduct without investigation powers etc... 

something bigger than just the death is going on of which the political brinksmanship is certainly moving forward at a pace...


----------



## paolo (Apr 14, 2009)

At the very least, it shows that the IPCC (or senior individuals) have been all too quick to state that certain lines of enquiry have to come to a close, when in fact they're far from being properly explored.

If it's not a conspiracy, it's certainly not demonstrating any healthy scepticism, which is what they should have, always.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2009)

The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.

I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

mr steev said:


> It took long enough... long enough for anything incriminating to have disappeared no doubt!



It'd be difficult and highly expensive to edit any footage, so it *will* be interesting to see if any gets "lost".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2009)

tarannau said:


> The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.
> 
> I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.



Same old same old, though. Every "independent" officially-endorsed local or national police oversight body seems to go the same way, from good intentions straight into the arms of the institution they're supposed to oversee.


----------



## mr steev (Apr 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> It'd be difficult and highly expensive to edit any footage, so it *will* be interesting to see if any gets "lost".



Yeah. Editing would be very difficult, especially with so many other video sources to match up with.
I wouldn't be suprised if some of the cctv footage has been 'recorded over' by now though!


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2009)

tarannau said:


> The head of the IPCC should resign. If you're not sure, don't make a fucking annoucement to the media.
> 
> I'd like to think that it was an innocent mistake, but with the cosy complicity of the police and the IPCC, along with their habit of misplacing video evidence and making misleading annoucements to the press, I'm really not too sure anyone has confidence in them.


It was a completely implausible lie. Either he's stupid or he thinks we are. Neither is good.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 14, 2009)

http://infantile-and-disorderly.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-should-not-be-one-on.html



> In today’s Independent, dearest Janet Street-Porter has an article called ‘Tomlinson was no saint, but he deserved better’, which looking at the content, could just have easily been titled ‘Tomlinson was a worthless working class alcoholic, but at least he wasn’t an anarchist’.
> 
> Maybe he also deserves to not have his private battle with alcoholism spashed across the media too, Janet. After all, he's not the one who should be on trial here. He's the unarmed man who was murdered by an armed cop. And those are the only details that matter.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 14, 2009)

mr steev said:


> Yeah. Editing would be very difficult, especially with so many other video sources to match up with.
> I wouldn't be suprised if some of the cctv footage has been 'recorded over' by now though!


yep... lots of organisations only keep cctv footage for 7 days IIRC


----------



## where to (Apr 14, 2009)

i've lost track of this over the last few days.  has anything come out of the second autopsy yet?


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2009)

I think the IPCC and family have seen the report but nothing made public yet as far as I know.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 14, 2009)

Scanned from this evening newspaper. Just click to read.









It will be intresting to see it they catch anything and which way they were pointing...


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 14, 2009)

sorry if it's been mentioned before but IPCC site says:

"Anybody who saw Mr Tomlinson in Royal Exchange Square is asked to contact the IPCC on 0800-096 9071 or email Tomlinson@ipcc.gov.uk."

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr140409_tomlinsoncctv.htm


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 15, 2009)

Found this video which is from the other end of Royal Exchange Passage, in Threadneedle Street.

It's from about 7.15pm, the time Ian Tomlinson is said to have been thrown to the ground in the first assault.

After walking up the road and atacking a couple of demonstrators with dogs, the line moves back, riot police come in from the left and the dog handlers move into the passage.  Then the police all leg it in.

This might be the build up to the first contact.


----------



## winjer (Apr 15, 2009)

Just to clarify, the pedestrianised street's called Royal Exchange Buildings, 'Passage' appears to be an invention of the IPCC. The line of cops that appears from the East at the end run up Royal Exchange Avenue, which leads off Royal Exchange Buildings to Finch Lane.


----------



## cesare (Apr 15, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Found this video which is from the other end of Royal Exchange Passage, in Threadneedle Street.
> 
> It's from about 7.15pm, the time Ian Tomlinson is said to have been thrown to the ground in the first assault.
> 
> ...




It's also worth taking special note of 1:10 into that clip. The dog handler appears to have deliberately let the dog get within biting distance of that guy in the white top.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2009)

Oh, he quite deliberately set the dog on him - and several others were getting in a position to do so. The question is, can they be identified from that distance? They might be the same dogs as were present at the Tomlinson assault, which would make life easier.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/14/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-police

"There were at least two cameras on or beside Royal Exchange Passage. One, on the corner of Threadneadle Street, is a City of London police camera that can turn through 360 degrees. A second is affixed to Number 11 Royal Exchange, pointed at the area where Tomlinson may have been assaulted.

Anna Branthwaite, 36, freelance photog*rapher from south London, told the IPCC she saw an officer push Tomlinson to the ground at a different location on Royal Exchange Passage, moments before the assault captured in the footage.

"It was a very forceful knocking-down from behind," she said. "The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor."

A photograph taken by Branthwaite around one minute after that alleged assault shows a CCTV camera affixed to a wall in the distance.

Branthwaite has revisited the scene and taken more pictures of the CCTV camera, which she believes was pointed at the spot where she witnessed the first alleged assault.

"It's difficult to know what the lens was like on that camera," she said. "But given where it was pointed along the whole street, directed into the centre of Royal Exchange Passage, it seems likely it showed the incident I saw. That attack occurred in that vicinity."


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 15, 2009)

ex police chief says clearly attack on Tomlinson was 'an illegal act' .. so why no arrest?


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 15, 2009)

Just saw this, sorry if it's been posted on here already:


Though some of the protesters don't exactly seem to be helping.


----------



## winjer (Apr 16, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/14/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-police (same article as durutti links to up there ^)



> Hardwick said on Thursday there was no CCTV evidence of alleged police assaults on Tomlinson. "We don't have CCTV footage of the incident," he told Channel 4 news. "There is no CCTV footage – there were no cameras in the locations where he was assaulted."



why the fuck would he say something that's so obviously not true??? 

well, i think I know the answer but why be so blatantly stupid?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs


Yep - and look at the timings - direct contradiction of the other newspapers timings and mentions the van - as mentioned in the mail/sun etc. Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Yep - and look at the timings - direct contradiction of the other newspapers timings and mentions the van - as mentioned in the mail/sun etc. Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?



and this quote:



> The IT worker who took the photos said he saw Tomlinson standing in the road as the van approached. Tomlinson appeared to be in the way and did not move.
> 
> "The police van nudged the back of his legs – it was nothing hard, he wasn't knocked off balance or anything like that," he said. "He wasn't saying or doing anything wrong. He was doing no different to what we were doing – he was just stood on the side."



puts a different spin on events compared to earlier statements from the IT worker blokey


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> and this quote:
> 
> 
> 
> puts a different spin on events compared to earlier statements from the IT worker blokey


Yep again. Methinks the mail and sun should have checked the other IT workers camera to make sure the clock was correct (this has to be the same incident surely) ? 

If that's the case it makes them look even more stupid (or they forgot in the rush to publish something contradictory)


----------



## winjer (Apr 16, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Except they timed it as an hour earlier didn't they ?


Yes, I meant to write that, slip of the stylus.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

winjer said:


> Yes, I meant to write that, slip of the stylus.


No probs


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/ian-tomlinson-g20-photographs



If the grauniad's report/timings are right, it blows this out of the water:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2368505.ece

It also suggests that the comments from the IT worker (Hardy - presume its a _different _IT worker in the Guardian?  Not sure) were highly 'shaped' by the paper.  For instance he couldn't have been hanging around 'for at least half an hour' as the Sun says [if the guardian's times are right] - he was filmed here at 7.10 and the final attack takes place only ten minutes later at 7.20.

Edit: ah, sorry, most of what i just said has been already covered on the above page.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

_The Sun_? Lying? surely not?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> (Hardy - presume its a _different _IT worker in the Guardian?  Not sure)


I was confused at first but The Guardian says it got it's footage from a publicist on behalf of an IT Worker so I'm assuming it's different people


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

It's difficult to say, I've just been trying to work that out. Either it's a different IT worker or Ross Hardy's a lying fucker


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> I was confused at first but The Guardian says it got it's footage from a publicist on behalf of an IT Worker so I'm assuming it's different people



Either way, the '6.09' is now seen to be wrong (along with the sun's idea that he was hanging around for 30+ minutes at this point).  Key thing is that the original timeline the Guardian had an interactive guide on from soon after the death, remains unchallenged.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> It's difficult to say, I've just been trying to work that out. Either it's a different IT worker or Ross Hardy's a lying fucker


Yes, or the clock was an hour out on his camera (GMT/BST not adjusted ? We've mentioned that as a poss before iirc ?)


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Or the clock was an hour out on his camera



It wasn't the timings I was thinking of, that can be explained by the BST/GMT thing, it's more the statements

IT worker in grauniad says:



> The police van nudged the back of his legs – it was nothing hard, he wasn't knocked off balance or anything like that," he said. "He wasn't saying or doing anything wrong. He was doing no different to what we were doing – he was just stood on the side



IT worker in Scum says:



> It just nudged him gently but Tomlinson still didn’t get out of the way. They tried nudging him again. When that didn’t work four riot police moved in and dragged him on to the pavement. The van moved past but Tomlinson stuck around for at least another half an hour. He certainly wasn’t on his way home. He had no intention of going anywhere.



totally different accounts  can't be the same eyewitness surely?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> It wasn't the timings I was thinking of, that can be explained by the BST/GMT thing, it's more the statements
> 
> IT worker in grauniad says:
> 
> ...


Gotcha, yes & agreed - the accounts are very different aren't they. I wonder if the other people in the new set of pictures have been identified or have come forward as witnesses ? That'd help for sure


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2009)

> It just nudged him gently but Tomlinson still didn’t get out of the way. They tried nudging him again. When that didn’t work four riot police moved in and dragged him on to the pavement. The van moved past but Tomlinson stuck around for at least another half an hour. He certainly wasn’t on his way home. He had no intention of going anywhere.



My reactionary colleague brought this up today and I reminded him that he had every right to be wherever the fuck he wants.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> It wasn't the timings I was thinking of, that can be explained by the BST/GMT thing, it's more the statements
> 
> IT worker in grauniad says:
> 
> ...



Probably a different person, though just could be the same one pissed off the way his words had been massaged.  I posted something a while back about the Sun's story having a series of phrases that sounded like answers to prompts that had been turned into statements - "Did he look like he was on his way home to you - or was he HANGING AROUND AND LOOKING DRUNK"; "how long would you say he was hanging around - OVER HALF AN HOUR?"

E2a:.. and this still doesn't seem to be the same incident as the one timed at 7.15 when he was reported to have been battoned whilst on the floor - so there look to be at least 3 lots of contact (the one filmed here, 7.15 and the youtube filmed one).


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)

3 incidents with police in 20 minutes.

And in the 2-3 hours afterwards, they only managed to remember the bit where a plastic bottle landed near them.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

if there were 3 'contacts' it begs a further question about the number of officers who should have come forward and identified themselves.  Can't quite remember what Hardwick said on this, but I think he said 4 or 5 had come forward (?).

Well, there was a driver here + 2 on the pavement; however many were involved in incident 2 - and the 4/5 in a line when the hitter goes for him in incident 3, plus the Inspector seen soon after the final attack.  At least 10?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 16, 2009)

There were at least 18 police officers in the direct vicinity of the 'American tourist' videoed assault on Tomlinson at the mouth of Royal Exchange Buildings facing Cornhill, all of them at one point or another in sight of either or both the baton strike and the two-handed shove. 


Five City of London dog handlers also seen in the dog attack footage and elsewhere (A712, CP788 and three others);
At least five officers wearing blue-flashed hi-vis jackets (possible FIT cops including, it is suspected, Steve Discombe CO2558 and Alan Palfrey EK217);
Three Level 2 cops in riot gear;
One suspected City of London traffic cop;
One City of London cop in riot gear (204);
Two others of unknown vintage;
And the TSG officer who actually assaulted Ian Tomlinson.

This tally does not include those to the left or right or behind the 'American tourist' filming the incident (who can be seen in Channel 4 News' 'broken camera' footage from its vantage point further back) or on Cornhill, or those officers further back on Threadneedle Street, who can be seen in the background of the footage by vans.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

From their website, the merely say 'several' have come forward:



> 08 April 2009Update on Ian Tomlinson investigation
> The IPCC can confirm that we now have the details of the Metropolitan Police officer who we believe appears in the footage we recovered last night, and who appears to make contact with Ian Tomlinson.
> 
> IPCC Commissioner and deputy Chair Deborah Glass said "We are pleased that we now have what appears to be valuable information relating to this incident. Several police officers, including the officer himself have come forward. It is our intention to interview this officer as soon as possible".
> ...



'Several' is a tricky word but I'm guessing its less than 18 (or at least its not _that _18 officers).  Mind, the more pictures come out, the more they will be under pressure from their federation reps to make a strategic 'voluntary statement'.  Their difficulty will be guessing whether the flow of pictures and videos has stopped, allowing them to make a damage limitation statement - or whether something else will emerge from a camera phone that blows their story apart.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)

There were loads of cameras.

There must be much more footage than we have seen.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)




----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2009)

shaman75 said:


>



"Scooby and Shaggy have a falling out".  

A thousand pardons, couldn't resist. 

[gets coat]


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 16, 2009)

He must have been provoking the dog in some way.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)

It's from the video that is now on the guardian.

I don't think he provokes it, but he doesn't really move away.

Here's the original


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

he's made of sausages


----------



## Fictionist (Apr 16, 2009)

Nah, made of hotdog......


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 16, 2009)

srs post: just watched that vid: wtf? first they drag some guy away who doesn't appear to be doing anything, then shaggy gets attacked by the dog. again, don't quite know what he'd been doing, but the response of the dog handler doesn't seem very proportionate regardless!


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)

Although it looks like he was moving away after a nip from the first one, when the second copper decided his dog was hungry too.

Might have been worse, but the fist copper lost his hat and had to go back and get it.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 16, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> srs post: just watched that vid: wtf? first they drag some guy away who doesn't appear to be doing anything, then shaggy gets attacked by the dog. again, don't quite know what he'd been doing, but the response of the dog handler doesn't seem very proportionate regardless!



and then they all proceed into the alley, followed by a charge of riot police, at about the time that ian tomlinson was said to have been attacked, before emerging out the other end and pushing him over.  may even have been these dog handlers for all i know.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 16, 2009)

As I mentioned earlier, yes, the same group of City of London dog handlers as in the dog attack footage above. The beginning of the 'American tourist' footage shows two of the dog handlers coming up behind Ian Tomlinson from either side. They do not appear to be offering strokes. 

The dog handler in the above picture (with the large harness around his trunk) is slightly further away, though he walks over as Ian Tomlinson is on the ground then helped up by civilians.

As Ian Tomlinson staggers off in the 'last picture alive', he clearly passes by two more dog handlers.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> and then they all proceed into the alley, followed by a charge of riot police, at about the time that ian tomlinson was said to have been attacked, before emerging out the other end and pushing him over.  may even have been these dog handlers for all i know.


It looks a lot like it is. It's hard to tell Alsatians apart, but in the Tomlinson video there is one that has a lot of lighter brown fur towards the front, two with a lot on their bellies (one more than the other) and one that is all black. That's consistent with the dogs seen in the 3rd video here. The number of dogs and mix of police uniforms - blue flashes, no hi-vis, etc - are similar also.

At 52 seconds in the Tomlinson assault video (4th one down), there's a copper with a dog that both match the picture above (from the dog attack).


----------



## weepiper (Apr 17, 2009)

Sky News now reporting that the 2nd post mortem shows he died of an abdominal haemhorrage


----------



## STFC (Apr 17, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Sky News now reporting that the 2nd post mortem shows he died of an abdominal haemhorrage



Yep, breaking news on BBC too. Interesting...


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2009)

So 'heart attack' was another fucking lie then.


----------



## Open Sauce (Apr 17, 2009)

BBC radio reports an officer has been questioned under caution for the offence of man slaughter


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Open Sauce said:


> BBC radio reports an officer has been questioned under caution for the offence of man slaughter



Shut up.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2009)

weepiper said:


> Sky News now reporting that the 2nd post mortem shows he died of an abdominal haemhorrage


Little by little the police lies are coming unstuck. 

G20 may well prove to one of the most important events in protest and policing in the UK.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> So 'heart attack' was another fucking lie then.



Where do they get these quick and careless coroners from?


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Shut up.


"The IPCC has confirmed a Metropolitan police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter in relation to the death."

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/crime/g20-protestor-died--abdominal-haemorrhage--$1288688.htm


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

> "Dr Cary's opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained.
> 
> "Dr Cary accepts that there is evidence of coronary atherosclerosis but states that in his opinion its nature and extent is unlikely to have contributed to the cause of death."
> 
> The statement concluded that both the opinions remained provisional and subject to further investigations and tests.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> "The IPCC has confirmed a Metropolitan police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter in relation to the death."
> 
> http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/crime/g20-protestor-died--abdominal-haemorrhage--$1288688.htm



My apologies to you open sauce. The story is now that both PMs results are 'provisional', so i didn't expect them to 'act' so swiftly.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> My apologies to you open sauce. The story is now that both PMs results are 'provisional', so i didn't expect them to 'act' so swiftly.



Perhaps they actually knew before


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> srs post: just watched that vid: wtf? first they drag some guy away who doesn't appear to be doing anything, then shaggy gets attacked by the dog. again, don't quite know what he'd been doing, but the response of the dog handler doesn't seem very proportionate regardless!


That's another example of fucking police brutality. That guy set upon by the dog was just standing there and was given no verbal instruction to leave, and the attack on the other guy seemed equally unprovoked.

Those cops look _out of control._


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

There's a reason i said 'act'...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Little by little the police lies are coming unstuck.
> 
> G20 may well prove to one of the most important events in protest and policing in the UK.



Indeed.

The police have become careless and after years of cover ups believed they were untouchable.

Well done all those brave people who weren't afraid to take footage and photos and those who gave witness statements. And of course those that actually wend on the march itself.

I truly commend all of you.

*takes off hat*


----------



## STFC (Apr 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> So 'heart attack' was another fucking lie then.



Not necessarily.


----------



## fen_boy (Apr 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Where do they get these quick and careless coroners from?



This is just an opinion piece on a blog posted last week, but if true it seems this particular pathlogist has previous http://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-death-apology.html


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 17, 2009)

It's no way near to being over yet, but i doff my cap to all that had the courage to pursue justice in relation to poor mr Tomlinson.  Many of us that were either there or who have followed the case have not been baffled by the various lies and for once it seems to me that the police themselves have been backed into a corner.  

  01/04/09 might just be a significant day in the developement of democracy in this country.


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> srs post: just watched : wtf? first they drag some guy away who doesn't appear to be doing anything, then shaggy gets attacked by the dog. again, don't quite know what he'd been doing, but the response of the dog handler doesn't seem very proportionate regardless!


Let's look back in time a little, earlier ... earlier ... earlier:


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2009)

The BBC ticker is saying the 2nd post mortem has changed cause of death.  Waiting for the story to say what to.


----------



## Groucho (Apr 17, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm

Tomlinson death not natural causes...


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

Look up http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=284958&page=64#1583


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The BBC ticker is saying the 2nd post mortem has changed cause of death.  Waiting for the story to say what to.


_A new post mortem says Ian Tomlinson died from an abdominal haemorrhage not a heart attack after contact with police during the G20 protests. 

The statement from the City of London Coroners Court overturns the initial assessment that the newspaper seller died of natural causes. _

So it was a cover-up, no surprises there. Beeb


----------



## Groucho (Apr 17, 2009)

Dr Freddy Patel was the original pathologist (the police's favourite for covering up suspicious deaths in custody):



> Although Dr Patel is a fully accredited pathologist he is not a member of the Forensic Pathology Service, a group of specialist pathologists who normally investigate suspicious deaths in the Greater London area. Dr Patel does however have quite a lot of experience in dealing with deaths in police custody. In 1999 he carried out the autopsy on Roger Sylvester who died in St Anne's Hospital, Haringey after being violently restrained by eight police officers. Mr Sylvester's death was again put down to natural causes by way of heart attack and the police were cleared of any responsibility for his death. Following the coroners inquest Dr Patel was formally reprimanded by the General Medical Council (GMC) for giving false and misleading information about the case to the press.



http://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-death-apology.html


----------



## STFC (Apr 17, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _A new post mortem says Ian Tomlinson died from an abdominal haemorrhage not a heart attack after contact with police during the G20 protests.
> 
> The statement from the City of London Coroners Court overturns the initial assessment that the newspaper seller died of natural causes. _
> 
> So it was a cover-up, no surprises there. Beeb



Or two differing opinions, both of which are provisional at this stage.

Talk about jumping to conclusions...


----------



## ddraig (Apr 17, 2009)

copper now being questioned on manslaughter!"!!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> Look up http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=284958&page=64#1583


Yeah, sorry.  It's looking pretty bad, isn't it?


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

STFC said:


> Or two differing opinions, both of which are provisional at this stage.
> 
> Talk about jumping to conclusions...



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9016203&postcount=1591

There'll be about 10 people all posting the same link in the next ½ hour or so, so I wouldn't get too worked up.


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

It's looking unprecedentedly bad. I wonder which judge'll do the public inquiry?


----------



## Groucho (Apr 17, 2009)

tarannau said:


> Where do they get these quick and careless coroners from?



See my post in the other thread. The coroner concerned, Freddy Patel, has a history of finding suspicious deaths in police custody as heart attacks....


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

I am fucking stunned!!!

Full public inquiry needed imo.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2009)

Groucho said:


> See my post in the other thread. The coroner concerned, Freddy Patel, has a history of finding suspicious deaths in police custody as heart attacks....


Yes, i remember reading that he has been responsible for some pretty dodgy behaviour in at least 2 separate incidents.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 17, 2009)

Just out of interest,  if the bloke that did the pushing is on manslaughter charges what about the police who were surrounding him and did nothing to stop him, and nothing to help the bloke? 

I'm not hot on the law but wouldn't they be accessories or something?


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> It's looking unprecedentedly bad. I wonder which judge'll do the public inquiry?



Lord Hutton?


----------



## mr steev (Apr 17, 2009)

It will be interesting to see the full post mortem. 
Didn't the first one also state that there were no signs of cuts and bruising? Yet photographs before his death seem to show marks on his face... I would've thought hitting the floor without breaking your fall would've left it's mark too 

Doesn't look like they're gonna get away with it as easy this time.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

mr steev said:


> It will be interesting to see the full post mortem.
> Didn't the first one also state that there were no signs of cuts and bruising? Yet photographs before his death seem to show marks on his face... I would've thought hitting the floor without breaking your fall would've left it's mark too
> 
> Doesn't look like they're gonna get away with it as easy this time.



I bet they do.


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 17, 2009)

e19896 said:


> In today’s Independent, dearest Janet Street-Porter has an article called ‘Tomlinson was no saint, but he deserved better’, which looking at the content, could just have easily been titled ‘Tomlinson was a worthless working class alcoholic, but at least he wasn’t an anarchist’.
> 
> Maybe he also deserves to not have his private battle with alcoholism spashed across the media too, Janet. After all, he's not the one who should be on trial here. He's the unarmed man who was murdered by an armed cop. And those are the only details that matter.


I agree, as does the author of this blog piece that you plagarised.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> wouldn't they be accessories or something?


I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think if it was a Saturday night fracas and a bloke dies, then, yes, they may well be charged as accessories.  (Whether the PF would wear it, and whether they'd be convicted would depend on evidence amongst other things, obviously).

As an aside, is there any correlation between alcoholism and stomach haemorrhages?


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 17, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> As an aside, is there any correlation between alcoholism and stomach haemorrhages?



There can be, yes.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Little by little the police lies are coming unstuck.



they certainly are - and quite rapidly as well to my own surprise

you are right - this could prove very significent

(although one side of me thinks cesare may well be proven right...)


----------



## Open Sauce (Apr 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> My apologies to you open sauce. The story is now that both PMs results are 'provisional', so i didn't expect them to 'act' so swiftly.



No fucking excuse for your retarded reply though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Open Sauce said:


> No fucking excuse for your retarded reply though.



Lordy


----------



## Crispy (Apr 17, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> I agree, as does the author of this blog piece that you plagarised.


post ammended to show attribution


----------



## In Bloom (Apr 17, 2009)

STFC said:


> Or two differing opinions, both of which are provisional at this stage.
> 
> Talk about jumping to conclusions...


The first one seems to come from somebody who has a shakey relationship with the rest of his profession and has a history of reporting suspicious deaths in which police officers were implicated as heart attacks.  But I'm sure that's definately a coincidence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> There can be, yes.


So, there's the defence.

What needs to be shown for manslaughter is "haemorrhaging consistent with a blow", isn't it?


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 17, 2009)

Patel and whoever orchestrated this clusterfuck at the Met should should go on a corruption trial for this shit. certainly Patel should be suspended for gross incompetence/lying


----------



## Open Sauce (Apr 17, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> This is just an opinion piece on a blog posted last week, but if true it seems this particular pathlogist has previous http://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2009/04/ian-tomlinson-death-apology.html



Also this 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/g20-pathologist-ian-tomlinson


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

dennisr said:


> they certainly are - and quite rapidly as well to my own surprise
> 
> you are right - this could prove very significent
> 
> (although one side of me thinks cesare may well be proven right...)



I wish I was more confident. But I've seen nothing in my lifetime to indicate that policing and policing of policing is improving - the reverse. The death of one man isn't going to halt that decline. The officer concerned will be hung out to dry and they'll move swiftly on


----------



## maximilian ping (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> The officer concerned will be hung out to dry




...in a luxury villa in the Canaries


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

maximilian ping said:


> ...in a luxury villa in the Canaries



I think they'll make a HUGE scapegoat of him, focus all attention on him rather than address the overall issue.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 17, 2009)

Its interesting that they've actually interviewed him under caution (for manslaughter), whilst the coroner is emphasising 'tests still to be done, preliminary findings etc.  Either the coroner is really very certain about the cause of death (and has fond something like baton marks/bruising in relevant areas) or they are worried that the family wouldn't stay quiet on the findings any longer.  They have had the findings for a week, according to the reports linked by others.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 17, 2009)

ymu said:


> It looks a lot like it is. It's hard to tell Alsatians apart, but in the Tomlinson video there is one that has a lot of lighter brown fur towards the front, two with a lot on their bellies (one more than the other) and one that is all black. That's consistent with the dogs seen in the 3rd video here. The number of dogs and mix of police uniforms - blue flashes, no hi-vis, etc - are similar also.
> 
> At 52 seconds in the Tomlinson assault video (4th one down), there's a copper with a dog that both match the picture above (from the dog attack).



Several of the dog handlers in the 'dog attack' video are also clearly visible in the 'American tourist' video of the Tomlinson assault.

Looking at the dog attack video, it would appear that the TSG officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson was involved in that incident too:












After this moment, the officer exchanges looks (and possibly words) with the blue-flashed hi-vis jacket-wearing officers to right of screen (suspected FIT cops), before moving off into the cluster of cops around the corner of Threadneedle Street and Royal Exchange Buildings. Some of those officers head down Royal Exchange Buildings in the direction of Cornhill, before the videographer gets distracted by the big build up of riot police to his/her left, who then charge round the corner into Royal Exchange Avenue.

The general make-up of the group heading down Royal Exchange Building (as opposed to the surge into Royal Exchange Avenue) appears to match up with the beginning of the 'American tourist' video - some riot police with helmets and shields, the balaclava'd up shieldless left-handed officer, suspected FIT cops and dog handlers.

NB: The times are approximate. The YouTube uploader of the 'dog attack' video states that they are unaware of whether the 7:16 timestamp refers to the beginning or end of the film. The moment pictured comes 1′32″ into the video.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 17, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Its interesting that they've actually interviewed him under caution (for manslaughter), whilst the coroner is emphasising 'tests still to be done, preliminary findings etc.  Either the coroner is really very certain about the cause of death (and has fond something like baton marks/bruising in relevant areas) or they are worried that the family wouldn't stay quiet on the findings any longer.  They have had the findings for a week, according to the reports linked by others.


Yes, it's intriguing.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> I wish I was more confident. But I've seen nothing in my lifetime to indicate that policing and policing of policing is improving - the reverse. The death of one man isn't going to halt that decline. The officer concerned will be hung out to dry and they'll move swiftly on


It's good to be cynical, but this one's going to be harder for the cops to shake off. 

When the front page of right wing rags like the Evening Standard run with a large picture of a number-less cop asking, "WHAT HAS HE GOT TO HIDE?" it's a healthy sign that this has become a major issue.

I really can't imagine many cops considering turning up to high profile protests with their numbers covered up any more, and if they do, they'll be photographed to fuck.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> It's good to be cynical, but this one's going to be harder for the cops to shake off.
> 
> When the front page of right wing rags like the Evening Standard run with a large picture of a number-less cop asking, "WHAT HAS HE GOT TO HIDE?" it's a healthy sign that this has become a major issue.
> 
> I really can't imagine many cops considering turning up to high profile protests with their numbers covered up any more, and if they do, they'll be photographed to fuck.






  I hope that you are right, this could actually be something of a turning point.  I have no idea why police have been allowed to fight in complete anonymity anyway, i used to think that they were obliged to be identifiable.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 17, 2009)

Probably the blow to the upper body that did it. Caused a massive internal bleed and the CPR wouldn't have saved him IMO if he'd walked off for a while, the damage would have been done. Poor bloke.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> I wish I was more confident. But I've seen nothing in my lifetime to indicate that policing and policing of policing is improving - the reverse. The death of one man isn't going to halt that decline. The officer concerned will be hung out to dry and they'll move swiftly on



If one considers that the 'dog attack' incident to the north end of Royal Exchange Buildings and the Tomlinson assault to the south are connected by a number of police personnel and a short period of time (ie that some of those at the 'dog attack' then dash down the path to the location where Ian Tomlinson is then assaulted, all in a short space of time), then it would appear that the police officer who actually batons and pushes Mr Tomlinson talks to or takes some form of instruction from one or more police officers in the blue flashed hi-vis jackets before moving off from the 'dog attack' incident - as do other officers in the group we see in the assault footage. This might indicate, _we may speculate_, some level of command or control. 

(This is, I note again, only speculation. Perhaps there were a number of left-handed baton-wielding riot cops with no epaulettes, high cut hi-vis jackets, balaclavas, trousers tucked into their boots, Nato helmets and no shields running around the Royal Exchange area of London between 7:16 and 7:20pm on the 1st of April. Hopefully they will all be making formal statements to account for their own actions and to bear witness to what they saw.)

As the evidence is assembled and analysed it may well be possible to piece together not just a chain of events, but the reasoning behind it, right down to who said what to whom at what point.

Before I forget: A LibDem MP (IIRC) raised an interesting point recently, suggesting that it appeared that the police were operating a 'designated hitter' system during the G20 protests.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 17, 2009)

DC - you should send your timeline/analysis to the family solicitors.  Admittedly they've probably been inundated by a pile of shite from 9/11 loons and like, but eventually they will wade through all that and get to the useful stuff.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> It's good to be cynical, but this one's going to be harder for the cops to shake off.
> 
> When the front page of right wing rags like the Evening Standard run with a large picture of a number-less cop asking, "WHAT HAS HE GOT TO HIDE?" it's a healthy sign that this has become a major issue.
> 
> I really can't imagine many cops considering turning up to high profile protests with their numbers covered up any more, and if they do, they'll be photographed to fuck.



agreed and now this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm, we was wrong acording to some to post this 



> The pathologist who gave the initial ‘heart attack’ findings in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson has a history of professional misconduct. Dr Freddy Patel was once condemned by the General Medical Council for releasing information about a man who had died in police custody. Roger Sylvester, a 30-year-old black man died under suspicious circumstances whilst in police custody and Dr Patel released medical evidence that suggested Mr Sylvester was a crack addict - a suggestion that was later refuted in court.
> 
> Dr Patel was also involved in an incident where the police asked him to record a ‘death by natural causes’ verdict for a woman found dead in a flat even when the evidence was, at best, inconclusive. The man who lived at the flat where the woman’s body was found went on to kill two other people.
> 
> ...



http://projectsheffield.wordpress.c...t-guilty-of-perverting-the-course-of-justice/


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

e19896 said:


> agreed and now this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm, we was wrong acording to some to post this


No, you were still wrong to post this

"Dr Patel was also involved in an incident where the police *asked him *to record a ‘death by natural causes’ "

which you still provide no source for.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

So the impression I'm left with is that the force, rather than hanging this officer out to dry, did everything they could to get a convenient post mortem conclusion and get the body buried/ cremated as fast as possible.

Why are the police even responsible for deciding where post-mortems are done or who does them?

Apologies if i have my facts wrong, but the impression i got is that there was surprise that the post-mortem was done by Mr Fixit in the first place.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> It's good to be cynical, but this one's going to be harder for the cops to shake off.
> 
> When the front page of right wing rags like the Evening Standard run with a large picture of a number-less cop asking, "WHAT HAS HE GOT TO HIDE?" it's a healthy sign that this has become a major issue.
> 
> I really can't imagine many cops considering turning up to high profile protests with their numbers covered up any more, and if they do, they'll be photographed to fuck.




I hope you're right. A lot will depend on it sinking into Joe Public's awareness together with correlating it with previous deaths,  previous policing whitewashes e.g. Miners strike, Poll Tax, Wapping, Hillsborough (and the role of the Met in overall trends of policing across the country), stop and search, sniffer dogs at tube stations, dog handling generally, photographing police, ID cards, etc etc.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 17, 2009)

editor said:


> I really can't imagine many cops considering turning up to high profile protests with their numbers covered up any more, and if they do, they'll be photographed to fuck.


I'm sure the said these lessons had been learned after the minners strike, the beanfield, the poll tax the CJB riots too... all of which were largley created or exasserabted by the police actions all of which received a loud tut for having their numbers removed or covered... 

but loud tut's don't stop it happening again...

regardless of media hyperbole...


----------



## Upchuck (Apr 17, 2009)

The manslaughter wont stick, especially as conveniently this guy was an alkie who often have bad stomachs due to alchol and lifestyle damage.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 17, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> The manslaughter wont stick, especially as conveniently this guy was an alkie who often have bad stomachs due to alchol and lifestyle damage.


depends how much they need a political scape goat and apeasement stratigy...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> The manslaughter wont stick, especially as conveniently this guy was an alkie who often have bad stomachs due to alchol and lifestyle damage.



I'm not hopeful at all. But trial  by jury anything can happen -  even if they have to reject judges instructions.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> If one considers that the 'dog attack' incident to the north end of Royal Exchange Buildings and the Tomlinson assault to the south are connected by a number of police personnel and a short period of time (ie that some of those at the 'dog attack' then dash down the path to the location where Ian Tomlinson is then assaulted, all in a short space of time), then it would appear that the police officer who actually batons and pushes Mr Tomlinson talks to or takes some form of instruction from one or more police officers in the blue flashed hi-vis jackets before moving off from the 'dog attack' incident - as do other officers in the group we see in the assault footage. This might indicate, _we may speculate_, some level of command or control.
> 
> (This is, I note again, only speculation. Perhaps there were a number of left-handed baton-wielding riot cops with no epaulettes, high cut hi-vis jackets, balaclavas, trousers tucked into their boots, Nato helmets and no shields running around the Royal Exchange area of London between 7:16 and 7:20pm on the 1st of April. Hopefully they will all be making formal statements to account for their own actions and to bear witness to what they saw.)
> 
> ...



I've been more than a little interested in the role of the dog handlers myself, German Shepherd security dog handling being in the family background an all (not OB I hasten to add).  Whilst I haven't been looking at it from a chain of events pov, I've been more shocked at this aspect than the kettling and batoning.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 17, 2009)

Just saw the news that it wasn't a heart attack on the BBC website.  What an absolute shit storm this is gonna turn into now eh?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> I've been more than a little interested in the role of the dog handlers myself, German Shepherd security dog handling being in the family background an all (not OB I hasten to add).  Whilst I haven't been looking at it from a chain of events pov, I've been more shocked at this aspect than the kettling and batoning.



Could you explain why it is so shocking from a dog handlers perspective?


I'm not a dog handler so it would be useful for us all to know what you see there that the rest of us can't.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 17, 2009)

From a relatively uninformed perpective I'd say it looks like the dogs are being used as weapons of intimidation and actual injury (you can see some of the injuries on Youtube if you have the stomach for it), rather than for chase/take-down of fleeing or armed suspects.

Are the Met taking lessons from Abu Graib now?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Which, in my experience, is all i've ever seen them used for.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 17, 2009)

winjer said:


> No, you were still wrong to post this
> 
> "Dr Patel was also involved in an incident where the police *asked him *to record a ‘death by natural causes’ "
> 
> which you still provide no source for.



Yes we have done the gurdian ill dig up a direct link if there is a need to repeat ourselfs, fucking hart attack, more like murder oh erm we are wrong he fell into The Police, they never attacked anyone on that day or the next each and evryone fell or asked to be beaten.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 17, 2009)

This link is for detailed information on Dr Freddy Patels previous fuckup that lead to the death by murder of two women.

http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/n271103_2.htm


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Could you explain why it is so shocking from a dog handlers perspective?
> 
> 
> I'm not a dog handler so it would be useful for us all to know what you see there that the rest of us can't.



The dog is both a deterrent and a weapon. They are highly trained. Hours and hours and hours go into their training. You also have to remember that German Shepherds are herding dogs, the instinct is to herd and contain - and that attacking is when the herd is threatened rather than attacking the herd itself. So when they start attacking, it's because (a) the handler has lost control of the dog; or (b) the handler has instructed the dog to attack; and/or (c) 'the herd to be contained and protected' is the police rather than the crowd. Why were they even deployed in the first place? Further, even if there was a reason constructed as to their deployment, why were they allowed/instructed to attack?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 17, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> From a relatively uninformed perpective I'd say it looks like the dogs are being used as weapons of intimidation and actual injury (you can see some of the injuries on Youtube if you have the stomach for it), rather than for chase/take-down of fleeing or armed suspects.
> 
> Are the Met taking lessons from Abu Graib now?



I was on a bus on my way home one May Day bank Holiday, it had kicked of where i was liveing, youth on the streets, filth in full riot gear, well you know how it gose of the bus with the youth, i had a police dog set upon me, just as we have seen here used as weapons of intimidation, i took the fuckers to court and won, offerd cash, no thanks that was the point, proveing the wrong of the attack was why i took out a private prosecution, it took a year but all who was beaten or nicked that night managed to prove there actions provoked the riot.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 17, 2009)

TopCat said:


> This link is for detailed information on Dr Freddy Patels previous fuckup that lead to the death by murder of two women.
> 
> http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/n271103_2.htm



Ta me dears..


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

This is purely rumour and hearsay I suppose, but my brother works with someone who travels on the train with someone who works at the IPCC.

He has just told me that a couple of days ago, this guy from the IPCC said that they have no footage from Royal Exchange Building CCTV, as it is only kept for 10 days and the police told them there were no camera's and it was 14 days later that they discovered that there were camera's and tried to get the footage.  Which no longer exists.

I don't know how reliable this is, what cameras are in the passageway, how long the footage is kept for, who these people are or anything else but I am very worried.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> This is purely rumour and hearsay I suppose, but my brother works with someone who travels on the train with someone who works at the IPCC.
> 
> He has just told me that a couple of days ago, this guy from the IPCC said that they have no footage from Royal Exchange Building CCTV, as it is only kept for 10 days and the police told them there were no camera's and it was 14 days later that they discovered that there were camera's and tried to get the footage.  Which no longer exists.
> 
> I don't know how reliable this is, what cameras are in the passageway, how long the footage is kept for, who these people are or anything else but I am very worried.



