Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Ian Tomlinson's Family Deserves the Truth

The big story of the day is without doubt the Guardian's 'scoop' of the video showing a policeman knocking Ian Tomlinson to the ground only minutes before he collapsed from a heart attack and died. I hadn't seen the video until I went to Sky last night to do the paper review.

I know in these situations one shouldn't prejudge until the IPPC reports its findings, it is difficult to see how anyone could be anything other than revolted by the pictures. It's not what we expect from the British police force. Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the G20 protest. He was trying to go home after working on his newspaper stand. He wasn't abusing the Police, he wasn't doing anything wrong.

There are slight echoes of the de Menenzes case here. At that time the Police issued a statement very quickly, citing supposed facts (Police could see wires, he vaulted tube gates), which were later shown to be completely untrue. The same thing happened here. They stated as a fact that Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the Police before his sad demise. This was clearly wrong.

It's always easy to overreact to video footage like this, and one shouldn't judge a whole police force by the actions of one officer. But when those actions lead to tragic consequences, the truth cannot just be swept under the carpet.

So, what now? The IPPC inquiry should take its course. But two things should happen today. The officer concerned (and they will, by now, know exactly who he is) should immediately be suspended. And secondly we need to hear from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Mayor of London with their thoughts.

Mr Tomlinson's family say they want answers. They deserve nothing less.

118 comments:

JuliaM said...

"But when those actions lead to tragic consequences, the truth cannot just be swept under the carpet."

Surely the question of whether they 'led to tragic consequences' is key. And will be investigated fully.

After all, if it turns out he had a heart condition that could have killed him at any time, will the rabid left back off?

I doubt it.

And the comparisons with De Menezes aren't valid, either. The video clearly shows someone not co-operating with police requests to move on. Whether due to his incipient heart attack, drink or anything else, we can't say.

Mirtha Tidville said...

As you yourself say Iain, in the first line of your second paragraph.........wait for the outcome of the enquiry. I`m old enough to realise the saying `two sides to a story` is true indeed.

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mirtha Tidville said...

point I forgot to mention....The Guardian, so concerned for the deceased`s family and the truth, made damn sure it was given a full public airing before taking it to the authorities........just another reason why I dont read this toilet paper

ContraTory said...

"I know in these situations one shouldn't prejudge"....

"He was trying to go home after working on his newspaper stand. He wasn't abusing the Police, he wasn't doing anything wrong"

A little bit of prejudging there, Iain?

Half The Story said...

They LIED.

They tried to cover up the death of an innocent man.

More Orwellian BS whilst under the control of this Junta.

Simon Gardner said...

You had a recent thread on our attitudes to the Police. I had composed a response.

I am ashamed to say that for the first time in my life I was so frightened [of the Police] that I deleted it. I still am.

Old Holborn said...

@ Julia M

"Whether due to his incipient heart attack, drink or anything else, we can't say."

Way to go Julia. He must be a drunk eh?

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Praguetory said...

You say he was 'attempting to get home', but the facts (i.e. the circuitous path he was taking on his way home) don't seem to support that. You say he wasn't abusing the police but how do you know?

If a policeman is getting suspended/prosecuted for that shove I'd better turn myself in for some of the tackles I made playing football yesterday.

Scott said...

I would say that is exactly what to expect from the British Police force.

Ian said...

I am a bit puzzled why you think Boris should comment. I thought this appalling incident took place in the City of London which has its own Police Force accountable to the Corporation of London, not the Mayor of London.

JuliaM said...

"Way to go Julia. He must be a drunk eh?"

You really should learn to read, OH...

TeRLocK said...

JuliaM - this isn't a case of the rabid left, I'm a long way away from that! I would normally defend the police as they have a thankless task and, whatever criticisms levelled, we need some kind of police force.

But this is simply disgusting. You assume he was not co-operating, if not co-operating consists of walking away from them, hands in pockets and not saying anything then yes, he wasn't co-operating, but that gives the police the right to use a baton and push him to the floor?

Also, it does not matter if he had a pre-existing heart disease, this is a clear case of manslaughter. Take the Virasami case (mistaken ID queue jump, punched and killed ME sufferer)where there was a pre-existing condition which meant he was more likely to suffer grave injury than someone of good health - it doesn't matter, he still killed him and it was manslaughter as this is here. Lord Lawton in R v Blaue (1975) stated you must take your victim as you find them, pre existing illness is NOT a mitigating factor.

Whatever the other goings on, not visible on camera, this footage is disgusting, the officer (who i still think is female) needs to be sent down for manslaughter and it needs to be made clear no police force will tolerate this.

Please don't see this as right v left, this is right v wrong and for the police to maintain any modicum of public respect this must be acted on asap.

Plato said...

When I first watched it - I thought poor bloke getting pushed about by horrible copper.

Then I watched it again and it looks more like he was being deliberately awkward about moving on.

In neither case was it acceptable for a copper to shove him over. If he hadn't been quick enough to get his hands out of his pockets, he could have cracked his head. I seem to recall a case very recently where someone was convicted of manslaughter for just such behaviour.

There IMHO is very little comparison with the Menenez case - but it does feel a bit like rank-closing.

Guthrum said...

"It's not what we expect from the British police force".

I do, they are out of control, not responsible to any elected Chief Constable.

De Menezes family did not get the truth or Justice, neither will Tomlinson's

Mirtha Tidville said...

Terlock

a long way from the rabid left?...could have fooled me

JuliaM said...

"..this footage is disgusting, the officer (who i still think is female) needs to be sent down for manslaughter.."

Are we going to have a trial first? Or shall we just get a cell ready now?

And I'm hardly a fan of the police. But let's not see this as anything other than it actually is. One side of the story, shown in video.

Or do I have to remind everyone of the other video a while back, which appeared to show an 'assault' on a female by a violent police officer?

JuliaM said...

"In neither case was it acceptable for a copper to shove him over."

No, and the officer, if demonstrated to have used unreasonable force, should be disciplined.

Jonathan Cook said...

Given we live under the constant gaze of CCTV - then the Police probably already have all the evidence required to ascertain what happened.

An immediate inquiry is required that airs all evidence.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

The enquiry need not take more than ten days. The video footage is available; the officers can be identified and interviewed and they can make written statements.

But I bet it takes nearer ten months.

Jules said...

It isn't the actions of just one officer. A man was assaulted from behind by another in full view of other police officers who neither arrested nor reported the offender, nor aided what we now know was a dying man.

You or I would have been banged up by now, as would our colleagues. And rightly so.

What has this country come to? Corrupt politicians and police killing innocent civilians and protecting each other.

Key bored warrior. said...

Blogger Praguetory said...