No surprises there then.


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> my brother works with someone who travels on the train with someone who works at the IPCC.



Now *that's* what I call hearsay 



shaman75 said:


> He has just told me that a couple of days ago, this guy from the IPCC said that they have no footage from Royal Exchange Building CCTV, as it is only kept for 10 days and the police told them there were no camera's and it was 14 days later that they discovered that there were camera's and tried to get the footage.  Which no longer exists.



Definitely worth chasing up, though. 

Haven't they learned that the *first* thing to do in any such investigation is to slap a subpoena/warrant on all CCTV camera owners demanding production of all footage?

Except that at the start the investigators were the cops (CoLP), who owned the CCTV cameras.

Let's see: when did the IPCC take the investigation over from CoLP? 6 days in.

If there's no footage, we have a right to expect the head of the Chief Constable of the City of London on a platter.

BBC Timeline, BTW.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> Now *that's* what I call hearsay



Yeah.  As soon as I started typing I thought it sounded well ropey.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 17, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> This is purely rumour and hearsay I suppose, but my brother works with someone who travels on the train with someone who works at the IPCC.
> 
> He has just told me that a couple of days ago, this guy from the IPCC said that they have no footage from Royal Exchange Building CCTV, as it is only kept for 10 days and the police told them there were no camera's and it was 14 days later that they discovered that there were camera's and tried to get the footage.  Which no longer exists.
> 
> I don't know how reliable this is, what cameras are in the passageway, how long the footage is kept for, who these people are or anything else but I am very worried.


sounds about right. Tis almost exactly what I wrote that I expected to be the case at the time that they announced they'd been mistaken about the cctv cameras, except I said it'd be 7 days they kept the footage for.

the police aren't stupid when it comes to cover ups.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> If there's no footage, we have a right to expect the head of the Chief Constable of the City of London on a platter.



Note to all 'interested parties' reading this - I feel sure that laptop is talking in _purely figurative_ terms.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

Right from the off, all the webcams were down.

CCTV, some public, some private. Big time lag. The qs re the public ones are obvious ... but what about the private ones? Were the owners visited?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> Right from the off, all the webcams were down.



yep. That struck me as iffy on the wednesday.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

free spirit said:


> sounds about right. Tis almost exactly what I wrote that I expected to be the case at the time that they announced they'd been mistaken about the cctv cameras, except I said it'd be 7 days they kept the footage for.
> 
> the police aren't stupid when it comes to cover ups.



Incidentally, iirc, most retailers keep the tapes for a month before using/overwriting them. 4 x 7 day cycle in strict rotational order.


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> yep. That struck me as iffy on the wednesday.



They always turn off public feeds from webcams when there's anything demo-like going on. If I'm late for a demo I look online for the "unavailable for operational reasons" cameras to find out where it is and where I should catch up with it 

I _assume_ that they record the images for themselves, though.

TfL currently list no traffic cams in the City. Is there a feed from Met cams?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 17, 2009)

Is the cops pet pathpologist going to be struck off now?

The full, filthy extent of their brutality and subseuqunet cover up is all coming out now. 

If they _do_ prosecute the cop in question I'd guess that his defence will be the briefing they were given on the day - which opens up a whole other can of beans. Like prosecutions for corpotate manslaughter.

It will  be interesting to see how far justice is allowed to proceed given the implications for the police.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-haemorrhage-doctor

Some emphasis on such a death from a fall being rare, but not impossible.

But remember the witness statement of Anna Brainthwaite.



> There had been a situation where a small number of police officers had become outnumbered by protesters in Cornhill, and had retreated into the pedestrian street, Royal Exchange Buildings. It was like, anything could happen right now. Riot officers began to arrive and within minutes the police had regained control around the Threadneedle Street end where I went to stand.
> 
> At this point there were probably about 20 officers - some dog handlers, some riot officers. And members of the public - city workers, people watching - were being stopped around the traffic lights although some were being allowed to walk through the pedestrian street that was now relatively clear, with a few protesters still standing around but certainly not a crowd.
> 
> ...



The earlier attack.  You'd have thought that being struck with a baton twice would be much more likely to cause such injuries than a 'fall'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2009)

Some bod was on the news just now, talking about how an enlarged liver when struck by his arm in the fall, or even pressured by the rescuss guys when doing the heart pump thing, could cause abdominal bleeding.

I wonder what ITV news could be insinuating here? Large liver eh? we know Mr. Tomlinson had a drink habit. 


Obfuscation and smearing as usual from ITV 'news', the rolling propaganda twats


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

So this thread has  been derailed and a new one about Tomlinson's death has been started. What a shambles.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> So this thread has  been derailed and a new one about Tomlinson's death has been started. What a shambles.




Not really. It's fairly much on course.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Some bod was on the news just now, talking about how an enlarged liver when struck by his arm in the fall, or even pressured by the rescuss guys when doing the heart pump thing, could cause abdominal bleeding.
> 
> I wonder what ITV news could be insinuating here? Large liver eh? we know Mr. Tomlinson had a drink habit.
> 
> ...



Bollocks and conspiraloonery. "Some bod" was a top vascular surgeon. I've just spoken to him.


----------



## maomao (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> So this thread has  been derailed and a new one about Tomlinson's death has been started. What a shambles.



No, this thread is on track as far as I can see and the other thread is to deal with the case against the filth involved.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

maomao said:


> No, this thread is on track as far as I can see and the other thread is to deal with the case against the filth involved.



And the truth about his death is a different issue from his alleged manslaughter?  Weeping dicks.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Bollocks and conspiraloonery. "Some bod" was a top vascular surgeon. I've just spoken to him.



Just read a few posts back man, and calm down a bit. This is still the main thread. Stop jumpin about and getting all worked up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Bollocks and conspiraloonery. "Some bod" was a top vascular surgeon. I've just spoken to him.



Yes I didn't catch his credentials, but I found the concentration on what could happen to an enlarged liver slightly suspicious-I don't put that on him, he was fairly balanced and used plenty of 'coulds' and 'perhaps'. But I think he was primed with the leading questions.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

Here's his site:http://www.jscurr.com/

What he said doesn't give the alleged manslaughterer any comfort.  Katy Derham's questions seemed legitimate to me. I would have liked more questions about the shortcomings of the police medics but Mr Scurr reckons they made no difference.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 17, 2009)

...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 17, 2009)

I put this blame squarely on the Cops in charged, they over egged the story, tried to rewrite the story, they went way over the top in some parts of the policing as soon after Ian Tomlinson died and and it continued the next day.

It most certainly been ordered by people high in the management of government to suppress this demo with "tough" policing, they talked tough policing and they didn't know when to stop.

Now one copper taking the flak for all this and it was all propaganda for the benefit of the Government which backfired badly.

The sad thing is even now Police/Government are trying everything to spin the story long after the event has past.


----------



## Callie (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm not convinced there would have been orders to biff people or set dogs on them. The officers at the front line make the decision as to what action they can get away with. Its the fact that they obviously haven't been detered from such action that is dodgy. What are the guidelines? What does the training involve? Have the front line officers HAD training?

How the fuck can they ever justify pushing Mr Tomlinson so hard he hits the deck when he is walking away, in the direction they want (presumably) with his hands in his pockets. 

They will though, I'm sure of it.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> srs post: just watched that vid: wtf? first they drag some guy away who doesn't appear to be doing anything, then shaggy gets attacked by the dog. again, don't quite know what he'd been doing, but the response of the dog handler doesn't seem very proportionate regardless!



In that video 
He looks like he is complaining about the injury and trying to show them his arm.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2009)

Callie said:


> I'm not convinced there would have been orders to biff people or set dogs on them. The officers at the front line make the decision as to what action they can get away with. Its the fact that they obviously haven't been detered from such action that is dodgy. What are the guidelines? What does the training involve? Have the front line officers HAD training?
> 
> How the fuck can they ever justify pushing Mr Tomlinson so hard he hits the deck when he is walking away, in the direction they want (presumably) with his hands in his pockets.
> 
> They will though, I'm sure of it.



All just happenchance? Dogs arrive out of nowhere? All just an unlucky set of coincidences?


----------



## Darios (Apr 17, 2009)

The more that is revealed in this sorry saga, the more it seems like a real life retelling of 'Red Riding'.....


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm pretty much convinced that the police were under no illusion that they had to come down hard on this protest as it was feared that it might kick off wider civil unrest, something I imagine the authorities fear more than a terrorist attack in the current economic climate.


----------



## Callie (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> All just happenchance? Dogs arrive out of nowhere? All just an unlucky set of coincidences?



The dogs would have been there for the purpose of crowd control, i imagine.

I can't really say what their orders/briefing would have entailed. 

I certainly agree that letting dogs get very close to protesters/other member of the public was irresponsible, especially letting them bite without due cause, which is what most the clips I have seen seem to show. 

I do think there has been a huge amount of hype in the media with regards to the 'summer of rage', again I have no idea what would have gone on in the stations (Or where ever the hell it is the poolice to their briefings for such events) but that may have been an element.

I'm not convinced that there would have ever been a specific guidance to 'come down hard' on protesters. I wasn't there during the protests (so disregard my opinions if you wish) but I'm not sure the police individually acted very differently to how they have at other protests? Thats not to say that different methods werent actioned.

I know nothing though!


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

Twitter from the Guardian (page 6)

#
Riot officer: "no-one sees us as human. I've got a daughter, a wife. Today's been dangerous for me"
by paul__lewis at 4/1/2009 9:27:47 PM01 April 2009 22:27:47
#
Riot officer cont; "we knew it would it was coming. It would kick-off. We've been preparing for months."
by paul__lewis at 4/1/2009 9:29:47 PM01 April 2009 22:29:47
#
Riot officer cont 2; "we've been told to turf them out. They're a nuisance. I'm just doing what I'm told"
by paul__lewis at 4/1/2009 9:31:28 PM01 April 2009 22:31:28

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-london-summit-twitter


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

Tbf, the dogs are low risk because they are trained to just grab your forearm. I'd rather have that than many of the alternatives e.g. a baton on the head, a shield in the face, a kick in the nuts or being pushed to the ground.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 17, 2009)

I don't think I could express a preference, but dog bites look pretty nasty.

http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=DLL0Vp6BAgs


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 17, 2009)

cesare said:


> All just happenchance? Dogs arrive out of nowhere? All just an unlucky set of coincidences?



I saw them come in via the the police lines via the RSB bank and one was biting the hands of the hander.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 17, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> I don't think I could express a preference, but dog bites look pretty nasty.
> 
> http://tr.youtube.com/watch?v=DLL0Vp6BAgs



ekk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 17, 2009)

Callie said:


> I'm not convinced there would have been orders to biff people or set dogs on them. *The officers at the front line make the decision as to what action they can get away with.* Its the fact that they obviously haven't been detered from such action that is dodgy. What are the guidelines? What does the training involve? Have the front line officers HAD training?



Bold bit = my experience.

I work with a lovely girl, she used to go out with a filth, she texted him on the morning of 1st April, "Be careful", the reply, "Yeah, fight, fight, fight!"


----------



## nick h. (Apr 17, 2009)

Fuck me, I so hope that's not real.


----------



## winjer (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Tbf, the dogs are low risk because they are trained to just grab your forearm. I'd rather have that than many of the alternatives e.g. a baton on the head, a shield in the face, *a kick in the nuts* or being pushed to the ground.


I hate to spoil your idyll, but it wasn't the arm that a police dog tried to bite off a press photographer at a Smash EDO demo last autumn.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Fuck me, I so hope that's not real.



Did you not see the video of the dog attack? It's very real.


----------



## Ae589 (Apr 17, 2009)

ymu said:


> Did you not see the video of the dog attack? It's very real.



Hope he gets a Darwin awards 'almost'.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 17, 2009)

Ae589 said:


> Hope he gets a Darwin awards 'almost'.



What society do you want to live in whereby those who taunt the police are mutilated?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

Could someone please link to verification that it is LAW that officers have numbers on display. Im phoning Any Anwers tomorrow and want to be double sure on the point before I accuse the police of being top down criminals. Thanks


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 17, 2009)

It ain't law.

On Wednesday the top pig said they MUST show their numbers, 

On Thursday a cop was filmed in Parliament Sq without his numbers.

Obey the rules, yeah?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It ain't law.
> 
> On Wednesday the top pig said they MUST show their numbers,
> 
> ...



thanks for that. Is it just usual expected practice? Do you know the specific codes? (dont lose sleep if you dont)


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> thanks for that. Is it just usual expected practice? Do you know the specific codes? (dont lose sleep if you dont)



The safe quote is that the Commissioner has said they must.

If asked, and if you agree, you could add that it ought to be the law, not just an order.




			
				thisislondon said:
			
		

> MET commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson was told today he must discipline officers who have defied orders to identify themselves.
> 
> Boris Johnson's deputy mayor Kit Malthouse called for those who fail to wear their shoulder numbers to face disciplinary action as the Standard revealed a constable with his identity number concealed.
> 
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> The safe quote is that the Commissioner has said they must.
> 
> If asked, and if you agree, you could add that it ought to be the law, not just an order.



Thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Interesting in itself that we can't easily find out.

I wonder what other publically availible info is impossible to access?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> The safe quote is that the Commissioner has said they must.
> 
> If asked, and if you agree, you could add that it ought to be the law, not just an order.


Might even mention why they feel the need to obscure their identity in the first place, if they're doing nothing wrong i.e. the id card arguments in a nutshell?


----------



## Callie (Apr 17, 2009)

Surely if the police service is anything like anywhere else (ime) then stuff like that (display our id numbers) is in writing somewhere, it actually ISN'T good enough for it to be word of mouth or just the done (or not done) thing. Procedure...standard operating procedures/policy with regard to uniform??


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Might even mention why they feel the need to obscure their identity in the first place, if they're doing nothing wrong i.e. the id card arguments in a nutshell?




Aye - if they're law-abiding what do they have to hide? 




Someone reported somewhere here that that was a newspaper headline at some point today - _Standard_? - but didn't find it on news.google.co.uk


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> Aye - if they're law-abiding what do they have to hide?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh shit, i've turned into a Daily Standard headline 



*wanders off looking for work at the torygraph*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

I know a lot of people who wrote letters to their MPs durimg the miners strike asking why this was allowed to happen, why they were allowed to cover their ID numbers. The answer was inevitably that they weren't. But on the ground in force they knew they could and they did. It's not like they'e just been alerted to it. Immediate digital proof changes  the whole game though.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

Callie said:


> Surely if the police service is anything like anywhere else (ime) then stuff like that (display our id numbers) is in writing somewhere, it actually ISN'T good enough for it to be word of mouth or just the done (or not done) thing. Procedure...standard operating procedures/policy with regard to uniform??



It's _not_ like anywhere esle though callie.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The answer was inevitably that they weren't.



Still could do with clarification at what level this is, some kind of code or term of employment?


----------



## Callie (Apr 17, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's _not_ like anywhere esle though callie.



Apparently so 

Which is why there are no routes in, no-one is keeping an eye or monitoring what goes on.

It's confusing cos that is so important in my line of work, you would hope that the same could be said for the law enforcers, those that make sure everyone else walks the line.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

Police apparently work to an unofficial booklet called "Guide to Public Order Situations". Doesnt seem easy to find, maybe that's the idea. Be good to know a bit more about it, how often it is changed etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Still could do with clarification at what level this is, some kind of code or term of employment?



Ceriainly. You'll get passed from regional ro regional force, from level to level and so on. If there's a national statutory requirement they make/made it hard to find


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 17, 2009)

I would love to know answers to these questions.  I can only presume there is no legal or explicit internal requrement to be identifiable as their superiors would be at risk of a bollocking if this wasn't enforced. 

  I have experienced the removal of numbers many times, especially with the robocops, i've not seen so many in balaclavas up until 01/04/09 though.  There is something seriously wrong with these actions.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 17, 2009)

Smurker said:


> I would love to know answers to these questions.  I can only presume there is no legal or explicit internal requrement to be identifiable as their superiors would be at risk of a bollocking.
> 
> I have experienced the removal of numbers many times, especially with the robocops, i've not seen so many in balaclavas up until 01/04/09 though.  There is something seriously wrong with these actions.



It's very common practice, and can only be so if sanctioned from high up.


----------



## Callie (Apr 17, 2009)

I know this is going off on a tangent but are there many people that joined the police force and left and are happy to discuss the way things are/were with the general public? Bit of insider knowledge so to speak?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's very common practice, and can only be so if sanctioned from high up.


course not. it can be sanctioned by any officer who decides to remove visible id and hide behind his riot gear. spg/tsg/etc.


----------



## laptop (Apr 17, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Still could do with clarification at what level this is, some kind of code or term of employment?



It *doesn't* appear in the Dress Code Policy document released under the Freedom of Information Act at http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/dress_code_policy.pdf

So, as I said, the *safe* thing to say is that it's an order by the Commissioner (as reported in the press).

How this is communicated to officers, I don't know. But they have disobeyed it.

You could, if you run out of more important things to say, ask why the Commissioner appears to have left it so vague - to have left officers such wriggle-room.

One other interesting point that *does* appear in the code is:

Only authorised items of clothing and equipment purchased in accordance with MPA Regulations are to be issued to and worn by individuals.

Would that apply to Constable Angry's forearm armour, then?

There are 187 results for "code" on http://www.met.police.uk/cgi-bin/htsearch - I haven't read them all.


----------



## paolo (Apr 18, 2009)

Random stuff, sorry if I'm coming in late, been away for a day or so...

I've just watched the dog bite video on "white bloke / white shirt & white trousers" and am not sympathising on what I've seen. Am I missing something?

I bought the Express today (the first time purchase of shame!)... dreadful. Both the reporting and her statement. Doesn't seem tally up with what we've seen. This irritates me because the last week or so has been about exposing the truth, not spin. The video is clear, but her Daily Express stuff (assuming they haven't misquote her - which is possible), is tainted.

On the other hand, lots of other positive stuff. Graun is still at it, and the other broadsheets are still going at it too.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 18, 2009)

i have to say that i think the Graun should be applauded for their persistence on this tbh.


----------



## paolo (Apr 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i have to say that i think the Graun should be applauded for their persistence on this tbh.



They got the scoop, and are then naturally 'owning' the story. Arguably it could have any other, but it's been good to pick it up each morning and see them keep it going.

Under the radar, "We" (i.e. randoms!) have kept it going with youtube and photos, 'Above the radar', the Graun has led the charge.

This is good stuff. If we're meant to be an accountable society, it means everyone.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 18, 2009)

'arguably any other'?! - hmmmm, not so sure but i accept your wider point. interesting to see how coverage has evolved over the past few days. 

but yes, take the power back.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 18, 2009)

I fully appreciate the the Guardian aren't operating on an altruistic level, but credit where it's due.  They have pushed this along in the knowledge that they have 'broken ranks' with the met (and other forces).  If other papers were handed ths exclusive i doubt there would have been the same progress.  BTW i don't read any national newspaper with any regularity, i've been a staunch critic of many of them so feel obliged to give a thumbs up on this occasion.


----------



## paolo (Apr 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> 'arguably any other'?! - hmmmm, not so sure



'Any other....' far less likely, for sure. 

I've been a very proud graun reader this last week or so. They've led on a story that they probably didn't know how big it would become (and I think neither did "we", even if "we" knew how big it should be).


----------



## desdichado (Apr 18, 2009)

Not to be rude but most CCTV these days isn't videotape in corporate London. As such it seems unlikely that recordings will not be kept for 28/31 days in length which are pretty much standard. This seems something of a canard to my mind.

[Sorry missed the word not]


----------



## moon23 (Apr 18, 2009)

Smurker said:


> I fully appreciate the the Guardian aren't operating on an altruistic level, but credit where it's due.  They have pushed this along in the knowledge that they have 'broken ranks' with the met (and other forces).  If other papers were handed ths exclusive i doubt there would have been the same progress.  BTW i don't read any national newspaper with any regularity, i've been a staunch critic of many of them so feel obliged to give a thumbs up on this occasion.



Yes Guardian is doing a top job on this one


----------



## paolo (Apr 18, 2009)

Smurker said:


> I fully appreciate the the Guardian aren't operating on an altruistic level, but credit where it's due.  They have pushed this along in the knowledge that they have 'broken ranks' with the met (and other forces).  If other papers were handed ths exclusive i doubt there would have been the same progress.  BTW i don't read any national newspaper with any regularity, i've been a staunch critic of many of them so feel obliged to give a thumbs up on this occasion.



Well put.


----------



## Callie (Apr 18, 2009)

desdichado said:


> Not to be rude but most CCTV these days isn't videotape in corporate London. As such it seems unlikely that recordings will not be kept for 28/31 days in length which are pretty much standard. This seems something of a canard to my mind.
> 
> [Sorry missed the word not]



yeah i would imagine VHS isnt that common, especially for proper street CCTV cams - not so sure about shops and the likes.


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Could someone please link to verification that it is LAW that officers have numbers on display.


There is none in England & Wales, it isn't LAW. (Different for viewers in Scotland)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2009)

Callie said:


> yeah i would imagine VHS isnt that common, especially for proper street CCTV cams - not so sure about shops and the likes.



Don't know much about the mechanics of cctv myself.  However, I'd have assumed it was all digital now.  Storage wise, I guess that means they can keep more of it on whichever server.  also, even when deleted, you'd think there would be a greater chance it could be _retrieved_, if digital.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2009)

Wait tiill the charges come, and watch that one journo who forced this on them.


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2009)

laptop said:


> It *doesn't* appear in the Dress Code Policy document released under the Freedom of Information Act at http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/dress_code_policy.pdf


If it exists, it would be the in Dress Code SOP (not the Policy) which they probably won't release under FOI because of the need to preserve operational matters, or similar weasel words.


----------



## laptop (Apr 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Wait tiill the charges come, and watch that one journo who forced this on them.



Watch Duncan for what?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 18, 2009)

with an apparent charge of manslaughter, what does this change in terms of reportage do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2009)

laptop said:


> Watch Duncan for what?


Was that the chap? 

That bloke who broke the JCDM stuff ion ITV, i may be missing someting but...


----------



## laptop (Apr 18, 2009)

winjer said:


> If it exists, it would be the in Dress Code SOP (not the Policy) which they probably won't release under FOI because of the need to preserve operational matters, or similar weasel words.



Back to the point about why the Commissioner deliberately leaves them so much shuffle room.

Not only should the SOP be public, but there should be a public, statuory, requirement: if you're a police officer, you wear a number, and if you don't, you go to prison for 6 months and be fired *and* you are tried for any assaults you commit as a normal, civilian, criminal with previous (at least: that you didn't wear a number).


----------



## Wilf (Apr 18, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> with an apparent charge of manslaughter, what does this change in terms of reportage do you think?



Not sure when sub judice kicks in - from charging or first hearing, presume the former?

Long way from that of course, though the police might ultimately have to fall back on the "yes, we caused his death, but there's no way of knowing _which _of our 3 'contacts' did it". Incident 2 is my favourite, if he was batoned on the floor, but even incident 1 - being 'nudged' by the van, at midriff height, might come into the running.  I suspect the hitter from incident 3 is hoping for something like this, along with media accounts of him being an alcoholic and this being an 'accidnet waiting to happen'.


----------



## laptop (Apr 18, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> Not sure when sub judice kicks in - from charging or first hearing, presume the former?



From when "proceedings are active". Which the police - or individual unauthorised police officers, who knows - interpret as "from well after charge" or "from the opening of the court case", when it suits them to feed highly prejudicial material about the one charged to the media.


I reckon they should be held to the same standard in this case.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 18, 2009)

Nothing will happen as the internal bleeding will inconclusive and he will be let off. 

Case close.


----------



## q_w_e_r_t_y (Apr 18, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Police apparently work to an unofficial booklet called "Guide to Public Order Situations". Doesnt seem easy to find, maybe that's the idea. Be good to know a bit more about it, how often it is changed etc.



As I understand it the main reference point is the ACPO guide to keeping the peace

Available here
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/keeping_the_peace.pdf


----------



## nick h. (Apr 18, 2009)

ymu said:


> Did you not see the video of the dog attack? It's very real.




Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 18, 2009)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> As I understand it the main reference point is the ACPO guide to keeping the peace
> 
> Available here
> http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/keeping_the_peace.pdf


Last bullet point on page 27 of that is interesting

"The police commander should encourage officers not to treat all crowd members in the same manner. When violence starts there is a tendency to treat everybody with hostility. However, especially in such situations, it is crucial to treat people with respect and win them to your side, not the side of those already promoting conflict. It may be necessary to facilitate the desires of the many, such as the wish to peacefully protest, so that they may assist the police with their overall intention which is to prevent disorder"


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2009)

q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> As I understand it the main reference point is the ACPO guide to keeping the peace


That's the FOI-friendly abridgement, you want the 'Public Order Manual of Tactical Options and Related Matters', or whatever they call it these days.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.


He is very obviously "asking for it". The matter of concern, however, is that a dog-handler on the sidelines decided to give it to him.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2009)

nick h. said:


> Hadn't seen that. Nasty wound. But it's one of the few examples of police violence I've seen where the phrase "he was asking for it" is 100% accurate. He wanted to be bitten so he could show off for the cameras. There's no other explanation for what he did. Unless he's from Mars and doesn't know what a dog is.


I'm don't believe it's against the law to gesture at a police dog, and I'm hearing a distinct lack of a verbal warning from the cop in charge of that vicious dog.

The protester was being a bit of an arse, but the police response was needlessly violent and thoroughly unwarranted - like many of their actions that day.





ymu said:


> He is very obviously "asking for it". The matter of concern, however, is that a dog-handler on the sidelines decided to give it to him.


Absolutely. It was a completely disproportionate response. The guy wasn't attacking or threatening the cops at all.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2009)

The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!





> Mr Malthouse said: “The policy of the Met Police is very clear. The public have the right to be able to identify any uniformed police officer and so badges should be worn at all times. We support the Commissioner's decision to hold officers to account when they purposely conceal their identity.”
> 
> The Home Office also criticised officers who fail to wear their epaulettes, insisting the “public has a right to be able to identify” them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 18, 2009)

To those who think he was 'asking for it'.

Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?

If not then why should it be acceptable for someone to do it just because they're wearing a uniform?

Especially as being lippy isn't even an arrestable offence (although I'm sure the cop could have conjoured up some charge or other to haul the guy off to the cells as opposed to having him bitten).


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> To those who think he was 'asking for it'.
> 
> Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?
> 
> If not then why should it be acceptable for someone to do it just because they're wearing a uniform?


Or, to put it more in context: if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, is that acceptable behaviour?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2009)

editor said:


> The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!



all those quotes are just words, they need to change the law to make it a legal requirement for all police officers in uniform to wear their numbers at all times, including when in riot gear.

it's not like this guy was the only one to not wear his numbers, it's been Met (or at least Met TSG) standard operating procedure for years for their officers not to display their numbers when dealing with protests.

I remember the 2000 mayday kettle of traf square, where the only officers with their numbers on display were the ones in command... every single officer in the first 3 rows of police - ie several hundred had removed their numbers. When I questioned them about this, the standard reply was that there was no legal requirement for them to display their numbers... i say standard reply because it came pretty much word for word from several different coppers on totally different sides of the kettle, which means that they had all been briefed, and that the removal of their numbers was officially sanctioned.

The met even did it in scotland at the G8 despite it being illegal under Scottish law.

nothing will change until the law changes, and the politicians are the culpable ones here, not individual coppers, or even the met as an organisation. It's the politicians who set the legal framework that allows this to happen. They have let it continue for decades precisely because it occasionally suits them to have the police batter people when they look like being a bit of a threat... eg the miners, travellers, anarchists, ecowarriors etc.

The blood is on the politicians hands


----------



## free spirit (Apr 18, 2009)

Citizen66 said:


> To those who think he was 'asking for it'.
> 
> Place it in the context of the pub. If you got a bit lippy with someone and they left then returned with their staff bull terrier and set it about mauling you, is that acceptable behaviour?
> 
> ...


or a doorman who punched someone because they'd got a bit lippy on the door.

that officer moved deliberately towards that protestor with their dog deliberately left on a long leash to enable the dog to attack the protestor. It was a deliberate attack by that copper on the protestor, just as much as it would have been had he walked over and smacked the guy over the head with a baton. these are highly trained dogs controlled by highly trained handlers, and the handler is entirely responsible for the actions of the dog.

eta ie that footage shows an assault by that police officer, and he should be arrested and charged accordingly


----------



## JTG (Apr 18, 2009)

free spirit said:


> They have let it continue for decades precisely because it occasionally suits them to have the police batter people when they look like being a bit of a threat... eg the miners, travellers, anarchists, ecowarriors etc.



And I would add to that, football supporters


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2009)

editor said:


> The thisislondon article quoted earlier really underlines the cops' requirements to have their numbers on display. It's excellent news that right wing papers are now running this story and making the public aware of the issue. Even the Tories have piped up to agree!


The copper wasn't even policing a protest, it was a vigil ffs.

Fwiw, I'm told there's a vid on YouTube of an Inspector refusing to display his number, which adds to the belief this is part of an operational culture.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2009)

The BBC have been covering Nicky Fisher this morning but they've also been showing footage of Ian Tomlinson's last minutes. I'm particularly struck by the *lack* of police being pelted with bottles etc when they go over to his aid.

Fucking liars.

But then, anyone that's watched the youtube footages from the outset knew that anyway.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Or, to put it more in context: if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, is that acceptable behaviour?



To add yet more context;

if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, before they jogged a hundred yards down the road to attempt to do the same to some other random with his hands in his pockets, his back to them and walking away, then one of them beat him with a club, knocked him to the ground and then wandered off, whilst the rest of his mates didn't say or do anything, and then a short while later the random guy dies of internal bleeding, is that acceptable behaviour?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Ceriainly. You'll get passed from regional ro regional force, from level to level and so on. If there's a national statutory requirement they make/made it hard to find



I've written to:
Sir Ronnie Flanagan (yes, himself from the RUC!), 
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary,
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary,
c/o
HMIC,
Ground Floor,
Ashley House,
2 Monck Street,
London,
SW1P 2BQ  
asking for clarification on any statutory requirement(s) for uniformed officers to display their identification numbers, and the legislative/regulatory source points for these statutory requirement(s).

Perhaps a few other Urbanites might address similar inquiries to himself?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 18, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> To add yet more context;
> 
> if you got a bit lippy with someone and they left and then returned with hundreds of their mates, some of them masked up, and then set their staff bull terrier on to maul you, before they jogged a hundred yards down the road to attempt to do the same to some other random with his hands in his pockets, his back to them and walking away, then one of them beat him with a club, knocked him to the ground and then wandered off, whilst the rest of his mates didn't say or do anything, and then a short while later the random guy dies of internal bleeding, is that acceptable behaviour?



Perfectly acceptable, natural causes.

Until film of it was produced and a 2nd post mortem was carried out.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 18, 2009)

"Isolated incidents"

"Momentary loss of composure"

"Overstretched police officers"

"Doing a good job in difficult circumstances"

"We should not let one tragic accident overshadow x, y or z"

And on, and on, and on.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

editor said:


> and then set their staff bull terrier



Oi!  Staffies have the sweetest temperment in the world!  I've often been incredibly amused to see 'hard' looking folks strutting about with a Staffy, only to look thoroughly embarassed when it proceeds to lick everybody to death.  

Edit:  Actually Citizen 66 who brought the nanny dog into the metaphor.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 18, 2009)

Channel 4 news are saying:

@krishgm We also have significant new info on the Tomlinson case - but can't reveal until 6.30 on air


----------



## Ae589 (Apr 18, 2009)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What society do you want to live in whereby those who taunt the police are mutilated?



Looked to me like the police tried to steer that dog onto him in order to make a point - completely disproportionate use of violence, and the police officer should be prosecuted.   Is the man himself a hero for putting himself at risk to prove the police are out of control, or a f*ckwit who runs at police dogs and goads them so he can then run around shouting how unfair it all is?  

I'm sure you can guess what I think


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Apr 18, 2009)

If the penalty for being a fuckwit were to be bitten by a dog, a lot of people on this forum would be posting standing up.


----------



## Ae589 (Apr 18, 2009)

Donna Ferentes said:


> If the penalty for being a fuckwit were to be bitten by a dog, a lot of people on this forum would be posting standing up.



Because their chair had been stolen by a dog?

There is no contradiction between thinking this is violent overeaction by the police and thinking the guy is a fuckwit in the first place.  I would support the criminal prosecution of this officer (based on evidence we've seen, probably), and I would also choose to talk to someone else if I met this guy a at party.  Especially if he kept getting his arm out.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2009)

Ae589 said:


> Looked to me like the police tried to steer that dog onto him in order to make a point - completely disproportionate use of violence, and the police officer should be prosecuted.   Is the man himself a hero for putting himself at risk to prove the police are out of control, or a f*ckwit who runs at police dogs and goads them so he can then run around shouting how unfair it all is?
> 
> I'm sure you can guess what I think



The protestor was a complete fuckwit imo - you really really don't deliberately provoke German Shepherds just in case a lead slips or something. But no such 'accident' appeared to happen. It'd be useful to see it frame by frame.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

It wasn't that German Shepherd that attacked him. Another officer brought his dog in to "punish" the guy. It looks like officer CP788, the same officer involved in the second dog attack which occurred 4 minutes before the videoed attack on Tomlinson, at which CP788 is also present.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2009)

ymu said:


> It wasn't that German Shepherd that attacked him though.



Think of the German Shepherd as a baton, but much more dangerous and with less control over it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

Yes. And his handler clearly sets the dog on the guy - he kind of swings it in on a long leash. The dog that bit him was not the dog being taunted - it was doing what it was told to.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

If police dogs aren't trained to bite/not bite on command, I'd be fucking surprised.

They* ain't quite as smart as a Collie, but not far off.  The dog will only bite if put in that 'stance' by its handler.

*Police dogs.  The filth themselves are some way off being as smart as a Collie, as anyone who's seen the entrance exam material would testify.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2009)

ymu said:


> Yes. And his handler clearly sets the dog on the guy - he kind of swings it in on a long leash. The dog that bit him was not the dog being taunted - it was doing what it was told to.



I doubt the handler instructed the dog to attack. Enough to let the leash out.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

cesare said:


> I doubt the handler instructed the dog to attack. Enough to let the leash out.



I can't find any sources, but I'm certain that the dog needs to be put into attack stance.  They aren't just randomly savage.


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Fwiw, I'm told there's a vid on YouTube of an Inspector refusing to display his number, which adds to the belief this is part of an operational culture.


They don't have numbers to display though, he should have been asked for his name.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 18, 2009)

editor said:


> I'm don't believe it's against the law to gesture at a police dog, and I'm hearing a distinct lack of a verbal warning from the cop in charge of that vicious dog.
> 
> The protester was being a bit of an arse, but the police response was needlessly violent and thoroughly unwarranted - like many of their actions that day.
> Absolutely. It was a completely disproportionate response. The guy wasn't attacking or threatening the cops at all.



Yes. But. Before the guy was bitten by Dog 2 he goads Dog 1 and appears to advance towards it offering his arm for lunch. The handler of Dog 1 manages to control the slavering beast, then Dog 2 shoots in from the left and this time the protester's arm is within range.  I agree that Dog 2 should have been better controlled, but it looks to me as if the protester really did want to be bitten. He seemed very proud of his wound.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

nick h. said:


> He seemed very proud of his wound.



Which will definitely need treatment, including stitches, and possibly physio amongst other things.

Are the filth picking up any of the tab for the injuries they've caused?


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 18, 2009)

So the IPCC were refused access to the original post mortem


 What a suprise..



Just been spoken about on C4news.  LibDem MP accused the police of having a culture of covering up 'problems' and called for a full independant inquiry.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

Smurker said:


> So the IPCC were refused access to the original post mortem



Why so mad?  The pathologist was told that there was nothing suspicious about the death, so there was no need for the IPCC to be present.

What on earth could be wrong with that?


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> Why so mad?  The pathologist was told that there was nothing suspicious about the death, so there was no need for the IPCC to be present.
> 
> What on earth could be wrong with that?





   Just because it's another piece of evidence of a cover up imo.  Assuming it was the pathologst that refused the IPCC's request, why would he take that stance?   The original pathologist hardly has an unblemished record in police investigations.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> I can't find any sources, but I'm certain that the dog needs to be put into attack stance.  They aren't just randomly savage.



I know they're not randomly savage. But there's a combination of training, instinct and control/lack going on here.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

Smurker said:


> Just because it's another piece of evidence of a cover up imo.  Assuming it was the pathologst that refused the IPCC's request, why would he take that stance?   The original pathologist hardly has an unblemished record in police investigations.


I think they reported that the coroner had refused the IPCC access to the first post mortem. I can't imagine that they physically wanted to attend the cutting up of the body, so does this mean that they didn't have access to the full report - only what the coroner/Met said it contained? 

There is a contradiction in the press reports from last week, saying that the post mortem reported no cuts and bruises, and some of the more recent ones that hint that the first report noted "injuries".



> The IPCC has also ordered a second post-mortem examination. The first, carried out on Friday, recorded that Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack and that there were no signs of cuts or bruises to his head or shoulders.
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6062489.ece





> "Dr F Patel made a number of findings of fact including descriptions of a number of injuries and of diseased organs including the heart and liver.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-statements



Interesting qualification in the first reports "no signs of cuts or bruises *to his head or shoulders*". Who was interpreting the post mortem for the media and the IPCC?


----------



## paolo (Apr 18, 2009)

Re: C4 News... Did they say who refused? CoL / Pathologist himself / Coroners court... ?


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> Why so mad?  The pathologist was told that there was nothing suspicious about the death, so there was no need for the IPCC to be present.
> 
> What on earth could be wrong with that?





Smurker said:


> Just because it's another piece of evidence of a cover up imo.  Assuming it was the pathologst that refused the IPCC's request, why would he take that stance?   The original pathologist hardly has an unblemished record in police investigations.



Sorry Smurker, I should have ended that post with



> /sarcasm


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

Coroner, IIRC - but am waiting for it to come up on the website to check.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Re: C4 News... Did they say who refused? CoL / Pathologist himself / Coroners court... ?



Nope, specifically mentioned that they had not been told who the instruction came from.

Edit: ymu remembers differently.  I'm not 100%.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

I didn't catch the main report - just Krishnan's recap towards the end. I'm not sure so I'm gonna check when the vid is up.


----------



## Corax (Apr 18, 2009)

Brilliantly dead-pan comparison of the two pathologists by the Graun:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/18/ian-tomlinson-postmortem-doctors


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> Sorry Smurker, I should have ended that post with








  This whole situation gets me a bit confused, i can't tell truth from lies anymore, let alone spot a bit of sarcasm!


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 18, 2009)

ymu said:


> I think they reported that the coroner had refused the IPCC access to the first post mortem





paolo999 said:


> Re: C4 News... Did they say who refused? CoL / Pathologist himself / Coroners court... ?





ymu said:


> Coroner, IIRC - but am waiting for it to come up on the website to check.





Corax said:


> Nope, specifically mentioned that they had not been told who the instruction came from.
> 
> Edit: ymu remembers differently.  I'm not 100%.





ymu said:


> I didn't catch the main report - just Krishnan's recap towards the end. I'm not sure so I'm gonna check when the vid is up.


The news article is now on C4's website http://www.channel4.com/news/

From the report... 