You say he was 'attempting to get home', but the facts (i.e. the circuitous path he was taking on his way home) don't seem to support that. You say he wasn't abusing the police but how do you know?

If a policeman is getting suspended/prosecuted for that shove I'd better turn myself in for some of the tackles I made playing football yesterday.

April 08, 2009 9:08 AM
==================================

If I choose to take a circuitous route to anywhere, even if it is to have a look at a demonstration, that should not mean I am open to being manhandled by a force that is there to protect me. The protection of wealth and property is given a much higher value than human life or quality of.

Look at the video for Gods sake this was a man walking along with his hands in his pockets being bullied and shoved by police, when one of them in a fit of pique, walloped him and pushed him to the ground from behind. Even in your football game you get penalised for that.

The use of force was dispropotionate, if you want someone to move along why beat him to the ground? Counter productive I would say. This was a pissed of officer taking it out on someone because he could, it is called bullying.

After the Brazillian affair the Met have not an ounce of cred left, both Blairs saw to that.

The enquiry will take place. QCs will make great salaries and fees, and no one will be asked to account for their actions, it is entirely predictable.

Silent Hunter said...

Could someone please - WAKE UP JULIA !

Clearly we can't have people 'sleeping' through the evidence in front of their very eyes.

The man was clearly walking AWAY from the police but obviously not fast enough for the jackbooted thugs of the Met so they push him, then beat his legs with a baton before finally violently shoving him to the ground.

Hardly the same as "move along there Sir, there's a good chap"

If the man had a heart condition, do you think this type of behaviour by the police is likely to help or exacerbate a heart condition?

Hmmmmm? Take your time - I know it's a difficult question so early in the morning for you.

And remember; soon the person who took the footage will also be arrested under Labours new terrorism with cameras law LOL

Won't that be convenient for them - and the corrupt Labour Government.

Then they can go about their lawful business of beating up peaceful protestors whenever they feel like it without having to worry about it being caught on camera.

Mr Eugenides said...

What "key bored warrior" said.

Jules said...

And before anyone calls me a leftie - I am firmly with Dan Hannan and the Plan to Renew Britain.

If someone is not moving on, you do not knock them to the ground, you use the law not brute force.

The Penguin said...

I think they'll need a big bucket of whitewash. Is Lord Hutton available?

The Penguin

happyuk07 said...

For once I'm with the left on this. It's easy to be deflected by the accusation that protestors are grubby anarchists and layabouts.

This was a man shoved to the ground by a policeman. He was probably petrified and this no doubt brought on his heart attack.

The IPCC should gather as much independent evidence as possible and not rely on the Met to tell a load of lies as they did with De Menezes.

Figures obtained by 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.

We need to take a cold critical look at policing - I want officers to be respected, not feared.

JuliaM said...

"..nor aided what we now know was a dying man...."

Bit of a clue there, Jules. So, the police are expected to be precogs now, are they?

Oh, please...

Turkeyphant said...

More footage of the attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYM3KOByTDw&fmt=18

Mark M said...

What brave people we have in the Met Police. One man, unarmed, walking away from half a dozen officers fully decked out in riot gear. They must have been terrified. Of course they are going to shove him in the back to the ground, why would they not?

Quite frankly it doesn't matter where he was walking from or to, or indeed whether the shove led to his death, he has not done anything physical to provoke the officer. What kind of a society do we live in where a person cannot walk away from the police without being shoved to the ground?

Is it any wonder we don't trust them anymore? This is not the behaviour we demand of them. Sadly, it is the behaviour we have come to expect.

mark6099 said...

In Corhill on Wednesday afternoon -- enroute to a business luncheon, not the demonstrations -- I observed a swaggering and heavily kitted policeman quite forcibly push a young man who, from what I could tell, had given the constable "a bit of verbal". This happened well away from the so-called kettling area and at a time when the atmosphere could hardly be described as tense, let alone violent. As I watched this confrontation, I was initially amused by the irony of the situation because the policeman was black and the protester white. At last the tables were being turned! In hindsight, I realise that there really was no justificationn for verbal aggression being met with a physical assault, relatively minor though it might have been. Were I similarly to react to the verbal abuse I occasionally receive from the feckless youths who hang about my estate, I would be arrested for ABH. Such reactions are, of course, human nature, but one wonders about the level of specific crowd-control training given to the majority of London's policemen prior to the G20 protests.

Houdini said...

The police force are now the paramilitary wing of the ruling party and work for themselves first and the Government second. The public who pay their wages and who they are supposed to serve come a very lowly third or even lower.

We should prejudge based on the video evidence as it is clear; Ian Tomlinson was assaulted and then died. There are not two sides to this story as the evidence is clear and Ian Tomlinson was not in the thick of it at all. The family are 100% right to take this to the media because otherwise we may have had the same situation as with Jean Charles DeMenezes where the police, from top to bottom, lied to protect themselves, and got off scot free with that too and in fact were promoted!

What is different between this and so many other illegal deaths? Not murder, but manslaughter or unlawful killing surely. A man was jailed yesterday for four years for throwing a bottle which missed its target but smashed and a shard resulted in a death...so what is the difference here?

If this was you or me we would be languishing in a cell right now awaiting trial.

We need to teach the police lessons that they serve us and no themselves or the Government.

someday said...

He was walking in a slovenly manner without due care and attention - clearly unmutual - a major crime as far as today's Common Purpose police are concerned.

JuliaM said...

"There are not two sides to this story as the evidence is clear..."

Yes there are, and no, we should not.

You seem to not want the rule of law to apply.

Mark M said...

And to those saying there are two sides to the story, yes there are.

We have heard the police side. They said that Tomlinson had no contact with the police before he died.

The video proves that to be a LIE.

There may well be another side to the police story we don't know yet, but why should we believe them when their first instinct, as in the de Menezes case, was to protect their own backs by blatantly lying?

moorlandhunter said...

I saw you last night on Sky and I do think you pre judged the issue. You did say that the Police did something wrong by pushing the man when clearly he was being as obstructive as he could be during the demo. He can be clearly seen being spoken too to move on but he chose not too. If a Police Officer tells you to move especially after a violent public order event like this G20 demo, then you have to move, I would expect a push to help me on my way if I was being silly, obstructive and as difficult as could be, which this man appears to be doing. Remember King Coal Scargill being asked to move on and then being arrested? Short memories?
The man was not as innocent as you and the many left wing papers make him out to be.
His death is a tragedy, but how long after he was pushed did he suffer his heart attack and did it have anything to do with the push? I don’t know, nor do you, the left wing press, G20 demonstrators. A Pathologist said that this man died of a heart attack, not wounds to the head or to the body. The left want his death to be due to the push and whilst he was on the floor but his tragic death was several minutes later, again another attempt of making his death appear to be directly as a result of the push.
Ask any Cardiologist and they will tell you that no one can tell you when you are going to have a heart attack, it could be after a laugh, a ride on a funfair ride or even during a bit of rumpy pumpy. We don’t know, nor should death be viewed as the fault of someone, when it is just a sorry part of life
Attacking the Police from a bias point of view is the norm it appears now, even when you and others have already prejudged the out come. Shame.

Letters From A Tory said...

"It's always easy to overreact to video footage like this, and one shouldn't judge a whole police force by the actions of one officer."

Try telling that to the left-wing blogs this morning.

Obsidian said...

As I said on the LFAT blog, it looks pretty obvious he was in some way part of the protests.

There is also zero justification for what the police did. He was walking slowly and being obstructionist, but that is no excuse to charge someone down in that manner.

The protesters who who were busy throwing things and abusing the paramedics trying to treat Tomlinson also need hauling before a court.

There are many cases where the police have done a fine job, but these are usually larger cases - for the more day-to-day burglaries, muggings and assaults they're only useful to get an incident number from for the insurers. And they're increasingly heading towards state-sponsored thuggery, indulging in spin and outright lies - that needs to be, pardon the pun, arrested.

Ed the Shred said...

The video raises some questions.

It seems to me that the policeman to the right of Ian Tomlinson was saying something to Ian Tomlinson. What did he say and what was Ian Tomlinson's response?

Also what prompted the person taking this video to suddenly and obviously very deliberately switch focus to where Ian Tomlinson was? Seems to me that something prompted the cameraman to switch focus BEFORE Ian Tomlinson was pushed.

Dino Fancellu said...

As has been said, what about the CCTV?

This is in the city of London, the most surveiled city in the world, in a day of expected troubles, tonnes of officers on the ground.

Are they saying that there is no CCTV?

Why did they say that officers had NO CONTACT with him? Surely that is what we civilians call LYING.

TeRLocK said...

"If a Police Officer tells you to move especially after a violent public order event like this G20 demo, then you have to move"

Firstly - 'violent public order event'?! Two windows got smashed for gods sake, the journalists from the BBC were 'frontline', not exactly a running street conflict.

Secondly, if you wish to just stroll along the street, not linked to a group of protesters and on your own, you should NOT expect to have your legs hit and then be pushed to the floor with your hands in your pockets.

There has been no official autopsy yet, just a POLICE cardiologist saying it was a heart attack.

Many things can bring on a heart attack, in this case I would say we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty being smashed into the pavement following being struck by police batons would be the cause!

With the level of speculation being used, lets point towards a lot of other eye witness reports that say he was attacked before this footage was taken and that may well have caused him to walk rather slowly as he could well have ached somewhat

Key bored warrior. said...

http://tinyurl.com/dzupor

Death in the City

Contrary to media reports, people did not pelt the police as the man who died during the G20 protests was being taken out. Andrew Kendle reports from Wednesday night’s protest frontline'

#################################
Blogger Mr Eugenides said...

What "key bored warrior" said.

April 08, 2009 9:30 AM
#################################

Mr E. Thanks I think ;o)

Roger Thornhill said...

happyuk07 said...
For once I'm with the left on this.


Oh for crying out loud. WHY does anyone think this a "LEFT" thing? Our Government and Home Sec are from the Rancid Left and so the Met takes their queue form them. Lefties are at LEAST as Authoritarian as the Right and certainly partisan.

This issue is about Rule of Law, NOT Left-Right. There was absolutely no reason to trip up/push over the chap AFAICT. Tripping someone up in a situation like that - paved floor - is a risk. Not a big one, but a risk nonetheless, especially if the person is not a youth who is likely to be more resilient and have faster reactions (no, that does not mean that young swampies can be thrown to the ground roughly with abandon, even if they have sad-act metal in their faces).

Of course we need to get all the facts, but right now, with what I have seen, the following terms come to my mind:

Cowardly. Unnecessary. Ugly. Disgraceful. Obscene.


On the question of the Police not knowing about any imminent heart condition before throwing someone to the ground unneccessarliy. Sorry, tough titties, Copper. If you were dealing with a CIP (crime in progress) and the perp had a heart attack, then no case to answer if reasonable force is being applied. Here, this is not a case of reasonable force. If this were a yob on the street tripping up a chap, I would want at least manslaughter charges and unless we get more evidence to the contrary, I want to see this happen here to.

I am fed up with the excuse "I diddern meeeeenn iiiiit/know" when people do things that clearly endanger others. Anyone who kicks a person when down - Attempted murder. Anyone who stabs someone except in say, the hand or buttocks - Attempted Murder. Violent attack on a pensioner - Attempted Murder.

The sooner people realise there are consequences for their unprovoked violent or aggressive acts the better. What you see in that Policeman is CREATED by the Left, by the Fabian undermining of social order and common decency. So please, don't give me no "with the Left" on this one...

Elizabeth said...

Just from the video footage (so far available) it appears that the officers were not interested in poor Ian once he had been forcefully pushed to the ground. People are saying that something may have caused the officer to assault him - but unless that something was a reason for arrest, can the police just assault someone and then let them walk off? They don't appear to have needed to get past him, because they just stand around after he is on the ground. There will be a lot more evidence for sure, but just on what can be seen on that footage, the officer who assaulted him has to be suspended until the whole prosecution/investigation process is complete. Why hasn't the officer come forward, - or his colleagues? I don't know about witholding evidence, but..

Andy said...

You don't get from Monument to Liverpool Street Bail Hostel via Cornhill, that's for sure.

Mark Reckons said...

Good measured response here Iain. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

I could imagine myself getting caught up in this sort of thing despite me being about as law abiding as you can get and that is very worrying.

It is very disturbing to see an apparently unprovoked assault on a defenceless man from behind by the very people who are supposed to be upholding the law and protecting us.

I have made my contribution to this debate here.

TeRLocK said...

But lets say all of the worst is true, he was there to protest, he was antagonising cops previously by swearing at them and calling them nasty mean names, even saying bad things he wanted to do to their families, whatever... Does that still JUSTIFY what happened? One of a group of riot police, tooled up and with dogs, was justified in smacking the guy face first into the floor, which is what clearly happens on the footage.

IF that cannot be justified, which i don't think it can, then this copper should be sacked.

And if evidence can be presented to show beyond reasonable doubt that this had a causal effect in the heart attack, then it is manslaughter. Unfortunately, having thought about it, I fear that this will not be possible. The defence would use the fact that he got up and walked away unaided, he walked back into a crowded and tense environment and there is no solid evidence of proceeding events to show it was directly linked. A good police QC will also pick holes in any discrepancies in witness statements that will sew enough doubt to get them off a manslaughter charge, it will become assault / abh and they will just lose their job.