The IPCC did not attend the first PM because the Coroner was advised that there was nothing suspicious in the death. There was apparently a CoL Police Officer present at the PM but neither that Force nor the Met will answer any questions so they don't now know who advised the Coroner


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 18, 2009)

I am not anti police in general, but wouldn't we all be better off if the Newspapers and reporters in general had followed up on stores like this in the past?    I dream that this is a turning point.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2009)

Aye. It's just buffering (slowly ) but I saw the first segment. Chris Huhne saying that it appeared that the Met had been telling the coroner the same lies as they'd told the press.



> Channel 4 News has learned that the IPCC asked to be present during the first post mortem examination carried out on Ian Tomlinson but the coroner refused. He had the legal right to do so but who told him to keep the IPCC out?
> 
> Tonight The Liberal Democrats are demanding a full independent inquiry into whether there was a deliberate police cover up.
> 
> ...


----------



## nick h. (Apr 18, 2009)

Smurker said:


> I dream that this is a turning point.



That's the one positive thing (I hope.) Had Tomlinson not died the climate camp violence would have been brushed under the carpet, the papers would have ignored Ms Fisher and the lasting image of the demo would have been the RBS trashing. So Tomlinson, who didn't even want to be there, is something of a martyr.  He's getting much more respect now than when he was alive.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 19, 2009)




----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 19, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


>


----------



## laptop (Apr 19, 2009)

Have to buy _Private Eye_ to read the coverage but there is this on how the G20 itself was shit...


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 19, 2009)

ymu said:


> It wasn't that German Shepherd that attacked him. Another officer brought his dog in to "punish" the guy. It looks like officer CP788, the same officer involved in the second dog attack which occurred 4 minutes before the videoed attack on Tomlinson, at which CP788 is also present.


 yes this is the issue not that the guy was a twat which eh clearly was .. and why was that dog on a long leash not a short one?


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> yes this is the issue not that the guy was a twat which eh clearly was .. and why was that dog on a long leash not a short one?


The issue is also that the same group of officers were involved in at least three attacks in the space of 4-5 minutes. The second CP788 dog attack video was timed at 7.16pm (Threadneedle St, near Royal Exchange), the first attack on Ian Tomlinson must have taken place shortly after as it occurred at the Threadneedle St end of Royal Exchange, with the second assault on Ian Tomlinson videoed at 7.20pm (other end of Royal Exchange) - with CP788 present. 

It's not some guy losing control of his dog. It's an out of control group of officers.


----------



## costas (Apr 19, 2009)

Dog bite man is arrested (in high-definition )


----------



## costas (Apr 19, 2009)

Has this man come forward? He was standing right next to the officer that clobbered Ian Tomlinson 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


http://www.flickr.com/photos/twothumbsfresh/3433241438/


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2009)

costas said:


> Has this man come forward? He was standing right next to the officer that clobbered Ian Tomlinson
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably.A lot of the reports when officers first started identifying themselves implied that they were all CoLP. The CoLP officers in the video mostly have their faces uncovered, so they'd be forced to come forward - and it's the Met in the frame for the assault. It certainly seemed like the Met officers involved were staying quiet early on.

Bristle seems to think he's been identified here, but I think he's omitted to put the badge number in - "D1" is the code used to track him in the video footage.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 19, 2009)

ymu said:


> It's not some guy losing control of his dog. It's an out of control group of officers.



Well, there is clearly some kind of control being exercised; witness the senior officer wandering about during the excesses of the 'dog attack' incident, the public order specialists of the FIT apparently providing some degree of operational direction in both the Tomlinson and dog attack videos, the senior officers ignoring the disproportionate and indiscriminate violence of 'designated hitter' 'Sergeant Backhander' AB42, the senior officers citing law inappropriately to journalists and protesters, that such an indiscriminate and (when considered rationally) tactic as kettling forms a central plank of public order policing, and so on.


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2009)

Don't disagree with any of that. T'was an orchestrated tactic.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 19, 2009)

ymu said:


> The issue is also that the same group of officers were involved in at least three attacks in the space of 4-5 minutes. The second CP788 dog attack video was timed at 7.16pm (Threadneedle St, near Royal Exchange), the first attack on Ian Tomlinson must have taken place shortly after as it occurred at the Threadneedle St end of Royal Exchange, with the second assault on Ian Tomlinson videoed at 7.20pm (other end of Royal Exchange) - with CP788 present.
> 
> It's not some guy losing control of his dog. It's an out of control group of officers.


 ta 4 that  .. only just got that


----------



## Ae589 (Apr 19, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> ...that such an indiscriminate and (when considered rationally) tactic as kettling...



Have you missed an adjective here, or ams I being stupid?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 19, 2009)

The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign grafting on its usual cronies in the Muslim Association of Britain and Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Meanwhile the ANARCHIST are invisible - failing to take advantage of te biggest anti-police feeling for decades.

If the trots have taken over the campaign, it’s being served even worse by them than usual. Hvaeing seen the protest outside Scotland Yard then the protest outside the City of London Police HQ - both had pisspoor attendances.

There is a choice. ANARCHIST can leave this important matter in the hands of the effete and ineffectual trots, or they can take on the challenge. If they leave this alone, then the trots will make a bollox of it like they do with everything. The trots weren’t fucking there on 1 April - ANARCHIST was - and it’s a fucking insult, not only to poor Mr Tomlinson’s family, but also to those who were out, that they (the trots) have got their hands on this campaign without any difficulty.

If the ANARCHIST continue the way there going, they also leave the campaign very much in the fickle hands of the media. It’s time for the ANARCHIST  movement (if there is one?) to now stand up and be counted. Not just for Ian Tomlinson. But also for the hundreds of people assaulted by the police on 1 and 2 April, and for the people who’ve suffered at the hands of the police over the years. The police are very rarely in this position, of being on the run.

Trots with their sycophantic,crocodile tears for the family and friends of the deceased, or,us outside the hearing with the guillotine from the Movement Against Monnerchy demo planted fairly and squarely right in front of a thousand ANARCHIST and friends screaming for our own justice.

And what about the thousands of other people of police thuggery that coped it on the streets of brutal Britain; why can’t we open a forum for these people to air their experience,and direct them straight to the biggest anti Police movement/march for decades.This is a chance for us to meet working class victims of the police and importantly for us,to air some of our own alternatives to the Police ,such as ’self control’ of working class areas.


Another golden opportunity for The so called ANRCHIST movement to kick a goal-if we stand up and go public. What about a campaign of leaflets(similar to the build up leafleting to the G20 conference) urging people who have suffered at the hands of the cops.This is us walking into estates and meeting real people and inviting them and their raw working class experience to a meetings.

Its also ANOTHER opportunity to ask the so called, ANARCHIST movement,what are our REAL alternatives to the cops. Do they have any? Or are they going to continue to call for “Demolish the Prisons” and “Abolish the Police”…..and other empty sloganeering. Most importantly,what about real,street level payback for Ian Tomlinson…..we are sure that ‘7000 strong ANARCHIST Batallion’ in Europe would do more than throw a tantrum over a murdered comrade

The trots here are simply doing what Trots always do - taking over a campaign for their own ends, if they continue to hold the reins, they will lead the wagon into a tree. ANARCHIST on the other hand must show their own values in any response, not just ape the Trots. Already ANARCHIST are uinmasking those cops who were witnesses or accomplices to the Tomlinson assault and the dog attack on Threadneedle Street and the Climate Camp clearance on Bishopsgate.

ANARCHIST are working hard to ascertain the command and control of the G20 policing operation, right down to frontline orders. The future viability of the FIT and the doctrine of political policing as developed over the past ten years and more is at stake. Experienced FIT officers may well be shown to be directly and undeniably culpable; those higher up the food chain might potentially fall.

ANARCHIST have been leading by example and not trusting to the IPCC or the ‘normal channels’, (at a time when much of the general public shares that mistrust), choosing instead to investigate openly, and share findings publicly - names, faces, actions, responsibilities, all outlined. If all you do is ‘protest’ our horror, then you shall only follow in the wake of others.

If they instead to ‘demonstrate’ how we feel killer cops should be treated, by rooting out them and their three-monkeys colleagues, by exposing the whole rotten system from top to bottom, by offering real, practical ways of dealing with genuinely anti-social crime, then they lead by example. If not us, who? If not now, when? Ian Tomlinson was killed because they thought he was one of us. We owe it to him, to his family, to his friends, to make sure that the cops don’t get away with it.

So we repeat here and agree - to keep the momentum going - Sir Paul Stephenson addresses the first full meeting of the MPA since Ian Tomlinson’s death at 10 am April 30th City Hall. We must be there in the public gallery and outside to kettle him. It’s the very least we can do. BE THERE!

Source for info here​


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2009)

Couldn't you just have advertised the meeting without the party/non-party politics?

A good example of why folk get put off of getting involved in important stuff like this...too much finger pointing and not enough unity!

The irony is it reads like complaining about axes being ground whilst grinding a fair few at the same time.

It doesn't need to be so bloody complicated, just remove all the sticky labels and advertise the meeting.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 19, 2009)

Ae589 said:


> Have you missed an adjective here, or ams I being stupid?



Sorry, I did, I meant to say "indiscriminate and (for its stated goals) counter-productive (if considered in rational terms) tactic...", or similar.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 19, 2009)

e19896 said:


> stuff



This is you copying, re-arranging and editing the words of four different people from a blog post and comments on it. And then pasting the whole mess on more than one thread here without comment.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 19, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is you copying, re-arranging and editing the words of four different people from a blog post and comments on it. And then pasting the whole mess on more than one thread here without comment.



Who said one of those comments was not from us?, therefore it is a comment, just another one of your assumptions, the only justice for Ian would not be the reform or any public enq etc, it would be the complete smashing of the state, look at the protest around G20, done by fear and intimidation, perhaps if there was an anarchist movement that was organised and militant The Filth might just think twice about attacking protesters, also killing one of them, perhaps if the so called anarchist movement had done as promised it said and had a riot we might not be where we are today.

All ive seen is the sheep, getting beaten attacked and kicked, it is perhaps to utopian for me to ask, where is the militant anarchist movement, there is not one and if there was would the trots as they have done be empowered by the lack of an anarchist movement of course not, this is not to remove the very good work of some anarchist, but a few dose not make a movement.


----------



## dylans (Apr 19, 2009)

"the only justice for Ian would not be the reform or any public enq etc, it would be the complete smashing of the state"

so we will have to wait a while then?


----------



## rioted (Apr 19, 2009)

e19896 said:


> ...why can’t we open a forum...


If something is worth doing and it isn't done, YOU are one of those who didn't do it. Stop ranting on here and organize.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Who said one of those comments was not from us?, therefore it is a comment, just another one of your assumptions, the only justice for Ian would not be the reform or any public enq etc, it would be the complete smashing of the state, look at the protest around G20, done by fear and intimidation, perhaps if there was an anarchist movement that was organised and militant The Filth might just think twice about attacking protesters, also killing one of them, perhaps if the so called anarchist movement had done as promised it said and had a riot we might not be where we are today.


Just about the last thing 'normal' protesters need or want is a bunch of self-elected Anarchist wannabe vigilantes trying to beat up the police on behalf of Ian Tomlinson.

I can't say I'm finding your hijacking of Tomlinson's death ("the only justice for Ian ...would be the complete smashing of the state") particularly palatable. In fact, I find it downright distasteful and crassly opportunistic. 

It's up to Tomlinson's family to decide what action they want taken, and I'm pretty sure unleashing a bunch of hooded up Herberts at the next demo isn't figuring on their list right now.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Just about the last thing 'normal' protesters need or want is a bunch of self-elected Anarchist wannabe vigilantes trying to beat up the police on behalf of Ian Tomlinson.
> 
> I can't say I'm finding your hijacking of Tomlinson's death ("the only justice for Ian ...would be the complete smashing of the state") particularly palatable. In fact, I find it downright distasteful and crassly opportunistic.
> 
> It's up to Tomlinson's family to decide what action they want taken, and I'm pretty sure unleashing a bunch of hooded up Herberts at the next demo isn't figuring on their list right now.



hijacking of Tomlinson's death, is not what is been said, just a thought and agreed in context not particularly palatable and could be seen as downright distasteful, but the actions of The Trots is just the same is it not?

it is just a point of view and i would not ask or expect for all to agree, but i do not agree in any fucking context with The Trots or lack of an organised anrchist movement either, if it comes across as us hijacking of Tomlinson's death this was not the aim.

but we need to look at the widder aspects of Ian,s death, and not like sheep wonder into a cul de sac of asking the state to look at there actions, we know why they acted as they did, the ipcc and others are nothing but tools of said state and the moment we begin to ask or trust them then we have lost, the aim objective here is to keep up the presure, the fact moust people do not trust The Police is nothing new, lets build on this.


----------



## paolo (Apr 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Just about the last thing 'normal' protesters need or want is a bunch of self-elected Anarchist wannabe vigilantes trying to beat up the police on behalf of Ian Tomlinson.
> 
> I can't say I'm finding your hijacking of Tomlinson's death ("the only justice for Ian ...would be the complete smashing of the state") particularly palatable. In fact, I find it downright distasteful and crassly opportunistic.
> 
> It's up to Tomlinson's family to decide what action they want taken, and I'm pretty sure unleashing a bunch of hooded up Herberts at the next demo isn't figuring on their list right now.



Yep.

Worth noting, e-numbers, that there was a specific request by the family that the protest would be peaceful, at Bethnal Green nick last week.


----------



## PAD1OH (Apr 19, 2009)

as a matter of interest is "e19896" your date of birth plonked in between your postcode?


----------



## paolo (Apr 19, 2009)

I'm probably the last on the thread to have watched it, but the CC video, linked by The Times... is appalling. The midnight clearance is a bulldozing. It's a commanded clearance. I'm probably not only repeating myself, but also the sentiment of many here, this isn't just a rank and file "bad apple" behaviour issue.

Quite pissed off. I don't have much time for masked up men (of whatever side), but alot of time for peaceful protestors. If CC wasn't peaceful, then what is? Writing a letter?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 20, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I'm probably the last on the thread to have watched it, but the CC video, linked by The Times... is appalling. The midnight clearance is a bulldozing. It's a commanded clearance. I'm probably not only repeating myself, but also the sentiment of many here, this isn't just a rank and file "bad apple" behaviour issue.
> 
> Quite pissed off. I don't have much time for masked up men (of whatever side), but alot of time for peaceful protestors. If CC wasn't peaceful, then what is? Writing a letter?


Have a look at the CC website - the CC Legal Team report into the clearance is on there now (I linked on the discussion, reaction & chat thread). It's powerful stuff


----------



## paolo (Apr 20, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> Have a look at the CC website - the legal report into the clearance is on there now (I linked on the discussion, reaction & chat thread). It's powerful stuff



Good that Bindmans are on it. I used them once (not directly related - employment law)... had a flick through their scrapbook in reception. They seem like the guys & girls to hire. Tenacious.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 20, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Good that Bindmans are on it. I used them once (not directly related - employment law)... had a flick through their scrapbook in reception. They seem like the guys & girls to hire. Tenacious.


I should point out it's from the CC Legal Team rather than the solicitors but either way it's powerful


----------



## albionism (Apr 20, 2009)

.


----------



## paolo (Apr 20, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> I should point out it's from the CC Legal Team rather than the solicitors but either way it's powerful



The law firm will work with what's relevant.

Very very good that someone got a "top shot" though... otherwise it would have been much less clear as to it being a surge like that.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign
> 
> If the trots have taken over the campaign, it’s being served even worse by them than usual.
> 
> ...



You lambaste the Vanguard parties for using the death of a man for their own political needs, then explain how the Anarchist movement could do the same?


----------



## Kaye (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign grafting on its usual cronies in the Muslim Association of Britain and Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Meanwhile the ANARCHIST are invisible - failing to take advantage of te biggest anti-police feeling for decades.
> 
> If the trots have taken over the campaign, it’s being served even worse by them than usual. Hvaeing seen the protest outside Scotland Yard then the protest outside the City of London Police HQ - both had pisspoor attendances.
> ....



This pisses me off. I actually read your post, then realised you're saying nothing.

I'm ex SWP. I'm left wing. You put people like me off. You idiot.


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 20, 2009)

Kaye said:


> This pisses me off. I actually read your post, then realised you're saying nothing.
> 
> I'm ex SWP. I'm left wing. You put people like me off. You idiot.



I'm an Anarchist (syndicalist) and it puts me off!


----------



## rollinder (Apr 20, 2009)

Smoky said:


> Just saw the news that it wasn't a heart attack on the BBC website. What an absolute shit storm this is gonna turn into now eh?


 
even the fucking Mail had that on it's front page 




Corax said:


> Brilliantly dead-pan comparison of the two pathologists by the Graun:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/18/ian-tomlinson-postmortem-doctors


 
seriously inapropate lols at seing this as the side banner ad on that artical


----------



## albionism (Apr 20, 2009)

Wheeling a cardboard guillotine through
the streets is not going to win people over
to Anarchism. It will put people right off
and make anarchists look like the sort of
people who would want to see a return 
to public be-headings. I, as an anarchist,
have spend years trying to counter the
myth that we are a bunch of idiots bent
on violence and mayhem. Pushing stupid
cardboard guillotines through the streets
would only help to perpetuate this image
and drive people, who may well have been
interested in Anarchism, away.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2009)

similarly in response to enumbers:

My belief in anarchism as the right course is based upon respect for the equality and innate value of *all* people, regardless of race, colour, creed, class or anything else.

That's somewhat at odds with jumping to violence until absolutely forced, from my PoV.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Who said one of those comments was not from us?


Oh, fucking marvellous! Enumbers plays semantic games with us now.

Apologies to others for briefly diverting this thread, but this needs to be said.

I'm not in any way connected with any of these anarchist or leftist organisations and I'm a long way from being any kind of activist, but I find my views converging with theirs on regular occasions. A thread like this is a fabulous opportunity for me - and, no doubt, others who have been as shocked and horrified by what's gone as I have been - to learn a bit more about the politics, philosophies and history of what is happening.

Your slabs of diatribe don't help, enumbers. When I have bothered to read them, they always seem to be impenetrable walls of ideology and dogma, couched in terms which make them incomprehensible to anyone not already steeped in the language and culture of that kind of stuff.

Not only that, but I find the way you seem to regard Urban as your very own personal write-only metablog REALLY FUCKING IRRITATING. You rarely engage with other posters, but just barrel up and fire off yet another thousand word post - which is rarely, if ever, original in any case - every time it suits you to, derailing discussion and irritating lots of people. It comes across as thoroughly discourteous.

Please consider getting your own blogging site and doing all that shit there. Then you can post a cheeky link here every time - if you really must - you've made another entry (or cooked something together out of someone else's work,which seems to be more often what's happening).


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Oh, fucking marvellous! Enumbers plays semantic games with us now.
> 
> Apologies to others for briefly diverting this thread, but this needs to be said.
> 
> ...



Take Look at the history of TROTS, it has imposed itself on workers struggles. It has been opportunistic and parasitical. The bulk of the SWP were at the American embassy on April 1st for another dismal Islamic/trot love-in with the SAME FUCKING SPEAKERS! 

The so called ANARCHIST movement, is just hype, agreed what was seen on G20 would be a shock, but this is the aim objective of such policing, we name it intimidation escalation,  and do as The Police did G20, there is little wonder a man is killed, but a few batons on the heads of a few middle class might have just woken them up.

slabs of diatribe do not help agreed, my comments have been very much in keeping with the events pointing out the abuse and actions of The Police that day, and as said on R4 today (20 4 09) there was not Tear Gas Watter Cannons etc, so lets take matters in proportion shall we, what was seen on G20 is what most working class people see at football matches, in there everyday life's are there asking for the state to look at itself of course not.

Yes the truth needs to come out over Ian,s death and if you look read between the lines it has done, but all this fucking bleating on for Justice is just a cul de sac.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The so called ANARCHIST movement, is just hype, agreed what was seen on G20 would be a shock, but this is the aim objective of such policing, we name it intimidation escalation,  and do as The Police did G20, there is little wonder a man is killed, but a few batons on the heads of a few middle class might have just woken them up.


Do you think you could get any more patronising?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 20, 2009)

Last Hours has just published a very important preliminary timeline of the events that led to the death of Ian Tomlinson, based on evidence in the public domain. Links to that evidence are provided throughout.



> This is an attempt to compile a comprehensive narrative about the situation around Royal Exchange when Ian Tomlinson was assaulted, and subsequent events, referenced to photos, videos and eyewitness accounts. It is still very much a work in progress, and will be updated frequently as additional material is located.



http://www.lasthours.org.uk/news/g20-another-version-of-the-truth/

Please read it, digest it, and distribute it.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign grafting on its usual cronies in the Muslim Association of Britain and Palestine Solidarity Campaign.



just for refference don't ever confuse as you have done here the PSC as being some SWP shop front or even attempt that personal polictcal attack from a launchpad of your own personal prejudices... 

got any proof of this outragious claim if so do post it up...

which is what you're doing here and oddly at the same time critising the SWP for it's bandwagoneering whilst attempting to do the same ...

AGAIN.

not the first time you've used someones death to promote your own poltical ends is it... 

enumbers...


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 20, 2009)

Is this still the Ian Tomlinson thread?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Is this still the Ian Tomlinson thread?



it can be if we have consesnious to ignore enumbers innit...


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Take Look at the history of TROTS, it has imposed itself on workers struggles. It has been opportunistic and parasitical. The bulk of the SWP were at the American embassy on April 1st for another dismal Islamic/trot love-in with the SAME FUCKING SPEAKERS!
> 
> The so called ANARCHIST movement, is just hype, agreed what was seen on G20 would be a shock, but this is the aim objective of such policing, we name it intimidation escalation,  and do as The Police did G20, there is little wonder a man is killed, but a few batons on the heads of a few middle class might have just woken them up.
> 
> ...



You see, you still completely miss the point. I'm not interested in the internecine conflicts between the various factions and gradations of left-leaning groups. I don't know enough about them to BE interested - and I'm not sure, on the basis of what you're serving up, that I WANT to know much more.

Let's get back to basics here - we, many of us, have some grave concerns about the way we are being policed. This has come to a head with the demos on 1st and 2nd April, where a man died in circumstances which suggest police actions as, at the very least, a proximate cause. An opportunity has presented itself to get the police bang to rights on some of the nastier practices they've been indulging in for decades. And YOU want to turn the whole thing into some kind of sideshow about whose ideology is the purest??? Quite apart from the disrespect inherent in hijacking the death of a man to such tawdry purpose, don't you see what an opportunity you're missing? Do you _really_ believe that the pettifogging niceties of your grievances against other groupings matter more than the broader issue of civil liberties and how we may (or may not) be allowed to protest in future?

Honestly, get over yourself.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

nothing wrong with these complaints as to the conduct of enumbers, however, it maintains the derail to try and reason with the poster.

this is a point of prinicpal which is unwaverying.

no one on this thread has any intrest in enumbers attempted poltical capital from Ian Tomlinson's death.  The very action negates any vailidity of enumbers points.  

can we please not feed the troll.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> what was seen on G20 is what most working class people see at football matches


Yeah, it was just like the football:





> Yes the truth needs to come out over Ian,s death and if you look read between the lines it has done, but all this fucking bleating on for Justice is just a cul de sac.


So is your attempted derail of this thread, take it elsewhere.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2009)

Picking one comment out:



e19896 said:


> as said on R4 today (20 4 09) there was not Tear Gas Watter Cannons etc



Yeah, I heard that and found it sickening.  I didn't catch who was talking, but I think they were a senior cop.  The message they were putting across was "How dare you object to being batoned, punched and kicked?  Think yourselves lucky.  If we had our way we'd be gassing and w-cannoning you."


----------



## Groucho (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign grafting on its usual cronies in the Muslim Association of Britain and Palestine Solidarity Campaign. ...



In fact a 'United Campaign Against Police Violence' is in the process of being set up and includes representatives of G20 Meltdown, the Green Party, the StWC, the SWP, unions and which is in contact with the solicitors for Ian Tomlinson's family.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

Groucho said:


> In fact a 'United Campaign Against Police Violence' is in the process of being set up and includes representatives of G20 Meltdown, the Green Party, the StWC, the SWP, unions and which is in contact with the solicitors for Ian Tomlinson's family.


And LDMG.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> I didn't catch who was talking, but I think they were a senior cop.



I think it was Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, vice president of the Police Superintendents' Association (see R4 website).

IIRC he also said something like "the police were facing thousands of protestors intent on violence".*  I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue or a blatent lie, but even if the former, it shows the prejudices inherent in the police at a senior level.  

I hope that the R4 audience will realise that this is not a few "rotten apples" story, it is endemic within the system from the PCSOs up to the Home Office politicians who pass bad law.

*Edited to add: maybe he meant "the police were intent on violence facing thousands of protestors"


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> just for refference don't ever confuse as you have done here the PSC as being some SWP shop front or even attempt that personal polictcal attack from a launchpad of your own personal prejudices...
> 
> got any proof of this outragious claim if so do post it up...
> 
> ...



and this http://www.defendpeacefulprotest.org/ is what?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 20, 2009)

Struwwelpeter said:


> I think it was Chief Superintendent Derek Barnett, vice president of the Police Superintendents' Association (see R4 website).
> 
> IIRC he also said something like "the police were facing thousands of protestors intent on violence".*  I don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue or a blatent lie, but even if the former, it shows the prejudices inherent in the police at a senior level.
> 
> ...




He also said that police were faced with two options - containing the crowd (i.e. kettling) or forcefully dispersing them. 

How about option 3? Allowing people to demonstrate freely FFS. 

We also need to keep banging away to the media etc that the g20 was NOT a riot. There was no violent mob. there were no petriol bombs. There were no showers of missiles. There were a few scuffels with the police and a few windows were smashed early on in the day  - yet the police treated everybody as if we were on some sort of rampage - and they got increasingly violent as the day went on.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 20, 2009)

Sir Ken Jones apologistises

count yourselves lucky
few bad apples etc 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007580.stm


> Its president, Sir Ken Jones, said that policing of protests in the UK was "proportionate" and recent criticisms had lacked objectivity and perspective.
> 
> "We need to make sure we don't condemn the many for the problems created by a few," he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
> 
> ...


well now i see the light! fanks ossifer, nothing to see here, *ddoffs cap


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

winjer said:


> And LDMG.



this http://www.defendpeacefulprotest.org/ and the death of a working class person becomes cannon foder for those involved with this front, fucking de-rail indeed just said stuff that perhaps should not have been said, consdering the make up of those involved with the G20 it was going to cause upset and shouts of de-rail, meanwhile The Trots sell there papers, sit in a room with every vangard front, and the death of Ian becomes another Blair Peach


> 'Despite our repeated requests to be searched and allowed to leave the space, we were held there for six hours with no access to water, food, toilets or medical care. Proudly, throughout all this, not one person in the crowd reacted with violence to any person or property. People shared the little they had and held public meetings about the aims of the G20 summit. There was little show of anger, but much unhappiness. When, finally, we were herded out one by one at midnight, I felt cold to the core, chilled by the unprovoked aggression of those who I had been brought up to trust. I am deeply ashamed of my state, in which reasonable and calm protesters are criminalised and provoked in such a manner.
> 
> Their use of section 14 on 800 campers was mindless, their violence was a tragedy and their very presence, with armoured cars and helicopters, a ridiculous waste of public money.'
> 
> ...



Sounds like Sheffield City Center on a friday night:


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 20, 2009)

ddraig said:


> Sir Ken Jones apologistises



Looks like I fingered the wrong guy!  Oh well, unlike the police I'll admit my mistake and apologise immediately.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> blah blah blah...the death of a working class person ...blah blah blah


Maybe I'm out of step with the political zeitgeist here (in which case I'll happily be corrected), but this stinks of tokenism. The man who died was a *person*. A citizen, killed during an interaction with a group of police officers. I think it's an insult to him, anyone reading this, and anyone who truly wants just to live in a society where we can be free to express ourselves - within reasonable limits - without fear of violence or suppression to try and turn this into a class issue.

AGAIN, I think that tokenising this *individual* as some kind of "working class" totem is to hijack the far more important issue that this situation has brought up.

Urban, am I wrong? Is it more important that the man who died was working class? Should we somehow be regarding this whole business differently depending on some arbitrary class distinction around who dies when they get shoved over by a pumped-up copper?


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Apr 20, 2009)

ddraig said:


> Sir Ken Jones apologistises
> 
> count yourselves lucky
> few bad apples etc
> ...



I listened to that. I was amazed at how blatently he was trying to spin it.

He says police forces in other countries use CS Gas, Water Cannons and Rubber Bullets on rioters. But the people we are concerned with are people who weren't rioting and were being twatted by the police.

And going on about 'a few bad apples' and 'looking at hings in the round'. Why is it ok to do that for the police and not the protestors - I mean rioterts? 

The problem he has is when you look at it 'in the round' the Met and City of London Police look like a load of paranoid thugs.


----------



## cesare (Apr 20, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> The problem he has is when you look at it 'in the round' the Met and City of London Police look like a load of paranoid thugs.



Exactly.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> and this http://www.defendpeacefulprotest.org/ is what?


A website set up by some concerned individuals, not any of the groups you mention.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

winjer said:


> A website set up by some concerned individuals, not any of the groups you mention.



So there are not The Trots, and others now they become concerned individuals, some people need to join the ipcc with such blaitent whitewash, meanwhile those who murderd Ian are still erm helping old ladys across the road..


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> So there are not The Trots, and others now they become concerned individuals, some people need to join the ipcc with such blaitent whitewash, meanwhile those who murderd Ian are still erm helping old ladys across the road..


No you idiot, they are separate from the Trots. Not Trots. No interest in icepicks. Never even been to Kirovohrad Oblast. Do you see?

"We'll be meeting up with *a wider campaign against police violence *very shortly to see how we can keep up the pressure and work together."

http://planethackney.blogspot.com/2009/04/police-taser-raids-on-whitechapel.html


----------



## nick h. (Apr 20, 2009)

Any chance of getting this thread back on track? Perhaps enumbers could start his own thread called 'where did it all go wrong for the left', with a nice pic of Neil Kinnock falling over on the beach?


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

> One former Met commander believes there were not enough senior officers to manage the police operation.
> 
> John O'Connor told Sky News: "Because the main men in charge were not on the streets there's a huge problem in ensuring the rules and regulations are fully implemented, and officers are left to their own devices."



http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...olice_Tactics_During_Demonstrations_In_London

One of the two ground commanders, Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson (CoLP TSG), was on Cornhill when Ian Tomlinson was assaulted, as Last Hours report. The other - CS Mick Johnson (Met TSG) - was on Bartholomew Lane outside RBS shortly before it was smashed. There were only two other 'men in charge' above them, Commander Bob Broadhurst and Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas of the Met.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Urban, am I wrong? Is it more important that the man who died was working class?


I'm sure I'll get murdered for this, but I've always felt the working/middle class distinction, in today's society, is so facile as to be utterly bollox.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm sure I'll get murdered for this, but I've always felt the working/middle class distinction, in today's society, is so facile as to be utterly bollox.



 Now you've done it!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 20, 2009)

facepalm


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying there's more subdivisions.  The 'media class' spring instantly to mind, as an entirely different beast to the wage slave that holds down an mediocre admin job and struggles to pay the bills, yet both would be regarded as 'middle class' by many.

I must be feckin mental........

_*waits, holding breath*_

ETA: I'm sure this has been done before by smarter people than me, and it's a total derail, so I'll leave it.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm sure I'll get murdered for this, but I've always felt the working/middle class distinction, in today's society, is so facile as to be utterly bollox.


Well, I'd go so far as to say that every time it's been used to make any kind of point, the distinction has seemed utterly specious. If there is a distinction which _isn't_ "utterly bollox", I haven't seen it being made here.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm sure I'll get murdered for this, but I've always felt the working/middle class distinction, in today's society, is so facile as to be utterly bollox.


Try coming on the UFFC rally* this October, it'll show _your comment _to be so facile as to be utterly bollox.

* The United Families & Friends Campaign is a coalition of families and friends of those that have died in the custody of police and prison officers as well as those who are killed in secure psychiatric hospitals.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> and this http://www.defendpeacefulprotest.org/ is what?



a 404 and totally irrelevant you gold plated knob.

YOU are using the death for YOUR policitcal capital to promote YOUR poltical agenda.

it is this which is distastful.

and also what you accuse others of doing, which makes you a hypocrte.

final discussion on this subject, i'm not responding to either your dispicable posts or pandering further your attention seeking.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 20, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> a 404 and totally irrelevant you gold plated knob.
> 
> YOU are using the death for YOUR policitcal capital to promote YOUR poltical agenda.
> 
> ...



I think you have a point.  When I heard the Ian Tomlinson case turning into a proper news story, I partly thought that this is a good thing for the protest movement.  I was immidiately disgusted with myself, as someone died for no reason and he didn't give a fuck about any of it (as far as I know...).  I'm sure IT would have happily remained alive, rather than turning into some kind of political martyr.  

And yet that is kind of what happened.  But demanding that something is done about it is the right thing to do.  Should we just sit back whilst the state erodes our civil liberties?  Or should we demand justice and change?  The fact that he died is not the fault of any proesters or anyone posting in this thread.  I would rather he was alive.  But we can't change the past, we can only influence the future.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> a 404 and totally irrelevant you gold plated knob.
> 
> YOU are using the death for YOUR policitcal capital to promote YOUR poltical agenda.
> 
> ...



attention seeking and a poltical agenda yes i agree, mine is to ensure all those involved with the murder of Ian are dealt with, but as an anarchist i have no faith in the likes of the ippc, this is just a cul de sac of nowhere, joining forces with other vangards is much the same cul de sac of nowhere is this distastful to point out these fact hold view a point about the murder of Ian or is it the fact it is myself that has pointed out this information, one is not giveing info on a wire where police and others read, but those who know me also trust me, GarfieldLeChat your actions are as just distastful and have been to de-rail the topic while pointing the finger at myself, ill make it clear i desire very much for the truth of The Murder of Ian to come out, but justice in a state of capitil will be a long time comeing..



Jon-of-arc said:


> I think you have a point.  When I heard the Ian Tomlinson case turning into a proper news story, I partly thought that this is a good thing for the protest movement.  I was immidiately disgusted with myself, as someone died for no reason and he didn't give a fuck about any of it (as far as I know...).  I'm sure IT would have happily remained alive, rather than turning into some kind of political martyr.
> 
> And yet that is kind of what happened.  But demanding that something is done about it is the right thing to do.  Should we just sit back whilst the state erodes our civil liberties?  Or should we demand justice and change?  The fact that he died is not the fault of any proesters or anyone posting in this thread.  I would rather he was alive.  But we can't change the past, we can only influence the future.



No we should not, but as said nither place faith in The likes of The IPCC.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> attention seeking and a poltical agenda yes i agree, mine is to ensure all those *involved with the murder* of Ian are dealt with,



And this is another fucking great footbullet.

Most people on here are clear enough in their words to make it obvious that they do connect Tomlinson's death with the violence inflicted upon him, but they stop short of alleging murder.

You, on the other hand, lard your posts at every opportunity with this unfounded accusation. It undermines your cause. It's factually incorrect, because for it to have been murder, certain specific things would have had to happen, none of which have...and even if they had, there is the small matter of proving it in a court of law. YOU would be outraged if one of your boot boys was being accused, repeatedly in a public forum, of murder because he pushed someone over and they died. But you're happy to make the same - utterly unfounded - allegation time and time again on here. I think you may even have been asked to stop doing it, but a little thing like that doesn't stop you.

Ian Tomlinson died. It is very likely that he died when he did because of something a police officer did to him. That is bad enough, and if it is shown that his death really *was* a direct consequence of police actions, then it's a very serious matter that needs addressing, not just at the individual copper level, but structurally, because what happened to Ian happened to lots of other people on that day, too - it just happens that none of them died. Whether or not it was murder, quite apart from being very unlikely, is utterly irrelevant, and only serves to make those suggesting it - and any associated with them, which might explain the ever-widening gulf between you, enumbers, and most of the rest of Urban - look like morons.


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 20, 2009)

David Davis: British cops don't wear balaclavas

that david davis civil rights hero!

20.04.2009 11:28
2 minutes into audio recording.
Recent evidence of the opposite:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2009/02/420983.jpg 


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427920.html?c=on#comments

and vp of acpo said protestors intent on killing police


----------



## lostexpectation (Apr 20, 2009)

threatened taser use at convergence center raid is now getting a viewing
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427921.html?c=on#comments

why you need a taser for unarmed people lying on the floor?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

look i did post a long coment but on thinking, time to move on..


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> while pointing the finger at myself, ill make it clear i desire very much for the truth of The Murder of Ian to come out, but justice in a state of capitil will be a long time comeing..


If you keep repeating this unfounded allegation of murder you will be banned.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

editor said:


> If you keep repeating this unfounded allegation of murder you will be banned.



So what was The Death of Ian, this needs to be asked and debated, there is no doubt in my mind the actions of The Police led to his death, in context there is an unfounded allegation, i have no doubt that the actions of the police will in time be proven to be what they are, i have no faith in the likes of The IPCC, but i do understand the request of editor, the desire to safe gurd urban 75, in that respect ill drop out from this conversation, as he has asked..


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2009)

enumbers - you do your cause great damage.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 20, 2009)

Just read this http://climatecamp.org.uk/themes/ccamptheme/files/report.pdf and i would not disagree with what has been said, go read..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Who said one of those comments was not from us?, therefore it is a comment, just another one of your assumptions, the only justice for Ian would not be the reform or any public enq etc, it would be the complete smashing of the state, look at the protest around G20, done by fear and intimidation, perhaps if there was an anarchist movement that was organised and militant The Filth might just think twice about attacking protesters, also killing one of them, perhaps if the so called anarchist movement had done as promised it said and had a riot we might not be where we are today.


Did a (partially) united anarchist front ever give the police pause before? Of course not. They attack because they know that their paymasters will allow them to do so with relative impunity. Numbers make no difference when you have the full "majesty" of state power behind you.


> All ive seen is the sheep, getting beaten attacked and kicked, it is perhaps to utopian for me to ask, where is the militant anarchist movement, there is not one and if there was would the trots as they have done be empowered by the lack of an anarchist movement of course not, this is not to remove the very good work of some anarchist, but a few dose not make a movement.



Your assumption that there is or even should be some kind of over-arching "anarchist movement" kind of misses the point of anarchism, don't you think?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2009)

Brother Mouzone said:


> You lambaste the Vanguard parties for using the death of a man for their own political needs, then explain how the Anarchist movement could do the same?



What disturbs me is that anyone would have a battalion 7,000 strong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm sure I'll get murdered for this, but I've always felt the working/middle class distinction, in today's society, is so facile as to be utterly bollox.


To me it depends what your distinction is based on, and what you're applying it to. Class analysis is still valid, it's just somewhat more problematic than it used to be.


----------



## Corax (Apr 20, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> To me it depends what your distinction is based on, and what you're applying it to. Class analysis is still valid, it's just somewhat more problematic than it used to be.


That's fair enough, and I'd broadly agree.

Was _really_ expecting to get slaughtered, so feel like I've dodged a bullet on here tbh...!