JuliaM - I take your point re trial required (as stated above), but maintain that it is unfortunate as I believe that the direct cause of this man's death was the actions of the police officer in this video. As i say though, this is just my belief and would not stand up on trial

Twig said...

If the police had stuck to this strategy the poor chap might still be alive today:

Crowd Control

When did they decide to change methods?

Simon Gardner said...

Reality check to Praguetory.

If you are injured playing a contact sport then to an extent you have invited it (though the law does not permit nor forgive a violent assault during a sport and there have been successful prosecutions). I suggest you take a little more care next time you “play”.

If you are wandering home from work and stray into the path of a demo you aren’t inviting anything; you are merely wandering home from work.

hatfield girl said...

Mr Tomlinson has been beaten and paid with his life while trying to get home from work. Gordon Brown's demonstration to assert he was 'doing something' had no economic or financial function. Anything the G20 might have been able to do (which is pretty much nothing) had been settled a week before in meetings in Sussex.

What was going on in central London was a massive demonstration of New Labour control over our everyday lives (and, as it turned out, deaths).

Zeddy said...

***It's not what we expect from the British police force.***

On the contrary, it's exactly what a lot of us expect from the gang of unaccountable thugs and bullies who comprise the police force.

Show me a policeman who's never perjured himself in court.

moorlandhunter said...

TeRLock said


"Firstly - 'violent public order event'?! Two windows got smashed for gods sake, the journalists from the BBC were 'frontline', not exactly a running street conflict."

Two windows smashed and no violence you must be having a laugh? I would call it violence on the frontline when fists, feet, bricks, bottles, poles were used to attack the Police and crack open the heads of a couple of Police Officers who had lost their traditional helmets before further escalation of violence by the thugs who caused the Police to suit up in riot gear? What should they do, stand back and take it? That would be like telling our soldiers in Afghanistan not to fire back at the Taliban when they start shooting and maiming our soldiers?
You must have been watching the demo with anti Police blinkers on, as have many who prejudge without knowing.
Pathologists are just that, Pathologists, employed to look at bodies and determine death, but I see you see a conspiracy here because you call him a Police Pathologist when he just one of many Pathologists used to determine death, the same ones used in hospitals to give a cause of death?

neil craig said...

I understand there is a proposed law making it criminal to photograph the police.

If we are going to be the world's most videod nation it is important that the results are at least as auailable to the public as to the state.

Jim Baxter said...

Atrocious beghaviour by the police. No excuse. Welcome to the what has always been the world of the working class, minorities, and the disadvantaged. This kind of thing has always gone on. Ask anyone who was a miner in the eighties or who merely lived in certain areas. There are a lot more cameras around now. That's all that's different.

buywowgold said...

If you’re a basketball player or basketball fan, I think you must have a good jordan shoes(or called air jordan shoes). The reason is known to everybody, not only beacause jordands shoes is a famous brand all over the world, but also there are many kinds cheap air jordans at the shop. At the same time, the cheap jordans are all good quality and beautiful. Mainly because cheap jordan shoes are also popular around the youngers. So, do not hesitate go to buy cheap jordans for yourself.

Old Holborn said...

Julia M

And I'm hardly a fan of the police. But let's not see this as anything other than it actually is. One side of the story, shown in video.


Interesting

The Police had already told us their version last week. According to them, they found an old man who had suffered a heart attack and were attacked by protesters as thy tried to save him.

Remember?

Now we have seen the other side, I'm happy to pass judgement.

These are not just Police, these are NEW LABOUR Police

Newmania said...

This is what I blogged
Well aren’t they happy as pigs in ----- . The general Secretary of the Fabian Society a society dedicated to deceitfully assisting the birth of a Marxist state , is over joyed . Mummy’s precious ickle Stalin , prat Hundal of (mum’s house ) and illiberal Conspiracy , just cannot wait to stick the boot in .The Guardian are having a Party and Harry`s Game , are sniffing smelling salts ,at the terrible Police brutality . Numerous other fatuous poseurs can scarcely disguise their glee .Here it is , here is the source of all this jubilation .
So the Police moved the unfortunate Ian Tomlinson on ,and Tristan and Pandora ,out for the revolutionary picnic, caught it on camera . They pushed him,it would appear, with an imperfect delicacy , a want of courtly consideration. Well I am shocked shocked !
It is sad that he died of a heart attack but this is what we call an accident . Accidents are inevitable when hoards of clueless wasters turn up to threaten workers , vandalise property and create trouble .If anyone is to blame it is the authorities who absurdly allowed this violent protest to go ahead ,the goons who terrorised ordinary people , and lets not forget the The Liberal MPs who cheered them on .
Baroness Williams, Simon Hughes, Chris Huhne and David Howarth – mendaciously acted as ‘legal observers’ to ensure the freedom to protest peacefully. In fact they are sucking up to their dogs on string vote as any fule do know. As Finkelstein points out, this was an “an extraordinary insult to the police” . yes and the British people who they ask to vote for them.
When the Police made a tragic error and shot Jean Charles de Menezes ,the same constituency of anti English racists ,hard left revolutionaries and Liberal bleeding hearts lined up to bash the Police . . Relatives of those slaughtered like cattle by Muslims ,however , were unimpressed that the wholesale premeditated murder was relatively speaking ignored.

TeRLocK said...

MoorlandHunter - you just compared what happened last Thursday to the Taliban... Do you actually realise what you're saying?!

I watched the entire afternoon's protests, the violence only kicked off once kettling began but i totally understand why the police use it as a technique.

As for "I would call it violence on the frontline when fists, feet, bricks, bottles, poles were used to attack the Police and crack open the heads of a couple of Police Officers"

Exactly which of those was Ian Tomlinson using? Fists firmly in pockets, feet walking on pavement, no bricks or bottles and don't see a pole in his pocket, he's not attacking any police, he's on his own, he has his back to them.

Your argument is totally redundant!

As explained in my previous post, having thought about it, any further autopsy is likely to show he died from a heart attack which i believe is true, i don't believe he died of his head injuries (could be wrong though, rather recent example of Vanessa Redgrave springs to mind when thinking of people who have appeared fine following on from blows to the head) I just feel a proper independent autopsy should (and no doubt will) be carried out. I may have even got the wrong end of the stick and it already have been done.

But seriously, have a word with yourself. These actions, whatever they result in, cannot be justified as crowd control or proportionate to the situation. My dad was a copper, my sister is a screw, I would hazard a guess that unless you are in the police force or have been yourself I know a hell of a lot more about what happens in the police than you and I certainly am not anti either organisation.

TeRLocK said...

*Wednesday rather than Thursday

Scan said...

Iain,

I'm sorry, but this is EXACTLY what we've come to expect from the police over the past 25 years. Violence and brutality towards workers, protesters, and the public in general; then the initial lie that they were responding to, rather than initiating the violence. Then evidence proving the police were lying turns up, the IPPC pretend to investigate, and it all goes away.

Richard Abbot said...

Sometimes there aren't two sides to the story - there's just the facts, which are there on the video. I respect your blog and its views very much but really, police behaviour is getting out of hand. The mechanics of a police state are set up and ready to go. Incidents like these are glimpses of a future for this country i will not be part of.

DocRichard said...

Of course, Mr Dale, you realise that in viewing the Guardian video, you are a-committing of an Offence, to wit, viewing an illegal photographic depiction of a police officer?

Bert Rustle said...

How many non-participants were pushed over by the Police?

How many participants were pushed over by the Police?

How many Police Officers were pushed over by the participants?

If a Police dog bites me and I injure or kill it in my defence, am I committing an offence?

Bert Rustle said...

DocRichard wrote ... viewing an illegal photographic depiction of a police officer ...

Which raises the question that if it is the case that this particular sequence of video was made illegally, would it be permissible evidence in court?

Simon said...

The Police with their batons and dogs are reminiscent of scenes from Nazi Germany. They lied about being pelted with stones and bottles during this episode and are not to be trusted.

Who do you trust to investigate this? The “Independent” Police Complaints Commission, the judiciary who will direct the jury at the inquest on what verdict to return or the corrupt politicians who are in ultimate charge? I wouldn’t trust any of them.

The Smile said...

"It's not what we expect from the British police force."

Jesus wept Iain.

Silent Hunter said...

Obsidian:

"..The protesters who who were busy throwing things and abusing the paramedics trying to treat Tomlinson also need hauling before a court...."

I take it that you have proof of this event to say this with such conviction.

Could you now publish the evidence for this here and now on this blog please so that we can ALL see the EVIDENCE to support your statement.


BTW

I think Julia M must be one of Dolly Draperss Rapid rebuttal Force - she's all over the blogs this morning trying to belittle the fact that the MET had a hand in an innocent mans death........Again!

What a shameful spectacle.

JuliaM said...

"I think Julia M must be one of Dolly Draperss Rapid rebuttal Force - she's all over the blogs this morning trying to belittle the fact that the MET had a hand in an innocent mans death........Again!"

Of course! I mean, there I was at the time of the De Menezes inquest, justifying the police shooting an innocent man, wasn't I?

Oh, no. Wait. I wasn't...

And I'm one of Dolly's mob, because I happen to disagree with the majority here suddently..?

Listen to yourselves.

Old Holborn said...

On a lighter note, Millwall FC must be worried. It's not lik they can afford to lose ANY fans, is it?

TeRLocK said...

In defence of JuliaM, she writes a good blog and always has an interesting opinion, I just disagree with her profusely on this occasion.

Oldrightie said...

I believe my Nazi picture says it all, Iain.

Simon Gardner said...

Since my early 20s when I personally witnessed Thames Valley Police laying into a bunch of hippies sitting around in a field at Windsor (I was working for the local paper), it’s exactly the sort of thing I expect from the British police.

But it varies from force to force and from time to time.

Isn’t this tactic of “kettling” making things worse?

Wrinkled Weasel said...

If the police are so saintly, how come the officer who assaulted Tomlinson was not arrested? Have they come forward yet to give evidence? Several police officers know who did this. If by now they have not forwarded the name of their colleague, they are also culpable.

All of this is predicated on proclaiming the G20 to be some kind of panacea for the economic mess we are in, when in fact it was a bunch of posturing rats who caused this mess in the first place, but who happen to have the luxury of a police force to keep them away from the rest of us.

I ask any police officer - are you with us or against us? I don't mean the stinkies and the anarchists, I mean ordinary people who keep this country going by working hard and trying to do it the honest way.

So Officer, I ask again, whose side are you on? Why do see it your duty to abuse ordinary people who wish to protest peacefully? Why do you think that you should prop up a Government whose leader has no mandate to Govern, excepting a few thousand people in Fife?

I hear you were "Up for it" on that day. Can you explain what your senior officer meant?


Daniel Hannan has something to say about this, but you will have to visit my blog to find out.

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

There's something fishy about the whole thing. Yes, it's tragic that a working man lost his life and the video evidence of police brutality is overwhelming, but the cynic within me is thinking that this incident is another 'conditioning' exercise for the public.
Remember a few weeks ago the battle cry from some high up rozzer (can't remember who) of the expected summer of discontent and the fighting talk leading up to the G20 demos in London.
I can't help but feel that the public are being provoked time after time with the end game being civil unrest and the swift implementation of 'emergency public order' legislation which would play into the hands of those who want to watch and control our every move.

TeRLocK said...

"Isn’t this tactic of “kettling” making things worse?"

Double edged sword, it prevents momentum being gained by protests which can stop violence from escalating and means relatively few police can be used to pen in a large number of protesters. Flip side being that relatively calm protests can very quickly become agitated and agressive at the restriction of their movements, which is what we saw last week. It's pre-emptive, if police fear things will escalate they will now use this method very early on to try to minimise risk to officers.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Dear Rab

Crazy as it sounds, I wouldn't be surprised either if this was all leading to some kind of "emergency" that will be cited in order for this Government to suspend democracy altogether, including the next election.

By the way, the legislation is already there and ready to go.

Not only that, if it is implemented there is a clause in the legislation that specifically denies Parliament the right to an emergency debate.

Bert Rustle said...

Wrinkled wrote ...how come the officer who assaulted Tomlinson was not arrested? ...

Are Police instructed to not arrest colleagues who commit an offence?

How many demonstrators made a citizens arrest of others throwing missiles or assaulting Police Officers?

Simon Gardner said...

TeRLocK said... “...relatively calm protests can very quickly become agitated and agressive at the restriction of their movements, which is what we saw last week.”

That’s what I mean.

And it also means nobody except a hardcore is going to demonstrate in future. You can no longer expect to go on your demo (not my thing BTW) and be home for tea.

It’s time this tactic was reviewed.

mark said...

Aside from the obvious controversy, it is interesting that 25 years ago at the height of the tory era, this would have been viewed as police brutality without question, and the expression of a right wing uncaring nasty party through the violent behaviour of its lawmen.