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2009)

C4 are saying the Met have asked for a 3rd post-mortem examination.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

Jon-of-arc said:


> And yet that is kind of what happened.  But demanding that something is done about it is the right thing to do.  Should we just sit back whilst the state erodes our civil liberties?  Or should we demand justice and change?  The fact that he died is not the fault of any proesters or anyone posting in this thread.  I would rather he was alive.  But we can't change the past, we can only influence the future.



wanting an overall change in policing and proably in governance in order to instigate that is quite different from wanting to use it as a stick to batter your personal poltical opponents and attempting to gain political capital and personal kudos is however entirely not in keeping with the seniment and is only making personal capital out of the situation.

which is what enumbers is doing, again, least we forget this isn't the first time that they along with others have attempted to polarise a non connected issue with their own poltical aims.  ourely to score proleier than thou points with those who they'd wish to be ingratiated by...

that's why it's dispicable because it shows not only an inherant disregard for the circumstances but it also shows the rather warped viewpoint the intent comes from...

in a wider context sure the death of an innocent can be the rally cry or kick up the arse that movements people societies need to alter the manner in which they act.  rarely though has something of this nature taken on such an overarching level of change historically, it would take sufficent deaths for change to be considered not the lucky* one off which happens to chime with a larger movements objectives (*Lucky in terms of it's suprising it doesn't happen all the more from the manner in which police treat people).

this isn't what enumbers is doing they are using it as another stick to bash their pantomime villans the swp... 

which is sickening...

(and also places me in a position where i feel i'm defending a group who i loath intensly, because of the flagrant misuse of the death)


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 20, 2009)

e19896 said:


> attention seeking and a poltical agenda yes i agree, mine is to ensure all those involved with the murder of Ian are dealt with


and you legitimate proposeals for doign so in a manner which withstands public scruntany and also peer review please. 

in detail.






e19896 said:


> but as an anarchist i have no faith in the likes of the ippc



logical fallacy: I'm this so i believe this, and if you don't then you aren't one of us.  

you being an anarchist doesn't give you mutual exclusivity to having little faith in state archtecture.  indeed other than informing your poltics inside of that architecture it provides, seemingly in your individual case rather than as a general rule, a way for you to 'stand out' and differentiate yourself from your peers.

seems to me to be wearing a label rather like some wear dior.  Fashion statment is it nathan?


e19896 said:


> this is just a cul de sac of nowhere



agreed but then conversations with those who disagree with your eeyore viewpoint tend to be circlar nonsense which derails threads as once again the mighty defender of the peoples: enumbers.


e19896 said:


> joining forces with other vangards is much the same cul de sac of nowhere is this distastful to point out these fact hold view a point about the murder of Ian



not at all i'm clearly pointing out distaste about people using the death for their poltical ends.  

the supposed vangards which you allude are entirely different groups who aren't really associated other than by the entirely fictious merger in your own head.  

in attempting to use the death to be another tool in your personal arsenal to attack your political opponents which you beleive to be wrong you are guilty of doing precisely what you claim these other groups are.  and by extension you are equally, by your own standard here, gulity of policising the death for your own ends. 


e19896 said:


> is it the fact it is myself that has pointed out this information


you haven't just provided information tho have you to say as such is deliberately dishonest. for the reasons already stated.



e19896 said:


> one is not giveing info on a wire where police and others read


I think if you are going to use such thinly veiled language to hide you implication you had better back that up with irrifuteable evidence or withdraw the comment.  nether of which you have in the past or judging by the continuation of your stance on this issue you seem willing to do.



e19896 said:


> but those who know me also trust me


ah the old troll of i've received lot's of pm's of support, remixed.  

old shit trolling tactic is old and shit.



e19896 said:


> GarfieldLeChat your actions are as just distastful and have been to de-rail the topic


dearailing by asking you to stay on topic and not attempt to politicse the death to suit your own aims...

right-o...



e19896 said:


> while pointing the finger at myself


if you wish to not be accused then simply stop doing it. 

a spade is sometimes just a spade.



e19896 said:


> ill make it clear i desire very much for the truth of The Murder of Ian to come out


well firstly you'd have to prove catigorically this was a murder.  secondly you'd have to involve yourself at a greater level than making wild accustations about poltical groups you dislike on bulletin boards.



e19896 said:


> but justice in a state of capitil will be a long time comeing..



if at all, however it means nothing in terms of your actions. 

I'd retract or stfu if i were you...


----------



## Weller (Apr 20, 2009)

Fair dos to them though they were trying some different tactics at last weekends demo..








Sorry


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 21, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> wanting an overall change in policing and proably in governance in order to instigate that is quite different from wanting to use it as a stick to batter your personal poltical opponents and attempting to gain political capital and personal kudos is however entirely not in keeping with the seniment and is only making personal capital out of the situation.
> 
> which is what enumbers is doing, again, least we forget this isn't the first time that they along with others have attempted to polarise a non connected issue with their own poltical aims.  ourely to score proleier than thou points with those who they'd wish to be ingratiated by...
> 
> ...



Sorry, think I may have been preaching to the converted here. I see there is some internal controversy on this thread.  Was replying to one comment, not a whole thread.


----------



## winjer (Apr 21, 2009)

e19896 said:


> The SWP has taken advantage of the political vacuum left by anarcho-inactivity and set up its own  Justice For Ian Tomlinson campaign grafting on its usual cronies in the Muslim Association of Britain and Palestine Solidarity Campaign.



"A broad coalition of victims of police violence, together with their representatives, has recently founded The United Campaign Against Police Violence (UCAPV). The provisional committee so far comprises delegates from United Families Campaign, Inquest, RMT (London Region), Public and Commercial Services Union, University and College Lecturers Union, the newly-formed Servicemens Union, John McDonnell MP (together with the Labour Representation Committee), Jeremy Corbyn MP, Ken Livingstone, Socialist Workers' Party, Stop the War/Gaza coalition, Green Party, Liberty, Climate Camp, G20 Meltdown and Newham Monitoring Group (among others)."

Campaign website:
http://www.againstpoliceviolence.org.uk/


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 21, 2009)

does anyone know who commissioned the 3rd autopsy yet?

No mention on BBC News on the telly


----------



## winjer (Apr 21, 2009)

"The request was made by lawyers for a police officer interviewed about the newspaper vendor's death on 1 April."

"A Metropolitan Police pathologist would also be present to observe the post-mortem examination at the request of Scotland Yard"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8009404.stm


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 21, 2009)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Sorry, think I may have been preaching to the converted here. I see there is some internal controversy on this thread.  Was replying to one comment, not a whole thread.



yeah i know wasn't having a go


----------



## Corax (Apr 21, 2009)

Police Oracle posters now losing the plot entirely:


> It needs more than words now. Simple assurance would be greeted with disbelief. The suspended officers need to be reinstated, that woman at the G20 needs to be arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice and the government needs to reassure the officers that they will be supported if they need to use force.
> 
> Failure to do that and I can see the possibility of this government being brought to an end by the troops. It has nearly happened before with a previous Labour government. If police feel they can no longer use force and there are riots as a result, the armed services may be forced to rescue the country. It may be an "interesting" summer.



More worrying though, is this, about FITwatch:


> I would say that group are blatently targetting individuals and are encouraging violence on the targeted individuals by suggestion..... Actually, I would say that site could provide valuable information to a low level terrorist organisation or wanna be torrorists..... I say shut them down, I say identify the fit-watch organisers publically and see how they like having their faces and identities splashed all over the internet........ pah.....


Another poster then adds:


> Its not great but its a start... this is *SNIP*.... I believe he is a fitwatch contributer...
> 
> 
> *SNIP link*
> ...



Is this not an open invitation to police intimidation and harassment?  Should FITwatch be getting a heads up about this?


----------



## Mooncat (Apr 21, 2009)

Corax said:


> Police Oracle posters now losing the plot entirely



A certain rabbit would run rampant on that site if they hadn't closed it off to new members - honestly, and some people say Urban75 is a circle-jerk


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2009)

Corax said:


> Is this not an open invitation to police intimidation and harassment?  Should FITwatch be getting a heads up about this?


They may already know, but no harm in dropping a comment on the blog.


----------



## winjer (Apr 21, 2009)

Oh my:
"_The Independent Police Complaints Commission - which is questioning a police officer in connection with the death of Mr Tomlinson - sought an injunction preventing fresh pictures of events preceeding Mr Tomlinson's death from being broadcast. Tonight a judge refused to grant an injunction, and C4 News and More 4 News intend to broadcast the item tomorrow.

The report from our Home Affairs Correspondent Simon Israel includes a frame-by-frame analysis of events leading up to the moment when Mr Tomlinson was struck at by a police officer and fell to the ground._"

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/ipcc+channel+four+injunction+fails/3102562


----------



## Corax (Apr 21, 2009)

ymu said:


> They may already know, but no harm in dropping a comment on the blog.



FITwatch Emailed (not by me; beaten to it!)

Although like you (and another) say, they've most likely got their eyes open.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 21, 2009)

FITwatch helps to level the playing field, using legitimately obtained and publicly published material.

If police officers who think that battering someone with their hands in their pockets and walking away is cricket, well, they need to find some new playmates. 

If police officers think that 'outing' people who are already the subject of highly subjective and politically-motivated briefing notes is in any way playing fair, then let them consider what the logical step is with regards to their own individual circumstances.

There is no hiding behind a uniform, a badge, a helmet, when what you do is so morally corrupt. How proud of what you do are you? Do you regale your children with stories of what you get up to, come bedtime? Do you whisper sweet nothings about your day's business into the ear of your sweetheart in the balmy eve? Does it turn you on, to think about the crack, the splintering of bone, the give of flesh beneath your mighty weapons? But what is this, but a willing victim, a faceless, meaningless foe! How legitimate my consequence-free ecstasy!


----------



## Brother Mouzone (Apr 22, 2009)

Corax said:


> Police Oracle posters now losing the plot entirely:
> 
> 
> More worrying though, is this, about FITwatch:
> ...



I stopped reading Oracle, it's just plane scary to think the people writing those messages are policing our streets.  There was one PC who suggested all the protesters should be doused in petrol and set on fire.



> Originally Posted by plod forum user Maverick22
> I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police.



source

There is more here: -
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8986676&postcount=28

Give's you an idea of the mentality of most police officers.


----------



## winjer (Apr 22, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/new-ian-tomlinson-g20-video

"_G20 protest footage shows moment Ian Tomlinson's head hit the pavement

... 

The full version of the video handed to the Guardian and the IPCC shows the lead-up to the alleged assault on Tomlinson, including an incident in which a policeman appeared to grab a protester. The protester's head was then hit against the door of a police van. That sparked an angry reaction from the crowd, which began running toward Royal Exchange [Buildings].

A crucial sequence then captures the seconds leading up to the moment Tomlinson is pushed. Tomlinson is seen in the middle of Royal Exchange [Buildings], facing the advancing lines of police. His hands are in his pockets and he is standing behind a rack of bicycles. When an officer takes a dog close to him, Tomlinson turns his back._"


----------



## e19896 (Apr 22, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/new-ian-tomlinson-g20-video
> 
> "_G20 protest footage shows moment Ian Tomlinson's head hit the pavement
> 
> ...



Still people are saying Ian,s death was not a calculated act, with intent to harm that lead to his death? 

The IPCC, that well known cop biased whitewasher, have called for a debate on police violence whilst they, ahem, 'maintain public order.'

Here we can only say alleged, but by now we all know what the actions of The Police was on that day even George Monbiot


> The policing of the G20 protests at the beginning of this month was *routine. Policemen hiding their identification numbers and beating up peaceful protesters is as much a part of British life as grey skies and red buses.



This being the point it has become routine, in this circumstance it was going to lead to a death, what makes it more fucked up is the fact it was a non protester and those who was not there, and understand all to well what the actions of The Police was that day are now by follow protesters being named as dangerous and extream.

Meanwhile some walk down the cul de sac of another whitewash of The IPPC was going to seek injunctions, there job like The Police they whitewash for is to uphold the very fabric of intimidation and fear and as long as people fail to name the action of The Police on that day for what they was, Ian Tomlisons death like so many working class deaths, we seek justice for THE 96 KILLED 15 4 1989 at Sheffield’s Hillsborough football ground, not because we bleve in there justice because it exposes how and what capitalism stands for.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 22, 2009)

A third postmortem examination will be carried out today on the body of Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests, the City of London coroner has said. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-protests

The scum that might have caused his death, will not let him rest be placed into the ground, even in death they ensure the suffering gose..

See here for a good update on Ian,s last moments http://www.lasthours.org.uk/news/g20-another-version-of-the-truth/ and here for good insight into The Police: Why do The Police Riot?


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 22, 2009)

e19896 said:


> A third postmortem examination will be carried out today on the body of Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests, the City of London coroner has said.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-protests
> 
> The scum that might have caused his death, will not let him rest be placed into the ground, even in death they ensure the suffering gose..


You can't have it both ways, you know, enumbers. If you are determined to make an issue of the means of death - which you clearly are with your previous insistence on it being murder - then you have to accept that every effort has then to be made to establish exactly what he died *of*.

I would have thought you'd be delighted that the *facts* surrounding Ian Tomlinson's death were being established with such care, given the maundering on you've been doing about his martyrdom? Yet when it actually looks like that might be happening, all of a sudden it's disrespectful.

So what's it to be? Fact-free bluster about a Martyred Working Class Bloke, or a determination to see that the police are properly, and factually, held to account for the consequences of their behaviour?


----------



## TopCat (Apr 22, 2009)

When have the police _ever_ been held to account for their murderous behaviour?


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> When have the police _ever_ been held to account for their murderous behaviour?


Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on trying to. And anyway, the mere fact that it's common knowledge that people like Blair Peach have died as a result of police brutality shows that, at least in the court of public opinion, there is some accountability.

It might not change much, but it might _just_ be enough to keep things better than they might otherwise be.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Doesn't mean we shouldn't carry on trying to. And anyway, the mere fact that it's common knowledge that people like Blair Peach have died as a result of police brutality shows that, at least in the court of public opinion, there is some accountability.
> 
> It might not change much, but it might _just_ be enough to keep things better than they might otherwise be.



Court of public Opinion? How does that work then? What punishment does it impose?

The police don't give a fig about public opinion.


----------



## winjer (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> When have the police _ever_ been held to account for their murderous behaviour?


1833, Culley cup?


----------



## e19896 (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Court of public Opinion? How does that work then? What punishment does it impose?
> 
> The police don't give a fig about public opinion.



Look here for an example how as said The Police do not give a fuck about public opinion not one those deaths has any one involved be brought to book as has been said:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Court of public Opinion? How does that work then? What punishment does it impose?
> 
> The police don't give a fig about public opinion.



Damn right they don't - hence the ongoing police mutiny.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> When have the police _ever_ been held to account for their murderous behaviour?



IIRC no copper has ever been convicted for any of the numerous deaths in custody.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Court of public Opinion? How does that work then? What punishment does it impose?
> 
> The police don't give a fig about public opinion.


Organisationally, perhaps not. Individually, I suspect they do. Coppers have to live in communities, too, and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.


----------



## Corax (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Organisationally, perhaps not. Individually, I suspect they do. Coppers have to live in communities, too, and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.



I suspect they're, shall we say, _socially selective_.  That is, they surround themselves with those that agree with their views, and anyone they cross paths with that doesn't, is clearly an idiot/pinko/crusty/scrounger/terrorist.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 22, 2009)

Corax said:


> I suspect they're, shall we say, _socially selective_.  That is, they surround themselves with those that agree with their views, and anyone they cross paths with that doesn't, is clearly an idiot/pinko/crusty/scrounger/terrorist.


Yeah, I think so. But the more selective they get, the more that idiot/pinko/crusty/scrounger/terrorist:honestupstandingcopper skews.

Ultimately, I think this is self-correcting - there WILL come a point where the police WILL be regarded with enough hostility by enough of the population that it will be impossible for them to do their job. My big fear is that by the time that tipping point arrives, we're going to be a long way down a very nasty road.

I'm just not sure - nor are any of us, going by the liveliness of this debate - what it'd take to arrest that slow process, or bring it to a head more quickly.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Organisationally, perhaps not. Individually, I suspect they do. Coppers have to live in communities, too, and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.



They seemed to cope with being objects of widespread public contempt during the miners strike.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Organisationally, perhaps not. Individually, I suspect they do. Coppers have to live in communities, too, and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.



Wrong way round - organisationally they're actively anti-racist and all the _formal_ requirements - it's the coppers _on the ground _ who don't give a shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Organisationally, perhaps not. Individually, I suspect they do. *Coppers have to live in communities, too,* and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.


The problem is that they *don't* very often live in the communities they police, except when they're probationers living in the local section house. They're insulated from public opinion in such a way that the opinions of the people they police don't matter and carry no weight.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Yeah, I think so. But the more selective they get, the more that idiot/pinko/crusty/scrounger/terrorist:honestupstandingcopper skews.
> 
> Ultimately, I think this is self-correcting - there WILL come a point where the police WILL be regarded with enough hostility by enough of the population that it will be impossible for them to do their job. My big fear is that by the time that tipping point arrives, we're going to be a long way down a very nasty road.
> 
> I'm just not sure - nor are any of us, going by the liveliness of this debate - what it'd take to arrest that slow process, or bring it to a head more quickly.



The tipping point has to be one through evolution of time, it remains a fact those who killed Ian will never be brought to book, but there is a need to build on the G20 and what was seen, this will not happen overnight that i very much agree with, however there seems to a moment and then it is lost,
i hope the same is not going to happen here, but being old and cynical haveing much of my resistance kicked out of me over the years i agree we're going to be a long way down a very nasty road and i feel this something we can not negate from..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong way round - organisationally they're actively anti-racist and all the _formal_ requirements - it's the coppers _on the ground _ who don't give a shit.



And they "don't give a shit" because there are no social or career consequences to not giving a shit.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 22, 2009)

Hardly any Met police live in the M25 area. if they did they would have to moderate the behaviour otherwise they would feel the communities wrath every time they kill someone.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 22, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The problem is that they *don't* very often live in the communities they police, except when they're probationers living in the local section house. They're insulated from public opinion in such a way that the opinions of the people they police don't matter and carry no weight.



They do have to live in "the" community, though. Perhaps my rural perspective is showing here a bit in my use of the word "communities", as many police around here do live in the areas they police.

I'm by no means suggesting that all around the land, coppers are experiencing some kind of epiphany because of conversations over the garden fence, but there does come a situation where policemen have to live in barracks, and I think it's unlikely we'd reach that point without some pretty catastrophic change having taken place first.


----------



## winjer (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> Coppers have to live in communities, too, and I suspect it wouldn't take much of a shift in attitudes for that to become quite uncomfortable - and I expect quite a lot of them are well aware of that.


Most London cops seem to live far outside, Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

TopCat said:


> Hardly any Met police live in the M25 area. if they did they would have to moderate the behaviour otherwise they would feel the communities wrath every time they kill someone.


Precisely, but then they're not policing the community for the community's benefit.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 22, 2009)

winjer said:


> Most London cops seem to live far outside, Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Hampshire.



Yeah, my mate from the met lives right down in Kent, he gets free train travel withing something like 60 miles of London and got all kinds of help buying his house.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 22, 2009)

Dont the Met have a rule that you cant live in the community you police?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> They do have to live in "the" community, though. Perhaps my rural perspective is showing here a bit in my use of the word "communities", as many police around here do live in the areas they police.


In rural areas, though, the police usually have tied accommodation, so have no choice but to live "in the community"


> I'm by no means suggesting that all around the land, coppers are experiencing some kind of epiphany because of conversations over the garden fence, but there does come a situation where policemen have to live in barracks, and I think it's unlikely we'd reach that point without some pretty catastrophic change having taken place first.


I think we need to accept that the police service(s) *aren't* constabularies in any way that's meaningfully related to the original definition of the word "constable", and that we do, in effect, actually already have a (poorly-trained for the role) para-military police force (_sans_ barracks), and that it's only the distaste of our political masters with reference to accepting this "fact on the ground" that prevents this being acknowledged.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 22, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> In rural areas, though, the police usually have tied accommodation, so have no choice but to live "in the community"



ime there's very little of that left now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

Belushi said:


> Dont the Met have a rule that you cant live in the community you police?


In the division you police,  I believe.
My point here is not that they don't police their own community _per se_, but that they, as a _soi-disant_ "middle-class profession", police communities that they may not live in, and to which they have little or no social or class connection.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> ime there's very little of that left now.



Seems to depend on the individual "police service" nowadays. I know that Norfolk still has it, as do some other areas where property prices didn't tempt the police authorities to flog the housing off.


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 22, 2009)

Yeah that may be true, I'm going largely on Cambridgeshire where afaik all the police housing has been flogged off or had a change of use


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 22, 2009)

via twitter:

@krishgm  The IPCC /G20 story will have to wait until tonight for legal reasons


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 22, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> via twitter:
> 
> @krishgm  The IPCC /G20 story will have to wait until tonight for legal reasons



Is that to do with the attempted injunction on channel 4 news?


----------



## laptop (Apr 22, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Is that to do with the attempted injunction on channel 4 news?



Almost certainly. Meanwhile, the video an extract of which the IPCC sought to suppress went in full on www.guardian.co.uk yesterday...


----------



## newbie (Apr 22, 2009)

this one?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/21/g20-ian-tomlinson-new-video


----------



## winjer (Apr 22, 2009)

laptop said:


> Almost certainly. Meanwhile, the video an extract of which the IPCC sought to suppress went in full on www.guardian.co.uk yesterday...


Not in full, lawyered from four minutes to 1 minute 35 seconds, as is obliquely described in the accompanying article.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 22, 2009)

Brilliant piece on C4 News just then.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 22, 2009)

Now on 'watch again' at http://www.channel4.com/news/


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 22, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Now on 'watch again' at http://www.channel4.com/news/


 so question re the Post Mortum? clearly people saw brusing on his head yet the PM results have not been released ..what is the legal thing here .. are results of PMs private? there must have been brusing to his head and his back and legs


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Apr 22, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Now on 'watch again' at http://www.channel4.com/news/



I don't understand what the point of that sequence of footage was supposed to prove?

The offending police officer was shown in nearby locations in the minutes before Tomlinson was pushed to the floor - I don't see what is newsworthy about it


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I don't understand what the point of that sequence of footage was supposed to prove?
> 
> The offending police officer was shown in nearby locations in the minutes before Tomlinson was pushed to the floor - I don't see what is newsworthy about it



me too - apart from the bit mentioned at the end (about identifying other officers who should have come forward).  The other thing the 'defence' might take from it in any future case would be 'chaotic scenes', 'officers under attack' [the single punch, which it isn't clear whether our hero actually saw].  All of which is ultimately irrelevant to him making an unprovoked attack on a man walking away.


----------



## laptop (Apr 22, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I don't understand what the point of that sequence of footage was supposed to prove?
> 
> The offending police officer was shown in nearby locations in the minutes before Tomlinson was pushed to the floor - I don't see what is newsworthy about it



a) "Ian Tomlinson, standing on his own, hands in pockets, under a tree" - evidence he was no threat to anyone.

b) "This footage... captures the moment when Ian Tomlinson falls on the ground [after being hit in the famous sequence] and his head appears to hit the pavement".

c) "So was this same officer in the same[?] location in the previous 10 minutes [which showed him roughly handling several protesters]? Channel 4 News believes it is".

d) "Why [did the IPCC seek to ban it]? One reason is that some officers who may have witnessed the incidents have still to be questioned - 21 days after Ian Tomlinson died."

I hope the third autopsy will be checking for cerebral bleeding.

Well done C4 News.


----------



## kenny g (Apr 22, 2009)

Those might be mitigating circumstances but they wouldn't stop a manslaughter conviction. In a way I think they could go against the officer. They go some way to explaining how he came to use such violence against Tomlinson . Rather than it appearing to be an unfortunate death of a frail man the extra video footage shows an extremely forceful smashing of Tomlinson's head against the ground by an Officer who was in the thick of the violence. it also shows how Tomlinson had been passive throughout.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 22, 2009)

don't overlook that the video strongly reinforces the apparent fact that the cops could no way claim to have been in an edgy violent situation. everyone is running away from them (wonder why that is?). there is no suggestion of overt aggression to cause such a reaction. remember to look for what isn't present in proving what is there.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 22, 2009)

It shows the officer taking a protester through the crowd on Cornhill, apparently in a head lock, past the police van, the door of which conveniently opens on the protester's head, something that provokes a near riot from the crowd, who peel away from the police lines and have to be controlled as they try to stop the assault.

It then shows the same officer go into Royal Exchange Buildings and assault another person, dragging them to the floor in a move that results in them being slammed on their head in the original footage (though it is stopped in the C4 version before that time).

It then shows the same officer drift up to Threadneedle Street, where I presume he is present at the dog attack, before moving back up Royal Exchange Buildings, where he assaults Ian Tomlinson and pushes him to the ground.

The same officer, three attacks, roaming around the streets lashing out, no identification, balaclava covering the face, seemingly out of control.  Looking for all the world like he is trying to take on everyone and be in every place at once.

That's what I saw and it was shocking to me.  Who is in charge of this officer?  Who is supposed to be keeping tabs on him?  It's fucking scary that this is allowed to happen.

Where was he taking that first man who's head clashed with the van door?  Why drag him from the front line past all the crowd?  Acting alone, stretching the resources of the police as they try to get control of a crowd witnessing something disturbing.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 22, 2009)

That video sequence could be made to present the officer as a lone "bad apple".  He was running around on his own causing trouble while all the others were obediently staying in their lines.  

I doubt that the lack of command and control will be cited as a reason for his behaviour by any prosecutor, but we might just see a police officer sent down if they find a firm causal link between Ian Thomlinson's death and the assault, even if he is only a scape goat and distraction from the catalogue of failings from top to bottom of the police force on that day as well as other recent fuck ups.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> don't overlook that the video strongly reinforces the apparent fact that the cops could no way claim to have been in an edgy violent situation. everyone is running away from them (wonder why that is?). there is no suggestion of overt aggression to cause such a reaction. remember to look for what isn't present in proving what is there.



Yes, you are right (on the lack of threat) - give or take the punch.  But equally the police are not in full control and that, I'm guessing, is the key to the officer's state of mind.  He's already lost one victim (the guy he's dragging), to some extent because of the crowd that's gathering around him + he's tried to pick a fight with one other protester later on.  He's feeling like the police are not fully in control and, most of all, he wants _revenge _on somebody.  Ian Tomlinson was the poor sod who got it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 22, 2009)

Struwwelpeter said:


> That video sequence could be made to present the officer as a lone "bad apple".  He was running around on his own causing trouble while all the others were obediently staying in their lines.
> 
> I doubt that the lack of command and control will be cited as a reason for his behaviour by any prosecutor, but we might just see a police officer sent down if they find a firm causal link between Ian Thomlinson's death and the assault, even if he is only a scape goat and distraction from the catalogue of failings from top to bottom of the police force on that day as well as other recent fuck ups.


Sorry but the concept of collective responsibility applies more to forces of the state if anything than a bunch of rabble rousers (in tabloidesque) or people in the area (in actuality).


----------



## lenny101 (Apr 22, 2009)

3rd post mortom will say heart attack imo.


----------



## Corax (Apr 22, 2009)

Who's conducting the 3rd one?  1st was a filth pet path, 2nd was _Cary_ ffs.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2009)

S'funny, given that pretty concentrated burst of cctv and cameras in the ch 4 clip, that nothing more seems to have come to light on the 'earlier attack' (the one where he was apparetly battoned on the floor).  Perhaps it has come to light and it will be tomorrows release.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Apr 22, 2009)

4thwrite said:


> S'funny, given that pretty concentrated burst of cctv and cameras in the ch 4 clip, that nothing more seems to have come to light on the 'earlier attack' (the one where he was apparetly battoned on the floor).  Perhaps it has come to light and it will be tomorrows release.


I suspect that _if there is private security CCTV footage_ of that, then it'll already be in the hands of the IPCC and won't get released to the public because it would have gone from CCTV owner to the IPCC (I hope anyhow) plus if it was released I'd think that it would definitely be seen as prejudicial to a future trial

Although I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrows news is that CCTV footage exists  or indeed as you say that there is further privately (phone or camera) filmed footage

(Friend of mine works for a very large company with loads of CCTV and they have to hang on to it for 30 days minimum in case a crime comes to light or in case someone does a DP Act request to review the footage)


----------



## laptop (Apr 22, 2009)

Corax said:


> Who's conducting the 3rd one?  1st was a filth pet path, 2nd was _Cary_ ffs.



Welllll... it was the Police Federation that asked for it... no name given.

But I reckon Cary outranks the other two.


----------



## costas (Apr 22, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by plod forum user Maverick22
I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police.

Does anyone know if this post is still up on Police Oracle? I can't find it anymore


----------



## Fuck Bees! (Apr 23, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I don't understand what the point of that sequence of footage was supposed to prove?
> 
> The offending police officer was shown in nearby locations in the minutes before Tomlinson was pushed to the floor - I don't see what is newsworthy about it



Surely one of the things that made it newsworthy is that the IPCC tried to ban it.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think we need to accept that the police service(s) *aren't* constabularies in any way that's meaningfully related to the original definition of the word "constable", and that we do, in effect, actually already have a (poorly-trained for the role) para-military police force (_sans_ barracks), and that it's only the distaste of our political masters with reference to accepting this "fact on the ground" that prevents this being acknowledged.


Very well put. We used to aim for policing by consent, and constables were people employed to help citizens enforce the law. 

Constables patrolled a set beat alone and on foot. They interacted with locals on a daily basis. Doubtless you got bullies and thugs all the same, but it was riskier. Constables relied on the people around them, people who might not come to their aid if they threw their weight around. 

This was done away with by "modernizers" in the 1960s. I believe that change led directly to the gendarmerie we have today. 

Why do the police feel the need to array themselves with weapons and armour? Because consent is gone. Thugs aren't afraid of them, and law abiding people are made impotent, told to "jump up and down" if they see an old lady being beaten senseless. A state that despises its citizens demands the police have a monopoly on lawful force.

Look at what's been created. Police are isolated by policy, holed up in stationhouses and cars, or at most, patrol reactively in pairs, ear to the radio. They avoid informal chat with the public because they're obliged to act on "reports" of crime, even if the person just wants a comforting word. So officers band together, talk of "civilians", and the canteen culture spirals out of control. It's not a deliberate choice by officers, but an unintended and unavoidable consequence of withdrawing them from the streets.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 23, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Sorry but the concept of collective responsibility applies more to forces of the state if anything than a bunch of rabble rousers (in tabloidesque) or people in the area (in actuality).



Maybe I didn't express myself very well: I didn't mean that the police shouldn't be held collectively responsible but that this video could give them (the IPCC etc) an opportunity to blame the one officer (given his apparent renegade actions) and absolve the others.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 23, 2009)

Why wasn't the man arrested for his multiple violent assaults?

Until the average cop realises that crooks and thugs in uniform are just crooks and thugs who've infiltrated the police, folks are right to shun *all* police and treat them with the greatest caution.


----------



## newbie (Apr 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Why wasn't the man arrested for his multiple violent assaults?


because those with the job of arresting criminals protected him.


> Until the average cop realises that crooks and thugs in uniform are just crooks and thugs who've infiltrated the police, folks are right to shun *all* police and treat them with the greatest caution.



nah that doesn't wash. It wasn't one bad apple causing problems for all the good apples, it was sop with the tip of the iceberg being reet unlucky that his, perfectly ordinary, behaviour happened to break the camel.  


mixed metaphors are


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 23, 2009)

Struwwelpeter said:


> Maybe I didn't express myself very well: I didn't mean that the police shouldn't be held collectively responsible but that this video could give them (the IPCC etc) an opportunity to blame the one officer (given his apparent renegade actions) and absolve the others.



I think that the context provided by the various videos taken around Royal Exchange Buildings, both at the Threadneedle Street and Cornhill ends, is enough that reasonable people might infer that the unidentified officer suspended for the assault on Ian Tomlinson was not 'renegade', and was not acting autonomously, but under direction from other, more senior, officers on the ground.

The suspended TSG officer more than once confers with other officers before and/or after a contact incident (eg the baton strike on Ian Tomlinson); those other officers, by their dress and/or behaviour appear to have some kind of operational authority, given how still more officers seem also to look to, speak to or otherwise act in a manner which suggests deference those 'operationally authoritative officers'.

Note that the suspended TSG officer - who wears no shoulder numbers, nor carries a shield - never appears to be directly facing a threat throughout the 'dog attack' and 'American tourist' incidents, does not act in concert with other TSG officers as one might expect but instead on his/her own, and positions him/herself in the centre of the police massing at these incidents until moving forward to swiftly make contact (or be capable of so doing) and then equally swiftly pulling back. That is to say that despite being - as a TSG officer - of notionally peak physical condition, and a public order specialist highly trained in 'riot control', this officer leaves the frontline of the cordon to lesser-trained officers in less protective kit.

The evidence hence implies that the idea of 'one bad apple' simply does not make sense.

(1) The deliberate and considered manner of the actions of this officer;
(2) The presence of apparently senior (in terms of operational deployment if not rank) officers;
(3) The aggressive behaviour of other officers (eg the dog handlers, the City of London officer in fire retardant boilersuit);
(4) The immediate or nearby presence of public order specialists (as well as the solo TSG officer, there were the Level 2s with shields, the suspected FIT officers, City of London CS Alex Robertson - Bronze Commander for the G20 policing operation, etc);
(5) The equipment and dress of the TSG officer when considered with that of those around him (no shield, no ID, no fellow officers from the same unit);

And so on.

Each of these points might individually be discounted, but together they form part of a compelling circumstantial case, that the suspended officer was acting in a manner consistent with practice, standing orders or ad hoc deployment by other, controlling minds.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 23, 2009)

newbie said:


> nah that doesn't wash. It wasn't one bad apple causing problems for all the good apples, it was sop with the tip of the iceberg being reet unlucky that his, perfectly ordinary, behaviour happened to break the camel.


All I am saying is that it is the responsibility of all cops to deal with the thugs infesting the met.  The Met cannot expect any respect or co-operation from the public until they show they have the integrity and guts to police their own service.


----------



## newbie (Apr 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> All I am saying is that it is the responsibility of all cops to deal with the thugs infesting the met.  The Met cannot expect any respect or co-operation from the public until they show they have the integrity and guts to police their own service.



you'll be waiting a long, long time



> Yea I think it's fair to say that us troops have lost all faith in Sir Stephenson.
> 
> And we've also decided that should the TSG Skipper get anything other than a commendation we're all handing in our level 2 tickets.
> 
> ...



oracle]
that's posted by someone with the .sig
_"LEWD STEWED & TATTOOED
I'm here to help, the taxpayer sent me."
_


----------



## Jonti (Apr 23, 2009)

That's seriously pathetic bluster.

We can do without the "support" of thugs like _LEWD STEWED & TATTOOED_ just fine.


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2009)

Am I the only one to see parallels between the behaviour of the unidentified suspended officer, and the cop that assaulted Nicola Fisher? I'm not suggesting that they're the same person - I'm suggesting that (from my perception at least) there's that roaming around/not part of the cordon/swooping in to take someone out aspect that seems similar.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 23, 2009)

Jonti said:


> All I am saying is that it is the responsibility of all cops to deal with the thugs infesting the met.  The Met cannot expect any respect or co-operation from the public until they show they have the integrity and guts to police their own service.



I suppose the problem here is twofold. First of all, the "thugs infesting the met" (and why does the Met have to be a special case here - I've had run-ins with police in the Dyfed-Powys force whom I suspect would have been right at home on some of those cordons in London?) presumably serve some useful purpose, at least as far as the Met is concerned? I mean, if they were an obvious and unmitigated nuisance, someone would have tried to get rid of them, surely? My guess is that there is an element within police forces which quite likes having a few wild dogs around the place - maybe it makes them feel more secure.

Which leads me to my second point - could it actually be that these organisations are themselves frightened of the thugs? Perhaps the bullying behaviour extends into the locker room and the canteen, too, and the colleagues of these thugs are just too scared to report it? The more I see of bullying in other contexts the more I realise its potential to "lock in" behaviours and relationships which are absolutely to the detriment of all those involved, including the bullies, but which organisations often collude in maintaining, in most cases not deliberately.

Heh, perhaps we need to look at it in a way that says these organisations need help  They have a kind of addiction, and what they need is a bit of "tough love" to get them off that hook, and starting to deal with the thugs and bullies in their midst. I think some kind of change is long-overdue - it seems to me that a lot of the racism and sexism that we've quite successfully overcome in society is still there, just beneath the surface, in the police, in a kind of "we know we're not supposed to say this, but..." way.

My guess is that a lot of this is tied in very closely with the @renegade copper running loose" on the streets stuff - it's not that they _order_ it to go on, but they tacitly _let_ it happen. Maybe when the penalties for allowing that to happen are so high that it becomes easier to tackle the thug tendency head-on, some change might happen. It's going to take some serious pressure for that to occur, though.


----------



## rekil (Apr 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Am I the only one to see parallels between the behaviour of the unidentified suspended officer, and the cop that assaulted Nicola Fisher? I'm not suggesting that they're the same person - I'm suggesting that (from my perception at least) there's that roaming around/not part of the cordon/swooping in to take someone out aspect that seems similar.



DaveCinzano mentioned something previously about a LibDem MP (Tom Brake?) claiming there was a designated hitter system in operation.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 23, 2009)

newbie said:


> you'll be waiting a long, long time
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Jonti said:


> That's seriously pathetic bluster.
> 
> We can do without the "support" of thugs like _LEWD STEWED & TATTOOED_ just fine.


I do hope that the media are onto those boards, too. I think it would make for some very interesting background if some of these attitudes were to be aired out there in the public domain.

And as for coppers who can even _conceive_ of spraying demonstrators with petrol and setting fire to them, let alone allow a view like that out into the public domain...well, I think they picked up the wrong card in the Jobcentre.


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2009)

copliker said:


> DaveCinzano mentioned something previously about a LibDem MP (Tom Brake?) claiming there was a designated hitter system in operation.



Ah, OK, cheers. I missed that.


----------



## winjer (Apr 23, 2009)

copliker said:


> DaveCinzano mentioned something previously about a LibDem MP (Tom Brake?) claiming there was a designated hitter system in operation.


Based on the idea that the one without the numbers does the hitting. I think he's wrong, it's a combination of not caring whether they have numbers on, and not caring whether they assault people.

e.g.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17683


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 23, 2009)

The 'designated hitter' remark was reportedly made by LibDem justice spokesman David Howarth. The comment was featured in several reports, eg:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7999277.stm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...ult-by-police-at-g20-protests-86908-21280153/
http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/uk_national_news/4290997.G20__attack__officer_is_suspended/
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...fficer_suspended_for_hitting_out_at_woman.php

The phrase does not appear to feature in any of the press releases in Howarth's page on the LibDem website now though.


----------



## rekil (Apr 23, 2009)

winjer said:


> Based on the idea that the one without the numbers does the hitting. I think he's wrong, it's a combination of not caring whether they have numbers on, and not caring whether they assault people.


I'd tend to agree with this. It's a queer old business, assaulting people and that.


----------



## Squatticus (Apr 23, 2009)

TSG:



> Sorry London but if you don't support us then we won't support you.



Ooh goody!


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 23, 2009)

That police forum makes grim reading.  

They are all illiterate bastards as well!


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Apr 23, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> Each of these points might individually be discounted, but together they form part of a compelling circumstantial case, that the suspended officer was acting in a manner consistent with practice, standing orders or ad hoc deployment by other, controlling minds.



I don't disagree with your points at all.  However, what is a "compelling case" to you and me, both "reasonable people" D) is not necessarily how the IPCC/CPS/Home Office will see it or spin it.  

IMO, if there are any criminal charges out of this at all, it will either be against the individual officer or it will be another Health & Safety charge against the Met/CoP.  I very much doubt that it would be both.  



agnesdavies said:


> Which leads me to my second point - could it actually be that these organisations are themselves frightened of the thugs? Perhaps the bullying behaviour extends into the locker room and the canteen, too, and the colleagues of these thugs are just too scared to report it? The more I see of bullying in other contexts the more I realise its potential to "lock in" behaviours and relationships which are absolutely to the detriment of all those involved, including the bullies, but which organisations often collude in maintaining, in most cases not deliberately.