So what is it now? Other than an act of aggression (lawful or otherwise) the like of which has happened for centuries. The only difference now being that we can film it and pontificate at length about it as a snapshot in time. The reality being that someone died, and underneath, no-one official will give a toss as to why.

Modern party politics is a load of old waffle from rival factions of student union has beens, so does the reality ever really change for the serfs on the ground..???

Lastly, the politics of old is slowly dying a death, and the fascination should be with what lies ahead. Getting rid of all the corrupt self regarders, and letting politics take its rightful place somewhere far far in the background of our lives.

Rexel No 56 said...

One parallel with the Stockwell shooting case, I can see this ending up as a corporate Health and Safety prosecution of the Met.

R56

Bert Rustle said...

Wrinkled Weasel wrote ...there is a clause in the legislation that specifically denies Parliament the right to an emergency debate. ...

Do you have a list of which Honourable Members voted for this legislation, abstained or were absent?

Simon Gardner said...

Wrinkled Weasel said... “Crazy as it sounds... ...leading to some kind of "emergency" that will be cited in order for this Government to suspend democracy altogether, including the next election.”

You’re right. It’s not just “crazy”, it’s completely bonkers.

JuliaM said...

"One parallel with the Stockwell shooting case, I can see this ending up as a corporate Health and Safety prosecution of the Met."

Wouldn't that have to be brought over the stated police policy, something such as 'kettling'? Rather than the actions of one individual officer?

Silent Hunter said...

The 'Point' Julia; is that the MET immediately LIED about having "no contact" with Mr Tomlinson.

That's a outright LIE which is exposed by the "independent" video evidence.

And yet you are running around the blogs trying the old 'smoke and mirrors' typical Labour routine of the rapid rebuttal squad.

Never mind "listen to yourselves".....

Look at YOURSELF!

Sir Compton said...

Iain, I'm afraid this is exactly what people are coming to expect from the British police, the Met in particular. I'd be astounded if the plod who pushed Mr Tomlinson over is suspended today or tomorrow or any time soon. His colleagues know who he is; the "assault" took place a week ago...er, what's the delay?

Oscar India said...

It's yet another (albeit terrible) example of how police in this country no longer consider themselves a "service" but a "force". They're not there to serve and protect, they're there to get x-arrests a month and put the boot in when the opportunity arises.

Oscar India said...

@JuliaM (variously)

I'm not the rabid left, I'm the fluffy right. Bottom line is you cannot (at least with any credibility) defend a police officer shoving a man wandering along with his hands in his pockets to the floor, from behind. UNless you think (and I fear you might) that this is the sort of thing policemen ought to be allowed to do?

Shamik said...

Maybe they should change their logo to "to protect and SEVER"!

Hat-tip to Itchy and Scratchy.

Rexel No 56 said...

"One parallel with the Stockwell shooting case, I can see this ending up as a corporate Health and Safety prosecution of the Met."

Wouldn't that have to be brought over the stated police policy, something such as 'kettling'? Rather than the actions of one individual officer?


Julia, I'm no Health & Safety lawyer (but when did lack of expertise disqualify a blog comment!?) but my understanding is that a Health and Safety prosecution can be quite wide ranging.

For example, did operational planning for the day make a risk assessment of the fact that members of the public would be passing through the areas of protest?

Did the planning ensure that officers properly assessed the threat posed by an individual before deciding what enforcement action to take?

More generally, had officers been trained to assess the risk to the member of the public of hitting them on the back of the legs (I'm sure this manoevre will have a name), taking into account their posture (hands in pocket) and the surface on which they would fall (concrete).

As I said, I'm no lawyer but I suspect that a H&S prosecution would again prove to be uncomfortable as it will lift the lid on a whole host of operationally specific and managerially general policies, procedures, practices and decisions at several levels in the Met.

Robert said...

'It's not what we expect from the British police force'.

They have had a shoot to kill policy for anyone they think is armed for years.

JuliaM said...

"The 'Point' Julia; is that the MET immediately LIED about having "no contact" with Mr Tomlinson."

That's what happens when you - the Met, that is - employ 24/7 media PR experts; they know the value of 'getting their mesage out first'. That was an error this time, but they won't face any critiscism for it. It's what they are paid to do.

I'm sure we'd all like to go back to the 'no comment until investigations are complete' from a senior police officer. Which is what used to happen.

But then people like you would be screaming 'cover up' anyway, wouldn't you?

JuliaM said...

"Julia, I'm no Health & Safety lawyer (but when did lack of expertise disqualify a blog comment!?) but my understanding is that a Health and Safety prosecution can be quite wide ranging.

For example, did operational planning for the day make a risk assessment of the fact that members of the public would be passing through the areas of protest? "


That's an interesting question. Obviously, they must have, as there was a lot of people working normally that day.

"..I suspect that a H&S prosecution would again prove to be uncomfortable.."

I suspect you'd be right!

JuliaM said...

"Bottom line is you cannot (at least with any credibility) defend a police officer shoving a man wandering along with his hands in his pockets to the floor, from behind. UNless you think (and I fear you might) that this is the sort of thing policemen ought to be allowed to do?"

I haven't defended it. I've said - on other blogs - that if that officer is found to have used unnecessary force, they should be treated accordingly.

But that's not to endorse the wilder claims of 'brutal, murderous police' that are doing the rounds of the more exciteable areas of the blogosphere, and the linking to the De Menezes case.

Rodney King would be a more appropriate comparator.

Bert Rustle said...

A Police Officer who was at the G20 has a blog entry http://sheepdogsandwolves.blogspot.com/2009/04/g20.html

Some of the comments are illuminating too.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Bert Rustle

Dominic Grieve wrote:

We have a Civil Contingency Act to give the government the power to suspend virtually every statute in an emergency so that it could rule by decree. And the Government has acquired the power to repeal most legislation by decree in the Legal and Regulatory Reform Act.

Many have likened it to Hitler's Enabling Act, which was effectively an instrument that allowed the Nazis to do whatever they wanted.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one", said Adolf.

Jack Straw said recently in connection with the CC Act:

"And there is of course an ultimate check on executive power - democracy. Talk of Britain sliding into a police state is daft scaremongering, but even were it true there is a mechanism to prevent it - democratic elections."

The Act allows "Democratic Elections" to be suspended, along with Habeas Corpus, The 1689 Billl of Rights, and crucially, the Parliament Act, which requires an election to be held.

All of this can be swept away by the verbal order of a Minister of State.

bobthedog said...

Another name added to the list of those who have died at the hands of the police.

Im no left winger, but clearly what happened here is well out of order, and sadly something that is now to be expected from our police.

How can the IPCC investigate this properly using the police as investigators. Time to call some European police force to conduct the investigation.

Yak40 said...

Maybe he was a member of the Countryside Alliance ?

Jim Baxter said...

This is not something that's now to expected from our police. This is something that many at various levels in society have always expected, and received, from the police. Assaults of all shapes and sizes. Above, I suggested asking miners. Ask Irish people who, for whatever, reason, found themselves of interest to the police in the past, sometimes the very distant past. A police inspector once said to me, and I quote, 'If you get an Irishman in custody he likes it if you knock him about a bit. It shows his mates he's not an informer'. Was he winding me up? You tell me. I'm not Irish.

It is something that only comes to national attention when there is a tragedy, as in Mt Tomlinson's case. Then some of those whose lives have, thankfully, never been touched by such experiences are suddenly shaken and look for what is going wrong with our society now, today, as though this is all new.

curly15 said...

Bottom line is this is poor policing, our nation's capital deserves better, have they learned nothing since the de Menezes affair?

Steve Horgan said...

The most worrying aspect of this remains the divergence between the initial statements from the police and what we now know to be reality. In an echo of the spin that surrounded the shooting at Stockwell, we were told that Ian Tomlinson had no contact with the police. The was wrong and misleading to the point of being a deception. As has been observed, central London has no shortage of surveillance, so establishing the circumstances of the incident should have been straightforward. There is no excuse. What would have happened without the chance of a mobile phone video? Would the cover-up have succeeded? If Ian Tomlinson was illegally assaulted then someone should pay, but if the the police lied someone should pay for that as well.

manc_ill_kid said...

...and one shouldn't judge a whole police force by the actions of one officer.
The officer whipping Mr Tomlinson with a dog leash at the start of the clip was from the City of London Police force (red checkered banding on his cap). The officer who shoved Mr Tomlinson was from the Metropolitian Police Force (MP on his helmet).

Chris Gilmour, author of ground-breaking attack blog IllandAncient, said "So, that's two police forces we may judge by the actions of their officers."

Still trying to figure out the antecedance of the Field Intelligence officer who kicks Mr Tomlinson once he's on the floor.

Vienna Woods said...

I have to say that a lot of opinion being put forward is ill-considered. Reading many of the sensationalist press reports they do not reflect what I have seen of the G20 „Riots“ on TV newscasts. It beggars belief that anyone could describe these demonstrators as „peaceful“. What stunned me (and certainly stunned the injured policeman concerned) was the scene of a rioter wielding a 1½ meter long heavy pole down on the heads of policemen. After making a strike he was able to run back into an opening in the crowd, protected by the very violent section that were organising the assault.

Second point is that I can’t understand how the man that suffered the heart attack came to stroll through the middle of a violent demonstration between the lines drawn between the police and the braying mob.

Lastly, I am stunned that so many people believe that the police should somehow wave a magic wand for these demonstrators to disperse. I certainly believe in the right to demonstrate peacefully, but demonstrators do not have the right to disrupt, cause criminal damage and use mob rule to achieve their aims – that is anarchy! I certainly would not have liked to be a policeman in the middle of that lot and before anyone suggests that is what they are paid for, then think again! Nobody is paid enough to be knocked about by a gang of thugs posing as „peaceful“demonstrators and I would ask anybody here what they would have done facing a barrage of missiles thrown by idiots spoiling for a fight.

And by the way, whoever it was that said no missiles were thrown at police trying to resuscitate the dying man, then look again at TV news cover of that moment and you will see at least two bottles hit the wall behind where the man lay.

Scan said...

Another couple of points.

Also in the Guardian is a story - published before the G20 - that the CCTV cameras in certain areas were turned off at midnight the night before the protests.

And in response to Vienna Woods, the police were, by their own admission, coralling and holding people into the BoE and BoS areas (BoS strangely not boarded up!) to prevent a bigger gathering at the Stop the War rally in Trafalgar square (where, strangely, those CCTV cameras were also turned off).

Alex said...

"Andy said...
You don't get from Monument to Liverpool Street Bail Hostel via Cornhill, that's for sure."

You do when Broadgat is blocked by G20 protesters and their tents. The police were driving Tomlinson south down Royal Exchange Passage when he was trying to go north to get home.

Simon Gardner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Halsall said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lR3ffBsMTc

Has always influenced my view of the Met.

Hamish said...

It's always sad when someone dies at a relatively young age, as Mr Tomlinson did, whatever the cause.
I agree with those who say we should wait until we know the full facts.
As you say, Iain, Mr Tomlinson's family deserves the truth, as does the police force.

For those who cynically claim this is all that can be expected from the police, I would point to the statement from Northumbria police fully accepting responsibility for the death of a young girl killed by one of their officers pursuing a putative criminal at horrendously high speed.

thespecialone said...

I wonder if those that are prejudging and have already found the officer guilty were the same ones who saw the footage of PC Anthony Mulhall arresting the 'innocent' Toni Comer in Sheffield and thought 'police brutality'. If you remember PC Mulhall was completely innocent of any wrongdoing...but this didnt stop the media/left proclaiming him guilty. To the naked eye, maybe the footage of PC Mulhall and Comer looked like brutality. It turned out of course that Comer was drunk (not having an epileptic fit as first reported), she was thrown out of a night club for her behaviour, and had caused £3000 worth of damage to a car. The media/left soon dropped the story after convicting PC Mulhall. Sadly, PC Mulhall lost his life a few months later. Killed by the media? Who knows? But not one word of apology from the media/left before he died.

My point is....dont prejudge as the media always do.

The Grim Reaper said...

They won't get the truth. The police have shown they're more than happy to lie about these matters, and no doubt they'll do it again.

Timothy Hoon Ireland said (or rather didn't) "This post has been removed by a blog administrator."

Thank Christ for that. If there was ever a person who deserved to be kicked off the internet, (and then lampooned in a Downfall movie about it afterwards) it is Timothy.

Carl said...

It's hard to argue the police were being battered and bullied when you see footage like this...

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993

The footage of Tomlinson being pushed is clear. Unfortunately, it's not rare. That's how they act on the line. Bolshy, over confident, bold - because that's how they need to be to control a situation.
It is only problematic when a tragedy occurs.
There were man incidents like this on the day... the difference is they were not reported because no-one died and no-one recorded it.

It should also be remembered, that if you or I pushed someone over, even if we thought we were justified, and they died minutes later. We would be arrested, cautioned and - depending on the evidence gathered, statements made and consideration of risk - either bailed pending further inquiries or charged and given a court date.

Suspended from our jobs, on full pay?

Doesn't seem right, does it?

J said...

Prejudge it.

A rational mind can see this man has been assaulted.

What interests me is the lengths the average citizen will undertake to justify muggings committed in the name of law enforcement.