Interesting point!


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> That police forum makes grim reading.
> 
> They are all illiterate bastards as well!


 

Yep, ignorant bully boys convinced of their own righteousness.  The law is what they do, by any means necessary.  

They have no morality, just tribalism.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 23, 2009)

Totally.  The level of self-justification is something else.  

Cunts.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 23, 2009)

I don't thik it's a characteristic of the people that sign up, or if there is some self-selection it's not the main problem. The problem is the institution itself - Stanford prison experiment blah blah blah.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 23, 2009)

I agree to an extent.  Although I do think it takes a certain type of person to want to join the police...

Even the guys who sign up for the right reasons are going to end up immersed in whole the canteen culture.  Of what is basically a diseased organisation.  

Not good.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 23, 2009)

Struwwelpeter said:


> I don't disagree with your points at all.  However, what is a "compelling case" to you and me, both "reasonable people" D) is not necessarily how the IPCC/CPS/Home Office will see it or spin it.



That is true, but then I am not (and haven't been) directing my comments at the IPCC, the police lawyers or the career politicians, nor have I particularly concerned myself with the niceties of jurisprudence. (Because, after all, the game is rigged.)

This whole G20 aftermath business is about the true nature of policing, and the need for actual, real justice. It's about standing up for ourselves. It's about never forgetting or forgiving. It's about anger at the way police officers lie and fabricate and look the other way, without impunity, about how police force backs up political systems which exclude the many to the benefit of the few. It's about all this and more, different but often similar or the same things overlapping, to different people.

I'm not banging on about things like 14+ police witnesses (including senior officers) to the deadly assault on Ian Tomlinson pretending like they didn't see anything because I'm on a Perry Mason trip, but because I have no faith, trust or hope in the police. A man died at their hands, for no reason. A man who could have been my dad, my uncle, me. A man put to the floor from behind, by one anonymous tooled-up thug backed up by the silence of his tooled-up, anonymous mates, an attack children in a playground could recognise as cowardly.

Well, I want to see their anonymity, their safety in the crowd, their magic shield, gone. I want them to have to face the glare of a bright summer's day, to walk out their front door of a morning and to see the look in their neighbours' eyes. I want them not to clutch at the excuses, the self-justifications, but to live from now until death remembering how contemptible their behaviour was, how they were the worst kind of bully, cheat, liar. I want them to feel the opprobrium of their children. I want them to feel too scared to ever do that sort of thing again. 

I want them to know that actions have consequences, and I want those consequences to go beyond one man facing a criminal charge, a few others a disciplinary hearing.


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I don't thik it's a characteristic of the people that sign up, or if there is some self-selection it's not the main problem. The problem is the institution itself - Stanford prison experiment blah blah blah.



I had the misfortune to go to school with quite a few daughters of OB of different ranks including one whose father was the asst com of the met at the time. Many of them and their friends went on to join the OB once they left school. Bullied the fuck out of anyone they could get away with. Attitude very similar to that posted on those forums.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 23, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I don't thik it's a characteristic of the people that sign up, or if there is some self-selection it's not the main problem. The problem is the institution itself - Stanford prison experiment blah blah blah.


Bit of both, I think.

When I think back to school and some of those who ended up in the police force, it did seem to be a bit of a tendency for people of a "certain type" to end up joining. Hard to put into words here, but it was a combination of a somewhat pedestrian intellect, and a certain outsiderness.

That said, I have met - and know - police officers who are anything but that kind of person. As a whole, they have tended to be a bit reactionary, and I can see some commonality between the mindset of people I've liked who are in the job and the attitudes shown in those quotes from police forum sites: albeit at opposite ends of quite a wide spectrum.

Perhaps it's what was alluded to before - once police stopped being part of a local community and operating within it, they lost the one thing that was going to stop them being the bully-boys of the State, and I think that has happened. And as that tendency has developed, so the attraction of a career in the police for the sort of person who does think breaking heads is a bit of fun will have increased. So it becomes a vicious circle, with people joining who have a propensity for being unpleasant, and who find in the "them and us" world of modern policing all the influences that Zimbardo discovered in his Experiment...


----------



## Groucho (Apr 23, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


> ...
> 
> My guess is that a lot of this is tied in very closely with the @renegade copper running loose" on the streets stuff - it's not that they _order_ it to go on, but they tacitly _let_ it happen. Maybe when the penalties for allowing that to happen are so high that it becomes easier to tackle the thug tendency head-on, some change might happen. It's going to take some serious pressure for that to occur, though.



In my view they need it to go on. It is about ensuring that the state has a body of armed men ready and willing to use violence against strike movements and social movements. In the final analysis, if our rulers cannot rule primarily by consent (propaganda etc) they will resort to force. So they need The Force. The police were set up to attack social movements such as the Chartists because it was no longer sensible to use the army. Use of the army kills people and escallates the war (even people not involved in protests start to get very upset when they hear that demonstrators have been killed). The growth of modern society means that the majority are capable of research into events and communication in a way that wasn't true prior to capitalism. Whereas peasant revolts could be put down by the army and executions, the deployment of the same against collective organisations of workers was dangerous.
An early deployment of the police against a Chartist rally led to the death of a police officer. The Chartist who stabbed him was released by the court because the public outcry against the police who had battered the Chartists with batons was so high. The verdict of the jury was justifiable homicide (1833).
How to maintain a force of violence against the majority? There is a need to give the impression that the force is there to protect all of us against anti-social crime. The fact is the police force are not organised on such lines as to enable them to do that effectively.
That is why the litany of police 'errors', and of 'bad apples' over the years is just so massive, and is why the state ensures that police who are caught assaulting protesters and pickets (miners, printers, POll Tax, Welling...), who kill in custody (Sylvester, Stanley..), who are caught fitting up suspects (Birmingham 6, Gui 4, Mag 7, Card 3, Bridge 4...) are very rarely if ever sacked let alone charged with an offence. If police officers were to fear dismissal or imprisonment as a consequence for attacking protesters etc they might not do it and their principle purpose is undermined. Hence the IPCC (or the PCA before it) never having faciliated the conviction of a single copper for any of the hundreds of deaths in police custody. 
Just watch any of the footage of the G20 police violence or read the legal observers account of the attack on the climate camp. This was not rogue officers let of the leash. This was a concerted violent assault on protests directed by the senior officers on the ground.
Ian Tomlinson died at around 19:30 pm. The police found their favoured pathologist to give them their natural causes verdict and released their concocted story at 22:30 pm (or just before then). That wasn't the actions of a rogue copper but of an organised attempt to cover up a death that followed and was most likely a direct result of an assault by police officers that occured during a planned reign of terror against those who would protest against the priorities of our rulers.
The police force should be on trial not just a few rogue coppers.


----------



## winjer (Apr 23, 2009)

shaman75 said:


> Now on 'watch again' at http://www.channel4.com/news/


It's interesting to see that 'Officer A' was originally part of the kettle line on Cornhill, where the rest of his serial (U41) remained - you can see them in  from around 03:35.

Also, the reports that he was based in Clapham seem to be wrong, as 4TSG is based in Catford.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Very well put. We used to aim for policing by consent, and constables were people employed to help citizens enforce the law.
> 
> Constables patrolled a set beat alone and on foot. They interacted with locals on a daily basis. Doubtless you got bullies and thugs all the same, but it was riskier. Constables relied on the people around them, people who might not come to their aid if they threw their weight around.
> 
> This was done away with by "modernizers" in the 1960s. I believe that change led directly to the gendarmerie we have today.


I'd say that the change that has affected policing the most has been the change to patrolling by car, which allowed resources to be redeployed from "walking beats" to primarily response roles.


> Why do the police feel the need to array themselves with weapons and armour? Because consent is gone. Thugs aren't afraid of them, and law abiding people are made impotent, told to "jump up and down" if they see an old lady being beaten senseless. A state that despises its citizens demands the police have a monopoly on lawful force.


I wouldn't say that policing by consent has "gone", but that it's been severely attenuated as policing has become increasingly professionalised, and has (via 30 years of picayune criminal justice-related legislation that has focused on criminalisation of previously accepted behaviours) shifted deeper into a social control role at the expense of a public/community assistance role.


> Look at what's been created. Police are isolated by policy, holed up in stationhouses and cars, or at most, patrol reactively in pairs, ear to the radio. They avoid informal chat with the public because they're obliged to act on "reports" of crime, even if the person just wants a comforting word. So officers band together, talk of "civilians", and the canteen culture spirals out of control. It's not a deliberate choice by officers, but an unintended and unavoidable consequence of withdrawing them from the streets.


I'd have to argue that "canteen culture" and the "us and them" attitude has always been present. In fact it's pretty much a given to any institutional environment, it's merely a matter of *degree* of alienation. Police officers have always experienced some degree of alienation from the wider community, but our current police services, for a plethora of reasons, are probably more alienated from "the wider community" than at any time since the 1920s and 1930s, when they lent their weight to supporting the political establishment at the expense of those wider communities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2009)

cesare said:


> Am I the only one to see parallels between the behaviour of the unidentified suspended officer, and the cop that assaulted Nicola Fisher? I'm not suggesting that they're the same person - I'm suggesting that (from my perception at least) there's that roaming around/not part of the cordon/swooping in to take someone out aspect that seems similar.



Used to see something similar in the 80s, where you get a handful of coppers basically roaming around acting like animals, rather than standing in a line with their co-workers.
The usual aim appeared to be to provoke reasonably peaceful protest into violence. Single officers causing aggro being more deniable (in an age where cameras and video recording equipment weren't common) than a phalanx of noddies beating the crap out of defenceless people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2009)

Squatticus said:


> TSG:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh goody!



I'd happily support any copper that issues an ultimatum like that.

On a crucifix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> That police forum makes grim reading.
> 
> They are all illiterate bastards as well!



I've seen better grammar, spelling and punctuation from my dyslexic nephews.


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Used to see something similar in the 80s, where you get a handful of coppers basically roaming around acting like animals, rather than standing in a line with their co-workers.
> The usual aim appeared to be to provoke reasonably peaceful protest into violence. Single officers causing aggro being more deniable (in an age where cameras and video recording equipment weren't common) than a phalanx of noddies beating the crap out of defenceless people.



Yep.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've seen better grammar, spelling and punctuation from my dyslexic nephews.


----------



## Azrael (Apr 23, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd have to argue that "canteen culture" and the "us and them" attitude has always been present. In fact it's pretty much a given to any institutional environment, it's merely a matter of *degree* of alienation.


That's what I meant by saying it has spiralled out of control.  Back when officers had informal public contact, it could be held in check. Now virtually all on-duty contact is in a professional capacity, and the law has been changed so all people are suspects. 

The ideal that public and police were on the same side also helped. In a move unimaginable today, Edwardian officers appealed to the public to help them shoot down armed criminals in the Tottenham Outrage. 

The move to cars, supposedly introduced because foot patrols were "impractical" in centrally planned estates, is a symptom of our police moving from deterrence to reactive fire-brigade policing. This is what's made recent calls from the Met Commissioner for officers to patrol on foot and alone of limited value. It's not just where the officers patrol, but what their purpose is. 

The setting up of the Special Patrol Group in 1965 looks like a watershed moment, when a unit with the specific purpose of confrontation and control was institutionalised. "Special units" must feed all the worst macho fantasies of some officers. (I'm not tarring all with the same brush, I'm sure others want to do a good job.) Sadly current thinking is all for such units, and technology, instead of boring human factors.


----------



## winjer (Apr 24, 2009)

agricola said:


> Again, did they know that at the time?  Tomlinson collapsed 200 yards away from where this incident occured, and from the statement in its initial form they clearly spoke to independent witnesses at Cornhill to get their account of events there.


They can only have spoken to cops, all the civilian witnesses having been baton-charged across London Bridge. Some of the cops there would certainly have known that the incident and the collapse were connected, since they were present at both points.

See this photo:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/85755925/AFP?axd=DetailPaging.Generic|1&axs=0
which is taken opposite 77 Cornhill where Tomlinson collapsed, the FIT cop at the rear is one of those seen at Royal Exchange Buildings.



> The journos, witnesses and everyone else did not know the dead man was Tomlinson, and that he was the same guy as was the person at the Royal Exchange until pictures of him being treated came to light.  They then came forward and informed the press and IPCC, and the IPCC appears to have reacted appropriately to those reports.


This isn't true, the first eyewitness reports contradicting the police statement were received by legal support around 11pm on April 1st.


----------



## winjer (Apr 24, 2009)

mr steev said:


> Yet photographs before his death seem to show marks on his face... I would've thought hitting the floor without breaking your fall would've left it's mark too


The press finally noticed the bruising:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...Injury_After_Being_Pushed_To_Ground_By_Police


----------



## pesh (Apr 24, 2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...he-wanted-to-beat-up-hippies-on-Facebook.html

g20 officer bollocked for stating the bleeding obvious on facebook...

i bet the officer on Police Oracle who stated he wanted to burn all the protesters alive is glad he deleted his post in time..

sorry for the torygraph link.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 24, 2009)

pesh said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...he-wanted-to-beat-up-hippies-on-Facebook.html
> 
> g20 officer bollocked for stating the bleeding obvious on facebook...
> 
> ...



Another fascinating insight into their way of thinking...


----------



## Corax (Apr 24, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> Another fascinating insight into their way of thinking...



Just emailed Matthew Moore a link to the Police Oracle forums.  Just in case he fancies following it up with something in a similar vein.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Apr 24, 2009)

> i bet the officer on Police Oracle who stated he wanted to burn all the protesters alive is glad he deleted his post in time..




I presume though there is a copy/cache of this 'burning' post in existence...


----------



## _float_ (Apr 24, 2009)

pesh said:


> i bet the officer on Police Oracle who stated he wanted to burn all the protesters alive is glad he deleted his post in time..


That post hasn't been deleted and it doesn't say he 'wanted to', it says _"I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police"_ - ie he is saying he doesn't give a shit, not that he wants or intends to do anything. The poster is also (according to their profile) a retired officer, not someone who was involved in g20 or even still serving.


----------



## berniedicters (Apr 24, 2009)

_float_ said:


> That post hasn't been deleted and it doesn't say he 'wanted to', it says _"I have no time for these G20 demonstrators, they can spray them all with petrol as far as I am concerned, and throw in a match, most are people just out for a fight with the police"_ - ie he is saying he doesn't give a shit, not that he wants or intends to do anything. The poster is also (according to their profile) a retired officer, not someone who was involved in g20 or even still serving.


----------



## Corax (Apr 24, 2009)

agnesdavies said:


>



Hmm.  Not really.

I might post that the filth can go fuck 'emselves for all I care.  It's not literal.

/defending filth

ACAB


----------



## _float_ (Apr 24, 2009)

@ agnesdavies

Not at all. The differences are enough to make the oracle post a non-story in comparison to the facebook one. Also if people are going to get up in arms about something they should try and get their facts rights.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 27, 2009)

Some interesting stuff in the Guardian today. Sounds like the police/IPCC version of events which led them to issue a bunch of typically misleading press releases might be coming unglued. 



> At 7.30pm on Wednesday 1 April, as Mr Tomlinson lay dying on the pavement near the Royal Exchange in the City of London, Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, was several miles away at a party at Peelers restaurant, on the fifth floor of New Scotland Yard, to mark the retirement of the assistant commissioner Alf Hitchcock.
> 
> According to one guest: "He kept going out into the corridor, on his mobile. He looked very unhappy, stressed."
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/27/ipcc-police-g20-death-media


----------



## winjer (Apr 27, 2009)

Police Oracle has published a reasonable article on media coverage:



> A man died, and if journalists had not taken an active interest in the case there is a possibility that only one view of that death would ever have seen the light of day. That view was relatively easy for the police service and the government to live with. Instead we are now very aware of other possibilities which are much less comfortable for these bodies. No finding in law has been made, but few people would dispute that Ian Tomlinson’s death raises important questions of public policy. Without journalism, those questions might not have been confronted.



http://www.policeoracle.com/news/The-Protest-Continues..._19044.html


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 29, 2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5240629/G20-protests-Ian-Tomlinson-funeral-to-take-place.html

about time.

r.i.p.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 29, 2009)

Oh.  And here's a rather astounding piece of journalism.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...thi-charges-and-intensive-interrogation-hs-07



> When Ian Tomlinson died during the G-20 conference in London earlier this month, Police Constable Rob Ward was accused of pushing him violently to the ground, causing internal injuries resulting in his death soon after the incident. This innocent newspaper vendor was not even taking part in the demonstration, but was just walking slowly and inoffensively past when he was allegedly accosted by PC Ward.



I thought Rob Ward just wrote a sentence on facebook...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...he-wanted-to-beat-up-hippies-on-Facebook.html


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 29, 2009)

Piggy Oracle said:
			
		

> A man died, and if journalists had not taken an active interest in the case there is a possibility that only one view of that death would ever have seen the light of day. That view was relatively easy for the police service and the government to live with. Instead we are now very aware of other possibilities which are much less comfortable for these bodies. No finding in law has been made, but few people would dispute that Ian Tomlinson’s death raises important questions of public policy. Without journalism, those questions might not have been confronted.



...which statement would be more convincing had police oracle not banned a journalist from their forums for asking questions the circle-jerking OB didn't approve of.


----------



## Corax (Apr 29, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...which statement would be more convincing had police oracle not banned a journalist from their forums for asking questions the circle-jerking OB didn't approve of.



Fuck me I couldn't believe that.  For them to ban him for 'trolling', despite the most utterly reasoned, measured, and even balanced - in a BBC sense hmm - posts, was obscene.

ACAB.


----------



## where to (May 5, 2009)

not been following this so apologies if this has already been posted.

times complaining at the police complaining that media hyped up g20 violence, interesting seeing the blame game play out like this:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/crime/2009/04/g20-it-was-the-medias-fault-says-scotland-yard.html


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2009)

I was hoping that would turn out to be one great big bullet in the steel-toecaps. 


(that's a bit too cryptic isn't it? Shot themselves in the foot, I mean)


----------



## Jayen4 (May 13, 2009)

*G20 / Ian Tomlinson*

Does anyone have any updates on the state of play,regarding the Ian Tomlinson affair,please ??  
 Same for that lady that was batoned by the thug cop ??

 It all seems to have gone a bit quiet......


----------



## Sadken (May 13, 2009)

Unless he died of swine flu, we are no longer interested.


----------



## Jayen4 (May 13, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Unless he died of swine flu, we are no longer interested.




  Well, that doesn't help...AT ALL !!


----------



## sim667 (May 13, 2009)

It will be buried, no-one will be charged. The public will forget and will go back to sleepwalking into a police state.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 13, 2009)

^^ Innit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2009)

Yeah fucking public :X

Muppets.


----------



## Sadken (May 13, 2009)

Is it being investigated by the CPS at the moment?


----------



## Throbbing Angel (May 13, 2009)

http://is.gd/zsnT


there y'are


----------



## Crispy (May 13, 2009)

threads merged


----------



## two sheds (May 13, 2009)

Typical cynical urban attitude.  The authorities will act correctly and fairly throughout. 

Assuming that the policeman recovers from collapsing after the shock of having been found out, it will take a minimum of three years to gather information, study videos and take witness statements. It will take another two years to prepare the case, and give the policeman fair time to prepare his defence. It will then clearly be unfair to proceed because it will be dealing with events of five years ago, and the charges will very fairly be dropped. 

Funny how that copper who is accused of murdering the woman PC up north has already been charged, though. Can't quite understand the indecent haste attending that one.


----------



## Jayen4 (May 13, 2009)

Throbbing Angel said:


> http://is.gd/zsnT
> 
> 
> there y'are





  Thank you T.A.  

  I see in one of those links that there has been a 3rd p.m. !! What's the police line here.......we'll keep getting more and more p.m's until we get the answer we like !??  F***ing un-beleiveable !!     C**T wants to grown a spine !


----------



## shaman75 (May 15, 2009)

> The Metropolitan Police is to be investigated over its handling of the media following the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests.
> 
> ...
> 
> Mr Tomlinson's family say the Met knew its officers had contact with him before his death. The City of London Police force will also be investigated.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8051786.stm


----------



## Corax (May 31, 2009)

So just what the fuck has been happening?  Nothing of substance in the news that I've found recently.


----------



## chazegee (Jun 3, 2009)

As found on the Police website.

http://www.clownarmy.org/


----------



## _pH_ (Jun 30, 2009)

Hang on, did I really hear on the news (BBC London) just now that the person who killed Ian Tomlinson may have been 'a protestor dressed as a police officer'

wtf


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Hang on, did I really hear on the news (BBC London) just now that the person who killed Ian Tomlinson may have been 'a protestor dressed as a police officer'
> 
> wtf


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Hang on, did I really hear on the news (BBC London) just now that the person who killed Ian Tomlinson may have been 'a protestor dressed as a police officer'
> 
> wtf




link to nutty claim: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tigators-claim-Ian-Tomlinson-hit-fake-Pc.html


----------



## _pH_ (Jun 30, 2009)

I know! I'm sure that's what I just heard, was in the kitchen and not watching it. Am trying to find out!

e2a: cheers Pickman's.

still wtf 



> Investigators told the family of Ian Tomlinson he might have been struck by a police impersonator, a report revealed tonight.
> 
> Campaigners claim a City of London Police officer said he could not rule out that the 47-year-old clashed with a protester dressed in police riot uniform.
> 
> The claim was made in a conversation soon after Mr Tomlinson died at the height of G20 protest clashes on April 1.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> I know! I'm sure that's what I just heard, was in the kitchen and not watching it. Am trying to find out!


pls see my post 2011


----------



## _pH_ (Jun 30, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> pls see my post 2011



yeah, seen it, have edited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2009)

in case article taken down:


G20 investigators told family of man who died in protests that he may have been hit by 'fake Pc'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:25 PM on 30th June 2009


Investigators told the family of Ian Tomlinson he might have been struck by a police impersonator, a report revealed tonight.

Campaigners claim a City of London Police officer said he could not rule out that the 47-year-old clashed with a protester dressed in police riot uniform.

The claim was made in a conversation soon after Mr Tomlinson died at the height of G20 protest clashes on April 1.


Ian Tomlinson in video fiootage which shows an officer shoving him to the ground
The newspaper seller's death is at the centre of an inquiry after video footage emerged of him being struck and pushed to the ground by a policeman.

The claim was contained in a report published tonight by campaign group Inquest who have interviewed Mr Tomlinson's widow Julia.

The report was highly critical of the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in the days after his death.

Its authors accused officials at the watchdog of an 'obvious error of judgment' by failing to launch an independent inquiry immediately.

They said valuable forensic evidence may have been lost as a result and said officials failed to treat police accounts with a 'healthy degree of scepticism'.

The report also contained new information about the events of April 1 and the ensuing inquiries, including:

A post mortem examination found Mr Tomlinson suffered an injury to his right calf that may have been a police dog bite;
His family are unhappy they were not given the opportunity to identify his body. Fingerprints were used instead;
The Tomlinson family were not able to see his body for six days after his death;
The IPCC was blocked from attending the first post mortem by the coroner. The Tomlinson family were not told they could attend;
There are concerns that police officers delayed an ambulance from reaching Mr Tomlinson as he lay dying in Cornhill.
Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, said there are striking similarities with the death of anti-fascist activist Blair Peach in 1979.

She said there were also claims in the aftermath of his death that he may have been attacked by police impersonators.

Mrs Coles said: 'We felt it is important that the death is not looked at in isolation, but in the broader context in which it occurred.

'The context is policing generally, about our experience of investigating deaths following police contact and the investigation of police misconduct.

'There is a deep frustration this family feel, which is common with other families where they were given misinformation, with the initial police investigation.

'This is not an uncommon experience with the families we see but what was different in this case was the mobile phone and video footage.

'If it was not for that there is a danger it would have been swept under the carpet.'

The first of a raft of inquiries into the events of April 1 and 2 in the City of London were published yesterday.

The Home Affairs Committee said police chiefs must rethink the controversial tactic of 'kettling' participants of mass demonstrations.

Mrs Tomlinson, of the Isle of Dogs, has said her husband might still be alive if officers had let him leave the area as he tried to make his way home.

The committee also warned that inexperienced and untrained officers must never again be left isolated at the frontline of volatile public protests.

HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O'Connor will reveal his preliminary findings of the police operation next week.

The IPCC has launched inquiries into the death of Mr Tomlinson and claims the Metropolitan Police misled the public.

Other inquiries are also under way after Nicola Fisher was slapped by an officer and after riot police cleared the impromptu climate camp in Bishopsgate.

Last week Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said a secret report into the death of Mr Peach must be published by the end of the year.

There have been repeated claims Mr Peach was killed by police officers who struck him over the head as he walked home.

Metropolitan Police officers were also conducting an internal review of all of the video footage recovered from the demonstrations.

The Inquest report was published as solicitors acting on behalf of G20 protesters submitted a legal challenge to the High Court today.

Experts will bring a judicial review of police tactics such as "kettling" to contain people and the excessive use of force.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2009)

what i don't understand about all this is that NOW we're told the filth were untrained and inexperienced. at the time we were told that the cops could cope with anything they could have thrown at them. we were told that what we saw was the cops doing what they were told. the most experienced public order cops were on duty in gt, the control room, with the commissioner and the home secretary certainly being kept in touch with events. so, i suppose what i'm really getting at is a rather simple question, what the bloody fuck are they on about, telling us a pile of shit which on their own prior statements is a load of bollocks?


----------



## winjer (Jul 1, 2009)

Wrong thread for that discussion.

The Inquest briefing mentioned by the Mail is here.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Hang on, did I really hear on the news (BBC London) just now that the person who killed Ian Tomlinson may have been 'a protestor dressed as a police officer'
> 
> wtf


Yep. It's quite the most fucking ridiculous thing the Met have come up with. 



> Police Suggest Tomlinson Cop Could Be Fake
> 
> Could the policeman who pushed Ian Tomlinson have been an impostor - a member of the public in disguise? This novel possibility was raised by a senior police investigator looking into the death of Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests shortly after an alleged push from a police officer. According to a report released yesterday, Tomlinson's widow was told by the investigator that they 'couldn't rule out' the possibility that the assailant was a member of the public wearing a stolen police uniform, a scenario that the family judge as 'fantastical'. By saying such things, the City of London Police 'completely failed to persuade the Tomlinson family of its impartiality'. In other words, for a police officer to deflect blame for the incident to a notional impostor undermines confidence that the investigation is unbiased.  But should it? Surely it is an investigator's duty to keep all possibilities open until evidence rules them out. While the idea seems wildly unlikely, it is not impossible that a far-left protest group might wish to agitate the crowds by simulating police brutality. It was perhaps unwise of the officer to mention this unlikelihood to the grieving widow, before serious analysis of the video evidence was complete. But the admission that he was keeping an objective mind to alternative theories does not, in our view, show the investigation to be biased.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2009)

I want to laugh bit i feel sick.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2009)

From today's Grunaiud:





> Police floated imposter theory over Ian Tomlinson's death at G20 protests
> 
> A senior police officer who investigated the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public "dressed in police uniform", it emerged last night.
> 
> ...


Or maybe it was the pixies wot dun it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2009)

I wonder, did any officers report getting knocked out and their uniform nicked? Maybe the police would know?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, did any officers report getting knocked out and their uniform nicked? <snip>



Probably by those anarchists with catapults ...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 1, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Hang on, did I really hear on the news (BBC London) just now that the person who killed Ian Tomlinson may have been 'a protestor dressed as a police officer'
> 
> wtf



The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach:
The Ogre cannot master speech.

About a subjugated plain,
Among it's desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips. 

(Auden)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, did any officers report getting knocked out and their uniform nicked? Maybe the police would know?


there was a load of city police uniforms went walkabout apparently...


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 3, 2009)

Interesting development 

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/2009/070209/news070209_02.html


----------



## two sheds (Jul 5, 2009)

Another interesting development: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/05/query-g20-assault-case-officer

"Details of the past of the officer at the centre of the IPCC inquiry into Tomlinson's death emerged yesterday. He had been on a disciplinary charge and facing a misconduct hearing earlier in his Met career.
The charge related to an incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury when the officer became involved in a road rage incident. 

 It is understood he tried to arrest the other driver involved in the incident, who later complained that the officer had used unnecessary force.
Before the discipline board convened, however, the officer took early retirement from the Met on medical grounds, and was awarded a medical pension.
"

Interestingly enough I was just thinking today of a statement I made some time ago that police officers have been able to avoid disciplinary action for actual misconduct just by retiring from the force. Detective boy pulled me up on it, and I said I'd come back to him next time I saw an example. Well, it's taken a while but this looks like one


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2009)

Blimey. So it's not someone who 'merely' had a moment of very poor judgement, he's basically long term dodgy.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2009)

So he took early retirement to avoid disciplinary action for being a violent twat, and then rejoined to beat up people in the TSG? How many times are they allowed to pull that one then? Fuck's sake!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 6, 2009)

Yep, not just single bad apple - systemic failure where responsibility has to go up to the top, too. Same with Louloubelle's link. Same with statements from top police about them being "up for" a summer of violence. Same with police covering their badges up. Same with police saying they had "a little surprise" for the protestors at the climate camp. 

The relevant press release will no doubt say they have now tightened procedures. The relevant previous press release also no doubt said they had then tightened procedures - tighten procedures all you like if you're not following the written procedures anyway  . 

The report coming out that the article talks about sounds interesting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2009)

editor said:


> Yep. It's quite the most fucking ridiculous thing the Met have come up with.



If only. I still fancy "protestors were bottling Tomlinson and/or the police at the time, and they prevented police medics from reaching Tomlinson" for that particular award. I believe there is now footage of the police forcibly preventing a trained civillian medic from treating Tomlinson...


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2009)

IIRC at least one of the recent reports criticises them for holding up the ambulance too. I'll see if I can dig out a link.


E2A: OK, it's from what looks like an Inquest press release, not one of the "official" reports. http://www.esnews.co.uk/?p=4091&mode=1 (same text as the "imposter" article linked above, so presumably a press release).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2009)

It will be interesting to see how deeply both the IPCC and HMIC will be looking into how demonstrably false information came to be published in the earliest reports of the G20 protests, such as the 'bricks thrown at brave police medics' line which was immortalised in print in the _Evening Standard_. 







Readable PDF of article

Given the interest that the HAC showed in the issue of 'communication' (or lack thereof) in big policing operations, and how one of the IPCC investigations is focused on misinformation, are we likely to see any real change in the culture of black and grey propaganda being churned out of police headquarters, an end to 'protesters given packed lunches' and 'samurai sword-wielding rioters stockpile weapons' and 'drunk fans urinated over corpses' and all those other made-up stories?

And will the individual police officers and unwarranted employees actually writing and briefing these falsehoods, and their superiors who directed them or permitted them to do so, be named, and disciplined?

/rhetorical questions


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 6, 2009)

DaveCinzano said:


> Given the interest that the HAC showed in the issue of 'communication' (or lack thereof) in big policing operations, and how one of the IPCC investigations is focused on misinformation, are we likely to see any real change in the culture of black and grey propaganda being churned out of police headquarters, an end to 'protesters given packed lunches' and 'samurai sword-wielding rioters stockpile weapons' and 'drunk fans urinated over corpses' and all those other made-up stories?
> 
> And will the individual police officers and unwarranted employees actually writing and briefing these falsehoods, and their superiors who directed them or permitted them to do so, be named, and disciplined?
> 
> /rhetorical questions



Given that the Met has a long and well-deserved reputation for attempting to cover up just about anything that has ever implied its officers either are, or might be, at fault, I'd say the chances are very slim.

For example, anyone who remembers how the Met did its best to hide the endemic corruption of a broad selection (and large numbers) of its officers back in the 1960's and 1970's, including some senior ones, will know what I mean.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 6, 2009)

It's an interesting point though. There was one brief period where even the BBC were saying Mr Tomlinson had actually been killed by the more or less mythical 'hail of bottles' 

As far as I can tell there is no actual sanction that would act as a disincentive for the police to discourage their established habit of telling pre-emptive lies to the media when they fuck up, knowing that they'll stick.

Even to this day I run into people that think the unfortunate Mr De Menezes was 'acting suspiciously, jumping turnstiles, wearing a bulky jacket and trailing wires'


----------



## david dissadent (Jul 6, 2009)

Should there not be an outcry to re-vet all police officers?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm not sticking my arm up their arses.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2009)

HMIC's interim report into G20 policing and other issues now available (PDF):

http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/docs/ap/


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2009)

Bloody hell!

Newsnight just now, Keith Vaz (Chair of the HASC) with Brian Paddick and Jenny Jones. Short film about a TSG assault allegation, Brian Paddick talking about how highly trained they were. Then Keith Vaz says "we (the committee) weren't told about them. We were told they were all inexperienced officers on the front-line. Noone told us about this TSG." The rest of the panel go "huh?!" and he says "we can only rule on evidence we're given".

Fuck's sake!

There's another thread on this. I'll go find it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2009)

.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2009)

I emailed Keith Vaz on 29th June with my concerns at the Committee's findings, specifically referring to highly-trained, experienced specialist units such as the Forward Intelligence Teams and TSG. I received a reply from the HAC acknowledging the issues I had raised with the suggestion that they may be dealt with in the near future. Interesting!


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 4, 2009)

The CPS have now been handed the file on the Ian Tomlinson case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8183293.stm


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Aug 4, 2009)

From the Times...


> Deborah Glass, the IPCC Commissioner for London, said:
> We have had a remarkable response from the public and I would like to thank those people who have contacted us for all their help. Much of the video evidence we have passed to the CPS was collected by members of the public on cameras or mobile phones.”



Funny innit, London allegedly being cctv'd to the max... and its ordinary folks evidence which is the base of the evidence...

Interesting to see how this pans out....


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> The CPS have now been handed the file on the Ian Tomlinson case.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8183293.stm






			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> The Metropolitan police learned today that one of its officers could face prosecution for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 demonstrations.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/04/ian-tomlinson-police-ipcc-inquiry

Not holding my breath...


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2009)

laptop said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/04/ian-tomlinson-police-ipcc-inquiry
> 
> Not holding my breath...


From the Guardian article...





> The officer is understood to have faced allegations of aggression earlier in his career, after becoming involved in a road rage incident while off duty. The Met's vetting procedures are said to have failed to notice that the officer had an unresolved disciplinary matter.


----------



## TheDave (Aug 4, 2009)

I feel quite surprised at the moment.

This beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8183293.stm article stated solely that the cause of death was a heart attack earlier today and the caption on the picture only said that too, I sent a message explaining that the first post mortem was conducted by a suspended coroner who is under investigation and that a second autopsy showed that internal bleeding was the cause of death and now it's all changed. I doubt I was only one who noticed, but i was surprised to see it changed.

That being said, I'm not exactly hopeful that we will see a prosecution brought against the officer in question.


----------



## winjer (Aug 8, 2009)

Surprised? You won't be:

_Investigators decided there was no evidence of police wrongdoing in the death of Ian Tomlinson just three days after he collapsed at the G20 protests, it has emerged tonight. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) planned to announce that it had completed its assessment into Tomlinson's death on 1 April and discovered nothing suspicious. At 11.30am on 4 April, investigators prepared a document announcing Tomlinson died of a heart attack after being caught up among protesters "dressed entirely in black" who, it said, were charging police._

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/07/ian-tomlinson-death-ipcc-g20
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/07/ian-tomlinson-death-police-memos


----------



## paolo (Aug 8, 2009)

TheDave said:


> That being said, I'm not exactly hopeful that we will see a prosecution brought against the officer in question.



Would have thought that assault would be pretty clear cut - in terms of having sufficient evidence / chance of success to make the prosecution worthwhile.

I would possibly share your pessimism in a lower profile case, but this one is in the spotlight. If no charges are brought at all - bearing in mind this officer's very sketchy history - then a media lynching, Guardian leading the charge, will ensue.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 9, 2009)

TSG copper getting it the neck from the good old sunday mirror over the booze ban parties

Shock pic of man battered by police and thrown in jail


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2009)

winjer said:


> Surprised? You won't be:
> 
> _Investigators decided there was no evidence of police wrongdoing in the death of Ian Tomlinson just three days after he collapsed at the G20 protests, it has emerged tonight. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) planned to announce that it had completed its assessment into Tomlinson's death on 1 April and discovered nothing suspicious. At 11.30am on 4 April, investigators prepared a document announcing Tomlinson died of a heart attack after being caught up among protesters "dressed entirely in black" who, it said, were charging police._
> 
> ...



What a fucking shambles. 

But it was idiotic to expect anymore from the Independant Police Lies Commission. Evil evil cunts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> What a fucking shambles.
> 
> But it was idiotic to expect anymore from the Independant Police Lies Commission. Evil evil cunts.



it was an attempted hush job from start to finish, as should be obvious from the first autopsy being conducted by the Mets pet pathologist.

Unfortunately for the Met, citizen journalism has shown them up as the right cunts they are.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2009)

> Video footage showed a policeman *apparently hit him* on the leg with a baton and *push* him over on 1 April.
> 
> Other images suggested that when Mr Tomlinson *fell*, he hit the ground with *some* force.



Diabolocial BBC article. Wanky propaganda at its worst.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8183293.stm


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 19, 2009)

UNITED CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLICE VIOLENCE

office@againstpoliceviolence.org.uk - www.againstpoliceviolence.org.uk
    Press: Patrick Ward 07894 49 7705

    PRESS RELEASE - For immediate release

    Friday 21 August
    ONE YEAR ON: REMEMBER SEAN RIGG – NO MORE DEATHS IN POLICE CUSTODY

    Friday 21 August - assemble 5.30pm Junction of Fairmount Road and Brixton Hill, Brixton, London
    Rally at Brixton Police Station, SW9 7DD – Candlelight vigil

    On 21 August 2008, at approximately 7.30pm, Sean Rigg was arrested and restrained by four Brixton police officers, placed in a van and driven to Brixton police station. Within approximately one hour of being arrested, Sean, a physically fit and healthy man, was dead.

    Since Sean’s death, his family have campaigned tirelessly for justice. But their commitment to seeing justice done has met with opposition from the supposedly Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), whose weak, flawed investigation seems immensely biased towards the police.

    The United Campaign Against Police Violence fully supports this evening of remembrance, starting at the hostel at which Sean was staying to Brixton police station. We must ensure that justice is done, and that there are no more deaths in police custody.

    No justice – no peace!

    Samantha Rigg-David, Sean Rigg Justice and Change Campaign and sister of Sean Rigg, said:

    "Friday 21st August 2009 will be a year to the day since Sean died and we are still fighting for answers, answers that make sense. We have called for a robust and fair investigation, but still the IPCC continue to take the word, side and perspective of the police.

    “As a family it has been hard to grieve. Instead, we have had to campaign tirelessly and ask some very hard questions and almost conduct our own investigation into what happened to Sean on the night he died in Brixton police station. Our questions only raise yet more questions and lead us into further suspicion.

    “We can only continue in our quest for justice and hope that all those responsible for Sean's death, all those that failed him on that fateful day, will be called to account. These needless deaths need to stop, the police need to indeed work with us, the community, learn to treat us with the respect and care that we deserve in truly working together for 'a safer London' , not one where innocent people turn up 'dead' in the hands of the police."

    UNITED CAMPAIGN AGAINST POLICE VIOLENCE
office@againstpoliceviolence.org.uk - www.againstpoliceviolence.org.uk
    Press: Patrick Ward 07894 49 7705


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2009)

Learning the Lessons
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs26.pdf


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2009)

police note books reveal brutal use of shields against protesters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/23/g20-protests-ian-tomlinson-police


----------



## Corax (Sep 16, 2009)

So have we found out the results of the third PM?  Is the investigation still going on?  Just how fucking long is it going to take?  Is anything ever going to actually come out of this?  Before any witnesses die of old age?


----------



## TopCat (Sep 16, 2009)

Corax said:


> So have we found out the results of the third PM?  Is the investigation still going on?  Just how fucking long is it going to take?  Is anything ever going to actually come out of this?  Before any witnesses die of old age?



No police person will ever be convicted in connection with the death of Ian Tomlinson, of that you can be sure. 

No police person has _ever_ been convicted in connection with the death of a member of the public whilst they were on duty.


----------



## winjer (Oct 17, 2009)

> Home Office FoI Release on G20 Protests
> 
> A week ago, I mentioned that Home Office had received a Freedom of Information request asking for documents it held or produced between 1st and 8th April of this year that were either "briefings, notes, minutes, emails or letters prepared for ministers and senior officials concerning the 1 April 2009 G20 'financial fools day' demonstration" or "memos, papers, emails, minutes or documents relating to either the 1st April 2009 demonstration at the Bank of England or Ian Tomlinson’s death".
> 
> ...



More:
http://www.blowe.org.uk/2009/10/home-office-foi-release-on-g20-protests.html


----------



## winjer (Dec 1, 2009)

> The IPCC today confirmed it had received a new complaint from Tomlinson's family, who believe possible attempts to cover up police involvement in the death have not yet been investigated.
> 
> The complaint alleges that a senior Met officer "misled" investigators by suggesting Tomlinson, 47, fell to the ground minutes before the police attack – which was captured on video – took place. The senior officer's claim, which had an impact on the investigation, does not appear to have been supported by any evidence.





> The Tomlinson family have become more vocal about their concerns about a suspected cover-up in recent weeks.* Today, they will speak at a vigil in Tomlinson's memory. It will be held at 6pm near the Bank of England*, close to the spot where he was attacked on his way home from work.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/30/ian-tomlinson-family-metropolitan-officer


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 1, 2009)

TopCat said:


> No police person will ever be convicted in connection with the death of Ian Tomlinson, of that you can be sure.
> 
> No police person has _ever_ been convicted in connection with the death of a member of the public whilst they were on duty.



These are important points.


----------



## winjer (Dec 1, 2009)

The second one's not true.

(cf. PC John Dougal, PS Mark Kitching, PI Geoffrey Ellerker, maybe more)


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 1, 2009)

winjer said:


> The second one's not true.
> 
> (cf. PC John Dougal, PS Mark Kitching, PI Geoffrey Ellerker, maybe more)



THey haven't been convicted for murder or manslaughter have they? I do not think so, and this is what was meant I think.


----------



## winjer (Dec 1, 2009)

> Update: Two more of the Forward Intelligence (FIT) officers who witnessed (and ignored) the attack on Ian Tomlinson have been identified as U2934 (F3) and U2337 (F4) from the TSG (2 Area).


http://www.lasthours.org.uk/news/g20-another-version-of-the-truth/


----------



## tar1984 (Dec 1, 2009)

^^^Good work by whoever put all that together.


----------



## winjer (Dec 2, 2009)

Thanks. Most of the research was by me and another LDMG person.

Meanwhile, *epic PR fail*:


> Last night, with phenomenally insensitive timing The Times newspaper published a puff piece aimed at rehabilitating the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group, at exactly the same time as Ian Tomlinson's family were attending a candlelit vigil to remember him at Royal Exchange Buildings, near to the spot were he was attacked by a TSG officer on April 1st. The article was later pulled from The Times website, but not before copies were cached by other online news services.
> 
> In the article Chris Allison, the Met's kettler-in-chief, explained that the TSG are just misunderstood and do a lot of great work for charity...
> 
> ...





> Officers from the Territorial Support Group, which has been criticised for its heavy-handedness during several protests, are embarking on a good will tour to explain to people what their job really entails.
> 
> The road shows across the capital have been given the go-ahead after the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests earlier this year which also resulted in hundreds of complaints.
> 
> ...


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/12/442629.html

The article's back up at the original Times URL.


----------



## Zabo (Mar 17, 2011)

Update: Patel



> The GMC has said the fitness to practise of a pathologist criticised over his report into a man's death at the G20 protests is "impaired".
> 
> A disciplinary panel upheld allegations earlier this week against Dr Freddy Patel of misconduct and "deficient professional performance".



More Here

I wonder what the police will have to say about this?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 18, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Update: Patel
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not much I would imagine.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 18, 2011)

freddy patel remains a fucking disgrace to his profession. 

as I recall the inquiry concluded in 'no case to answer' because of 'a disagreement in pathologist reports'. The chief disagreement being that patel hadn't done his fucking job properly so that is whay two other pathologists had to have a go. And coming in the week where Smiley Culture managed to die mysteriously from a stab wound (self inflicted they say) while in police custody.... scum.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 18, 2011)

Patel did do his job properly - concotting a verdict that Ian Tomlinson 'died of natural casues' - as requested by the met.


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 28, 2011)

Inquest starts today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12856002


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

The coroner has:



> • Told the jury to ignore the fact that the director of public prosecutions (DPP) chose not to bring criminal proceedings against the officer. "That was not a final decision, but a provisional decision," he said. "He may review that decision after the inquest."



I'm assuming that final 'He' refers to the DPP not the coroner himself?

Be interested to learn what the stuff the papers are unable to report from yesterday was about.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

The new footage released today shows Tomlinson asking to be let out of the kettle an hour earlier and being waved away. I can't see any way the cops can wriggle out of this one: he was assaulted and died as a result of that assault. And that fucking clown Dr Patel should have been struck off the medical register years ago.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 29, 2011)

New footage


----------



## xes (Mar 29, 2011)

mmmmmmmm police gtetting away with killing innocent people *drools*

fucking scum.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Every time I see the footage of that fucking violent thug of an officer throwing an entirely peaceful Tomlinson to the floor as he was walking away, I feel sick.


----------



## xes (Mar 29, 2011)

You're not the only one Ed  

And to think that the police deliberatly covered it up, makes it even worse. They truly are suprlus scum. And people wonder why some of us hate the polcie. There are still some cunts who think that Thomlison was "asking for it"

It defies belief.


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 29, 2011)

Remember The Sun 'smear'?









> THE man who died during the G20 protest had a confrontation with cops 85 minutes before his fatal collapse, The Sun can reveal.
> 
> New photos show paper seller Ian Tomlinson - unsteady on his feet through booze - being shoved aside after he blocked a police van and refused to move.
> 
> ...



They claimed he'd been hanging around for ages, causing trouble.

Myself and others on here suggested that perhaps they'd just taken the timestamp from the photos and run the story, using the timings to make all sorts of accusations.

But the clocks had changed on Sunday and if the camera time hadn't been changed (still not changed my camera from this weekend actually) it would have made it look as though he was there an hour earlier - despite the reports from his boss as to when he left for home.

I contacted The Sun about this and got no response.  I also forwarded this information to the IPCC.

Time for an apology from The Sun?











http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/mar/29/ian-tomlinson-inquiry-footage-video


----------



## Fruitloop (Mar 29, 2011)

Also, is he not standing on the pavement in that pic?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2011)

Interesting to re-read the beginning of this thread and see all the police apologists.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Mar 29, 2011)

I hate the one to say it as I was there to the left of him he wasn't entirely peaceful as I saw him trying to break into the kettle next to the RSB and he was held back. I'm not sure wheather he was using his Millwall image or whether the rumours that he was trying to get home is true. As he lived in London for a while and worked as a newspaper seller he must has know the side street etc... But the Policeto try and cover it up and blaming the protests sucks since the moment it started, to claim they didn't know what they were doing was in my view a complete lie. That's the big sticking point.


----------



## Random (Mar 30, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Interesting to re-read the beginning of this thread and see all the police apologists.


 
Make a list. Name and shame.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 30, 2011)

Random said:


> Make a list. Name and shame.


 
Yup


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Every time I see the footage of that fucking violent thug of an officer throwing an entirely peaceful Tomlinson to the floor as he was walking away, I feel sick.


 
The Police are lucky they didn't kill anybody b4 christmas at the student protests.


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 30, 2011)

> PC Simon Harwood who struck Ian Tomlinson at G20 protests is due to start giving evidence at inquest next Monday (4 April)



http://twitter.com/#!/copwatcher/status/53047034097315840


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 30, 2011)

The witness list is here:

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/Tomlinson/PublicMeetings/

Appearing today (amongst others) is Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson from City of London Police, Bronze Commander with operational control on the ground, who was in the area at the time if not a direct witness (and may have spoken with PC Simon Harwood either before or after (or both before and after) the Tomlinson assault).

Tomorrow includes evidence from PC Jon Bish, the City of London dog handler who 'approached' Ian Tomlinson with his dog (Max?) shortly before Harwood attacked Tomlinson.

Also appearing tomorrow is the Met's PC Steve Discombe, the veteran Forward Intelligence Team cop, who alongside PC Alan Palfrey (a part-time FIT cop who is a Camden-based borough officer) and other FIT police, TSG and Level IIs in the area, was a witness to the whole incident. For some reason Palfrey does not appear to have been called as a witness, despite being clearly visible in footage from the lead up to the assault, the assault itself and its aftermath.


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 30, 2011)

> The inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests in 2009, will commence on Monday 28 March 2011 and is expected to last for of 5-6 weeks. It is expected to sit from Monday to Thursday from 10.00am – 4.00pm. *The family welcomes supporters to attend.*



http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/2011/03/attending-ian-tomlinson-inquest.html


----------



## Corax (Mar 30, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> Time for an apology from The Sun?


 
It only took them 15 years for Hillsborough.


----------



## winjer (Mar 30, 2011)

editor said:


> The new footage released today shows Tomlinson asking to be let out of the kettle an hour earlier and being waved away.


He's not in the kettle at any point, he's trying to get through and then round it.



lopsidedbunny said:


> I hate the one to say it as I was there to the left of him he wasn't entirely peaceful as I saw him trying to break into the kettle next to the RSB and he was held back.


Care to be more exact, as he never got to the street where RBS is, can you point out where in the video of his movements he's trying to break into the kettle? 



DaveCinzano said:


> Appearing today (amongst others) is Chief Superintendent Alex Robertson from City of London Police, Bronze Commander with operational control on the ground


He was only quoted, from a briefing.



> Also appearing tomorrow is the Met's PC Steve Discombe, the veteran Forward Intelligence Team cop


I expect he won't be up until Friday, only got through PS Shaw today - she was Harwood's Sergeant.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks for the update Winjer.

Who are PCs Andrew Hayes and Alexander Jackaman?

And is the schedule likely to get pushed back much, is Harwood still likely to appear on Monday and Tuesday?


----------



## winjer (Mar 31, 2011)

I believe they are the other drivers from Harwood's serial - their three vans were parked together on Cornhill.

Friday is reserved for catch-up, so Harwood should still appear then.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 31, 2011)

Cheers.


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 31, 2011)

G20 pathologist suspended by GMC for... 4 months...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12918272


----------



## Nice one (Apr 1, 2011)

okay just got back home. spent the day at he inquest, will try and write up todays notes (apparently they're going up on the inquest website anyhow), but will be in court tomorrow. 

Just a quick note on the witnesses today:
PC hayes. he was the copper who held the door open as harwood rammed the protestor's head against it. He spent most of the day explaining the role of a driver of a tsg van on day - which raises the question what the fuck was harwood (another driver of a tsg van) doing in full riot gear attacking protestors at threadneedle street.

The american businessman who filmed harwood actually striking tomlinson. He was excellent, refused to rise to the bait about tomlinson's apparent intoxication.

Star of the day was the witness to was the first on the scene to help tomlinson up after he'd been pushed over. Deserves a medal. Not least for the other stuff he got up to.

The narrative that seems to be emerging, for all sides, is - rogue cop, lost the chain of command, went off on one and the result is a dead passerby by. Will see how this develops. V tired up early. Will post full notes later


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2011)

Look forward to that.

The witness schedule seems to have got backed up very quickly - is anyone going to make today's (Friday - the second anniversary of Ian Tomlinson's death) hearing? Quite a few interesting police witnesses, including protest policing specialist from the Forward Intelligence Team PC Steve Discombe, the City of London dog handler PC Jon Bish, and possibly two of the three coppers in riot gear who were closest to Harwood's assault on Tomlinson - all of whom were within touching distance at the time.


----------



## Corax (Apr 1, 2011)

Discombe?  Fuck, get your sneer repellent ready.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 1, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Look forward to that.
> 
> The witness schedule seems to have got backed up very quickly - is anyone going to make today's (Friday - the second anniversary of Ian Tomlinson's death) hearing? Quite a few interesting police witnesses, including protest policing specialist from the Forward Intelligence Team PC Steve Discombe, the City of London dog handler PC Jon Bish, and possibly two of the three coppers in riot gear who were closest to Harwood's assault on Tomlinson - all of whom were within touching distance at the time.



Yes, I hope somebody can go and report back here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2011)

Corax said:


> Discombe?  Fuck, get your sneer repellent ready.


 
and mind your pies near 'fatty' discombe.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 1, 2011)

discombe didn't give evidence. A statement by him was read out in court. It was short and contained little detail. He was actually present in the building but never called to answer questions at the inquest, which seems a little odd.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 1, 2011)

Bish the dog handler admitted he couldn't remember anything of the incident and his statement was given after seeing the footage therefore his evidence was based on recollecting the video footage rather than what he actually remembered first hand at the time. 

Apparently went on holiday straight after the G20 therefore only made a statement to the police/ipcc 3 weeks after the incident and only after seeing the footage.  It was never put to him if he made notes about the day in his evidence and action book. Maybe dog handlers aren't required to do so, but it was never put to him. Again a little odd.

Bish has 24 years in the police  (7 years as a dog handler), still only a pc

The three closest to him in riot gear were all serial drivers from fulham (level 2, rather than tsg). Seems, like harwood, they got bored sitting in their vans and went out looking for a bit of action. Only 2 made the stand and both confused in terms of giving their evidence, which didn't quite tally with what was on the footage.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 1, 2011)

cunts


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2011)

Thanks for the update Nice one.



Nice one said:


> Bish has 24 years in the police  (7 years as a dog handler), still only a pc.


 
Perhaps his leaky memory made it hard to cram for the sergeants' exam?


----------



## Nice one (Apr 1, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Thanks for the update Nice one.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps his leaky memory made it hard to cram for the sergeants' exam?


 
gonna be writing up a full account of the last two days in the meantime:
_On the anniversary on the killing of Ian Tomlinson by police at the G20 protests PC Discombe of the notoriously incompetent and unreliable Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) was supposed to be appearing at Ian Tomlinson’s inquest. Instead a short statement was read out to the court about Discombe’s recollections of the day. In witnessing PC Harwood violently strike Tomlinson and shove him to the ground Discombe said only this: “the baton strike was delivered in an almost perfect training stance”.

He offered no further information about Tomlinson’s killing._
http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/04/01/pc-steve-discombe-scum-cop/


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2011)

Nice one, Nice one.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2011)

Look forward to it. Any mention of when police witnesses came forward? And any mention of Palfrey? Or what was said amongst the cops before/during/after Tomlinson was taken down?


----------



## Nice one (Apr 1, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Look forward to it. Any mention of when police witnesses came forward? And any mention of Palfrey? Or what was said amongst the cops before/during/after Tomlinson was taken down?


 
there's no mention in anybody's notes about the tomlinson incident. EAB (evidence and action books) are written up at the time by coppers and none had mentioned tomlinson specifically. 
You're supposed to record the use of batons, use of force in your EAB.
Coppers so far say they didn't record the tomlinson incident cos they didn't use force/batons and "the incident seemed insignificant at the time". 

The female in riot gear, closest to tomlinson when he was shoved, says she spoke to him and told him to move that way indicating with her baton (although the video footage contradicts this). She first made a statement on 6th april (assuming to police) and fuller statement on 16 May (presumably to ipcc). The barristers were largely going off the fuller statements made. Interestingly she made no mention of tomlinson in her orginal EAB notes but amended them on 3rd april to include the tomlinson incident, after her chief inspector at fulham contacted her saying city police wanted her to make a statement about tomlinson incident.

the other driver cop in riot gear (far left during the incident) made his first statement on 3rd april, again city police wanting him to make a statement.

No mention of palfrey as yet.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 1, 2011)

Much appreciated nice one, very interesting reading, thanks.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2011)

Just noticed the Tomlinson Family Campaign website has a slightly more detailed witness list than the one on the official inquest site, with roles of (most) witnesses appended:

http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/2011/03/inquest-witness-timetable.html


----------



## nick h. (Apr 2, 2011)

Why no mention of Kerry Smith in this thread? http://www.channel4.com/news/ian-tomlinson-inquest-police-officer-shocked-by-push


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 2, 2011)

Nice one said:


> gonna be writing up a full account of the last two days in the meantime:
> _On the anniversary on the killing of Ian Tomlinson by police at the G20 protests PC Discombe of the notoriously incompetent and unreliable Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) was supposed to be appearing at Ian Tomlinson’s inquest. Instead a short statement was read out to the court about Discombe’s recollections of the day. In witnessing PC Harwood violently strike Tomlinson and shove him to the ground Discombe said only this: “the baton strike was delivered in an almost perfect training stance”.
> 
> He offered no further information about Tomlinson’s killing._
> http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/04/01/pc-steve-discombe-scum-cop/


 
And they wonder why they are HATED.


----------



## Corax (Apr 2, 2011)

Thanks Nice One.



Nice one said:


> discombe didn't give evidence. A statement by him was read out in court. It was short and contained little detail. He was actually present in the building but never called to answer questions at the inquest, which seems a little odd.


 I suspect he gets confused by long words.


----------



## winjer (Apr 2, 2011)

Nice one said:


> the other driver cop in riot gear (far left during the incident) made his first statement on 3rd april, again city police wanting him to make a statement.


He was third from left, far left guy wasn't called.



> No mention of palfrey as yet.


Discombe's statement included him in his team of three with Cowlin.

This is Cowlin in happier times:


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 3, 2011)

Beaut! 

Shame it wasn't blood...


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

So...  It's Harwood's turn today.

Wonder what he'll have to say for himself...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/04/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

> 10.20am: Williams, an inspector for TSG 41 (Harwood's unit) has explained the use of force training undergone by all officers. He said it is always stressed than it is down for an officer to decide what force is "justifiable". *He described batons as generally a "defensive" instrument, used to protect police and members of the public.*



has anyone told the police?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> has anyone told the police?



...



> He said it is always stressed than it is down for an officer to decide what force is "justifiable"



Can, worms, everywhere.


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2011)

Williams admitted the kettle was planned ahead of any disorder, to prevent protesters wandering around the city. Initially it was a 'filter cordon' meaning people "determined to not be protesters" were allowed to pass through, later becoming an 'absolute cordon'.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2011)

From the Grauniad's live feed,



> The inspector is forced to accept that he tried to persuade Harwood he that the officer in the footage was not him, on the basis of an erroneous "rumour" that the officer was from Hackney.



A case of "Shut up, and keep your head down"?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

Did his wife dob him in?



> He said Harwood returned home. An officer from the Police Federation (the police equivalent of a union) later told him he had a call from Harwood's wife, who was insistent it was him in the footage.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

Harwood


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

It's quite obvious from the comments that once senior coppers (and Harwood himself, although im sure he knew full well at the time) had seen the footage they knew how serious it was. This wasn't something that could be easily explained away.

What still gets me is that none of them went to help the guy up. None of them showed ANY empathy or concern.

A bunch of fucking mindless drones.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

> 10.47am: Inspector Williams said the atmosphere at the G20 changed as the day progressed. He said it went from friendly to a more hostile atmosphere, with indications that "disorder" was likely to break out.



Hardly surprising is it?

The four marches converged on the bank of england where they had to cross lines of officers to get in.  Lines which were quickly sealed for everybody.  Lines which appeared to be pre-planned.

In fact, a bit of violence was exactly what they wanted to happen in order to justify the kettle.  In my opinion, it was provoked by sending in a group of police to the middle of the crowd to try and form a cordon and split the crowd.  This resulted in police hats being lost and red flares being let off and a retreat out of the crowd by some red-faced officers.

And how much violence and masking up was there at the climate camp?


----------



## ymu (Apr 4, 2011)

They attacked Climate Camp for their own good. Some violent anarchists might have infiltrated them if some violent coppers hadn't saved the day.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

Harwood finally takes the stand


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

Guardian blog



> 2.09pm: Harwood is talking about the training he received as a Territorial Support Group (TSG) officer in the Met. His voice is extremely quiet and he is speaking slowly. The coroner has asked him to speak up.
> 
> 2.08pm: The coroner has told Harwood that he is under no obligation to answer any questions that he believes may incriminate himself.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

...



> 2.08pm: Ian Tomlinson's son Paul King had left the room in emotional scenes. When Harwood informed the coroner he had attended to answer questions and "help the family at this difficult time" other family members also became upset, and left.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 4, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's quite obvious from the comments that once senior coppers (and Harwood himself, although im sure he knew full well at the time) had seen the footage they knew how serious it was. This wasn't something that could be easily explained away.
> 
> What still gets me is that none of them went to help the guy up. None of them showed ANY empathy or concern.
> 
> A bunch of fucking mindless drones.


 
^^^ This


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2011)

> Harwood is asked about appropriate use of a baton. Turning to the jury, he said: "With baton use, it can be used for offensive but also defensive use. Again that would depend on what the officer *sees in front of him*."



A bloke with his back to you and his hands in his pockets?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

Informed by the coroner that he was not obliged to give evidence that would incriminate himself, Harwood replied:



> I was very aware of that. I'm here as a witness to help the inquest and also to give some sort of answers to help the family.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 4, 2011)

....



> My numbers are always visible. I always have my numbers as it is a policy, a Metropolitan police policy, to always have your numbers displayed, especially on public order ...
> 
> The yellow jacket I wore - that was a new jacket that was issued to me. I used pins and clasps to put my numbers on my jacket that day.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

> He said the operation was to involve "robust" policing". "Not just going and picking on people, but robust in terms of keeping the demonstration where it should be,"



keeping the demonstration *where it should be*?


----------



## laptop (Apr 4, 2011)

Questioning on the "suspect" Harwood says he was trying to arrest earlier - possibly trying to explain why he left his post by the van:



> 4.14pm: Hewitt has asked Harwood to explained a previous written statement in which he said: "The suspect, in an attempt to escape, ran into the door."
> 
> In reply, he said the suspect was becoming uncontrollable and was trying to escape. He said he realised the man had struck the van "because of the noise it made when he hit the door".
> 
> ...



Snort.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 4, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Informed by the coroner that he was not obliged to give evidence that would incriminate himself, Harwood replied:
> 
> 
> > I was very aware of that. I'm here as a witness to help the inquest and also to give some sort of answers to help the family.


 
When he said that it was a very tense moment. Several members of the Tomlinson family walked out.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

the door vs head incident featured in the channel 4 news piece.

http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-new-g20-video-evidence


----------



## skitr (Apr 4, 2011)

It gets harder and harder to believe the shit they come out with each day. Channel 4 news piece is very good.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 4, 2011)

The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking. 

What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky.

Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 4, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking.
> 
> What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky.
> 
> Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.



Yep.  There were loads of em at it.


----------



## Garek (Apr 4, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> The Met looks like cutting Harwood adrift, and throwing in a few rocks to fasten his sinking.
> 
> What he did was despicable, reprehensible, wrong, evil - but let us not forget how so many more, in tune with their training, commit smaller acts of despicable, reprehensible, wrong evil all the time and get away with it. It's what they are trained to do, right down to the selective memories and vagueness after the event. *In some respects Harwood was unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky*.
> 
> Let Harwood burn, but keep your fires stoked ready for the others too.


 
Spot on.


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2011)

Apparently this: _Pc Harwood left the Metropolitan Police a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident, then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force._ can't be mentioned at the inquest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Let's hope the jury already read about it then. It's every bit as relevant as the way he was behaving earlier in the day, surely?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 5, 2011)

The bad apple narrative emerges as it looks like harwood might fall on his sword.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 5, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> the door vs head incident featured in the channel 4 news piece.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-new-g20-video-evidence


He looks like he had red mist big style. Just looking for action and attaching himself to whatever was available. 

Please correct me if I am wrong but were the carriers originally _inside _the kettle?


----------



## winjer (Apr 5, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong but were the carriers originally _inside _the kettle?


I think the answer is no, at one point around midday they were forming a part of it on Lothbury, but I don't think they were ever inside the lines on Cornhill.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 5, 2011)

winjer said:


> I think the answer is no, at one point around midday they were forming a part of it on Lothbury, but I don't think they were ever inside the lines on Cornhill.


Ah OK, I know they were inside the lines at Bishopsgate just watching the video and was wondering about placement.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 5, 2011)

That harwood cunt was on a rampage, but yeah, they could track the movements of a lot of officers that day and see the same thing.  

Hugely convoluted explaination for knocking someones head off a door as well


----------



## Nice one (Apr 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> The bad apple narrative emerges as it looks like harwood might fall on his sword.


 
The bad apple scenario is suitng everyone's purpose - certainly tomlinson's barrister who i think the family has instructed to concerntrate exclusively on harwood hence no bronze commanders giving evidence about policy, strategy and agenda (discombe's statement being read out, the most senior officer's statement being partially read out), and it suits met/city police barristers who have kept remarkably silent during the inquest (which would assume they find it unecessary to intervene to defend their position). The increase in violence/hostility is in no way being connected to people being kettled for hours on end at bank as part of the pre-arranged policing process.

Perversly it would be harwood's barrister who would bring in 'he was just doing his job, this is what he's trained to do, just doing what was expected from the day' But even this is looking more tenuous as harwood himself has admitted he wasn't at any of the briefings and the one briefing he did attend on the day he couldn't hear what was being said.


'Robust' and 'facilitating lawful protest' seem to be the most used phrases of the day.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

Nice one said:


> ...harwood himself has admitted he wasn't at any of the briefings and the one briefing he did attend on the day he couldn't hear what was being said.



Harwood missed the main TSG 4-1 briefing by Insp Williams on Friday 29th March (along with two colleagues), but was present at the parade briefing by Williams at Catford at 0500hrs on 1st April. 

Sergeant Emma Shaw then gave a further briefing to her team (including Harwood, who was the driver) in their carrier (4-1-3) "after breakfast" at a girls' school somewhere in the City of London. Harwood claimed he couldn't hear the briefing, and that he told Shaw as much. Shaw insisted in her earlier evidence (I believe) that he could hear her.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Harwood missed the main TSG 4-1 briefing by Insp Williams on Friday 29th March (along with two colleagues), but was present at the parade briefing by Williams at Catford at 0500hrs on 1st April.
> 
> Sergeant Emma Shaw then gave a further briefing to her team (including Harwood, who was the driver) in their carrier (4-1-3) "after breakfast" at a girls' school somewhere in the City of London. Harwood claimed he couldn't hear the briefing, and that he told Shaw as much. Shaw insisted in her earlier evidence (I believe) that he could hear her.


 
From Guardian



> When Hewitt pointed that the van was stationary and that his sergeant was standing in the middle of the vehicle when the briefing was given, Harwood said it is often hard to hear from the front of the van and there was a lot of noise.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

What the inquest jury makes of his claims that whilst in a parked van, without any headgear on, he had trouble hearing someone stood a few feet away, is anyone's guess. 

On being asked what PS Shaw said in her briefing, he first said "I couldn't hear much", then "I can't remember", then "I said [to Shaw] 'I can't hear'", before elaborating on the acoustic qualities or otherwise of a TSG carrier. At least the dog didn't eat his homework too - that would have been a pisser.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

His evidence towards the beginning of the afternoon was a little shaky, though later on it got more polished.

The stuff about the briefings was early on, so there was a noticeable contrast between his evidence and Insp Williams.

Williams had been at pains to explain how in his briefings - based on a briefing by senior officers he himself had attended on Friday 27th March - he had emphasised that their "general approach was to facilitate lawful protest, and members of the public going about their lawful business", but that they would "deal robustly with any violence or disorder".

Under later questioning from the Tomlinson family barrister Mr Ryder, Williams recounted that (then) City of London Commissioner Bowron had in the 27/3/9 briefing said that the police should "treat lawful protesters with kid gloves, and those using violence with an iron fist". Williams asserted that it "isn't a phrase I would use [myself, but] it stuck in my mind." He said it was "not helpful" language, but that he "understood it to mean facilitating lawful protest, and deal robustly with others". Ryder pushed him on this, but Williams insisted he did not repeat Bowron's colourful language or sentiment on to his unit in his own briefings, sticking instead to the "facilitate lawful protest" message.

However in his own evidence Harwood summarised the substance of the briefings as "the general feeling was it was going to be very robust policing."


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Cheers.

So Harwood is basically arguing that he'd normally expect to be beating up peaceful protesters, and he couldn't hear the briefing which told him there was a new strategy in place.

Helpful ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?


 
From the Met's point of view it would be that their officers were reminded of their duty to allow lawful protest, whilst suggesting that the signs were there that this was potentially a big and (from their perspective) violent demonstration.

Williams gave a clunking reference to J18 (or "G18th" as he called it) when "protesters had run riot" and the City of London had been "badly damaged". In referring to the police intelligence aspect of the 27/3/9 briefing he concentrated on mentioning how police had managed to communicate with "a number of groups [likely to attend the G20 protests]", but not with "two groups, including the anarchists", a situation similar to that in the lead up to J18. The suggestion hanging in the air was clear.

As for drivers staying with their vehicles, this was something gone over in both Williams' and Harwood's evidence.

In Williams' words, "the role is to drive, to come when I tell you, to be prepared to pass out equipment, like shields, and to be available for food and drink. It is one of, majorly, security and safety of the vehicle."

He acknowledged there are times when a driver might need to leave the vehicle, or the area around the vehicle - toilet missions for one, or coming "to the aid of another officer, or a member of the public being attacked" - but he reiterated that "there are very few circumstances I can think of where the vehicle isn't the priority" for a driver.

Harwood is his evidence acknowledged these points. His given reasons for leaving his van were lengthy and convoluted...


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Thanks again.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> What is the relevance of the briefing? I'm assuming it wasn't "don't beat people up"? He wasn't even supposed to be away from his vehicle or summat?


 
From the Guardian, quoting Met Inspector, Timothy Williams.



> Williams said it would be "difficult to imagine" why an officer would leave his carrier although, if forced to do so, he would only be expected to return when it was safe to do so.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> However in his own evidence Harwood summarised the substance of the briefings as "the general feeling was it was going to be very robust policing."


 
Basically meaning they wanted to bust some heads.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 5, 2011)

Ah... whatever they say...

the entire lot of them got slapped down in the Inquiry and told to sort out the way the approach demonstrations.

As far as I'm concerned, they think the public have forgotten all about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-could-lose-public-consent


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> From the Met's point of view it would be that their officers were reminded of their duty to allow lawful protest, whilst suggesting that the signs were there that this was potentially a big and (from their perspective) violent demonstration.
> 
> Williams gave a clunking reference to J18 (or "G18th" as he called it) when "protesters had run riot" and the City of London had been "badly damaged". In referring to the police intelligence aspect of the 27/3/9 briefing he concentrated on mentioning how police had managed to communicate with "a number of groups [likely to attend the G20 protests]", but not with "two groups, including the anarchists", a situation similar to that in the lead up to J18. The suggestion hanging in the air was clear.
> 
> ...


thanks for these.

"_toilet missions_"


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

> Harwood said he was confused, isolated and fearful of his life, and was dealing with a "very hostile" crowd.



The poor ickle puppy 

EDIT: Cheers DC for the good summaries.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Guardian summary



> This morning, PC Simon Harwood has been explaining several encounters with protesters and bystanders in the minutes leading up to his alleged attack on Tomlinson.
> 
> We have heard how the officer – who had been expected to remain stationed by his van – strayed from his post after grappling with a protester he tried to arrest for spraying graffiti on a colleague's vehicle.
> 
> ...



He's fucked, or should be.


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

> 12.18pm: When he then struck Tomlinson, he said his arm was already raised and he crouched in a lower position to strike him in a green (relatively less harmful) area of his body.
> 
> Crouching down, I just swang from my shoulder position, and it [the baton] was going down into his thigh.
> 
> ...



I think the key thing to remember reading all this is the fact that Tomlinson had his back to them. How can someone seem defiant if they are shuffling along, head down, hands in pockets, back facing? I mean that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Garek said:


> The poor ickle puppy
> 
> EDIT: Cheers DC for the good summaries.


 
BBC website is going with how frightened he was....*rolls eyes* at state apparatus.


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> BBC website is going with how frightened he was....*rolls eyes* at state apparatus.


 
The BBC are a disgrace. Either I am getting older and wiser or they are getting worse. But either way the shit they seem to come out with is appalling. 


More from the inquest,



> Asked whether Tomlinson posed a threat, Harwood replied: "Not to me, no."
> 
> Asked whether he posed a threat to anyone else, Harwood replied: "No, I don't believe he did, no."


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

I suspect Mr Ryder will shred Harwood on his go.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

So, is this inquest going to be allowed to bring a verdict of unlawful killing? And if it does, where would that leave the CPS in terms of prosecuting Harwood for manslaughter due to violent thuggery?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, is this inquest going to be allowed to bring a verdict of unlawful killing? And if it does, where would that leave the CPS in terms of prosecuting Harwood for manslaughter due to violent thuggery?


i'm certain that i heard someone say recently that further charages weren't ruled out but i can't remember who or where this was...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, is this inquest going to be allowed to bring a verdict of unlawful killing? And if it does, where would that leave the CPS in terms of prosecuting Harwood for manslaughter due to violent thuggery?


 
I believe it could bring about a change to not prosecute him (not sure on what charge)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2011)

The coroner has:

• Told the jury to ignore the fact that the director of public prosecutions (DPP) chose not to bring criminal proceedings against the officer. "That was not a final decision, but a provisional decision," he said. "He may review that decision after the inquest."


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Cheers all.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Harwood could see the guy posed no threat and he has now admitted as much. Moving him on could have been done in a number of ways, but there was simply no need to push him with so much force from behind whilst he was slowly walking in the opposite direction.

If Tomlinson was really 'in the way' then pushing him in the back and then leaving him sprawled on the floor several yards further on is completely at odds with Harwood's supposed intentions.

All this time on and im still amazed that nobody in a uniform showed the slightest bit of concern or even went to help him to his feet. It says much about their view of the general public on that day, along with this kind of language,



> Harwood said the order to "clear the lines" would normally mean to move into and clear an indicated street "so that it is sterile of any protesters".



The suggestion being by Harwood (who is probably repeating the words of superior officers) that the streets somehow needed cleansing of human beings - sterilising, if you will. The thing is words shape thoughts and thoughts can directly lead to specific actions.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Guardian too going with


> Ian Tomlinson inquest hears police officer 'feared for his life'



as a headline. And not as i would suggest



> "Police officer says 'Tomlinson posed no threat to anyone'"



It's either poor journalism or a purposeful attempt to mislead.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Eh?



> Ryder begins by telling Harwood he now has a "real opportunity" to help the Tomlinson family.
> 
> He said everyone had seen the video, and that Tomlinson had his back to the officer. "I don't agree," Harwood interjected.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

Going the mentally ill/physically incapacitated route - waiting for him to blame it all on heat stroke from tucking his jacket in and wearing a balaclava.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

...



> Ryder has pressed Harwood to admit that the force used was "unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive".
> 
> Harwood disagreed with this suggestion, but added:
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

...


> Harwood has told Ryder he believes that if an officer "believes force is reasonable, it is reasonable".
> 
> Ryder stated:
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Can. Worms. Everywhere.


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

Now this I did not know,



> Harwood accepts that he asked for a considerable amount of material about Tomlinson before answering more questions, including details about his "lifestyle", previous movements at the protests and any possible previous offending.
> 
> Ryder asked: "Were you trying to dig for material to discredit Mr Tomlinson, PC Harwood?" Harwood denied this.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 5, 2011)

Fucking scum.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2011)

Harwood is fucked.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Garek said:


> Now this I did not know,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As a serving officer can he legally do that?


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

> The graffiti written on the van by the unidentified protester said: "All cops are bastards".


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2011)

We owe a lot to that American investment fund manager who grabbed the damning video evidence. Without that, Harwood would have got away with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2011)

I'm expecting something to come out about his previous retirement - for all of three days. There has to be something behind that. Something dodgy.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm expecting something to come out about his previous retirement - for all of three days. There has to be something behind that. Something dodgy.



yeah.  wtf???

retirement with the flu was it?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

It's a parallel world....From Guardian court reporter...



> Harwood accepted that he had "pushed" Tomlinson, but denied that he "pushed him to the floor".



Well who did then?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

editor said:


> We owe a lot to that American investment fund manager who grabbed the damning video evidence. Without that, Harwood would have got away with it.


 
Ironic huh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 5, 2011)

presumably he's divorcing the action of tomlinson going down and his own push. Which is mental.


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

From wikipedia



> Harwood faced two misconduct hearings in the late 1990s and in 2004. The first arose out of a road-rage incident while he was on sick leave with a shoulder injury, during which he reportedly tried to arrest the other driver, who complained that Harwood had used unnecessary force. Before the case was heard, Harwood retired from the Met on medical grounds and was awarded a pension. Several years later, he rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker, then applied to join the Surrey Police as an officer. Surrey Police say he was vetted and was frank about his history. During this time in Surrey, there was a complaint about his behaviour while on duty; it was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. After working for Surrey Police for 18 months, Harwood applied for a transfer back to the Met, and was accepted in November 2004. It is not clear how thoroughly the Met vetted him.[30]



So, he tries to arrest someone during a 'road rage incident', despite at the time being off sick, and is what seems to be quietly pensioned. Then he comes back in by the back door. Or something


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> presumably he's divorcing the action of tomlinson going down and his own push. Which is mental.


 
full exchange...



> Ryder: You said you are here just to help. You also said you were here to give some sort of answers to help the Tomlinson family … When you said that, did you mean that you were going to give truthful answers?"
> 
> Harwood: Yes, sir.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Some of this is painful to read as he's floundering so badly.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 5, 2011)

Not looking good for  there ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2011)

Garek said:


> I think the key thing to remember reading all this is the fact that Tomlinson had his back to them. How can someone seem defiant if they are shuffling along, head down, hands in pockets, back facing? I mean that's just ridiculous.


 
The set of his shoulders? The aggressive slouching posture that showed he was ready to spring into action against the pigs at any moment? Perhaps he was wearing the wrong sort of shirt?

Fuck knows what goes through the minds of these state-employed thug-cunts.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Not looking good for  there ...


 
No...




> He conceded that he was bored at some points. He joined his colleague PC Hayes in his vehicle. Harwood's evidence is that he then could not get to his carrier because the crowd became too dense. He then spotted a male protester daubing graffiti on a van.
> 
> It has been pointed out that it was not too crowded for him to try to arrest the suspect, but "too dense" to travel just over two metres further to get to his van.



...



> The man doing the graffiti was just a few metres from a crowd which, according to Harwood's notebook, had been acting very violently toward a police cordon.
> 
> The jury has been shown footage of the carrier Harwood said it had been too difficult to get to. Ryder points out that it was surrounded by other police officers.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's a parallel world....From Guardian court reporter...
> 
> 
> 
> Well who did then?


 
Harwood may be trying to play an "I shoved him, but he only fell over because he was pissed/he tripped over a tripwire hidden by Climate Camp protesters/Satan reared up in front of him and made him fall over" excuse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2011)

Don't know about anyone else, and this is very probably just my own bitter prejudices getting in the way, but every time I've seen footage of Harwood, a little voice in my mind says "steroids".