This lone male is older and represents ZERO threat in light of the brigade surrounding him.

Just because he did not dance to the tune of the cops does NOT mean this man deserves to be assaulted.

This officer was enraged and reacted in severe disproportion to the action required; which would have been to simply escort the man to the location required.

Your IQ is seriously challenged and your desire for a free society even more so if you don't think this man's heart was not affected by this attack.

Something is wrong in the UK. What thugs are running your system of law enforcement?

-Agile Cyborg

Houdini said...

I ask any police officer - are you with us or against us? I don't mean the stinkies and the anarchists, I mean ordinary people who keep this country going by working hard and trying to do it the honest way.

I know a number of coppers and they are against us, and for the early retirement and pensions, and of course any Government who give them an easy ride and free rein to wield their power.

And I am no lefty.

Bert Rustle said...

Richard P. commenting at http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012938.html writes:

... It was 19 years ago this month that I graduated as a police academy cadet. ... What I was taught in the academy back then was so remarkably different from what I see in police policies and procedures now that I am flabbergasted. They really seem to have created a world unto themselves.

... The reason that police aren't immediately engaging these evil people is because for much of the last two decades police departments have been operating under a new doctrine--force protection. Police departments once operated under the assumption that their first priority was protection of the public. That is no more. If you read interviews with police chiefs and management related to budgets or following any big incidents with mass shootings or unneccessary force you will hear mention their first priority as protecting the safety of their officers. This is part and parcel with the militarization trend we've seen in police forces nationwide.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s most search warrants were handled this way: unifomed deputies, usually with plain clothes detectives, show up at the residence. They knock and announce themselves and are let in or, with no response after some time will force open the door. It was handled pretty peacefully. No-knock forced entries began in the 1980s and were justified because drug dealers might destroy evidence by flushing it. This falls off the logic train for a few reasons, namely that any dealer with so little product that he can flush the whole thing isn't likely to be worth a search warrant and has just seriously harmed his business in the process, but no matter.

We've seen a progression where now most search and arrest warrants are served by armor-wearing machine gun wielding tactical teams. They say this is to protect the police in these matters. It certainly isn't to protect the occupants of any home they search. In the last few years this SWAT mentality has gone down to the local officer level. Street patrol officers in my little Texas suburb now wear heavy body armor and tactical rigs and approach cars in traffic stops with a large flashlight in one hand and the other on their gun at all times. They wait for backup to arrive before approaching the vehicle on traffice stops of cars with several occupants. This in an upper middle-class suburb.

There seems to be no realization that this creates an us-vs-them mentality, or that placing force protection as the first priority allows killers to continue killing as in your stories. Each new headline of some violent act reinforces this attitude amongst the police. It has reached a point where some police forces are purchasing heavy armored vehicles with .50 caliber mounted machine guns. Police are no longer a part of the community in the way they once were.

moorlandhunter said...

I find it risible that those who wish, and welcome the Police to come down hard on the lawlessness of our towns during the weekend nights of near anarchy when drunken thugs take over they praise them for their efforts, but cannot see that a violent demo where the Police were attacked are now saying the Police are out of control? As long as the Police tackle drunken loud mouthed yobs at the weekend so as not to disturb the media bloggers sleep, then that’s alright, but God forbid them doing their job when it intrudes into their daily existence when they can take the moral high ground of priggish indignation?
The fact was that a man was pushed, something that you see one any Cop TV show, seems to pass over these people and there are no cries of ‘ Nazis in jackboots’ here, except from the drunken youth and girls who usually end up in A&E where they abuse and become violent to NHS staff.
All we do know on this short piece of video, is that a man was pushed to the ground. He got up; walked away and some minutes, 7 to 25 minutes later he died of a heart attack, which proves nothing except that he died of a heart attack. Anyone who knows, a heart attack can occur in a few seconds or over a few minutes, but generally unless it is a genetic event like SDS (sudden death syndrome) the man probably had a heart condition. If he did then we should ask all people who go on demos that may or may not turn violent to bring along a health card indicating that they do not suffer from a long list of ailments so the Police can leave them alone if they become violent, attack them, smash windows, or obstruct or hinder a lawful order to move.
The officer who came forward who said he was the one who pushed this man will no doubt, thanks to the left wingers and those double standard desk media jockeys, find him self in court on ‘whatever fits’ charges brought in by the politically controlled CPS to placate the bawling mobs that have already tried, convicted and sentenced him to years in prison.
Those newspapers who have prejudged this issue will have pre judged the case as have some of the better known political bloggers who appear on TV where their sanctimonious claptrap have made the Policing of our out of control country, made more lax for the anarchists, professional trouble makers and any Tom, Dick or Harry who organises a violent disorder, knowing the Police will sit on their hands in case they come under the gaze of the political and media hypocrites.
If we allow the tabloid, broadsheet and media blog prigs to take over justice then we are one more step on the moral decline and we become less safe.

J said...

moorlandhuntr,

You clearly suffer under a justification delusion. Your ability to rationalize the capacity and scope of law enforcement is retarded.

A full force attack with a blunt instrument by a powerful man on an older male is labeled a 'push' by you.

You, sir, have no conscience. And your opinion is of far less value than the media you ignorantly condemn. Without the media normal citizens would be fodder under police boots and I laud them for their work.

I want the media to continue to showcase these rank abuses of power so law enforcement gets the message they actually work FOR society not against it.

Too many war commandos are walking the streets.

-Agile Cyborg

moorlandhunter said...

J........

The Police would love to be able to stand back and watch a peaceful demonstration that does not begin with, as some say ‘just window smashing’ and then onto the attacking of the Police that ended up with many being injured.
It fine and dandy for people like yourself, with the attitude and conscious of a snail to happily come out and look about to engage in discussion when only the Police get pushed, bottled, hit with scaffold poles and other minor violence!
Like it or not, it was a push, nothing more or less, the heart attack issue is something totally different and tragic but as already can be seen and understood the Policeman who came forward as the Policeman who did push the man stands very little chance of any fair hearing when people such as yourself who have already prejudged the issue. You might as well get out the rope and lynch the Policeman now.
Oh and the war commandos you speak of, I agree, there were many in the ranks of the G20 protestors who planned and were only intent on attacking the Police and rioting.

I would love the left wing media to spotlight the rioters and bring some justice and reason to us, but many it seems support the anti Police street war commando you talk of.

Diana said...

Just a small thing. You said that Ian Tomlinson was working on his Newspaper Stand. It said in the Daily Telegraph, that he did not have a newspaper stand, but was friendly with a person who did, and used to turn up to chat with him.

I do wish people would get their facts right!