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't know about anyone else, and this is very probably just my own bitter prejudices getting in the way, but every time I've seen footage of Harwood, a little voice in my mind says "steroids".


 
Wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Garek (Apr 5, 2011)

> OK – a bit of rabbit out of the hat moment. Ryder has repeatedly asked Harwood about his claim to have been under serious attack by protesters, in fear for his life and unable to return to his carrier after trying to arrest the suspect.
> 
> He mentioned that Harwood's colleague, PC Hayes, was able to return to the van.
> 
> ...



Oops.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 5, 2011)

Sweet.

He'll still get off mind.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

He's not on trial.

Yet.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 5, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/05/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates

He's being eaten alive.  when do courts close for the day?


----------



## laptop (Apr 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Well who did then?


 

I blame Isaac Newton.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2011)

Maybe he'll go for diminished responsibility on the grounds that he clearly has no connection with reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Maybe he'll go for diminished responsibility on the grounds that he clearly has no connection with reality.


 
Who knows? He may well be trying to make his inquest testimony the base for a defence if criminal proceedings are forthcoming.


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Apr 5, 2011)

> 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?
> ...



Fuck me...he really is being shown to be an incompetent fantasist isn't he?


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 5, 2011)

Metal Malcolm said:


> Fuck me...he really is being shown to be an incompetent fantasist isn't he?


 
Or a decieving cunt.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Just yer basic lying copper. They're used to the courts believing every word they say. He wouldn't have figured on their being able to track his entire day on camera when he wrote that nonsense.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Just yer basic lying copper. They're used to the courts believing every word they say. He wouldn't have figured on their being able to track his entire day on camera when he wrote that nonsense.


 
Except in this instance he has been cut loose - the proverbial 'one bad apple' - hence all the stuff about how training is ongoing, and the even-handed briefings etc.


----------



## laptop (Apr 5, 2011)

Metal Malcolm said:


> cop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And that isn't the brief for the family. That's assistant deputy coroner, Judge Peter Thornton QC.

He's toast.

(Does anyone know whether City of London coroner's juries are drawn from the same pool as the Old Bailey?)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

BBC 'headline' on website



> G20 officer 'was moving man on'
> 
> The Pc who pushed Ian Tomlinson at the 2009 G20 protests tells an inquest he did so after a strike on the thigh had failed to move the newspaper seller on.



And the article seemingly exists in the same world as Mr Harwood....


> The Pc who pushed Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London did so after a strike on the thigh had failed to move the newspaper seller away from the police line, an inquest has heard.
> 
> Simon Harwood told the hearing he had been "amazed" that Mr Tomlinson fell forward after the "poor push" in 2009.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12973564

I feel a complaint coming on...


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

These TSG boys do seem to scare easy, don't they. Delicate little things that they are.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 5, 2011)

What happened to the guy whose head was smashed into the door of the van? Was he badly hurt? Did he complain? Was he convicted of anything?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> These TSG boys do seem to scare easy, don't they. Delicate little things that they are.


 
Remarkably clumsy too. Accidently bashing heads into van doors while making an arrest, then seconds later apparently tackling a cameraman to the floor by mistake. And misjudging how much force there was in a 'poor push' to the back of some unsuspecting, unthreatening type a little later. 

Says volumes about the recruitment and training policies I guess. I suppose we should be surprised that Harwood was amongst the best trained crowd control units at the demo. A wonderfully high standard all round in this unit of elite TSG apples.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

nick h. said:


> What happened to the guy whose head was smashed into the door of the van? Was he badly hurt? Did he complain? Was he convicted of anything?


 
Im not sure, the video showed he had quite a lot of blood coming from his face, although it is unclear how serious his injury was. It would be interesting to see if he comes forward.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> the door vs head incident featured in the channel 4 news piece.
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-new-g20-video-evidence


 
To be fair im not sure you can really say from this footage (2m 10 sec) that the door is deliberately opened on the protester being dragged away by Harwood, or that Harwood purposely hit him against the door as it opened.


----------



## nick h. (Apr 5, 2011)

Harwood reminds me of one of those US pilots who bombs his own side because he's on amphetamines. Just an out of control maniac. What with his road rage history he must have a personality disorder or be a junkie.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 5, 2011)

That bbc account is shocking.  Doesn't even mention that his testimony was basically proved as false by the video evidence, which was surely the main story there.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> To be fair im not sure you can really say from this footage (2m 10 sec) that the door is deliberately opened on the protester being dragged away by Harwood, or that Harwood purposely hit him against the door as it opened.


 
I'd agree, if it wasn't for Harwood getting tripped up lying about that too.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> To be fair im not sure you can really say from this footage (2m 10 sec) that the door is deliberately opened on the protester being dragged away by Harwood, or that Harwood purposely hit him against the door as it opened.


 
Looks *awfully* like it though ...

'Constable Savage' appears to have plenty of time to see that he's about to smash the guy's head against the edge of that door

What's particularly telling for me is that there's no reaction at all from either him or the other officer along the lines of 'oops, we smashed that poor guy's head against a door, is he ok?' 

If it was in any way an accident, you'd expect them to react accordingly. 

They're acting like they didn't notice anything whatsoever happened there, which given that they can't have failed to notice, suggests to me that the intention was to do it discreetly.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 5, 2011)

c4 news piece just starting


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 5, 2011)

quite brief but focused on his lies being exposed.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 5, 2011)

BBC added this at the end of the article



> Pc Harwood later accepted he had "got things wrong" in a statement he made on 16 April 2009 about confrontations with protesters minutes before he encountered Mr Tomlinson.
> 
> Claims that he had fallen to the floor, lost a baton, received a blow to the head and been struck by a missile were all wrong, jurors heard.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 5, 2011)

They miss out the "that there were violent and dangerous confrontations" lie.


----------



## xes (Apr 5, 2011)

goverment sponsered scum, defending goverment sponsered scum.

They can all fucking die for all i care.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> He's not on trial.
> 
> Yet.


 
What's the whole point of this though? ...


----------



## Nice one (Apr 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm expecting something to come out about his previous retirement - for all of three days. There has to be something behind that. Something dodgy.


 
judge/coroner ruled at the start of the inquest his disiplinary/conduct record wouldn't be allowed to be known to the jury as it was "not relevant to the proceedings" (!)

On the stand harwood said he had to retire from the poice after a car accident due to ill-health. It was made known he retired on the 14 sept due to ill health then rejoined as a civilian the following monday. Confused looks by the jury. Not persued any further.

What's also damning was his refusal to answer any questions put to him by the IPCC when they interviewed him. So as far as evidence is concerned all we had was his Evidence and action book (written 45 mins after he pushed Tomlinson over) and prepared statements he presented to the IPCC instead of being interviewed.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 5, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Basically meaning they wanted to bust some heads.


 
the video footage shows a continous and connnected chain of events from harwood dragging the protestor up the street, hitting a protestor with the coat of the guy he dragged up the street, pulling over a bbc cameraman, pushing with both hands a protestor along royal exchange passage before hitting and pushing over ian tomlinson. He was on a bit of a roll.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> What's the whole point of this though? ...


 
It's an inquest. Every death in unusual circumstances gets one (apart from David Kelly).


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 5, 2011)

http://justiceforian.com/


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Right.  So I was reading the transcripts from the hearings last night on the inquest site.  Rather obviously gives far more detail than the media.

Only up to 31st March so far, but they are worth a read.  http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/Tomlinson/HearingTranscripts/

There are also copies of the video and photo evidence on there: http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/Tomlinson/Evidence/

The video on there, that compiles CCTV images seems a lot more detailed than what I have seen in the media (or maybe I didn't look at it thoroughly)

Most interesting was the last bit, taken from the helicopter.  I'm hoping to read about the testimony of the medics who were tending to Ian Tomlinson after his collapse because I can't see them doing very much at all for him.

There is also some footage in there on the ground, in which you can see and hear maybe 3 missiles land near the coppers and people shouting stop.

From reading the transcripts so far, it seems clear that Tomlinson was quite, quite drunk.  So drunk that he didn't seem to be that aware of his surroundings or instructions.  Many officers and witnesses have described this.  Yet, at no point did any officer take it upon themselves to recognise that this placed him in a certain amount of danger and seek to assist him in getting home.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> From reading the transcripts so far, it seems clear that Tomlinson was quite, quite drunk.  So drunk that he didn't seem to be that aware of his surroundings or instructions.  Many officers and witnesses have described this.  Yet, at no point did any officer take it upon themselves to recognise that this placed him in a certain amount of danger and seek to assist him in getting home.


 
In Insp Williams evidence on Monday he was clear that in the briefing to him and briefings by him the issue of drunk and/or people on drugs at the demonstration was anticipated. He was clear that TSG officers understand that people so incapacitated are often incapable of understanding and/or responding quickly to even simple instructions. Mr Ryder further raised the issue, IIRC it was brought up with Harwood too.

Ryder: ...Drink and drugs - they may not understand simple instructions...
Williams: Yes.
Ryder: Every officer should know that?
Williams: Experienced officers.


----------



## Garek (Apr 6, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ryder: ...Drink and drugs - they may not understand simple instructions...
> Williams: Yes.
> Ryder: Every officer should know that?
> Williams: Experienced officers.



It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

Garek said:


> It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.


 
Yup, they're going to let him swing to save their own necks and the policing system. One bad egg is all it will be.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Garek said:


> It's comments like that from Williams that make me think the brass is willing to wash their hands of him, and in turn their own complicity.


 
Yeah.  There seems to have been plenty of opportunity for superiors to point out that instructions were given and that Harwood missed one of the briefings, but would have had plenty of opportunity to get the information during subsequent briefings.

But the problem I have is that Tomlinson had contact with several other officers.  The general consensus each time seems to have been that he was under the influence, most likely of drink and was finding it difficult to understand instructions.

Realistically, he had little chance of finding a way around in that state, or of being mobile enough to stay out of harms way.  Not one of those officers made any attempt to make sure he was safe.  I think they should have done.  Either by escorting him around the area, or by arresting him for being drunk for his own safety (not actually sure if they could do this or if he would have to be disorderly or what the definition of disorderly is in such circumstances).

I realise that things were tense and perhaps the police felt stretched, but I think they should have done that.

We only have to look at the disinterest by officers after he was floored by Harwood for an idea of how his welfare was ignored.

Harwood floored him.  But the other officers failed in a duty of care and I'm not really sure how the Met expect to be able to explain such widespread failings on people ignoring instructions.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

I notice the claim that he did not have his numbers on is actually not true. he had them stitched into the lapel of his flourecent jacket. You can just see them in this link:

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/...F56213EF/0/Page629ChrisHarrisCHA1_DSC7595.JPG

although there is a better photo ive seen where they are clearly visible.

Here is a better view

http://www.tomlinsoninquest.org.uk/...0E6/0/Page731ChrisHARRISCHA1ch04_1409_g20.jpg


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

The numbers are visible on his epaulettes in several of the hi-res pictures released in the inquest evidence, though as they are silvery metal on highly reflective yellow fluorescent jacket means they are not very clear. In the original video footage it was never clear if he was wearing numbers.

In his evidence Harwood was emphatic he did have numbers on, and at no point so far (AFAIAA) has suggested they came off.

Harwood: "I always have my numbers visible, it is Met policy.... [It was a] new jacket issued - I used pins and clips to attach [my numbers]."

Harwood: "[At the beginning of the day I was wearing] Flame retardant suit, Met vest, with numerals, other uniform underneath, with numerals... [but] jacket not on, it was in the box with my flat hat."


----------



## strung out (Apr 6, 2011)

what kind of cunt says numerals instead of numbers?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> The numbers are visible on his epaulettes in several of the hi-res pictures released in the inquest evidence, though as they are silvery metal on highly reflective yellow fluorescent jacket means they are not very clear. In the original video footage it was never clear if he was wearing numbers.
> 
> In his evidence Harwood was emphatic he did have numbers on, and at no point so far (AFAIAA) has suggested they came off.
> 
> ...


 

Ah, so he says he pinned them on, but the ones on the pics are different. I see.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Ah, so he says he pinned them on, but the ones on the pics are different. I see.


 
Different to what?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> what kind of cunt says numerals instead of numbers?


 
A Roman cvnt?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 6, 2011)

234 is a number
two, three and four are its constituent numerals. so ner.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yup, they're going to let him swing to save their own necks and the policing system. One bad egg is all it will be.


 
I wonder about that. I'd be extremely surprised if he faces manslaughter charges, which in my opinion he clearly should, let alone gets convicted on them.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Different to what?


 
It looks as if those on his jacket are permanently fixed to it (as some officers had complained that the other type came off). But he says he pinned his numbers on(?)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 6, 2011)

I dont think he'll face charges for manslaughter - 'insufficient evidence to secure a conviction' - as you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PC savage's assault led directly to the injuries that killed him rather then being one of a number of factors.  

However could the met be sued by the family for corporate manslaughter or criminal negligence? That would mean that senior officers would have to account for their tactics on the day - kettling, the breifing encouraging 'robust policing', the lack of any duty of care for the protestors, the assault on the climate camp and the large number of well documented assualts by the police on the public.


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> We only have to look at the disinterest by officers after he was floored by Harwood for an idea of how his welfare was ignored.



Does anyone who's following the inquest in detail know whether Officer Savage has been asked whether he thought Tomlinson was part of the protest?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

It's disgusting and embarassing, really embarassing.



> Ryder says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Another gem from Constable Savage: 



> Ryder says:
> 
> As a Metropolitan police officer are you are telling us that your training says that that if someone represents no threat to you and not threat to another person, you are entitled to baton them?
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates


----------



## Garek (Apr 6, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Another gem from Constable Savage:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates


 
"It's a lie! The evidence has been falsified! It's impossible! I never broke the law, I AM THE LAW! "


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2011)

How exactly do you 'pull someone away from yourself'?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

Hmmm?! my bold



> Harwood has been read out an earlier statement he gave investigators, in which he said Tomlinson's stance indicated "he was going to stay where he was, whatever happened". In this previous statement, *Harwood said Tomlinson was "almost physically inviting a confrontation"*.
> 
> *Harwood is asked if he still believes that was true. He replies: "Yes."*



But yesterday he was asked...



> Ryder: "We have all seen the video, how you push him and follow through, and we have heard from everyone else who was there as to how they perceived it. You have told us today that you didn't perceive Mr Tomlinson as a threat to you; correct?"
> 
> *Harwood: "Yes."*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Hmmm?!
> 
> 
> 
> But yesterday he was asked...


 
It's consistent if you think not showing instant deference to the wishes of the police is the same thing as 'physically inviting a confrontation' ...


----------



## nick h. (Apr 6, 2011)

laptop said:


> Does anyone who's following the inquest in detail know whether Officer Savage has been asked whether he thought Tomlinson was part of the protest?


 
One of his colleagues said she thought he wasn't a demonstrator when he asked the officers to let him through the line moments before the push



> PC Kerry Smith was part of a police line clearing a street in the City of London on the evening of April 1, 2009 when she saw another officer – since identified as PC Simon Harwood – push Ian Tomlinson to the ground.
> 
> The inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death was told that in a statement written a month after the incident, she said: "I was shocked by the forcefulness of the push on Mr Tomlinson."
> 
> ...



From http://www.channel4.com/news/ian-tomlinson-inquest-police-officer-shocked-by-push


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2011)

nick h. said:


> One of his colleagues said she thought he wasn't a demonstrator when he asked the officers to let him through the line moments before the push
> 
> From http://www.channel4.com/news/ian-tomlinson-inquest-police-officer-shocked-by-push


 
Ta. 

Someone should ask Harwood. Could be revealing of his attitudes. Paging Mr Ryder...


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 6, 2011)

Isn't it the case that other people have had verdicts of "unlawful killing" from inquest juries and coroners but there has still been no civil or criminal convictions of police officers? I'm thinking of cases like Oluwashiji Lapite, and Roger Sylvester, although the latter was overturned on appeal. I think Harwood will have internal Met proceedings, get sacked, he'll be painted as a bad apple, and that will be it. There's no new appetite where it matters for a frank look at policing, let alone policing and protest. It's disgraceful but true. 

I must admit Harwood's "he ran into a door trying to escape" record entry marked a new point of bitter absurdity for me (not about Tomlinson, about one of the two other men he had physical confrontations with in the few minutes before).


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I dont think he'll face charges for manslaughter - 'insufficient evidence to secure a conviction' - as you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that PC savage's assault led directly to the injuries that killed him rather then being one of a number of factors.



on the other hand, is there any evidence to suggest that ian tomlinson would have died that day if it wasn't for the actions of harwood?

as far as i can tell, only the first pathologist drew this conclusion and he's been suspended from the gmc over issues with post mortem examinations in other cases.

harwood has also had a post mortem carried out on the body and has kept the result secret.

to a reasonable person, that would suggest it didn't support his case.


----------



## Garek (Apr 6, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> I think Harwood will have internal Met proceedings, get sacked, he'll be painted as a bad apple, and that will be it. There's no new appetite where it matters for a frank look at policing, let alone policing and protest. It's disgraceful but true.


 
And so it begins,



> Matthew Ryder said he has finished his cross-examination of PC Harwood.
> 
> Ms Samantha Leek, counsel for the Metropolitan police, is now questioning him. She said her questioning would focus on briefings and training received by the police officer.


----------



## Garek (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> harwood has also had a post mortem carried out on the body and has kept the result secret.


 
Are you allowed to that  Why would that be considered appropriate or legal?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

There were three post mortems: Patel, then Cary, then Shorrock (acting for the Met) and Swift (for Harwood). Shorrock agreed with Cary's findings. 

All four are scheduled to give evidence:

Monday 11th April

*Dr. Freddy Patel *(Post Mortem Examination)

Toxicology / Histology Results

Tuesday 12th April

*Dr. N. Cary* (Post Mortem Examination)
DS Antony Crampton
John Cockram
Stephen Dean
Barry Tuckfield

Wednesday 13th April

*Dr. Shorrock* (Post Mortem Examination)
*Dr. Ben Swift *(Post Mortem Examination)

BBC story on Swift findings being withheld:


> ...Another pathologist, Ben Swift, jointly conducted the third post-mortem examination on behalf of Pc Harwood.
> 
> On Tuesday, coroner Paul Matthews revealed that the officer's lawyers had refused to disclose Dr Swift's findings, citing legal privilege.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Garek said:


> Are you allowed to that  Why would that be considered appropriate or legal?


 
Apparently so.  Although the coroner appeared to be doubtful.



> A separate postmortem examination into the death of Ian Tomlinson carried out on behalf of the policeman filmed hitting him at the G20 protests last year has been withheld from the authorities, it has emerged.
> 
> The autopsy, the third on the newspaper seller's body, was jointly conducted by the forensic pathologist Ben Swift at the request of lawyers for PC Simon Harwood, who is shown striking Tomlinson in a video revealed by the Guardian.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/08/ian-tomlinson-postmortem-withheld-coroner


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 6, 2011)

edit

dave cinzano nailed it


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> on the other hand, is there any evidence to suggest that ian tomlinson would have died that day if it wasn't for the actions of harwood?
> 
> as far as i can tell, only the first pathologist drew this conclusion and he's been suspended from the gmc over issues with post mortem examinations in other cases.
> 
> ...



To secure a manslaughter conviction you would have to convince a jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that Harwoods assualt led directly to Ian Tomlinson's death. There is enough uncertainty about that - Tomlionson was probably pissed, 'conflicting' coroners reports, possibility that Tomlinsons could have suffered other injuries/falls leading up to his death - that the CPS would argue that they are not confident they would secure a conviction. If it was joe soap who'd attacked Tomlinson they would have prosecuted two years ago - but as its a copper they will only prosecute if they have absolutely no choice. I think there's enough doubt for them to duck the issue.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Petition...

... not as popular as saving the forests, but there's time.

http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/justice-ian-tomlinson


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> <snip> If it was joe soap who'd attacked Tomlinson they would have prosecuted two years ago - but as its a copper they will only prosecute if they have absolutely no choice. I think there's enough doubt for them to duck the issue.


 
Quite, given the likely social impact of the cuts on both police and public, the last thing they need is 'morale problems' in the force caused by convicting a policeman of crimes committed while beating up demonstrators. 

On the contrary, sending the message 'if you demonstrate, you are likely to get beaten up and possibly killed by unaccountable police thugs' is far more desirable from the point of view of the state.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

The only reason the CPS said they wouldn't prosecute is because of the conflicting report by the 1st pathologist who has since been suspended from the GMC over issues with post mortems.



> The first issue that the CPS considered was whether the actions of PC 'A' were lawful. Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC 'A' in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC 'A' or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.



http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

They should let a jury decide and stop prejudging justice.  This is a high profile case and I believe it is in the public interest to prosecute.

If he's found not guilty, then fair enough.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> The only reason the CPS said they wouldn't prosecute is because of the conflicting report by the 1st pathologist who has since been suspended from the GMC over issues with post mortems.



Given the performance so far of Harwood's brief Mr Gibbs, there may be some slapped foreheads at Rose Court.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Tears for who?



> PC Harwood seems to have been wiping away tears when telling the court of his shock at seeing the footage. #Tomlinson



http://twitter.com/#!/c4marcus/status/55646911054610432


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> Tears for who?
> 
> 
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/c4marcus/status/55646911054610432



Cunt.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Thing is, Constable Savage seems to think it's ok for a policeman to attack someone if they are "defiant" and that the issue raised by the video evidence is whether or not he was correct about Mr Tomlinson being "defiant".

I wonder how many other cops think it's ok to attack someone for being "defiant"?


----------



## nick h. (Apr 6, 2011)

Let's  hope we hear more about how he collapsed and had to be hospitalised when he saw the footage. If he really did, he must be mentally ill. Why are people like that given the job of hitting the public on the head with a stick, and not diagnosed and kept somewhere safe?


----------



## peterkro (Apr 6, 2011)

At least one juror seems to have his number:
"There have been some questions from jurors. (One asked if Harwood had been taking "performance enhancing tablets" on the day of the G20. He said he wasn't.)"


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 6, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> The only reason the CPS said they wouldn't prosecute is because of the conflicting report by the 1st pathologist who has since been suspended from the GMC over issues with post mortems.
> 
> They should let a jury decide and stop prejudging justice.  This is a high profile case and I believe it is in the public interest to prosecute.
> 
> If he's found not guilty, then fair enough.


 
That was over wether to prosecute harman for _assault_, not manslaughter. 

ant yeah of course harman should face the courts for what he did - but what should happen is not what is likely to happen. 

Its clear that Harman left his van to go out for a bit of aggro - his actions in the period leading up to his assulat on Tomlinson all point ot a hyped up violent nutjob on a rampage. Its also clear  that his behavoir was not  deemed remarkable in anyway by his collegues - becasue the cops on the day, esp the TSG, were clearly hyped up and very confrontational and aggressive all day (I was there).

Harwood's reason that he attacked tomlinson becaseu he thought he was being 'defiant'  - are very revealing. I'm sure that is exactly what was going through his head - I'm on a mission and woe betide anyone who gets in my way and doesn't jump to it when I tell them to.

In other words Harwood is a violent bully who gets a kick out of throuwing his weight around - and as such typical of the knuckle draggers in the TSG. 

It will - of course - all go down the 'bad apple' route, lessons learned etc bullshit. Thats why I hope Ian Tomlinsons family sue the arse of the met police (although they will probably settle out of court rather than have senior offcier having to account for their tactics in the dock).


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2011)

Isn't there a dog bite to be discussed with the rest of the pathologists' reports? Sure there was one reported. Might help to unravel the 'one bad apple' approach.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 6, 2011)

The Met will say he was acting outside their procedures. That will be it.

The fact that every officer was doing the same, nay was encouraged to do so at numerous protests down the years will not come up (I was one of the hundreds assaulted on that day, and I too was walking away from the TSG officer at the time). The fact that no officer intervened, chastised Harwood, or helped anyone else won't even be a question. And officers will continue to be vicious thugs towards people until the next time they kick out a "bad apple" etc.

The Met doesn't act any differently in this regard to any other arm of government. Individuals are encouraged or forced by circumstance to act in a certain dangerous and pressured ways in the NHS, civil service, social work (of course there are difference - social workers aren't an armed paramilitary wing of the state, but you get my drift) etc. etc. every day but when there's a scandal or accident, it's individuals rather than the ethos, structure and procedure of the service which entirely take the blame.

Now I don't have any pity for a TSG thug like Harwood but he will be a scapegoat for how protest is policed, continues to be policed, and how government wants protest to be policed.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

BBC news report at 6pm said briefly about his "tears" and how the family walked out.

Fucking disgraceful propaganda.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Thing is, Constable Savage seems to think it's ok for a policeman to attack someone if they are "defiant" and that the issue raised by the video evidence is whether or not he was correct about Mr Tomlinson being "defiant".
> 
> I wonder how many other cops think it's ok to attack someone for being "defiant"?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


>


 
Absofuckinglutely


----------



## nick h. (Apr 6, 2011)

It's the age old problem: how do you make a good police force out of the people who want to join it? One way to weed out the inadequate bullies would be to sack anyone who volunteers for the TSG.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 6, 2011)

nick h. said:


> It's the age old problem: how do you make a good police force out of the people who want to join it? One way to weed out the inadequate bullies would be to sack anyone who volunteers for the TSG.


 
Get rid of the plod.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> That was over wether to prosecute harman for _assault_, not manslaughter.



That's not what I understand from the details contained in the link I included.

My impression is that they were deciding whether to prosecute at all and considered a number of different charges.



> *Possible charges*
> 
> The first issue that the CPS considered was whether the actions of PC 'A' were lawful. Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC 'A' in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC 'A' or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.
> 
> ...



http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 6, 2011)

Some of Harwood's "evidence" sounds frankly laughable, if it wasn't so deadly.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Some of Harwood's "evidence" sounds frankly laughable, if it wasn't so deadly.


 
Yep, hence the 'Constable Savage' cracks I was making earlier.

It's quite painful how much he sounds like the sort of stereotypical violent dumb thug who attacks evidently harmless citizens for being 'defiant' and struggles to understand why non-coppers might have a problem with that ... 

In a sense though it was just bad luck that he happened to kill the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson. How many more just like him were running around at G20 one wonders?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 6, 2011)

Let's not forget the Plods wanted to bad videos at demo days before this happened...


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Let's not forget the Plods wanted to bad videos at demo days before this happened...


Link?


----------



## winjer (Apr 7, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I wonder how many other cops think it's ok to attack someone for being "defiant"?


Some of the people who might have been able to answer that question, from a command/training position:






Guess how many of them have spoken at the inquest.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 7, 2011)

Two Bronzes in one picture! Does that win a prize?


----------



## sim667 (Apr 7, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> That's not what I understand from the details contained in the link I included.
> 
> My impression is that they were deciding whether to prosecute at all and considered a number of different charges.
> 
> ...


 
So are they bringing charges against harwood or not?

The dog that bit, if it wasnt instructed to should have been put down like any domestic dog that bites.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 7, 2011)

what is interesting is that is was harwood who instigated the chain of events which led to tomlinson's death, reinforcing the single rogue cop scenario. Harwood changes the mood and direction of crowd when he hits the protestors head against the door, crowd chase him up Cornhill, where harwood and other cops are pinned to the 'builidng line'. It's Harwood who encourages other coppers to move round into Royal exchange passage into middle of crowd, where copper gets hit in face and all the other coppers have to move round into passage to make arrest, eventually making their way up the passage to other end. This instigates the command for the the dog handlers moving down the passage to clear the crowd to the bottom of at Cornhill where tomlinson was hit. 

It's all harwood's doing. And his every step is documented on film. I think the met are very happy with the way things are going, apart form harwood's 'this is the way i was trained' the policing of the g20 hasn't been addressed critically at all.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How exactly do you 'pull someone away from yourself'?


 
Footage here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1

There's a throw in one of the senior Judo kata and various ju-jitsu styles that works like that, can't recall the name .. 

(I want to say Ushiro Otoshi but that just brings up footage of Aikido guys doing Ushiro Otoshi Ukemi, which is a breakfall used when someone throws you like that.) 

You basically pull their shoulders backwards to get them off balance while moving out of the way to let them fall over. You don't do it in competition Judo because of the risk of splatting the back of their head against the ground.

edited to add: apparently Tomiki Aikido guys call it 'Ushiro Ate' 

You can see from this video it's essentially the same move as Constable Savage uses on the cameraman  

... the only obvious difference being that he comes in from the BBC guy's blind side rather than his front.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 8, 2011)

the 999 call

http://soundcloud.com/shaman/999-call-for-ian-tomlinson


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 8, 2011)

Push hands throws someone away from you, sort of.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> Push hands throws someone away from you, sort of.


 
Yeah, but what he does to the cameraman is something quite specific, he pulls his shoulders, especially the shoulder carrying the heavy camera, backwards and down while the guy is moving and does so too fast for the BBC cameraman to get his feet back under him. 

In Judo competition, you only do a hip throw version, where contact is maintained and you can make sure they fall safely rather than splatting the back of their head into the ground hard, as is very likely if you do it the way Constable Savage is demonstrating above. In some kinds of Aikido and Ju-Jitsu you do learn a breakfall to deal with that throw, but it's an advanced breakfall. Doing that technique to a random citizen, one carrying a heavy camera which he may instinctively try to protect rather than using his arms to break his fall, especially when coming in from his blind side so that he's totally unaware, carries a high risk of smashing the back of his skull on the pavement. It's quite clearly a potentially lethal attack. 

What I wonder is whether it was purely improvised or whether he's trained (as quite a few cops do) in Tomiki Aikido or something similar?


----------



## nick h. (Apr 8, 2011)

He looks trained. See how he springs back and bounces on the balls of his feet after pushing Tomlinson. Look at his stance in the pic in post 2281 upthread. He treats his job like Kendo. In the pics of him in a suit he looks to have the chest and neck of a bodybuilder. I bet he's got swords and steroids and all sorts at home.


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2011)

nick h. said:


> He looks trained. See how he springs back and bounces on the balls of his feet after pushing Tomlinson. Look at his stance in the pic in post 2281 upthread. He treats his job like Kendo. In the pics of him in a suit he looks to have the chest and neck of a bodybuilder. I bet he's got swords and steroids and all sorts at home.



Pity he wasn't asked about that at the inquest...

Meanwhile, coroner Patel is on the stand. Gory, only, so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/12/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 12, 2011)

Stunned really...



> A senior police officer asked a pathologist whether Ian Tomlinson's injuries were consistent with a baton strike and dog bite – four days before video footage emerged showing his encounter with police. Dr Freddy Patel, the first pathologist to examine the newspaper seller's body, told the inquest that Detective Superintendent Tony Crampton, of City of London police, asked the question during a postmortem examination on 3 April 2009. Video footage showing Tomlinson's confrontation with police did not emerge until four days later.
> 
> Patel said DS Crampton and three other police officers were present during the postmortem, and he was asked to "rule out" injuries consistent with an assault at the G20 protests. He said the officers gave him "additional information" about the circumstances of the death. They told him there was "a lot of broken glass bottles and a lot of protesters were using sticks and there were a lot of sticks around the body where it was found".



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/apr/12/ian-tomlinson-inquest-live-updates


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2011)

I expect they'll try to paint him a a grudge bearer now. I doubt if he kept contemporaneous notes on that aspect.


----------



## Corax (Apr 12, 2011)

So now he'll have both sides trying to discredit him.  Are the other BMA rulings against him admissible?


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2011)

Corax said:


> So now he'll have both sides trying to discredit him.  Are the other BMA rulings against him admissible?


It's an inquest, so presumably they will be examining his competence, and the opinions of the other pathologists, very carefully indeed.

Patel isn't on trial, so I'm not sure there's any issue of admissibility anyway - lawyers have to be able to question the competence of witnesses.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 12, 2011)

Patel has his barrister who has been introduced to the jury. The question of patel's past history/disciplinary hearings, misconduct charges has come up and been discussed (in the absense of the jury). The judge has given a big hint to the barristers concerned that of those things proved against PAtel "findings of guilt" can be brought up and left it to the barristers how they should proceed, carefully.

Patel came across as assured in his job but there it was a lot of expert knowledge that we couldn't really challenge and will have to wait to the other pathologists testimony if there are any faults in his post mortem procedure.

Patel made notes while he was doing the post mortem and a preliminary report published on the 6th april. The report is interesting because he states in it "chronic liver disease affect the clotting and may explain the large volume of intra-abdominal bleed"

When asked about this large volume of bleed he back pedals and claims he meant the blood clot found along with the abdominal fluid, and not the fluid (3 litres of it) which was dark red but not all blood. This fluid was "discarded" after the post mortem. Patel couldn't find evidence of it coming from any of the major organs or blood vessels. 

He was also quick to dismiss both the dog bite and the baton strike injuries which is odd given he must have come across such injuries previously. How much the police had in influencing his decision is still not known (Crampton on being called as a witness apparently). There were 4 coppers present at the orginal post mortem. 

Tomlinson's barrister has yet to ask any questions, but given how he handled harwood i'm not expecting we'll get any more new useful information from their exchange.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 13, 2011)

No wonder they picked Patel to do the job it's like the T.V. script from Life from Mars... it's all a stich up from beginning to the end...


----------



## laptop (Apr 13, 2011)

Aye. I'm waiting for the explanation of how "can you please rule out..." *really* means "can you scrupulously investigate the possibility of..."


----------



## Corax (Apr 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's an inquest, so presumably they will be examining his competence, and the opinions of the other pathologists, very carefully indeed.
> 
> Patel isn't on trial, so I'm not sure there's any issue of admissibility anyway - lawyers have to be able to question the competence of witnesses.


 
I just *knew* someone would pick me up using the word 'admissable'!  You knew what I meant though.

It was brought up today:



> An important development in terms of Patel's credibility before the jury.
> 
> Jurors have just been told that the pathologisthas been suspended twice in the last seven months by a disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council (GMC). This has been widely reported, but it is the first time the jury has been told of the details.
> 
> ...



This bit's very much worth noting IMO:



> ust to make clear: Patel has in fact said there was a "compelling association" between Tomlinson being pushed to the ground and struck with a baton, and any subsequent heart attack.
> 
> Ryder intends to argue that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding and not a heart attack. But there is a second layer of argument.
> 
> The barrister has got Patel to agree that – *if it turns out Tomlinson did die of a heart attack – it may have been triggered by his "stressful" encounter with PC Harwood.*


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 13, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yeah, but what he does to the cameraman is something quite specific, he pulls his shoulders, especially the shoulder carrying the heavy camera, backwards and down while the guy is moving and does so too fast for the BBC cameraman to get his feet back under him.
> 
> In Judo competition, you only do a hip throw version, where contact is maintained and you can make sure they fall safely rather than splatting the back of their head into the ground hard, as is very likely if you do it the way Constable Savage is demonstrating above. In some kinds of Aikido and Ju-Jitsu you do learn a breakfall to deal with that throw, but it's an advanced breakfall. Doing that technique to a random citizen, one carrying a heavy camera which he may instinctively try to protect rather than using his arms to break his fall, especially when coming in from his blind side so that he's totally unaware, carries a high risk of smashing the back of his skull on the pavement. It's quite clearly a potentially lethal attack.
> 
> What I wonder is whether it was purely improvised or whether he's trained (as quite a few cops do) in Tomiki Aikido or something similar?


 
Yeah you're absolutely right, I hadn't watched the video before. Is he also applying pressure to the back of the guy's knee as well? Also the way he springs back into action, although that could be adrenaline tbf.

I've done a fair bit of judo but I would be very hesitant indeed to use it in a scrap for exactly the reason that you mention, that it was pure luck he didn't brain that cameraman.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Apr 13, 2011)

Footage of PC Simon Harwood pulling a BBC cameraman at the G20 protests in the City of London in 2009. This happened on Royal Exchange Buildings, just a few minutes before his encounter with Ian Tomlinson. The cameraman is seen falling backwards
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1

This makes me laugh!

Here he is seen standing with other officers on the south end of Royal Exchange Buildings, near Threadneedle Street. He has retracted a claim that at this time he was surrounded by protesters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-inquest-pc-simon-harwood-video


----------



## ymu (Apr 13, 2011)

Looks like he's trying to stop the cameraman filming another cop roughing up a protester. There's a cop in a big black coat there too - looks like he picks up a radio and then goes to punch the protester.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/06/ian-tomlinson-pc-simon-harwood-cameraman-video1


----------



## winjer (Apr 14, 2011)

Nice one said:


> (Crampton on being called as a witness apparently).


It's bizarre that Crampton's listed as _statement to be read_.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2011)

I don't know how that works, do the lawyers agree beforehand which witnesses will be live and which use written statements?  In any event there must be a mechanism to override the initial arrangement if, as in this case, it's clear there are questions to be answered.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 14, 2011)

Hit with batons, threatened with gnashing dogs and pushed over with riot shields too you know.


----------



## winjer (Apr 14, 2011)

newbie said:


> I don't know how that works, do the lawyers agree beforehand which witnesses will be live and which use written statements?


That's how it is criminal trials, so I expect it's the same at inquests. 

The extra complication is that you're not supposed to ask questions about things outside the agreed scope of the inquest, which - as the coroner reminded the Tomlinson family's lawyer yesterday - does not currently include any "post-death cover-up".


----------



## winjer (Apr 14, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Hit with batons, threatened with gnashing dogs and pushed over with riot shields too you know.


Pushed over with riot shields? Not heard that at the inquest.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

Update on related important stuff:

The Met's kettling of 4-5000 protesters at the G20 protests was unlawful - High Court

edit: balls the paper has changed the story to add 'partially'


----------



## revlon (Apr 14, 2011)

the guardian piece reads like the violence used was the unlawful bit rather that the containment tactic. Maybe further details will clarify 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/14/kettling-g20-protesters-police-illegal


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 14, 2011)

Looks like Patel is rught under the kosh here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Update on related important stuff:
> 
> The Met's kettling of 4-5000 protesters at the G20 protests was unlawful - High Court
> 
> edit: balls the paper has changed the story to add 'partially'


 
If I'm reading it right, they're basically saying "kettling is only OK when it's clear that the situation will otherwise get out of hand" which means they've at least got to be able to justify it, rather than using it as a punitive tactic whenever they feel the urge. The issue is going to be how easily they're going to be able to get away with saying 'In our judgement kettling was the only option' 

If it's whenever they feel like saying it with no comebacks even if it's obvious bullshit, then the situation hasn't really changed much as a result ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 14, 2011)

...



> Ryder is still questioning Patel. The barrister has established that there are two types of heart attack:
> 
> 1) An embolism or thrombus (the result of a full blockage of the system).
> 2) An arrythmic heart attack (an irregular heartbeat, which results in a heart attack).
> ...


----------



## revlon (Apr 14, 2011)

interesting, this has ben added to the guardian article:

_The high court concluded: "In the result, the claimants succeed in establishing that (a) the containment of the climate camp, and (b) the pushing operation to move the crowd 30 metres to the north at the southern end of the climate camp were not lawful police operations."_

If anything this goes some way to get rid of the ridiculous ruling by the high courts for mayday 2001 - which the police have used as the legal basis for kettling. 

Good work.

Edited: just reading the court ruling and it states "This Royal Exchange containment [Bank of England kettle] is not criticised in these proceedings as unlawful". So, not as challenging as it could be. Obviously degrees of violence (real and expected) are now going to be a major consideration


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 14, 2011)

...



> Patel is now looking in detail at the chart evidence showing Tomlinson's heart activity shortly after he collapsed.
> 
> To recap, paramedics did not see an abnormal or chaotic rhythm (picture the zigzag lines you see on beeping heartbeat computer screens – officially it is called an ECG, or electrico-cardio gram).
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 14, 2011)

Well if punching and slapping people is illegal, then Hawrood certainly broke the law.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 14, 2011)

If there has to be a clear and imminent risk of violence won't the police just continue to invent or instigate trouble. Did anyone find out the truth about those 'lightbulbs filled with sulphur' being thrown at police at the start of the splinter march towards Oxford Street?

Its still great to see the police proven in court to have been those outside of the law.


----------



## winjer (Apr 14, 2011)

revlon said:


> If anything this goes some way to get rid of the ridiculous ruling by the high courts for mayday 2001 - which the police have used as the legal basis for kettling.


Far from it, this judgment approves the Mayday judgment, and questions no part of it.


----------



## laptop (Apr 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> If it's whenever they feel like saying it with no comebacks even if it's obvious bullshit, then the situation hasn't really changed much as a result ...


 
They'll probably proceed roughly on that basis until the case from Mayday 01 finally gets heard at the European Court of Human Rights... 

Not listed before July as Austin -v- UK at http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Pending+Cases/Pending+cases/Calendar+of+scheduled+hearings/


----------



## revlon (Apr 14, 2011)

winjer said:


> Far from it, this judgment approves the Mayday judgment, and questions no part of it.


 
which is why i edited the post after reading the court ruling.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 15, 2011)

2nd Pathologist is ripping Patel a new one over the way he submitted evidence, 'discarded evidence' and wrote up his findings.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 17, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Looks *awfully* like it though ...
> 
> 'Constable Savage' appears to have plenty of time to see that he's about to smash the guy's head against the edge of that door
> 
> ...


 
Very true I fink.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 17, 2011)

And everyone has forgotten the cause behind this demo. This is a personal tragedy possibly facilitated by a bit of rough policing. 

The bigger tragedy is that the demonstrators failed so badly to harness real public anger at the behaviour of bankers, the banking system and the political establishment's responses.

We are not going to learn anything we didn't know about the police from all of this. They are not going to learn much from it either.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 17, 2011)

And everyone.....


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> BBC story[/URL] on Swift findings being withheld:


Swift's PM findings have apparently been disclosed in the last fortnight, both Patel and Cary have mentioned seeing it only recently.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2011)

Is it me or should Patel not be allowed near dead bodies until he's one himself?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 18, 2011)

Patel is being ruthlessly exposed as a police stooge and an incompetent one at that. 

The pattern of cover-up, deciept and corruption that follows every killing by police is plain to see. 

Wether the inquest sees in that light is another matter - but at the very least it should conclude that PC Savage was on a violent rampage, that his collegues and superiors  aquiessed in his behaviour, that his assualt led directly to the death of Ian Tomlinson (and should face a manslaughter charge - but dont hold your breath), that he and the Met lied about it afterwards  and that Patel is uterrly incompetent and was pressured into making a cop favourable verdict.


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2011)

Patel just came up with a new possible cause of death: "hypoxia mixed with acidosis."

He's terribly confused by all the big words.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 18, 2011)

is Patel feeling better? He had to leave the stand because of illness on Friday.


----------



## winjer (Apr 18, 2011)

Yes, whatever condition he has was alleviated by resting over the weekend.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2011)

winjer said:


> Yes, whatever condition he has was alleviated by resting over the weekend.


 
Lack of quick witted imagination.


----------



## winjer (Apr 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Patel is being ruthlessly exposed as a police stooge and an incompetent one at that.


Not at all. Patel is nowhere near clever enough to be a police stooge, he's just useless and unwilling to admit when he's wrong. Yesterday he invented a new cause of death, and then explained how all the things he thought showed a heart attack didn't happen, but that didn't matter because the things that did happen still meant the cause of death was a heart attack (unless it was hypoxia).

On the basis of the liver and heart specialist evidence heard yesterday the villain here is definitely the DPP/CPS, who either knew they should charge, or failed to find out that they could.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 19, 2011)

Patel bent over backwardds to give a cop-favourable verdict - and has told the inquest that he was essentailly instructed to do just that. He's was the met's pet pathologist - thats why they got him to do the post mortem.


----------



## winjer (Apr 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Patel bent over backwardds to give a cop-favourable verdict - and has told the inquest that he was essentailly instructed to do just that. He's was the met's pet pathologist - thats why they got him to do the post mortem.


He did not, he has not claimed to be so instructed. And he was not chosen to do the post mortem, it was by default. This has all been detailed at the inquest, I suggest you look at the transcripts.


----------



## laptop (Apr 19, 2011)

winjer said:


> He did not, he has not claimed to be so instructed. And he was not chosen to do the post mortem, it was by default. This has all been detailed at the inquest, I suggest you look at the transcripts.


 



			
				me said:
			
		

> Aye. I'm waiting for the explanation of how "can you please rule out..." *really* means "can you scrupulously investigate the possibility of..."



That was duly, if weakly, provided. Very weakly.


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2011)

Maybe not "instructed".

"Guided" certainly.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 19, 2011)

Several officers were at the post mortem and Patels has stated that they asked him to rule out injuries that would suggest him being assaulted by a copper. Patel duly obliged, dismissing clear indications of a dog bite and a baton strike as a reuslt of 'falling on bits of broken glass' - this would be laughagle if it wasn't so fucking tragic. Thats not just incompetance - its corruption.  

And Patel has form for this sort of shit - he was already notroiuous for previous cop helpful verdicts (dodgey eveidnce that painted the victim in a bad light IIRC) . Wether it was 'chance' that he happened to the Pathologist on the day I remain to be convinced by - Im sure the met have ways of ensuring the 'correct' pathologist is there for 'sensitive' cases.


----------



## winjer (Apr 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Several officers were at the post mortem and Patels has stated that they asked him to rule out injuries that would suggest him being assaulted by a copper.


No he didn't. Read the transcripts.



> Patel duly obliged, dismissing clear indications of a dog bite and a baton strike as a reuslt of 'falling on bits of broken glass' - this would be laughagle if it wasn't so fucking tragic. Thats not just incompetance - its corruption.


He didn't dismiss the baton strike, and he said more tests would be needed to confirm a dog bite, as did Dr Cary. Read the transcripts.



> And Patel has form for this sort of shit - he was already notroiuous for previous cop helpful verdicts (dodgey eveidnce that painted the victim in a bad light IIRC).


Not a cop friendly verdict, just inappropriate comments, Patel found the cause of death to be bradycardia and the inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing, later overturned for reasons unrelated to Patel.


----------



## winjer (Apr 19, 2011)

laptop said:


> That was duly, if weakly, provided. Very weakly.


As was pointed out by Dr Cary, none of the comments about police officers at the post mortem appeared in Patel's original report.


----------



## winjer (Apr 20, 2011)

The inquest isn't sitting today, and will hear the last of the evidence tomorrow, next Tuesday is reserved for legal submissions about the summing up and possible verdicts.

The summing up will be next Thursday, and the jury is then expected to deliver a verdict in the first week of May.


----------



## winjer (Apr 21, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> There were three post mortems: Patel, then Cary, then Shorrock (acting for the Met) and Swift (for Harwood). Shorrock agreed with Cary's findings.


Swift agreed with Cary too, it was agreed by the various lawyers that there no need for the jury to hear a word he wrote as he came to the same conclusions for the same reasons as Cary.


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2011)

winjer said:


> Swift agreed with Cary too, it was agreed by the various lawyers that there no need for the jury to hear a word he wrote as he came to the same conclusions for the same reasons as Cary.


 
Isn't that a bit odd? Swift was appointed by Harwood's team. Shouldn't the jury know that _all_ the non-discredited pathologists on both 'sides' agree with each other?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 21, 2011)

ymu said:


> Isn't that a bit odd? Swift was appointed by Harwood's team. Shouldn't the jury know that _all_ the non-discredited pathologists on both 'sides' agree with each other?


 
They do know that because a summary of Swift's findings to that effect was read out to the jury.


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2011)

Nice one, thanks.


----------



## shaman75 (Apr 28, 2011)

> Jurors at the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson will consider whether the actions of a police officer amounted to unlawful killing, a coroner has said.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13225062


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2011)

from twitter - ALERT Ian Tomlinson jury back in court - verdict expected shortly


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2011)

Unlawfully killed - C4.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2011)

Unlawful killing verdict, 5 live just said.


----------



## big eejit (May 3, 2011)

Wow!

3.37pm: Ian Tomlinson's family could be heard shouting "yes" at the verdict. His wife, Julia, six of their children are present at the hearing and have broken down, crying.

3.34pm: The jury has concluded Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/may/03/ian-tomlinson-inquest-verdict-live-blog


----------



## ddraig (May 3, 2011)

wow indeed!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2011)

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".


----------



## Balbi (May 3, 2011)

Nail the fucker to a plank and bury him at sea


----------



## shaman75 (May 3, 2011)

Brilliant result.  Let's hope the CPS decide to look again.


----------



## ddraig (May 3, 2011)

from that guardian link 





> 3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.
> 
> What was the name of the deceased?
> Ian Tomlinson.
> ...


----------



## big eejit (May 3, 2011)

Maybe a succession of recent events is leading people to realise that the police have gone way too far in what they think they can do. And this swift verdict is a sign of that discontent?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 3, 2011)

Or maybe simply such compelling evidence that this was a stitch-up from start to finish, when dealt with by the establishment initially?


----------



## Badgers (May 3, 2011)

Blimey!!


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2011)

Well done, that jury. And coroner, to be fair.


----------



## Streathamite (May 3, 2011)

YESSS!! Viva the jury. Justice comes that little bit nearer.


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2011)

Unlawful killing is an 'unreasonable doubt' verdict too. The CPS will be under very heavy pressure to bring a prosecution for manslaughter.


----------



## xes (May 3, 2011)

One step closer to justice. Massive good thing 

 Still don't think that this cunt'll ever see the inside of a jail cell. Same goes for Patel. Criminal cunts. Shoot the fucking lot of them.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 3, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Or maybe simply such compelling evidence that this was a stitch-up from start to finish, when dealt with by the establishment initially?


 
Yep, I mean I don't believe for a second that things would ever have got this far without a good clear video capture of Constable Savage attacking Mr Tomlinson. 

That's necessary but not sufficient, as demonstrated by the "Robocop vs tiny woman" incident, but without the video there's zero chance of bringing violent cops to justice, wheras if you've got one or more videos of the attack, there's a faint hope.


----------



## embree (May 3, 2011)

Great news

You know what though? Over the last week and a half I've seen them do as bad and worse in my neighbourhood. It's routine for riot cops to act like this.


----------



## winjer (May 3, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Or maybe simply such compelling evidence that this was a stitch-up from start to finish, when dealt with by the establishment initially?


Having heard Patel give evidence and some details of his other as yet unpublicised fuck-ups there's no way you'd want him involved in any plot.


----------



## plurker (May 3, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> Brilliant result.  Let's hope the CPS decide to look again.


 
_That review will now take place and will be thorough. It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the Inquest, the issues left by the Coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached._

http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/05/cps-to-revi...-tomlinson.html


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 3, 2011)

xes said:


> One step closer to justice. Massive good thing



Isn't it just! Fingers crossed the fucker does see the inside of a cell!


----------



## TopCat (May 3, 2011)

3/1 he does no more than six months. Takers?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2011)

whose that dead copper who has had 3 whole fit ups done to innocents supposed to have killed him only later to be proven innocent? Total joke- its taken two years to get to the point of 'review decision not to prosecute' in Tomlinsons case ffs.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 3, 2011)

Harwood's solicitors have just released a statement on his behalf:



> "Pc Harwood would like to repeat how sorry he is that Mr Tomlinson died.
> "Although Pc Harwood's contact with Mr Tomlinson lasted only a few seconds, it has been examined in great detail over several weeks of evidence.
> "The mass of video and other evidence gathered by the IPCC now presents a picture very different from the one which Pc Harwood had on the day.
> "In particular, he wishes that he had known then all that he now knows about Mr Tomlinson's movements and fragile state of health.
> ...



Self-serving bullshine, but you wouldn't expect anything else really.


----------



## shaman75 (May 3, 2011)

Even if they lock him up and throw away the key, even if he is banished from the force, the policing of protests will not change and now they want to make complaints against the police even less independent than they supposedly are.



> The bill, which is making its way through parliament, will bring the most radical change to the police complaints procedure we have seen since the reforms that followed the death of Stephen Lawrence. The Police Reform Act 2002, which replaced the much-criticised Police Complaints Authority with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, has in recent years been the gatekeeper to all complaints against the police and the only body to which complainants can appeal following local and supervised investigations by the police's professional standards departments. But that will no longer be the case from May 2012. The safeguards that were put in place by the publication of the IPCC's statutory guidance in April 2010 will be removed and an unregulated system of police complaints will result.
> 
> Schedule 14 of the bill at paragraph 8 (5) will give police forces unfettered discretion in determining which complaints they wish to record and – although, as exists today, there will be an appeal process to the IPCC for non-recording – one suspects the police will put up a fight when their authority is challenged.
> 
> But the most shocking and controversial aspect of the bill will be the loss of the independent appeal to the IPCC following a local or supervised investigation. This important element of the complaints procedure, although it does not uphold all appeals, does ensure that a fresh review of the complaint is carried out. Where the appeal is upheld, a reinvestigation is ordered.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/apr/08/police-reform-bill-accountability


----------



## gawkrodger (May 3, 2011)

get in!


----------



## newbie (May 3, 2011)

this wasn't one bad apple acting recklessly on his own. This should really result in charges relating to the way senior police behaved before during and after the event.  Something about corporate manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice perhaps. But there's even less chance of that than there is of topcat losing his bet.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 3, 2011)

Yep, Harwood shouldn't be made the scapegoat. The police as a whole think that aggression is the right way to deal with protests. The politicians have handed them laws to use that confirm that their role is to deal harshly with protests. I think it would be better for Harwood to be in prison than not, but we should blame a lot of people for Tomlinson's death, not just one man.


----------



## magneze (May 3, 2011)

It's the "bad apple" defence. They're hoping no-ones looking at the barrel.


----------



## OneStrike (May 3, 2011)

The guardian are running with a story that in one of dodgy Freds autopsy's he possibly performed on the wrong body, mistaking a 5'4" male with another who was 6'1".

http://gu.com/p/2zm2g/tf


----------



## shagnasty (May 4, 2011)

This is to high profile for the old bill to wriggle out of ,but stranger things have happened


----------



## albionism (May 4, 2011)

newbie said:


> this wasn't one bad apple acting recklessly on his own. This should really result in charges relating to the way senior police behaved before during and after the event.  Something about corporate manslaughter and attempting to pervert the course of justice perhaps. But there's even less chance of that than there is of topcat losing his bet.


 
Indeed. Remember the initial statement from the Met, stating that Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the police prior to his collapse?


----------



## Garek (May 4, 2011)

Someone this thread, I can't remember whom stated that Harwood was, "Unlucky. Guilty, but unlucky". I think that sums it up nicely. 

Overjoyed to see the verdict of "unlawfull killing". Excellent news.


----------



## newbie (May 4, 2011)

it's all of a piece with the request to Patel to 'rule out' police involvement.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 4, 2011)

albionism said:


> Indeed. Remember the initial statement from the Met, stating that Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the police prior to his collapse?


 
Which if it hadn't been for citizens with cameras, they would have been able to get away with. 

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have found any evidence on CCTV to contradict that initial position.


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2011)

They initially denied there were CCTV cameras in the area.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 4, 2011)

TopCat said:


> They initially denied there were CCTV cameras in the area.


 
Until people produced photos of them ... if I recall right?


----------



## TopCat (May 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Until people produced photos of them ... if I recall right?


 
Yeah that was it. They just lie and cover up as a default position.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 4, 2011)

i thought they said CCTV 'wasnt working in the area'?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 4, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> i thought they said CCTV 'wasnt working in the area'?


 
Perhaps they meant that criminal acts by cops don't show up on it, kinda like vampires ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> i thought they said CCTV 'wasnt working in the area'?


 
"[IPCC chairman] Hardwick also hinted at the significance of the Guardian's footage when he revealed there were no CCTV cameras in the area where Tomlinson was assaulted." (10 April 2009, reported in _The Guardian_)


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 4, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> "[IPCC chairman] Hardwick also hinted at the significance of the Guardian's footage when he revealed there were no CCTV cameras in the area where Tomlinson was assaulted." (10 April 2009, reported in _The Guardian_)


 
Thanks


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 4, 2011)

Quite interesting to read this Guardian story in retrospect as a reminder of how the police and their political allies tried to spin the story for the best part of a week, right up until the point that incontrovertable video evidence of the attack appeared.



> It began with an anodyne press release from the Metropolitan police more than three hours after Ian Tomlinson died. It ended with a police officer and an investigator from the Independent Police Complaints Commission asking the Guardian to remove a video from its website showing an unprovoked police assault on Mr Tomlinson minutes before his heart attack.
> 
> In the space of five days through a combination of official guidance, strong suggestion and press releases, those responsible for examining the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death within the City of London police and the IPCC, appeared to be steering the story to what they thought would be its conclusion: that the newspaper vendor suffered an unprovoked heart attack as he made his way home on the night of the G20 protests.
> 
> ...


 G20 assault: how Metropolitan police tried to manage a death


----------



## Corax (May 4, 2011)

DPP reviewing the decision not to charge Harwood.


----------



## GoneCoastal (May 4, 2011)

There's also this today http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47050&c=1


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 4, 2011)

GoneCoastal said:


> There's also this today http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47050&c=1





> Police official statements and briefings seemed to have discouraged others from looking into the story, and the Met and City of London police press offices are currently under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
> 
> I think there was a lot of briefing. My seniors at the paper were being told there was nothing in the story, and I should lay off. The Tomlinson family’s police liaison officer personally told me that my articles were upsetting them. (I later found out this was untrue.)


 
interesting ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> interesting ...


 
That story was originally published in August 2009. Paul Lewis made mention of the police's family liaison officer trying to keep him (Lewis) away from the family from relatively early on in his coverage (eg this story from 7/8/9).


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 5, 2011)

_Press Gazette_ (today): 



> The *Independent Police Complaints Commission is set to reveal within days whether it thinks the Met Police deliberately misled the media* after the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest in London on 1 April, 2009.
> 
> The IPCC investigation was triggered by allegations that police officers and press officers at the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London Police briefed the media against pursuing the story and attempted to cover up details of Tomlinson’s death.
> 
> ...The IPCC confirmed to Press Gazette that its report will look into whether any offences were committed by police officers or communications staff in connection with media handling, and whether they complied with “media protocol agreed between the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)”...


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

While they're there, could they please ask the City of London coroner who appointed Patel, and then later recused himself on the grounds that he has no fucking idea how to deal with suspicious deaths, whether or not any CoL or Met police officers had any influence on his decision not to request a special PM, for which Patel could not have been rostered as he was not contracted to do them?

The City of London doesn't see many suspicious deaths. Hence the original coroner withdrawing amidst the furore. We haven't heard enough about this yet. It would be common practice for more experienced colleagues to advise, and the police are probably the only source of information he had to base his decision on. Sudden death amidst a summit protest should automatically require a special PM, ffs!


----------



## winjer (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> While they're there, could they please ask the City of London coroner who appointed Patel, and then later recused himself on the grounds that he has no fucking idea how to deal with suspicious deaths, whether or not any CoL or Met police officers had any influence on his decision not to request a special PM, for which Patel could not have been rostered as he was not contracted to do them?


He didn't appoint Patel, Patel was a resident pathologist at St Pancras which was handling all CoL PMs at the time, CoLP requested the PM be upgraded and Patel was on the Home Office register. Whether his registration had failed to be removed or was down to him providing false information to the NPIA is not entirely clear from differing news reports, although it's clear he falsely told the GMC he was part of a group practice, a requirement for the HO register.


----------



## TopCat (May 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> _Press Gazette_ (today):


 
The evidence on this is pretty solid too.


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

I know that, winjer. It's got nothing to do with what I posted.

Patel could not have been appointed to do a special PM because he did not have a Home Office contract at the time. He got the gig because he was on routine call and it was treated as a routine natural death by the coroner from the outset.

I'm asking how in suffering fuck was it not a special PM when a death happened at a protest of a type where protesters have been killed in the past and where the police were making wild predictions of violence beforehand. 

The CoL coroner later took himself off the job because they just don't get many suspicious deaths in the CoL and he had no clue what he was doing (paraphrasing, but it's what he said himself). So who helped him make the extraordinary decision not to request a special PM? And even if he took no advice from others, what information did he base that decision on if not what the police told him about the circumstances?


----------



## winjer (May 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Patel could not have been appointed to do a special PM because he did not have a Home Office contract at the time. He got the gig because he was on routine call and it was treated as a routine natural death by the coroner from the outset.


He was on the Home Office register, so he could do a special PM. See, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2011)

winjer said:


> He was on the Home Office register, so he could do a special PM. See, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11015705


 
Firstly, there are lots of conflicting versions of that story, and the one you posted is clear as mud - I've not seen anything conclusive that says being on the register of accredited pathologists is the same thing as having a current contract with the Home Office to do special PMs. I'm an accredited expert with one of my clients, but I still have to renew my contract before I get to do any more work for them. 

Secondly, and rather more pertinently, Patel got this PM because he was rostered on duty for _routine_ PMs that night. I want to know why this was done as a routine PM. It's got fuck all to do with Patel - I want to know why the coroner assumed no suspicious circumstances, from the information available to him at the time.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 7, 2011)

This is one of those 'right for all the wrong reasons' sorta things I think. 



> Britain's most senior police officer has denied making a "fall guy" out of Simon Harwood, the officer found to have unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.
> 
> Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, was accused by the Ulster Unionist peer Lord Maginnis of being prepared to "surrender" PC Harwood.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/05/tomlinson-harwood-fall-guy-stephenson


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2011)

Clear cut case!

Doesn't hurt getting that thought into the headlines though, eh?


----------



## teqniq (May 9, 2011)

Looks like a damage limitation/pass the buck exercise is being implemented:-



> Senior police were told 48 hours after Ian Tomlinson's death that officers had witnessed a colleague push him to the ground at the G20 protests, but the information was withheld from the police watchdog.
> 
> The Guardian can reveal that three constables reported seeing Tomlinson being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground four days before video footage of the incident emerged.
> 
> The Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating why information provided by Metropolitan Police constables Andrew Moore, Kerry Smith and Nicholas Jackson was not passed on to its investigators......



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 9, 2011)

IPCC releases three Ian Tomlinson reports - all three vindicate cops.

WHITEWASH.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx


----------



## Corax (May 9, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> IPCC releases three Ian Tomlinson reports - all three vindicate cops.
> 
> WHITEWASH.
> 
> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx


 
Just because none of the 1,000 deaths in custody in the past 20 years have ever resulted in a conviction, for anything, even negligence, you can't go assuming that the IPCC isn't entirely unbiased and even-handed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

Corax said:


> Just because none of the 1,000 deaths in custody in the past 20 years have ever resulted in a conviction, for anything, even negligence, you can't go assuming that the IPCC isn't entirely unbiased and even-handed.


 
in all fairness, it's worth pointing out that the ipcc haven't been able to equal the police complaints authority's record because they haven't been around as long.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in all fairness, it's worth pointing out that the ipcc haven't been able to equal the police complaints authority's record because they haven't been around as long.


 
Well thank the stars for Deborah Glass, the former PCA wonk now running the Ian Tomlinson investigations for the IPCC. With her kind of dedication to independence and investigation we shall surely see some top-notch stain removal.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well thank the stars for Deborah Glass, the former PCA wonk now running the Ian Tomlinson investigations for the IPCC. With her kind of dedication to independence and investigation we shall surely see some top-notch stain removal.


 
eh? i'm saying that the ipcc are shit. but they haven't had enough time to equal the impressive record of the pca in vindicating police officers.


----------



## agricola (May 9, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> IPCC releases three Ian Tomlinson reports - all three vindicate cops.
> 
> WHITEWASH.
> 
> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx



As an aside, why do you think the IPCC reports (especially the first one) were a whitewash from the IPCC?  

The first one recommended PC Harwood be charged with manslaughter, and fairly conclusively demonstrates that the cause of death was most likely not what Patel claimed it was - in short it appears (based on the reports of what the inquest jury found) to have come to much the same conclusions as jury did in the inquest into Tomlinsons' death.  Even the third one recognizes that an acting DI provided the wrong information to one of the subsequent post-mortems, albeit they were not able to prove that he had done so deliberately and maliciously.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (May 9, 2011)

ipcc are ex-coppers am I right?


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in all fairness, it's worth pointing out that the ipcc haven't been able to equal the police complaints authority's record because they haven't been around as long.


 
Same difference as abolishing one unit of riot cop thugs and replacing them with another unit of riot cop thugs. If it shows no signs of improvement than it's similarly-tasked predecessor, then the change was merely cosmetic.

I don't know the ins and outs of the procedural changes, but if outcomes don't shift for the better it's no more meaningful than calling Sizewell Sellafield, or Burma Myanmar.


----------



## laptop (May 9, 2011)

The action is moving up the food chain: 



> Ian Tomlinson death: IPCC rules Met officer 'reckless' in conduct
> 
> Detective Inspector Eddie Hall falsely claimed Tomlinson fell down before encountering PC Simon Harwood



You may say that "reckless" is lawyerese for "lied through his teeth", but I couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## Corax (May 9, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> ipcc are ex-coppers am I right?


 
I don't think they are (the commissioners).  But most of them seem to have at least worked 'with' the police...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 10, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> ipcc are ex-coppers am I right?


 
Not all of them; one is a good friend of longstanding who came from a very different background. However, there are a significant number of ex-police.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 10, 2011)

Biographies of the various commissioners are available on their website:

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/chair_commission.aspx


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 10, 2011)

agricola said:


> As an aside, why do you think the IPCC reports (especially the first one) were a whitewash from the IPCC?
> 
> The first one recommended PC Harwood be charged with manslaughter, and fairly conclusively demonstrates that the cause of death was most likely not what Patel claimed it was - in short it appears (based on the reports of what the inquest jury found) to have come to much the same conclusions as jury did in the inquest into Tomlinsons' death.  Even the third one recognizes that an acting DI provided the wrong information to one of the subsequent post-mortems, albeit they were not able to prove that he had done so deliberately and maliciously.


 
This deserves a proper response, but I'm knackered so will come back to it later if that's alright.

In précis my 'whitewash' reaction comes from what I saw as a failure to meaningfully follow investigative leads to their logical conclusion; a seeming willingness to choose one possible reason or motivation for an officer's or officers' actions or words which can be seen to have the least negative connotation at a number of investigatory forks (in effect 'rounding down' constantly before tallying up); a willingness to similarly characterise the actions of others (eg the media) in a less favourable light despite not appearing to offer any evidence for this judgement; a failure to clearly identify what each officer did and when; a failure to identify all appropriate chains of command and the relevance of these chains of command to the various decision-making processes; and so on. In essence I think there are clear investigatory and methodological problems with the reports.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 10, 2011)

Video released by IPCC of commissioner Deborah Glass talking about Tomlinson investigations:


----------



## TopCat (May 10, 2011)

"MPS statement in response to IPCC reports concerning Ian Tomlinson

The Met welcomes the IPCC findings which include that there was no evidence concerning complaints that officers failed to protect Mr Tomlinson from assault and subsequently no case to answer in relation to misconduct. 

In addition, complaints about the conduct of MPS officers around Royal Exchange Buildings and alleged failures in first aid were not upheld and the report rightly acknowledges that broader lessons following G20 have been addressed by the MPS. 

The IPCC has also found today (9 May) that there was no evidence any MPS police or press officer attempted to mislead.

Since the incident there have been claims that the MPS denied there was prior police contact with Mr Tomlinson. The report finds there is no evidence of this. 

The report concerning information supplied to the pathologists by an MPS officer found that although incorrect information was given this was an honestly held belief and there was no evidence of intent to mislead and no lasting damage to the investigation. 

These are important findings for the MPS. These investigations have dealt with a series of complaints in a thorough and fair process, which we have fully supported. "

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur09/page03.htm


----------



## xes (May 10, 2011)

load of old fucking bollocks then?


----------



## OneStrike (May 23, 2011)

The decision on any possible prosecution will be announced at around 11.00am tomorrow.  The cynic in me spots the timing coincides with Obama arriving here, if i have my times right.  I hope it's not timed to relegate the decision down on the news schedules.


----------



## OneStrike (May 24, 2011)

The director of public prosecutions has changed his mind!!  A summons has been granted to charge Harwood with manslaughter.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 24, 2011)

Harwood to face manslaughter charges.


----------



## shaman75 (May 24, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Harwood to face manslaughter charges.


----------



## Libertad (May 24, 2011)

Freddie Patel should be charged with obstruction.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2011)

Libertad said:


> Freddie Patel should be charged with obstruction.


at the very least, huge hurdles should be placed in the way of him EVER doing a cut-up where criminal charges are a possibility. There's not just this case; there's the camden sex nutter case, Richard chang etc. As it happens, the GMC are investigating


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> The director of public prosecutions has changed his mind!!  A summons has been granted to charge Harwood with manslaughter.


 
It's good that he'll be charged, and (hopefully) prosecuted, but I won't get my hopes up that he'll actually do time yet.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 24, 2011)

I'm glad for Tomlinson's family that Harwood's being charged for manslaughter, but even if he is prosecuted and justice served, the spin from Plod will be that he's a wrong 'un, a bad apple etc, and they'll do everything to deflect attention from the fact that Harwood did what he did precisely because of the methods, approaches and culture of the Met.

I won't be holding my breath for any root and branch reform of police methods because of this.


----------



## winjer (May 24, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> "[IPCC chairman] Hardwick also hinted at the significance of the Guardian's footage when he revealed there were no CCTV cameras in the area where Tomlinson was assaulted." (10 April 2009, reported in _The Guardian_)


Which appears to have been accurate in terms of the actual assault, no?


----------



## Corax (May 24, 2011)

Libertad said:


> Freddie Patel should be charged with obstruction.


 
Maybe I'm too soft, but Patel has always seemed more a weak bumbling dupe than a willing accomplice to me.

Should certainly be struck off and relegated to St John's work though.


----------



## likesfish (May 24, 2011)

violent twat gives some drunk a slap who then goes and dies.
 police try to cover up the indefensible.
 bloke was not a threat and hit from behind for no good reason.


----------



## harpo (May 24, 2011)

Corax said:


> Maybe I'm too soft, but Patel has always seemed more a weak bumbling dupe than a willing accomplice to me.
> 
> Should certainly be struck off and relegated to St John's work though.


 
Maybe, tho I don't agree.  But if so it begs the question as to why a bumbling fool with a track record of (at best) incompetence remained on the list of Home Office approved patholigists.


----------



## Corax (May 24, 2011)

harpo said:


> Maybe, tho I don't agree.  But if so it begs the question as to why a bumbling fool with a track record of (at best) incompetence remained on the list of Home Office approved patholigists.


 
Because he could be easily manipulated is my guess.


----------



## harpo (May 24, 2011)

Corax said:


> Because he could be easily manipulated is my guess.


 
System rotten to the core then.  But I feel sure Patel knowingly gave convenient verdicts.  The decision to prosecute Harwood is good news but other heads should also be rolling.


----------



## paolo (May 24, 2011)

Corax said:


> Because he could be easily manipulated is my guess.


 
DBs reckoned they (murder squad) hated getting Patel for a case.

Another more recent comment from Streathamite suggested it wouldn't have been the police who picked Patel, it would be the Coroner.

All in all, I don't buy the Patel-in-conspiracy idea.

One thing that *has* come out is the failure to pass on the information reported by a PC who saw the assault. The Met say they told CoL*. CoL say they weren't told. It would have pertinent to post mortem (rubbish pathologist aside).

* Fairly sure it was CoL, but might have been IPCC. On phone, can't quickly check.


----------



## GoneCoastal (May 24, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Another more recent comment from Streathamite suggested it wouldn't have been the police who picked Patel, it would be the Coroner.


Correct  5th paragraph in this article from The Guardian (19 August 2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified 

For ref: "............................. when he was appointed to conduct the postmortem on Tomlinson by the City of London coroner."


----------



## Frankie Jack (Jun 19, 2011)

Tomlinson death officer in court

A Scotland Yard officer will appear in court tomorrow ( Monday 20th June) accused of killing Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.

Mr Tomlinson, a homeless 47-year-old newspaper seller, collapsed and died on the fringes of the demonstrations in central London on April 1 2009.

Pc Simon Harwood, a father of two from Carshalton, Surrey, will appear before City of Westminster Magistrates' Court charged with manslaughter.

The Director of Public Prosecutions charged Pc Harwood over the death after reviewing an inquest jury's unlawful killing verdict.

Keir Starmer QC said new medical evidence at the inquest and the opinions of experts during the hearing helped change his mind. 


Sincerly hope justice will be done and not just another wrist slap handed down.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2011)

> Mr Tomlinson, a homeless 47-year-old newspaper seller






> Pc Simon Harwood, a father of two from Carshalton, Surrey



they're still at it.




> collapsed and died on the fringes of the demonstrations in central London on April 1 2009.



just fell over and died guv.

fucks sake


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Well done, CPS.

Come on, the jury.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well done, CPS.
> 
> Come on, the jury.


 fyi: there is no jury in a magistrates court, where this case currently is. as for 'well done, cps', it's hardly like they've run with this case against considerable pressure to drop it, is it? they've only taken it up due to pressure from the verdict in the inquest and the fact that, unusually, there is footage of the incident. if it was up to the cps they'd sweep it under the carpet.


----------



## manny-p (Jun 19, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fyi: there is no jury in a magistrates court, where this case currently is. as for 'well done, cps', it's hardly like they've run with this case against considerable pressure to drop it, is it? they've only taken it up due to pressure from the verdict in the inquest and the fact that, unusually, there is footage of the incident. if it was up to the cps they'd sweep it under the carpet.


 
Has there been a thread on the pathetic 8 month sentence that that jurer received for facebooking?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well done, CPS.
> 
> Come on, the jury.


 
harwood, afaik, has the right to push his hearing to crown, as have we all when nicked. Thats where he'd face a jury but will he? Three have-a-go-tories (90% of magistrates) would be preferable to a dozen unknowns given that he is part of the 'team' if you follow my meaning.


----------



## ymu (Jun 19, 2011)

Oh, Pickman's, you have opened mine eyes. A veil hath verily been lifted.


----------



## winjer (Jun 19, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fyi: there is no jury in a magistrates court, where this case currently is.


But cannot remain.




DotCommunist said:


> harwood, afaik, has the right to push his hearing to crown, as have we all when nicked.


As the charge is manslaughter it will automatically go to Crown. Only some offences offer the right to choose trial by jury, the rest are either Magistrates only (minor), or Crown only (serious).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2011)

winjer said:


> But cannot remain.


 

is this then a procedural matter where the charge will automatically be kicked upstairs regardless?

seen edit, cheers.


----------



## laptop (Jun 19, 2011)

Frankie Jack said:


> will appear before City of Westminster Magistrates' Court



To which Crown Court(s) does this send cases? The Bailey? Nice suburban ones? Snaresbrook, where juries must be rife with coppers' mates?


----------



## winjer (Jun 19, 2011)

Normally Southwark, but the student protest cases are being sent to Kingston. Any Magistrates' can send cases to the Bailey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, Pickman's, you have opened mine eyes. A veil hath verily been lifted.


 
for someone who makes out they know something of the law, you're remarkably ignorant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2011)

winjer said:


> Normally Southwark, but the student protest cases are being sent to Kingston. Any Magistrates' can send cases to the Bailey.


 the bailey's formal title being the central criminal court, of course


----------



## winjer (Jun 19, 2011)

It was the Central Criminal Court for 20 years before it could hear cases from elsewhere. For someone posting pointless personal attacks about legal knowledge_ etc etc_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 19, 2011)

winjer said:


> It was the Central Criminal Court for 20 years before it could hear cases from elsewhere. For someone posting pointless personal attacks about legal knowledge_ etc etc_


 
geekiness and pedantry in one short post - i'm impressed.


----------



## Corax (Jun 19, 2011)

Pros and cons to it going to Crown.  Sentences are more severe, but conviction rates are lower.

Only for info.  As winjer points out it's not an 'either way' offence so Harwood gets no choice in the matter.


----------



## laptop (Jun 20, 2011)

Case gone to Old Bailey. Go jury! Go _Bailey_ jury!


----------



## TopCat (Jun 20, 2011)

The jury will have been well sifted. Remove all undesirables, all Guardian readers, all leftie looking types. Check remainder against daily mail subscribers list. Let Harwood off "due to procedural irregularities and the passage of time".


----------



## jakethesnake (Jun 20, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The jury will have been well sifted. Remove all undesirables, all Guardian readers, all leftie looking types. Check remainder against daily mail subscribers list. Let Harwood off "due to procedural irregularities and the passage of time".


Gosh, you're cynical


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 20, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> Gosh, you're cynical


 
Indeed, let's remember that Lords & MPs have gone down this year, and not in the way you expect to read about, something I didn't expect TBH.


----------



## ymu (Jun 20, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Indeed, let's remember that Lords & MPs have gone down this year, and not in the way you expect to read about, something I didn't expect TBH.


 
The black one and some MPs with limited personal wealth, yes. Any of the toffs gone down yet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> Gosh, you're cynical


 
That's not cynicism, that's realism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2011)

ymu said:


> The black one and some MPs with limited personal wealth, yes. Any of the toffs gone down yet?


 
Only on their manservants.


----------



## winjer (Jun 21, 2011)

The Met Police sent 3 TSG at a cost of £2,300 to "support and transport" PC Simon Harwood to the Tomlinson inquest.

http://bit.ly/jhx3DR


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2011)

The City of London very helpfully sent along this officer to watch out for any protesters at the inquest, which was nice of them, seeing as he was a witness to the Tomlinson assault and appears not to have made a statement about what he saw or heard:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 15, 2012)

Trial starts on Monday.



> *Trial of PC Harwood, charged with the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson, begins on Monday 18 June*
> 
> 10am Monday 18 June 2012
> Southwark Crown Court, 1 English Grounds, London, SE1 2HU
> ...



http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/category/press-releases/press-releases-2012


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)

> The trial has begun of Simon Harwood, the police constable accused of killing Ian Tomlinson, who died shortly after he collapsed amid a major Metropolitan police operation around the G20 summit in London in April 2009.
> 
> Harwood, 41, denies the manslaughter of the 47-year-old newspaper vendor, who was attempting to make his way home through the police cordons on the evening of 1 April when he collapsed.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/18/trial-begins-police-ian-tomlinson


----------



## paolo (Jun 18, 2012)

Much as I hate urban cynics (oh she's a millionaire's daughter, she'll get off! - she got two years custodial)... I'm not having much hope for this. The assault was clear as day, but can't be tried because of the elapsed time. Manslaughter will be far harder to prove. My guess is, because the authorities collectively sat on their hands, this will be a bad case for justice. I'm not ACAB but on this one I'm already angry


----------



## TopCat (Jun 19, 2012)

Please don't post on this thread and potentially (how ever small) give justice a hard time.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2012)

Please note that as this trial is ongoing, it is not permissible to post up opinions of guilt or unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

might it not be an idea to lock away all Tomlinson-related threads till the trial's over?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> might it not be an idea to lock away all Tomlinson-related threads till the trial's over?



Believe it or not, other people do have self-restraint.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 1, 2021)

Rest In Peace Ian Tomlinson


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

Wow, didn’t realise how long it’s been.


----------



## TopCat (May 3, 2021)

Poor bloke. I wonder what his killer is doing now?


----------

